Creationists

[pjnlsn]

Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.

Digital: of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.

Can your paper do this?

To think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.

The sequence:

The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.

Perhaps if there was a certain similarity. However:

Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

Maybe you should get out of the house more often:

"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It&#8217;s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it&#8217;s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it&#8217;s incredibly stable &#8212; where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.

It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn&#8217;t to say that Church and Kosuri&#8217;s DNA storage is fast &#8212; but it&#8217;s fast enough for very-long-term archival.

Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That&#8217;s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs&#8230; in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives &#8212; the densest storage medium in use today &#8212; you&#8217;d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri&#8217;s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA &#8212; Church&#8217;s latest book, in fact &#8212; and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

And, so, again:

It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.

But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.

You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.

And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10] Source: Wiki

Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage.

This doesn't follow from the last, which is a response to a collection of statistics on the information capacity of DNA. The second to last quote is still true, and is relevant if that was what the preceding post was to mean that the fact that it (DNA) has some information storage capacity, and that this amount can be converted into other units possibly in a differing number base, like terabytes, or number of blu-ray discs, does not mean it is similar, or has similar origins, in the context of the above sequence.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of terabytes. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any example of digital circuitry for encoding information, e.g. a flash drive, or HDD, or SSD, or (as below) optical disc.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of blu-ray discs. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of optical disc, i.e. (simply) layers of plastic and metal with pits and bumps burned into one or more layers by a kind of laser.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.

Finally, that it can be used to create what is known as a curcuit does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to, a curcuit made of some other material(s). That two things can be called by the same name in the same sentence or otherwise does not mean they are similar or have similar origins.

In the context of the preceding sequence.

And to think so is both hopeful and absurd.

 

[pjnlsn]

The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.

Again:

But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.

Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.

But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.

Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.

And similar for the term rational.

In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was before you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.

Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if you keep repeating the same post over and over it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. You can say it was so dissimilar as to be 'not even close,' but this difference in what you reference is not such that it would make what was before likely unlikely, given both the common definitions of those words and your apparent attitude for what you meant. If the probability before was greater than 3/4, the changes you reference would not render the probability 1/4 or lower, for example.

And, similarly to before, with or without minor contextual omissions, and if I know what significance you place on the associated statements:

DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. [One hopes] you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....

Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.

As for the rest: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and all relevant corollarys, if the issue(s) is/are actually of that nature, as before.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26

If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.

Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.

Psalm 139 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother&#8217;s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand&#8212;
when I awake, I am still with you.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.

Digital: of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.

Can your paper do this?

To think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.

The sequence:



Perhaps if there was a certain similarity. However:





And, so, again:

It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.

But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.

You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.

And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10] Source: Wiki

Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage.

This doesn't follow from the last, which is a response to a collection of statistics on the information capacity of DNA. The second to last quote is still true, and is relevant if that was what the preceding post was to mean that the fact that it (DNA) has some information storage capacity, and that this amount can be converted into other units possibly in a differing number base, like terabytes, or number of blu-ray discs, does not mean it is similar, or has similar origins, in the context of the above sequence.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of terabytes. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any example of digital circuitry for encoding information, e.g. a flash drive, or HDD, or SSD, or (as below) optical disc.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of blu-ray discs. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of optical disc, i.e. (simply) layers of plastic and metal with pits and bumps burned into one or more layers by a kind of laser.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.

Finally, that it can be used to create what is known as a curcuit does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to, a curcuit made of some other material(s). That two things can be called by the same name in the same sentence or otherwise does not mean they are similar or have similar origins.

In the context of the preceding sequence.

And to think so is both hopeful and absurd.

Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage.

 

[UltimateReality]

Again:



Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.

Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.

But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.

Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.

And similar for the term rational.

In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was before you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.

Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if you keep repeating the same post over and over it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. You can say it was so dissimilar as to be 'not even close,' but this difference in what you reference is not such that it would make what was before likely unlikely, given both the common definitions of those words and your apparent attitude for what you meant. If the probability before was greater than 3/4, the changes you reference would not render the probability 1/4 or lower, for example.

WTH are you even talking about?

And, similarly to before, with or without minor contextual omissions, and if I know what significance you place on the associated statements:

DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. [One hopes] you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....

Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.

As for the rest: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and all relevant corollarys, if the issue(s) is/are actually of that nature, as before.

Either you need to go to sleep or you need to lay off the crack pipe. What are you even saying? Calling cocaine another name doesn't change what it is.

Link please?

 

[UltimateReality]

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.

What are you even talking about? This makes absolutely no sense!! A component of intelligence is being able to communicate your thoughts in a manner that someone not familiar with the idea can easily grasp. So WTH?? What are you even saying.

-Please explain in detail how your college-ruled sheets would represent the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

-Please explain how this is digital.

-Please explain how binary code is different than quaternary code? Please explain how they are similar.

So far you have only made my argument stronger with your unintelligible babble and repetitive gobbledygook.

-Can you please provide some third party article to clarify the point you are trying to make?

 

[Youwerecreated]

He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies

For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?

Do you know what evidence is ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.

Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.

Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.

The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.

Again:

But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.

Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.

But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.

Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.

And similar for the term rational.

In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was before you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.

We have discussed this earlier in the thread. I will go over a few problems with your explanation.

1. They didn't know what the enviornment was like when they say this could of happened.
2. This was done in a lab by intelligent beings not through naturalism.
3. We get electrical charges all the time on this planet and we do not see these things unless they exist in a living organism.
4. They could not exist outside a living organism they definitely could not exist in a body of water because they are very soluble.
5. They could not exist on dry ground either because of oxygen they would decompose.
6. The sun would have the same effect.

 

[Hollie]

You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?

You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.

We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.

 

[Hollie]

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.

 

[Hollie]

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies

For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?

Do you know what evidence is ?

I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.

We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.

Whether they were or not Jesus warned many that would profess to be a Christian but they are actually ravenous wolves looking to devour.

He also will claim to him they did works in his name and he said to them get away from for I know you not.

So what was your point ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.

Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies

For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?

Do you know what evidence is ?

I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.

Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you

 

[ima]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

Same can be said for your designer

 

[Hollie]

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.

We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.

Whether they were or not Jesus warned many that would profess to be a Christian but they are actually ravenous wolves looking to devour.

He also will claim to him they did works in his name and he said to them get away from for I know you not.

So what was your point ?

What is your point in being so presumptuous as to use an historical character to hurl veiled threats?

 

[mjollnir]

That's an insane first week.

That's Salinas, CA, for you. Glad I no longer work there. Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.

Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.

Thankful for the dues I paid, though.

Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?

Police officer.

 

[Hollie]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

Same can be said for your designer

Nature and rationality neither presume nor require supernaturalism or magic in contrast to the Christian creationist worldview replete with gawds, demons and tactics formulated to instill fear and ignorance.