Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 10:23pm

Let me ask this.. what exactly is this 'signature of a creator' you mention? If you've never directly met them or talked them them directly then just how exactly do you presume to see any type of 'signature' you think they've left?

In the same way, as someone can leave its footprint on the sand, God has left his signature in every living cell. Without a creator, no life could ever exist. 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some time in the past, then life could have begun.
Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.
Where did all this information come from? Some try to explain it this way: imagine a professor taking all the letters of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them in a hat. He then passes the hat around to students of his class and asks each to randomly select a letter.
It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems) of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes, given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA, then life could have begun.
On the surface, this sounds like a logical argument. However, there is a basic, fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.
In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on December 28, 2011 at 4:08am

There's a number of inherent issues with your "B-A-T" story.. first and foremost, assuming for a minute there is a a God, let's also assume you're correct and he left a signature.. Now, never having been shown that signature before, how can you be sure you're accurately seeing seeing the true signature and not just something you seem to think is the signature.  

Now.. the BAT example is along the idea of taking a room full of monkeys giving them all typewriters and letting them loose for 500 years to attempt to recreate Shakespeare's body of work.. That'll take too long. If you work with the idea of inherited traits.. it would take you far less time to reach the goal. 

You're also assuming that traits just suddenly appear fully formed and functional as we know them now. They don't. They gradually form based on the need and environment of the animal species as it evolves. I would direct you to this video .. beginning at 8:45 to  14:48. The speaker, Richard Dawkins (in a 1991 lecture) does a far better job of explain the difference between your "Hoyle' example and my "Darwin" example (see the video for the reference).

Click here....

In response to your link, I'll leave you with this quote..

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he not omnipotent. 
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
Is he both able and willing? The whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" 
-- Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE)

Permalink Reply by Alexander Miner on January 9, 2012 at 1:39pm

WOAH!! Another 'answersingenesis' troll. Just ignore this brainwashed idiot.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 5:30pm

Hey Angelo,

 

The more science discovers, the more the signature of a creator becomes evident.......

 

Really? Define "creator".

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 26, 2011 at 3:31pm

Guys, Angelo is clearly a theist troll.  He's (very poorly) trying to pick apart things that are clearly understood, while providing no dialog from his end.  If you want to get involved, far be it from me or anyone else to tell you not to - just understand what's going on here before you do.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 26, 2011 at 3:40pm

Guys, Angelo is clearly a theist troll. 

the worst participants are clearly the ones, that have nothing else left, than adhoms....

Permalink Reply by Rocky john on December 26, 2011 at 3:45pm

and as i have said what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? since it is impossible to prove some sort of god does not exist

Permalink Reply by Akshay Bist on December 27, 2011 at 12:41am

Calling you a troll isn't an ad hominem . But asserting that because you're a troll your opinions aren't valid is.

This discussion is clearly a clone for your earlier Positive Evidence for Atheism thread. And if I recall correctly, you lost the argument there.

The question you pose is flawed. When there is no evidence for something, I don't see the point of asking for evidence against it.

If you want to question atheism, then first provide evidence that your imaginary friend exists. And if you can't then STFU

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 27, 2011 at 8:32am

the worst participants are clearly the ones, that have nothing else left, than adhoms....

Actually, my criticisms are not ad hominem, but based on your complete lack of original content, and incredibly vague questions of ideas that are thoroughly answered on accessible places all over the internet, including wikipedia.

Permalink Reply by Teri G on December 27, 2011 at 9:03am

Here here!!!

Permalink Reply by Scott A. Hunt on December 26, 2011 at 3:43pm

@Erik  Ding ding ding...we have a winner!

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on December 26, 2011 at 4:34pm

Angelo, just how impossible does something have to be, before you won't believe it?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page