Some highlights on Facebook

Douglas Graham Kent C Stellrecht

" It is a very interesting article yet the conclusion that a supernatural being created itself from nothing with the ability to do all these wondrous tasks isn't supported by evidence.
Basically you are saying the task is immensely complex , therefore god.
You have to keep in mind that the divinely inspired torah , bible and quran were written by people that didn't understand where the sun went at night . Hardly the level of scientific competence you would expect from a divine creator."

What does what men know in any era have to do with what's known biochemically today? Your thought isn't making a particular point. You're projecting your ancient ignorance argument as means to bridge scripture to scientific knowledge today. You fail to take into account what's appropriate to form an argument. They didn't have sewing machines yet they had garments, etc. Your criticism is applicable to all people at all times. Your ancestors didn't know about WiFi. What criticism can be leveled against them for that? You're mixing apples with oranges, failing to take into account what's appropriate to expect of people who lived several thousand years ago.

On God being self existent, how would a temporal being construct means to apprehend the elements involved with a being self existent when you have no plausible explanation for the complexity of systems vested in microscopic mechanisms? You have no answers or any sources to give a natural explanation, much less a suggestion how systems are in place that work the complexity of problems in DNA, doing repairs, making proper arrangements, etc by mere happenstance alone. You can't affirm the absurd, trying to lean on people who lived several thousand years ago to make a case today. Talk about digging at the bottom of the barrel for an argument you take the cake. Is atheism that desperate.

Douglas Graham Kent C Stellrecht,

" Your op was a solid paste Angelo. Right up until you added god did it.
That is where you failed. You have no proof for your god.
Even the pope disregards intelligent design. It's not really a defensible position . Just like creationism isn't either."

What you see in the management, reaction and facilitation of cell function is information processing and outcomes. You can argue natural selection worked respective issues in organizing respective micro orgasmic functions simultaneously with creating the respective elements if you'd like. The problem with that is that chemical evolution's problem of evolving chemical reactions to facilitate the formation and actions have no proof, not can chemical evolution work, as an idea or a fact.

I figure you're so hard working God can't be proven because you don't have a shred of know how to attribute to chemistry what everybody knows it doesn't do. So, since you don't have a leg to stand on you try to slap God with the same condition, insisting you can't prove his existence. That's not necessary because, first you have to explain the information that guidelines cell function. The complexity of it is way above our capacity to calculate in probability. Nevertheless, you must have your mantra with the information smacking you in the face.


Seth Garren Biology resembles objects created by intelligent agents (humans) in a number of remarkable ways but it also differs from man made objects. Biological processes are dynamic while man made objects are static. Biological processes reproduce entirely on their own while man made objects must be assembled new each time. Biological processes rely on micro and nanoscale physics while only the most advanced man made objects operate on that level. We can claim that such differences are purely the result of biology being essentially a machine that is more advanced than any machine man has yet to make but this does not rule out a bottom up cause and is essentially a hypothesis-preserving ad hoc explanation. Most man made objects have a clear purpose in their creation to do a particular task. Biological processes do not appear to accomplish any purpose outside of their own continued existence. There is also no apparent reason to make a number of biological processes that resemble each other to varying degrees such that they give the false appearance of common ancestry.

John F Devane The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P.
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
The argument is an informal fallacy and an argument from ignorance

Ayia Pono John F Devane . If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. // You are right. My imagination is limited, and i could not fathom, that a unguided process would produce a car piston without any blueprint, and the process would be able produce the pistion with the precise size to fit in the motor block in a functional way. Neither could i imagine, that the motor could emerge in a stepwise gradual manner, being the intermediate states non functional, to then, in the end, like a magic hand, everything being fitted together , precisely interlocked into a working whole. Truly, my imagination does not reach that far. But if i imagine fairy tales, everything becomes possible. Its just, that it will be in alice in wonderland. Not in real life.

Douglas Graham   Atheists have a black hole on consciousness until the brain developed sufficiently to create it. Another lie. How is it a lie? Imagine unconscious beings existing successfully until their brains developed sufficiently to create consciousness. What can an unconscious being do for themselves? Nothing. Atheists are hungry for something they can feel a sense of belonging. The only thing in nature they mirror is darkness.

Zeke Morgan Jr. In desperation to maintain the "No god needed" ideology, the gaps are filled in by the "No god needed" crowd with unproven hypothesis and theories with fancy language laced with qualifiers such as "possible", "might" and maybe, among others, and it's EXPECTED to be ACCEPTED as gospel.
Science says, via "peer reviewed sources" this or that. You actually think that's any different than "The bible says, or God says" this or that?
Your faith is just as strong, if not stronger, than the faith of the believer, and based on those peer reviewed sources, you base and express your values and principles. No different than the bible believing Christian.
That is faith. That is a religion. Just because you either can't see it or are too proud to admit it, it's fact.

Josiah Main I sure would've liked to have been there to watch the first 2 complex cells fight over who was going to be the Brains, and the other the Asshole." Lol

Laura Moore True science requires true objectivity. It has begun to reveal design. If you are able to accept what is being discovered on an intellectual level then you logically conclude that there is a designer. Eventually this will lead anthropologists to understand why there is an innate and unique drive in man to worship.
If you can accept what true science reveals then you must follow where it leads.

Clarence Bro Cope To keep man from seeing the evidence of God's existence and judgment, Satan had a ways to go and a LOT OF THINGS had to be hidden. But since he could not hide what is right out in the open, he had to come up with "plausible" alternate explanations for most of existence. What a task it was! So much to be explained in some way apart from what really happened.

How do you hide the FLOOD??? It was a massive undertaking. The really challenging part was making it plausible. What helped was in making the explanation exceedingly complex, inventing all kinds of new "science" to be able to overwhelm the sheeple and keep them docile in their lost state.

You got to give Satan some credit. What he came up with is complex enough to satisfy the need in the sheeple to have an explanation that is out of their reach, so that they can be comfortable with their ignorance. Nothing that is simple, like the flood, can make people comfortable in their sin. The flood brings in problems. It leaves the sheeple in a state of anxiety. The lie has two objectives. The first id to take eyes off of all the evidence left behind, but the second is to satisfy the need for the lie to be "deep".

In order to quell doubts and questions, it was necessary that the lie be so complex and convoluted that it was just accepted that something so complex and convoluted could not be understood by the average sheeple.

So bring in the high priests of the lie - THE SCIENTISTS. It is not for the humble sheeple to understand such deep knowledge, so the lie has to be administered by a priesthood.

You gotta hand it to Satan. He is good at what he does, evil as it is.

Jim Stone Fazale Rana states, “Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: ‘When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, it must have rained.’ Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.”

Wenitso Kapfo The probability of evolution seems to stand in inverse proportion to complexity and organisation of life-at every level. As you have pointed out, it is indeed difficult to be intellectually convinced that the various components of rubisco, erstwhile useless, escaped the deleterious action of natural selection. Each of these subunit apparently evolved independently, escaped the killer of the weak, eventually got together with its soul mates (who also had similar fortune) and collectively became the one enzyme that became the foundation of life. And this impossible feat was achieved by blind chance! What probability! Or improbability! Yet, all biomolecules apparently followed this path. Or so as they, who believe that thoughts are products of random movement of atoms, would have me believe.

Aaron Noe My man ! I now the future. When saint Peter opens them gates for you he will say "Angelo, for all your microbiology copypasta from the creation forums; your heavenly dwelling will be between Honi the circle drawer(whose excellent circles drawn in sand brought the jewish people rain), and Jon the baptist ( whose magical mumblings whilst dunking jews in water removed their past transgressions from the historical record). Nothing says man of science like resurrection!

Francois Aerts There is no need for a mastermind to understand that an unlimited Mastermind engineered these very complex DNA-structures, -programs and -codes. Only a mind that is able to reason in a holistic, and at the same time omni-dimensional fractional way, is able to solve the totality of problems that the creation of one single living cell represents. Even life on earth in it's globality is a complex integrated living system, it takes an unlimited intelligence to design this system (and it takes our limited mind to mutilate it). Such a system can only be designed as a whole, it's impossible to do it piece by piece. The same reasoning applies for the whole Universe. That's why the Jewish religion confirms it's belief in the Creation of every living being and everything else in past, present and future as the Creation of EVERYTHING IN THE BEGINNING, at the first split second of the Big Bang : "IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH". And when one sees the beauty of our blue planet, one easily understands the Unlimited Love of this Unlimited Mathematician, this Unlimited Engineer, this Unlimited Chemist, this Unlimited Biologist, this Unlimited Geologist, etc... , 'He Who Was, He Who Is, He Who shall Be'.

Douglas Graham Stuart Pittaway

" Incidentally, Intelligent Design cannot be science if the Designer cannot be tested.
If you muddy the waters of what science is sufficiently to include ID, then, as Michael Behe *actually stated in court*, you have to call astrology science, too."

This is a false supposition. Ever hear of the Entity Case? I was in the communication loop of that case in real time of the events with the Principal Investigator. A immaterial being, in fact three manifest from imperceptibility into three-dimensional existing to conspire in the repeated rape of Doris Bythe here in Los Angeles. According to your definition, which is by necessity rather than fact, the events cannot be viewed as actual. This runs against the fact that the case was investigated scientifically through the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute, an A list research facility. There was opposition to the reports from the field investigation by mainstream scientists at the institute. Notice the last sentence in the video featuring Dr. Kerry Gaynor, one of the field investigators.

https://youtu.be/RyO1Dllhe38

Your idea is only an idea. It has no application beyond the bounds of your thinking. It also assumes science comprehends reality in material terms alone. Can your thoughts be tested to affirm their reality? How do you detect and affirm your love? You would depend on biochemical responses. How would your biochemical process define your love beyond your chemical and physical reactions? What you call muddying science's waters is a necessity to compensate for it's denial for the broader reality of what'say true.

You're having a chance to offset what you affirm by the fact that pre-existing information orders the complexities of the complexities defining your body, all things in fact. Chaos resolving into order by randomness doesn't work under scrutiny. Coincidence happens, but not on the scale required to account for the complexities in view on the molecular or cellular levels. Natural selection is a farce beyond adaptation.

Jerrod Henry False appeals to methodological evidence for God shows your ignorance of how things work.. We use deduction.. We do not actually observe a particle at CERN we measure the shadow of an effect.. We deduct by that its existence. By the same logic we deduce God. By the effect of the creation which is far to complex from the smallest of particles to the simplest of cells for atheistic processes to account for.. Atheism is faith and stupidity in the face of science and reason..lol

Alexandre E. S. Visconti Para mim, o melhor modo de refutar o ateismo é com essa simprles frase: só algo inteligente e consciente é capaz de criar algo semelhante e...pela obra se reconhece o artista...Deus.

translation : to me, the best way to refute atheism is with this simple phrase : only something intelligent and conscient is able to create something similar , and ..... through the art you recognize the artist.... God.