Despite naysayers to the contrary, the Bible is historical and Reliogious fact. People try to claim that events in the Bible didn't happen ... i.e. there wasn't a Jesus (proven that has was born, crucified and that thousands reported seeing him post Crucifixion that even atheist historians agree on), David, Solomon, etc etc

Perhaps you should widen you mind's understanding to consider that perhaps the flood legends/records in ancient civilizations point back all to the common event of a world wide flood.

It is one thing to say that you choose not to follow God and what he stands for (thus Free Will), but don't be intellectually dishonest to claim that what the Bible records didn't happen. The proof continues to be provided and yet people don't believe. Even when Jesus, the Son of God was present and healing people and raising them from the dead, people still chose to turn away and call for his Crucifixion.

Just because you cannot conceive of a way that a world wide flood could happen doesn't make it not so. 200 years ago, we did not have knowledge of flight, DNA etc and the more we learn continues to demonstrate that we intricately complex designed by a Creator, God, and not happenstance. How people can claim evolution and believe in entropy at the same time is mental deceit.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Well, what they could have shown, would be, for instance, video of collecting/ sampling of DNA from a crime scene, electrophoresis readouts in the middle , and say the doubling process in the PCR cycle expressed mathematically. This way the three windows would be directly linked and math would be involved and linked to the actual thing they were showing.

they were showing what they could, for comparison to the other algorithm-representation model of the other slides.

they chose the amino acids triplets... then showed a string of DNA (codons) and the PCR/electrophoresis was a visualization again of the strings of DNA... and make up fingerprints eventually with the protein they output.

the mathematical themes here are recursion, at least

Hmm cool, but the fingerprint/DNA collage doesnt really make sense, the "script" window seems to show the 60-something codons that matches the 20 different amino acids that makes up the proteins , and the middle part shows a PCR result in gel electrophoresis, a system of displaying DNA markers, (Admittedly sometimes referred to as DNA fingerprinting, but it doesnt actually have much to do with actual fingerprints..) In short, while these three things are linked in that they all have to do with living cells and identifications, there isnt actually any direct links, and, importantly no direct link to math..

Sure, math is used in genetics, protein folding and I guess fingerprint-recognition, but that particular slide made a mess of it.

About the song from Wikipedia:
The title (46 and 2) references an idea first conceived by Carl Jung and later expounded upon by Drunvalo Melchizedek concerning the possibility of reaching a state of evolution at which the body would have two more than the normal 46 total chromosomes and leave a currently disharmonious state. The premise is that humans would deviate from the current state of human DNA which contains 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes. The next step of evolution would likely result in human DNA being reorganized into 46 and 2 chromosomes, according to Melchizedek.
Furthermore, the song references a wish to experience change through the "shadow"; an idea which represents the parts of one's identity that one hates, fears, and represses, this exists as a recurring theme in the work of Carl Jung.



My shadow's

Shedding skin and
I've been picking
Scabs again.
I'm down
Digging through
My old muscles
Looking for a clue.

I've been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own confused
And insecure delusions
For a piece to cross me over
Or a word to guide me in.
I wanna feel the changes coming down.
I wanna know what I've been hiding in

My shadow.
Change is coming through my shadow.
My shadow's shedding skin
I've been picking
My scabs again.

I've been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own chaotic
And insecure delusions.

I wanna feel the change consume me,
Feel the outside turning in.
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and
Cleansing I've endured within

My shadow
Change is coming.
Now is my time.
Listen to my muscle memory.
Contemplate what I've been clinging to.
Forty-six and two ahead of me.

I choose to live and to
Grow, take and give and to
Move, learn and love and to
Cry, kill and die and to
Be paranoid and to
Lie, hate and fear and to
Do what it takes to move through.

I choose to live and to
Lie, kill and give and to
Die, learn and love and to
Do what it takes to step through.

See my shadow changing,
Stretching up and over me.
Soften this old armor.
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow,
Coming out the other side.
Step into the shadow.
Forty six and two are just ahead of me.

If you believe DNA was the result of intelligent design, then the creator did an absolute shit job of it: there's so many ways that things can and do go wrong at the genetic level -- cancer, birth defects, aging, death -- that you would have to conclude the creator has a special love for causing suffering based on his bad designs; the creator is a rampant sadist.

Your second question is silly: how would you know if you were living in a universe where bananas are grapes and grapes are monkeys? But I understand what you're trying to get at and the answer is that the universe I live in has no empirical evidence for a creator and a very workable theory for how life came about and evolved over time.

So here's a question for you: if there is a creator, why is he so incredibly bad at it (99.9% of all species that ever lived are now extinct) and why does he like beetles so much (there's a staggering number of beetle species)?

DNA is not a language. The word language implies that someone created it, but we haven't proven that. DNA contains molecules that do certain things. Those molecules could be interpreted as information, but so could any other matter, such as the rings of a tree. Just because DNA works a certain way doesn't mean that we get to slap any label we want on it.

How would I tell the difference between a universe that is designed, and one that wasn't? Just like I tell that anything else was designed. I compare the two. Do you have a designed universe for me to compare this one to?

It's interesting that you would mention DNA because there is more evidence there of intelligent design than anywhere else. Did you know that DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed? It has digital information storage and retrieval, optimization, redundancy, and error correction.

DNA is also a language, and it has an alphabet, a coding system, correct spelling, grammar, meaning and intended purpose. Because DNA can be both classified as a code and a language, both of which we know only come from minds, we can reasonably conclude that DNA was intelligently designed.

Here is a book you might enjoy on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Scientist-Incredible/dp/0890514615

"Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator."

I would pose the question..how would you tell the difference between a Universe that was designed and one that wasn't? How would you know which one you were in?

The discovery of the DNA molecule and genetics in general.

Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator.

Bono's place in the big-boy's club-To make scheduled appearances to remind his ineffectual, 30-50 yr-old former fan base that the paradigm is here, it's fucked, and it's only going to get worse so let's all have a group sob for this species-threatening state-of-affairs.

Jolie can only adopt so many children from representative nations...AT which point, space entrepreneur Elon Musk will use his advanced vertical TOAL ships to ferry this collection of human DNA to their new homes on Mars.

Bonos' a tool.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, the DNA evidence can now be held indefinitely.

You are incorrect. Not believing is a belief. You believe there is no GOD and you can not prove it 100% Its is the same on my side I can not Prove it 100%.

Its like the RUSH song Freewill "If you chose not to decide you still made a choice"

The evidence is overwhelming that there is a GOD. Living objects are so complex it is impossible to conceive that all this on earth is by happenstance.

If you don't believe in GOD than you are an evolutionist by default.

How do you explain the complexity DNA?
There are over 3 Billion base pairs in DNA in humans. Through evolution?
Evolutionists say man has been on earth for about 200,000 years.


The earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
How many evolution cycles to get to 3.17 billion base pairs of DNA in the right order to make a human?



What about Quantum Mechanics?
Its shear existence is dismissive of evolution.


That is just 2 examples, there are many others with out being a bible thumper.

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to debate? That there is no science behind DMT? That there is nothing to DMT? That "spiritual" does not exist? What is your point of this continued conversation? That you are scared of psychedelics? Why do you think such an experience would have been programmed into our head, the most powerful experience a person can have?

I have trouble understanding "spiritual" to be the same as "awesome" or "awe-inspiring", but if thats what you mean by "spiritual", I suppose we agree. I understand "spiritual" to mean "that which concerns the spirits or the spiritual world", ie something supernatural.

I suppose there is little point in continuing this debate, I get a little carried away.. My point ws only that it is unscientific and nonsensical to think that stimulating your brain with chemicals can help you discover some sor of spiritworld or some nonsense like that, the reason I KNOW this, as you put it, is what I've fruitlessly to express over several long comments. Basically, to repeat myself for like the 5th time, it has to do with basic facts of the origin of our brains and so forth, it is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that our brains evolved. If you understand what biological evolution is and how it works, you'd know it is the mindless reshuffling of nucleotides acted upon in populations of animals over countless generations, this produces amazing survival machines, and some of them develop brains, and some of those grow big brains.

How do you think DNA evolved over so many years,
DNA probably evolved after RNA, nobody knows exactly how replicating nucleotides started to replicate, it was probably a staggeringly unlikely event, but then there was literally all the time and space in the universe for it to happen..

you ever read Francis Cricks, who helped found DNA, Well, I've read The Double Helix, and I'm currently studying biology and genetics.
what his theory for DNA was? Panspermia. Yeah.
No,
It was speculation, probably tongue-in-cheek that he later regretted. In any case, the argument was based on the fact that the origin of DNA/RNA was an extremely unlikely event, and that if it didn't originate on earth, it could have been brought here from elsewhere. Both options are essentially saying the same thing, that abiogenesis happened and that it later evolved (either here on earth, like most scientist now think, or somewhere else.)

It doesnt really matter whether directed panspermia is true or not, DNA is still strings of molecules that abide by the laws of physics and chemistry. They are not some sort of magical quantum spirit crystals mind-controlled by aliens.
The Universe is a lot trickier than just our basic Science.
Whatever you say boss.