davidylan:


I assume that you know the answer to that question since you're claiming that science already knows the answer hence no other alternative is valid. To ask me to go find the answer for you is quite silly. Having worked with DNA for upwards of 5-7 years, i am more convinced that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sure you've worked with DNA for upwards of 5 - 7 years and you've worked out that your God did it. If you're a researcher, then carry out research and let us know your results. That is what actual researchers do. Whether you've worked with DNA for 7 years or 70 years doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about.

davidylan:

Creating is actually a scientific discussion... afterall a baby is CREATED by the fertilization of an egg by sperm no? To limit design from the scientific discussion is also to argue in ignorance... the intricate nature of the cell is clear evidence that it is not simply a mishmash of random cellular bodies jumbled together by accident.

Looks like you wish to play with words without actually saying anything. No one says "the cell is simply a mishmash of random cellular bodies jumbled together by accident". These sorts of misrepresentations after you've been corrected makes me wonder.

By the way, what is your answer about DNA and your God?

thehomer:


I'm happy to discuss the science. And I've answered several of your questions already. Do you have any point of view at all? If you wish to deny your God, simply say so. The topic is about arguments for the existence of some God. You're either supporting the arguments for the existence of your God or you're against those arguments. If you're in support of those arguments, then try to present or defend them in some way.

I've told you that DNA didn't appear out of thin air and as I've shown you several times on this thread and in our past encounters, I'm more than happy to let you know my own views. All I ask is that you also let me know your views. Saying you've not brought up God is no defense since you actually have a position in this discussion.

So, I'm happy to continue once you've answered these questions.

From what and why did your God evolve?

As i have said 200 times now... perhaps you're finding it hard to see it. I have no interest in talking about God... i prefer to leave Him to those who worship Him. As a scientist, i am more interested in understanding what evidence you may have as to how complete random chaos created the DNA and what evolutionary pressures caused this to happen. You seem to be having trouble focusing on that or anything that does not involve God at all... i wonder why.

thehomer:


Sure you've worked with DNA for upwards of 5 - 7 years and you've worked out that your God did it. If you're a researcher, then carry out research and let us know your results. That is what actual researchers do. Whether you've worked with DNA for 7 years or 70 years doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about.

Again the God red herring... i'm not interested in God or whatever you think He is. I ask the questions i asked based primarily on experience working on DNA and knowing full well that despite all we have tried in the lab, it is virtually impossible to recreate DNA. I have spliced it, transfected it to other cells, mutated it... all to fantastic results... but i have never been able to figure out how to create it from scratch. Based on your numerous claims, i assumed you knew... hence my questions.

thehomer:

Looks like you wish to play with words without actually saying anything. No one says "the cell is simply a mishmash of random cellular bodies jumbled together by accident". These sorts of misrepresentations after you've been corrected makes me wonder.

Well then exactly what are you saying? You seem to be typing without actually saying anything of substance. How exactly did the DNA appear from random chaos?

thehomer:

By the way, what is your answer about DNA and your God?

The tiring red herring again... what has God to do with a discussion on the science?

davidylan:


Again the God red herring... i'm not interested in God or whatever you think He is. I ask the questions i asked based primarily on experience working on DNA and knowing full well that despite all we have tried in the lab, it is virtually impossible to recreate DNA. I have spliced it, transfected it to other cells, mutated it... all to fantastic results... but i have never been able to figure out how to create it from scratch. Based on your numerous claims, i assumed you knew... hence my questions.



Well then exactly what are you saying? You seem to be typing without actually saying anything of substance. How exactly did the DNA appear from random chaos?

The tiring red herring again... what has God to do with a discussion on the science?

So you been trying to recreate DNA without success for just the past 7yrs,.. And therefore..?

And I suppose this would be the sort of testimony you give in your church?

Gosh!

What a tragedy for science.
I need not Say anymore.

plaetton:


So you been trying to recreate DNA without success for just the past 7yrs,.. And therefore..?

And I suppose this would be the sort of testimony you give in your church?

Gosh!

What a tragedy for science.
I need not Say anymore.

I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

davidylan:


I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

Pls kindly refresh my mind about my ideas about DNA that you refer to.
Aside from being dumb, You are also dishonest.

I merely pointed out how seemingly chaotic atmosperic dynamics create such aesthetic, symmetrical, mathematically precise Snowflakes. And I did that to refute your claim that order cannot come from chaos.

Of course, what your tiny brain cannot ever grasp is that order and chaos are subjective, depending on the vantage point of the observer.

UyiIredia:


The belief that consciousness is material is false. Consciousness is defined as a state
of [b]awareness of one's thoughts and surroundings, that awareness isn't material. Consciousness also has no physical properties (eg mass or speed).[/b]

The 'who designed the designer' rhetoric is mistaken. Both atheists and theists agree that an infinite regress of causes is illogical and impossible. Therefore a chain of events MUST recede to a factor that is, by necessity, uncaused. In the case of design in living things that factor may be God (who theists believe is uncaused) or non-living natural processes (that atheists believe are uncaused).

@ the bolded, you keep missing the point, which is the cause/source of consciousness being material not that consciousness itself is material. If the brain is the source of the consciousness and we can provide that 'messing around with the brain' alters consciousness therefore we have indications that the brain being a material entity is the source of consciousness.

'Who designed the designer' is important because the general principle upon which your argument is built is that complexities by themselves necessarily indicate a prior cause. So if the designer himself is found to be sort form of complexity like intelligence, then you are bound by your general principle. If you find it convenient to jettison the general principle at this stage, we can as well jettison it at any stage.

davidylan:


I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

But you have Faith that an intelligence is capable of creating the DNA and other similar codes?

davidylan:


I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

I can't believe you're so dumb for someone who boasts a phd in microbiology. DNA has been evolving for 4.7 billion years or even much longer, considering that it could have been deliberately or accidentally seeded from another galaxy system much older than ours.

The fact that we, only about 100yrs into genetic science, have not been able to synthesize DNA from scratch is now proof for You that a toothfairy designed it?
Is this your theory, the total sum of your 7yrs of scientific research?
If so, well, You have done your best. Now move away from that lab. Carry your lazy brain back to your church, and give testimony that YOU have found proof that your toothfairy did indeed design DNA.

@davidlyan

Do you think the DNA has remained exactly the same of the millions of years it has been present?

plaetton:


I can't believe you're so dumb for someone who boasts a phd in microbiology. DNA has been evolving for 4.7 billion years or even much longer, considering that it could have been deliberately or accidentally seeded from another galaxy system much older than ours.

The fact that we, only about 100yrs into genetic science, have not been able to synthesize DNA from scratch is now proof for You that a toothfairy designed it?
Is this your theory, the total sum of your 7yrs of scientific research?
If so, well, You have done your best. Now move away from that lab. Carry your lazy brain back to your church, and give testimony that YOU have found proof that your toothfairy did indeed design DNA.

Not sure which side you're on plaetton, you seem to have a dual personality and an ambiguous ideology regarding faith and religion.

One moment you're an atheist and on another you're an animistic agnostic or something similar favoring the African spiritualism..

druid06:


Not sure which side you're on plaetton, you seem to have a dual personality and an ambiguous ideology regarding faith and religion.

One moment you're an atheist and on another you're an animistic agnostic or something similar favoring the African spiritualism..

I have a problem with labelling.
Once You accept a label, then You begin to defend the label, instead of defending what is real and what is truth.

plaetton:


I can't believe you're so dumb for someone who boasts a phd in microbiology.

An easy way to note that someone basically has no arguments left is that they simply pivot to the tired old abuse that you would expect from a petulant 3rd grader. At this stage, i have decided to no longer get down low again... have at it...

plaetton:

DNA has been evolving for 4.7 billion years or even much longer, considering that it could have been deliberately or accidentally seeded from another galaxy system much older than ours.

But there is no evidence for this... it has no scientific basis and is purely an exercise in blind faith. infact this is not much better than believing in Genesis 1. So what exactly differentiates you from the religious people you deride?

plaetton:

The fact that we, only about 100yrs into genetic science, have not been able to synthesize DNA from scratch is now proof for You that a toothfairy designed it?
Is this your theory, the total sum of your 7yrs of scientific research?
If so, well, You have done your best. Now move away from that lab. Carry your lazy brain back to your church, and give testimony that YOU have found proof that your toothfairy did indeed design DNA.

I'm not sure what all the mumbo jumbo above is all about. I asked a very simple question - where is the scientific basis for how DNA evolved? The fact that very tiny errors in DNA is enough to cause severe phenotypic changes that cannot sustain life basically puts the very idea of DNA evolution to bed as basic nonsense. For example, prior to the evolution of the ribosome, how was early DNA transcribed to mRNA? If you are not knowledgeable to ask questions of science the way you waste time running around with religion then just say so rather than embarrassing yourself here.

plaetton:

Pls kindly refresh my mind about my ideas about DNA that you refer to.
Aside from being dumb, You are also dishonest.

I merely pointed out how seemingly chaotic atmosperic dynamics create such aesthetic, symmetrical, mathematically precise Snowflakes. And I did that to refute your claim that order cannot come from chaos.

Of course, what your tiny brain cannot ever grasp is that order and chaos are subjective, depending on the vantage point of the observer.

Please square that with the second law of thermodynamics... and as we have discussed prior, the snowflakes example is pure hogwash that many latch unto as a desperate ruse.

Kay17:


But you have Faith that an intelligence is capable of creating the DNA and other similar codes?

But you have faith that random chaos was capable of creating DNA instead... the irony is rich here.

Kay17:
@davidlyan

Do you think the DNA has remained exactly the same of the millions of years it has been present?

Do you have evidence it has changed? From what to what? Lets discuss...

druid06:


Not sure which side you're on plaetton, you seem to have a dual personality and an ambiguous ideology regarding faith and religion.

One moment you're an atheist and on another you're an animistic agnostic or something similar favoring the African spiritualism..

I think the problem is that most african atheists arent even sure what they believe. One thing is common, they hate the christian God... other than that there is very little that is common to them. Science is more often no more than a crutch to assuage their deepseated paranoia.

davidylan:


Please square that with the second law of thermodynamics... and as we have discussed prior, the snowflakes example is pure hogwash that many latch unto as a desperate ruse.

Oh gosh!
Snowflakes are real, are they not?

Why don't You ask the snowflakes why it is apparently defying your second law of thermodynamics.
Oh, Btw, are You not a researcher?

davidylan:


I think the problem is that most african atheists arent even sure what they believe. One thing is common, they hate the christian God... other than that there is very little that is common to them. Science is more often no more than a crutch to assuage their deepseated paranoia.

I guess christianity is not a common pestilence, exploiting Africa for centuries or that science is actually a real, reliable arbiter of reality?

You reasoning skills fall very short of expectations.

plaetton:


Oh gosh!
Snowflakes are real, are they not?

Why don't You ask the snowflakes why it is apparently defying your second law of thermodynamics.
Oh, Btw, are You not a researcher?

Like i have responded... using snowflakes as an example is inherently weak. A snowflake is essentially useless to life and no one argues that a snowflake has evolved from one thing to another. Basically it is as useful as empty space. DNA on the other hand is the very basis for ALL LIFE on the planet. Without it, life would not exist. So how did it develop? At what point did DNA develop the capacity to support life or has it always done so? These are the critical questions... raising the snowflake red herring is basically an attempt to avoid it.

plaetton:


I guess christianity is not a common pestilence, exploiting Africa for centuries or that science is actually a real, reliable arbiter of reality?

You reasoning skills fall very short of expectations.

If christianity was a pestilence then how come European nations, including the US and Canada, are so much more advanced than we are? Why are atheist enclaves in Africa not examples of western Europe?

Science is indeed a real arbiter of reality, but has it only thrived in the absence of christianity? One can argue that many of the greatest scientists, on whose ideas much of what we know today rests, were very strong christians. You're atheist... yet have such a poor grasp of science itself.

David!!
up till now this folly?!
na wa
chai....
scientist? lol
that asides how u dey?

wiegraf:
David!!

up till now this folly?!

na wa

chai....

scientist? lol

that asides how u dey?

I'm not sure why you all shy away from a real scientific discussion to traffic in juvenile remarks... if you feel its folly - please tell us why.

davidylan:


I think the problem is that most african atheists arent even sure what they believe. One thing is common, they hate the christian God... other than that there is very little that is common to them. Science is more often no more than a crutch to assuage their deepseated paranoia.

Christianity is the only religion that
seriously challenges their atheism visit the atheists sites , christian topics is the most discuss the reason is just to removed the fear of death .

to all my atheists friends. If you fear
death, yet believe that God does not
exist, then you are being irrational. Then again, maybe you uncertain whether death is the end of your existence.

davidylan:


I'm not sure why you all shy away from a real scientific discussion to traffic in juvenile remarks... if you feel its folly - please tell us why.

ser kettle, seems you've amnesia like the op. seems there's also the usual lack of imagination, as I have a good idea of where you picked up the 'juvenile' association from

note that you'll, as usual as well, tuck your rabid tail between your rabid legs and run too when the bulala comes down.

BTW, I need not know the details of the science to dismiss the silly tripe you've been posting. I could even give you unjustifiable concessions and you'd still sound silly.

seriously though, why in the world do you still remain a scientist when you're looking for supernatural causation? shouldn't you be a pastor instead?

Correlation does not imply causality -- this notion is vital and fundamental to science. The economic success of Europe/US/Canada may be correlated with Christianity but this does not mean that Christianity is the cause of said success.

The Roman empire and pre-Christ Greek civilizations laid the foundation for European civilization. There are other key factors that are responsible for Europe's success, however one could similarly argue that Europe became successful in spite of Christianity.

Christian popes were for centuries brutal murderous despots, European monarchs arrogated absolute power to themselves in the name of being God's representatives, Christian Europe kidnapped, tortured, and murdered millions of Africans (during trans-Atlantic slave trade approved by the then pope) for the precise purpose of gaining wealth, European monarchs murdered free thinkers who dare questioned "the divine", etc.

davidylan:


If christianity was a pestilence then how come European nations, including the US and Canada, are so much more advanced than we are? Why are atheist enclaves in Africa not examples of western Europe?

Science is indeed a real arbiter of reality, but has it only thrived in the absence of christianity? One can argue that many of the greatest scientists, on whose ideas much of what we know today rests, were very strong christians. You're atheist... yet have such a poor grasp of science itself.

davidylan:


As i have said 200 times now... perhaps you're finding it hard to see it. I have no interest in talking about God... i prefer to leave Him to those who worship Him. As a scientist, i am more interested in understanding what evidence you may have as to how complete random chaos created the DNA and what evolutionary pressures caused this to happen. You seem to be having trouble focusing on that or anything that does not involve God at all... i wonder why.

Well I have a lot of interest in talking about God. If you have no views here or no longer worship him, simply say so. It looks like you're not interested in having a discussion but would like an interrogation. You'll rather try to hide your questionable God due to his impotence. Since we won't be having a discussion, the evidence I have can be sought out on the internet. Just enter the necessary key words.

Happy reading.

davidylan:


Again the God red herring... i'm not interested in God or whatever you think He is. I ask the questions i asked based primarily on experience working on DNA and knowing full well that despite all we have tried in the lab, it is virtually impossible to recreate DNA. I have spliced it, transfected it to other cells, mutated it... all to fantastic results... but i have never been able to figure out how to create it from scratch. Based on your numerous claims, i assumed you knew... hence my questions.

Do you really think your God is a red herring? Be careful of what you say even in jest. Well I am interested in your God and what you think he is. Please ask away. I know enough not to accept a claim that your God was behind it.

davidylan:

Well then exactly what are you saying? You seem to be typing without actually saying anything of substance. How exactly did the DNA appear from random chaos?

What I'm saying is that DNA did not appear from random chaos. I've said lots of things of substance and would be willing to continue if you were trying to have an honest discussion.

davidylan:

The tiring red herring again... what has God to do with a discussion on the science?

This is a discussion on arguments for God's existence. It looks like you have nothing to contribute with regards to arguments for your God's existence. Let me know when you have arguments.

davidylan:


I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

Whether or not DNA has been created from scratch has no bearing on whether or not it is a natural process. After all, no one has created Neptune or sunlight from scratch. We still don't then say your God did it.

I think the real tragedy is your attempt not to have a constructive discussion instead you're attempting to hide your God from examination. That simply won't work.

malvisguy212:
Christianity is the only religion that
seriously challenges their atheism visit the atheists sites , christian topics is the most discuss the reason is just to removed the fear of death .

Christianity isn't the only religion available. The reason why Christianity is discussed is because most English speaking areas were heavily influenced by Christianity.

malvisguy212:

to all my atheists friends. If you fear
death, yet believe that God does not
exist, then you are being irrational. Then again, maybe you uncertain whether death is the end of your existence.

The fact that you're afraid of death doesn't mean others are. If you as a Christian fear death, yet believe that God exists, then you're being irrational since if you die, you'll be going to a better place. Although that is why certain religious groups are more than willing to kill and die for their beliefs.

thehomer:


Christianity isn't the only religion available. The reason why Christianity is discussed is because most English speaking areas were heavily influenced by Christianity.



The fact that you're afraid of death doesn't mean others are. If you as a Christian fear death, yet believe that God exists, then you're being irrational since if you die, you'll be going to a better place. Although that is why certain religious groups are more than willing to kill and die for their beliefs.

If you want to relieve your fears about death, you should try to determine if Christianity is true or false. I know of many atheists who are muslims before , this guys does not border them self with Islamic threat concerning their belief.

True christian does not fear death, because certainly, they know were they are going after death. If you are a christian yet you fear death, it mean you are NOT sure of your faith.

davidylan:


But you have faith that random chaos was capable of creating DNA instead... the irony is rich here.

I never said the DNA emerged from pure chaos, you made that assumption Nature exists in a pool of chaos. The cause of the life and likewise DNA is unknown. That is the fact available to us, any other thing said is speculation.