Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

[methamaniac]

Naw,
He's preparing for a permanent holiday tho,
you're invited if you want to come.
You should accept the invitation.

 

[swilow]

Meaningless? Or MEANINGFUL?
Name one code that exist that doesnt come from intelligence.

Sure thing. You heard of DNA? :D

But definitely meaningless. Assuming codes require intelligence is anthropocentric nonsense. You can't know this, you can't prove it, it is not demonstrable or falsifiable and it doesn't appear to be true; in short, it is meaningless in every possible way.

My Dear friend,
My argument is from inductive reasoning from observation,
your argument is from willfull ignorance of observation.
Take off the blind fold and observations become more clear.

An amusing accusation from someone who is rejecting all common sense, hard fact and use of reason. Unfortuantely, everything you write on these topics utterly contradicts your criticism of me.

Your argument has been settled a priori, and you are manipulating facts and truth to fit your pre-defined position. This will never allow you to draw the correct conclusions from reality. I will say that your scepticism is almost admirable, were it not for the stone age that would ensue were you assertions more widespread.

I suppose your next statement will be "its not a code"---
Yeah, DNA isnt a code....
Just like Morse code isnt a code.
I imagine you are sitting there telling yourself....
"Codes dont exist, codes dont exist, codes dont exist..........."

Man, your imagination sucks more then your ability to use reason. How about you wait and listen for a statement from me rather then completely fabricating one? You have assumed you know what I am thinking. This is dishonest in the extreme. It just reinforces that you are unwilling to discuss things in a honest and open minded way; not only had you assumed what I would counter with, you rebutted it AND mocked me for it!! I didn't even say anything. :D

Yes, DNA is what humans have chosen to describe as a code. Your point?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

^
Hey, as long as you realize we had to be created.

Deuteronomy32:4

He is theRock, his work is perfect:

If God creates only perfect works, please explain how these abominations are perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

I think I asked you that before and you just ran away.

Are you ready to face this issue yet?


Regards
DL

 

[GodandLove]

Naw,
He's preparing for a permanent holiday tho,
you're invited if you want to come.
You should accept the invitation.

I like you Metha, You keep spankin these blokes one after another. It's quite refreshing. You're doing God's work, keep it up.

 

[methamaniac]

Yes, DNA is what humans have chosen to describe as a code. Your point?

My point? Im not sure I can sharpen my point anymore than I already have to allow you to feel its extremely sharp tip.
But I'll try....
A code needs intelligence to become a code.
Do you know of any other ways to get a code?
And if I describe a code as something other than a code, does it at that point stop performing a specific function? In short, does it stop being a code?

You act like you're concerned with "dishonest" statements. Alanis Morrisette would be shocked by that irony!!
Giving DNA as an example is extremely DISHONEST because you cant show how it forms without intelligence.
But doesnt stop you from using it as an example to show how I'm not excepting "settled priori".
What exactly settles this matter?
Has someone observed codes spontaneously forming that Im not aware of?
There's no manipulating or slide of hand here honey.
This is ice cold reality my special friend.
Isnt it refreshing!

You can't know this, you can't prove it, it is not demonstrable or falsifiable and it doesn't appear to be true; in short, it is meaningless in every possible way.

Really? ^ That irony is thicker than a Mississipi summer's night!
Our key difference....my position DOES appear to be true. Codes only come from intelligence.
Feeling that point yet?

You accused me of contradiction but I think you meant hypocritism. ( return of the irony)
Ive stuck to my belief throughout.
Someone claiming only to use observed "facts"
for belief and then believing something without any observed facts is an example of hypocrisy.
( boy your irony sure does get around)

I like you Metha, You keep spankin these blokes one after another. It's quite refreshing. You're doing God's work, keep it up.

Thanks, they make it easy for me.

 

[methamaniac]

Deuteronomy32:4

He is theRock, his work is perfect:

If God creates only perfect works, please explain how these abominations are perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

I think I asked you that before and you just ran away.

Are you ready to face this issue yet?


Regards
DL

You're assuming perfect is what only benefits YOUR idea of it to infinity.
And I dont need an explanation of an explanation to know its the best explanation.

Example:
I know you are a deciever.
Even if I dont know how you got here,
I can still know (and do know) your goal is to decieve.
? cheers

 

[swilow]

My point? Im not sure I can sharpen my point anymore than I already have to allow you to feel its extremely sharp tip.
But I'll try....
A code needs intelligence to become a code.
Do you know of any other ways to get a code?

Where is your evidence that a code requires intelligence? Are you, perhaps, making an assumption with no proof to back it up? Until you can provide some evidence, it still feels like your point is perhaps slightly blunt still...

You act like you're concerned with "dishonest" statements. Alanis Morrisette would be shocked by that irony!!
Giving DNA as an example is extremely DISHONEST because you cant show how it forms without intelligence.

And you can't show how it formed WITH intelligence. At least my position is plausible; yours is but a fairytale. If DNA was created by god, he seemed to make a fuckload of mistakes. He is therefore responsible for creating all genetic disorders which cause untold suffering, futile, ongoing suffering that only death relieves... What sort of intelligence is this? It seems blind, impassive, impartial- shit, it seems exactly like natural selection :D

But doesnt stop you from using it as an example to show how I'm not excepting "settled priori".
What exactly settles this matter?
Has someone observed codes spontaneously forming that Im not aware of?
There's no manipulating or slide of hand here honey.
This is ice cold reality my special friend.
Isnt it refreshing!

Oh, you The argument you have already settled a priori is the nature of the universe. You have determined, through faith, that god is responsible for everything, and so you manipulate evidence to fit your hypothesis. This can only lead to error, and has.

Codes only come from intelligence.
Feeling that point yet?

Codes can be elucidated by intelligence. We can't say much about their formation though, but insisting that Goldilocks did it is absurd- it was clearly Rapunzel.

You accused me of contradiction but I think you meant hypocritism. ( return of the irony)
Ive stuck to my belief throughout.
Someone claiming only to use observed "facts"
for belief and then believing something without any observed facts is an example of hypocrisy.
( boy your irony sure does get around)

No, I said you were dishonest. You invented a counter-argument from me, rebutted it and belittled me for (not) having expressed it. You invented an entire dialogue; how is that not dishonest?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

You're assuming perfect is what only benefits YOUR idea of it to infinity.
And I dont need an explanation of an explanation to know its the best explanation.

Example:
I know you are a deciever.
Even if I dont know how you got here,
I can still know (and do know) your goal is to decieve.
 cheers

I see that you could not justify your God so went into accuse and idiot mode.

Why does that not surprise.

Regards
DL

 

[methamaniac]

I already answered your question in another one of YOUR threads. Are you really that forgetful or attempting to decieve yet again?
Do I need to go find you the response?

 

[methamaniac]

Where is your evidence that a code requires intelligence?

Every single code in existence comes to mind
Only way you get around this is to say "anything" counts as a code

And you can't show how it formed WITH intelligence. At least my position is plausible; yours is but a fairytale

Again every code in existence shows a code is formed with intelligence.
Nice try to prove your point by a diversion of shifting burden of proof.....
You're the one claiming a code can be formed without intelligence and I am living in a fairytale for not believing it....
Where's your proof?
Examples of codes coming from non intelligence please.
My proof to the contrary -
Every code in existence - ie Morse code (I have hundreds of them)
"Plausible" position my arse!
Speaking of backsides I wouldnt sit on my sharp point.

If DNA was created by god, he seemed to make a fuckload of mistakes.

Is this your best argument for codes forming without intelligence?
Using an example of a code that comes from intelligence?
It may be easier for you to try proving intelligence doesnt exist. You may have a jump on that.

Oh, you The argument you have already settled a priori is the nature of the universe. You have determined, through faith, that god is responsible for everything, and so you manipulate evidence to fit your hypothesis. This can only lead to error, and has.

I never said God is responsible for everything,
are you guilty of what you are accusing me of?
All I have said in this debate is codes come from intelligence, thus we were intelligently designed.
Specifically what evidence am I "manipulating"?
-what evidence do you have to proof this accusation?
While you're at it I ask again what settles this mater?

Codes can be elucidated by intelligence. We can't say much about their formation though, but insisting that Goldilocks did it is absurd- it was clearly Rapunzel.

Rapunzel is a lot more plausible than blind chance because she is intelligent.
You don't HAVE to assume anything.
But assuming it takes intelligence to make codes is a safe assumption.

No, I said you were dishonest. You invented a counter-argument from me, rebutted it and belittled me for (not) having expressed it. You invented an entire dialogue; how is that not dishonest?

lol Im not being dishonest.
I was eliminating all arguements you could counter with.
And unless it is your position that codes come only from intelligence....
I dont have any need to apologize.
Other than Im sorry for poking you so hard with my
point.
All apologies for that friend?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I already answered your question in another one of YOUR threads. Are you really that forgetful or attempting to decieve yet again?
Do I need to go find you the response?

Do as you will.

I admit to being forgetful but you have run from moral discussion so often it is difficult to keep track.

Regards
DL

 

[Erikmen]

Difficult to judge..

 

[Journyman16]

A code may need intelligence to be seen as a code, but claiming all code needs to be made by intelligence is a bit of a stretch. You're using the statement to prove DNA must be from an intelligence when DNA might be a code that did not begin with intelligence. Note I am not saying DNA (or rather the non-coding sections) is NOT a code formed by intelligence, but you can't say 'all' codes are and then use that statement to show DNA must be - clearly we don't KNOW if DNA is formed by intelligence so there is one code that can disprove the flat statement.

It's also quite feasible e and π, and Plancks constant may all be seen as codes - are they created in certainty by intelligence or do we first have to assume the intelligence exists? If the 2nd then they also are not evidence that all codes are made by intelligence, even if they are.

Flat statements tend to draw equally certain opposition. It is possible all codes stem from intelligence, but until there is actual evidence of God beginning ALL, there is no guarantee. It may be stars speak in code - certainly they all seem to have a unique 'pulse' that can be used to identify them. Are stars intelligent? Or do we have to fall back to, 'There is a God so therefore all codes come from intelligence.'

Try looking at it from the other side - if there is NO God, where do codes come from?

 

[Journyman16]

I have no major issue with teaching Creationism in schools. What I object vehemently to is teaching it as Science. We used to have Religious Instruction in school, but there was never any attempt to pretend it had the same validity as Science. And that DIDN'T mean it was not valid, just that they were clearly subjects based in different worlds.

Trying to teach Creationism as Science is like trying to teach basketball as a way to make cakes - they are not in the same field at all.

 

[methamaniac]

A code may need intelligence to be seen as a code, but claiming all code needs to be made by intelligence is a bit of a stretch. You're using the statement to prove DNA must be from an intelligence when DNA might be a code that did not begin with intelligence. Note I am not saying DNA (or rather the non-coding sections) is NOT a code formed by intelligence, but you can't say 'all' codes are and then use that statement to show DNA must be - clearly we don't KNOW if DNA is formed by intelligence so there is one code that can disprove the flat statement.

It's also quite feasible e and π, and Plancks constant may all be seen as codes - are they created in certainty by intelligence or do we first have to assume the intelligence exists? If the 2nd then they also are not evidence that all codes are made by intelligence, even if they are.

Flat statements tend to draw equally certain opposition. It is possible all codes stem from intelligence, but until there is actual evidence of God beginning ALL, there is no guarantee. It may be stars speak in code - certainly they all seem to have a unique 'pulse' that can be used to identify them. Are stars intelligent? Or do we have to fall back to, 'There is a God so therefore all codes come from intelligence.'

Try looking at it from the other side - if there is NO God, where do codes come from?

Information embedded in DNA Proves The Existence …: http://youtu.be/77xr-OgizBg

Fun to watch if you like statistics.
Chirality, peptide bonds, oh my......

To believe DNA is the ONLY complex code that that appears to be created with dumb blind luck is super stretchy. Zero proof for it to boot.
If there is no intelligence you dont get a code.
You also dont get enzymes that spell check that code. Your mind cant comprehend the odds.
And even if you believe a code can spontaneously form itself.....
You got the chicken and egg scenario that
has to be solved with forces IN (key word)
this universe.
Cant logically do it.
You need somthing to cause the cause.
Which came first the proteins that synthesize DNA or the DNA that begets the protiens needed for it to be synthesized?
I'll give ya RNA....
Something has to have always existed and it doesnt appear to be the universe.

 

[rickolasnice]

Creationism isn't something you can teach..

Aside from "God made everything" creationism only exists as questions about evolution.. which all have answers.

 

[rickolasnice]

Information embedded in DNA Proves The Existence …: http://youtu.be/77xr-OgizBg

To believe DNA is the ONLY complex code that that appears to be created with dumb blind luck is super stretchy. Zero proof for it to boot.
If there is no intelligence you dont get a code.

Could you consider the fibonacci sequence a code?

And you know.. It could have started a bit like this https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience

A bit like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388759

A lil like this http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/metabolic-reactions-could-have-occurred-formation-life

A hint of this http://phys.org/news/2012-01-simpler-earlier-genetic-molecule-predate.html

Just because we don't know how or what came first does not mean it had to have been created. And yes.. people can think of logical ways that DNA as we know it started.

 

[swilow]

Again every code in existence shows a code is formed with intelligence.
Nice try to prove your point by a diversion of shifting burden of proof.....
You're the one claiming a code can be formed without intelligence and I am living in a fairytale for not believing it....

Burden of proof is on you here; you are the one making an assertion. I am not, I am rebutting your own view that a code requires intelligence to be created. I am simply saying that you have no evidence for that.

Where's your proof?
Examples of codes coming from non intelligence please.

You must not understand some of the conventions of argument/debate/conversation, so I will spell it out for you again. I do not have to provide proof when I disagree with your own position. Again, YOU are making a claim; YOU are the one required to provide proof to back up the positive claim you are making. But my reasoning to believe that DNA did not require intelligence to form has many facets; 1- the presence of defects in DNA. Why would an intelligent designer design such horrible things as spina bifida or harlequins disease? That is evidence of lack of intelligence, or random mutation. 2) Why are mutations occurring that negatively impact humanity? Why is god making malaria more resistant to anti-malarial drugs? Why are pathogens becoming resistant to antibiotics? If god designed this for humanity, why did he create such things to plague us? 3) The Miller-Urey experiment. This shows me that complexity can form spontaneously if given favourable environmental conditions.

It may be easier for you to try proving intelligence doesnt exist. You may have a jump on that.

:D

Pot to kettle: "You are black".

I never said God is responsible for everything,
are you guilty of what you are accusing me of?
All I have said in this debate is codes come from intelligence, thus we were intelligently designed.
Specifically what evidence am I "manipulating"?
-what evidence do you have to proof this accusation?
While you're at it I ask again what settles this mater

You have said multiple times that god created the universe. I fail to see how you could accuse me of fabricating that statement.

The evidence that you manipulate is scientific data that disproves your position. You pick some science to back you up, but deny anything that doesn't. You cannot run from the stance you have taken.

lol Im not being dishonest.
I was eliminating all arguements you could counter with.
And unless it is your position that codes come only from intelligence....
I dont have any need to apologize.

But you were being dishonest. You fabricated a reply from me; where I come from, inventing untruths with which to then attack a person is exceedingly dishonest.

 

[rickolasnice]

New idea on the origins of life - http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12?IR=T

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I have no major issue with teaching Creationism in schools. What I object vehemently to is teaching it as Science. We used to have Religious Instruction in school, but there was never any attempt to pretend it had the same validity as Science. And that DIDN'T mean it was not valid, just that they were clearly subjects based in different worlds.

Trying to teach Creationism as Science is like trying to teach basketball as a way to make cakes - they are not in the same field at all.

No argument. That is why the O.P. put creationism in the religion class and not the science class.

Regards
DL