'You're the expert, right?'

You're certainly not. You cherry pick parts of science to suit your cause, which, of course, they don't, as you can't dump in god dunnit without backup. Which you don't have, youre just another wish thinker, scientists are real thinkers they try to find things. Unlike evolution and the big bang theory, your idea it's a theory with NO substance.

Oh, yes Dr Meyer. His friend is Dr Michael Behe and together with Dr Dembski, they came up with intelligent design and irreducible complexity. That worked out well for them.

Kitzmiller vs Dover ring a bell.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

Meyer and his agenda, that got blew out of the water.

Behe 'the expert' who hadn't read fuck all on some of his claims and didn't like to send his claims to peer reviewed papers. Preferred to just publish his own books. I wonder who would buy them? Christian Americans?

Good scientists let peers review their work.

(October 31, 2011 at 12:47 am)lucent Wrote: I think it's extremely arrogant for atheists to write off the spiritual experiences of billions of people as a delusion.

As opposed to writing off the spiritual experience of billions of people as being the work of demons?

Or as opposed to writing off the scientific literature that explains a lot of those experiences?

(October 31, 2011 at 5:07 am)5thHorseman Wrote: 'You're the expert, right?'

You're certainly not. You cherry pick parts of science to suit your cause, which, of course, they don't, as you can't dump in god dunnit without backup. Which you don't have, youre just another wish thinker, scientists are real thinkers they try to find things. Unlike evolution and the big bang theory, your idea it's a theory with NO substance.

Oh, yes Dr Meyer. His friend is Dr Michael Behe and together with Dr Dembski, they came up with intelligent design and irreducible complexity. That worked out well for them.

Kitzmiller vs Dover ring a bell.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

Meyer and his agenda, that got blew out of the water.

Behe 'the expert' who hadn't read fuck all on some of his claims and didn't like to send his claims to peer reviewed papers. Preferred to just publish his own books. I wonder who would buy them? Christian Americans?

Good scientists let peers review their work.

The intelligent design argument is very persausive when it comes to DNA. There just isn't any naturalistic explanation to account for it. The information contained in DNA is better explained by a mind than by an undirected process. Why? Because it is not just like a language, it *is* a language.

It has an alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. It has error correction and redundancy. It is a digital information storage and retrieval system. It also transcends its medium. You can take the information in DNA and transfer it to computer disk with no loss of information. Information simply only comes from minds.

Your hope that science can account for this by naturalistic processes is misplaced. There is nothing like the world of the cell in nature. It's not just the same old same old on a smaller scale. This is something entirely new, and far more complex than darwin even imagined.

Here are a couple of quotes:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Intelligent design is the only coherent explanation for DNA which is available. So your utter dismissal of it, when you in fact have nothing to replace it with, is ridiculous. Another informative video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeCxKzYi...re=related

---

(October 31, 2011 at 7:08 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 31, 2011 at 12:47 am)lucent Wrote: I think it's extremely arrogant for atheists to write off the spiritual experiences of billions of people as a delusion.

As opposed to writing off the spiritual experience of billions of people as being the work of demons?

The issue isn't a particular group of people. Satan has deceived the whole world, and there are many in the church today who follow false doctrines. The church is becoming utterly apostate. So, I am not excluding anyone from this equation.

(October 31, 2011 at 7:43 am)lucent Wrote: There is nothing like the world of the cell in nature.

WTF..........

A finite entity cannot be omnipresent as the void is infinite. Why then is there a god only at this point in the infinite void.

Alright, I shall leave you to your 'delucents' at this point. I'm in no mood to butt heads against the brick wall you've built up around that pink, fluffy little cloud in your head. I will just make the observation, not original to me but pertinent to the topic in hand, that it's interesting how science gets it absolutely right whenever you (generalising) want new drug treatments, cleaner energy, better consumer electronics, etc; yet is completely, utterly, 180° wrong when it comes to matters such as cosmology, evolutionary biology etc to which the holy books lay claim. A rational person should know why that is. Do you?

(October 31, 2011 at 7:13 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Or as opposed to writing off the scientific literature that explains a lot of those experiences?

When there is a theory of consciousness which can explain how a person having only one cenimeter of brain tissue on the end of his spinal cord, the rest of his skull being empty space, can have an above average iq and be graduating with a degree in advanced mathematics, perhaps ill take it more seriouisly:

http://www.rense.com/general63/brain.htm

Also, it would be nice if it could be explained why people are having conscious experiences after brain death..

---

(October 31, 2011 at 7:51 am)IATIA Wrote: A finite entity cannot be omnipresent as the void is infinite. Why then is there a god only at this point in the infinite void.

The void is just a little white speck. There is no such thing as no-thing..God always was and always will be.

---

(October 31, 2011 at 7:54 am)Stimbo Wrote: Alright, I shall leave you to your 'delucents' at this point. I'm in no mood to butt heads against the brick wall you've built up around that pink, fluffy little cloud in your head. I will just make the observation, not original to me but pertinent to the topic in hand, that it's interesting how science gets it absolutely right whenever you (generalising) want new drug treatments, cleaner energy, better consumer electronics, etc; yet is completely, utterly, 180° wrong when it comes to matters such as cosmology, evolutionary biology etc to which the holy books lay claim. A rational person should know why that is. Do you?

I'm not against science, I am against bad science. Like I've said before..when I became a Christian I believed in evolution, and was willing to accomodate it within my faith..until I actually investigated it and found it to be totally lacking the supposed evidence that had always been drilled into my head as being so totally overwhelming. Same thing with the cosmology..I found out the big bang theory has more holes than swiss cheese. I am interested in the truth and there is no truth to be found there.

(October 31, 2011 at 7:54 am)lucent Wrote: I'm not against science, I am against bad science.

Yet you speak it fluently.

(October 31, 2011 at 7:54 am)lucent Wrote: I'm not against science, I am against bad science. Like I've said before..when I became a Christian I believed in evolution, and was willing to accomodate it within my faith..until I actually investigated it and found it to be totally lacking the supposed evidence that had always been drilled into my head as being so totally overwhelming. Same thing with the cosmology..I found out the big bang theory has more holes than swiss cheese. I am interested in the truth and there is no truth to be found there.

And where did you do your investigations?

AIG? Kent Hovind? Ray Comfort?

Or did you read some real books on the subjects?

And you're a Born again Christian I see.

Worse than reformed smokers in my opinion.