So your an Athiest

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I wouldn't worry, your credibility hasn't been affected one bit.

Incidentally, going back to the Sir Isaac Newton thing. I already said that the beliefs of scientists - or indeed anyone, especially those cited as an authority - don't hold a candle to the work that they do. Interestingly, you agreed. Now please tell the class for what is the great man best known to history - his contributions to physics, theology or alchemy?

Physics clearly. I'm just saying he was a Christian an he could still do science. I doubt there is a correlation between religious beliefs and scientific productivity.

That depends on what you mean by "religious beliefs". If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing impartial science, as in the Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis crew, then you're not a scientist at all. But yes, as I said, many scientists are also Christians, including my Beloved.

[AAA]

No I don't deny the facts, I just have a different interpretation of them. If we don't allow discussion of the scientific evidence, then we will never get closer to truth.

---

You make statements with very basic untruths such as this:

In order for evolution (molecules to man) to work, you need to actually increase the number of nucleotides, and point mutations don't do that (accept again the frameshift, which I still believe to always disrupt the protein's function).

 
So yes, you do deny the facts.

What fact did I deny??? That statement is completely true. Maybe you don't know what a frameshift mutation is, but it isn't good

---

Physics clearly. I'm just saying he was a Christian an he could still do science. I doubt there is a correlation between religious beliefs and scientific productivity.

That depends on what you mean by "religious beliefs". If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing impartial science, as in the Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis crew, then you're not a scientist at all. But yes, as I said, many scientists are also Christians, including my Beloved.

I agree that Answers in Genesis put their religious beliefs ahead of science, but I think the Discovery Institute is more impartial. Steven Meyer is one of the most rational people that I have heard, and I think you should watch some of his debates (if you haven't already) and see if you find flaws in the argument.

[Mermaid]

---

You make statements with very basic untruths such as this:
 
So yes, you do deny the facts.

What fact did I deny??? That statement is completely true. Maybe you don't know what a frameshift mutation is, but it isn't good

I give up. You know way more than me about biology. You're RIGHT!

[Mr.wizard]

I will make this easy on you AAA, I will except your premise that evolution and abiogenesis are both false. Now that we have excepted your premise that they are false, give me the evidence for your designer?

There is a lot of chemical information in the cell. Information comes from intelligence as far as we know. There are molecular machines that act specifically with a purpose due to their structure. Specifically functioning complex molecules are characteristics we would expect to find in a designed system. The default conclusion that we should come to based on this is that intelligence played a role in its formation. If another working solution provides itself, then we can move away from the idea of intelligent design, but I do not think that solution is there yet.

So your proof for a designer, is that because cells operate in ways that cells operate ,you can't see them doing that without a designer? Wow argument from ignorance again, who cares what you think or believe, I asked you to prove your designer.

[Silver]

I asked you to prove your designer.

You must forego all reason and logic and just believe for the sake of believing, much like children being asked to clap for Tinker Bell to live during a Peter Pan movie, because goodness knows credulity is solely dependent upon one's inability to reason rather than one's ability to be an adult.

[AAA]

There is a lot of chemical information in the cell. Information comes from intelligence as far as we know. There are molecular machines that act specifically with a purpose due to their structure. Specifically functioning complex molecules are characteristics we would expect to find in a designed system. The default conclusion that we should come to based on this is that intelligence played a role in its formation. If another working solution provides itself, then we can move away from the idea of intelligent design, but I do not think that solution is there yet.

So your proof for a designer, is that because cells operate in ways that cells operate ,you can't see them doing that without a designer? Wow argument from ignorance again, who cares what you think or believe, I asked you to prove your designer.

It's not ignorance!!!!!!  There are positive characteristics of design. I don't have to wait for a naturalistic explanation to arise, when the origin of such characteristics have always been the product of an intelligence.

[Silver]

There are positive characteristics of design.

Is there any PROOF of design?

[Mr.wizard]

So your proof for a designer, is that because cells operate in ways that cells operate ,you can't see them doing that without a designer? Wow argument from ignorance again, who cares what you think or believe, I asked you to prove your designer.

It's not ignorance!!!!!!  There are positive characteristics of design. I don't have to wait for a naturalistic explanation to arise, when the origin of such characteristics have always been the product of an intelligence.

"Argument from ignorance" is a logical fallacy that you continue use, i'm not calling you ignorant!!!!

[AAA]

I asked you to prove your designer.

You must forego all reason and logic and just believe for the sake of believing, much like children being asked to clap for Tinker Bell to live during a Peter Pan movie, because goodness knows credulity is solely dependent upon one's inability to reason rather than one's ability to be an adult.

What would count as proof? How would you expect a designer to communicate with us? Maybe a chemical language within each of us? Oh wait, that exists. Maybe mathematical structures that arise from inanimate materials such as the Fibonacci sequence governing the shape of hurricanes and spiral arms of galaxies? that's there too. How about sound waves that have a built in way to arrange objects into complex geometric mathematical structures? That exists too (look up cymatics). It seems to me that you and Mr. Wizard will only accept that there was a designer if he walks right up to you and creates a new universe right in front of you so you can watch. That may not even be enough

[FatAndFaithless]

Supposedly this designer could effortlessly confirm his existence to me without relying on you to spread the word. I'll just be waiting for his call.