₦airaland Forum

Ok so it is now time for semantics and world play abi? I am sorry but the two of us can't have a reasonable argument if one of us is purposely trying to misunderstand the other

You have decided to be dishonest by quoting just what you wanted to read. I am sure I was quite clear with my explanation.

Let me make this a bit clearer. Morality as a term can be stated as: good is different from evil and consequently good deserves good and evil deserves evil.

moral vs immoral is a different sense and is used as a synonym for good vs evil i.e. Immorality is not the direct opposite of the term Morality

I'll give you a parallel statement:

Legal vs Illegal is a different sense which is synonymous to lawful vs unlawful therefore Illegality is not the direct opposite of Legality

I submit that we do not rationally know what is good, we only rationally think that something is good. If our rationality was foolproof, then all human beings would think exactly alike.

Ishilove: This very correct.

Now my arguing brethren,let’s take a journey deep into the cells of all living organisms. This will be unlike any journey you have ever taken before .
 
Immediately, we see a world of such exquisite detail, design, complexity, inter-dependence and specificity as to boggle the mind. Let’s paint a picture.
 
Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9). (Emphasis mine)
 
A brief discussion of proteins and sequencing is necessary. Proteins must appear in exact sequences to cause specific chemical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. This action is called specificity. It is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. They are as different in purpose as an axe, a drill, a hammer and a screwdriver.
 
This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: “The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ‘supermolecule’ simply could not have happened by blind chance.
 
Dr Andrews observed that “It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano,or "Adagio in C minor" by Yanni! (emp added by me ). Codes do not arise from chaos,” (Andrews, E.H.,2008, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29). End quote
 
Here is a second statement: “Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos.The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer’ (1982, p. 130, emp.Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence” (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]).

Interesting...
 
Let's go further. Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).
 
In conclusion folks, regarding DNA, we can see that nothing works unless EVERYTHING works at the same time. It could not have gradually come into existence. Special creation, super and DIVINE intelligence is required for DNA to exist!

davidylan: I did not say all science exists on blind faith... the pseudoscience that purports to explain the origin of the earth however depends on blind faith. That is the clear difference.

davidylan: DAft. At no point did i think biblical ideas are on par with scientific ideas EXCEPT the fact that both are founded on pure faith.

davidylan: it doesnt have to be a requirement, its just a part of it.

davidylan: DAft. At no point did i think biblical ideas are on par with scientific ideas EXCEPT the fact that both are founded on pure faith.

davidylan: and those entities interacting appeared from where? What came first? the interacting bodies or the physical laws?

If you say the interacting bodies then how did they start interacting AFTER the emergence of the physical laws? Did the moon float into place after gravity appeared?

If the physical laws came first then why? What was the point of a useless set of laws guiding the interactions of nothing?

davidylan: What came first... the earth or the physical laws? Explain pls.

davidylan: What we have are explanations in search of a theory to justify. No evidence that a big b[i]a[/i]ng will create anything as complex as the earth and life forms.

davidylan: Daft. My question had nothing to do with the aim of the existence of the universe.

1. The earth or any other planet out there requires the force of gravity to stay in orbit.

2. If gravity came first then WHY since there was no rational logic for a useless force to exist?

3. If the planets came first then what kept them in orbit or did they float up there after the appearance of the force of gravity?

3. or did gravity always exist?

davidylan: So how did you know that it existed in any form pre what it looks like now? Where you just pulling that out of thin air?

davidylan: So in other words... you do not know? you're just following blindly right?
You really are a confused fellow.

frosbel: And gravity just happened to exist, right ?

frosbel: African atheists are just 'follow follow ' of the white man, spouting of stuff they have no clue about.

davidylan: My guy, you are not arguing with a 3 yr old here.
Everything on earth is made up of matter... what told "matter" to form the earth, a toad or a blade of grass? Did all that happen by random chance?

davidylan: I'm asking you... educate me please since you logical scientists know it all.
You are claiming that the earth must have ALWAYS existed in one form or the other NOT because you have proof that this is actually the case but because LOGICALLY it is impossible for the earth to appear out of nothing. Well you tell us what evidence underlies your blind faith in this idea.

You have been skipping my question though - when did time and space begin?

davidylan: How would the earth exist in "potential"? Please explain.

davidylan: But the idea that they "always existed" is itself bogus and an exercise in blind illogical faith.