Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[agnosticator]

No. Its that nothing, or a eternal universe, in what form whatever, is not a good explanation for our existence. God is.

 

To a kindergartener.

God is not a good explanation . Provide a coherent definition as to what God is, where God is, and what evidence there is for God. And why not any other Gods fit the explanation.

[agnosticator]

You deny the existence of Ex-Christians,

 

Yes, i do. Nobody, that has truly born again and sealed with the holy spirit, will renounce his faith.

 

Spoken by a "true" christian. Your faith is showing. You are no better than the devil you fear.

[Vigile]

Facts and rational thinking usually chase them away.

 

No, its rather the unwillingness of atheists to admit the obvious......

 

I'm not an atheist. Show me something obvious so that I can admit it. Be sure this "obvious" thing follows from objective evidence.

 

from Dr.Werner Gitt, translated from german:

 

Did you know that the human genome (genetic material)

carries 3 billion genetic letters in it? If a typewriter would write this code in a single line, so

this chain would be as long as from the North Pole to the Equator.

If a good secretary would write with 300 strokes per minute

220 working days per year without interruption at a eight-hour day

, so it would not be enough, her entire working life

to set these letters to tap. She would indeed be busy 95 years! the

used storage medium in the form of double-helical

DNA molecule requires only the extremely small volume

of three billionths of cubic millimeters (3 × 10-9 mm3).

Here such a huge storage density has been realized as nothing else

known to human kind. Extrapolating the amount of information in

human genome is contained in pocket books (each with 160

Pages) in order, then this corresponds toalmost 12 000

Copies.

 

Did you know that a scientific programmer in the

Average developes about 40 sign design program codes per day? Assuming only one of the

Amount of characters in the human genome from, then for

This programming task needs an army of over 8000 programmers

to work their entire career only to develope

this project

 

Its obvious that nothing else than a intelligent creator is able to create DNA . Scientific knowledge evidences intelligent design........

 

 

That's pretty stupid for a guy smart enough to be on the genome project. Making the argument comparing random probabilities against the evolution of the genome, which was guided by principles of survival of the fittest and natural selection, [pay attention, natural selection is kinda key] is just dumb or disingenuous and is apples to chainsaws.

[Vigile]

Facts and rational thinking usually chase them away.

 

No, its rather the unwillingness of atheists to admit the obvious......

Which is that your delusions and imaginations are real and reality is not???

 

No. Its that nothing, or a eternal universe, in what form whatever, is not a good explanation for our existence. God is.

 

Which is what he just said. Your post is kinda redundant don't you think?

[bdp]

You deny the existence of Ex-Christians,

 

Yes, i do. Nobody, that has truly born again and sealed with the holy spirit, will renounce his faith.

 

*raises hand* Right here. IT HAPPENS - deal with it, if you really have any shred of real integrity.

[bdp]

 

That's pretty stupid for a guy smart enough to be on the genome project.

 

Well his name IS 'gitt.'

[agnosticator]

*raises hand* Right here. IT HAPPENS - deal with it, if you really have any shred of real integrity.

 

Sorry, he doesn't

[sdelsolray]

Our budding creationist has disappeared. Facts and rational thinking usually chase them away.

 

No, its rather the unwillingness of atheists to admit the obvious......

 

What is "obvious" to you is not obvious to me, or others. Many, myself included, are not emotional and psychological prisoners of your particular religious beliefs. You are. Unlike you, we do not need to constantly feed the cognitive dissonance which results from the intellectual dishonesty and irrational thinking you must constantly employ to maintain your religious faith. That is your dysfunction, and yours alone. Due to the depth of your addiction to certain religious mythology, empirical evidence and rational thinking are your enemies.

[sdelsolray]

 

from Dr.Werner Gitt, translated from german:

 

Did you know that the human genome (genetic material)

carries 3 billion genetic letters in it? If a typewriter would write this code in a single line, so

this chain would be as long as from the North Pole to the Equator.

If a good secretary would write with 300 strokes per minute

220 working days per year without interruption at a eight-hour day

, so it would not be enough, her entire working life

to set these letters to tap. She would indeed be busy 95 years! the

used storage medium in the form of double-helical

DNA molecule requires only the extremely small volume

of three billionths of cubic millimeters (3 × 10-9 mm3).

Here such a huge storage density has been realized as nothing else

known to human kind. Extrapolating the amount of information in

human genome is contained in pocket books (each with 160

Pages) in order, then this corresponds toalmost 12 000

Copies.

 

Did you know that a scientific programmer in the

Average developes about 40 sign design program codes per day? Assuming only one of the

Amount of characters in the human genome from, then for

This programming task needs an army of over 8000 programmers

to work their entire career only to develope

this project

 

Its obvious that nothing else than a intelligent creator is able to create DNA . Scientific knowledge evidences intelligent design........

 

An argument from incredulity, aka argument from ignorance. This is a logical fallacy. To repair this irrational thinking only requires some education. Consider the following:

 

The complexity of human DNA is due to physics, chemistry and natural selection.

 

Now, that is as mere conclusion. I'll leave it to you (if you are interested) to do your own research to find the empirical evidence and arguments which support that conclusion.

[bdp]

*raises hand* Right here. IT HAPPENS - deal with it, if you really have any shred of real integrity.

 

Sorry, he doesn't

 

And, of course, there's the fact that there exists no 'spirit' to 'seal' anyone anyway - if there were it wouldn't be possible for anyone to walk away.

[agnosticator]

And, of course, there's the fact that there exists no 'spirit' to 'seal' anyone anyway - if there were it wouldn't be possible for anyone to walk away.

 

That's an excellent point. But he would retort with something like, there aren't many true christians. Yet he has no way of knowing if it's true, since being saved is a subjective experience. But I say his fruits are not fruits of the spirit. So goes narcissism (as you said earlier).

[mymistake]

Did you know that the human genome carries 3 billion genetic letters in it?

 

Yes I did. In fact that is over 2.9 billion genetic letters that humans and chimpanzees share as an identical match. This means that the link between humans and chimpanzees is not missing. We can see it right in our DNA.

 

Its obvious that nothing else than a intelligent creator is able to create DNA . Scientific knowledge evidences intelligent design........

 

Did the meaning of "obvious" change? Where is the objective evidence of this "intelligent creator"? If this "intelligent creator" is so obvious then why do you not provide the objective evidence rather than complain about atheists?

[mymistake]

You deny the existence of Ex-Christians,

 

Yes, i do. Nobody, that has truly born again and sealed with the holy spirit, will renounce his faith.

 

 

Well then, clearly you are the one who denies the obvious. Please do not project your problem onto atheists. Ex-Christians do exist. Objective evidence can be seen all over this website.

[believeingod]

That's pretty stupid for a guy smart enough to be on the genome project. Making the argument comparing random probabilities against the evolution of the genome, which was guided by principles of survival of the fittest and natural selection, [pay attention, natural selection is kinda key] is just dumb or disingenuous and is apples to chainsaws.

 

it seems you should study the issue a littlebit more. natural selection starts, when the first life form already exists. Which is not the case, as long as the first living cell is not formed. which depends on the genome fully functioning.

 

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

 

After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

[believeingod]

Due to the depth of your addiction to certain religious mythology, empirical evidence and rational thinking are your enemies.

 

NO, they are yours. As i am showing again, and again, and again..... but because of your wishful thinking, you cannot admit it..

[believeingod]

 

 

An argument from incredulity, aka argument from ignorance.

 

 

no, the oposit is the case. because of scientific evidence, i conclude logically God as the best explanation for the given phenomena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The complexity of human DNA is due to physics, chemistry and natural selection.

 

baseless assertion. DNA is not only complex, but its complex, specified codified information.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

 

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some time in the past, then life could have begun.

Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.

Where did all this information come from? Some try to explain it this way: imagine a professor taking all the letters of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them in a hat. He then passes the hat around to students of his class and asks each to randomly select a letter.

It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems) of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes, given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA, then life could have begun.

On the surface, this sounds like a logical argument. However, there is a basic, fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.

In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

[mymistake]

That's pretty stupid for a guy smart enough to be on the genome project. Making the argument comparing random probabilities against the evolution of the genome, which was guided by principles of survival of the fittest and natural selection, [pay attention, natural selection is kinda key] is just dumb or disingenuous and is apples to chainsaws.

 

it seems you should study the issue a littlebit more. natural selection starts, when the first life form already exists. Which is not the case, as long as the first living cell is not formed. which depends on the genome fully functioning.

 

In that case I don't understand why you brought up the number of gene characters. Your issue would be with abiogenesis. That still doest not show where atheists are refusing to admit anything that is obvious.

 

http://www.detecting...biogenesis.html

 

After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

 

 

 

 

Evolution does not address the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis. Using abiogenesis as an objection to natural selection indicates a lack of understanding regarding these concepts. What is the reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might occur within intelligent design? Would that be divine magic?

 

By the way I liked your old avatar. It is always your choice to have one or not but I thought your old one was cool.

[mymistake]

Due to the depth of your addiction to certain religious mythology, empirical evidence and rational thinking are your enemies.

 

NO, they are yours. As i am showing again, and again, and again..... but because of your wishful thinking, you cannot admit it..

 

Did you show how empirical evidence and rational thinking are sdeisolray's enemies somewhere else? You didn't do it here. I would like to see this thing you say you did again and again.

[Noggy]

This is an insane amount of circle jerking, guys. Go get laid, srs.

[mymistake]

 

 

An argument from incredulity, aka argument from ignorance.

 

 

no, the oposit is the case. because of scientific evidence, i conclude logically God as the best explanation for the given phenomena.

 

 

 

The complexity of human DNA is due to physics, chemistry and natural selection.

 

baseless assertion. DNA is not only complex, but its complex, specified codified information.

 

 

I don't know which claim is funnier. You think science is baseless assertion and you think baseless assertion is science. Maybe that is why you think atheists won't admit the obvious and you think that you are not denying the obvious.

 

Can you come back to reality?

[sdelsolray]

Due to the depth of your addiction to certain religious mythology, empirical evidence and rational thinking are your enemies.

 

NO, they are yours. As i am showing again, and again, and again..... but because of your wishful thinking, you cannot admit it..

 

Besides being addicted to certain religious mythology, you also use projection as a coping strategy. Why am I not surprised?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

An argument from incredulity, aka argument from ignorance.

 

 

no, the oposit is the case. because of scientific evidence, i conclude logically God as the best explanation for the given phenomena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The complexity of human DNA is due to physics, chemistry and natural selection.

 

baseless assertion. DNA is not only complex, but its complex, specified codified information.

 

http://www.answersin...re-really-a-god

 

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some time in the past, then life could have begun.

Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.

Where did all this information come from? Some try to explain it this way: imagine a professor taking all the letters of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them in a hat. He then passes the hat around to students of his class and asks each to randomly select a letter.

It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems) of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes, given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA, then life could have begun.

On the surface, this sounds like a logical argument. However, there is a basic, fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.

In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

 

 

Ah yes, another Stephen Meyer acolyte. He's a creationist hack who attempts to sound all "sciency" in his book entitled "Signature in the Cell". He lies, misrepresents and makes things up, out of whole cloth. This is typical for Discovery Institute whores like Meyer. You have obviously have fallen for it. Again, why am I not surprised? "Specified coded information" is a nonsense term, created for gullible creationists, like yourself. Show me some peer reviewed analysis, not Creotard lies.

 

The complexity of human DNA is due to physics, chemistry and natural selection.

 

This is not a baseless assertion. I invited you to research the claim. Gee, there must be over 1,000,000 sources of evidence and peer reviewed arguments supporting this claim. You appear quite lazy. That, and you are addicted to particular religious dogma. You have my sympathy.

[bdp]

You appear quite lazy. That, and you are addicted to particular religious dogma. You have my sympathy.

 

And my contempt.

 

btw it's spelled 'opposite.'

[sdelsolray]

You appear quite lazy. That, and you are addicted to particular religious dogma. You have my sympathy.

 

And my contempt.

 

btw it's spelled 'opposite.'

 

Over the years I have conversed with hundreds of creationists (for lack of a better one word description). Usually, they are confused, willfully ignorant and afraid (among other things). Of course, many put up a strong facade of righteousness, absolutism and/or feigned humility, which becomes rather transparent after a while. Regardless, they (usually) are not deserving of scorn, disdain or contempt, but rather are in need of compassion, pity and guidance. Most were indoctrinated as children with religious dogma. Most fear death, change and shunning from their peers.

 

Take our budding creationist, believeingod. He's a typical creationist chump, big on lashing out and short on rational thinking. His most impressive skill so far skill is the ability to find creationist whore websites followed by cutting and pasting links to them. Most likely, he was abused by others into his sorry situation. He seems to have a decent intellect, but hasn't yet learned how to use that intellect in an honest and straightforward fashion. That is sad.

 

No, I don't feel contempt for the unfortunate fellow (at least not yet). I have sympathy and pity for someone so lost and confused and unable to stand up for them self and experience reality.

[believeingod]

 

 

 

Ah yes, another Stephen Meyer acolyte. He's a creationist hack who attempts to sound all "sciency" in his book entitled "Signature in the Cell". He lies, misrepresents and makes things up, out of whole cloth. This is typical for Discovery Institute whores like Meyer. You have obviously have fallen for it. Again, why am I not surprised? "Specified coded information" is a nonsense term, created for gullible creationists, like yourself. Show me some peer reviewed analysis, not Creotard lies.

 

hahaha....thats funny. You should tell Dawkins also, that he is a liar......

 

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

 

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.