Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

The doctrines of a "no God" crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.

The Bigbang Doctrine


#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

 


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:
Not sure about E Coli, but IIRC roughly spherical "coccus" bacteria might have the capacity to eventually evolve Eukaryote-esque structural and chemical characteristics, and eventually... internal organelles

“might have the capacity”? Dude, this is wishfull thinking. “mights” are not scientific evidence. They are theories, doctrines, faith.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@All

Kapkao wrote:

Sapient wrote:

 Great responses folks.  I was going to respond but I can tell our theist friend isn't interested in facts, logic, and answers. 

Atheistsnightmare is a good example of The theory of inherent dishonesty in theism.  

Sapient, however... is proof of "Spontaneous Combustion: When the hell did this guy come online?"

I was going to toy with this imbecile theist a while longer. I hope you haven't spoiled my fun. Eye-wink

 

And you think you are winning? Lol Delusion is a big problem. Up until now I have not seen a single piece of evidence for evolution. 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:Up

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Up until now I have not seen a single piece of evidence for evolution. 

 

 

 

 

        Show me some scientific evidence that the first humans were named Adam and Eve and that they were created by supernatural means.  C'mon,  I'm still waiting

     for you to "destroy my faith."

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You are a twat, AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
to give me the best evidence showing we were created. Don't confuse naked assertions about fit-for-purpose man made objects with evidence. You always mix them. Let's see if your tiny little brain can handle that...

Just what I thought, you don’t have one. Don’t try to play that old game twisting this thing around. I already gave you my most solid evidence. Did you forget already? Do you suffer from Alzheimer?

Look at post #167, steps 1 to 7. See if you litter brain can handle that. Please refute my SCIENTIC evidence. All you have is a pile of doctrines. Behold the empirical doctrines of atheists!!!!

 

Your post 167 was a list of assertions suggesting the male penis and the female vagina are scientific evidence that god created the universe. In actual fact they are a classic example of symbiotic evolution. A number of people have posted actual experiments that prove evolution happens at the genetic level, at the cellular level and we can see it in multicellular creatures such as Galapagos finches as well as finding it in the fossil record. In response to actual proofs you are just making assertions that do not materially prove your case. Show me proof, that god actually came to earth and made life, and explain to me the process by which he did it, for fucks sake. We should not be responsible for explaining abiogenesis while you continue to refuse to explain creation. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
'Mights' are scientific evidence you wanker

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
Not sure about E Coli, but IIRC roughly spherical "coccus" bacteria might have the capacity to eventually evolve Eukaryote-esque structural and chemical characteristics, and eventually... internal organelles

“might have the capacity”? Dude, this is wishfull thinking. “mights” are not scientific evidence. They are theories, doctrines, faith.

 

you fail to understand the nature of scientific theory. It never claims to know. It gathers data to support modifiable hypotheses. Multiple supporting scientific hypotheses are called a theory. Simple if you bother listening. 

Now, Nightmare, once and for all, accept that your hypotheses relating to supernatural creation of the universe and abiogenesis have no data. 

Funny - the only hard data you mung beans have at your disposal is that gathered by the empiricism you insist does not work. 

The only certainties are claimed by monotheism which insists on the basis of no coherent proof, that it knows how the world came to be and why. 

Every time you point at the planet and say where did it come from then, you are repeating your tired appeal to complexity. The fact we don't know everything does not mean you can just make stuff up to explain it. 

Fuck. This guy must be a POE. No one could be this bone-headed. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Latincanuck, you talk too much and say very little. Again:

Give me your BEST piece of evidence showing that we evolved. I don’t want links, I don’t want books. I want YOU to lay out in this forum, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the BEST piece of evidence.

I just need ONE scientific evidence, NOT theory.

Again back to the basics with you, first and foremost you have to understand what scientific theory means, and as well what evolution means. Just reading your OP it shows you understand nothing of anything in regards to science, and what the fuck evolution is. You start by saying the fallacies of evolution require extreme faith and then state nothing on evolution but on cosmology, specifically the big bang which has nothing to do with biology or evolution. This is the first problem in dealing with you, you have no concept of what evolution is at all, you seem to consider the big bang theory as evolution from what i read. That alone makes you unqualified to even demand what you are demanding, you do not comprehend the basics, forget me providing you proof of evolution, you can understand that proof or why it is proof. Then you still have to understand that scientific theory is not a guess but has evidence to back it up, hence again, I can give you scientific theory for evolution which is far more than you need to prove evolution, you already started off by dismissing it because of your lack of education and massive amount of ignorance.

My proof, fossils, genetic drift, DNA, common decent, genome sequence, chromosome fusion, embryological development, genetic mutation (for example blonds have only been around for the last 45,000, while modern humans have been around more or less for the past 150,000 years). Now that is all I need to show you, more than one bit of evidence, yet i know you cannot understand any of it and therefore I cannot expand on it, you simply do not understand evolutionary basics forget the complex stuff like Gene Flow, genetic reshuffling, changes in gene frequency, speciation, etc, etc, etc.

The fact that you started a topic stating evolution and make an argument about cosmology is the reason no one can take you seriously and is also the reason you don't comprehend evolution, simply stated your very much uneducated about the topic.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
Not sure about E Coli, but IIRC roughly spherical "coccus" bacteria might have the capacity to eventually evolve Eukaryote-esque structural and chemical characteristics, and eventually... internal organelles

“might have the capacity”? Dude, this is wishfull thinking. “mights” are not scientific evidence. They are theories, doctrines, faith.

In what way is theism not wishful thinking?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Show me some scientific evidence that the first humans were named Adam and Eve and that they were created by supernatural means. C'mon, I'm still waiting for you to "destroy my faith."

This is a dumb question. Who cares about names? The only thing I can show you which is SCIENTIFIC is the FACT that dogs are dogs and humans are humans. 6 thousand years of history tells me the same thing. NOTHING has changed.

Another thing, the first couple was NOT created supernaturally. They were created intelligently. God simply took from the elements of earth and put them together in such way to form a live system with software in his brain. If you call this “supernatural” then I guess I have supernatural powers for creating computers, creating software, and putting them al together out raw materials.

Your faith has already been destroyed; you just keep hanging on to it.

Did I say I was just getting started???


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Show me proof, that god actually came to earth and made life, and explain to me the process by which he did it, for fucks sake. We should not be responsible for explaining abiogenesis while you continue to refuse to explain creation.

This forum is not about me. This forum topic is about the fallacies of evolution requiring extreme faith to believe, not science.

What you are asking has been answered many times. The revelation of God speaks very clearly. God says he made humans and all things on earth. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You believe that “pure random chance” can make humans. Yet, when I tell you that an “intelligent” force created humans you make fun of it. “Random chance” can do it but not “intelligence”?? Are you telling me this is rational??

Please, answer only this one question and ignore the rest:

If the God of Israel was real, would you be happy with the rules of his kingdom (his ten commandments)? If your answer is no, please say why.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
My proof, fossils, genetic drift, DNA, common decent, genome sequence, chromosome fusion, embryological development, genetic mutation (for example blonds have only been around for the last 45,000, while modern humans have been around more or less for the past 150,000 years). Now that is all I need to show you, more than one bit of evidence, yet i know you cannot understand any of it and therefore I cannot expand on it, you simply do not understand evolutionary basics forget the complex stuff like Gene Flow, genetic reshuffling, changes in gene frequency, speciation, etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I think you don’t understand any of it nor you know how to read. You just stated titles, not evidence. I said “your BEST evidence”. I just need one. Not the title. Let me help you since you fail to understand. You talk too much and say very little. Since you claim to be smart and me dumb, please explain the following:

What evolved first, the ‘eye’ or the ‘brain’? Please explain how and why. Use your own words please.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


Your faith has already been destroyed; you just keep hanging on to it.

Did I say I was just getting started???

I actually lol at this Smiling  That's funny stuff AtheistsNightmare Smiling you should be a comic.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


This is a dumb question. Who cares about names?

 

I care about you backing up your creation myth which obviously involved two people named Adam and Eve.  You know, in the Bible ? That you supposedly believe to be true ?

 

Atheistnightmare wrote:
The only thing I can show you which is SCIENTIFIC is the FACT that dogs are dogs and humans are humans.

 

I didn't ask you about dogs or humans. I asked you to prove scientifically the validity of your creation myth found in the book of Genesis which involved two people named Adam and Eve who were created as full grown adults.  Prove to me that really happened.  I'm waiting.

 

Atheisnightmare wrote:
6 thousand years of history tells me the same thing. NOTHING has changed.

 

  Your statement regarding "6,000" years tells me that you have the gullibility of a child.  A Young Earther ?

 

  

Atheistnightmare wrote:
Another thing, the first couple was NOT created supernaturally.

 

Of course they were created supernaturally. They were not born which involves a natural process but they were instead created by God's supernatural abilities. How stupid can you be ?

 

Atheistnightmare wrote:
They were created intelligently. God simply took from the elements of earth and put them together in such way to form a live system with software in his brain.

 

Right, it happens all the time.

 

Atheistnightmare wrote:
If you call this “supernatural” then I guess I have supernatural powers for creating computers, creating software, and putting them al together out raw materials.

 

There is no equivalency between assembling a computer or any other inanimate object and creating a living human being from "dirt" and a man's "rib".   If you fail to see the distinction then you are  truly a waste of human flesh.

Atheistnightmare wrote:
Your faith has already been destroyed; you just keep hanging on to it.

 

      .... can you prove that to be true ?

 



Atheistnightmare wrote:
Did I say I was just getting started???

 

  Yes, you did but I'm still waiting for you to prove that Adam and Eve were created "intelligently".  Please present your evidence.  I'm sure my "faith" can bear it.

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                           PS, quoting scripture is not evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Boring ass thread is

Boring ass thread is boring.

 

 

Needs moar lulz. OBTW... I am starting to get envious of Jean's tag. (again)

 

Jean...

Explain to me... that VOODOO that YOU DO... sooo wellll!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
My proof, fossils, genetic drift, DNA, common decent, genome sequence, chromosome fusion, embryological development, genetic mutation (for example blonds have only been around for the last 45,000, while modern humans have been around more or less for the past 150,000 years). Now that is all I need to show you, more than one bit of evidence, yet i know you cannot understand any of it and therefore I cannot expand on it, you simply do not understand evolutionary basics forget the complex stuff like Gene Flow, genetic reshuffling, changes in gene frequency, speciation, etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I think you don’t understand any of it nor you know how to read. You just stated titles, not evidence. I said “your BEST evidence”. I just need one. Not the title. Let me help you since you fail to understand. You talk too much and say very little. Since you claim to be smart and me dumb, please explain the following:

What evolved first, the ‘eye’ or the ‘brain’? Please explain how and why. Use your own words please.

Oh boy, see here is the problem you don't can't comprehend shit all. As for me talking to much, you avoid the entire topic because it is so far above your head you don't even understand the basics. I stated the titles of the evidence, fossils alone is more than enough evidence for evolution, genetic drift is more than enough evidence, to expand on those topics is useless because you don't understand the basics, you didn't even bother to address your ignorance of biology and cosmology, the whole problem that I pointed out, and now your demanding what evolved first? it doesn't matter which evolved first really, its how they evolved. The brain isn't requires for the eye to begin to evolve, now we need to define the eye, something I trust you simply understand as the complex organ of the current state of evolution of the eye, and I bet you mean the human eye. However the eye is a organ that can distinguish light and darkness

However the evolution of the eye starts with before anything considered an eye, but with a photoreceptor proteins, which are found still today in unicellular organisms, a very very basic eye, that can distinguish light and darkness but not forms. The same thing can be found in plants. It then of course is what we could start really calling an eye starts when the photoreceptor cell which has those photoreceptor proteins and chromophore. Again something that if I have to get into detail with you, as you have ready show a huge amount of ignorance in science, starts to be beyond your comprehension.

As for the brain that starts off as a collection of nerve cells, called ganglia and that is found in worms and various insects. The two are not mutually inclusive, in other words the "eye" does not need the brain and the brain does not need eyes. As you can see your question is really ignorant.

Now to really answer your question, technically speaking the eye began evolving before the brain, as it began in plants and unicellular organisms as plants and Eukaryota which use photosynthesis, these organisms evolved either due to a mutation of a protein which gave photo sensitivity, those organism were of course able to find light and use it to thrive (again go back to the photosynthesis as to why this option would help an organism thrive) able to pass on it's genetic material to the next generation which of course is able to thrive more than those without it and of course it goes on and on for billions of year. However the rest of will be beyond your understanding, and of course most of this is beyond your comprehension from what I have already read from your posts.

Now answer this, what evidence do you have of god, please use your own words and please use the scientific method to provide evidence or possible workable hypothesis or a way to test if god could be real. Of course all these have to falsifiable, otherwise it is null and void. Can you do that?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
an attempt at lulz

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Show me some scientific evidence that the first humans were named Adam and Eve and that they were created by supernatural means. C'mon, I'm still waiting for you to "destroy my faith."

This is a dumb question. Who cares about names? The only thing I can show you which is SCIENTIFIC is the FACT that dogs are dogs and humans are humans. 6 thousand years of history tells me the same thing. NOTHING has changed.

Another thing, the first couple was NOT created supernaturally. They were created intelligently. God simply took from the elements of earth and put them together in such way to form a live system with software in his brain. If you call this “supernatural” then I guess I have supernatural powers for creating computers, creating software, and putting them al together out raw materials.

Your faith has already been destroyed; you just keep hanging on to it.

Did I say I was just getting started???

Are these your views?

The universe was created about 6000 years ago. God made it perfect. Nothing was dying. Then Eve was deceived by a talking serpent into eating a piece of fruit forbidden by God even though he put it there to test them. They would have no understanding of the implications of failing the test because he gave them no such knowledge (not knowing good and evil). Just the instruction not to take fruit from it. Then Adam deliberately ate the fruit because of his love of Eve. At this point everything went bad. Things that were perfect now started to decay and die.

Does that sum it up?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Another attempt at lulz

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Show me some scientific evidence that the first humans were named Adam and Eve and that they were created by supernatural means. C'mon, I'm still waiting for you to "destroy my faith."

This is a dumb question. Who cares about names? The only thing I can show you which is SCIENTIFIC is the FACT that dogs are dogs and humans are humans. 6 thousand years of history tells me the same thing. NOTHING has changed.

Another thing, the first couple was NOT created supernaturally. They were created intelligently. God simply took from the elements of earth and put them together in such way to form a live system with software in his brain. If you call this “supernatural” then I guess I have supernatural powers for creating computers, creating software, and putting them al together out raw materials.

Your faith has already been destroyed; you just keep hanging on to it.

Did I say I was just getting started???

Are these your views?

The universe was created about 6000 years ago. God made it perfect. Nothing was dying. Then Eve was deceived by a talking serpent into eating a piece of fruit forbidden by God even though he put it there to test them. They would have no understanding of the implications of failing the test because he gave them no such knowledge (not knowing good and evil). Just the instruction not to take fruit from it. Then Adam deliberately ate the fruit because of his love of Eve. At this point everything went bad. Things that were perfect now started to decay and die.

Does that sum it up?

Frankly...

 

that's a shitty 'way' of believing things. Frankly... I'm glad for all the ex-ministers in the world.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistExtremist wrote:

AtheistExtremist wrote:
(something about the Multiverse "theory", possibly in another thread)

The so-called "multiverse theory" is, at present, perhaps the most empirically challenged physics hypothesis ever devised.

At the same time... it strangely makes sense in the idea that our universe is the 'exit point' of a some sort of singularity found in a highly energetic universe.

(This is me essentially putting aside the semantic bullogne of "net (positive and negative) energy being near-zero" and whatever the hell nonsensical and linguistically-challenged concepts devised by quirky and eccentric Quantum Mechanics physicists. Again, in my mind, Einstein was far more scientifically accomplished than Planck.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

Sorry for the delay. I really want to reply to all of you but I have things to do. There is only a limited amount of time that I can use. Well, back to the topic.

latincanuck wrote:
…fossils alone is more than enough evidence for evolution…

Fossils are not evidence for evolution. This is the problem that you are failing to understand. You can’t make a distinction between “theory” and “evidence”.

“Fossils” are evidence, but not evidence for evolution. A fossil does not tell you that it got children. A fossil does not tell you that his parent was a different species. All this is “assumed”. I call it a doctrine.

Fossils are the product of a worldwide flood. Fossils are only evidence of a catastrophe in which they formed.

latincanuck wrote:
The brain isn't requires for the eye to begin to evolve, now we need to define the eye, something I trust you simply understand as the complex organ of the current state of evolution of the eye, and I bet you mean the human eye. However the eye is a organ that can distinguish light and darkness

Again, you are mixing doctrine with science. Without the brain, the ‘eye’ is useless. Here is a definition for what a real ‘eye’ is:

The eye is a complex optical system which collects light from the surrounding environment, regulates its intensity through a diaphragm, focuses it through an adjustable assembly of lenses to form an image, converts this image into a set of electrical signals, and transmits these signals to the brain through complex neural pathways that connect the eye via the optic nerve to the visual cortex and other areas of the brain.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

This is science free of doctrine. Anyone can take an eye apart, dismantle it, and verify this information. Then you go and try to say how it evolved. But all this is garbage. You use the example of ‘simple eye’ found in simple organisms. This is your problem. THESE ARE NOT EYES.

What you are doing is like grabbing a solar panel and calling it an ‘eye’. Well, a solar panel IS NOT AN EYE. All darwinists use this fallacious tactic. Just because a cellphone has simpler parts it does not mean it is a laptop. IT IS NOT A LAPTOP. This is where you cross the bridge from science to mythology.

The ‘eye’ sends electrical signals to the brain. The ‘eye’ DEOS NOT see. The brain is what sees. The brain has to interpret the signal coming from the ‘eye’. What you ‘see’ is the interpretation of your brain. This refutes your fallacious unscientific statement that the ‘eye’ does not need the brain.

Another point:

The ‘eye’ contains an adjustable assembly of lenses. Evolution CAN’T MAKE THIS and here is why. Pay attention:

#1 You are standing watching a hula hoop flat against the wall.
#2 The light bounces off the hula hoop and is captured and modified by the lenses in your eyes.
#3 The brain interprets the image and determines what is watching.
#4 The brain sees a perfect circle only if the lenses are properly adjusted.

Now here comes the problem for evolution:

#1 Evolution does not know if a particular image is skewed or blurred.

#2 Evolution is not able to adjust the image and determine it is correct by just using pure random chance.

#3 You need a rational intelligent being with access to both parts (hula and eye signal) in order to adjust the lenses. This rational entity has to know what a correct view of the circle is and also has to know what signal the ‘eye’ is generating. It is the same thing you do with modern manually adjustable cameras.

Your theory is useless in light of real science. It could not have happened by chance.

latincanuck wrote:
Now answer this, what evidence do you have of god, please use your own words and please use the scientific method to provide evidence or possible workable hypothesis or a way to test if god could be real.

I will answer all of your questions once I completely destroy your faith. Don’t worry; I will give you a new one.

Every man will bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord. Hallelujah!


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@For All

Now is my second part for the ‘eyes’.
Please answer this question:

When did evolution decide that two ‘eyes’ are better than one?

Think carefully before you answer.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:



When did evolution decide that two ‘eyes’ are better than one?

 

          Why did the God behind Intelligent Design decide that humans needed extra teeth in their mouths ( wisdom teeth ) for which they have no need of,  why did he place the male urethra through an ever growing prostate gland which only restricts the elimination of urine as the male ages, why do humans still retain a coccyx at the base of their pelvis / "tail bone " ? and so on....

 

  Indeed, why do any animal at all retain anatomical vestigial "left overs" such as whales and dolphins who possess leg bone remnants within their bodies ?

 

  Doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:Now

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Now is my second part for the ‘eyes’.
Please answer this question:

When did evolution decide that two ‘eyes’ are better than one?

Think carefully before you answer.

 

Does it get stuffy in your own little world? You should open your eyes once in a while. To be this willfuly ignorant takes effort.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

 Lol Delusion is a big problem. 

 

Ah the good ole theistic projection.  How ironic that the person who lives his life based on a delusion wants to argue that others are delusional.  I've never seen that before.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Sorry for the delay. I really want to reply to all of you but I have things to do. There is only a limited amount of time that I can use. Well, back to the topic.

Fossils are not evidence for evolution. This is the problem that you are failing to understand. You can’t make a distinction between “theory” and “evidence”.

“Fossils” are evidence, but not evidence for evolution. A fossil does not tell you that it got children. A fossil does not tell you that his parent was a different species. All this is “assumed”. I call it a doctrine.

Fossils are the product of a worldwide flood. Fossils are only evidence of a catastrophe in which they formed.

Oh your one of those fucking morons, that no matter the evidence god did it, its in the bible, despite the contradictions the evidence presents against a world wide flood, ignore reality and use the bible, hence where our discussion really ends. You are simply ignoring the evidence and just being ignorant.
 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Again, you are mixing doctrine with science. Without the brain, the ‘eye’ is useless. Here is a definition for what a real ‘eye’ is:

The eye is a complex optical system which collects light from the surrounding environment, regulates its intensity through a diaphragm, focuses it through an adjustable assembly of lenses to form an image, converts this image into a set of electrical signals, and transmits these signals to the brain through complex neural pathways that connect the eye via the optic nerve to the visual cortex and other areas of the brain.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

This is science free of doctrine. Anyone can take an eye apart, dismantle it, and verify this information. Then you go and try to say how it evolved. But all this is garbage. You use the example of ‘simple eye’ found in simple organisms. This is your problem. THESE ARE NOT EYES.

see you read but you don't comprehend shit all, your again are showing your fucking ignorance, are your brain injured? Because your acting like it

lets revisit wikipedia shall we. The simplest photoreceptors in conscious vision connect light to movement, you forgot to mention that part, the part that I mentioned in my explanation of the evolution of the eye, photoreceptors, oh and lets read down more on the evolution of the eye, The very earliest "eyes", called eyespots, were simple patches of photoreceptor protein in unicellular animals. In multicellular beings, multicellular eyespots evolved, physically similar to the receptor patches for taste and smell. These eyespots could only sense ambient brightness: they could distinguish light and dark, but not the direction of the light sourc...moron can't read apparently, so why are you commenting on shit you don't understand? I mean fucking seriously if your going to ignore everything that is stated in the article why bother using only minor pieces? So far your not impressing anyone here, you are just showing pure religious stupidity. Congrats if all you want to do is look like the class idiot.

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


What you are doing is like grabbing a solar panel and calling it an ‘eye’. Well, a solar panel IS NOT AN EYE. All darwinists use this fallacious tactic. Just because a cellphone has simpler parts it does not mean it is a laptop. IT IS NOT A LAPTOP. This is where you cross the bridge from science to mythology.

No bridge, eyespots (those very early "eyes" as stated in your wiki article states) still exist and we can observe them, as well various stages of the eye, the fact that there are so many eyes in various "stages" we can determine how the eye evolved very well, heck your wiki article states the following: based upon the shared anatomical and genetic features of all eyes; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago and the PAX6 gene is considered a key factor in this. The majority of the advancements in early eyes are believed to have taken only a few million years to develop, since the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race"

Again, make a strawman and try to tear it down, however in these forums it just show are stupid you really are, biological forms is what we are talking about, not inanimate objects, nice try, however it just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about.

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


The ‘eye’ sends electrical signals to the brain. The ‘eye’ DEOS NOT see. The brain is what sees. The brain has to interpret the signal coming from the ‘eye’. What you ‘see’ is the interpretation of your brain. This refutes your fallacious unscientific statement that the ‘eye’ does not need the brain.

Another point:

The ‘eye’ contains an adjustable assembly of lenses. Evolution CAN’T MAKE THIS and here is why. Pay attention:

#1 You are standing watching a hula hoop flat against the wall.
#2 The light bounces off the hula hoop and is captured and modified by the lenses in your eyes.
#3 The brain interprets the image and determines what is watching.
#4 The brain sees a perfect circle only if the lenses are properly adjusted.

Now here comes the problem for evolution:

#1 Evolution does not know if a particular image is skewed or blurred.

#2 Evolution is not able to adjust the image and determine it is correct by just using pure random chance.

#3 You need a rational intelligent being with access to both parts (hula and eye signal) in order to adjust the lenses. This rational entity has to know what a correct view of the circle is and also has to know what signal the ‘eye’ is generating. It is the same thing you do with modern manually adjustable cameras.

Your theory is useless in light of real science. It could not have happened by chance.

latincanuck wrote:
Now answer this, what evidence do you have of god, please use your own words and please use the scientific method to provide evidence or possible workable hypothesis or a way to test if god could be real.

I will answer all of your questions once I completely destroy your faith. Don’t worry; I will give you a new one.

Every man will bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord. Hallelujah!

Seriously you have no clue what you are talking about, evolution doesn't think, evolution doesn't do, evolution is a process, that's it that's all, it is a process. I have no clue what are talking about evolution KNOWING anything. Each species which the eye changed and survived and thrived passed on it's genetic material, those in which were able to see BETTER for their environment and thrived passed on their genetic material to the next generation, those that did not thrive did not pass their genetic material, it's really that simple, there are many animals that have FAR FAR better eye vision that we do, that can see into other light spectrum that we cannot see. God didn't create shit all, that's is signs of mental incompentence in your part believing in fantasy. If you think your going to destroy my faith with your ignorance? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA no really your too stupid to even talk to, i mean you don't grasp anything in regards to science, your a drooling idiot compared to my 6 year old daughter who has a far better grasp on reality and on science than you do.

 

Real science is what you are ignoring and instead using ignorance and stupidity in its place. Put the bible away and go educate yourself.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:Now

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Now is my second part for the ‘eyes’.
Please answer this question:

When did evolution decide that two ‘eyes’ are better than one?

Think carefully before you answer.

Bilateral symmetry, I cannot explain this to you simply because you don't understand shit fuck all, you can't answer my question, as such this discussion is over simply because your too damn ignorant to continue anymore, your ignorance of reality and substitution of fantasy is just so fucked up that we cannot discuss things you do not understand.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Why did the God behind Intelligent Design decide that humans needed extra teeth in their mouths ( wisdom teeth ) for which they have no need of, why did he place the male urethra through an ever growing prostate gland which only restricts the elimination of urine as the male ages, why do humans still retain a coccyx at the base of their pelvis / "tail bone " ? and so on.... Indeed, why do any animal at all retain anatomical vestigial "left overs" such as whales and dolphins who possess leg bone remnants within their bodies ? Doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

There are no such things as “extra teeth”. If you think you have extra teeth, just take them out.

There are no such things as vestigial “left overs”. Just because you don’t know what something is used for doesn’t mean it is a left over. You don’t have any evidence that they had it in the first place.

Many of the organs whose use in the past were believed to be “left overs” by darwinists, now have been disproven scientifically. Biologists have discovered their use. Only those who want to keep hanging to their “doctrines” are the ones coming up with this fallacious argument.

Nature as a whole was transformed by God himself after humans disobeyed. All malfunctions that you see in nature are due to sin. God no longer maintains nature. Therefore, it is in constant decay and destruction, not the other way as you want to believe.

Answer this question:

What is the total estimated number of different species that have ever lived on earth starting from bacteria to humans?

I will do a very nice computation based up on your numbers. I hope you are up for the challenge.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Sapient

Sapient wrote:
Ah the good ole theistic projection. How ironic that the person who lives his life based on a delusion wants to argue that others are delusional. I've never seen that before.

Allow me to remind you that a CHRISTIAN invented the theory of BigBang. Also, allow me to remind you that a CHRISTIAN also invented the theory of Evolution. Perhaps, you are the one following a delusion.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
No bridge, eyespots (those very early "eyes" as stated in your wiki article states) still exist and we can observe them, as well various stages of the eye, the fact that there are so many eyes in various "stages" we can determine how the eye evolved very well, heck your wiki article states the following: based upon the shared anatomical and genetic features of all eyes; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago and the PAX6 gene is considered a key factor in this.

Ohh yes indeed my friend. It is a BRIDGE indeed. I excluded this cause this is where the article departs science over to “lala land”. Just read carefully the underlined text.

latincanuck wrote:
The majority of the advancements in early eyes are believed to have taken only a few million years to develop, since the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race"

Here we go again. Let go to lala land.

I already told you. Similar or equal organs in different systems don’t mean common descent. They only mean COMMON DESIGN. Auto reproducible systems do not form by themselves. It has never been seen happen in the history of mankind. This can only happen in lala land which is located in your brain.

Please remove the word “believe” so it sounds more believable. Lol jejeje,

latincanuck wrote:
Bilateral symmetry, I cannot explain this to you simply because you don't understand shit fuck all, you can't answer my question, as such this discussion is over simply because your too damn ignorant to continue anymore, your ignorance of reality and substitution of fantasy is just so fucked up that we cannot discuss things you do not understand.

You don’t have to explain bilateral symmetry. This is not what I asked. I asked “when did evolution decide?” Give me an approximate date in years.

This discussion is over when I say it is over. Papá, mira, ahora es que yo estoy comenzando. For those of you who don’t understand Jack: I’m just getting started.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Sapient wrote:
Ah the good ole theistic projection. How ironic that the person who lives his life based on a delusion wants to argue that others are delusional. I've never seen that before.

Allow me to remind you that a CHRISTIAN invented the theory of BigBang. Also, allow me to remind you that a CHRISTIAN also invented the theory of Evolution. Perhaps, you are the one following a delusion.

You're obviously not interested in any intelligent exchange.  You're hardly coherent and highly irrational.  So I will attempt to point out all the idiocies in the hope that you realize where you stand.  You actually lower the SNR of your own theory.  What is your theory? Is it that god created everything, and the bible is literal, that Noah took all the animals in the ark?  The earth and universe is 6000 some years old.  Is that about right?  You require no evidence for this, other then the bible.  In fact, faith is the the primary and only virtue to guarantee you a place in heaven.  You should NOT even look for evidence, in fact you are actually committing a sin by questioning or reasoning the bible. 

So why are you asking us for evidence? You truly don't comprehend the term evidence, you have no concept of scientific method or theory. You have no comprehension of the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory.  Neither says anything about the initial singularity.  In fact they are incommensurable.  

I assure you that you are an idiot.  I'm not trying to insult you, but you fit the definition of the word in its entirety.  In fact I would have called you a dunce because you demonstrate no ability to learn, but I don't think it would get the point across quite as forwardly.  

As for your above post, a theory is not invented.  A theory is proposed, tested, thought of... but not invented.  Inventions pertain to devices and practical applications.  Further, the fact that they were Christian, if anything weakens your point.  At best, rationally speaking, their religion has no bearing on the (sic) INVENTION, at worst it goes to show that Christians are not consistent within their paradigm, or that they were "influenced" by god.  Either way, you bringing that up makes you an idiot, because you are being self defeating.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote: 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

 


There are no such things as “extra teeth”. If you think you have extra teeth, just take them out.

 

  I did have them removed you retarded Christian !!

You know why they were removed ?  Because they were located in my jaw beneath my molars and they were erupting and pushing my regular molars out ! 

Fuck, are you really that unbelievably stupid ?  

I can't chew with teeth that are below my other teeth.   Dentists remove wisdom teeth because they are useless !

Wisdom teeth, thank you God for putting them in the mouths of almost every human being on the planet.  That's intelligent design, ha ha !

 

AtheistNightmare wrote:
There are no such things as vestigial “left overs”. Just because you don’t know what something is used for doesn’t mean it is a left over. You don’t have any evidence that they had it in the first place.

 

Then what are wisdom teeth used for ?   You sure as hell can't chew with teeth that are buried deep inside your jaw now can you ?   What was God's intelligent reason for that "design" ?   ( ....judging by your pathetic reasoning your brain is a vestigial organ )



AtheistNightmare wrote:
Many of the organs whose use in the past were believed to be “left overs” by darwinists, now have been disproven scientifically. Biologists have discovered their use. Only those who want to keep hanging to their “doctrines” are the ones coming up with this fallacious argument.

 

  Why do whales have the remnants of leg bones deep within there bodies ?  To help them swim ?  To help them walk ?
 

AtheistNightmare wrote:
Nature as a whole was transformed by God himself after humans disobeyed. All malfunctions that you see in nature are due to sin.

 

  PROVE TO ME SCIENTIFICALLY THAT NATURE WAS TRANSFORMED BY GOD HIMSELF AFTER HUMANS DISOBEYED.   PROVE IT !  SCIENTIFICALLY !  OVERWHELM ME WITH YOUR EVIDENCE !

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:Ohh

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

 

Ohh yes indeed my friend. It is a BRIDGE indeed. I excluded this cause this is where the article departs science over to “lala land”. Just read carefully the underlined text.

NO your ignorance is far to great really for you to understand the sciences involved, simply put biology doesn't look at fossils and make claims, they use geological evidence as well, however geological evidence, when dating fossils, as such there is a plus minus between 2 to 5 percent, as such they use approximates, we can never know down to the day in which something occurred, we can only use the evidence found at hand. What evidence do you have besides god did it and massive ignorance and stupidty?

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


Here we go again. Let go to lala land.

I already told you. Similar or equal organs in different systems don’t mean common descent. They only mean COMMON DESIGN. Auto reproducible systems do not form by themselves. It has never been seen happen in the history of mankind. This can only happen in lala land which is located in your brain.


Please remove the word “believe” so it sounds more believable. Lol jejeje,

Says the person who "believes" in god, please don't be any more ignorant than you are, you might forget how to breath. So lets look at the common descent part, the eye parts have the same genetic marker and the same protein for the same function.....there is evidence to back up the claim......you are just closing your eye and plugging your ears and say no no no god did it....sorry ignoring reality doesn't change the facts simply because it doesn't fit your fantasy.

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


You don’t have to explain bilateral symmetry. This is not what I asked. I asked “when did evolution decide?” Give me an approximate date in years.

This discussion is over when I say it is over. Papá, mira, ahora es que yo estoy comenzando. For those of you who don’t understand Jack: I’m just getting started.

You never left the gate, your so far behind that you can't see me, your understanding of evolution is so retarded that you don't comprehend what I am talking about. Evolution doesn't decide anything, it is not a living being, it doesn't make decisions, it is a process, it occurs, but it never DECIDES. As for your question regarding 2 eyes, that process occured using the evidence at hand indicates some time around 518 million years ago give or take a few million years, that is of course looking at the evidence, do you have any evidence to back up your argument?. I know your stupidity will ask for precise dates (something again you don't understand in regards how the evidence is gathered and why it is given in approximates). In the meantime I am still waiting for you to give me scientific evidence for god, remember if your are going to post simply a hypothesis, it has to be either testable or observable and it has to be falsifiable. As such any more discussions in regards to evolution is done, you simply demostrate to much lack of knowledge in regards to evolution, please come back when you educate yourself in evolution, biology and some geology and not stuff from creationist sites, because lets admit they have zero backing for their evidences and no proper peer reviewed journals, just general basic stuff would suffice at this point. However now it's your turn to present actual evidence and not strawmen attacks and ignorance.

Oh and let me give you this one little tid bit of information in regards to science and peer reviews, they are not out to back each other up, on the contrary, peer reviews are out to disprove one another, if they cannot disprove the journal or a presented theory then it becomes accepted as a theory and/or fact, usually both, simply because it could not be disproved, yet it still is possible to disprove as the evidences changes.....so again what is the evidence for your god? So far you have presented nothing but ignorance......which is what I expected from you.

 

[edit] some spelling mistakes and added on a line or two.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 AtheistNightmare, I

 AtheistNightmare, I started a thread just for you where you can actually defend your own cherished beliefs regarding the creation of the universe, the origin of mankind, etc.  Forget about evolution and actually focus on convincing we atheists that your God actually created the universe, etc.   Please provide actual evidence.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:Now

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Now is my second part for the ‘eyes’.
Please answer this question:

When did evolution decide that two ‘eyes’ are better than one?

Think carefully before you answer.

Srsly? No depth perception? OMFG! Must be a fun way to look for things, or something.

What about the many eyes of certain mollusks?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

ProzacDeathWish's picture

 

 

Nice avatar, PDW Laughing out loud

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10602
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
Dude, you are very wrong.

No, I'm absolutely 100% right. YOU are wrong. But then you don't have even a grade school appreciation for science, so I'm not at all surprised that you think I'm wrong.

Btw, that quote doesn't refute me. Not even close. It merely approaches the question from another field, which you're simply too ignorant to realise. lol.

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

On top of that, I will add: A life organism is anything that reproduces itself.

So a fire is alive. LOL. You just keep shooting your credibility in the face.

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
This is in combination of the above paragraph. I think you are the one who needs to go complete grade school.

We've already established your inability to think. Everything you've said is the stupidity of the ignorant and self deluded. You are as irrelevant as you are wrong. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Ktulu

Ktulu wrote:
You're obviously not interested in any intelligent exchange. You're hardly coherent and highly irrational.

I am interested in intelligent exchange. The problem is that you guys fail to understand what “evidence” is and what “theory” is.

Ktulu wrote:
What is your theory? Is it that god created everything, and the bible is literal, that Noah took all the animals in the ark? The earth and universe is 6000 some years old. Is that about right?

Actually, as a matter of fact, I don’t have a theory. I have a revelation which is different. You are not capable of telling me what I ate February 3, 1992 at 2 PM. But if I told you, you would know.

This is what we call “revelation”. I reveal to you what I ate. You can only believe it or deny it, but you cannot prove it nor disprove it scientifically. Now, in order for you to believe it, you would need to trust me. This is another whole ball game.

Ktulu wrote:
In fact, faith is the the primary and only virtue to guarantee you a place in heaven.

You are wrong once more about the Bible. Faith is neither the “primary” nor the “only” virtue to guarantee you a place in heaven.

#1 Our permanent place is not heaven. Our permanent place is actually earth.
#2 Eternal life will be in flesh and bones, just like now, on earth. There will be no death.
#3 The primary virtue required in order to obtain eternal life is “obedience” to the commandments of God.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

This is the primary virtue. I think you are poisoned with the false doctrines of modern Christianity.

Ktulu wrote:
You should NOT even look for evidence, in fact you are actually committing a sin by questioning or reasoning the bible.

I never said, I am questioning. I just came in here to point out that what you call “science” is not science. It is a doctrine, a believer. I have succeeded so far.

Ktulu wrote:
Further, the fact that they were Christian, if anything weakens your point. At best, rationally speaking, their religion has no bearing on the (sic) INVENTION, at worst it goes to show that Christians are not consistent within their paradigm, or that they were "influenced" by god.

Of course Christians are not consistent. They are not one group of people. That is why there are so many denominations. The majority have a bunch of false doctrines. Don’t forget that this is also the case in the scientific community. No one agrees. You have different groups with different ideas and theories.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Why do whales have the remnants of leg bones deep within there bodies ? To help them swim ? To help them walk ?
I don’t know who told you they were legs. You are delusional. Wakeup from lala land. Oh, wait. I know what the problem is. The problem is that you DON’T know what a leg is. Perhaps, you have three legs. lol

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
PROVE TO ME SCIENTIFICALLY THAT NATURE WAS TRANSFORMED BY GOD HIMSELF AFTER HUMANS DISOBEYED. PROVE IT ! SCIENTIFICALLY ! OVERWHELM ME WITH YOUR EVIDENCE !

Your challenge is stupid. Therefore, I don’t need to answer it. What did I eat March 14, 1995 at 3 PM?? Can you prove that scientifically?? No. You have to rely on revelation, testimony, or a witness for this.

I have the testimony of God, what do you have? A man made theory? Yes.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
What evidence do you have besides god did it and massive ignorance and stupidty?

If you are serious about this question, I will answer it. I already stated in this forum that God is outside of creation. Therefore, He is immeasurable and undetectable. If you were a computer chip inside a computer trying to convince other chips of the existence of “humans”, it would be impossible for you to do. You have to rely on “humans” coming to you and reveal themselves to you.

The same happens with God, we have to rely on him to come to us and reveal himself. Well the problem is that God doesn’t want to do this for every person. He is sovereign and he does whatever he wants.

Since I can’t make God come to you, nor I can bring you literally to God, I only have limited options I can use to prove to you. One of those is prophecy.

latincanuck wrote:
So lets look at the common descent part, the eye parts have the same genetic marker and the same protein for the same function

Again, common descent is not evidence. Common descent is the theory. “Genetic similarity” on the other hand is evidence. I will go deeper into this.

I am a software engineer. So I will use terms from the software making world to illustrate my example.

#1 A system that sends emails is called “an email server”.
#2 There are multiple “email servers” out in the world. View these as “organisms”.
#3 They all share one common “gene” which is: “0001 1001” or byte in computer terms.
#4 What is this “gene” or byte? Well this “gene” is what defines the port to use over which to send the email. “0001 1001” = 25. We don’t call it “gene”. We call it binary code. We call it binary because it is a chain of digits composed of digits having only two options a “1” or “0”, hence binary. DNA is 4 which makes it even more complex.

With this been said, you can grab all the “email servers” in the world and break them apart. By doing so, you will discover that all of them have multiple equal “genes”. Actually, you will find entire trees and even full pages of equal “genes”. Why? Because all of them follow the SMTP protocol which was intelligently designed for all systems.

Your email server might be as complex as “Microsoft Exchange” or it can be as simple as a PHP contact page form. At the very core, they all use the (S)imple (M)ail (T)ransfer (P)rotocol.

This does not mean that Microsoft Exchange Server evolved from PHP. This only means that they share a common design; in this case, the SMTP protocol.

All animals that share similar or equal organs, at the very core you will find equal genes. This is not a problem for me. It is actually expected since the gene is what contains the information that makes the organ.

latincanuck wrote:
Evolution doesn't decide anything, it is not a living being, it doesn't make decisions, it is a process, it occurs, but it never DECIDES.
I know this. You don’t have to tell me. Tell it to yourself. Many things in nature cannot happen just because of the mare fact that “evolution” does not “decide”.

latincanuck wrote:
As for your question regarding 2 eyes, that process occured using the evidence at hand indicates some time around 518 million years ago give or take a few million years, that is of course looking at the evidence, do you have any evidence to back up your argument?. I know your stupidity will ask for precise dates (something again you don't understand in regards how the evidence is gathered and why it is given in approximates).
I don’t care about dates. You don’t know where I’m coming from, do you? Ok, so +-518 million years. So, before this date there was only one eye organisms? If so, which ones?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: Why

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Why do whales have the remnants of leg bones deep within there bodies ? To help them swim ? To help them walk ?
AtheistNightmare wrote:
I don’t know who told you they were legs. You are delusional. Wakeup from lala land. Oh, wait. I know what the problem is. The problem is that you DON’T know what a leg is. Perhaps, you have three legs. lol

 

My you are a dim one aren't you ?  Do you even know what vestigial means ?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
PROVE TO ME SCIENTIFICALLY THAT NATURE WAS TRANSFORMED BY GOD HIMSELF AFTER HUMANS DISOBEYED. PROVE IT ! SCIENTIFICALLY ! OVERWHELM ME WITH YOUR EVIDENCE !

AtheistNightmare wrote:
Your challenge is stupid. Therefore, I don’t need to answer it.

 

    The issue is not that you "don't need to answer it", it's that you can't answer it.  That's why you retreat from the challenge of providing actual evidence and instead resort to sarcasm and insults.  How juvenile.  

AtheistNightmare wrote:
I have the testimony of God....

 

         No, you have a fairy tale that helps you to feel superior to those evil atheist who don't accept your creation fantasies.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
What evidence do you have besides god did it and massive ignorance and stupidty?

If you are serious about this question, I will answer it. I already stated in this forum that God is outside of creation. Therefore, He is immeasurable and undetectable. If you were a computer chip inside a computer trying to convince other chips of the existence of “humans”, it would be impossible for you to do. You have to rely on “humans” coming to you and reveal themselves to you.

The same happens with God, we have to rely on him to come to us and reveal himself. Well the problem is that God doesn’t want to do this for every person. He is sovereign and he does whatever he wants.

Since I can’t make God come to you, nor I can bring you literally to God, I only have limited options I can use to prove to you. One of those is prophecy.

latincanuck wrote:
So lets look at the common descent part, the eye parts have the same genetic marker and the same protein for the same function

Again, common descent is not evidence. Common descent is the theory. “Genetic similarity” on the other hand is evidence. I will go deeper into this.

I am a software engineer. So I will use terms from the software making world to illustrate my example.

#1 A system that sends emails is called “an email server”.
#2 There are multiple “email servers” out in the world. View these as “organisms”.
#3 They all share one common “gene” which is: “0001 1001” or byte in computer terms.
#4 What is this “gene” or byte? Well this “gene” is what defines the port to use over which to send the email. “0001 1001” = 25. We don’t call it “gene”. We call it binary code. We call it binary because it is a chain of digits composed of digits having only two options a “1” or “0”, hence binary. DNA is 4 which makes it even more complex.

With this been said, you can grab all the “email servers” in the world and break them apart. By doing so, you will discover that all of them have multiple equal “genes”. Actually, you will find entire trees and even full pages of equal “genes”. Why? Because all of them follow the SMTP protocol which was intelligently designed for all systems.

Your email server might be as complex as “Microsoft Exchange” or it can be as simple as a PHP contact page form. At the very core, they all use the (S)imple (M)ail (T)ransfer (P)rotocol.

This does not mean that Microsoft Exchange Server evolved from PHP. This only means that they share a common design; in this case, the SMTP protocol.

All animals that share similar or equal organs, at the very core you will find equal genes. This is not a problem for me. It is actually expected since the gene is what contains the information that makes the organ.

latincanuck wrote:
Evolution doesn't decide anything, it is not a living being, it doesn't make decisions, it is a process, it occurs, but it never DECIDES.
I know this. You don’t have to tell me. Tell it to yourself. Many things in nature cannot happen just because of the mare fact that “evolution” does not “decide”.

latincanuck wrote:
As for your question regarding 2 eyes, that process occured using the evidence at hand indicates some time around 518 million years ago give or take a few million years, that is of course looking at the evidence, do you have any evidence to back up your argument?. I know your stupidity will ask for precise dates (something again you don't understand in regards how the evidence is gathered and why it is given in approximates).
I don’t care about dates. You don’t know where I’m coming from, do you? Ok, so +-518 million years. So, before this date there was only one eye organisms? If so, which ones?

At this point it is pointless to continue with you, the computer and humans part was just plain stupid in so many ways, To claim god is outside of the universe/creation but yet god in the bible affects the universe directly, it completely contradicts your statement there, something cannot be outside and undetectable and yet affect and do things in this universe, the fact that you even bothered to use that argument shows that your are a complete moron. So enough of ya, you are a dunce that failed science, basically a kent hovid of stupidity....at really there is no point of dealing with you. It obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about and its even more obvious that you haven't really bothered to read a thing I have stated (the one eyed thing was already discussed, again, your an idiot that can't read or comprehend what you are reading, explains alot).With that said your not an atheists nightmare, more like the joke that we laugh at...HAHAHAHAHA fucking moron.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
The issue is not that you "don't need to answer it", it's that you can't answer it. That's why you retreat from the challenge of providing actual evidence and instead resort to sarcasm and insults. How juvenile.


I am being honest with you. Your challenge can’t be done. You have to understand that not everything can be proven scientifically. At least not using the “science” that you expect.

I can prove to you scientifically that the Bible is a collection of 66 historical books written by real people in the past. Then I can show you that each one of them had personal encounters with God. Then I can show you what God revealed to them. At that point, you can only accept or reject what God told them. You can either say they are lying or telling the truth. But remember, this last part is outside of science. You can’t prove scientifically that they are lying nor telling the truth.

Do you still want me to answer your challenge?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
No, you have a fairy tale that helps you to feel superior to those evil atheist who don't accept your creation fantasies.


I don’t feel superior to anybody. I am no judge to make that call. I apologize if I made you feel that way. I am the lowest person in God’s kingdom.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
At this point it is pointless to continue with you, the computer and humans part was just plain stupid in so many ways,


If you don’t accept my analogy, then you are failing at understanding what creation is. My analogy is fair and very comparable to what I’m trying to illustrate to you. Just because something is mentally challenging you don’t have to give up.

Pay attention:

DNA is a nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions to develop all living organisms. DNA is made of two anti-parallel “columns” that hold together a sequence of pairs of four available options called nucleobases. This is what God used to embed information in every system.

DNA works very similar to computers, except DNA is way more complex.

Computer binary code has only two possible elements which is only half of DNA. Now let’s apply simple math to this:

Binary code: A chain of 50 bits contains exactly (2 ^ '50') possible combinations.
That is: 1,125,899,906,842,624.

DNA code: A chain of 50 nucleobases contains exactly (4 ^ '50') possible combinations.
That is: 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376

Using DNA, you can embed 1,125,899,906,842,624 times more information than binary can at only (4 ^ 50). Ask any Information Technology engineer what we could do with computers if we could use DNA encoding instead of binary.

These large numbers also tell you the probability a specific sequence has in forming by random chance.
Example:

The binary code for the number “25” is: 00011001. The probability of getting this exact sequence is:
1/256 or (1 / 2 ^ '8') or 0.00390625.

The complete human code is about 2.9 billion pairs. Now let’s calculate the probability for this sequence length:

(4 ^ 5,800,000,000) = “Unable to compute”

This number is so large, that you would need multiple pages to write it down. The probability is impossible to happen in only 4.5 billion years.

latincanuck wrote:
To claim god is outside of the universe/creation but yet god in the bible affects the universe directly, it completely contradicts your statement there, something cannot be outside and undetectable and yet affect and do things in this universe, the fact that you even bothered to use that argument shows that your are a complete moron.


It does not contradict my statement. This is a fair analogy. My industry is working in artificial intelligence. This is scientifically achievable. I will put it in another way:

If you were an intelligent software living in a virtual world of bytes, how would you show other intelligent software that humans exist? You can’t come out of the computer. Don’t you understand this? You have to rely on humans coming to you. And even if they do, they cannot enter physically in the virtual world.

Humans would need to resort to software in order to communicate with you. In other words, you will never ever be capable of interacting with humans directly. You would see another software that looks probably like you controlled by humans and you would need to trust that software is a human. Understand? Read it again please.

God has the same limitation; he cannot get into creation as he exactly is. It is not possible for him. He needs to rely on using physical matter to interact with us. The same happens with angels and demons.

Every time a human has seen an angel, the angel has the appearance of humans but with wings or without wings, or made of fire, etc. They can manipulate the physical realm the same way as we can manipulate the software world.

With all this being said, I think I know what I’m talking about. The full “God less” atheist theory is just what it states it is, A THEORY. It is based on the empirical chain of believes at multiple steps. It is not science. It is pure philosophy.

The God of Isreal, Jehovah, is your creator. Every man shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. Be ready!


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

waaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh

You are pulling numbers out of your ass, the fact is the chances of DNA happening are 1:1, it has happened, that is a fact. it's not a gazillion to 1, it's 1:1.

Your talking about probability, when in reality it has happened already there is no probability of it happening, it has happened period. The thing is once it has happened, then it sequence is set, there is no other option at this point, much like water is H20 there is no other combination for water, that is what it is H2O, same occurs with DNA, once the chemical make up occurred, however it occurred, it is set, DNA on our planet is set the same way for all life forms. How it occurred, well there is more evidence for a naturally occurring event than a supernatural, because like you said, you have ZERO EVIDENCE to back yup any of your claims, which so far puts you in the irrational category.

The rest of what you said about software and humans, again, irrational, because it contradicts your statement, we live in a physical world, there is ZERO evidence of god doing anything at all in this world, and if GOD does directly affect this world, physically, then god has a physical body and can be detected, again, god can't contradict the laws of nature, it is simple as that, otherwise you would have to PROVIDE evidence of something else defying the laws of nature.

As for your argumetn for the existence of god, it is no more different than me saying everything you stated just change god with the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU), please prove the IPU doesn't exist using your exact same argument for your god existing, as such the IPU exists using your argument.

Your belief in god without any evidence whatsoever is not rational or logical, it is fantasy. the virtual world and humans analogy is bunk because your bible directly states that god directly interact with this universe, please just at this point try to understand THE MASSIVE HOLE in your argument I can drive a mac truck with a fully loaded trailer through it is that big of a hole.

 


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

...

(4 ^ 5,800,000,000) = “Unable to compute”

...

Hm, I am compulsively drawn to address this math problem irregardless of its context.

The number can be estimated by analyzing the exponential growth pattern.

 

Using GNU MP Bignum library:

4^580 = number 350 digits in length

4^5800 = number 3,492 digits in length

4^58,000 = number 34,920 digits in length

 

At this point the pattern is identified and we can sacrifice precision (and CPU resources/time) to estimate the remaining.

 

4^580,000 = number 349,200 digits in length (approximation)

...4^5,800,000,000 = number 3,492,000,000 digits in length (approximate as well)

 

Taking this one step further..

 

To represent this number you would first need to identify how much space in memory it would occupy.

 

To cleanly store this number using as little bits as possible you could assume 4 bits per digit but this results in waste. If we analyze the exponential growth pattern of base 2...

 

log(100) / log(2) = 6.64385619

log(1000) / log(2) = 9.96578428

log(10000) / log(2) = 13.2877124

log(100000) / log(2) = 16.6096405

log(1000000) / log(2) = 19.9315686

 

...we discover approximately 3.219281 bits per digit are consumed.

 

Our original number is 3,492,000,000 digits long, multiplied by our bits per digit gives us:

 

11,241,729,252 bits

/8 = 1,405,216,156.5 bytes

/1024 = 1,372,281.40283203125 KiB

/1024 = 1,340.118557453155517578125 MiB

/1024 = 1.3087095287628471851348876953125 GiB

 

So representation of this number would use at least 1.3GB of space (non compressed).

 

If encoded using Unicode UTF-8 (8 bytes per character), the storage space would be much more:

26.0174274444580078125 GiB.

 

On a side note, DNA replication does require specific catalysts for replication in which the lack thereof (arguably) these structures could not form. DNA formation is therefore part of a probabilistic system of chemical stability which must also account for the chance of the formation of these catalysts (DNA polymerase) and furthermore of their constituent amino acids.

The number of possible experiments involving the parts required is very large, so an accurate conclusion could only be reached in a reasonable amount of time to prove the theory if all possible experiments occurred (relatively) simultaneously. This may be within the realm of plausibility but to prove this would require simulations far from our current technological reach.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
You are pulling numbers out of your ass, the fact is the chances of DNA happening are 1:1, it has happened, that is a fact. it's not a gazillion to 1, it's 1:1.


This argument tells me that you have NO CLUE of what I’m talking about. It also tells me you don’t understand your own Darwinist doctrine. You stated that evolution is a LOOOOONG process that takes millions of years. If you say that the probability is just 1:1 then you are saying that a human just appeared on earth in just one permutation.

You see, I do believe it is 1:1. GOD DID IT. For Him, the probability of creating a human is 1:1. For you, the probability of tossing a coin and getting head is 1:2. So, if a simple coin is 1:2, then don’t tell me such stupid argument that DNA is just 1:1. Don’t be stupid and willfully ignorant.

If evolution is true, then, before a “good” permutation is found, there has to be millions of bad permutations found all over. Like you said, “evolution does not decide”, therefore millions of permutations need to happen before a permanent one is found. This translates to 1:x where x is in millions.

DNA is a long chain of nucleobases. Like I said, it contains about 2.9 billion pairs of nucleobases. Since Darwinists say that evolution is true, then let’s do the math:

#1 Estimated earth age: 4.6 billion years.
#2 Estimated Human DNA length: 2.9 billion pairs.

2,900,000,000 / 4,600,000,000 = 0.63 pairs per year.

0.63 is the average rate at which DNA has been growing in earth history. Do the math and see how stupid your theory is. Math doesn’t lie.

0.63 is a “safe” number. I’m giving you LOTS of slack. The actual number is much bigger. The fact that in the past 6000 years we have not seen DNA doing such large permutations confirms that FACT that the whole thing is the biggest hoax ever told to mankind.

For your theory to be true, it would require “chucks” of nucleobases pairs ‘added at once’ at thousands of stages in the process. We are talking about perfectly orchestrated “chunks”. The combination of the nucleobases composing these “chunks” would have to be in the “right” order. Otherwise they would not work.

Example:

A chunk of 400 base pairs has the probability of: 1 / 4.446e+481. My friend, this is a 0.00e+482 numbers or a 0 fallowed by 482 decimal places. Every time a chunk is added, evolution would need to know the correct combination whose probability is in the google numbers. We would need to see millions up on millions of ‘trial an error’ before a good one is achieved. The evidence shows that this is NOT HAPPENING.

To make the case worst, the bigger the chunk, the worst it is.

Also, it doesn’t matter how small the chucks are, they compound.

latincanuck wrote:
because like you said, you have ZERO EVIDENCE to back yup any of your claims, which so far puts you in the irrational category.

I have never said I have zero evidence. I have said you don’t accept my evidence. My evidence is nature, also prophecy, and revelation.

latincanuck wrote:
As for your argumetn for the existence of god, it is no more different than me saying everything you stated just change god with the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU)…


Can your “Pink Unicorn” remove a tumor from your body?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” foretell the future?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” make you invisible to your enemies?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” make the handicapped walk?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” respond to your requests?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” talk?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” resurrect people from the dead?

If your answer is yes to all these questions, then yes it is no more different. If your answer is no, then you are stupid.

latincanuck wrote:
Your belief in god without any evidence whatsoever is not rational or logical, it is fantasy. the virtual world and humans analogy is bunk because your bible directly states that god directly interact with this universe…


Once more you are wrong. Read what the Bible says:

1 Timothy 6:16 [God] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

Also:

1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God…

You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. You change the state of multiple software on a daily basis and yet you are NOT software. Therefore, you don’t exist. Your argument is stupid.

The physical world looks physical to you; to God it is just pure software. Go study Quantum Mechanics and see all the things we can potentially do.

As for me, I’m done. Your 1:1 argument did it for me. I have achieved my purpose for which I came. The name of God of Israel has been lifted up very high. Don’t forget that you ALL got OWNED by a Christian, Sabbath keeper, none hell, none Sunday, son of God. OWNNNNED!!

Ax wrote:
Hm, I am compulsively drawn to address this math problem irregardless of its context…


Indeed, your computations are correct. I knew somebody would understand what I’m talking about. On the other hand, ‘Jack Asses’ only understand spanks in their asses so they can move forward.

This has been my last post.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:



This argument tells me that you have NO CLUE of what I’m talking about. It also tells me you don’t understand your own Darwinist doctrine. You stated that evolution is a LOOOOONG process that takes millions of years. If you say that the probability is just 1:1 then you are saying that a human just appeared on earth in just one permutation.

You see, I do believe it is 1:1. GOD DID IT. For Him, the probability of creating a human is 1:1. For you, the probability of tossing a coin and getting head is 1:2. So, if a simple coin is 1:2, then don’t tell me such stupid argument that DNA is just 1:1. Don’t be stupid and willfully ignorant.

I never stated that evolution is a looooong process taht takes millions of years, I never once stated that, I said evolution is a process, and it is a process that has been going on since life began, over a billion years a go. However I corrected your mistake because of what you stated, it is not probabity of humans happening, they happened, the ration is 1:1, there is no other possibility, now the probability of it happening again is a different issue. You seem to have comprehension issues. The other problem is that you still have zero evidence for god, I will explain to you the problem a bit further down.


Quote:

If evolution is true, then, before a “good” permutation is found, there has to be millions of bad permutations found all over. Like you said, “evolution does not decide”, therefore millions of permutations need to happen before a permanent one is found. This translates to 1:x where x is in millions.

DNA is a long chain of nucleobases. Like I said, it contains about 2.9 billion pairs of nucleobases. Since Darwinists say that evolution is true, then let’s do the math:

#1 Estimated earth age: 4.6 billion years.
#2 Estimated Human DNA length: 2.9 billion pairs.

2,900,000,000 / 4,600,000,000 = 0.63 pairs per year.

0.63 is the average rate at which DNA has been growing in earth history. Do the math and see how stupid your theory is. Math doesn’t lie.

0.63 is a “safe” number. I’m giving you LOTS of slack. The actual number is much bigger. The fact that in the past 6000 years we have not seen DNA doing such large permutations confirms that FACT that the whole thing is the biggest hoax ever told to mankind.

For your theory to be true, it would require “chucks” of nucleobases pairs ‘added at once’ at thousands of stages in the process. We are talking about perfectly orchestrated “chunks”. The combination of the nucleobases composing these “chunks” would have to be in the “right” order. Otherwise they would not work.

Example:

A chunk of 400 base pairs has the probability of: 1 / 4.446e+481. My friend, this is a 0.00e+482 numbers or a 0 fallowed by 482 decimal places. Every time a chunk is added, evolution would need to know the correct combination whose probability is in the google numbers. We would need to see millions up on millions of ‘trial an error’ before a good one is achieved. The evidence shows that this is NOT HAPPENING.

To make the case worst, the bigger the chunk, the worst it is.

Also, it doesn’t matter how small the chucks are, they compound.

Again bunk math, all of it, because for one, you don't know all the possible sequences for DNA that could have arise depending on different environmental factors, no one does. Second the sequence itself is determined already once it has occured, first and foremost RNA has to come before DNA and RNA has been replicated in a lab, with the given conditions of early earth. So what are those probability now? who knows we don't have all the information to make those assumptions that you are making, it is ALL junk math that you are giving, a strawman.

Quote:

I have never said I have zero evidence. I have said you don’t accept my evidence. My evidence is nature, also prophecy, and revelation.

So you have zero evidencece for god, nature is evidence for nature, not god, prophecies? sheesh which ones the ones made after an event to prove the event? Or the prophecies that are so vague that almost anything can full fill them?

Revelation is again not evidence of god, it's not evidence of anything really. Your evidence doesn't hold up because it's not evidence for god at all.


latincanuck wrote:
As for your argumetn for the existence of god, it is no more different than me saying everything you stated just change god with the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU)…


Can your “Pink Unicorn” remove a tumor from your body?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” foretell the future?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” make you invisible to your enemies?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” make the handicapped walk?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” respond to your requests?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” talk?
Can your “Pink Unicorn” resurrect people from the dead?

If your answer is yes to all these questions, then yes it is no more different. If your answer is no, then you are stupid.

Quote:


Once more you are wrong. Read what the Bible says:

1 Timothy 6:16 [God] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

Also:

1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God…

You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. You change the state of multiple software on a daily basis and yet you are NOT software. Therefore, you don’t exist. Your argument is stupid.

The physical world looks physical to you; to God it is just pure software. Go study Quantum Mechanics and see all the things we can potentially do. -

As for me, I’m done. Your 1:1 argument did it for me. I have achieved my purpose for which I came. The name of God of Israel has been lifted up very high. Don’t forget that you ALL got OWNED by a Christian, Sabbath keeper, none hell, none Sunday, son of God. OWNNNNED!!

Owned by what? are you going to say that god did not BREATH life in to adam now? So that would mean that god has a physical presence in this universe, sheesh you just god owned from the first part of genesis...dood seriously do you not read the bible or are you just a stupid parrot for your preacher? I am going with Parrot. Lets not forget moses who could not see god's face because it would be fatal, but could see his back (damn you got OWNNED by your own book again.....fucking moron)

Shall we continue how about ezekiel which god again appears to him and describes it in details ezekiel chapter 1 verse 26-28 Above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne that looked like sapphire; and upon this likeness of a throne was seated, up above, a figure that looked like a human being.* r 27And I saw something like polished metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed on all sides, from what looked like the waist up; and from what looked like the waist down, I saw something like the appearance of fire and brilliant light surrounding him.s 28Just like the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day so was the appearance of brilliance that surrounded him. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speak.t

Or shall we use psalms 18:-8-16 lets take a look shall we

In my trouble I prayed to the LORD.
     I shouted to my God for help. He heard my voice from his temple. My words went into his ears. So, the earth moved and shook. The foundations of the mountains shook.
     They moved because God was angry. Smoke rose from his nose.  Burning fire came from his mouth. Burning coals shot out from him. God opened the heavens and came down. Dark clouds were under his feet. He sat on a cherub and he flew. God flew in the arms of the wind. God covered himself with darkness. He was in the dark waters and clouds in the skies. It was very bright where God was. Out of the clouds came hail and lightning. The LORD sent thunder from the heavens. People heard the voice of the Most High.There was hail and there was lightning. (The LORD) shot his arrows (of lightning).  He made his enemies very frightened. He sent a lot of lightning and he beat his enemies. People saw how deep the sea was. They saw the foundations of the earth. This was because God blew on them through his nose. (The LORD) came down to me. He held me. He took me out from deep waters. He saved me from my powerful enemy. He saved me from people that hated me. They were too strong for me. It was a bad day for me when I met them.  But the LORD gave me help.

damn dood you just got ownnned by your own bible, I am dealing with a fucking moron here, have you read the fucking bible, god appears on earth, not fucking manipulates it, it's not a fucking software at all, god appears on earth according to the bible, ERGO he supposedly has a physical presence in this universe, unless your too fucking stupid to understand that, which at this point you fucking are.


Ax wrote:
Hm, I am compulsively drawn to address this math problem irregardless of its context…


Indeed, your computations are correct. I knew somebody would understand what I’m talking about. On the other hand, ‘Jack Asses’ only understand spanks in their asses so they can move forward.

This has been my last post.

That's great to hear because you are to fucking stupid to comprehend that nature is evidence of nature, DNA is evidence of DNA none of it is EVIDENCE for god. You spanked your own ass with you own stupidity.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ooer

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Then I can show you that each one of them had personal encounters with God. Then I can show you what God revealed to them.

 

I don't want to see what was 'revealed' to them, given the priestly revelations of recent times. I think we all get the picture...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:





Once more you are wrong. Read what the Bible says:

1 Timothy 6:16 [God] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

Also:

1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God…

 

      Check out this verse you dumb ass:

 

   Exodus 24:9-11.   "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of

                                 Israel, and they SAW the God of Israel; and under his feet there appeared to be a

                                pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.  Yet he did not stretch out his hand

                                against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they SAW God, and they ate and drank."






AtheistNightmare wrote:
This has been my last post.

 

                        Nah, ......you'll be back. I guarantee it.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3629
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

                   Oh, by the way you failed to "destroy my faith which has become an idol".   You are such an arrogant fool.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.