Looks like @kceaton1's getting serious.

You may not speak out but i've decided to. If anyone is concerned about the seemingly unfair statements i make about shinyblurry then my comment section can show the proof. I have engaged him in discussion a number of times of science/theism, and the results are poor. He doesn't offer you the same respect he expects you to give him, i find him egotistical and obnoxious and completely uninterested in serious discussion. Read my discussions with him if you don't believe that - there's proof which is the test of any theory as we all know.

People like shinyblurry don't even realise that their zealotism drives people away from the religion.

Let me make a statement regarding the big bang theory. Firstly, all scientific theories are put in place to explain the facts. A theory takes everything we know, balls it up into a bunch of connections, and offers us a way of understanding that phenomenon. The big bang theory is not "complete", that is why it's still an active field of study. There are so many scientists right now trying to improve on theories that it's hard to even imagine.

You read a web page like that - almost entirely signed by scientists from the US and mostly "independent researchers"? And suddenly you think you know about the big bang. And in it one person suggests the idea that rigidly adhering to old forms is harmful to scientific advancement, but you take it to mean something else as far as i can tell - shame on you.

The big bang predicts the initial distribution of elements that we see reflected in the universe today - mostly hydrogen, a bit of helium and trace other elements. It actually predicts using only PROVEN SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES (that are testable to anyone on earth) what time and at what temperature different particles were able to form. From that, it predicts what chemical composition the universe has, and finds that it's in agreement. Do you even realise the significance of that? I don't think you do, your brain has been trained by religion to look for things like that and see only design. And that's also why you can't understand scientific theories. You really need to open your mind to how other people think, blurry, and i mean that with kindness.

Do you really think the big bang is so far away from the truth, in your ignorance? Have you looked at it in the kind of depth you need to to understand it? If not, i kindly ask that you stop spouting rubbish in the same way i don't go about trashing your unfounded, ungrounded theories every time you mention theism.

i didn't intend to speak out on @kceaton1's behalf, but i'm pretty sick of blurry canvassing for converts with misinformation myself. His links and statements provide nothing of substance to the argument. It doesn't matter what religion kceaton is, as a theist yourself i'm surprised you act cocky about another's choice of religion. Doesn't your religious claptrap say something like do unto other as you would have them do unto you? In my opinion under your own religion you will be going to hell for being so manipulative and insulting to others.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^shinyblurry:
That's quite a rant, Kceaton. Unfortunately, you cannot use the light travel time problem to falsify YEC. The SBB model also has a light travel time problem, specifically the horizon problem. Check out what some scientists published in New Scientist Magazine:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
I'm sorry you were indoctrinated into the Mormon church. My heart goes out to you, but you've thrown away the baby with the bathwater. It isn't too difficult to falsify the Mormon God, but neither does that make atheism the natural conclusion.
>> ^kceaton1

One:
I've known about this study since day one, does it surprise me, hahahahahaha. I think most people are morons. NO IT DOESN'T! I think we have one of the worst educations systems in the world, you may think your belief driven gospel knowledge may keep you safe, flying up there in the sky, BUT I'll take a damned engineer EVERYDAY over your damned God!
Two:
About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.
---
I'm tired of the targeted trolling!
That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose too.

Two:

About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.

Sorry if you were offended. I think you're being overly melodramatic. You spent 3 paragraphs mentioning how indoctrinated you were into the mormon faith, and how this impacted your beliefs, as well as ragging on Christians and creationism, in the topic of "creationism vs evolution". Have some awareness of what you're doing and where you're doing it before you fly off of the handle.

---

I'm tired of the targeted trolling!

That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose to

It's not crap, it's a legitimate problem which cannot be explained without the inflationary fudge factors. It's the same thing with dark matter and dark energy. They were invented to explain away discrepancies in the SBB model, a model which is held together with duct tape and elmers glue, but you're a true believer, and you call everyone else morons. The pathological skeptic is skeptical of everything except his own cherished beliefs.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's quite a rant, Kceaton. Unfortunately, you cannot use the light travel time problem to falsify YEC. The SBB model also has a light travel time problem, specifically the horizon problem. Check out what some scientists published in New Scientist Magazine:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
I'm sorry you were indoctrinated into the Mormon church. My heart goes out to you, but you've thrown away the baby with the bathwater. It isn't too difficult to falsify the Mormon God, but neither does that make atheism the natural conclusion.
>> ^kceaton1


One:

I've known about this study since day one, does it surprise me, hahahahahaha. I think most people are morons. NO IT DOESN'T! I think we have one of the worst educations systems in the world, you may think your belief driven gospel knowledge may keep you safe, flying up there in the sky, BUT I'll take a damned engineer EVERYDAY over your damned God!

Two:

About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.

---

I'm tired of the targeted trolling!

That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose too.

what is with this bogus charade?

Look at it this way. Doubling down on stupid like this is just hastening their demise. I live in a red state and I work with a lot of Republicans and more and more of them are just fed up with this ludicrous bullshit. They have no love for Obama, but the feel alienated from their own party because NONE of them buy into this insanity.

Shit like this will either be the end of the conservative movement in the US, or it will finally drive rational Republicans to take their party back from the whackos.

This nonsense is just guaranteeing Obama's win in November. Maybe you don't agree with Obama, but odds are, you won't buy into this charade so it just drives them away from Republicans.

How much you want to bet that NONE of the remaining GOP candidates will touch this with a 10 foot pole. Even they're not that stupid.

>> ^longde:

Read the book Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea to see how these bastards fubar'd their country.
I think the dynasty just ended. The son has nowhere near the devotion his father garnered.


Well, technically Kim-il Sung's preserved corpse was still the President, right? Now that Kim Jong-il is dead, does he now succeed him in that post?

Kim Jong-un could possibly keep the charade going as long as he claims a direct line of communication to the spirit of his father/grand-pappy, no? Jong-il wasn't nearly as popular as his father when he died either (though probably much more so than Jong-un at the time of his father's death, as he was publicly groomed for future leadership for, what, 15 years prior?).

I'll check for that book next time I'm at the library. It's a shame Hitchens had to go right before this arshole, I would've loved to hear his opinion on this entire situation. Prolific as he was, it's likely there are some articles/videos out there concerning Jong-un's suitability/future as heir presumptive.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

Thought I'd throw in one more bit about the anti-theism comments above, like @GeeSussFreeK 's.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

/long

i think i'd rather give ms. cain props. she is clearly on the fence. another dagger in an idiot's narcissistic charade.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.

>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.


You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."

Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?

>> ^shinyblurry:


The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)

Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.


I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

This has a lot to do with what is happening in this country. It's a charade, on one hand you have these bizarre christian fundamentalists who say they want "small government" when actually they want to control the lives of Americans through their own personal agendas. Then you have corporations who seek to control the masses through lobbyists so you keep buying their products.

It's relevant because in many public schools they eat subsidized corporate garbage. Some schools have corporate advertising. The school's have PTO's run by a bunch of garbage eating, fundamentalist christians and everyone wants control of some personal agenda & crusade and enforce it on everyone else. Teachers are supposed to be knowledgeable about their topics, fuck your stupid standard curriculum syllabus and let them teach kids the best way they can. Stop making America sterile!

What the hell happened to this country, why does everything have to be controlled and why can't we just listen to one another, argue if need be. Maybe, just maybe I am wrong, maybe you're wrong but hopefully one of us fucking learns something. And if I am wrong I'll admit it, I won't go on some anti-intellectual crusade and try to obscure FACTS. This country needs to relearn what is necessary/unnecessary to control.

Teachers should be paid well. The irony is I went to a private school for Junior High & some high school. All the kids were rich spoiled brats, some of them had lambos & Vipers... the teachers were the best I ever had. But, I could make as much as those teachers working at fucking Kinkos. It's hilarious to think that that really is the way America works. My parents spent 10k a year & those teachers were paid less than 30k/yr. Sure, it was a "better" environment than a public school for those teachers - but their whole objective was to get these brats into Princeton. Oh, but we don't want democratic laws & regulations to tell us how we should run businesses & schools... please.

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.

http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039

In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.

Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.

I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?

None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.

If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.

Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.

Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.

I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch