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

Right, so what's the probability of that even happening?

Probabilities are so important, remember?

(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

Hey guess who's back everybody, its Junk Status! And again I notice it's a month since you were last spankered on your lying for god.

I'm noticing a pattern here, lie about evolution and biology -> get spankered -> run away to mammy crying like a big baby -> lie low for a month -> redo from start. You ever get tired of posting the same old discredited lies Junk Status?

(March 30, 2016 at 8:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.

I don't see why complexity cannot emerge or evolve naturally, but the general idea of Intelligent Design (I think) is that the Designer was not designed by anyone or thing nor did it emerge naturally.

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a cornbread muffin does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a baker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a muffin, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, and scientists seem to agree that it did, then the universe had a cause.

Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call "God".

In both atlas and 3A's case, the phenomenon they happily accept without a shred of physical evidence is in every conceivable way far more outrageous and unlikely than the phenomenon which they reject in SPITE of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

It's...amazing. I've never seen two people who hold such an extraordinary belief based solely on faith (made even more extraordinary and unlikely considering they are putting forth not just an anonymous intelligent designer, but the MGC...good luck connecting all those dots with science and sound logic, guys) babble on and on for so damned long about science and odds. Do you not hear yourselves? Do you not understand how ridiculously convoluted your thinking is?

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.

I don't see why complexity cannot emerge or evolve naturally, but the general idea of Intelligent Design (I think) is that the Designer was not designed by anyone or thing nor did it emerge naturally.

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a cornbread muffin does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a baker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a muffin, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, and scientists seem to agree that it did, then the universe had a cause.

Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call "God".

Can you please provide evidence that everything which exists needs a cause? You don't get to go any further with your argument until you do that. Those are an awful lot of bald assertions about the nature of the universe and the matter contained within it being put forth by someone who I am pretty sure is neither a physicist nor a cosmologist. You better back them up.

And btw...outside of space and time means outside of existence...which means not in existence...which means...God isn't fucking real. [emoji12]

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call "God".

Rather than explaining why the "intelligent designer" proposition is a failure...because that clearly doesn't work for you....I'll simply ask why you call this extra dimensional tinkerer "god"?  Additionally, who is "we"? Quite the leap....not sure why you went through the trouble of attempting to argue unrelated points, when you were going to conclude god by fiat.

What do you know about this "god" thing, and how did you come to know it?

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.

I don't see why complexity cannot emerge or evolve naturally, but the general idea of Intelligent Design (I think) is that the Designer was not designed by anyone or thing nor did it emerge naturally.

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a cornbread muffin does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a baker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a muffin, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, and scientists seem to agree that it did, then the universe had a cause.

This is conflating creation ex materia with creation ex nihilo. The muffin is created ex materia. The universe is posited to have been created ex nihilo. The two are not equivalent cases.

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

This is an abduction from the basic result and thus requires verification, which you obviously can't provide. We have no way of inferring the accuracy of your claims here. Thus the reasoning is pure conjecture.

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

Design is something either evolved brains or created souls do. If you insist that it was souls, then you're begging the question of the existence of the theist worldview. If evolved brains, then the analogy from human design is flawed because God is not a similar designer and thus constitutes an unrelated phenomenon. Since design, even if true, may point to a naturalistic designer, you have made no headway on demonstrating a supernatural God.

(March 31, 2016 at 7:24 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

I agree, DNA and RNA don't perceive things.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:00 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: In both atlas and 3A's case, the phenomenon they happily accept without a shred of physical evidence is in every conceivable way far more outrageous and unlikely than the phenomenon which they reject in SPITE of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.  

It's...amazing.  I've never seen two people who hold such an extraordinary belief based solely on faith (made even more extraordinary and unlikely considering they are putting forth not just an anonymous intelligent designer, but the MGC...good luck connecting all those dots with science and sound logic, guys) babble on and on for so damned long about science and odds.  Do you not hear yourselves?  Do you not understand how ridiculously convoluted your thinking is? [emphasis added]

Is that true, Lady? 

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics...and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all...it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming."

"Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."


So, you can mock Atlas and AAA if you like, but apparently, they are in good company when they promote the Intelligent Design theory.

In light of this, perhaps you should take a look at how ridiculously convoluted your own thinking is. 

(March 31, 2016 at 9:41 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(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.

There is information there. It doesn't only become information when a human perceives it. It's like the question of if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound? Of course it does. It produces a sound wave, just because there is no receiver to detect it does not mean the wave does not exist. Similarly with DNA, it contains information in the form of a highly irregular sequence that is recognized by hundreds, probably even thousands of different proteins/regulatory RNA molecules. A human does not need to be there to perceive it for there to be information present.