Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

No he is showing you that y'all can't just pull out algebra and apply it to everything. Mathmatical axioms, are different from scientific ones. He could have applied some calculus if you wished? IT would still have illustrated the absurdity of you trying to imply that you have proven something through basic algebra. If it were that simple, more scientists would agree with you. Strangely we don't.

a reply to: Noinden



Are you trying to say that you, as a scientist, don't believe the OPs fully stretched beyond its limits maths proving (or trying to. Rather badly I might add) that "creation is the only logical answer"?

Colour me not surprised in the slightest

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm a skeptic as well as a scientist, and a Neopagan (yes I have views on magic ...kinda (points for reference)). If you show me evidence, I will evaluate it.

Creation is an answer yes. I object to is the idea it is the only answer.

What I do believe (since we are a conspiracy site) is that there is a group of individuals here, who are trying to push a creationist agenda. Because they fear science. I submit every creationist thread on ATS as evidence.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh, I know. My reply was meant to be taken as sarcasm

I have certainly noticed a very concerted effort by certain religious groups on ATS pushing the "creation is the only answer because god". Almost to the point of recruitment.

I've noticed you in, I think, all the religious threads I've decided to partake in. I've also noticed how you're always lumped in with us lowly atheists lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yeah I know, just twisting the knife in the argument a bit. I tend to kick opponents on the ground too

If it helps I was a non theistic pagan until my mid 20's, then some experiences (mostly involving death of others) changed my mind. I've no evidence for what I feel, and do not inflict it on others (my kids will NOT be at ritual til they are 16, and say they want to be).

a reply to: Noinden

I like seeing your knife twisting

I don't really care what people believe. It's their choice. When it does bother me is when threads like this are made or JWs decide to harass you at the door.

I see this thread (and many others like it) as nothing more than someone trying to prove their god(s) exist so we can convert to their flavour of religion.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
What's really being said is there is no evidence of an intelligent designer.

The Genetic Code for example. Code does not write itself, it requires a Coder.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The Jo hos stopped coming to my door. I used to live just down the street from the local temple. They did not like me questioning their faith. I think I've mentioned here before, I also went to high school at a private Christian school (I won a scholarship, and well my family is mostly Scots, we don't waste money). It was a Scottish Presbyterian College (in the UK sense which is combined middle and high school, not University). That faith did not stick, but I learned Calvinist Christianity. It was good practice for when Pentacostal riff raff began to show up.

These threads are a form of testifying. Its like the w@nker on the street corner with a soap box, a bible, and orders to "spread the good word". Missionary work is invasive. Its one more reason I follow my imperitive to be the truth against the world. IF they can be missionaries, I can do a little anti missionary work right? Otherwise its skewed to one side

They all assume if you disagree you are a godless atheist. I'm richer than them, I've got all the Gods to choose from, and theirs was sub par

a reply to: cooperton

Show proof that this was written by your God. You may not use the answer "it is evident" or a variation on that theme. That would be being intellectually lazy.

And GO.

a reply to: Noinden

Can't really argue with that lol.

I was raised a Christian in he UK. Went to Sunday school, primary school was a Christian school. I even carried my bible everywhere. I was until my teens. Then I questioned everything and discovered the fallacies used to keep the mainstream religions going. They're all full of them lol.

Sa reply to: cooperton

Only reason it's called code is because that's what we decided to call it. We gave it letters based on the chemicals.

Your argument of "Code does not write itself, it requires a Coder." is due to your lack of understanding or your wilful ignorance. I'm not sure which.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Prove it. Its that simple. You can't say "it is obvious" with out evidence. After all you need to demonstrate your own intelligence first

He can't. It's that simple. Round and round we go and where it stops nobody knows.

Of course, others read these threads. So don't despair that responses and research efforts go unnoticed. They don't.

Perhaps I should start a thread entitled: "Unanswered Posts and Questions" with links. It would certainly validate that when Creationists can't answer a direct question, cannot interpret the scientific evidence, ignore all citations which flatten their positions that they just disappear into the ether - hoping that everyone forgets their former "self".

But we don't. I don't. And I will continue to request a response every time I see them sneak into a thread.

a reply to: TerryDon79

See out of pure stubbornness I wore a Mjölnir pendant, rather than a Chrisitan Cross. It earned me the nick name of "satan" ... boys are so imaginative right? I changed from following the Germanic ways to the Gaelic and Cymric ones at about 16. But I'd bought the pendant in the UK on a trip at 14 (from a company called Alchemy) and wore it till it fell apart at 30.

Even though it was a Christian School, I was encouraged to question every thing. Which must have annoyed them when I questioned the need for a prefect (when I was offered one) to do bible verses in assembly. I declined, and they scratched their head (no one had ever declined one before).

I don't mind Missionaries as long as they debate. If they dig their heels in...they are prey

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerryDon79
What's really being said is there is no evidence of an intelligent designer.

The Genetic Code for example. Code does not write itself, it requires a Coder.

No it doesn't.

And you are still on the chopping block for previous citations. Let's have a response please.

a reply to: Phantom423

I am aware he can't. IF he could, a greater mind would have by now. But if someone picks a fight with me, they best be willing to finish it

a reply to: Noinden

I can see why Christians would call you Satan. The pendent does resemble an upside down cross. Well, vaguely lol.

I just don't understand their continuous need to try and disprove science. I find it very confusing.

Let's, for argument sake, say that god(s) did create the very first life (RNA type of life). That wouldn't mean evolution is wrong. All it would mean is abiogenesis is wrong, which a lot of people have their own theories (hypotheses really) about anyway.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I am aware he can't. IF he could, a greater mind would have by now. But if someone picks a fight with me, they best be willing to finish it

Exactly. Let no one get away unscathed!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Show proof that this was written by your God. You may not use the answer "it is evident" or a variation on that theme. That would be being intellectually lazy.

And GO.

It is called genetic code for a reason. It encodes information for the organism - we've even cloned organisms using their particular code.

Does code require a coder yes or no?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Strangely Christianity used Mjölnir's shape as one of the reasons to convert Peter died on an inverted cross supposedly, the inverted cross is a more modern symbolism for Satanism (just like the inverted pentacle/pentagram, which was a Christian symbol at one point too).

As for their needs? Sadly again logic is best left out of it.

a reply to: cooperton

You have had this explained to you repeatedly. DNA does what it does, based on chemical potential. NOT because it was coded. You are using a flawed analogy.

The onus again is on you, to show how your little God, created this (not) code.

Your attempts of logic, are not going to work here. Argument by simple analogy always fails. It is an indication that the person using it, is not kosher with the subject matter.

DNA self replicates, code does not
DNA is more than 4 or 5 (if you include Uracil) code. modifications such as methylation and about 100 other changes, also make it further from "code" than you could imagine. Ever hear of histones? How do you include them in your code?

Your "code" has pieces which are much more prone to mutation than others. How is that a code again?

it is questionable that a digital (code) analogy is appropriate even more so, because it responds to analog inputs. The amount of a hormone in the blood stream determines the DNA response. This is what causes everything from limbs to mouths to form. We have a head end and a butt end. Not because the head end is a digital 1 and the butt end is a digital 0, but because there is a gradient of hormone levels with is higher at the head end and slowly reduces until we get to the butt end.

How about the fact DNA can be massively rearranged and it can have no effect on the system. Chromosomes can combine (as they did in our ancestors after the chimpanzee line split off) with no ill effects.

Nope not code.

Oh and don't say "but we call bits codons". Because that was a term used early on, and its an artifact, which we have not dropped.

Next