# Information



## Asath (Aug 2, 2012)

Kinda what it is all about in the end, isn’t it?  Information.  

Think for a moment.  DNA.  We’ve decoded it.  We’re rapidly working out the sequences, and what they mean.  But DNA is little more than about 6 billion bits of information encoded into a single molecule.  That information, properly exchanged with other molecules, forms a human being.  You.

6 BILLION bits of information.  In one molecule.  Heck, when most of the Holy Books were written they couldn’t have conceived of a number that large  At that point only the Arabs had even thought up the idea that zero was a number.  Not a one of them even knew what a molecule WAS.  I suppose that the idea that they had no actual information at all, but WERE in fact, information itself, might have been poorly received.  Lots of folks got burned alive for suggesting lesser ideas back then.  They didn’t know very much, but that never stopped anyone.  Ignorance was truth.    

A few small changes among those billions of bits of information in that single molecule, or a few subtle changes as to how that information is exchanged with other molecules, and you become something else entirely.  Look around.  You could easily have become any of those other things.  Well, likely not a rock or a slice of Swiss Cheese, though I suspect some of you often display similar traits.  Your DNA is simply a message processor – a molecular ‘quarterback’ of sorts, that calls the play, and coordinates the various players into the formation dictated by the encoded information.

From encoded information, slowly accumulated over billions of years, to the communication of that information, to the fully formed being – well, that is one heck of a complicated bit of genesis, isn’t it?  Nobody said it would be easy.  All of the allegorical trials and tests and admonitions and warnings and advice to stick to the one TRUE path has, unfortunately, led to this. Science stuck to the true path.  Religion invented a story of the TRUE path, and simply killed anyone who didn’t go along with it.  Information.   

Genesis (an origin, or beginning) turns out not to be so simple as the whimsical snapping of an invisible being’s fingers.  It would be a lot easier if it had been, since it would have saved us the trouble and distraction of having to invent such a being, in our embarrassment over our ignorance, but at least religions have had the side benefit of stamping out much of humanity’s accumulated knowledge over the centuries, forcing us to start over with a fresh view informed by – INFORMATION.  Try as they have, those who would impose knowledge have steadily lost ground to those who take the trouble to gain knowledge.  Again unfortunately, mythology and actual information can no longer coexist.  

To a religious person, the answer is obvious.  Information, though they are made entirely out of it, is their enemy.  So they refute it (and by extension, themselves) automatically.  To a thinking person, the information only creates another question to be answered – ONLY 6 billion bits of information in a DNA molecule?  What’s up with that?  We can see about 13 billion years of Universe, and that might only be scratching the surface from our limited perspective and developed abilities, but heck, we ought to be better developed than THAT, dang it!  It just doesn’t seem fair, to be this limited it a place that seems limitless.  How far behind ARE we?  

Sorry to be the messenger, but – learn, and you will grow.  Refute learning, and you will stagnate, and along with all outmoded and ancient ways of thinking be quickly replaced.  With information.  

Oh.  Did I mention?  YOU are information, on a fundamental level, so you’ll only be replaced with BETTER information.  Take comfort in that.  The rest of us do.


----------



## lagrangedave (Aug 2, 2012)

Allegory, speculation, scientifically deficient. You prove nothing that is more sustainable than religion.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> Kinda what it is all about in the end, isn’t it?  Information.
> 
> Think for a moment.  DNA.  We’ve decoded it.  We’re rapidly working out the sequences, and what they mean.  But DNA is little more than about 6 billion bits of information encoded into a single molecule.  That information, properly exchanged with other molecules, forms a human being.  You.
> 
> ...



It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place in this universe->this galaxy->this arm of the Milky Way->this solar system->on this planet-> with the right conditions for carbon based life is unbelievable. So unbelievable that it takes more faith to believe in a theory of random existence than believing in a God of creation. Which God of creation is debated on other threads.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place in this universe->this galaxy->this arm of the Milky Way->this solar system->on this planet-> with the right conditions for carbon based life is unbelievable. So unbelievable that it takes more faith to believe in a theory of random existence than believing in a God of creation. Which God of creation is debated on other threads.



Mathematically its not actually. Think of it as the lottery. Yes the chances are slim that you will win but someone does win.  If chances of life forming on a planet are 1 in a 100 billion, and there of trillions of planets, well that means the chances of life forming are actually pretty good. If there are only 1 trillion, that means there are 10 planets that have life.  Someone does win, lucky earth. 

Now looking at it in the other perspective. We estimate there are between 100 and 300 billion galaxies in our OBSERVABLE universe alone (likely many, many, more) and some god chose this planet only to make life? Logically this is by far less believable.

You right though it does boil down to the same arguement:  Logic and reason vs. Faith and hope. Information, as Asath points out, tends to lend credibility to the former though, exstinguishing the need for the latter.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Now looking at it in the other perspective. We estimate there are between 100 and 300 billion galaxies in our OBSERVABLE universe alone (likely many, many, more) and some god chose this planet only to make life? Logically this is by far less believable.



I do not think it is a basic principle of Christianity to believe we are alone in the universe.

Heck, for all we know "heaven" could be a physical planet out there complete with dinos and all sorts of odd alien life.  I do not have an opinion either way, really.  It makes sense for there to be life elsewhere.....but we can't prove it....yet.....


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Mathematically its not actually. Think of it as the lottery. Yes the chances are slim that you will win but someone does win.  If chances of life forming on a planet are *1 in a 100 billion*, and there of trillions of planets, well that means the chances of life forming are actually pretty good. If there are only 1 trillion, that means there are 10 planets that have life.  Someone does win, lucky earth.


1 in a billion? You're not even scratching the suface....


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy





WIKI said:


> This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.




I could probably come up with some more mathmeticians if you would like.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> 1 in a billion? You're not even scratching the suface....



Boring alert. Yeagh, no bias in that video at all.  You post that on the www and all scientist should just quit, becuase your video obviosly points to them being wrong.

Couple things you missed.  

1. Is the big "If"  in the begining of the sentence. 

2.  a couple of zero's after the 1 which you you highlighted but missed.


String, I do not know what the odds exactly are my numbers were just to give an example. If they were one in a 100 trillion, thats still a relatively small number compared to the infinite possibilities the universe presents us with.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I could probably come up with some more mathmeticians if you would like.



 You obviously didn't read the link. Just because you plug numbers into an equation doesn't mean you've proven anything unless the assumptions on which those numbers are based are correct. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why biologists remain unconvinced by Fred Hoyle's numbers? Or do you even care about the fallacies underlying his assumptions?

That video also brought up the fine tuning argument. Question, why would an all powerful deity need to fine tune a universe?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Boring alert. Yeagh, no bias in that video at all.  You post that on the www and all scientist should just quit, becuase your video obviosly points to them being wrong.


I never said they should quit, nor did the video suggest it.



> Couple things you missed.
> 
> 1. Is the big "If"  in the begining of the sentence.
> 
> 2.  a couple of zero's after the 1 which you you highlighted but missed.


You're right, I comepletely missed that, either way though, your number is not close.




> String, I do not know what the odds exactly are my numbers were just to give an example. If they were one in a 100 trillion, thats still a relatively small number compared to the infinite possibilities the universe presents us with.


I don't think there are infinite possibilities, either we are here because somehow matter came together just right, in the hugeness of space, and somehow developed into our consciouness, or, we were created by an intelligent Being.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You obviously didn't read the link. Just because you plug numbers into an equation doesn't mean you've proven anything unless the assumptions on which those numbers are based are correct. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why biologists remain unconvinced by Fred Hoyle's numbers? Or do you even care about the fallacies underlying his assumptions?
> 
> That video also brought up the fine tuning argument. Question, why would an all powerful deity need to fine tune a universe?



Why would an all powerfull deity need to create a universe if all he needed was this planet?  Why bother with all the trillions of others?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why would an all powerfull deity need to create a universe if all he needed was this planet?



....but....is that what happened?  Heck man, we could be the outcast society from the utopians a few galaxies over, and that still wouldn't negate any facts of the faith.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You obviously didn't read the link. Just because you plug numbers into an equation doesn't mean you've proven anything unless the assumptions on which those numbers are based are correct. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why *evolutionary* biologists remain unconvinced by Fred Hoyle's numbers? Or do you even care about the fallacies underlying his assumptions?


Highlighted an important word you forgot.

I scanned through the link the first time, but went back and read most of it. What exactly are Hoyle's assumptions? 



> That video also brought up the fine tuning argument. Question, why would an all powerful deity need to fine tune a universe?


The universe *is* fine tuned, all the more reason to suspect we did not arrive to where we are today from chaos.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why would an all powerfull deity need to create a universe if all he needed was this planet?  Why bother with all the trillions of others?



Where do you get the notion He _needed_ to do anything?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where do you get the notion He _needed_ to do anything?



I suppose need was to strong a word.  Why would he create all these planets if all he could have just created one?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ....but....is that what happened?  Heck man, we could be the outcast society from the utopians a few galaxies over, and that still wouldn't negate any facts of the faith.



That raises alot more questions and certainly does not lend credibility to the good book.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

String you should watch the video I posted.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I suppose need was to strong a word.  Why would he create all these planets if all he could have just created one?



I can just speculate like anyone else can, but He could have done it to show His power and vastness, or there might be other life forms on some of them, I really have no clue to be honest.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> That raises alot more questions and certainly does not lend credibility to the good book.



Agreed, but I would add that it does not decrease credibility either.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> String you should watch the video I posted.



I would like too, I'll have to try to find time to watch it when I'm not at work because of how long it is. I have one recorded on the DVR at home about bringing people back to life after they die. It's a pretty good show, but they clearly have the bias of atheists and naturalists, still interesting though, and Morgan Freeman is a good host.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I can just speculate like anyone else can, but He could have done it to show His power and vastness, or there might be other life forms on some of them, I really have no clue to be honest.



I like to imagine there is other life.....just for fun, really.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I scanned through the link the first time, but went back and read most of it. What exactly are Hoyle's assumptions?



The argument conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in Boeing 747), the comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ed Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

    These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

        They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
        They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
        They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
        They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
        They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]




stringmusic said:


> The universe *is* fine tuned, all the more reason to suspect we did not arrive to where we are today from chaos.



Really? How do you know that? And even if it were true how would that be an argument in favor of an all powerful deity? It would instead be an argument in favor of a creator constrained by the laws of nature.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The argument conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in Boeing 747), the comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.


Are we sure that Hoyle's equation doesn't take into account the ability for certain organisms to reproduce?




> They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.


This is another assumption, do we know the Hoyle didn't take into account that "modern" proteins and proteins that were around when the supposed big bang took place may not have been the same?


> They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.


Is this untrue, are there multiple ways for life to come into existence? If so, could you name a few?



> They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
> They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
> They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]


Where were these other simultaneous trials taking place at?

This mush is chock full of assumptions based on something that we probably can't prove, unless we can gather Hoyle and others into a room and ask them did they take this information into account, or unless we can find out if they did or not on the WWW.





> Really? How do you know that?


How do I know that the universe is finely tuned? Are you serious?



> And even if it were true how would that be an argument in favor of an all powerful deity? It would instead be an argument in favor of a creator constrained by the laws of nature.


Or a Creator who created those laws.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are we sure that Hoyle's equation doesn't take into account the ability for certain organisms to reproduce?



Yes




stringmusic said:


> This is another assumption, do we know the Hoyle didn't take into account that "modern" proteins and proteins that were around when the supposed big bang took place may not have been the same?



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Hoyle



> The most commonly cited source for statistical impossibility of the origin of life comes from another odd book, Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism). The statistic 10^40,000 is calculated on p. 24 (Hoyle repeats the exact same argument on pp. 16-17 of The Intelligent Universe (1983)). A twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Although Hoyle does not state it, this would entail that there must have been a minimum specificity, of one specific possibility, for the first enzymic life, of 10^20, a value to which Hoyle himself says "by itself, this small probability could be faced" (and this statistic even fails to account for that fact that any number of "first enzymic organisms" are possible, and not just one as his calculation assumes). Hoyle then goes on: "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes," (in "the whole of biology," p. 23), "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."
> 
> There are three flaws in this conclusion: he assumes (1) that natural selection is equivalent to random shuffling, (2) that all two thousand enzymes, all the enzymes used in the whole of biology, had to be hit upon at once in one giant pull of the cosmic slot machine, and (3) that life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert. As for (1), I address this mistaken idea throughout my critique of Foster. To put it in a nutshell, natural selection is not random, but selective, a distinction that is not trivial (a point made by Sagan above). As for (2), Hoyle leads his readers to believe that every living organism requires or uses all two thousand enzymes, but he leaves himself an out, for when he claims this, he uses the words "for the most part" (p. 23). In other words, some life, probably the simplest, uses less. Since biologists consider all present life to be far more advanced than early life, even if all presently living organisms required two thousand enzymes it would not follow that the first life did. It almost certainly did not. As for this point and (3), see Addenda C. For a good introduction, with numerous recommended readings, on the current state of the science of biochemical origins, see Massimo Pigliucci's "Where Do We Come From?" in the Skeptical Inquirer (September/October 1999).






stringmusic said:


> Is this untrue, are there multiple ways for life to come into existence? If so, could you name a few?



You're the one who needs to know the answer to that question in order to be able to accurately make the calculations you are proposing. And that is just one piece of information you would need. You're putting forth this probability as being credible so the burden of proof is on you to show that the underlying assumptions are correct.




stringmusic said:


> This mush is chock full of assumptions based on something that we probably can't prove, unless we can gather Hoyle and others into a room and ask them did they take this information into account, or unless we can find out if they did or not on the WWW.



Ok then get back to us when you have what you need to back up your claims. You put a probability calculation out there as if it proves bishop wrong and yet you have zero understanding of the factors underpinning that calculation.




stringmusic said:


> How do I know that the universe is finely tuned? Are you serious?



Absolutely serious. Please start with your definition of what it means to be finely tuned and then build from there.




stringmusic said:


> Or a Creator who created those laws.



A lawmaker constrained by his own laws?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would like too, I'll have to try to find time to watch it when I'm not at work because of how long it is. I have one recorded on the DVR at home about bringing people back to life after they die. It's a pretty good show, but they clearly have the bias of atheists and naturalists, still interesting though, and Morgan Freeman is a good host.



Why do you say that? I don't beleive Morgan Freeman is an athiest, I know he grew up a christian, and beleive he still is.  I


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place in this universe->this galaxy->this arm of the Milky Way->this solar system->on this planet-> with the right conditions for carbon based life is unbelievable. So unbelievable that it takes more faith to believe in a theory of random existence than believing in a God of creation. Which God of creation is debated on other threads.



Is god at work every time someone wins the lottery?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why do you say that? I don't beleive Morgan Freeman is an athiest, I know he grew up a christian, and beleive he still is.  I



Just google "Morgan Freeman God comment."  Here is one link, and his thoughts on God....you fellas might agree...




> Fox411: Do you think there is a God?
> 
> MF: Do I think there’s a God? Um (pause) yeah.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I suppose need was to strong a word.  Why would he create all these planets if all he could have just created one?



No one can answer that question.

Why would all these planets haphazardly come into being billions upon billions of years ago, and still to this day seem to be in perfect balance with each other?

Based upon what's out "there" in space, and the abilities of scientists today, I would predict that science only knows about 1/000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of what's there and why it's there.
And, as in the past, as time goes on scientist are going to have to reevaluate what they 'thought' they knew in years past.  Many will fight new evidences because they don't like to change understands on which all their work stand.

That sort of refinement cannot take place in regard to the past though.
Any misinformation a scientist bought into concerning the beginning of our planet, or life itself, is unlikely to ever show itself.  
All of those are possibilities that an evolutionist will always have to contend with.  Or they'll have to decide that all thir beliefs are 'fact' rather than beliefs.

Police often gather all the evidence they can, yet reach the wrong conclusion.

There are things of the past and the future that a person should feel comfortable in simply saying "I don't know".


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 3, 2012)

I think God Created all of the planets and everything to show us how powerful He is and to increase our faith


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> I think God Created all of the planets and everything to show us how powerful He is and to increase our faith



Not sure I follow your logic on that one. Being one planet in a sea of countless other planets, to me screams out how insignificant and irrelevant we are to the big picture. We know that big picture was here long before we came along and will still be here long after our solar system dies.  That doesn't point toward a God who made the universe with us in mind it points away from it. Maybe that is why the model of the universe which theists came up with long ago isn't anything like what really is.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Hoyle


If indeed the earliest forms of life "almost certianly did not" have 2,000 enzymes, how many did they have and what is the probability of life forming with that amount of enzymes? 

Also, if Abiogenesis is not random, who or what ran the process? If true, it was obviously an intelligent process, or was it simply random intelligence, as in, it helps refute Hoyles equation.



> You're the one who needs to know the answer to that question in order to be able to accurately make the calculations you are proposing. And that is just one piece of information you would need. You're putting forth this probability as being credible so the burden of proof is on you to show that the underlying assumptions are correct.


The only way we know how any life came to be is what little we know about how this life came to be. So, as far as we know, there is one way for life to come into existence. So yes, there is a fixed number of proteins to make life that we know it available.



> Ok then get back to us when you have what you need to back up your claims. You put a probability calculation out there as if it proves bishop wrong and yet you have zero understanding of the factors underpinning that calculation.


It wasn't my claim, it was Hoyle's, I'm not a mathmatician, scientist, or a physicist, so I can't back up his claim, and just because you can google doesn't mean you have refuted it.




> Absolutely serious. Please start with your definition of what it means to be finely tuned and then build from there.


Here is a start....





> A lawmaker constrained by his own laws?


No, He is not constrained by them, we are constrained by them, and so is our knowledge.


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Not sure I follow your logic on that one. Being one planet in a sea of countless other planets, to me screams out how insignificant and irrelevant we are to the big picture. We know that big picture was here long before we came along and will still be here long after our solar system dies. That doesn't point toward a God who made the universe with us in mind it points away from it. Maybe that is why the model of the universe which theists came up with long ago isn't anything like what really is.


 
Ok, I can byte that.  And it's not a hard bullet to swallow, it shows us up for where our minds have reasoned out probability and statistics, and we end up on opposite sides of the coin.  I understand well where my convictions would trump what some call "reason", and I would be quick to do the same... the other way around.  No problemo.  

For me, I like the fact that the universe seems huge and God set aside an incredible world, however small, to create and manifest His creation and His purposes.  I look at that as a very comforting thing.
And taking it one step further (pardon the faith lesson for the day), look at Christ, who would come to yet one more death burdened soul and pick him up to have abundant life freely given, from His work, not mine.  How amazing indeed is His mercy/grace to me. 

Anyway, to wrap this up... creation, in all it's idiocyncracies, speaks volumes to me of immense love.   
That's all ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 3, 2012)

DNA has always been here....took an awfully long time to see it. I guess it created itself.
Isn't dna in our blood?

OT

Psalm 139:14
King James Version (KJV)

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Leviticus 17:11  (1611 King James Bible)
Viewing the 1611 King James Version. Click to switch to 1769 King James Version of Leviticus 17:11

*For the life of the flesh is in the blood*, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood, that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Somebody knew...didn't understand it, but God knew and God's word was written down by those who couldn't even comprehend it.  There's nothing new under the sun.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If indeed the earliest forms of life "almost certianly did not" have 2,000 enzymes, how many did they have and what is the probability of life forming with that amount of enzymes?



Nobody knows.




stringmusic said:


> Also, if Abiogenesis is not random, who or what ran the process? If true, it was obviously an intelligent process, or was it simply random intelligence, as in, it helps refute Hoyles equation.



The same "what" that runs every other physical process in the universe, physics.




stringmusic said:


> The only way we know how any life came to be is what little we know about how this life came to be. So, as far as we know, there is one way for life to come into existence. So yes, there is a fixed number of proteins to make life that we know it available.



And what exactly do you know about how life originated? Do you know how many enzymes could have been involved? How many must have been involved? Do you know what early life looked like and what it was composed of? Do you know what processes were involved? Do you know that these are the only possibilities? Do you know what the conditions were and how those conditions would influence the probabilities of the necessary chemical processes occurring? Anybody can plug some numbers into a formula but it doesn't amount to anything if your numbers are wrong because you've made erroneous assumptions.




stringmusic said:


> It wasn't my claim, it was Hoyle's, I'm not a mathmatician, scientist, or a physicist, so I can't back up his claim, and just because you can google doesn't mean you have refuted it.



If it isn't a claim that you can support and stand by then why are you putting it forward at all? You don't know all of the factors that would go into making an accurate probability calculation of this sort and neither does anyone else. So your number, er Fred's number came from the same location as Bishops. The only difference is Bishop isn't putting forward his number as a matter of certainty like you did.

And if you don't know enough to determine whether or not Fred's claim is actually credible why don't you look to those who do know enough and see what they make of it? You ignore all the people who dedicate their lives to the relevant fields of science that this pertains to, dismiss their criticisms of Hoyle's calculation, and then declare your own insufficient capability to make a determination of the credibility of his claim. Shouldn't such an inability lead one to place the claim in the "undecided" category of claims instead of using it as proof that someone else is wrong?




stringmusic said:


> No, He is not constrained by them, we are constrained by them, and so is our knowledge.



So a universe that is supposedly fine tuned for life by a god that wouldn't need to fine tune a universe for life to exist is proof that such a a god must exist. Is that right?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> DNA has always been here....took an awfully long time to see it. I guess it created itself.
> Isn't dna in our blood?
> 
> OT
> ...



Are you telling us it was divine revelation that something died if it lost too much blood?


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> Oh.  Did I mention?  YOU are information, on a fundamental level, so you’ll only be replaced with BETTER information.  Take comfort in that.  The rest of us do.



That's what I take comfort in, to know that I was made individually made from anyone else. So every one's dna is different. And I will be made perfect one day by one cell of one drop of the blood of Christ. 

All things are revealed by God, even to unbelievers.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Ok, I can byte that.  And it's not a hard bullet to swallow, it shows us up for where our minds have reasoned out probability and statistics, and we end up on opposite sides of the coin.  I understand well where my convictions would trump what some call "reason", and I would be quick to do the same... the other way around.  No problemo.
> 
> For me, I like the fact that the universe seems huge and God set aside an incredible world, however small, to create and manifest His creation and His purposes.  I look at that as a very comforting thing.
> And taking it one step further (pardon the faith lesson for the day), look at Christ, who would come to yet one more death burdened soul and pick him up to have abundant life freely given, from His work, not mine.  How amazing indeed is His mercy/grace to me.
> ...



Are you a young earth creationist or do you accept the evidence that humans have been around for 100,000 years or more?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Nobody knows.


So, it's not 2,000, but we don't know? What exactly are they refuting? It was assumed that Hoyle didn't take into account that early life didn't need 2,000 enzymes, but nobody knows how many, maybe it was 1,999.



> The same "what" that runs every other physical process in the universe, physics.


That physics sure is a smart one. Got any idea why it wanted to create life and then evolve it into modern day humans?




> And what exactly do you know about how life originated? Do you know how many enzymes could have been involved? How many must have been involved? Do you know what early life looked like and what it was composed of? Do you know what processes were involved? Do you know that these are the only possibilities? Do you know what the conditions were and how those conditions would influence the probabilities of the necessary chemical processes occurring? Anybody can plug some numbers into a formula but it doesn't amount to anything if your numbers are wrong because you've made erroneous assumptions.


Again, they are not my assumptions, they are the assumptions of a mathmetician, and according to your above posts, you or anybody else know if his assumptions are wrong or not.



> If it isn't a claim that you can support and stand by then why are you putting it forward at all? You don't know all of the factors that would go into making an accurate probability calculation of this sort and neither does anyone else. So your number, er Fred's number came from the same location as Bishops. The only difference is Bishop isn't putting forward his number as a matter of certainty like you did.


I posted a video, I didn't realize that I needed a degree in mathmatics to do that. You presented evidence to the contrary of the numbers in the video, I don't think that evidence is conclusive, but I'm sure you do.



> And if you don't know enough to determine whether or not Fred's claim is actually credible why don't you look to those who do know enough and see what they make of it? *You ignore all the people who dedicate their lives to the relevant fields of science that this pertains to*, dismiss their criticisms of Hoyle's calculation, and then declare your own insufficient capability to make a determination of the credibility of his claim. Shouldn't such an inability lead one to place the claim in the "undecided" category of claims instead of using it as proof that someone else is wrong?


I haven't ignored anybody, I simply asked some questions after you put forth your evidence as to why Hoyles numbers were skewed.




> So a universe that is supposedly fine tuned for life by a god that wouldn't need to fine tune a universe for life to exist is proof that such a a god must exist. Is that right?


Nope.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Are you telling us it was divine revelation that something died if it lost too much blood?



huh?

No I'm telling you that each of our lives have a different dna and it is found in our blood....life is in the blood.
My dna is different than yours, how is that  there are gazillions of different dnas? Each one of us was created a little differently, maybe similar in families and I'm sure a scientist could 'create' clone another me, but not out of nothing nor out of anyone else's dna.

Wouldn't you just love another me on here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Are you a young earth creationist or do you accept the evidence that humans have been around for 100,000 years or more?



You didn't ask me that, but I'd like to give my answer.

I don't know how long humans have been here....history and scientists have been wrong before ie vaccinations,etc. As well as Bible translation.

But no matter how or when we were created, God created us.  Nothing that is complex as we are could be poofed into existance without the greatest of scientists that we have in God.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So, it's not 2,000, but we don't know? What exactly are they refuting? It was assumed that Hoyle didn't take into account that early life didn't need 2,000 enzymes, but nobody knows how many, maybe it was 1,999.



We are talking about going from lesser complexity to greater so the expectation is that the number would be lower, not higher. How many exactly? Nobody knows. You don't know. Neither does Fred. So how can you make an accurate calculation without having that information? It's as stupid as someone saying a typhoon couldn't blow through a junkyard and assemble a 747 when no one ever claimed such a thing in the first place.




stringmusic said:


> That physics sure is a smart one. Got any idea why it wanted to create life and then evolve it into modern day humans?



Who says it did "want" that? Not me. If you jump off a cliff and plummet to your death does that mean physics "wanted" you dead? Or is it simply a case of physics is as physics does?




stringmusic said:


> Again, they are not my assumptions, they are the assumptions of a mathmetician, and according to your above posts, you or anybody else know if his assumptions are wrong or not.



Yes we do as has been pointed out many times already. Besides, the burden of proof lies with the guy making the claim. You want to claim that his number is accurate then the burden of proof is on you. You want to accept it blindly just like you do the God claim go right ahead. Just understand that those who actually expect claims to have more to them than mere assertion won't be going along for the ride. You're putting forward a claim that isn't considered credible or convincing among those who know far more on the subject than you or I.




stringmusic said:


> I haven't ignored anybody, I simply asked some questions after you put forth your evidence as to why Hoyles numbers were skewed.



You know for someone so unconvinced that Hoyle was even in the right ballpark you sure were quick to use his argument.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> huh?
> 
> No I'm telling you that each of our lives have a different dna and it is found in our blood....life is in the blood.
> My dna is different than yours, how is that  there are gazillions of different dnas? Each one of us was created a little differently, maybe similar in families and I'm sure a scientist could 'create' clone another me, but not out of nothing nor out of anyone else's dna.
> ...



What does any of that have to do with the scripture you posted?


----------



## Asath (Aug 4, 2012)

“It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place . . . “

But it did.  That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument. 

Y’all can talk theoretical ‘odds’ all day long, if it pleases your own philosophy, but that seems to be a moot point.  It DID happen.  

Every particle in the universe, from the smallest and simplest to the most complex and maddeningly odd, is little more than a carrier of information.  Each of those particles simple ARE.  They have no philosophical axe to grind.  Atoms and their various parts do not sit around drinking beer and deciding what to do next, nor do they consult their holy books and high priests.  There is no intention.  Over the course of billions of years they have crashed into each other, like a gigantic cosmic dating service, and have either combined (because they both liked puppies and long walks on the beach), or have repelled.  One sympathetic combination of atoms creates a molecule.  From there. things start getting more complicated.  But then, when you have about 13 BILLION years ahead of you, it seems easy to be patient about such things.

“. . . I really have no clue to be honest. “  

“Why would all these planets haphazardly come into being billions upon billions of years ago, and still to this day seem to be in perfect balance with each other?”  Um?  They aren’t in any sort of balance, except temporarily, and never have been.  Our own planets, in this one tiny solar system, are littered with craters that were created by this ‘perfect balance’ that is proposed not being quite as described.  Stuff crashes into other stuff with nearly predictable regularity.  I’m having a hard time resolving a ‘perfect balance’ with the idea of a doomsday asteroid and the craters on the Moon (pretty close by, huh?) and our observations of entire galaxies crashing into each other.  The latter idea is true, by simple observation, while the former is wishful thinking.

And, no – science would never be, and has never been, arrogant enough to propose and declare a ‘final’ answer.  Only ‘HOLY’ people have ever tried that suit on, and tried to wear it.  Tell us again about how the Sun revolves around the Earth, and explain why thousands of people were killed as ‘heretics’ by the Christian religions for failing to believe this ‘HOLY’ assertion.  INFORMATION.

It is not your enemy.  Information is what you are made out of. Try it out some time.  It is oddly liberating.  

“And I will be made perfect one day by one cell of one drop of the blood of Christ.”   They still have blood in the afterlife?  And you’ll get some of it?  From a fictional character in a mythological tale?   Who knew?  But, if I may ask, what exactly, in your own view, does being made “Perfect” entail?  Will your definition of ‘perfect’ be the same as mine?   

The universe computes its own destiny.  Every part of it contains information unique unto itself, and revises itself upon every encounter with other bits.  The moment one bit of it digs in its heels, and refuses to evolve and learn from these encounters, it is quickly made extinct.  There is information, and there is anti-information.  We call the places where information – indeed particles themselves – is absorbed and negated for all time Black Holes, for wont of a better description.  

Here on our tiny little planet, we’ve come to call those things that absorb and try to negate information religions.  

Being of the universe, and at the same time holding oneself outside of it, is not a supportable position.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2012)




----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Aug 4, 2012)

Until the ignorance of Man passes His Ego.The truth will be obscure from Him...


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 4, 2012)

Asath;7093091[COLOR="Blue" said:
			
		

> ]“It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place . . . “
> 
> But it did.  That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument. [/COLOR]
> 
> ...



You said above:

"]]“It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place . . . “

But it did.  That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument.".

Sorry, but you still don't know if it all 'randomly' came together.
That is what you, and yours, believe, but that doesn't make it so.  So it does not end the argument.
And the argument will never change the actuality.


----------



## jmcrae1 (Aug 4, 2012)

"“It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place . . . “

But it did. That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument.

Y’all can talk theoretical ‘odds’ all day long, if it pleases your own philosophy, but that seems to be a moot point. It DID happen." 






"And, no – science would never be, and has never been, arrogant enough to propose and declare a ‘final’ answer. Only ‘HOLY’ people have ever tried that suit on" 



I'm lost on who is arrogant?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> "“It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place . . . “
> 
> But it did. That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument.
> 
> ...



The people who claim that they know how things happened based not on rigorous experimentation but because something "pricked" their heart.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “It still boils down to the same argument. The probability of this "information" randomly coming together at the right time and place . . . “
> 
> But it did.  That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument.
> 
> ...



Being a Christian and searching for objective universal truth are not mutually exclusive from each other. If you read the Bible it instructs us to do so...

From your post..."But it did.  That tends to end the argument – the simple truth that we are here to pretend that it is an argument is the proof that there is no argument. "

The problem with this "theory" is that you claim to KNOW that God does not exist. This is the same argument as an atheist telling a religious person to prove their God exist. The religious person can give all the evidence they can muster but they can not bring forth the irrefutable evidence that the atheist needs. The burden of proof lies on the religious. The believer fails to do so and the atheist claims victory. 

When an atheist claims we are here by chance and that no God took part in the creation of the universe (and carbon based life on earth) the burden of proof then lies on the atheist to bring forth the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we are here merely by chance. Do you have this evidence Asath? Does any member of this forum have it? I'm truly interested to see it.  

From experience I HIGHLY doubt you can provide this evidence. This has extremely important implications for atheists....it means they have faith. They have faith not in an "imaginary God", but in a theory or theories of cosmic coincidences and processes that not only HAD to happen in the right place but also HAD to happen at the right time. The beautiful part is that Earth is set upon a perfect perch to view and study all of these cosmic processes. Not only do we have a perfect planet to sustain carbon based life...we also have a perfect view point into our universe that helped us determine WHERE and WHEN we are in the life of the universe.  

We are all made up of information. The question remains for some...how did the first byte of information come to be.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 5, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What does any of that have to do with the scripture you posted?



What do you mean what do I mean?


Orginal post says 'But DNA is little more than about 6 billion bits of information encoded into a single molecule.'

And each person has a different DNA ie..we are all differetly made.
And since dna is in the blood....OT says 'life is in the blood'. Each drop of our dna has our life 'code' in it.

Git it?  of course not.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The people who claim that they know how things happened based not on rigorous experimentation but because something "pricked" their heart.



And it took that experimentation, a quadtrillion years to figure it out....brilliant.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 5, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Mathematically its not actually. Think of it as the lottery. Yes the chances are slim that you will win but someone does win.  If chances of life forming on a planet are 1 in a 100 billion, and there of trillions of planets, well that means the chances of life forming are actually pretty good. If there are only 1 trillion, that means there are 10 planets that have life.  Someone does win, lucky earth. *First you have to prove there is life on those planets, eh? Can you do that.?*
> 
> Now looking at it in the other perspective. We estimate there are between 100 and 300 billion galaxies in our OBSERVABLE universe alone (likely many, many, more) and some god chose this planet only to make life? Logically this is by far less believable. *Prove it.*
> 
> You right though it does boil down to the same arguement:  Logic and reason vs. Faith and hope. Information, as Asath points out, tends to lend credibility to the former though, exstinguishing the need for the latter.


 *How do you explain we all have different dna...if we were just mass produced from a toad, an ape, a fish, or whatever else y'all believe?*


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Is god at work every time someone wins the lottery?



Could be...then satan steals it from some of them....snatches the seed...you know like it says in the OT.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> What do you mean what do I mean?
> 
> 
> Orginal post says 'But DNA is little more than about 6 billion bits of information encoded into a single molecule.'
> ...



OT says "life is in the blood" since DNA is in the blood? Blood isn't unique in containing DNA. Every cell in your body contains DNA. So following your logic life is in every cell and the OT missed the mark?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *How do you explain we all have different dna...if we were just mass produced from a toad, an ape, a fish, or whatever else y'all believe?*



Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variation

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation


----------



## Four (Aug 6, 2012)

This is just like ye ol' position "everything must have been created.. except god"

If you assume that abiogenesis / evolution is statistically impossible... it doesn't bode well for a god. 

If you add god into the equation you have all the same problems, except the entity that came into being is infinitely more complex, ethereal, and supposedly did not have a stage of increasing complexity.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

Four said:


> This is just like ye ol' position "everything must have been created.. except god"
> 
> If you assume that abiogenesis / evolution is statistically impossible... it doesn't bode well for a god.
> 
> If you add god into the equation you have all the same problems, except the entity that came into being is infinitely more complex, ethereal, and supposedly did not have a stage of increasing complexity.



...like something from the realm of imagination.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Four said:


> If you assume that abiogenesis / evolution is statistically impossible... it doesn't bode well for a god.



Who determines which position is more likely?  Or, what parameters are we using, and why are we using those parameters to determine "possible" when we have no idea what is actually "possible" as far as existence is concerned (and we never will).



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> ...like something from the realm of imagination.



I am just typing what the unicorns tell me......


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am just typing what the unicorns tell me......


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 6, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> OT says "life is in the blood" since DNA is in the blood? Blood isn't unique in containing DNA. Every cell in your body contains DNA. So following your logic life is in every cell and the OT missed the mark?



I know that every cell has dna...never said there wasn't. 
So are you saying there isn't 'life' in every cell? including blood?


----------



## Four (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Who determines which position is more likely?  Or, what parameters are we using, and why are we using those parameters to determine "possible" when we have no idea what is actually "possible" as far as existence is concerned (and we never will).



In this conversation, I didn't determine the parameters used, i'm just trying to show that the conclusion doesn't even make sense if we assume the premise is valid (which i don't)

edit: dont change your avatar, or i'll forget who you are.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Four said:


> In this conversation, I didn't determine the parameters used, i'm just trying to show that the conclusion doesn't even make sense if we assume the premise is valid (which i don't)
> 
> edit: dont change your avatar, or i'll forget who you are.



Ok.  It just seems there is so much conversation relative to "possible."  From both sides.  We elliminate possibilities based on our known surroundings.  To me anyway, this limits the validity of either side's position because of the nature of the knowledge we have to work from.  The knows are miniscule compared to the unknowns.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Who determines which position is more likely?  Or, what parameters are we using, and why are we using those parameters to determine "possible" when we have no idea what is actually "possible" as far as existence is concerned (and we never will).



So, then use what you've got to work with.  Methods of verification that we can all use objectively.  That would be my suggestion.




JB0704 said:


> I am just typing what the unicorns tell me......



Will I hear the unicorns too?  If I believe in them?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Will I hear the unicorns too?  If I believe in them?



No.  They told me you offend them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  It just seems there is so much conversation relative to "possible."  From both sides.  We elliminate possibilities based on our known surroundings.  To me anyway, this limits the validity of either side's position because of the nature of the knowledge we have to work from.  The knows are miniscule compared to the unknowns.



I agree!

So it's also possible there is a God....funny how that works, eh?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I agree!
> 
> So it's also possible there is a God....funny how that works, eh?




He/she/it may be nothing like you think.  Back to square one, eh?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No.  They told me you offend them.



Just one glimpse, that's all I ask.  Then I will tell all my friends about them.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Just one glimpse, that's all I ask.  Then I will tell all my friends about them.



I'll ride my talking donkey to the base of the rock-candy mountain the next full moon, and convene the council of trolls at the candy-cane forest.....if they are in agreement, I will advance your request to the unicorns via the fairy dust communication web......but, just saying, they weren't happy with you last we spoke.....


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'll ride my talking donkey to the base of the rock-candy mountain the next full moon, and convene the council of trolls at the candy-cane forest.....if they are in agreement, I will advance your request to the unicorns via the fairy dust communication web......but, just saying, they weren't happy with you last we spoke.....



Fair enough.  Maybe they could poof me a new set of tires.  I'm willing to make a sacrificial offering.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'll ride my talking donkey to the base of the rock-candy mountain the next full moon, and convene the council of trolls at the candy-cane forest.....if they are in agreement, I will advance your request to the unicorns via the fairy dust communication web......but, just saying, they weren't happy with you last we spoke.....





I would ride with ya' but my talking donkey Jeb has been under the weather lately.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would ride with ya' but my talking donkey Jeb has been under the weather lately.



Boy, if only that switch you were hittin' him with was a sword......


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Fair enough.  Maybe they could poof me a new set of tires.  I'm willing to make a sacrificial offering.



We will see, heck man, if we get your request through....the skies the limit!!!  Prep your goats, they may take you up on that......



You know I'm having fun here, no ill will intended.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Boy, if only that switch you were hittin' him with was a sword......



No, the talking donkey only responds when beaten by a light sabre after the summer equinox.....looks like 'ol Jeb is out.

String, hitch a ride on my fiery chariot.......there's room for one more, and Abraham would enjoy the company.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No, the talking donkey only responds when beaten by a light sabre after the summer equinox.....looks like 'ol Jeb is out.
> 
> String, hitch a ride on my fiery chariot.......there's room for one more, and Abraham would enjoy the company.





This is fun, maybe someone should start a thread dedicated to this jibberish.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Boy, if only that switch you were hittin' him with was a sword......



Why do you hate my talking donkey ambush?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This is fun, maybe someone should start a thread dedicated to this jibberish.



Turn your heart to the east, and listen for the trumpets in the wind, and, when they sound four times you will know the time has come for such a thread......and those who will hear are ready......

.....only three times means it's time for a hot pocket.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This is fun, maybe someone should start a thread dedicated to this jibberish.



As long as you identify the corresponding chapter and verse.  

JB,  I know we're just having fun.  This is actually how we have fun at out atheist mixers.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you hate my talking donkey ambush?



Same reason I hate your discernment super power:

Because I don't have one.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> JB,  I know we're just having fun.  This is actually how we have fun at out atheist mixers.







			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> Same reason I hate your discernment super power:
> 
> Because I don't have one.



Then you were not chosen to have one.......


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Then you were not chosen to have one.......



Well, I'll never be able dunk either....


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Well, I'll never be able dunk either....



Eh, we can run that past the unicorns also, if you like.....might require an extra goat tossed in the volcano....


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Eh, we can run that past the unicorns also, if you like.....might require an extra goat tossed in the volcano....



I was thinking something more dramatic than a goat....but I don't have a son.   

My neighbor has a son.....


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Turn your heart to the east, and listen for the trumpets in the wind, and, when they sound four times you will know the time has come for such a thread......and those who will hear are ready......
> 
> .....*only three times means it's time for a hot pocket*.




I hear three all the time.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I was thinking something more dramatic than a goat....but I don't have a son.
> 
> My neighbor has a son.....



For dunking ability?  Surely not.  If you were asking for the force, maybe, but they haven't demanded a first born in quite some time.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

The Kahuna has spoken and ambush will be recieving his dunking powers.....

You can thank us with a check in the mail.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> For dunking ability?  Surely not.  If you were asking for the force, maybe, but they haven't demanded a first born in quite some time.



Can't I just pray instead?

How will I know if it worked?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

I hope I don't get in trouble for posting his pic.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I hear three all the time.



Interesting....must not be the "one true" trumpet.....cause all I hear is Bob Marley......



....perhaps I need to listen closer.....and wait........the Hot pocket will be upon me......


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Can't I just pray instead?
> 
> How will I know if it worked?



When the dunk is strong in you, it is unmistakeable......


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I hope I don't get in trouble for posting his pic.





We will see at the next gathering of the elect.........

P.S.  How did you get around the gathering of the trolls at the candy cane forest?  They are usually strict about protocol.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The Kahuna has spoken and ambush will be recieving his dunking powers.....
> 
> You can thank us with a check in the mail.



Can I just send it directly to the "Kill All the Gays League of Decency and Family Values and Fried Chicken"?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> We will see at the next gathering of the elect.........



I will use my free will to not attend.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I will use my free will to not attend.



It's a gift, they will not mind......now you can fly......


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Can I just send it directly to the "Kill All the Gays League of Decency and Family Values and Fried Chicken"?



No.   They are lame.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It's a gift, they will not mind......now you can fly......



I'm in a very tall building......are you sure?  I believe in miracles, you know.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'm in a very tall building......are you sure?  I believe in miracles, you know.



Hey man, when they tell you to jump, you gotta go for it.....but you must be certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the unicorns, and not the trolls talking......

(for clarity, this is 100% joke, and in no way intended to be construed as me encouraging Ambush to jump)


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Hey man, when they tell you to jump, you gotta go for it.....but you must be certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the unicorns, and not the trolls talking......
> 
> *(for clarity, this is 100% joke, and in no way intended to be construed as me encouraging Ambush to jump*)





Now I have to clean my computer screen......


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Can I just send it directly to the "Kill All the Gays League of Decency and Family Values and Fried Chicken"?



The KAGLDFVFC probably wouldn't mind having the money, but I think me and JB got you the dunking powers by using our direct communication with the unicorns. Plus like JB said, those trolls are tuff to get around sometimes.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The KAGLDFVFC probably wouldn't mind having the money, but I think me and JB got you the dunking powers by using our direct communication with the unicorns. Plus like JB said, those trolls are tuff to get around sometimes.



You have a point.......yes, definitely keep "KAGL" out of this.  String and I did the heavy lifting.....a percentage of your gross is appropriate....we will start at 10%, just because


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Hey man, when they tell you to jump, you gotta go for it.....but you must be certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the unicorns, and not the trolls talking......



Ambush isn't online anymore........


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ambush isn't online anymore........



Oh, great....now I have guilt......(couldn't find the Toy Story clip for that)....


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

I stepped off the ledge and flew like a bird; a big, fat, lazy bird.  Still can't dunk though.

Guess I gotta go door to door telling everyone about the unicorns now.....

You believe me, right?  I mean, you can't prove that I didn't fly.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I stepped off the ledge and flew like a bird; a big, fat, lazy bird.  Still can't dunk though.
> 
> Guess I gotta go door to door telling everyone about the unicorns now.....
> 
> You believe me, right?  I mean, you can't prove that I didn't fly.



Oh, I believe you completely.  Why wouldn't I?

So, yes, tell your friends and loved ones.....and the dunking will come soon....you must not have enough faith yet, but the power has been granted, so sayeth the unicorns.  Maybe you will finally be able to use it when String and I get that first check in the mail


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Oh, I believe you completely.  Why wouldn't I?
> 
> So, yes, tell your friends and loved ones.....and the dunking will come soon....you must not have enough faith yet, but the power has been granted, so sayeth the unicorns.  Maybe you will finally be able to use it when String and I get that first check in the mail



My dad said that I'm an idiot for worshiping unicorns.  He said I should worship some Jewish guy that rose from the dead and was lifted into the sky.  He didn't want to hear about me flying through the air.  I swear the old man's going senile.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My dad said that I'm an idiot for worshiping unicorns.  He said I should worship some Jewish guy that rose from the dead and was lifted into the sky.  He didn't want to hear about me flying through the air.  I swear the old man's going senile.



I dunno man.....want to hitch a ride with string and me so you can approach the troll council with your dillemma?  See if they'll take it to the unicorns?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I dunno man.....want to hitch a ride with string and me so you can approach the troll council with your dillemma?  See if they'll take it to the unicorns?




I'm allergic.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'm allergic.



Then nothing this side of heaven will save you


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> He/she/it may be nothing like you think.  Back to square one, eh?



Just like all the other universes we haven't seen...and a million other planets no one has seen....doesn't mean they aren't there, does it? What's the difference. Both are 
'possible'. You prove the planets, I'll prove the talking donkey...


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I dunno man.....want to hitch a ride with string and me so you can approach the troll council with your dillemma?  See if they'll take it to the unicorns?




Leave the unicorns out of this.......and the pink elephants, cause I've seen both.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Leave the unicorns out of this.......and the pink elephants, cause I've seen both.



The pink elephants are from the dark side of which we cannot speak......they are forever tormenting us when tequilla intake rises above acceptable levels.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The pink elephants are from the dark side of which we cannot speak......they are forever tormenting us when tequilla intake rises above acceptable levels.



So evil.......


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So evil.......





....but, you are only provoking him.......


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ....but, you are only provoking him.......


----------



## Asath (Aug 9, 2012)

“The problem with this "theory" is that you claim to KNOW that God does not exist.”

I said no such words.  YOUR God may well exist.  So might the other fella’s God.  So might all of them, from Zeus to Minerva to that little green watering can in Geneva that was proposed, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  What I said is that there is no evidence of any kind to support ANY of them.

All available evidence, in fact, is to the contrary of Gods having anything at all to do with ‘creating’ anything.  INFORMATION.  Not speculation or guesswork.  Lots of things MIGHT indicate something else, but until that something else is demonstrated to be true it is simply that – Gossip.  

“The beautiful part is that Earth is set upon a perfect perch to view and study all of these cosmic processes.”  Far from the truth.  Our planet is stuck in a cluster of dense gasses and still forming particles far out in the spiral arm of our own small galaxy, which seems to be only one of hundreds upon hundreds of galaxies, each so huge that the imagination can hardly contain even one.  Our view of the cosmos is so obscured that we can scarcely see beyond our own Solar System, and even that local view is often occluded. We’re hardly placed in a ‘perfect’ place, except as concerns the conditions that allowed us to develop, temporarily. 

“The knows are miniscule compared to the unknowns.”  Um?  We beg to differ.  The genuine unknowns are not YOUR unknowns.  That is a silly position.  The fact that Reverend Jones and his entire congregation forgot to learn anything does not mean that other people are similarly handicapped.  Would you take the position that electricity is a God-Given unknown, simply because you know nothing about how it works?  At this point, realistically, the ‘unknowns’ are being unraveled with a speed that is astonishing, and I realize that this progress is now maddeningly complex, and the results of a Super Hadron Collider experiment are far beyond the ability of most folks to comprehend – but that lack of comprehension, on your part,  does not make the results untrue.  The unknowns have been crowded out by experimentation, verification, and normal curiosity.  The invisible is now visible, and that X-Ray, and MRI, and Microwave, and Radio wave, and the like, unknown as recently as a century ago, now inform your life, and often save it.  Fact.  

(And remember here what your Book says, quite literally, and just what your ‘Belief’ system has done, historically, in support of those Words – you can only back away from it so far, and deny and redefine only to certain limits, before you must see the negative effect it has had, and continues to try to impose.)    

This real progress has occurred despite the vehement denials and often hostile and violent counter-forces of religious folks, for whom all real progress is a threat to their entrenched superstitions.  Point is, hanging one’s hat on the ‘unknown,’ in the face of the modern world, once again places a responsibility to explain just WHAT that ‘unknown’ might be.  We know quite a lot.  Far more than any one person can even keep up with, and knowledge (INFORMATION) is progressing so rapidly that Reverend Jones and his ancient Book were left in the dust several generations ago.

There wasn’t any REAL information in that Book to begin with, aside a decent pile of good advice, depending on who is reading it – and even that advice is still a cause for warfare between parties who dispute just what it might have been.  So, in the end, for all practical matters – Nothing at all was contained except the seeds of partisanship.  Your Book divides, still – it does not unite or inform.  Not a very Christian bit of writing, when you look at it objectively.  

But just the same, that pink elephant looks familiar . . . Kinda spooky that somebody else has seen my former mother-in-law . . . And here I thought that the Exorcism was successful . . .


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> I said no such words. YOUR God may well exist. So might the other fella’s God. So might all of them, from Zeus to Minerva to that little green watering can in Geneva that was proposed, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I said is that there is no evidence of any kind to support ANY of them.
> 
> All available evidence, in fact, is to the contrary of Gods having anything at all to do with ‘creating’ anything. INFORMATION. Not speculation or guesswork. Lots of things MIGHT indicate something else, but until that something else is demonstrated to be true it is simply that – Gossip.



What a huge contradiction in your own post. How can yo go from saying, "I said no such thing...." to "All available evidence, in fact, is to the contrary of Gods having anything at all to do with ‘creating’ anything. " 

HUGE contradiction. 

I will and can argue for the evidence for Christianity in another post. I was only trying to get readers to acknowledge that "some God" exist in this post and that the excuse of, "I cant see it so it does not exist" is only a lie to themselves because they have faith in many other theories or objects. 

Last, you have a HUGE misunderstanding of Christian theology as a whole. You must have had some terrible interactions with "Christians" in your life that made you think we ALL hated objective reasoning and are not capable of discerning what reality is. When you glob us all together like that it makes me lose respect for what you say, because as I stated before being a Christian and searching for INFORMATION about universal truth are NOT mutually exclusive. That may make you feel better about your opinion on Christians, but that is not reality...


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> But just the same, that pink elephant looks familiar . . . Kinda spooky that somebody else has seen my former mother-in-law . . . And here I thought that the Exorcism was successful . . .


----------



## Asath (Aug 10, 2012)

I’ll stand by my words.  

Your God may well exist.  So might the other fella’s God. And so might all of the Gods that have ever been proposed in all of history, which Gods would now number in the thousands.

What of it?  Who cares?  If any or all, or one or both, or only one or none at all actually exists, what is the difference?  

Nothing changes, you see.  None of them ‘Created’ anything at all.  We created them.

Things are as they are.  And they are BECAUSE they are.  So what makes anyone think that THEIR explanation, derived entirely out of ancient superstitions, is superior to another?  

If one REALLY wants to know the Actual answer, which, of course, none of you do, the only answer that truly exists comes out of science, and that answer is one you’ll find endlessly unsatisfying – We’re Working On It.

Sorry to inconvenience anyone’s certainty with the real truth.  Tell the fellas who just put yet another lander on Mars that your own Holy Book writers even knew that Mars existed when they wrote that stuff.  Rationalize away.  Interpret and justify away.  Make up more new ‘explanations’ out of whole cloth to try, desperately, to cling to the shreds of an ancient fiction that even you, yourself, have not a single credible bit of evidence to support.

In the meantime we’ll be over here, quietly and steadily doing what all of your religions have tried to do to everyone over the centuries – marginalizing you.  But we are not doing it by declaration and force – we are doing it by being right, time after time, and forcing your ‘Belief’ driven dogmas to continue to beat a hasty retreat.  Y’all can’t keep changing your minds every time you get called out – (The Earth ISN”T the center of the Universe?  Darn.) – then turn around and try to co-opt the knowledge you fought so hard to suppress and claim it as your own evidence.  That tactic is transparent, and silly.

Keep up the business (and it is a business, don’t be blind) of your religious certainty, and we’ll keep up the steady and increasing pace of scientific inquiry and proof, and we’ll see just how fast your excuses and apologies and rationalizations can keep up with the growing body of real truth.

So far, the scorecard of ‘Belief’ Vs. ‘Fact’ heavily and convincingly places the ‘Belief’ team down by a deficit that can’t be overcome.  Might be time to concede.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> I’ll stand by my words.
> 
> Your God may well exist.  So might the other fella’s God. And so might all of the Gods that have ever been proposed in all of history, which Gods would now number in the thousands.
> 
> ...



I am glad you have such strong FAITH in the belief of "we're working on it." 

I understand the great importance of scientific laws and theories and  I am DELIGHTED when we discover new information about these laws and change unknowns into knowns...no one (especially in our life time) will ascertain 100% knowledge of all there is to know in this universe. This humbles me greatly. So I bow down to God and give him thanks.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> Nothing changes, you see.  None of them ‘Created’ anything at all.  We created them.



Not if they exist....that would change everything, I do believe.



Asath said:


> If one REALLY wants to know the Actual answer, which, of course, none of you do, the only answer that truly exists comes out of science, and that answer is one you’ll find endlessly unsatisfying – We’re Working On It.



One might believe such a statement requires as much hubris as an absolute belief in a creator.  You have, with the same limitations, made a final statement on existence.....which you are no more qualified to claim than I am.  I say, let us both believe what we will.....and we will both discover the truth.......eventually.  I believe in God and science, and that science explains God's methods, if not God's existence.



Asath said:


> Sorry to inconvenience anyone’s certainty with the real truth.



Says Asath with the same certainty as "anyone."



Asath said:


> Keep up the business (and it is a business, don’t be blind) of your religious certainty, and we’ll keep up the steady and increasing pace of scientific inquiry and proof, and we’ll see just how fast your excuses and apologies and rationalizations can keep up with the growing body of real truth.



Certainty!  Let it be written.



Asath said:


> So far, the scorecard of ‘Belief’ Vs. ‘Fact’ heavily and convincingly places the ‘Belief’ team down by a deficit that can’t be overcome.  Might be time to concede.



I always enjoy your posts, but don't you see that neither you nor I have a claim to certainty?  

Christians love to find claims which justify their beliefs....like everytime some goober finds "Noah's ark," or somebody discovers red blood cells in T-rex bones.

Atheists, jump all over the Higgs Bossom and assume they have found the creator of the heavens and the earth.....and never step back and realize they were trying to find the justification for the answer they already had......here's your particle, now declare it the creator of all.

Neither of us has a smoking gun.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

Asath said:


> Kinda what it is all about in the end, isn’t it?  Information.
> 
> Think for a moment.  DNA.  We’ve decoded it.  We’re rapidly working out the sequences, and what they mean.  But DNA is little more than about 6 billion bits of information encoded into a single molecule.  That information, properly exchanged with other molecules, forms a human being.  You.
> 
> ...



I couldn't read any more than I highlighted in red, because you are just making stuff up.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I couldn't read any more than I highlighted in red, because you are just making stuff up.



The problem with atheist is that science is made up of a bunch of provisional laws. This is fine since this leaves science open to get more clarity on the laws that govern our existence but we will never gain 100% knowledge of these laws so they will ALWAYS be provisional. Asath makes it seem the scientific laws we have now are the ultimate finite proof that God does not exist. As long as science states its case against God with provisional laws then Atheist have faith just like the rest of us. The difference is Atheist put their faith in something that is always changing, and speaking as Christian, God never changes. Never has and never will.


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


>


You ride that dudes post like a champion quarter horse!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> The problem with atheist is that science is made up of a bunch of provisional laws. This is fine since this leaves science open to get more clarity on the laws that govern our existence but we will never gain 100% knowledge of these laws so they will ALWAYS be provisional. Asath makes it seem the scientific laws we have now are the ultimate finite proof that God does not exist. As long as science states its case against God with provisional laws then Atheist have faith just like the rest of us. The difference is Atheist put their faith in something that is always changing, and speaking as Christian, God never changes. Never has and never will.



I don't get that from Asath's post at all. Science is not closed to the possibility of a God. It is a fools errand to attempt to prove God does not exist just as much as it would be to attempt to prove any other mythical figure does not exist. It can't be done. What we can do is ask the theist for the evidence of their God, look at that evidence, as well as any other corollary claims made (ie that prayer heals people) and see if they hold up. Turns out the claims of the Christian religion are just as flimsy as all the other religions. Lacking evidence, faith and personal experience comes to the rescue just as with every other religion.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> You ride that dudes post like a champion quarter horse!!!



Giddy-Up!


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I don't get that from Asath's post at all. Science is not closed to the possibility of a God. It is a fools errand to attempt to prove God does not exist just as much as it would be to attempt to prove any other mythical figure does not exist. It can't be done. What we can do is ask the theist for the evidence of their God, look at that evidence, as well as any other corollary claims made (ie that prayer heals people) and see if they hold up. Turns out the claims of the Christian religion are just as flimsy as all the other religions. Lacking evidence, faith and personal experience comes to the rescue just as with every other religion.



From Asath...

"All available evidence, in fact, is to the contrary of Gods having anything at all to do with ‘creating’ anything. INFORMATION. Not speculation or guesswork. Lots of things MIGHT indicate something else, but until that something else is demonstrated to be true it is simply that – Gossip."

I guess ill quit being lazy and dig up all the old post about the evidence that have led me and many other rational, logical human beings to Christ....


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I don't get that from Asath's post at all. Science is not closed to the possibility of a God. It is a fools errand to attempt to prove God does not exist just as much as it would be to attempt to prove any other mythical figure does not exist. It can't be done. What we can do is ask the theist for the evidence of their God, look at that evidence, as well as any other corollary claims made (ie that prayer heals people) and see if they hold up. Turns out the claims of the Christian religion are just as flimsy as all the other religions. Lacking evidence, faith and personal experience comes to the rescue just as with every other religion.



I agree that it is futile to attempt to prove that something DOES NOT exist, but where does this fodder about "Science is not closed to the possibility of a God" come from? Science does not have an opinion on the matter. Who designated you the voice of science?

Shall we review the scientific method yet again?

Gimme a break.


----------



## Asath (Aug 12, 2012)

Sigh.

A bit like reciting Shakespeare to the frog-pond.  Not worth the effort.  They seem not to even realize the irony of using science (which IS the basis of such odd things as electricity, silicon microchips, plastics, refined metals, and everything that enables their voice here) to actually REFUTE science.

Might as well try teaching a pig to whistle.


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 12, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well try teaching a pig to whistle.



I guess you've never been around pig's much!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 12, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> I guess ill quit being lazy and dig up all the old post about the evidence that have led me and many other rational, logical human beings to Christ....



Please do. I hope you can come up with something more convincing than prominent apologists like William Lane Craig.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 12, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Please do. I hope you can come up with something more convincing than prominent apologists like William Lane Craig.



Or Willard.


----------



## Asath (Aug 13, 2012)

Perhaps the oddest thing is the adversarial and argumentative nature of the ‘believers.’  I find it difficult to understand, that normally intelligent folks can look around, clearly see and take advantage of the progress of human achievement, and in the same breath USE those achievements as EVIDENCE that their ancient Book and their archaic and uselessly outmoded ‘beliefs’ still stand as primary.  It is clearly the opposite.

Pardon me for finding that position a bit mystifying.

Belief systems do not contain actual information.  Not one of them.  They are constructed entirely out of superstitions and wishful thinking, cobbled together by control-freaks and adhered to by weak-kneed adherents who lack the personal strength to do anything other than be willingly led.  THAT, in a nutshell, is the whole history of ‘Belief.’

But take a moment, if you ARE a ‘Believer,’ and actually examine your basis.  Is it still the same as it was, say, a hundred years ago?  No.  A thousand years ago?  Not even close.  TWO THOUSAND YEARS ago?  Be serious.

Stubborn and brainwashed is one thing, but just plain blind is quite another.

EVERY SINGLE THING that was once explained by the supernatural has now been shown to be nothing of the sort.  Your backs are against the wall, I understand, and I only wonder just how long you folks are willing to try to hold the whole world hostage to nonsense, and just how many more folks have to die before you give in and accept that every mother’s son of you has ALWAYS been wrong.

Be warned:  We wrote you folks out of the Constitution for a reason – Even our Founders knew you were nutballs, and were unfit to govern even yourselves.  THEY knew, even then, what would happen in this thread all these years later – each and every truth, as progress revealed those truths, would be corrupted, co-opted, twisted, re-interpreted, and made the sole property of ‘Believers.’  You folks are plain dangerous control freaks, and want everyone to think as you do, subject only to your own points of view.  Read some history.  Or read yesterdays newspaper.  

You are all revealed.  And cannot hide from the truth of that. 

Sorry that we were that far ahead of you, even then, and still are.  INFORMATION.  

We got a bit tired of being held hostage to morons, so we formed a Country that does not tolerate or allow such things.  Join it.

It frees up quite a lot of your time the moment you quit ripping through a single ancient Book trying to figure our just where God invented nuclear power and vaccinations and telescopes, and start getting on with the business of helping the rest of us move forwards, instead of stubbornly trying to drag us back.  

Your religion is not a sail, it is an anchor.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> You are all revealed.  And cannot hide from the truth of that.
> 
> Sorry that we were that far ahead of you, even then, and still are.  INFORMATION.
> 
> ...



Asath, I actually understand and appreciate your perspective.  On many levels, I agree with you.  Religion can stand in the way of human progress.  Where we differ is that "belief" does not ahve to stand in the way of science, and one can choose to look in the world and see the very many mechanisms in place which maintain our existence.

Behind all that, we just see a very different catalyst to these mechanisms.  I do not see how such a belief warrants derision.  A person can believe in God, and trust science, simultaneously.  I do so every day.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> Perhaps the oddest thing is the adversarial and argumentative nature of the ‘believers.’  I find it difficult to understand, that normally intelligent folks can look around, clearly see and take advantage of the progress of human achievement, and in the same breath USE those achievements as EVIDENCE that their ancient Book and their archaic and uselessly outmoded ‘beliefs’ still stand as primary.  It is clearly the opposite.
> 
> Pardon me for finding that position a bit mystifying.
> 
> ...


I love these kinds of post. Seriously. Like a breath of fresh air. I get to see how people view me in the world as a believer. Not that I believe as most do, but it should be the same. This is the kind of thing that your friend, your mother, etc will not tell you. Reminds me of a guy I once knew. He thought he could sing. No one would tell him how people viewed him. They actually tried to encourage him. Somebody, for heaven sake, tell that boy he can't sing!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I love these kinds of post. Seriously. Like a breath of fresh air. I get to see how people view me in the world as a believer. Not that I believe as most do, but it should be the same. This is the kind of thing that your friend, your mother, etc will not tell you. Reminds me of a guy I once knew. He thought he could sing. No one would tell him how people viewed him. They actually tried to encourage him. Somebody, for heaven sake, tell that boy he can't sing!


Probably has potential to be taken wrong. My point is that I need to see how the world views me as a believer. Trying to push my beliefs on the world who are content in what they believe is a dead end. No, it's offensive. If I respect their belief, they might respect mine


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I love these kinds of post. Seriously. Like a breath of fresh air. I get to see how people view me in the world as a believer. Not that I believe as most do, but it should be the same. This is the kind of thing that your friend, your mother, etc will not tell you. Reminds me of a guy I once knew. He thought he could sing. No one would tell him how people viewed him. They actually tried to encourage him. Somebody, for heaven sake, tell that boy he can't sing!



I didnt read anything that hasn't been already said  1,000 times before.Asath calling Christians and i quote "nutt balls".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I didnt read anything that hasn't been already said  1,000 times before.Asath calling Christians and i quote "nutt balls".


That is the way the world see's me The Christians are thinking the same thing about me. LOL


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is the way the world see's me The Christians are thinking the same thing about me. LOL



Yea i understand what your saying.....You think I'm stupid or something?????and all i was saying is that it's been said on here a 1,000 times.It's not like it's anything new or something.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Yea i understand what your saying.....You think I'm stupid or something?????and all i was saying is that it's been said on here a 1,000 times.It's not like it's anything new or something.


I guess I did not realize it until I started coming here. I do see the thought behind their points. Like, why can people not buy beer on sunday if they so choose? It is because of the domineering religion. Years ago, I was told by a friend that they went out of town for a baseball tournament. They went to a local Walmart, but they said they could only buy things such as baby food until after church time. That shocked me, A Walmart. Must have been some local town rulling. Religion steers this world. They have opened my eyes to some things


----------



## mossyback8874 (Aug 13, 2012)

*State constitution*

Asath, I read your intellectually superior posts and just shake my head.  Instead of taking the high road, you choose to be condescending and venomous in quite a few posts.  That being said, you stated that "we wrote you people out of the constitution".  Well, every state, including Maine specifically mentions God in each respective State Constitution.  So, your comment wasn't entirely accurate.  If you look at ALL State Constitutions, God is specifically mentioned.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just know you appreciate accuracy, or lack there of, in the INFORMATION posted.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Yea i understand what your saying.....You think I'm stupid or something?????and all i was saying is that it's been said on here a 1,000 times.It's not like it's anything new or something.


Asath does not really believe me to be stupid, he knows that some very brillant minds have faith. He just thinks were crazy


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Asath does not really believe me to be stupid, he knows that some very brillant minds have faith. He just thinks were crazy



gr8,

In all honesty I don't think you're crazy.  

I think you're scared.   

Scared to be all alone in a giant Universe that doesn't care about you.  I've gotten to know you and I can honestly say that I care about you.   If I found out that you died tomorrow or became injured I would be upset.  I'd rather have that, something real, a real voice,real words from a real person instead of ones in my head or in some antiquated book.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'd rather have that, something real, a real voice,real words from a real person instead of ones in my head or in some antiquated book.



Then that is what you should rely on.  I do to....but I also believe in God.

Maybe I am scared, but I have always been honest that I would much prefer to believe there is a God.


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Asath does not really believe me to be stupid, he knows that some very brillant minds have faith. He just thinks were crazy



Yea he didnt say stupid he just said things like corrupted, co-opted, twisted,You folks are plain dangerous control freaks,nutballs........


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> gr8,
> 
> In all honesty I don't think you're crazy.
> 
> ...


If your gonna be that honest with me then I must be honest with you; Your avitar freaks me out! Wow, I'd run from that one. Now she scares me


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> gr8,
> 
> In all honesty I don't think you're crazy.
> 
> ...


Seriously, I don't think scared fits. I would be honest if it did. Faith is hard to describe. Almost impossible. I have learned many things from you guys. Before, my false assumption was that Athiest would be scared, scared that some of this religious stuff might be true. But I think most of you guys have turned over and looked under enough rocks to come to your own conclusive peace in your decission. That I respect. Most that frequents here expect that you should believe what they believe as if there is evidence for it. But I honestly don't expect anyone to believe what I do for it is by faith. Actually quite unbelievable. To hard to explain.  Anyway, I'm just rambling, waiting for my wife to finish exercising


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Seriously, I don't think scared fits. I would be honest if it did. Faith is hard to describe. Almost impossible. I have learned many things from you guys. Before, my false assumption was that Athiest would be scared, scared that some of this religious stuff might be true. But I think most of you guys have turned over and looked under enough rocks to come to your own conclusive peace in your decission. That I respect. Most that frequents here expect that you should believe what they believe as if there is evidence for it. But I honestly don't expect anyone to believe what I do for it is by faith. Actually quite unbelievable. To hard to explain.  Anyway, I'm just rambling, waiting for my wife to finish exercising



My faith removes all of my fear.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sigh.
> 
> A bit like reciting Shakespeare to the frog-pond.  Not worth the effort.  They seem not to even realize the irony of using science (which IS the basis of such odd things as electricity, silicon microchips, plastics, refined metals, and everything that enables their voice here) to actually REFUTE science.
> 
> Might as well try teaching a pig to whistle.



You don't get science at all Asath. Your quoted post screams that you don't understand science at all. Science does not define the things you mentioned. They exist regardless of science. Science merely describes them. Sigh, talk about reciting Shakespeare to the frog pond. We have been over this many many times.


----------



## Asath (Aug 22, 2012)

“Behind all that, we just see a very different catalyst to these mechanisms.”

“My point is that I need to see how the world views me as a believer.”

“ . . . I would much prefer to believe there is a God.”

“You don't get science at all Asath.”

Nope.  

INFORMATION is not dependent in any way on what YOU think you know.  

INFORMATION is what the universe is made out of, entirely.  A bit of information, as perhaps first described and defined, oddly, by Babbage, and later refined into the unit of everything that can be known by Shannon, is the smallest unit that can exist.  A bit of information is how your computer works – it is a yes/no, binary operation.  It is, or it isn’t.  There is a zero, or there is a one.  Oddly enough, EVERYTHING can be broken down into a unit of information.  The smallest identified sub-atomic particle turns out to function, oddly, as a conditional switch – it is yea or nay.    Each basic unit informs the next, and the outcome is the outcome.  Nothing, the lack of being SOMETHING, scientifically, is an outcome, a state, and a bit of information.  Something, scientifically, is the combination of at least two bits of information colliding.  This is basic mathematics.  When two bits of information combine, they hold the mathematical value of one.  When they do not, they hold the opposite.  THAT, unfortunately for those who wish it were different, is all there is.  There is information.    

Logarithms and algorithms, as concerned the reduction of complexity into simpler propositions, were known in the 1600’s.  The reduction of bombastic rhetoric and strident nonsense into purely mathematical formulas began there, and have been reduced to quantum equations and beyond.  THIS is information: +.   That simple symbol contains tens of thousands of bits of information.  Many of the implications of combinatorial symbolism can be debated by the scientifically ignorant to the distraction of progress, but the fact of combinatorial PROCESSES are well established.  Molecules are made out of information, not the opposite.

Information did not arise out of your awareness of it – YOU arose out of information, at the basic level.  This is truth.

So there can be no different ‘catalyst to these mechanisms.’  The presupposing of a ‘mechanism’ puts the cart before the horse.  The ‘believers’ tend, as above quoted, to worry about how they are perceived, and state their preferences without regard for actual knowledge.  This is quaint, and oddly self-conscious, and perhaps self-negating.  In many ways this outlook (religious belief) is not an investigation of how living creatures react to the world, or came about to begin with, but merely a means of representing it to themselves.  When the only acceptable source of information is yourself, the outcome is certain.  You will be the center of your own universe.  Good luck with that.

But it is difficult to be the source of information when you are made of it.  You don’t get to inform the trillions of cells and mechanisms that make up even your own body – that information informs you.  You can’t ask your heart to stop beating, for example – it isn’t interested in the least about your opinion on the matter.  The information that informs that function is outside of your control, short of drastic intervention.  So – are you the SOURCE of this information, or the beneficiary of it?  

Matthew 5:37, “ Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” 

Binary operations – yes or no.  Zero or one.  Information in one simple description, Biblically justified.  All of everything is Yea or nay, zero or one, on or off, and THAT, unfortunately, is just how simple and just how complicated things are.  We may not like it, but that is how we were made – by a few billion years of bits just combining, and making an endless series of yes/no decisions, and either finding the collision beneficial, or vanishing immediately.  H – monatomic hydrogen, the simplest and most common element in the universe, is composed of a single electron (negatively charged particle) circling a nucleus consisting of a single proton (positively charged particle), and led to the  H2- a molecule that arose by the beneficial binding of two such.  Then they accidentally ran into an O, oxygen, and the three of them got along just fine – H2O – a water molecule.  Nice.  So, over a few billion years, they formed a social club, and started grouping together.  Even better.   THAT is how EVERYTHING formed.  Some bits of information got along, some didn’t.   

Be careful here, and brush up on your education – because if that particular description of information hadn’t turned out to be true, you would not have a computer to employ in your learned refutation.  Don’t blame me for your lack.  Alan Turing was ahead of you before you were born.  I’m just pointing that out.  An atom is simply a combination of even smaller bits of information.  More bits = more information.  More information = higher function.  Higher function = greater chance of survival.  No mysteries here, and no Creator in sight.

On a macroscopic scale, a lack of information creates a speculative, rather than an informed and verified environment that is internally and externally unsupported.  We call this environment ‘Belief.’  It has no basis other than itself, and not one of the tens of millions of ‘beliefs’ that have arisen has failed to vanish.  We study them now as curiosities in History Class, failing often to realize that WE are the curiosity that future generations will study, as the teachers theorize about just how we could be so advanced, and yet so tragically wrong at the same time.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 23, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Behind all that, we just see a very different catalyst to these mechanisms.”
> 
> “My point is that I need to see how the world views me as a believer.”
> 
> ...



I think you just called yourself kettle.


----------



## Asath (Aug 23, 2012)

“I think you just called yourself kettle.”

I suppose that erudite, well thought, and highly enlightened riposte was meant to be meaningful.  Unfortunately, the information content is such that it seems to qualify as actually REMOVING intelligent thought from the discussion, which is a form of information all by itself.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 23, 2012)

Asath said:


> “I think you just called yourself kettle.”
> 
> I suppose that erudite, well thought, and highly enlightened riposte was meant to be meaningful.  Unfortunately, the information content is such that it seems to qualify as actually REMOVING intelligent thought from the discussion, which is a form of information all by itself.



Think about it. My response was as intelligent as your post. Absorb the information, it is all information, after all.


----------



## Asath (Aug 24, 2012)

Indeed.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> Indeed.



The irony of your post is not humorous it is sad. As someone else pointed out you claim believers have blinders on, yet you can not see past the enormous, think calluses covering your own eyes called pride.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> Perhaps the oddest thing is the adversarial and argumentative nature of the ‘believers.’  I find it difficult to understand, that normally intelligent folks can look around, clearly see and take advantage of the progress of human achievement, and in the same breath USE those achievements as EVIDENCE that their ancient Book and their archaic and uselessly outmoded ‘beliefs’ still stand as primary.  It is clearly the opposite.
> 
> Pardon me for finding that position a bit mystifying.
> 
> ...



Question: Asath will you be alive when science has discovered all knowledge obtainable in the universe? 

If your answer is yes, then we are done talking and we can both go on our merry way. 

If you answer no, then this has profound consequences for YOUR belief system. In short, you have put your FAITH in human beings ONE DAY ascending to a point of gathering all wisdom and knowledge of EVERY piece of possible information all together at one time and place....

Who is taking the leap of faith now?


----------

