(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: If it isn't actually information I wonder why scientists call it information:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...al-6493050

http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/RESEARCH/0019

Or why forensic DNA is an information science..

It's not convenient to say that DNA has an alphabet, grammar, semantics, etc..it is a digital code far superior to the best codes we have developed. It is not just a pattern like a snowflake.

Because they're trying to explain a subject to an audience that understands little to nothing about the subject in a language that is understandable to the audience. When an apologist says "The information in DNA" he is talking about an entirely different thing in an entirely different context than a scientist who says "the information in DNA". Because apologetics is a con game, and science is not. I'm criticizing your apologetic bullshit, not their honest inquiry. Next.

Quote:The idea of fine tuning did not originate with the intelligent design community. It is not even controversial to suggest that the Universe is fine tuned for life. It is only controversial to suggest that there was a fine tuner. Physicists Paul Davies said:

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"

No, it didn't and neither did the term anthropic bias. Which is the realization that caused those who are not in the apologetics con game to attach the quotes to "fine-tuned for life". The universe is "fine tuned for life" in exactly the same sense that it is fine tuned for death, police sirens, and tassles on bicycles.

Quote:There has been research to suggest that the reason we die is because it is in our programming, and this "feature" could be turned off. They speak of developing artificial intelligences that could assume the entire body of human knowledge instantaneously and copy it among themselves. There doesn't seem to be any reason we couldn't live forever, and it is in fact one of the major goals of science to come up with a solution for immortality. If we can become immortal, there is no reason an eternal being couldn't exist.

We die because or bodies degrade over time, because we are biological machines. It's not a command directive that says "today we die". Sure, we might be able to extend our lives greatly, but eventually things will be beyond the point of repair. As of right now, there is not even a proven strategy for increasing longevity, and you're suggesting that research suggests that we may be able to turn off the "death feature"? Bullshit. Transference of consciousnes to a machine, but BL..how would they get the soul into the circuits? There doesn;t seem to be any reason we can;t live forever? Sure, if you intentionally ignore all of the reasons that lead us to conclude that it is likely impossible for us to live forever. It was also a major goal of science to develop perpetual motion machines, that doesn't mean that science did or could or ever will develop such a thing (unless very well demonstrated fundamentals of what we know about physics are completely overturned. Possible, but highly implausible in many areas). Your if is showing, and supposing we could, then we would be immortal beings. What does this have to do with god? Not a damned thing.

Quote:No, I suggested that the reason the writings end at a certain point is because of the flood. There was a pre-flood civilization before the flood which was very advanced, certainly far more than the civilizations of antiquity.

The writings begin at the point where we developed writing, which is only a small fraction of the total time that we have been here. There is no evidence for your deluge, it is a fairy tale. Biblical Atlantis? Again, bullshit, there was no such civilization.

Quote:I'm still waiting on your evidence that there isn't a God, as you asserted in our earlier conversation.

Your lack of evidence combined with your own fairy tales is all the evidence required. You have nothing to show for your god, the stories you lean on as the only source of information about this god are demonstrably false. If a god exists, it is not the one you've thrown your chips in with, I'm sorry for your luck.

(January 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The Book of Acts takes similar flights of fancy. It goes beyond asserting that Yahweh, Jesus, angels and demons can perform miracles or work magic. Mere mortals can do the same with just enough faith. Such acts of magic include:

1. Speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-14, 19:6-9)
2. Cause earthquakes (4:31)
3. Cast out demons (5:16, 8:7)
4. See God (7:55)
5. Heal Palsy (9:33-34)
6. Raise the dead (9:36-end)
7. Cause blindness (13:11)
8. Heal a crippled person (14:8-10)
9. Heal the sick (19:11-12. 28:8-9)
10. Survive poisonous snake bite (28:4-5)

See. Even the Bible confirms that witchcraft is real.

It's settled now once and for all.

Witches RULE!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I always turn to the bible when I want a definitive answer on the existence of fairy tale creatures...

Abra, I don't think that the witches of the world would want to be associated with any part of the bible, even in jest, lol.

Quote:I would suppose not, but I was wondering what you thought about it.

It is a thinly disguised argument from personal incredulity. Your assertion that something is impossible is effectively worthless and may mean only that you lack the imagination needed.

I agree that if any one of a billion variables in evolution had not happened or had happened in a different way that we would not be sitting here having this discussion....for the umpteenth time in my case.

DNA is a massively complex coding for 4 basic chemicals. That it could attain such complexity in a billion years surprises me not at all. In short, I do not need your 'god' as an explanation. Frankly, what you wrote sounds like little more than creationist drivel.

(February 10, 2012 at 1:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: I don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I always turn to the bible when I want a definitive answer on the existence of fairy tale creatures...

Abra, I don't think that the witches of the world would want to be associated with any part of the bible, even in jest, lol.

Sorry, I couldn't resist a little humor.

Besides, I working my way toward earning more blaspheme points.

After all, since Jesus paid such a damn high price for my sins I think it's only fair that I collect as many of them as I possibly can so he has something worthy of forgiving.

It's only fair to him don't you think?

Absolutely.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: A change in many of those values would make life completely impossible, such as chemicals not being able to bond, no stars, no galaxies, no enough matter, etc. Whether there is some form of life that could potentially exist under some of these values is irrelevent, since we are talking about the sum of all of them..even if it were only a few of them, or even one of them, such as cosmological constant, you are still dealing with numbers bigger than the number of particles in the Universe. Neither do you have any evidence for any other sort of life; you just assume it is possible.

This is a good example of contradictory beliefs you Christians hold. On one hand you believe that life without specific material structure provided by the current universe is impossible. On the other hand, you believe that your life is independent of the material world (eternal life in heaven or hell). If you truly believe the latter, you simply cannot argue that no life would or could be possible without this specific set of universal constants

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I don't think it's possible for them to be any other value than what they are, because they were created to be as they are. I don't have enough to faith to believe in self-creating Universes. I am simply arguing against the paradign that you believe in, which is that nothing created everything. In the scientific paradigm, it is certainly possible that the Universe could have been much different, which is why they have theories of multiple Universes.

I don't believe that "nothing created everything". That's because the concept of "being created" simply cannot apply to the universe.

But, since you don't think that these constants are tunable, then you cannot say that they were fine-tuned.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: There is nothing to rule out a timeless efficient cause. If isn't an argument.

There is a timeless efficient cause. And that cause is the universe itself.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Something eternal exists outside time.

First of all, nothing can exist outside time. The very concept of existence is time-bound.

Secondly, that is an evasion, not an answer. If god is infinite and actual infinity cannot exist, then god cannot exist. If god exists then he is finite, i.e. limited and therefore not truly god but simply a superior being.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Because it isn't actually infinite? Why do you think a potential infinite means? An actual infinite is completed, a potential infinite is series that is only potentially endless

For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different.

—Aristotle, Physics, book 3, chapter 6.

You can always add one more, but in the adding it is a finite number of things you are dealing wtih.

You do realize that Aristotle is talking about concepts regarding actual infinite, don't you?

Any concept regarding an actual infinite would be complete and therefore not be infinite. Therefore, any concepts regarding actual infinites can only exist as potential infinites.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: No, they're not..see above.

Yes they are. Just because humans would never be able to count them all does not mean they are limited.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: It's not arrogant to believe that the terms "morning and evening" in correlation to "the first day" refer to 24 hour days. You would have to work at misinterpreting it.

It is arrogant to believe that the planet the "morning and evening" were measured on was the earth. Because then you are automatically assuming that the planet was created for the express purpose of being a home to humans.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Are they more fragile than soft tissue? How is it that blood cells can survive intact for "70 million years" but stone tablets couldn't last a few thousand years? Could it be that the sacred cow of deep time is flawed?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...issue.html

---

Obviously, the texts weren't fossilized. Fossilization is a rare even that takes place in nature, not in libraries. The environment these original texts were kept in weren't conducive to fossilization. And a good thing to. If they had been, only a few would have survived and a great amount of knowledge would have been lost. By copying rather than attempting preservation, they ensured that the knowledge would be passed on, even if the original medium is lost.

Quote:It is not even controversial to suggest that the Universe is fine tuned for life.

Actually, it is ridiculous to suggest that, not merely controversial. We have found life no where else even in our own solar system....let alone the universe. That would make your god a piss-poor "fine tuner."

(February 10, 2012 at 12:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: We die because or bodies degrade over time, because we are biological machines. It's not a command directive that says "today we die".

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adve...ve-forever

Quote: Your lack of evidence combined with your own fairy tales is all the evidence required. You have nothing to show for your god.

Apply that logic to the Big Bang. Where would you get the idea the universe created itself spontaneously? You’re essentially saying, “I don’t think God exists, so therefore life arose by itself.” You’re defaulting to the Big Bang, which is just as (or even less than) evidenced than God. We have a remarkably accurate and complex Bible, morality, experience and more in favor of God, but absolutely nothing for the Big Bang other than the requirement that matter came to exist. Clearly, you can't dismiss something just because you can't see it. We can't see gravity but we can see its effects. There are dozens of scientific laws you can't put your finger on, but they still must be considered. God must also be considered. It has long been apparent to people that the world was designed--it's only recently we have challenged this in their minds. The burden of proof is on evolutionists to prove their alternative to the most obvious and simplest solution (see Ockham's razor).

It's amazing to me that you can link that article and yet mention fine tuning, or any designer and his design. Have you actually read the article?

Where, in that article, do you find any support for any of the claims you made with regards to our possible bid for immortality?

Where, in that article, do you find anything at all that would give me reason to restate myself, or reconsider my statements made with regards to death or longevity?

The universe came from "we don't know". How hard is that to understand? You're not giving an accurate representation of the theory you're attempting to argue against, and there's a name for that. Whether or not god exists didn't figure into any of my decisions regarding truth statements about the natural world. Not even remotely, so try again. I'm not defaulting to anything. Big Bang Cosmology is currently the most widely accepted cosmology because it better fits the evidence we have available.

Your bible is remarkably complex and accurate by what metrics? Complex as in a complex piece of literature? No, there are far better candidates for that title. Accurate as in factually accurate with respect to reality? Not even close. Morality? Sure, vicarious redemption and subsequent scapegoating is just so damned morally righteous that I almost can't even handle it. Your comment here about the big bang has been handled above. Again, you're talking out of your ass.

The effect of gravity is gravity....wtf are you talking about? I don't think you actually know....God has been considered, and god has been dismissed. Next. It was long apparent to people that dragons stole off maidens or brought good fortune, it's only recently that we have challenged this in their minds. Yes, the burden of proof for evolution was on those scientists who proposed it, they met that burden, and here we are.

(You don't know very much about Ockham's razor, and the massive dose of irony involved, do you?)