The universe is eternal. Therefor it is not necessary that it had a creator.

That's one hypothesis, anyway. And one that's being taken seriously by scientists. One that is never excluded by naively applying rules about the contents of reality to reality itself. It's called a fallacy of composition. It's an extremely unreliable extrapolation.

Learn more about this fallacy here.

"God" as an explanation is just kicking the can down the road a little bit.

Saying that causation must apply to reality, but then needn't apply to God, is special pleading. It's trying to define into existence a solution to a paradox of your own imagining. "Reality just is" is consistent, and not paradoxical. The demands that reality itself lives by laws of causation is a projection based on our everyday experiences. I'm not saying I believe that is the case, that reality is somehow eternal, but neither can I exclude it as a sensible possibility.

For some people, science is unconvincing.  They toss their chips in with a magical book about the Great Fairy King...rather than accept that honest to goodness -time machines- like the Hubble or COBE took a look..and saw no "jesus" fiddling with the universe. I see we're still bitching and moaning about evolution rather than expounding upon what knowledge we do have, to fill the vacuum we are attempting to create, and how we came to acquire it. Typical.

Oh, so this guy was AAA all along? Am I seeing this right?

(March 31, 2016 at 4:47 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Can it do my homework for me?  Jk...I'm not in school.

Boy...a designer intellectually capable of designing such complexity would have to be FAR more complex than any of the stuff he designed, right?  So, I wonder who designed that designer?  I mean...since complexity can't just emerge naturally.  According to you.

When God created the universe, he created the dimension of time. He is not subject to age in the way we measure it because he is outside of time. Therefore it is not necessary that God has a creator - he is eternal.

I wasn't asking about age or time or dimensions. I was asking how you plan to extrapolate your own rules about complexity to your God that you haven't demonstrated exists yet.

(March 31, 2016 at 7:17 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Oh, so this guy was AAA all along? Am I seeing this right? Oh, no...its atlas and aaa paired together by fate as the world's worst dynamic duo in the name of Jebus. I think my head just exploded.

(March 31, 2016 at 5:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: For some people, science is unconvincing.  They toss their chips in with a magical book about the Great Fairy King...rather than accept that honest to goodness -time machines- like the Hubble or COBE took a look..and saw no "jesus" fiddling with the universe.  I see we're still bitching and moaning about evolution rather than expounding upon what knowledge we do have, to fill the vacuum we are attempting to create, and how we came to acquire it.  Typical.

I wonder if it's anything to do with wanting simple, neat answers to everything.

(March 30, 2016 at 11:36 pm)AAA Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 10:21 pm)abaris Wrote: No, we're telling you to get a fucking education before quoting things you clearly don't understand. But be my guest, keep talking out of apologist's ass for all I care. Been there, done that. Lost interest in this thread quite some time ago, going by your select replies. When your 101 on how to counter atheist claims fails, it's only the sound of silence or some quote taken totally out of context, as I have proven to be the case before.

This was my first response on this thread, so I'm not sure what you mean by select replies and countering atheist claims. Do you want to take it up with Tymoczko, Berg, and Stryer? These are the authors of the textbook. It isn't out of context, it is the title of a chapter.

There is quite a difference between "conveying" information and "perceiving" information, which is what was just put forth a page ago. I'm quite sure you won't find anything in your text book about how DnA and RNA "perceive" things.

Right, the authors are talking metaphorically but they're interpreting it literally because it sounds like it supports their objections.

Object as much as you like. It's still a false dichotomy to try and shove in your magical explanation after dislodging current theory, even pretending you have any chance of doing that.

(March 31, 2016 at 4:47 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Can it do my homework for me?  Jk...I'm not in school.

Boy...a designer intellectually capable of designing such complexity would have to be FAR more complex than any of the stuff he designed, right?  So, I wonder who designed that designer?  I mean...since complexity can't just emerge naturally.  According to you.

When God created the universe, he created the dimension of time. He is not subject to age in the way we measure it because he is outside of time. Therefore it is not necessary that God has a creator - he is eternal.

How do you know this?

(March 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm)AAA Wrote: Are you guys saying that DNA does not convey information? I don't even think there is any debate in the scientific community. It clearly does. For example, chapter 33 in my biochemistry textbook is called: The Structure of Informational Macromolecules: DNA and RNA

We accept that DNA possesses informational content, but we disagree with the theistic assertion that information is some magic objective quantity that has to be created as opposed to interpreted from observation, and that it can only be created by a mind. We understand that information can be created by minds, but that it can also be derived from non-conscious sources by minds observing patterns within those sources and using that to communicate something of the capabilities and predictive models that can be associated with that source. In the case of DNA, it is composed of chemical reactions, there's no information there, but humans can observe those chemical reactions and, since they're consistent across multiple iterations, their outcomes can be predicted and we can know something about the eventual organism by the DNA, and there you have information.

It's an interaction between a mind and a source of observational data, not some arcane witchcraft that requires a mind to be created.