(February 19, 2015 at 8:19 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:(February 19, 2015 at 7:39 am)Harris Wrote:
Is “SOME EVIDENCE” = “FULL-FLEDGED EVIDENCE” that is acknowledged by all scientists unequivocally?
“DNA is not information because there is nothing conscious behind it and behind the way it develops,” this assertion is wrong. However, I reject your argument not because you gave wrong interpretation but based on following five points:
1. No scientific method can retrieve scientific data from the events that happened a billion years ago.
2. Word “Selection” is directly proportional to Conscious acts and inversely proportional to the Unconsciousness.
3. There are no random and unguided processes in the biological structures therefore no chances for the rise of new organs in existent beings. There is no process in the living organ that can breach the natural protocols in order to attain information. That is the reason humans remained humans and not turned into fairies over time. Disorder means sickness and devaluation of existing organs.
4. Gene is a recent discovery and Darwin was unaware of it. People living before Francis Harry Compton Crick had no clue about Genes. Therefore, only 100 years back there was no record on genes. To say evolution happened over few billion years is absolutely nonsense, as science do not know what was happening to the genes only 1000 years back. Neo Darwinism is purely a conjecture and assumption that has no evidence for its support.
5. “Natural Selection” by definition is a blind, unconscious, and unguided PROCESS, which has no mechanism, no substance, and no force. “PROCESS” by definition is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. PROCESS always based upon conscious and mindful strategy to attain specific purpose. Without involvement of certain degree of intellectual planning and design, no action or activity can be termed as PROCESS. Therefore, in this sense, there is no such thing as “PROCESS of Natural Selection” in science.
My point is Theory of Evolution is not scientifically proven theory yet it resides in the science textbooks as scientific fact.
Universe is the evidence for the existence of God. What else can be the evidence that is more obvious? Above all evidences final evidence is God Himself. However, He will not reveal Himself. Why not? The answer is in my article.
“Are they waiting to see if the angels come to them, or thy Lord (Himself), or certain of the signs of thy Lord! The day that certain of the signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then if it believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith. Say: "Wait ye: we too are waiting."
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 158-
“And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by? Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!”
Yusuf (12)
-Verse 105-
“Nothingness” does not fall in the criteria of uncertainty. Comparing nothingness with uncertainty is a self-deception.
Uncertainty arises from the complexity and the subtlety of our relations with others and of the patterns that our psychological concepts require us to discern, and not from the indirectness of our evidence. Questions of complexity, subtlety, directness and indirectness of evidences are irrelevant to nothingness, as nothingness means “not anything.”
Please bring something authentic and intelligible.
Where that EVIDENCE is. What scientific authority you have that confirms Evolution happened over a billion years?
Natural Selection without proper scientific definition and without practical evidences is nothing more than a mystery.
If your views are based on science and not on chance and nothingness that means you have the answers to questions:
How first living cell appeared into existence?
How the universe popped up into existence?
And what are those evidences? Do you mean abiogenesis, palaeontology, and mutation?
Search only one evidence that may exhibit “increase in information contents over evolution” and you will have your answer.
That means search for evidence that can explain how one humble cell gained so much information by Natural Selection that it evolved into conscious living being say in one Centillion years. In addition, search why not all living beings are evolving anymore and if you think evolution is still happening then try to find transient animals (including humans), which should be in abundance everywhere.
If Catholics have not harmed any atheist then why you (atheist) talk wrong about them?
“Numbers do not matter!” Ha! This is how an atheist mind think. Atheists killed more than 100 million people and you are saying, “Numbers do not matter.”
Why do not you give figures of those persecuted atheists? Perhaps no atheist was in fact persecuted and you are trying to dramatize the situation.
Yes dear yes, you are correct. I am also saying the same thing but for some reason your mind is incorrectly interpreting couple of my last responses.
Mandela’s goals were not similar to the goals of ISIS. Mandela was not a terrorist neither his plans were terroristic.
Secular Politicians denunciated Mandela for terrorism. When these secular hypocrites saw, they could not beat Mandela; they have announced Nobel Peace Prize for him so no one would raise finger over their dirty tricks.
Mandela was not a terrorist but those who were accusing him for terrorism are the actual terrorists.
Did you get it or not?
True
Those communists acted insanely because they were atheists.
Atheist looks at living beings (including human beings) as mere living machines and consciousness for him is the function of brain.
Secondly, all atheists are relativists as in atheism there is no concept of Divine reward and punishment and there is no concept of judgment day.
Thirdly, life is the whole wealth that an atheist has therefore, this idea can provoke enthusiasm for having maximum enjoyment in this life. When such desire call to mind, an atheist do not care how he is going to get that enjoyment whether by hook or by crook.
These concepts are sufficient to make an atheist indifferent to life of other people. Such an atheist can easily undermine human values.
If you and your source do not know, how many atheists were killed in the Muslim nations then how comes you and your source blaming Muslims for something that did not happen?
Were those communists not atheists?
Secular system means No Divine Laws. If Muslims, Christians, and Jews are part of secular system that means they are following laws based on atheism. Anyone who follow laws based on the concept “NO GOD” is a relativist who is capable of undermining human values because of his personal standards of morality. Therefore, if you are observing cruel acts of theist leaders in secular regimes that is because relativism dominates their sovereign systems. Such leaders disguise this relativism by putting slogans of national causes over this doctrine. Under the umbrella of national cause, normally secular leaders hide their lethal tricks that they frequently use for the fulfilment to their personal desires. This is exactly how leaders and influential groups in the communist regimes behaved and atheism is to be blamed for all their cruel conducts.
“When trouble toucheth a man, He crieth unto Us (in all postures) - lying down on his side, or sitting, or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passeth on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that touched him! Thus do the deeds of transgressors seem fair in their eyes!”
Yunus (10)
-Verse 12-
Breeding is an artificial selection and I am talking about Natural Selection. Intellectually guided process is involved in the breeding whereas natural selection is unguided and unconscious process. Therefore, natural selection is equally valid for any zombie if natural selection give rise to them.
If natural selection is blind, unguided, and unconscious process then why there are no real zombies. If Natural Selection is not a conscious process then why it only selects best of the best. Think about that.
Assault course is a planned structure of guided commands initiated by intelligent and conscious mind. Unguided natural selection is not a match to a guided assault course, as it has no physical properties.
I have no problem in agreeing with you on that. Simply ponder over your own words and you will see that definition of natural selection does not comply with the conventional norms of scientific methods. Therefore, in fact, there is no such thing as natural selection in science.
Sex is a physical urge and selection of a partner is a conscious decision. Natural selection is not a match to a conscious and guided selection of a partner.
If science cannot give proofs on social morals then how it can give proofs on certain human feelings like love, hate, etc. Social morals are dependent over human feelings and emotions.
Only “yes” is not sufficient. Evidence please!
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many FUNDAMENTAL NUMBERS, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been VERY FINELY ADJUSTED to make possible the DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE."
Stephen Hawking
Page 125
A Brief History of Time
Yes(s) and No(s) are not sufficient. EVIDENCE PLEASE!
It seems you have found an alternate to God. Tell me what the alternate of God is because my mind boggles when I start thinking about Nothingness.
You can use this description for a group of people whom you can count on your figure tips. However, when we take into consideration people who believe in God or deity and who are about 90% of the total world’s population then for sure, this is not a joke.
On top of this, if you add believers in God from the entire human history who were always more than 90% then that provides a logical proof that impression of God is part of human conscious. Denial of God in fact is an artificial act.
I know 130 types of fallacies. However, I hate using their fancy names in my responses. Beware not everyone know these fancy names and not everyone bother to open dictionaries to check their meanings.
Can you express your desire for Death?
You have not read my main article and that is the reason you think that my understanding of God is different from the reality. Problem is that you are rejecting the existence of God without knowing that there is no alternate to God.
What are the values of these events, which you are interpreting as discrepancies, in time that has no beginning and no end?
Wow... Talk about quantity over quality. I'd need a big f-ing pitch-fork to dig into this pile of fertilizer...
I know right... it's a huge argumentum ex culo.
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."