CDF47 Wrote:

Abaddon_ire Wrote:Really? You are the one supporting slavery as morally right.

It wasn't harsh slavery He supported.  Below is information on Biblical slavery:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-quest...t-slavery/

It was nice slavery that was supported? That makes it okay? I'd say we've figured out that owning people is fundamentally wrong since then, but he Jains figured it out 500 BC.

---

Abaddon_ire Wrote:Sorry, but you sufficiently borked the quotes that I can't tell which are your words and which are somebody else's.

My bad, but too late to edit them now.

---

CDF47 Wrote:With new information being input into the design, it shows the Creator is still involved with the creation.  I believe the Creator is a personal Creator who wants to be involved with His creation.

The new information comes from the environment via natural selection. We know how this works.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Who do we share ours with?

Great apes, particularly with chimps, but it goes farther than that, back to monkeys with fewer the farther you get from the great ape clade.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Why would they do that? In particular, why would the scientists who are Christian conspire with the scientists who are atheists to do that?

One possible reason is fear of reprisal.

So you don't know, but you're willing to speculate. Gotcha.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Where a Roman Catholic in good standing convinced a nation composed mostly of Lutherans and Catholics to exterminate their Jews?

The Nazis were into the occult.

Like, the supernatural, man?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Funny how you never respond to posts that bring up RNA world.

I respond to as much as I have time for.  I have responded to a ton of posts in this thread and you know it.

But not the ones that provide the explanations you demand the most. Funny, that....

(May 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm)Hammy Wrote: How is DNA at all relevant to God? Evolution is true without a creator. Can you not grasp that concept?

Micro-evolution is part of the implementation of the design used by the Creator.  Again, DNA proves design.

You haven't shown how it proves design at all. You've just asserted your incredulity at the idea of DNA coming about without a designer.

You don't have an argument. What you have is this:

DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.

CDF47 Wrote:There is highly complex and specific information in DNA which can only come from a super intelligence.  The universe is also fine-tuned and had a beginning with the Big Bang.  These are three key features of design.  There are tons of others, like the body plan of living systems,...  Information in DNA is the proof though.

The bolded part is your claim. Where's your evidence of it?

And we've already spoken about the beginning of our cosmos not necessarily being the beginning of our universe, did you forget already?

You can't just say 'information in DNA is the proof' and be convincing. You have to explain WHY it's the proof. And you never even try, you're just dumbfounded that we don't take your world for it and trot out another link on how amazingly complicated DNA is.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Again, by the same criteria, we should infer that DNA was designed by people with physical brains, using technology. Why is that not convincing to you?

Because, where did the people that designed the DNA come from?  They too would require design if they were advanced enough to design and build DNA.

But that super-intelligence isn't advanced enough to require design, am I right?

---

CDF47 Wrote:There is a evolutionary agenda they are following.  Breaking rank gets them targeted.

By a community that you've said yourself is majority theist. I don't find that plausible.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:A straw man argument is one in which you propose the other person's position to be other than it actually is, in order to address something easier to defeat. An example would be all the times you claimed we believe everything came from nothing. The first time could have been an honest mistake. After our actual position was explained, every repetition of that claim was employment of a straw man fallacy.

I am being generous and assuming you're not too stupid to comprehend our actual position (not as atheists but as people who follow the science), that most of us go with the current science, which is that no one knows what was really going on before the initial expansion except that the universe was in a hot dense state before that. It could have been there forever in some form or another for all anyone knows. And Hawking may be wrong about the zero curvature, like he was wrong about some other things.

I wasn't intending that to be a straw man argument.  My point was from the best we know the universe came from nothing and now we have everything we see.  That was my point.  I will stop using it in that way.

I appreciate that. I don't agree that as best we know the universe came from nothing at all, but I could be wrong. There are plausible hypotheses on how it could have come from nearly nothing (quantum foam, which may not be able to not exist), so there's that.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I wasn't whining.  I don't care if there were a million atheists on this site.  You can't defeat truth in an argument.

When you bring up over and over how outnumbered you are, it REALLY sounds like whining.

One of the ways you tell something is true is if you can make an argument for it that is both sound and valid. That's not enough by itself for existential claims, you need evidence too (you can't just logic something into existence), but it's reasonable to ask that if something is actually true, it shouldn't be self-contradictory or contrary to observed reality and it should be able to stand up to reasonable skeptical scrutiny.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Or directed by the unconscious, blind, but dumbly intelligent power of natural selection, which can do one intelligent thing by brute force: discriminate against variations that are reproductively less successful than their competitors and thereby input information about the environment into genomes. No limit but the laws of nature have been found that limit this force.

Where does the information come from?  It must come from a super intelligence.  Still only two options.  Either intelligently or not intelligently designed.

As I said, the information comes from the reproductive environment. We can infer a lot about an organisms reproductive environment from its DNA because organisms adapt to their environment by the DNA of the most successful being selected for.

You accept 'microevolutionary adaptations', right? You get that they're adapting to their environment because variations that are more successful are preserved, right? That's how information about the environment gets into the genome.

And 'it must come from a super intelligence' is a claim that you haven't supported, so I am justified in dismissing that unsupported out of hand. If you don't give me a reason to take you seriously, why should I?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:No one doubts it's relative accuracy, at least in the USA. It's relevance is in question. But anyway, why do you suppose so many believing scientists are trying to suppress ID?

Out of fear of reprisal.

But they're in the majority, right? There are more of them than there are mean old atheist scientists. Are theistic scientists particularly cowardly for some reason?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Psst! They don't like to be called 'retarded people'.

---

They can actually speak for themselves, you know.

Well they haven't and it is really annoying seeing them put down this way, over and over again.

But it's fine when you call them 'retarded people', eh?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Will you still think so when Muslims outnumber Christians globally in a few decades?

Nobody knows which religion will be the most populace in a few decades.  Only God knows that.

Demographic trends are pretty reliable. But okay, WOULD you still think so IF Muslims outnumber Christians in a few decades?

---

CDF47 Wrote:True democracies are also majority rule.  We have a constitutional republic which protects specified rights as stated in the Constitution.

Can you name one 'true democracy' that is a country that actually exists today?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:You need that step from 'information inside DNA' and 'comes from a mind'. You never do that step. Because you can't. And you know it.

Not sure what you mean.

The 'why' part. As in 'why does the information inside DNA have to come from a mind?' Your arguments seem to add up to 'it just does, that's why!'

(May 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

CDF47 Wrote:There is highly complex and specific information in DNA which can only come from a super intelligence.  The universe is also fine-tuned and had a beginning with the Big Bang.  These are three key features of design.  There are tons of others, like the body plan of living systems,...  Information in DNA is the proof though.

The bolded part is your claim. Where's your evidence of it?

And we've already spoken about the beginning of our cosmos not necessarily being the beginning of our universe, did you forget already?

You can't just say 'information in DNA is the proof' and be convincing. You have to explain WHY it's the proof. And you never even try, you're just dumbfounded that we don't take your world for it and trot out another link on how amazingly complicated DNA is.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Because, where did the people that designed the DNA come from?  They too would require design if they were advanced enough to design and build DNA.

But that super-intelligence isn't advanced enough to require design, am I right?

---

CDF47 Wrote:There is a evolutionary agenda they are following.  Breaking rank gets them targeted.

By a community that you've said yourself is majority theist. I don't find that plausible.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I wasn't intending that to be a straw man argument.  My point was from the best we know the universe came from nothing and now we have everything we see.  That was my point.  I will stop using it in that way.

I appreciate that. I don't agree that as best we know the universe came from nothing at all, but I could be wrong. There are plausible hypotheses on how it could have come from nearly nothing (quantum foam, which may not be able to not exist), so there's that.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I wasn't whining.  I don't care if there were a million atheists on this site.  You can't defeat truth in an argument.

When you bring up over and over how outnumbered you are, it REALLY sounds like whining.

One of the ways you tell something is true is if you can make an argument for it that is both sound and valid. That's not enough by itself for existential claims, you need evidence too (you can't just logic something into existence), but it's reasonable to ask that if something is actually true, it shouldn't be self-contradictory or contrary to observed reality and it should be able to stand up to reasonable skeptical scrutiny.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Where does the information come from?  It must come from a super intelligence.  Still only two options.  Either intelligently or not intelligently designed.

As I said, the information comes from the reproductive environment. We can infer a lot about an organisms reproductive environment from its DNA because organisms adapt to their environment by the DNA of the most successful being selected for.

You accept 'microevolutionary adaptations', right? You get that they're adapting to their environment because variations that are more successful are preserved, right? That's how information about the environment gets into the genome.

And 'it must come from a super intelligence' is a claim that you haven't supported, so I am justified in dismissing that unsupported out of hand. If you don't give me a reason to take you seriously, why should I?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Out of fear of reprisal.

But they're in the majority, right? There are more of them than there are mean old atheist scientists. Are theistic scientists particularly cowardly for some reason?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Well they haven't and it is really annoying seeing them put down this way, over and over again.

But it's fine when you call them 'retarded people', eh?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Nobody knows which religion will be the most populace in a few decades.  Only God knows that.

Demographic trends are pretty reliable. But okay, WOULD you still think so IF Muslims outnumber Christians in a few decades?

---

CDF47 Wrote:True democracies are also majority rule.  We have a constitutional republic which protects specified rights as stated in the Constitution.

Can you name one 'true democracy' that is a country that actually exists today?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Not sure what you mean.

The 'why' part. As in 'why does the information inside DNA have to come from a mind?' Your arguments seem to add up to 'it just does, that's why!'

I can say the complex and specified functional information inside DNA is the proof.

That super-intelligence is the primordial One I believe.  

It's the good old boy network (and secret societies) that use harassment as a weapon to control people.

I do believe the best we know is there was 0 space and matter in the beginning. 

I agree.

It comes from intelligence.

Good ole boy network.

You are the ones using the word creatard.

If they did in the coming decades I would believe that.

Switzerland.

Straw man.  I didn't say that's why, just because.  I said why.  I explained it is do to highly sophisticated extremely complex and specific functional information that programs the sequence of amino acids to form molecular machines/proteins at a nano-scale.

(May 13, 2018 at 9:25 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 9:23 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: No you don't 


You live in a flawed Republic

The US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two of the greatest documents ever written.  Our rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, unlike a Democracy where majority rules and we already discussed the potential problems with that.

bold mine. 

You contradict yourself. Do you even pay attention to what you post? You do realize that the United States Government IS a Democratic government, right? 

Do you also understand that Hillary Clinton won the majority vote? Our deeply flawed Electoral College made sure to fuck that up by giving the presidency to Trumptard, so no - the person who won the majority of the votes cast, didn't get to be in office.

(May 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Micro-evolution is part of the implementation of the design used by the Creator.  Again, DNA proves design.

You haven't shown how it proves design at all. You've just asserted your incredulity at the idea of DNA coming about without a designer.

You don't have an argument. What you have is this:

DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.

(May 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

CDF47 Wrote:There is highly complex and specific information in DNA which can only come from a super intelligence.  The universe is also fine-tuned and had a beginning with the Big Bang.  These are three key features of design.  There are tons of others, like the body plan of living systems,...  Information in DNA is the proof though.

The bolded part is your claim. Where's your evidence of it?

And we've already spoken about the beginning of our cosmos not necessarily being the beginning of our universe, did you forget already?

You can't just say 'information in DNA is the proof' and be convincing. You have to explain WHY it's the proof. And you never even try, you're just dumbfounded that we don't take your world for it and trot out another link on how amazingly complicated DNA is.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Because, where did the people that designed the DNA come from?  They too would require design if they were advanced enough to design and build DNA.

But that super-intelligence isn't advanced enough to require design, am I right?

---

CDF47 Wrote:There is a evolutionary agenda they are following.  Breaking rank gets them targeted.

By a community that you've said yourself is majority theist. I don't find that plausible.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I wasn't intending that to be a straw man argument.  My point was from the best we know the universe came from nothing and now we have everything we see.  That was my point.  I will stop using it in that way.

I appreciate that. I don't agree that as best we know the universe came from nothing at all, but I could be wrong. There are plausible hypotheses on how it could have come from nearly nothing (quantum foam, which may not be able to not exist), so there's that.

---

CDF47 Wrote:I wasn't whining.  I don't care if there were a million atheists on this site.  You can't defeat truth in an argument.

When you bring up over and over how outnumbered you are, it REALLY sounds like whining.

One of the ways you tell something is true is if you can make an argument for it that is both sound and valid. That's not enough by itself for existential claims, you need evidence too (you can't just logic something into existence), but it's reasonable to ask that if something is actually true, it shouldn't be self-contradictory or contrary to observed reality and it should be able to stand up to reasonable skeptical scrutiny.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Where does the information come from?  It must come from a super intelligence.  Still only two options.  Either intelligently or not intelligently designed.

As I said, the information comes from the reproductive environment. We can infer a lot about an organisms reproductive environment from its DNA because organisms adapt to their environment by the DNA of the most successful being selected for.

You accept 'microevolutionary adaptations', right? You get that they're adapting to their environment because variations that are more successful are preserved, right? That's how information about the environment gets into the genome.

And 'it must come from a super intelligence' is a claim that you haven't supported, so I am justified in dismissing that unsupported out of hand. If you don't give me a reason to take you seriously, why should I?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Out of fear of reprisal.

But they're in the majority, right? There are more of them than there are mean old atheist scientists. Are theistic scientists particularly cowardly for some reason?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Well they haven't and it is really annoying seeing them put down this way, over and over again.

But it's fine when you call them 'retarded people', eh?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Nobody knows which religion will be the most populace in a few decades.  Only God knows that.

Demographic trends are pretty reliable. But okay, WOULD you still think so IF Muslims outnumber Christians in a few decades?

---

CDF47 Wrote:True democracies are also majority rule.  We have a constitutional republic which protects specified rights as stated in the Constitution.

Can you name one 'true democracy' that is a country that actually exists today?

---

CDF47 Wrote:Not sure what you mean.

The 'why' part. As in 'why does the information inside DNA have to come from a mind?' Your arguments seem to add up to 'it just does, that's why!'

(May 14, 2018 at 7:36 pm)Joods Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 9:25 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two of the greatest documents ever written.  Our rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, unlike a Democracy where majority rules and we already discussed the potential problems with that.

bold mine. 

You contradict yourself. Do you even pay attention to what you post? You do realize that the United States Government IS a Democratic government, right? 

Do you also understand that Hillary Clinton won the majority vote? Our deeply flawed Electoral College made sure to fuck that up by giving the presidency to Trumptard, so no - the person who won the majority of the votes cast, didn't get to be in office.

The US government type is a constitutional republic.  

Yes, I realize Hilary lost the electoral vote but won the majority vote.

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

---

Crazy how we somehow went from debating DNA information to discussing the different government types of the world...LOL. I can't remember how that happened or who brought it up first.

(May 14, 2018 at 7:42 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm)Hammy Wrote: You haven't shown how it proves design at all. You've just asserted your incredulity at the idea of DNA coming about without a designer.

You don't have an argument. What you have is this:

DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.

(May 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The bolded part is your claim. Where's your evidence of it?

And we've already spoken about the beginning of our cosmos not necessarily being the beginning of our universe, did you forget already?

You can't just say 'information in DNA is the proof' and be convincing. You have to explain WHY it's the proof. And you never even try, you're just dumbfounded that we don't take your world for it and trot out another link on how amazingly complicated DNA is.

---

But that super-intelligence isn't advanced enough to require design, am I right?

---

By a community that you've said yourself is majority theist. I don't find that plausible.

---

I appreciate that. I don't agree that as best we know the universe came from nothing at all, but I could be wrong. There are plausible hypotheses on how it could have come from nearly nothing (quantum foam, which may not be able to not exist), so there's that.

---

When you bring up over and over how outnumbered you are, it REALLY sounds like whining.

One of the ways you tell something is true is if you can make an argument for it that is both sound and valid. That's not enough by itself for existential claims, you need evidence too (you can't just logic something into existence), but it's reasonable to ask that if something is actually true, it shouldn't be self-contradictory or contrary to observed reality and it should be able to stand up to reasonable skeptical scrutiny.

---

As I said, the information comes from the reproductive environment. We can infer a lot about an organisms reproductive environment from its DNA because organisms adapt to their environment by the DNA of the most successful being selected for.

You accept 'microevolutionary adaptations', right? You get that they're adapting to their environment because variations that are more successful are preserved, right? That's how information about the environment gets into the genome.

And 'it must come from a super intelligence' is a claim that you haven't supported, so I am justified in dismissing that unsupported out of hand. If you don't give me a reason to take you seriously, why should I?

---

But they're in the majority, right? There are more of them than there are mean old atheist scientists. Are theistic scientists particularly cowardly for some reason?

---

But it's fine when you call them 'retarded people', eh?

---

Demographic trends are pretty reliable. But okay, WOULD you still think so IF Muslims outnumber Christians in a few decades?

---

Can you name one 'true democracy' that is a country that actually exists today?

---

The 'why' part. As in 'why does the information inside DNA have to come from a mind?' Your arguments seem to add up to 'it just does, that's why!'

(May 14, 2018 at 7:36 pm)Joods Wrote: bold mine. 

You contradict yourself. Do you even pay attention to what you post? You do realize that the United States Government IS a Democratic government, right? 

Do you also understand that Hillary Clinton won the majority vote? Our deeply flawed Electoral College made sure to fuck that up by giving the presidency to Trumptard, so no - the person who won the majority of the votes cast, didn't get to be in office.

The US government type is a constitutional republic.  

Yes, I realize Hilary lost the electoral vote but won the majority vote.

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

bold mine.
Wrong. Learn to read.

Quote:The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Representative Democracy). Despite a strong democratic tradition, the U.S. is not a “Direct Democracy“ (where people vote on laws directly*).[1][2][3][4]

Stop quoting numerous other people if you are just going to respond to one person's post. 

And I wasn't making fun of people with intellectual disabilities. Given that I'm a mother of such a person, I know better. 
You however, are spinning the words of others and ironically accusing us of doing that exact thing.

(May 14, 2018 at 7:55 pm)Joods Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:42 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The US government type is a constitutional republic.  

Yes, I realize Hilary lost the electoral vote but won the majority vote.

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

bold mine.
Wrong. Learn to read.

Quote:The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Representative Democracy). Despite a strong democratic tradition, the U.S. is not a “Direct Democracy“ (where people vote on laws directly*).[1][2][3][4]

Stop quoting numerous other people if you are just going to respond to one person's post. 

And I wasn't making fun of people with intellectual disabilities. Given that I'm a mother of such a person, I know better. 
You however, are spinning the words of others and ironically accusing us of doing that exact thing.

That was my point.  You said it was a democracy.  It is actually a constitutional republic. There are differences.

Being a mother of such a child you should know better than to use tard in your wording I would think. There could be such people in this thread or relatives of them.

I could use the term cretinist, if creatard triggers you. 

Here's the trouble..though..no matter what term I use, it;s still just as idiotic as it was when we started. This argument never gets any better. If god is somehow the force behind evolutionary biology it must have gone to some trouble to completely occlude that fact. That;s the reality of biology. It works just like no one is watching..even when no one is watching. The "information" in dna.....comes from the environment. It's a record of sex and death. Is that what the lord of the cosmos and the author of all creation meant to write into it;s super complex code? Nerd smut?

(May 14, 2018 at 7:59 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:55 pm)Joods Wrote: bold mine.
Wrong. Learn to read.




Stop quoting numerous other people if you are just going to respond to one person's post. 

And I wasn't making fun of people with intellectual disabilities. Given that I'm a mother of such a person, I know better. 
You however, are spinning the words of others and ironically accusing us of doing that exact thing.

That was my point.  You said it was a democracy.  It is actually a constitutional republic.  There are differences.  

Being a mother of such a child you should know better than to use tard in your wording I would think.  There could be such people in this thread or relatives of them.

Your implication of the term "constitutional republic" makes it sound like you are saying we aren't democratic at all. Quit purposefully twisting terms you obviously know the meaning to. We are a democratic society. We have the right to cast votes and make our voices heard. We vote people into office at all levels of our government. That's what a democracy is: A government by and for the people.

We are still a democracy, no matter how you want to spin it. Here, read this if you are confused.