(May 8, 2018 at 9:18 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

CDF47 Wrote:Wrong, the Lord of the Holy Bible is a transcendent Lord in Genesis.  He creates the heavens and the earth.  He resides outside this universe and is the Creator of it.

What's the verse that states that God resides outside of the universe?

You spiritual child it's clearly inferred by the Holy Sprit from words that have nothing to do with anything, if only you had the Holy Spirit then you too would be able to make anything mean anything.

CDF47 Wrote:

possibletarian Wrote:But wouldn't your god have to create disease and misery ?

There was a war in heaven.  Satan and his followers were cast out to earth.  It continues to this day but is only temporary.

So God can't keep his own house in order or keep a deceiver out of his garden; and beings that interact with him directly still rebel? And you believe in the guarantee that heaven will be eternal bliss despite being filled with fractious humans?

If it helps, the Lucifer in Isaiah (the only time the name Lucifer is mentioned) almost certainly refers to the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar II, who conquered Jerusalem, or his son Belshazzar, both dead at the time of the writing.

And the claim of a third of angels, which is an interpretation of 'the dragon sweeping a third of the stars from the sky' in Revelations could as easily be prophecy as a description of past events. And it's even more likely that the 'dragon' was the Roman empire and the 'stars' were early Christianity's ministers and teachers.

Has it occurred to you that you might be taking the Bible too literally?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

LadyForCamus Wrote:You’re a troll, and a boring one at that.

How I am trolling the site by just providing facts?  Some people on here may not be aware of these things.  Others may be intellectually dishonest.

I dare you to say something more trollish than that people who understand what you're saying are intellectually dishonest if they still disagree with you.

---

CDF47 Wrote:The scientific community disagrees with you.  51 percent of scientists are believers and 41 percent are non-believers based on a Pew poll result.  Once the stigma of ID wears old, I expect that number to increase even more for believers.  Also, 89 percent of people in the US believe in God based on a Gallup poll.

I guarantee that 51% of American scientists are not young earth creationists who think DNA requires intelligent design. Your link makes it 4% of scientists who are evangelical protestants compared to 28% of the general US population. And that's four times the percentage of nonbelievers in the general American population, btw, so scientists are far less likely to believe in a personal god (that's 33% of scientists, btw, 18% of your 51% believe in 'some higher power or universal force'). What happens to your argument from popularity when it's down to 49% of American scientists who believe as the trend for believers in the USA is downward?

Not to mention that the USA is the most religious developed country and the percentage of nonbelievers among European scientists is likely quite different.

Modern translations have excised any mention of lucifier, though excising him from the translation has obviously done nothing to excise him from the beliefs. 

Even literalists believe in the book in their minds eye, rather than the page and verse.

CDF47 Wrote:

Khemikal Wrote:So what?  You think shannon info requires a god too. Something being complex -or- simple isn't a difference, to you...and because of this, one thing being simple and one thing being complex is no particular indication of anything. 

You butchered that one.

DNA contains an extremely sophisticated code!  Hence, it is designed.  Debate over, living systems have a Designer.

Natural forces can give rise to very complex things. Natural selection will preserve complexity in systems that reproduce if they contribute to the probability that they will successfully reproduce. As long as more complex systems result in more successful reproduction, natural selection will keep selecting for the more complex variations. There is no 'brake' on this mechanism to keep it from resulting in something as complex as DNA.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

---

CDF47 Wrote:You missed the point that it is both extremely complex and unimaginably specific, thus designed.

Natural selection conserves variations that specifically result in more successful reproduction.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Digital code in living systems = Design.  This is so obvious, I can't believe we are even discussing it.

It's obvious is an unsupported assertion. The kind of thing someone who can't back up their claims says.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Khemikal Wrote:It;s not...but why would it matter if it were?

It is true and it has great theological implications.

Have you met Mystic Knight? He is also fond of declaring that his claims are true and that people who aren't convinced are being intellectually dishonest. He's a Muslim, so you have a lot in common.

(May 7, 2018 at 11:55 am)CDF47 Wrote: A rock is not designed, although in the grand scheme of things, since the entire universe is designed, it too is designed.

A rock fails Dembski's explanatory filter because it is neither specified nor complex. Since you believe essentially that a rock was designed, something is amiss. Either the method by which you're inferring design is wrong (CSI), or your belief that God created the universe is wrong. Which is it?

CDF47 Wrote:

The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:You can't even figure out how you're abusing the term digital yet you want us to take everything you say at face value. Fuck that!

Are you ever going to actually reply to any of the posts I've made beyond your one lame answer?

I can't respond to all the posts here.  It is digital.  It is a 4 digit digital code (not binary 0s and 1s).  Digital does not always mean binary.  Research Google for this.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, I've already explained that DNA is both analog and digital, and you replied to me, so I know you've read it, yet here you are, repeating yourself like no one has refuted your point. I don't know why you have a problem with DNA also being analog, doesn't that make it even more miraculous in your theology?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:Have fun with this chew toy, guys. His willful ignorance and his refusal to actually engage with anyone is too much.

Willful ignorance is a Biblical verse.  Funny you use that one.

Which verse?

---

Jörmungandr Wrote:I think you're just mouthing words you don't understand.  Where can I find a rigorous and valid definition for what it means for a complex thing like a human being to be specified, first, and second, show us that you can apply that definition to a human being.  Otherwise you're just mouthing meaningless gibberish.

An interesting thing about CSI is that there's no unit of measurement for it. So we can't say a grain of sand has 4 CSIs and a guppy has 123 CSIs, and anything over 62 CSIs is always designed. All it amounts to is another way of saying 'that looks too complex and designed to me for it not to be complex and designed'.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I attended 5 years mechanical engineering school.  Got bachelor of science in ME and 15 years experience as mechanical engineer, design team leader, and systems engineer.  Plus, I study science on my free time since teen years.  It is a favorite topic of mine, in addition to other hobbies.

A high percentage of scientists who believe in intelligent design are engineers. Not only is it outside their field, if any scientist would have a bias to perceive design where it does not actually exist, it would be engineers, don't you think? It's not that you're not smart. It's not that you can't math. It's because you are primed by your religion and your training to find design. That's a little too much bias for you to be trusting your own judgment over that of the scientists working in the field you're commenting on.

And you seem to be getting a lot of the science you study in your free time from ID propaganda sites, rather than from sites closer to the source of the research.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Yes, the Creator overcame death for His creation.

That's a story. Why should we believe it? Because we'll roast if we don't? Hate to tell you, but the Muslims stole that fallacious argument and now you have to share.

---

CDF47 Wrote:1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?  
2. Please describe the origins of genetic information.  
3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?  
4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,....  Please explain how this all happened naturally.

---

The DNA that was formally referred to as "junk DNA" is no longer junk DNA.  It is non-coding DNA.  It acts like an operating system (over 85 percent of the DNA).  3 percent is used for coding.

1. Its chemical structure.
2. Unknown for sure because it was over 3 billion years ago, but RNA world and several other hypotheses are plausible.
3. RNA, most likely.
4. No, you unmitigated ass.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Not lying about 3rd.  They believe in a higher power (believer I wrote) as contrasted with unbeliever.

But they don't believe in intelligent design, weasel, which is what they need to support if you bringing up this statistic is to have any relevant to the topic at hand whatsoever.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Just posing four questions is all.

Also known as 'just JAQing off'. Look it up.

---

CDF47 Wrote:There are over 30 constants of the universe which are fine-tuned, such that if these mathematical figures were off by the most smallest fraction of a percent, life as we know it would not exist. The most finely tuned figure is the cosmological constant (energy density of the vacuum of space) which is fine tuned to an order of magnitude of 1:10^120. If that figure was off by that small a value, there would be no life. To give you an idea of the size of that number, there are approximately 10^80 elementary particles in the known universe and there have been 10^16 seconds since the creation of the universe in the Big Bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago. By the way, back to DNA, the probability of building a short functional protein from amino acids is 1:10^164. Just amazing!

How do you know that the 30 constants can be other than what they are? How do you know that they're not related, such that if you change one, others must change in specific ways, limiting how different they can be than what they are? How do you know there is only one cosmos, rather than so many that at least one like ours is inevitable. It's a thought experiment based on a pile of 'ifs', not evidence.

RNA strands can form spontaneously in the right chemical environment, the environment that evidence indicates was common when the earliest life can be detected. Just amazing!

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Wololo Wrote:Higher power =/= god.  Pantheists believe in a higher power without believing in a god.  So do a lot of buddhists and confuscians.

The universe is fine-tuned and had a beginning and space had infinite curvature according to Hawkings' calculations which means there was 0 space and 0 matter.  Out of nothing came everything.  The Creator transcends the universe.

Can you quote Hawking claiming there was zero matter/energy? Or is that your own interpretation. And again, despite what you may think, Hawking was not omniscient. He wasn't always right and he's not the pope of atheists.

---

CDF47 Wrote:100 percent I believe in God.  There is highly sophisticated code in DNA.  The universe is fine-tuned.  It's His will what He chooses to do and not do.

That specificity is a quality unique to intelligent design is a claim, not a fact. And it's a claim easily disproven by watching evolution in action, where we can observe a species adapting in specified ways over generations via natural selection that conserves variations that contribute to the reproductive success of the species. Like the bacteria that mutated in such a way that it was able to digest nylon, or the wall lizard experiment.

In fact, a fine-tuned universe is the only kind where God isn't necessary to explain life. What need does an omnipotent being have for fine-tuning? If such at thing were real, it could have us live in any universe, and the proof of its existence would be that life should be impossible but exists anyway. It could have us live inside a supernova or on the outside of a black hole. Instead we find ourselves in the one kind of universe (presuming that a universe more hospitable to life than ours is impossible) where it's possible for us (rather than something much more alien under different constants) to arise through natural processes.

CDF47 Wrote:

robvalue Wrote:If we can produce a natural explanation, does god then suddenly vanish?

No, but there is no way to provide a natural explanation to highly sophisticated code in DNA.

Criminy, at least read the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis before you spout crap like that.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:Lol no explanation  you will except 

Because your ID pseudoscience talking heads say it can't be so 

No, because logic says it can't be so.

Good, please put the logic in the form of a syllogism so it can be analyzed. If you have logic, you should really try using it instead of just going 'It's obvious!'.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:Sigh no it doesn't 

Do you have a background in science, engineering, mathematics, statistics?

The foremost experts in the fields most concerned with evolutionary biology do.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:That's of no concern

Well it is because you make a lot of claims regarding those fields.

Because you wouldn't make claims regarding the fields in biology without having the proper background, eh?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:Lol again you miss the point 

I skimmed it.  I am looking for a paper that answers my 4 questions or at least tries to address it.  These papers don't even come close.  I glanced at this one and it looks like more non-sensible propaganda.  The information in DNA is the key.  There is no explanation for it outside of design.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is and why it's a fallacy?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

mh.brewer Wrote:I reject your hypothesis and nothing you say will change my mind. Why do you persist in the folly? Are you that ignorant and deluded?

Just responding to as many posts as I can.

You don't have to respond to every post made. The most intellectually honest thing to do is to focus on the ones that make the best points.

---

CDF47 Wrote:The scientist (Kenyon) who came up with the Biochemical Predestination Theory found his theory impossible after breakthroughs in DNA became apparent.  Experiments showed that amino acids do not have the capability to order themselves into a biological meaningful sequence.  The origin of genetic information caused Kenyon to reassess his biochemical predestination position regarding origins.  Kenyon then went out looking for the source of the biological information in DNA.  Kenyon realized he faced a narrowing set of options.  By the 1970’s most researchers rejected the idea that the information necessary to build the first cells originated by chance alone.

No scientist who accepts abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the origin of life thinks the first cell originated by chance alone. The first replicating molecule would have arisen by chance, and natural selection would have acted on it thereafter.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...eplicator/

---

CDF47 Wrote:Things are either designed or not.  DNA proves they are designed.  That's my point.

If you had proven that DNA was designed, then you would have a point. But you haven't, so you don't.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I provided proof.  That pretty much ended the debate.

What is it with people like you and Mystic Knight who think they just get to declare victory? Victory in a debate is convincing someone who was initially skeptical that you are correct. You haven't done that. I suspect anyone on the fence who ever reads this thread will be less likely to think DNA is designed after hearing what you consider proof for that than they would if you had never said a word.

(May 8, 2018 at 8:07 am)ignoramus Wrote: queue is my favourite word. One letter does all the work and the last 4 are freeloading.

I need this quote in my sig line. It's the best!

Quick Wrote:

The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:You done with that high horse now? Our groom would like to brush him down and get him fed.

There is a difference from this site to almost every other site I have ever been on, and it's not good. This is my observation: It is a forum of a bunch people who on average as a group score the lowest in agreeableness from the Big 5 trait that I think I have ever seen.

Antagonistic is the word I would use to describe the people here.

If you don't appreciate someone's comments, you can put them on ignore. That way you can set the standard for what sorts of responses you're subjected to.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

mh.brewer Wrote:And it's fantasy delusion for the win!

No, atheism hasn't won this debate.

You're not debating with atheism. You're debating with biology. Hundreds of millions of Christians and hundreds of millions of other theists accept a natural origin for life. It's fundamentalists, mostly Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, who hang their hope of salvation on intelligent design.

---

CDF47 Wrote:A highly sophisticated digital code was found in DNA.  It's designed by a Designer.

See, if you were actually using logic, there would be a part that shows sophisticated information requires a conscious designer between that premise and that conclusion. And it would be in a form that doesn't assume its conclusion.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Specified and complex highly sophisticated digital code is in DNA.  It is designed.  If I saw Mount Rushmore I would know it too was designed.  We infer designed based on both specificity and complexity.

I can prove Mount Rushmore was designed. Archeologically from the tool marks, and from photographs taken as it was being carved. If you showed me a rock formation that appeared to be designed, and there are many such, I could use archaeological techniques to confirm or falsify that initial assumption. A formation that looks like Mount Rushmore due simply to weathering is possible, it's just unlikely. If I found it out of context, I should investigate rather than assume I've already got it figured out, right?

You've got nothing like the evidence that Rushmore was carved by humans for the origin of DNA.

---

CDF47 Wrote:You guys can try to dance around the argument all you want but the questions remain the same.  You can't even begin to explain where the information bearing properties of DNA come from.  Everything you come up with is a joke and not scientific.

We tried science on you, but it doesn't seem to have any effect. What's left but amusement?

I see you guys are still playing with this fuckhead.  Well.  Enjoy it.

I wrote him off as just another creatard asshole long ago.