I made a mention of a specific theory on page 7 of the thread, which no one has bothered commenting on.  Anyone care to?

 -FG

Wow, those things bring pain? Do you think we atheists might be happier if we stop lying, stealing and murdering people? What do you think guys? Should we give it a try? I know it will be hard giving up the joy of killing and eating small children, but it might be worth it if it makes our lives happier. I just hope to God that we can pull it off without believing in God. Doh!

The theory sounds interesting but seems too complex to digest at the moment. On the surface it is a bit hard to imagine but so is quantum physics. Seems worth a bit more research.

I first saw the debate on NIghtline and in a discussion in another forum I stated that while I thought they did a good job they seemed a little petulent and smug. 

I finally had the opportunity to see the whole debate and was very disturbed by the editiing done by Nightline.  They did everything they could to present the RRS folks in a negative light.  As well, Nightline should have shown Kirk and Comfort's stunned silence when confronted with the law of mass/energy convservation.  I may use a sceenshot of Kirk looking like he'd been shot as my new screensaver.  The moderator was useless it seems, allowing Kirk and C to invoke their faith and the bible, although the whole point was that they should not.

I am an atheist, and I hope, I critical thinker.  But my initial reaction shows the depth to which religion is granted an automatic pass.  As well, I am generally very skeptical of the media, but I let this one go right over my head.

Could it have gone better, sure, and Kelly and Sapient in their comments made that clear.  This is how we get better; by doing this sort of thing.

I think you both did an admirable job.  I apologize for not watching the entire video before making my initial comments. (Although I did acknowledge that in my thread.)  

Keep it up! 

Not sure if somebody already pointed this out, but let's say you have a painting and supposedly that's proof of a painter (which is BS and might as well be proof for the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Anyway, I take the painting, burn it, turn the ashes into a brick and build a building. Would then the building be proof of a painter? I don’t think so.

This is exactly what I don't understand about Christian "reasoning."  This makes zero sense at all.  It doesn't matter how you look at it, it's just a bunch of nonsense.

God is omniscient, meaning he knows everything that can be known, past, present, and future.  So he KNOWS before he even creates them that the majority of people will never even have the opportunity to learn about Jesus, so they will go to Hell, no matter what.  Doesn't that seem like a huge waste of time?  I know God is supposed to be "outside of time," (whatever the hell that means) but still - it seems like he could think of better things to do than make a whole bunch of people who are going to be damned anyway.

And if God is all-powerful, why can't he just get rid of Satan right off the bat?  I mean, if Satan kicks his ass so hard all the time by making SOOOOO much evil in the world that God's "beloved" children just can't resist, and then they have to go to Hell for eternity.  If God is so mighty, why can't he just flick Satan out of existence like flicking a booger off your finger?

The most important question of all:  Why does anybody believe this?  As Ray Comfort pointed out again and again, all it takes to see what's going on here is "a brain that works."  I must suppose that the brains of Christians just don't work, if they have had an opportunity to learn about logic and reason but reject it in favor of a ridiculous non-sequitur like God's omniscience/God damning everybody who never hears of Jesus. 

What is or isn't diagnosed as 'clinical' depends on either statistics (any trait that can be expressed as being two SD above the mean), or something that is the results psychosomatic malfunctions.

So no, it isn't just about numbers. You can say it's subjective because the norms for 'normal' and 'abnormal' behavior and cognitions is often a construct of culture, but you're being incredibly naive when you pull out the ancient 'argument' of numbers.

Wars aren't just about religion. Sure, it helps as a means of social cohesion, reinforcement of devotion, and moral pressure to pick sides, but if you think the conflicts in the ME are entirely to blame on religion, you are being incredibly naive. Wars are fought in the first place of resources. Ideologies are an important part, but right now, religion is only a mediator for a struggle that is about resources (economic and military power).

The good thing about moderate religion is that aren't so arrogant as to make such bold claims about "what the world is really like". Of course you can always say you can just as well draw on a non-religious source. But if some people find positive things in religoin and then act on them, great! Let them believe it, and stop acting like every act of religious belief harms you by drawing absurd charicatures of christians and muslims.

Some people respond to overt individual rationality, others respond to collectivism and religious ideas. Let them do whatever the hell they like. Make a case for seperation of church and state if you want to control religious power, but you simply can't touch what people do in their own lives.

Unfortunately, you missed the point and are misrepresenting your bible.

Matthew 5:17-19 -- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

 Luke 16:17 -- "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

2 Peter 1:20-21 -- "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Mark 7:10 -- "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Jesus criticizing the Jews for not killing disobedient children)

Matthew 15:3-4 -- "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Jesus criticizing the Jews for not killing disobedient children)

Matthew 5:27-32 -- "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

1 Peter 2:18 -- "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (Repeating attitude towards slavery from the OT)

John 7:19 -- "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?"

John 10:35 -- "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken."

Clearly, the New Testament does not replace Old Testament law. Luckily for us, most of Christianity has followed the moral zeitgeist of civilization.

Matthew 10:34-37 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Matthew 10:20-22 -- "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

Jesus clearly does not object to Old Testament law, killing, stoning, slavery, homophobia, misogyny, etc. I'm not even going to go into Revelations.

My answer hasn't changed.

Sure, I'll have a crack at RevLyle before I have to drag myself off to the studio and start working.  This is VERY LONG, so I hope you'll do me the respect of reading it all, RevLyle.

I think Kelly can be forgiven for her obvious mistake of leaving off the words "in god."  However, her point was sound.  You do not believe in any other god than the one you call God.  Therefore, you are an atheist with regards to the other gods who have been thought up throughout human culture.  "atheist" doesn't mean "no Judeo-Christian God."  It means "no god," period, no matter what you define as "god."  When it comes to Zeus, you ARE an atheist. 

Kelly never postulated that one must be either a polytheist or an atheist.  You are simply stating that to try to shore up your weak-ass argument. 

Says you and your bible.  If you assert that all things MUST have been created, then ALL things must have been created.  To say that God is exempt from your rule is just a weak deflection of the logic trap you've sunk yourselves into.  "All things MUST have been created!  Oh, except for God.  That doesn't apply to him."  How can that make sense to you?  Just because YOU have chosen to label God as "the Creator" doesn't mean a thing.  Either all things require creation in order to exist, or all things do not require creation. 

Yeah, but the difference between science and dogma is that science feels free to change its collective mind when enough evidence comes along.  Dogma tries to change the evidence to fit itself. 

Scientists have figured out that there was a beginning to the universe AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.  Scientists also have not yet found any way to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics, so scientists must assume that all the matter and energy in the universe has always existed - just in a DIFFERENT FORM.  

Carl Sagan was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics in his Cosmos statement.

And again, Carl Sagan can be forgiven for providing the best information we had in the 1960s even if it turned out to be more complex than that once we learned more.  Again:  The beauty of science.    

PLEASE give me one example of a snake using its vestigial legs.  Kindly provide me with this information.  Humankind has been around snakes long enough that we ought to have observed some kind of use for their legs hundreds of years ago.

First, it's LIGHTNING, not LIGHTENING.  Lightening is a verb.  Lightning is a noun.  ("I THOUGHT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE AN INTELLECT!  YIKES!&quot

Second, maybe there is a way in which lightning is useful to life on Earth (or a way we can make it useful).  However, there is no "purpose" to it.  Nature does not act with a conscience.  Nature doesn't say, "I need to accomplish X and Y today.  I think I need some lightning to get this done."  Nature just IS, and we're along for the ride.  To beleive otherwise is to be naive in the face of the current evidence.

Third, if and when a use for lightning is found, it won't be religion that finds is.  So what is your point, exactly?  Oh, and we DO know what causes lightning.

That is true.  However, because of what science IS, it separated itself from religion.  When that happened, and scientists were free to think outside the constraints of religious dogma, we began doubling our rate of understanding and our development of technology every twenty years or so.  We have never grown so much as a species when religion controlled all important aspects of life.  It should tell you a lot that it was when science broke free of religion that we began to make huge leaps forward in not only science, but humanitarian pursuits as well. 

It was aptly named. 

YOU perceive that "hope" can only come from religion.  Atheists do not derive their sense of hope from religion (obviously).  Yes, we all have a sense of hope.  We derive our sense of hope from the idea that we will one day (preferably soon) understand enough about the world and each other that we will be able to cure all diseases, end all wars, and become the truly peaceful, united society that every sane human being wants.  We do not feel that religion is the path to achieving those goals.  We DO feel that free thinking and reason will get us there.  It gives us hope that more people are abandoning religion every day.  It makes us believe that we could leave a better world to the generations yet to come.  That is a powerful sense of hope. 

No, hope comes to YOU from belief in Jesus Christ.  The concept of "hope" doesn't work the same way for everybody just because you think it should.  When I was religious, I had no hope, despite my "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ.  I knew, because the Bible told me, that everybody I loved who was not also a Christian would be cast into the Lake of Fire, and would suffer for eternity.  I knew that the Earth I loved would be destroyed when Jesus came again in his wrath.  I was continually depressed and anxious.  I was on medication because of my belief in Jesus Christ and his message of "hope."  I did not feel happy at all, at any point, that I can remember.

 Once I realized that Jesus was a myth and that there is no God, I became the most functional, happy, med-free person I knew.  I never imagined I could feel so good and love my life so much when I was a Christian.  There is no Lake of Fire; Jesus is not coming back to kick everybody's ass and lay about him with his sword until all my friends and relatives are slaughtered.  It's just a dumb story!  Hey!  Life is good!

I have no fear of death.  What you mean when you say "hope" is "I hope there's more for me after I die."  I guess religion does provide that, but there's no proof of it, so why believe it anyway?  It's just a story that somebody made up a few thousand years ago so he'd feel better about the fact that he's going to die some day.  I've been much more comfortable accepting the apparent fact that when I die, I'm dead.  End of story (literally).  Since "I" won't be around to say, "Oh, crap!  I'm dead, and there's no Heaven!" then why worry about it?  It's something that happens to everybody.  I don't want to die any time soon if I can avoid it, but I will some day - oh, well.  It was a fun ride while it lasted.  

Only people who fear death need "hope" for an afterlife or salvation.  People who don't fear it enjoy their lives thoroughly without dwelling on the fact that one day we'll all die.

"True Christianity" as you are describing it here is a product of MODERN TIMES (read: after The Great Awakening, when science pulled itself out of religion and realized that humans are humans).  Christianity "by the book," so to speak, promotes evil in its own name.  Please read Luke and tell me you don't get the same impression.  You, like all moderate Christians, are ignoring the bad bits and paying attention only to the nice parts, because that's what modern, secular society has decided you need to do in order to remain a functional member of humanity.

True Christianity is every bit as self-serving and exclusionary as Islam and Judaism.   

True, an atheist cannot give man hope of a life after death.  But who cares?  Atheists don't delight in telling lies, so we're not going to tell you that you'll most definitely survive your death (but you'll only have a good time if you believe in Jesus - otherwise, you'll be tortured for eternity).  If all you can think about day in and day out is the fact that you will die, then you have deeper problems than your lack of logic. 

And doesn't that make this world and our intellect incredibly precious treasures?  Shouldn't we treasure every day we have, because at any moment, it could all disappear?  

That makes even the most mundane life beautiful and incredible and inspiring - not a pit of hopeless despair.

No, we can expect to use our brains to fix war, disaster, hurt, disease, and maybe even some day death - who knows?  

We sure don't believe that these things will go away by wishing to an imaginary friend that they will go away, though. 

Jesus said that.  Jesus also said, "Those who do not want me to reign over them, bring them before me and kill them in my sight."  NO atheist has ever said, "Anybody who doesn't want to be an atheist, just kill him.  He's not worthy to live."  Some non-religious jerk dictator have said to kill people who didn't want to accept their rule, but in the name of "statehood," NOT in the name of atheism.  Jesus has also said scores of other unChristianly things - things that you  have to choose to gloss over in order to continue to believe the ridiculous claim that Christianity is a "loving" religion.

The fact, based on reading the Bible with an open mind, is that Jesus and the OT god both contradict themselves many times, but are perfectly clear that if one doesn't cater to their need to be worshiped, one must be killed outright or one must expect to suffer for eternity.  VERY loving. 

And anyway, who's to know which "laws of God" to follow and which not?  Isnt' it better to live by the laws of society, that we've all agreed upon?  Seems much simpler to me than trying to decipher a social code from over 2,000 years ago. 

Yes - and that is why most atheists don't do those things.  I think it's hilarious that you believe that atheists just go around killing people and cheating on their spouses and robbing banks.  If that were the case, wouldn't it be in the news all the time? 

In fact, there are more Christians in the U.S. prison system than atheists.  If atheists truly lived immorally and Christians were never subject to breaking God's laws, wouldn't there be more atheists in prison and less Christians,  even considering the fact that at least 80% of the general population describes themselves as Christian?

There will always be antisocial types who break laws.  Fortunately, many more of us follow laws and are kind to one another, because that's what feels best.

By the way, the Code of Hamurabi existed long befor the Bible ever did, and contained almost the same rules of basic conduct.  That proves that the general rules of society predate the Bible and any concept of the Judeo-Christian God.  So the rules we choose as a society to follow are not "God's laws." 

Nothing.  But the fact is that they are not JUST God's laws.  They're general "laws" that have probably been around since humans first formed language.  We needed them to survive as groups, and we needed groups to survive as individuals.  We needed those rules well before we needed any god.  At the very least, we have indisputable proof that the rules themselves predate the Bible in the Code of Hamruabi.

We object to being told the lie that God made these rules up.  He didn't - we did.  Possibly before we ever made God up.  The rules themselves are just proof that humans are born with an inner capacity to form and protect social bonds - whether we're Christian, atheist, or anything else. 

Wrong.  I have no need to worship anything.  I feel quite content not worshiping.  As I was indoctrinated into religion as a baby, I can only assume that I was born as I am today, and that my religious "need to worship" was a learned behavior. 

I disagree.  I think that societies worshipped because they didn't understand the world enough to know that there's no reason to worship anything.

 And I do not worship the self.  I don't light votive candles, I don't pray to myself, I don't go to Self Church and discuss the tenets of the self with other self-worshippers.  

People like you are unable to wrap your heads around the concept of a TRUE LACK OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, because it is so central to your life.  You'll just have to take my word for it.  I do not worship anything, period. 

"Created?"  What?  By whom?  You're defining this all in terms of God again.

We know that a few cases of feral children that have been observed in the world in the last hundred years or so. Children who grew completely outside of human influence, sometimes into fairly advanced ages (I believe 11 or 12 in the case of Oksana, the girl raised by dobs in the Balkans).  These children had no concept of God or the "sacredness" of anything.  These are well documented cases.  Feel free to research them for yourself.  Although they are a small sampling, they do illustrate that these children apparently had no inborn "need" to develop a system of worship.  They simply existed as themselves.

Make of that what you will. 

Why is your God the only one worth of worship?  Why is a child born in India taught to worship the Hindu gods, and that they are the only ones worthy of worship?

If we were all created by the Judeo-Christian God, and we are all born with the "need" to worship, why don't we all naturally worship the same God?  Didn't God create Indian people as surely as he created Americans and Europeans?  What possible purpose would it serve to make them "need" to worship a God or gods who is not/are not himself? 

WHAT?  Ha ha!  Wow, you really read Dawkins poorly, methinks.  I don't get that impression at all from reading the passage that you quoted. 

So you're quoting Collins' opinion.  Further, Collins has the OPINION that God is the more simple answer.  Really?  I have the opinion that the infinite regress that God necessarily presents makes him impossibly too complex to ever fit into Occam's razor.  Sorry, doesn't work for me.  The bubble multiverse makes way more sense than a Creator who didn't have to be created himself. 

Seriously, that is the weakest argument ever, dude.  You keep coming back to the same wimpy premise that Ray and Kirk used.  Basically, you're saying that you don't understand science enough, so you're inserting a God that is "beyond the rules of nature" to explain everything.  Words cannot describe how intellectually cowardly that looks to a skeptic or an atheist.  Just read more books!  Study more!  The more you understand about scientific process, the clearer science will eventually become for you, until you cease to believe that "God is outside science, and he created it" makes a lick of sense.   

But it's a perfectly fair question to ask.  If we are born with a conscience, why do we have to be taught not to cause others pain at a young age?

Let's get purely philosophical here, Rev.  I invite you to answer this question philosophically, not scientifically.  If you respond to nothing else in my huge post, please respond to this.  If we are born already possessing the conscience that God instilled in us, why do we have to be taught not to pull hair and not to take each other's toys away? 

Actually, THEY said they wouldn't use the Bible or faith.  They lied.  (that means Ray Comfort is a liar, just like he loves to yell at people on the streets about!)  Using the Bible back at them was fair game at that point. 

The reason why this is so flawed is because you believe we live in a fallen world BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO.  You have no  real evidence that we actually live in a "fallen" world, because you have no "non-fallen" control world with which to compare it.  You cannot possibly KNOW that we live in a fallen world.  You believe it because you were told to believe it. And that is totally illogical.  Therefore, I cannot accept the concept of a "fallen world" or take such an idea seriously.

The following are all species that are known to have a clear "code of ethics" for group survival.  Members of these societies who "break the law" are punished physically or are cast out of the group (or sometimes killed).  This is only a small sampling of the species with ethical codes with which I am familiar.  There are more out there.

Equines (including wild burros, zebras, wild asses, horses)

Canines (all known forms of canines, incl. domestic dogs)

All great apes (additionally, African chimpanzees are known to make war on rival tribes, apparently just for the purpose of eradicating them so that they don't compete for resources.  Sound familiar?)

Baboons and mandrills

Spider monkeys and macaques

Elephants

Emperor penguins

 Vampire bats

Honeybees 

 I invite you to do further research into animal ethics to learn more for yourself.  The subject is quite well documented.  It is probably safe to assume that every single group-living animal has some form of "rules" and some consequences for breaking the rules.

Apes do appear to have a "conscience."  At least they have many of the same core values that we have in society (don't "lie," don't kill without cause, don't interfere with the survival of another member of the group) and they have clear punishments for breaking the rules, up to and including execution. 

Wait - you just said that we can't KNOW Hitler.  Just because you believe that anybody who truly believed in Christ and thought that they were following him would never massacre millions of innocent people doesn't mean that HITLER HIMSELF didn't truly, honestly believe in his heart that he was a good Christian.  YOU cannot possibly know that.

Further, YOUR OWN BIBLE says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin.  THE ONLY ONE.  Murdering millions is A-okay, ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, as long as you a) ask forgiveness and b) are truly repentent in your heart.  How do you know that Hitler didn't ask forgiveness and become truly repentent in his heart before he died?  Maybe he did, and in that case, you can expect to have tea and crumpets with him in Heaven.

And finally, you said yourself that it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saves the soul.  So you are agreeing with Ray that the Jews that Hitler killed went to Hell, right?  I mean, after all, they didn't know Jesus, or didn't accept him - and Ray was quick to point out that the pre-resurrection Jews went to Heaven - but he as strangely silent on the topic of Holocaust victims.  Please elucidate, my friend. 

I'm a man. As such, I have a genetic predetermination to have sex as often as possible - regardless if this behavior is in by best interest or not. This is a remnant of an age where the infant mortally rate was astronomical. For example, in the time that Jesus was to have walked the earth, the infant morality rate is estimated to be 400+ in every 1000 birth. Today, the infant mortally rate is around 6 in every 1000. As such, this sort of behavior is no longer necessary or socially expectable. Yet men all over the world still are effected by this genetic directive.

My point is that - just because we have a biological impulse, it does not mean that [a] we should always follow through with it and [b] that is is necessarily in our best interest to do so.

Also, there have been suggestions that human beings have only gained the ability to reflect on their own thoughts and desires within the last three to four thousand years. As such, the rise of consciousness would radically change the playing field of evolution. While we are not competently free from our genetic directives, we can use conciseness to help guide the process of evolution in a more positive direction. For example, I may feel anger, but I can reflect on these feelings and decide if I should expand them into actions that may effect others.

I don't know...I'm pretty attached to my routine of murdering old ladies and then laughing heartily about it.  Plus, I was thinking I was going to steal my neighbor's car later today.  I mean, it's nice, and I want it pretty badly.  That's enough justification.

 Plus giving up my hedonistic, socially destructive ways would mean I can't cheat on my husband anymore, and I sure derive a lot of enjoyment from that.

I'd also note that conciseness is a good answer to the moderator's question of "why should we protect the poor, weak or elderly when evolution is based on survival of the fittest?"  If we've only recently became conscious, evolution is useful to explain how complex lifeforms, such as human beings, initially developed from simple forms of life. However, once we've reached the point where human beings developed conciseness, evolution need not be the only force we use to make moral judgments or decisions going forward.

Thanks!

- Kelly and Brian

Didn't their Jesus say something about "vain reptition" in prayer? 

Price of fame, Mr. Sapient.

Be a success and people start calling you out. 

 Get involved by posting responses to people on this site.  There are many people here engaging in discussion, please add your slant to the conversation.

Crystals are a good example of inanimate materialistic processes storing, replicating and transmitting information without intelligence. 

 (Bearing in mind what Trilberian and Secular Evangelist have already said about "information" being an abstract concept that intelligence imposes on physical processes that we observe, which is true)...

  In its most basic form, information is just an organized pattern of matter that persists in time.  The information encoded in an alum crystal, for example, could be called "instructions for how to make alum crystalline structures."  If you drop this alum crystal into a saturated solution, this code will be "read" by the dissolved alum molecules, and they'll be electrochemically organized into the alum crystal pattern according to those instructions.

The alum crystal doesn't "know" the chemical formula or arrangement of molecules, and the information didn't require intelligence to decode and apply.  Also the original seed crystal didn't require any intelligence to create or design--it just arose spontaneously out of the chemical responses to particular starting conditions earlier.

This is true of all crystals--the arrangement of the parts (i.e. information) arises--not at random or by chance--but as an inevitable result of certain starting conditions.  Put some carbon molecules into one kind of environment, and you get graphite.  Put them in a different environment, and you get a diamond.  The crystal didn't decide to become a diamond and it didn't require a designer/creator to become a diamond: the organization of the matter (that is the blueprint of "how to make a diamond&quot arose inevitably from those starting conditions.

DNA and other organic molecules work the same way, but on a more complex scale.  They mash against each other mechanically and chemically, and then mash against other things to build proteins and so forth, but none of this requires any intelligence.  The mistake in your thinking, Honest Questioner, is in interpreting the "reading" of DNA information on a human scale--which requires intelligence.  DNA is "read" by physical and chemical operations analagous to the crystal example above, and it happens without any intelligence.

To answer your other question, the best guess that science currently has for where genetic "information" came from originally is that it resulted electrochemically, not by random chance, but rather from particular starting conditions (including environmental selection pressures).  Then, like with a crystal, once it got going, it just kept on.

Sorry...no speculation, here. It is how many historians/experts on Josephus and the Testimonium state the issue. I cited some of the experts in an earlier post, if you would like to check it out.

I do not expect a dog to give birth to a cat (but maybe a dinosaur birthing a bird)...sorry to disappoint, though.

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."  I think that I understand that concept but I don't understand your assertion that "every fossil is a transitional that proves species evolving." How can a single fossil provide evidence of heritable changes in a population?  

The universe didn't use to exist. Life didn't use to exist. How did it come into existence?