Jesus Lives, and He Loves.
Offline Jesus still loves all people. And you can still be saved. Why would you not want to believe in God? There's so much bad in the world that it's amazing to know He is there to protect and love. And after life, I love knowing that I'm going to be in an amazing place called Heaven with all my loved ones that have passed on before me, instead of just going in the ground.
I am praying for each and everyone one of you hoping that you will come to know Christ as your personal savior.
Any questions about Christ? Contact me at [email protected]
God Bless.
- Login to post comments
Offline I love it when atheists resort to mere assertions which are so easily rebutted.
I love it when theists say things like this then fail to follow through.
Quote me anything in Shannon's thesis which explicitly excludes the requirement of an information source.
Irrelevance. Prove DNA is a code containing information, and not an assemblage of chemicals.
I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode.
And yet it is not efficient. You can't tell me that all the useless chemicals in DNA have efficiency. It's the opposite of efficient.
you must know that, despite entropy, it remains, statistically, remarkably efficient
Clearly your ignorance of both DNA and evolution have lead you to some remarkably wrong conclusions.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is the fantasy of the evolutionary position. In fact, the above statement is a complete non sequitur.
No, but yours is.
but you can't say why.
Note how you put "code" in inverted commas.
DNA is not a code. You don't find instructions when you pull it apart, you find chemicals. Chemicals which interact with other chemicals. At it's most base, that is all DNA is.
RRS would be so much less appealing were it not for the amusement one gets from this sort of thing. If one didn't find "instructions" one wouldn't be able to decode it! Furthermore, the assertion that it is "just chemicals" highlights the unadulterated absurdity of the materialist position far better than I could ever hope to! Were it "just chemicals" ie unselected to fulfil a specific role, clearly the result wouild be total chaos. It is this inability of the materialist to distinguish between hardware and software which gives the lie to his oft professed profundity and claim to the rational high ground. The whole thing is a joke. You should occasionally ask who perpetrated it on you.
This is how it ends up for atheists.
do you mean that I'm not keeping up?- fine, demonstrate it.
do you mean that I lack knowledge of the facts? There's nothiing clever about obtaining knowledge but the ability to discern what constitutes knowledge and to use it effectively is another matter.
and as a result you don't even know what the definitions of words used to describe processes are in the first place.
aaaah semantics! The constant refuge of the atheist. You'll stand before God and claim you didn't understand him. I'll ask to be there just to see it! Correct terminology will save your soul........not. Did you have a specific point or was it just a generalised flailing about?
In fact, theists get their definitions SO wrong that even common words like truth and belief escape them.
oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so may questions which get ignored....please define 'truth'
but atheists hold that nothing is impossible with evolution...
That is simple bs. Even a theist should know better. But then, you don't know what evolution actually is...
yes, the presumed ignorance of the deist is yet another refuge - so much for empiricism.
1] DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a "code".
False
when all else fails resort to blind denial
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
- Login to post comments
We have considered it, which is WHY! we ARE! atheists. And don't think your pet god is special to us. Any claim of a non-material thinking "entity" is absurd. You could call your pet god Frank or Thor, or Goobygoo, and it still amounts to the same thing. Humans invent gods. Humans merely project their own qualities on a a fictional super hero because the idea of having a super hero save you is appealing.
We reject the Jews and Muslim gods as well. For the same reason we reject claims of Big Foot and Ouija Boards and vampires. Humans like believing bullshit because it is easier than actually testing a claim to insure quality of data.
So you have a pet god, big whoopty doo. The Ancient Egyptians were beautiful masterful builders and were ahead on science as far as architecture, but that did not make the sun a thinking being. It turns out that the sun is merely a giant ball of burning gas.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
This is the fantasy of the evolutionary position. In fact is, the above statement is a complete non sequitur.
Note how you put "code" in inverted commas. Suddenly the term "code" has become inconvenient to you. Suddenly the issue is a semantic one. This is how it ends up for atheists. Christians hold that nothing is impossible with God but atheists hold that nothing is impossible with evolution......"give it enough time" they say, and anything can happen!!! In this case information can create itself! Unfortunately information theory disagrees with you. From the outset it PRESUPPOSES the input of information by an intelligent source.
The case is a very simple one:
1] DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a "code".
2] Empirically, we observe that no code ever creates itself.
3] Therefore the working hypothesis that the information which rides on DNA has an intelligent source is, scientifically speaking, the most rational to hold.
4] From this point, it is rational to conjecture that an intelligent creator, having created intelligent beings, will have communicated with his creation and from thence to conjecture that the Bible constitutes that communication.
Bob, I am well aware from previous encounters that you are nowhere near as stupid as this statement suggests! If you wish me to wax lyrical on the sophistication of the DNA code, I am more than happy to do so. I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode. Having said that, it took us a while!
En passant, I would point out that atheists are always rattling on about "evidence" yet high priest Dawkins can declare that, "the universe appears to be designed for life" [this may not be verbatim - I'm sure some pedant will correct me]. Well, Dawkins had good cause. Einstein himself said, "if God exists, he must be a mathematician". The problem is, that all this gives the lie to the atheist mantra that, "there is no evidence". We all know that our solar system in particular is finely balanced in the extreme. In fact, since Dawkins agrees, the first rational course of action would be to investigate whether it WAS designed, not to arbitrarily conclude that it wasn't! This indeed, would be the normal response of real science......as it was [and still is] of all those real scientists who also happen to be theists. The fact that this isn't the case, that uunscientific codswallop is habitually repeated, ad nauseum, as 'fact' and then disingenuously marketed as "hypotheses" by adherents of scientism, betrays the fact that the issue is not an intellectual one at all.......that this is but a micron thin veneer to conceal the simple fact that the issue is one of human autonomy and the desperate effort to cling on to it in the face of reality.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
No, but yours is.
DNA is not a code. You don't find instructions when you pull it apart, you find chemicals. Chemicals which interact with other chemicals. At it's most base, that is all DNA is.
Projection. You and other theists never bother taking the time to learn what you're arguing about, and as a result you don't even know what the definitions of words used to describe processes are in the first place.
In fact, theists get their definitions SO wrong that even common words like truth and belief escape them.
That is simple bs. Even a theist should know better. But then, you don't know what evolution actually is...
False
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Since your premise is false, what follows is also false.
Then why is it so inefficient?
As for your final paragraph, your logic is so flawed and so commonly observed in theists that it's been refuted hundreds of times on this site. It's demonstrated in the first line. A perfect example is the solar system, which happens to be dynamic. The solar system hasn't and won't always support life as we know it. That it does now suggests only that it has remained sufficiently stable for a sufficiently long period of time for life to develop.
Neither is there any indicator of design in the solar system. What's the point of all the stuff other than the Earth if the point was to create life on Earth? All those extra rocks merely serve to put that life at risk, if the solar system were designed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Depravity in the theological sense is a condition one is allegedly born into so your definition is completely divorced from actual behavior. Such abstract definitions are only important to those who choose to immerse themselves in religions in which the only requirement for being depraved is mere existence.
So even if I were the most sexually chaste, non-violent, charitable, kind hearted, self responsible, ad infinitum person who ever lived you would still identify me as "depraved" and that itself is where the real perversion lies. Christianity is a religion founded upon self debasement, sort of like a religious form of masochism.
Christian theology has a nasty habit of redefining and twisting definitions to accommodate it's bizarre theories. Even in the Christian lexicon the concept of "perfection" has been distorted beyond recognition.
How many times did God create, declare a state of "perfection" only to have it unravel due to some "glitch" ( free will ? ) and then the whole thing devolved into utter chaos ? Adam and Eve were created sinless and "perfect" then placed on an Earth that was so utterly lacking in sin and evil that God himself is said to have "walked through the Garden" ..... and now look at everything. Even God has difficulty understanding the concept, apparently.
why do you think the thought would occur?
on which grounds? Don't you just mean, "unknown to me"?
if I projected my qualities on to a god, I can assure you the result would not be God!! This really is a bizarre notion.
on the contrary, the idea of being answerable to a holy God is anything but appealing......which is your problem of course. As a proposed rationale, this doesn't say much for the depth of your "consideration".
for all your advocation of "evidence", this seems to be an admission thaat you haven't considered much of it!
Why is bullshit "easier" to believe? It is "easier" to believe propositions which are plausible and far more comfortable when a belief doesn't threaten one's autonomy. In this statement you attribute plausibility to belief in God while deploring mere plausibility. Yet you constantly express the view that belief in God is anything BUT plausible. It's an irrational contradiction. Evolution amasses huge plausibility by its capacity for piling unevidenced speculation upon speculation and it is backed by the comforting notion of human autonomy. Yet, as you correctly imply, plausibility does not indicate the presence of truth.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I love it when atheists resort to mere assertions which are so easily rebutted. Quote me anything in Shannon's thesis which explicitly excludes the requirement of an information source. Atheists try to comfort one another with this sort of nonsense.
I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode.
you must know that, despite entropy, it remains, statistically, remarkably efficient........an order incidentally, for which the atheist can give no reason. Surely you knew this.........?
but you seem unable to do so. Are you arguing with your high priest?
Whether it always has in the past is a matter of debate. I wasn't there and rather suspect you weren't either. I don't recall saying it always would in the future........neither did Dawkins. The Bible says that it will wear out like a garment and God will wrap it up. The issue is irrelevant to the point which was being made......which you would have realised had you been thinking clearly.
this is your very own unsubstantiated presupposition.
you are perfectly free to disagree with Einstein if you wish to.......I think I would have drawn the line at Dawkins!!!!
this is, at least, not a stupid question. God creates because he enjoys creating. We do it for the same reason, among others. In fact, all the things which really make life worth living result from his creation, ours or a combination of both. This intention of Man joining in God's creative enterprise is set out right from Genesis. So, "all the stuff other than the earth" is there for us to enjoy [and if a clear night sky doesn't send a tingle up your spine it should] and to investigate......which we are doing.........'curiosity' off to Mars yesterday and we probe the depths of the universe even though we haven't figured out how to get there yet. The short answer is - the Bible tells us God is an infinite God and that human beings were created with an infinite need for challenge, discovery and creativity. That is, at root, what makes eternity such a great prospect!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.