(3 )Biologist Loses in Debate Against Intelligent Design??? Part 3 of 11

[gregrutz]

Sorry to hear ID lost in court. I don't think Meyer even showed up.

[gregrutz]

WTF is ''information'' Did he just make that up so he could say all theories are wrong if they can't explain something he just made up ?!?

DNA can copy itself or be copied to make a protein, it does not need someone to tell it how molecules work.

[owensphil]

@gregrutz

>WTF is ''information''

coded genetic instructions

Wow you are getting bolder and bolder with your ignorance.

Did you even notice that the evolutionist that he is debating here had no problem with "information"

[gregrutz]

@owensphil And why can't Meyer figure out where the information came from?

[owensphil]

@gregrutz

>And why can't Meyer figure out where the information came from?

.

. Gitt’s Universal Laws for Information

- It is impossible to set up, store, or transmit information without using a code. -It is impossible to have information without a sender.

- It is impossible that information can exist without having had a mental source.

[gregrutz]

@owensphil DNA is a code and it works fine without a desinger.

DNA does not transmit information, it is just copied.

Where does a rock get the information to know which way to fall?

What mental source tell a snowflake how many sides to have?

[gregrutz]

We will make something up called 'INFO" and you can't explain it so I am right and you are wrong.  Nice argument.

[wimahlers]

Lie!

Meyer refers to Miller's explanation of the TTSS. He completely, and deliberateyl, obfuscate the point Miller made. Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellar motor could not possibly be reduced to other components. Miller proved it could. It is irrelevant if Behe proves that in this particular case the TTSS came after the bacterial flagellum. It is the irreducible claim that is falsified. See tinyurl*com/96zm

On a side note: Behe is desperately trying to find a way out to uphold his claim.

[wimahlers]

Fail!

Meyer really uses an extreme loose definition, like none at all, for the term "information" with respect to DNA or any living matter.

Not to mention the fact that he immediately claims, without a shred of proof of course, that "ribosome engineering" (1) is guided by intelligence. He totally unfounded introduced the term "engineering" into his statement. A concept he was supposed to proof. He basically says: ID proves engineering and this is proved by ID.

(1) Referring to the RNA world.

[Casshyr]

Until you can prove scientifically the existence of God, anything that involves God is not science. QED.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr One can prove God through logic. Logic is superior to science. Science requires logic be true for science to be valid. Science is only a model, not provable.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo science is based on logic. What logic do you have that prove God? and by God, i mean a specific kind of God (i.e. a Christian God). You can't say "look how complex life is, therefore there must be a creator". Sure, there may have been a creator, but what kind? Super aliens? Jesus? Allah? Zeus? Buddah? I like to see how you can use logic to prove that.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Kalam Argument: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: Universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. QED The cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial or it would be circular reasoning that time, matter and space existed prior to time, matter and space. Cause existed prior without the universe; therefore, freely chose so cause it personal. Summary: Cause of universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal. Second.....

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo This logic is basically attacking abiogenesis and big bang theory. You are attacking the origin of life and origin of universe, saying there must have been a creator. Maybe, maybe not. But that has no relevance on evolution. Evolution is about what happens AFTER life has been "created". Evolution doesn't care how life starts, it's a theory about how life evolves after the first life forms have been introduced (via whatever means, we don't know and we don't care)

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo and also keep in mind, i demand you to provide logic to prove a Christina God (or whatever God that you believe). So far you have only presented argument for an all general creator, which can be a Hindu elephant God, Zeus, or one of the African tribes' deity for all i care.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr No, a God that is immaterial, space-less, timeless and personal includes on three gods: Christian, Islam and Judaism. 

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "No, a God that is immaterial, space-less, timeless and personal includes on three gods: Christian, Islam and Judaism. " => THAT IS SO DISCRIMINATIVE AGAINST OTHER CULTURES! You don't understand enough about Asian beliefs to make such claim! And besides, we're getting out of the topic: the issue is, can you logically prove Christian God's existence? No you can't. That's why people keep saying you need faith. Ray Comfort admits it. Francis Collins admits it. And so should you.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr I'm saying major religions. Sure some person from Asia might believe in such a God. Listen, those people do not speak for Catholicism or Christianity. The Catholic Church is the foundation of Christianity and final authority for all morality and faith on earth. Faith is not blind faith, but faith with evidence. Blind faith is saying 'we do not know what caused the universe, but I believe (blindly) that science will give the answer.'

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "I'm saying major religions" => another discrimination! Hinduism makes up more population than Islam and Judaism combined. How can you say it's not major? Just because you live in North America doesn't mean rest of the world revolve around it too.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Hinduism does not believe in immaterial, space-less, timeless and personal God. Western Culture controls the world. USA and EU dominate the earth. Whites and Christianity made the scientific revolution because we had truth in logic and reasoning as a foundation. (China, India just made accidental science discoveries...there was no scientific processes.) USA and EU as Christians are more powerful than all other countries combined. Who can compare to our power?

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo wow ok now you are really sounding like a dick, no offence. I'm a big fan of Jesus and his teachings, and frankly, i don't think he will like what you are saying here. And btw, many military strategists will agree with the prediction that China, in the next 50 to 100 years, may very well be the next superpower, at the rate it's going. It already possesses the world largest genome sequencing facility, outstripping even US's NIH facilities. But that's not the point (CONTINUE)

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Haha That's funny. I'm sorry as I do not mean to be that way. I love military studies. No, China and/or Russia will be the strongest superpower within 5-10 years. Elite bankers are destroying the west and China will be the muscle for the New World Order. Where are you from? Oklahoma, USA here

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Okay, I just got home. I agree my arguments are only for a God that is a single deity. I will explain the Christian God in a few moments.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo well, if your explanation is going to involve a "trust in God and you will learn to see him" approach, then save your time. I have heard them all. What I'm interest is a way to SCIENTIFICALLY (or LOGICALLY) prove Christian's God's existence. I really really really think you can't. Otherwise, there won't be any atheists/agnostics/other theists at all, everybody would just be Christians if the answer really is indeed that obvious. I'm from Canada btw, no military power here lol.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Oh, no, it will involve logic. But remember, everyone uses faith daily without thinking. You have faith that your parents are yours yet without DNA testing. Even if DNA tested, tests can be false, bought, or deceived. Pictures also can be faked. Faith in other scientists. So, faith is used by everyone and not equal to blind faith or ignorance. Give me a little while 15min - 60min.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo true, except faith in God is different from faith in mankind. I have faith in my mom that she is my mom because prior experience with her has taught me to trust her in this kind of manner. But there is no evidence for this God in the first place. So sorry if i sound close-minded, but if your logic require "faith in God", then save your time, but that's not good enough for me. I am willing to have "faith in mankind", so if your logic relies on that, then sure, bring it.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr But it is not whether you trust your mom. It is whether she is your mom. Since you nor I were at our births, we can in the end only place faith in DNA, mothers, tests, etc.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr I agree that one cannot use the bible directly to prove the Christian God as the bible tells me so. Now, if the bible gives information OUTSIDE of itself, that would be evidence. For example, if the bible stated that in 2012 the sun will turn red, then black on 7/1/2012, that would be evidence from the bible from an outside source, namely the sun. The bible makes thousands of claims. Catholicism also has thousands of miracles. Example, Church has over 200 incorruptible bodies...

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo If the Bible can predict what's going to happen in the future (say tmr) and we validate that to be true, then that would be evidence. But Bible doesn't have that. It only has either vern general statements like "people will turn away from God" (DUH!), or statements like "Jesus would die and rise in 3 days" (WELL, CONSIDERING YOU WROTE THE BOOK 50 YEARS AFTER HE DIED, SURE, U CAN WRITE IT WHATEVER U WANT TO FIT UR STORY!)

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Yes, some claims are general and are weak evidence. I would not use such claims. Now, on the Resurrection of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written around 50-150 BC and prophesied the Messiah. He would be born in Bethlehem, from a virgin, etc. Roman's kept great records. There are over 25,000 original documents concerning Jesus. Romans were posted (about 10 soldiers) at His tomb, because Jews said the apostles might steal His body. If a Roman were to leave a duty, they were killed.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "prophesied the Messiah. He would be born in Bethlehem, from a virgin, etc" => i came across many websites that state Jesus, nor anything about his followers, were mentioned in dead sea scrolls. While I have not read this scroll myself, i have to say this makes the evidence sound fishy

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Mohammad never claimed to be God. So, logically, one can also deduced Jesus was one of the following: 1) lunatic 2) liar 3) Lord. At the age of 12, He debated and then taught the smartest rabbis in Jerusalem. Now, Jews are fairly smart people. So, rabbis were easy the top 1-5% of Jews. Say an IQ of 140. Jesus was 12 years old and teaching them. So, His IQ, from being man alone, would be 18 years old/12 years old = 1.5. 1.5 x 140 = 210 IQ. Now, He was shown to be smartest than all..210+

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr So, 200 IQ as a low estimate but 300 IQ as a high estimate. But it doesn't matter, except he was rational. He was not a lunatic. 2) liar - All the gospels and Jewish writings never showed Jesus to have ever lied. When you get to know someone, you always see their faults. But with Jesus, people always saw total perfection. No faults. John and Peter were the closest and said He was free from all sin.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo You forgot another option for Jesus: he is a martyr. Sure he may have been smart and moral. He has great ideas, and decides the best way to pass on the legacy is by being a martyr. btw, i won't agree Jesus is as smart as you presume. He thinks to cure people of diseases, you need to pray + draw demons out...if that's true, then the next time you get sick, don't go to a doctor, go to a priest. If Jesus is indeed so smart, he would tell people about bacteria + penicillin + vaccines.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Jesus appeared to 535 people after His death. Around 500 of them were pagans prior but heard of His death and converted after seeing Him. Jesus said, "Do not believe me unless I do miracles." Miracles are a great way of evidence. Jews admit from original documents called the 'Talment' that Jesus did preform miracles. The Apostles were afraid of the Romans during those 3 days and thought they would be also killed. They hide. But after seeing Jesus, they spoke openly in all the land...

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "Jesus appeared to 535 people after His death" => 2 problems i see with this: 1) we need to trust Paul's words, and giving that he was very vague on how he came by his information, this is fishy evidence. 2) book of Mormons also have a bunch of people witnessing and testifying miracles, but i don't suppose you would want to join Mormonism based on that.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Oh, yeah, I've seen three of the bodies myself in Rome. There are various degrees but most are very well...Google or YouTube: "incorruptible bodies". Catholic Church is the only religion in the world to claim miracles. People in religions claim miracles, but not the religion itself. Catholicism teaches that non-Catholics can go to heaven if they try to seek the truth. Example, the American Indians had no option for thousands of years. So, they would be judged only on the natural law.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "So, they would be judged only on the natural law." => yea except now u r sounding like a sale-person promoting your religious product. That's really not logic. I don't want to join ur religion simply for heaven, i want the proof. You gave good points earlier, but based on what i see, everything is still controversial, and when it is controversial, what this tells me is you need ot have faith in God. If something is indeed so clear cut like 1+1=2, there shouldn't be any controversy.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Well, Romans, Jews and Christians all wrote about the evidence of Jesus. There are 25,000 original documents. You know even the Roman Caesar sent his top investigator, friend and former general to Judea to investigate. After months of speaking with many witnesses, including apostles and Mary, and seeing miracles first hand (a girl he feel in love with died from her father for speaking with a Roman. She asked for St. Peter and he finally came. The investigator saw her wake up)...

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Mormonism is illogical for several reasons. Also, one logical proof is this: God is all-perfect, all-loving, all-powerful, infinite in all qualities (not quantities and infinities cannot exist in reality). If God is but one person, then He needed creatures to know love. He could NOT love without creating creatures to love. Huge problem for all but Christian God. Trinity states three persons in one God. So, He could love each person and not need creatures to know love.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Oh, yes, I believe in exorcisms. Now, like anything so are faked, mental illnesses, etc. But if you go to a real one, you will also believe. Oh! Near Death Experiences are another good evidence! There are many doctors writing books on them. 17 million in the USA alone. Now, as stated, maybe half are invalid. But the valid ones all experience the same things regardless of background. Some never even heard of Jesus! Another great evidence is the Miracle of the Sun!

[transtlantic]

@6630mcdo

NDE is a fraud. No doctor has ever proved NDE, but many have proven that NDE are artifacts of analysis.

"half invalid"...more like 100% are invalid. not one is a NDE.

And no... the fact they experience the same thing point out to the same biological events, not jesus, or other crap.

"last phase"? damn... you are a loony.

Lolol mary of fatima is quite a crap.

sin...lolol you cretards will always lose as soon as you start with the bible crap...

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr I do not know where you are on your path, but we are living in the last phase of the earth. Bible stated that 'Israel will have a re-birth near the last days.' Never happened to any country in history. Revelation is hard to read, but there are many prophecies now being made. Mary at Fatima warned mankind of its sin. She made many predictions. "If man does not turn from its sin, God will send another war during the rein of Pius XI. When the sky is illuminated by an unknown light,...

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr "...know that God is about to punish mankind for its sins." 1938 the northern lights were shown around the world going as low as southern Europe. Scientists said the northern lights could not go that far, so truly unknown lights. Now, this is shocking! Do you know WHO was the only person to see and understand??? Hitler! When Hitler was in his retreat, he saw the lights and said, "This is the sign! We have not yet shed blood, but now we will. Prepare the invasions."

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Miracle of the Sun: First time in history a miracle was told where and when it would occur. 70,000 people from many nations went to Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Many atheists were there and many communists atheist as government officials. The sun danced in the sky and people ran thinking the end of the world was coming. Then Mary receded the sun. The muddy ground (up to 12 inches of mud) was instantly dry. Engineers stated the energy needed would have killed everyone. The Secret of Fatima

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr We are living in a time like no other in human history. I believe that a third great war will soon occur. People will beg for a one world government. This will bring on Anti-Christ who would control the one world government.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Yes, but you must look at how they make them so. They use chemicals; embalm the bodies; soak weekly with certain chemicals; no air; chemicals to suck all water out; etc. Basically, advanced mummies. Catholic bodies are free from all natural means. Catholic Church has a Council of Doctors, which is 50-100 doctors and scientists from all religions even atheists and most countries. If there is a single natural explanation, it is presumed to be natural. It takes 5-30 years of research.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "Catholic Church has a Council of Doctors, which is 50-100 doctors and scientists from all religions even atheists and most countries." => actually a quick wiki search shows there are scientific references where scientists (probably atheists, but whatever) say they believe the bodies are indeed embalmed. So your assertion that everybody agrees the bodies are free of chemicals isn't correct, atheist scientists who analyze the bodies for one will disagree.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Read both sides. No body of an incorruptible is embalmed. Some have had scientists examine them. Papers published. I disagree with those contentions. Now, one true claim is that a few have plastic noses or ear since they were found when they were dung up to be without a nose. See Catholics will dig up a body so they can get a clothe or part of a bone. So, they are always found accidentally. See John Paul II is still incorrupt, but he was embalmed. Therefore, cannot be a claim.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "Read both sides. No body of an incorruptible is embalmed" => other literatures also claim saponification, or simply the burial grounds' cool and dry condition reserved for the special saints. This explain why you see similar preserved conditions for other important non-religous figures, like the head of King head as i pointed out earlier. I'm not saying ur wrong, but a logic should be clear and indisputable, but right now, this claim is faced with disputes.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr I do not believe any religion or science will be so clear as 1+1=2. I believe that is what you mean by evidence, correct? I've taken many science courses, and they are a long process of gathering information. Faith can be said to be similar. Something that is very strange about faith. Faith is something you believe THEN you understand. Everything else you understand then you believe.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo yea but i thought you said you can convince me with LOGIC (which should be clear-cut, no ambiguities). If your logics can be interpreted in so many ways, that's more like philosophy. I see logic as something that a computer can understand, like yes or no kind of thing.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr There are 40 prophecies written in the Old Testament about the Messiah. Example, He shall be hung upon a cross hundreds of years before crucifixion was even a method of death. Another, not a bone of Him shall be broken. He shall be rejected by the religiousness leaders. The exact time of His death given. Jesus could not have fulfilled them by just knowing them. Professor Peter Stoner of mathematics

YOUTUBE: Evidence Jesus Was God (1 of 2) - Lee Strobel

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Sorry, 48 prophesies. Professor Peter Stoner of mathematics gathered 600 students to determine the odds of a random person fulfilling those 48 prophesies. He determined that it was 1 in ~ trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. More than all atoms in the universe.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Sigmeud Freud found children innately believe in God. (He thought it was an innate delusion.) But look at Sweden with the highest atheism in the world, 86%, all the children believe in God! Not until they grow up do some doubt Him. So, it is not just believing what parents tell us. And, when people ask the children why do they believe in God, they usually say, "Because we exist and the universe exists, He must exist to create it."

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "Honestly, one can never be 100% certain of any religion, science" => since you agree with me on this, then this also means there is no logic to prove 100% why Christian God is real. So this goes back to my whole point that if you can't prove to me that God is real, then you can't use God in any scientific reasoning.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo I don't have a problem when people believe in God. But when they put religion over science...then to me, you better have a good reason for that! LIke say evolution: you don't believe in evolution because of your faith in God. Yet what about millions of catholics who believe in theistic evolution? All your miracles that you stated sound good and all, yet to a Catholic, that's not good enough to stop a person from accepting evolution.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr These bodies are only of Catholic saints. There bodies cannot have been embalmed at anytime or would be excluded as a miracle. All the bodies are warm to the touch, nails/hair still grow, flexible, smell good, etc. Incorruptible bodies of saints range from 100-2000 years old. They were buried in dirt, wet/dry, caskets, open to air. Some still have their mortal wounds that killed them fresh as from the day they died.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "incorrigible bodies" => that's interesting. what's the source?

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo nvm i found the sources. i also found an interesting fact: many secular examples like head of King Charles is also found to be incorruptible. An Indian Hindu in California who entered mahasamdhi in 1953 is also found to exhibit similar body status as the Catholic saints. So what this instead show is that bodies do indeed sometimes decompose at an unpredictable rate not clearly understood, but is it proof for Christian God? Not really, otherwise why would a Hindu be preserved?

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Oh, you keep making me remember things and points! Personally, this is the greatest proof of the Christian God for me. Ask a priest to go to an exorcist. The devil inside the person will tell all present your most embarrassing sins! Now, if you confessed those sins, he will not know them. Do this as a scientific proof. Most priests will okay you going to an exorcist. Be presistant! Of course, if you want to go only.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo So you believe in exorcism....???

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo I'm still looking for logical evidence where you claim you can convince me why Christian God is real. So far you have at best only present a general form of a God, which incidentally, may also be a deistic God, or an evolutionist God, so i am still waiting for logics to show why a creationist God is the only reasonable explanation.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr There is zero evidence for evolution. Explain DNA. #1 DNA is a code. Codes require information. #2 Without DNA, life cannot start. Yet without life, natural selection is impossible. Explain! #3 What caused the universe 1) Universe always existed 2) Universe came from nothing by nothing 3) Universe is only a dream 4) God created the universe. Answer these three questions.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo 1) DNA is a code => good question, ask the abiogenesis. This concerns how life starts, not how life evolves 2) again, abiogenesis 3) big bang theory, not evolution

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr haha We all make typos - no problem.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Yes, could be true. Catholic bodies were found in all conditions. If you read and compare the bodies, you will see the comparison fails apart. Honestly, one can never be 100% certain of any religion, science, or even personal information like your DNA and mother example. We all use faith, whether natural faith or supernatural faith. Even the exorist, if you went and the voice inside the person told you only something you knew, you could say it was just luck or chance.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Christian God is more provable than science.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "Blind faith is saying 'we do not know what caused the universe, but I believe (blindly) that science will give the answer." => u are against trying to tie argument back to big bang theory + abiogenesis. But this discussion + this video section is on evolution. I agree trying to answer how big bang theory started is a blind faith more or less, but it is not the case for evolution. We have mountains of evidence supporting it, and 0 evidence against it (without using Bible/Quran that is)

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo typo earlier, 'against' should be 'again'.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Remember, by faith, we all use faith even in science. God can be proved with higher certainty than science. But as with all things, we must use natural faith. You cannot disprove you are in a dream.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo your argument will work if we are in a philosophical argument. But in science, you can't introduce variables that are not proven SCIENTIFICALLY. You already said you can't scientifically prove God, therefore, under the "rules" of scientific debate, you can't use God in any of your explanation. Same with aliens. We can't prove aliens exist, therefore we don't say "oh aliens are responsible for this and that..." Every variable that is introduced has to be proven scientifically.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo For example, in evolution theory, the statement that we evolved from single-celled organism is a theory. But the variables involved in this theory are proven, such as natural selection, genetics inheritance, shift allele frequency, beneficial mutations. All these variables which build up the theory of evolution are proven with scientific evidence. I don't have to introduce any variable that is not proven.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@6630mcdo I am sorry, what? We use faith in science? Please quote an example. >>You cannot disprove you are in a dream

I refer you to Descartes, you should read some of his work. It is an irrelevance, whether or not you are in a dream as long as you feel what you feel. If i feel pain in a dream due to touching a hot stove, does it really matter if the pain is 'real'?

[Casshyr]

@swisscheesepotatochi "Science, does not work to find absolute truths. It cannot 100% prove a hypothesis." => true for some parts of science, but not all. For example, we know 100% that proteins come from RNA, which is in turn transcribed from DNA. Nobody has ever seen by eye (even under microscope) that this actually takes place, yet the evidence for transcription + translation is overwhelming we treat it as 100% certain.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@Casshyr Proteins coming from RNA is knowledge or observation. Creating a theory of why proteins come from RNA is science.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@Casshyr Our conversation (paraphrased)

Me : Science does not work to find absolute truths

You : Yes, except in certain cases. -quote- cases-

Me : The cases are not science as in the study to understand our universe involving the scientific method. Facts are not science. Theories explaining the facts are.

You : But we know aids is caused by HIV.

Me : that is a fact, explaining why aids is caused by HIV is the science. To which i would add, you cannot induce with certainty.

[Casshyr]

@swisscheesepotatochi lmao serously kid, how old are you? Facts and theories are both science. Evolution is a fact, and it is part of science. Evolution theory is a theory, not a fact, yet it is still part of science. Science isn't always about finding answers with absolute certainty, but to make useful predictions. Evolution theory is the main basis behind many other fields, spanning genetics, bioinformatics, and medicine.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr We can prove possible other causes fail to meet these four conditions. Zeus is material. Buddha never claimed to be God. Super aliens are material. Flying tea pot is material.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo nope Zeus is not material. Ancient Greek myths made that very clear. He can take on material forms, but he is also beyond that. Certain sects of buddhism do believe in concepts of supernatural Gods. I know this cuz i grew up in Asia.

[6630mcdo]

@Casshyr Unless you have done every scientific experiment and calculation yourself, you cannot know 100% that science is even valid or reliable. 100% is very hard. One can determine God 100%, but Christian God 99%. Science is around 90-95%.

[Casshyr]

@6630mcdo "but Christian God 99%. Science is around 90-95%. " => all these percentages are subjective, assigned by your own personal opinion. To me, a Christian God is 40%, creationist God is 0.0000001%, and science is 95%. But whose percentages is the right one? Who cares. The point is until this Christian God is 100% proven, you can't use that in a scientific reasoning process. You can certainly use it in a philosophical debate, but no, not in life science.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@Casshyr Science, does not work to find absolute truths. It cannot 100% prove a hypothesis.

[transtlantic]

@6630mcdo

How isn't Odin or a Unicorn, according to your reasoning, 99%?

lolol you sure produce a lot of delusional crap. LOLOL

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@6630mcdo You do not have to know for one hundred percent whether science is reliable for it to work. It does what it does the best, and is the flawed creation of humanity, just as everything else human. I would add that science does not prove anything with absolute certainty. Your god, cannot be proven to exist outside of science because through induction, we live in a purely materialistic, deterministic universe in which god, if immaterial, cannot be detected with out apparatus.

[6630mcdo]

@swisscheesepotatochi Well, God would not have to be detected. Logical and reasoning proves God exists. Kalam Argument is the first step: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause MUST be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. Newton studied the bible more than anything else. He determined that 69 years after the re-birth of the Israel, Jesus would come back. 1948+69=2017. We will soon know.

[6630mcdo]

@swisscheesepotatochi A re-birth of a nation has never happened, especially in the same location! Bible predicted it would happen for the Jews in the same location. Mother of God appeared in 1917 in Fatima warning many things. One was a vision of hell; miracle in front of 70,000 people; and warning of a worse war if mankind did not change from sin. Jesus will come as a dreadful judge, not meek and mild Jesus. Soon, many will not have to question.

[6630mcdo]

@swisscheesepotatochi Reality is truth - truth of what really is happening. Of course, in the dream, the pain was not real. Many things cannot be proven with science but are still valid and reasonable.

[6630mcdo]

@swisscheesepotatochi The cause of the universe must also be personal since it freely chose to create the universe - only minds have this property. So, the cause must be timeless, immaterial, spaceless and personal. That is step 1.

[gregrutz]

@6630mcdo Why do a couse have to be personal? Is gravity personal?

[6630mcdo]

@gregrutz Oh, because it freely chose to create the universe. Have you seen the Bill of Rights has been taken away from America through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012?? It is now law - any American can be tortured and imprisoned for no reason forever! An "American terrorist" is anyone such as homeschooler, gun owner, supports freedom or the Constitution, anti-war, pro-human rights, protester, strong Christian identity, etc. Spread to everyone! Tell people!

[gregrutz]

@6630mcdo What ever it talks to stop RELIGION from killing more people.

[6630mcdo]

@gregrutz Religion has only killed 17 million people throughout history - Mao and Stalin and Polpuk killed 122 million. Who cares it's not the present. If you will be naive, millions of atheists will also be murdered. GW Bush said, "Atheists are not Americans. This is one nation under GOD.'

[gregrutz]

@6630mcdo ''Religion has ... killed 17 million people'' Thank You for proving my point.

And how many people did the Bush's kill?

[6630mcdo]

@gregrutz Yes, it has and it is very evil. Killing is only justified in self-defense. Bush has killed millions. UN Report stated 1.2 million innocent Iraqi's have died. I do not believe it is for religion but the elites of America that are in control. 'The Project for the New American Century' outlines its plan to invade Muslim countries for several reasons such as oil, strategically allies of Russia or China, etc. We are in the early strategies of World War III.

[6630mcdo]

@gregrutz Bush said 'atheists are not Americans - this is one nation under God.' It is horrible to categorize people into groups, because it makes it easier to demonize them. Troops were able to kill innocent people because they are 'those evil Muslims.' No! They are all humans! There was a law just past National Defense Authorization Act 2012 that allows torture and imprisonment of any American forever for no cause. People that have 7-day food supply, gun owners, home-schoolers, etc

[RomansGalatians]

2:30 The Al Gore sigh. Reminds me of a woman. "Ew, *sigh*"

[fsx23]

lol this guy is great. He is asked to create a test for ID. He wants a test for self assembling RNA without a tester. He thinks if a scientist runs an experiment that means evolution requires intelligence. This is horrible logic. He just devised an impossible test to prove his bogus point.

[owensphil]

@fsx23

"He thinks if a scientist runs an experiment that means evolution requires intelligence. This is horrible logic"

What??? It means that if a scientist runs an experiment then it's not an undirected process with no foresight or planning.

[fsx23]

@owensphil If you make solutions of amino acids and they self assemble in to RNA molecules that does not mean you directed that. There are amino acids in nature outside of the earth. The experiment does not indicate how they assemble or if they do at all. The fact that they form a basic building block of life does support the idea that life can arise from simple self replicating molecules. Humans running an experiment does not mean they are required to fulfill the observation.

[owensphil]

@fsx23 You can't discount the necessity for intelligent intervention in the synthesis of the randomized RNA; then again in the selection of a few functional RNA molecules out of that mixture; then, finally, in the amplification of those few functional RNA molecules

[fsx23]

@owensphil We do not know if their is a necessity of intelligence. RNA experiments do not show HOW life arose it simply explains a few possible steps. The assembly of RNA is NOT directed. They only see how it can assemble under different conditions. It makes more since than an intelligence because we have no reason to believe one exist, people are just making one up to answer hard questions.

[owensphil]

@fsx23

"The assembly of RNA is NOT directed."

RNA does not arise from its chemical constituents except (a) in organisms, and (b) in laboratories where intelligent organisms synthesize it.

[owensphil]

@fsx23

It makes more since than an intelligence because we have no reason to believe one exist,"

We have evidence that a code cannot exist without a sender. Can you name another that does? A sender/receiver scheme is found in the DNA encoding system. The intended outcome requires that the receiver use the message to produce proteins, which then act in a variety of manners to allow or hinder formation of additional proteins or to create enzymes or tissue necessary for the organism.

[fsx23]

@owensphil You are choosing to call it a code. If DNA is a "code" it could be evidence of a code without a sender then...........

[owensphil]

@fsx23

"You are choosing to call it a code. If DNA is a "code""

If you google DNA code, you'll see it's not just me or other creationsts calling it a code.

"it could be evidence of a code without a sender then..........."

How do you jump to that conclusion?

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil "code" is not literally meant that way like its a computer code, but even if it was, we KNOW for a FACT that mutations occur and some of these are beneficial and are passed on to offspring, aka, evolution. every argument for creationism is bullshit. give me some evidence, the best evidence for creation you have, it will take me no more than 5 minutes to destroy it, hell, give me ALL your arguments and ill destroy them ALL in 15 minutes

[owensphil]

@wearestarstuffsagan

> give me some evidence, the best evidence for creation you have, it will take me no more than 5 minutes to destroy it

Well you´re certainly off to a bad start. Beneficial mutations has nothing to do with whether or not DNA is a code or not. Google "DNA Code" so we don´t waste time on that. Beneficial mutations are rare for starters and then you need multiple, related mutations to cause a change in a structure.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil yes, they are rare, no one denies this, but they happen, and get passed on to offspring. no, you are simply WRONG, only one mutation is needed to change structure of an organism

[owensphil]

Responder a este vídeo...

What is the origin of the genetic instructions being beneficially mutated? Obviously mutations can´t be your starting point if you´re mutating something that is prexistent. Sorry you don´t get to start with a given. You have 5 minutes Go!

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil yes, everyone knows that you have to already have some type of DNA or RNA to have mutations, evolution does not comment on where that came from, its not meant to,.you are simply using strawman arguments. im done here

[owensphil]

@wearestarstuffsagan

> evolution does not comment on where that came from, its not meant to

Chemical evolution does exactly that. Please educate yourself on this matter.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil yes, still, BIOLOGICAL evolution DOES NOT COMMENT ON IT, CHEMICAL evolution DOES! no one is saying it doesnt. evolution simply means change, so many things evolve, but we are talking about evolution through natural selection.

[owensphil]

@wearestarstuffsagan

>evolution does not comment on where that came from, its not meant to

You can´t argue against creation which starts at Point A and then turn around and compare it with a bogus theory that according to what you just said hits the ground running starting somewhere around Point M.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil again, admitting that its a theory doesnt help your case to anyone who knows how science works. germ theory is only useful to explain what germs do, now how they got here, but it shows that germs, not demons, are responsible for desease, in the same way, biological evolution shows that species were not created in there current form, but came about through gradual change, that goes against creationism. im not longer reponding to you, you are completely braindead

[owensphil]

@wearestarstuffsagan

You were given five minutes to find the origin of genetic instructin . You failed. You should quit now.

[owensphil]

@fsx23

RNA does not arise from its chemical constituents except (a) in organisms, and (b) in laboratories where intelligent organisms synthesize it

[fsx23]

@owensphil You are just asserting this as fact. And you are misusing the word synthesis. You can mix an acid and a base in a lab to produce CO2, that does not mean it dose not happen in nature. If both exist in nature it is logical to conclude they do in fact come into contact. Experimenters are careful to test for a limited number of factors at a time. And the peer review process allows others to criticize their work after. Actual biologist accept that RNA could arise under the right condition

[owensphil]

@fsx23

"Actual biologist accept that RNA could arise under the right condition"

"It is difficult to believe," writes RNA World researcher Steven Benner, of ETH Zurich, "that larger pools of random RNA emerged spontaneously without the gentle coaxing of a graduate student desiring a completed dissertation."

Steven A. Benner, "Catalysis: Design Versus Selection," Science 261 (1993): 1402-1403; p. 1403.

[fsx23]

@owensphil Nice quote mining from 1996 . Stephen A Benner is a leading researcher in the origins of life. If you took the time to read up on him you would know his positions. You have presented a broken up quote which you think implies he is doubtful of RNA spontaneously emerging. If you had a real argument you would be able to present it honestly, and not twist people's words.

[owensphil]

@fsx23

Nothing conveys this better than reading the Methods and Materials section of any ribozyme engineering paper. There, one will encounter biologically-derived reagents such as DNA and RNA polymerases, automated DNA synthesizing machines -

Rachel Green and Jack W. Szostak, "Selection of a Ribozyme That Functions as a Superior Template in a Self-Copying Reaction," Science 258 (1992): 1910-1915; p. 1914;

[owensphil]

Responder a este vídeo... see also Niles Lehman and Gerald F. Joyce, "Evolution in vitro: analysis of a lineage of ribozymes," Current Biology 3 (1993): 723-734 (oligodeoxynucleotides "were prepared on an automated DNA synthesizer" [p. 732]).

[owensphil]

@fsx23

Stanley Miller (famous Urey/Miller origin-of-life experiment, ) seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”

“We’re trying to discuss a historical event, which is very different from the usual kind of science, and so criteria and methods are very different,” he remarked... (Horgan, 1996, p. 139).

[fsx23]

@owensphil I'm sure you think people are impressed with all your "research" on the Access Research Network, a puppet group of the discovery institute. They are well known for misinformation and propaganda. REAL Biologist almost unanimously accept evolution. Sure Behe denies it but he has also gotten rich doing so. There are always a few people who disagree with the majority. I'm sure you could find a geologist who thinks the earth is flat somewhere.