Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story
KJV

United States

#10747 Jan 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you regard "nature" as intelligent and natural processes as "design".
You believe nature designed us.
Anything capable of designing a human must I would think be intelligent.

Right? Or am I not understanding you correctly?
KJV

United States

#10748 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it does, in a manner of speaking "cross it off the list."
No. It can't there is no intelligent's there to say well this failed so I will not try that combo again lets try this instead.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10749 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>No. It can't there is no intelligent's there to say well this failed so I will not try that combo again lets try this instead.
That's called survival.

When something fails, it dies.

Dead things don't reproduce.

I would think you would at least know that.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10750 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Science tries to explain, but terminates in blind alleys.
Science has failed us.
http://www.economist.com/node/13813436
You sound like someone from the Dark Ages...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10751 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.
This calculation is wrong. The first problem is the the early ribozymes would not have been 300 nucleotides long. The more realistic length is 20-50. There are known catalytic stretches of RNA that catalyze significant reactions (like glucolysis) in fewer than 20 nucleotides.

But the more basic problem is that you calculate the probability of a ribosyme arising in one step spontaneously from a sea of nucleotides that assemble via random processes. That is NOT how it would have proceeded. The way we *actually see* this happen is that small stretches of RNA form and combine. it is a process involving many steps, NOT a single step process. This alone greatly increases the odds of spontaneous formation by many orders of magnitude.

Another basic mistake is that you select *one* particular ribozyme instead of looking for *any* ribozyme that does an important step of metabolism. Since many different sequences are possible for the exact same reaction *and* since there are so many different metabolic steps, the odds are again significantly increased. Furthermore, working small stretches of RNA can form the core of larger structures and even catalyze the formation of those larger structures.

In other words, your calculation is faulty on several different lines: incorrect size of ribozymes, assumption of independence of each linkage, calculation of the wrong probability, not allowing for alternative routes to same function, etc. Each and every one of your mistakes significantly misrepresents the resulting probability.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10752 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no proof that you accept - just asyou haven't provided proof of evolution. Both our sides have already stated it using your meaningless simplistic terms, which is why I elaborated. If you have nothing new to say, it's really pointless for you to post, lol. On the other hand, if posting it helps to reassure yourself of your fraudulent atheistic belief, feel free to do so. But to continue posting the same thing that you do for the next 40 years, doesn't change anything, nor help your lost cause.
In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10753 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Is that the question you kept referring to? No wonder I couldn't remember, it's the same old question that atheists ask all the time – nothing sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill atheist questions we hear every day asking for proof of God. So why do you bother to ask it?

It's already been answered for you time and again in many different ways by Christians. If you choose not to accept the answers you've already been given over and over and over and over and over, then why do you need more answers? Are you just plain dense?[YES]

God is the Creator of heaven and earth and everything else. The Bible was not written by “someone”(s) imagination. It has many authors, spanning centuries. None of it has ever been proven untrue. People try all the time, and fail, because there are valid explanations for anything that on the surface appears to be a discrepancy. One part of it refers to another, confirms another, and all can be reconciled. Why would so many authors from so many centuries create an imaginary story? How could they confer with one another to do so when their lives did not overlap? Why would they endure persecution and die for an imaginary belief? What was to be gained?

Science is your god. It has failed you so many times.

Why should anyone accept science and it's fraud? Why should anyone believe Darwin, a sick bodied, sick minded man who conspired with fraudulent scientists to produce this “theory” back in the 1850's? What peer review groups checked out his work? How credible were the peer review groups? What of the unanswered or badly answered questions evolution has never resolved that have been posted here? You put your faith in all that? You truly live in a faith filled imaginary world full of potholes, fake evidence, and lies.

What about all the people like you who believed what Lamarck told them? They believed he was right, just as you believe Darwin was right. Lamarck was wrong. His followers were wrong. Darwin was wrong, and you are wrong.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
How's that computer of yours working?

When do you suppose your god will be coming out with the next upgrade?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10754 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>When you and Kitten can't find the words, you dismiss it with another “nothing” post. Hahahaha - way to go, atheists. I see that all the time – it's from atheist training school memo #101.

What's even funnier is that you both copied each other (or you copied her) and dismissed one point YOU made that I actually agreed with you on about the “prosperity gospel”. Had you been a faster thinker, you could have used that to your own advantage, but no, you hurt your own cause by missing the opportunity.

It's fool enough to be an atheist, but it takes an even bigger fool to shoot themselves in their own foot the way you do.
Your desperation is showing.

Again.

Or rather, still.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10755 Jan 9, 2013
Christian Worship & Hypnotic Manipulation

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.ca/2012...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10756 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>For someone who doesn't care what the Bible says, you sure spend a lot of time writing about it.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.

Colossians 3:22
KJV

United States

#10757 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
KJV, my calculations for the odds were not based on the reality of the situation, I did them using your own failed concept of the method of natural selection. That would be the odds if it "started from scratch" each time, since natural selection isn't random it doesn't do that, so the odds for success are much, much, much higher.

Here's why:

Suppose you have three doors, behind one is a great prize, you don't know which one. The announcer asks you to pick one, and you do. Your odds are 33% of choosing the correct one.

Then the announcer shows you one of the two doors you didn't pick, which don't contain the prize. Your odds of having chosen the correct door are still 33%... but then he let's you change your choice.

What are your odds of selecting the correct door if you change your decision? It's a simple answer. So ... what are your chances now?
Yes I'm quite familiar with that.
Not really sure if you can use it here with out including some sort of intelligent's at work.

I believe the scenario here to be more like the roulette wheel. Every spin same odds. No intelligent's at work.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10758 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Right – since science fraud is disturbing to you, don't read material from “apologetic websites” like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the various scientific journals that have been posted over the past 3 months.
I doubt that there's any atheist with an interest in any of the sciences who is not well aware of its failures and faults.

What you, in your infinite hypocrisy, fail to recognize is your own religions faults and failures.

And, even more hypocritically, you post your crap on technology developed by the very science you claim to be such a total failure.

Science has clearly and irrefutably proven that your bible is loaded with lies and falsehoods, and that topples your house of cards.

Your particular version of religion has to adapt or die.

The choice is yours, but the truth, once found, cannot be unfound.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10759 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I'm quite familiar with that.
Not really sure if you can use it here with out including some sort of intelligent's at work.
I believe the scenario here to be more like the roulette wheel. Every spin same odds. No intelligent's at work.
Which means you ignore the laws of chemistry. Not every combination is equally likely, even if you require a one-step process. At the very least, some will have problems with steric hindrance, some will be stabilized by intra-molecular attractions, etc.

The point? Chemistry is not a random process even when no intelligence is at work. Certain reactions happen instead of others because of the properties of the atoms themselves.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10760 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Science tries to explain, but terminates in blind alleys.
Science has failed us.
http://www.economist.com/node/13813436
How did that article support what you said? If anything, it showed that science eventually works things out.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10762 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no proof that you accept - just asyou haven't provided proof of evolution. Both our sides have already stated it using your meaningless simplistic terms, which is why I elaborated. If you have nothing new to say, it's really pointless for you to post, lol. On the other hand, if posting it helps to reassure yourself of your fraudulent atheistic belief, feel free to do so. But to continue posting the same thing that you do for the next 40 years, doesn't change anything, nor help your lost cause.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/topic/evol...

http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2013/j...

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10763 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe nature designed us.
Anything capable of designing a human must I would think be intelligent.
Right? Or am I not understanding you correctly?
You can think whatever you like. Nature is what it is and that's all that it is.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10764 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
Part of their mission statement:

"We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness"

Except that *truth* about the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter being 3:1, eh?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10765 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have to deal with it since it doesn't exist.
We read the Bible, and when religion doesn't match up to what the Bible teaches, we recognize it as religious heresy, not Christianity, and we reject it.
Thank you for demonstrating this to us in your post 10590, where you refer to religious fraud, which isn't Christianity.
Given that there are older religions, it wouldn't be entirely true for me to say that Christianity is the oldest fraud going.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10766 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's painful to see you atheists fighting with each other, lol.
Given the thousands of different denominations of your death cult, I'd say that discord and division are rife in Christianity.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10767 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
So those who go to heaven are supposed to want to go to hell and be unhappy with those who made the wrong choice?
Not me.
But I'd suggest you don't go to heaven then. If you want to be unhappy in hell with the millions who chose it for themselves, that's your right.
Hi Dim

IANS isn't around but I'm sure he won't mind us laughing at you as you shake your scary chicken on a stick.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 12 min BeHereNow 110
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 14 min Dave Nelson 227,648
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 39 min Igor Trip 22,265
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick 477
Here's a place for Patrick's off-topic articles 3 hr NightSerf 1
Glorify God, our Heavenly Father 3 hr Son of God 1
Stump a theist with 2 questions 3 hr NightSerf 66
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••