Alex Jones, talk radio host

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you claiming that they do exist? If so where is your evidence?

What exact part of Biology brought you to the realisation that you are clearly not the product of design?

Are you claiming that they don't exist? If so, where is your evidence?

I'm not in the business of giving free lessons. If you want to arrange some tuition... actually, no, I'm not going to tutor you even for double payment. I require my students have a minimum standard of education and I'm not convinced you'd meet it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Are you claiming that they don't exist? If so, where is your evidence?

I'm not in the business of giving free lessons. If you want to arrange some tuition... actually, no, I'm not going to tutor you even for double payment. I require my students have a minimum standard of education and I'm not convinced you'd meet it.

I am claiming that I have yet to see evidence of their existence. If you have any feel free to share it.

Or maybe you don't know enough about DNA code to realize the improbabilities of order forming from chaos by random chance without intelligent intervention?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am claiming that I have yet to see evidence of their existence. If you have any feel free to share it.

Or maybe you don't know enough about DNA code to realize the improbabilities of order forming from chaos by random chance without intelligent intervention?

So you don't know that they don't exist, and yet you are comfortable with the assumption that they don't, despite having no knowledge whatsoever of the universe beyond our insignificantly tiny blue dot? How interesting.

Are you talking about the chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously arising from a random collection of bases? Because yes, that is extraordinarily unlikely. I know that a lot of silly websites like to come up with that silly calculation, but it has no relevance at all to this discussion, and in fact order arises from chaos all the time. Your knowledge of the sciences appears to be sadly lacking, have you actually read any books at all that were not scripture?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you don't [b]know that they don't exist, and yet you are comfortable with the assumption that they don't, despite having no knowledge whatsoever of the universe beyond our insignificantly tiny blue dot? How interesting.

Are you talking about the chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously arising from a random collection of bases? Because yes, ...[text shortened]... es appears to be sadly lacking, have you actually read any books at all that were not scripture?[/b]

Just like you don't know that God doesn't exist, yet you are comfortable with the assumption that he doesn't, despite having no knowledge whatsoever of the universe beyond our insignificantly tiny blue dot. Pot kettle black much?

So if you think the chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously arising from a random collection of bases is extraordinarily unlikely, how do think the DNA code of the first human cell was formed?

Originally posted by chaney3
Yes, I said your 'conditions' were quite 'lucky' for us humans....but you didn't like the word 'luck' and prefer instead the more scientific term of 'probability'.

But, it's luck. (Without a Creator, that is).

It's not that I don't like the word luck, it's just not the same as probability.

If I role 1 dice, then it is indeed luck if it comes up as a 2 or 5. However if I role a 100,000 dice then patterns of probability can be identified. - The same can be applied to planets in the universe being capable of supporting life. The universe is so mind bogglingly massive that it is not 'luck' that every now and then conditions are right to support life (being the right distance from a sun etc) but predictable probability.

Please consider this properly before responding.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Just like you don't know that God doesn't exist, yet you are comfortable with the assumption that he doesn't, despite having no knowledge whatsoever of the universe beyond our insignificantly tiny blue dot. Pot kettle black much?

So if you think the chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously arising from a random collection of bases is extraordinarily unlikely, how do think the DNA code of the first human cell was formed?

I have never said that I think god doesn't exist, good lord man, do you not even bother to read the posts of people you're arguing with?

The DNA of the first human cell was inherited from the parents of the first human. I'm pretty confident about that. I grant you there's an outside chance that there was a little tinkering from some agency or other, but I don't find it necessary to believe that happened.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I have never said that I think god doesn't exist, good lord man, do you not even bother to read the posts of people you're arguing with?

The DNA of the first human cell was inherited from the parents of the first human. I'm pretty confident about that. I grant you there's an outside chance that there was a little tinkering from some agency or other, but I don't find it necessary to believe that happened.

Well I was talking to Ghost before you butted in. So if you don't think god doesn't exist are you open to the possibility of a creator?

What you have described about DNA is perfectly consistent with the creation account is it not?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat to dj2becker/Fetchmyjunk
I have never said that I think god doesn't exist, good lord man, do you not even bother to read the posts of people you're arguing with?

Bingo.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It's not that I don't like the word luck, it's just not the same as probability.

If I role 1 dice, then it is indeed luck if it comes up as a 2 or 5. However if I role a 100,000 dice then patterns of probability can be identified. - The same can be applied to planets in the universe being capable of supporting life. The universe is so mind bogglin ...[text shortened]... from a sun etc) but predictable probability.

Please consider this properly before responding.

I do understand your point regarding probability, but when you take it to an extreme, as in the complex nature of earth, moon, sun and origin of life, I feel your position weakens greatly.

Probability and patterns cannot account for such extreme complexity. Maybe for dice and coins, but not origin of life. Not gravity, not magnetic shield, not the distance of earth, moon and sun, etc. In my view, you are taking probability to such an absurd level, that a Creator seems much more logical and reasonable.

Knowing exactly who that Creator is, is subject to belief and faith. But, a Creator nonetheless.

Originally posted by FMF
Bingo.

Knock yourself out.

http://www.aol.com/games/play/masque-publishing/bingo/

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well I was talking to Ghost before you butted in. So if you don't think god doesn't exist are you open to the possibility of a creator?

What you have described about DNA is perfectly consistent with the creation account is it not?

It's a public forum buddy, if you don't want to talk to me, you go right ahead and don't, I promise I won't mind.

I am entirely open to the possibility of a creator. As for the creation account from the bible, no, that's just some amusingly childish ancient fables and my estimation of the magnitude of human achievement is slightly reduced each time I encounter an adult who can express themself but who yet believes it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It's a public forum buddy, if you don't want to talk to me, you go right ahead and don't, I promise I won't mind.

I am entirely open to the possibility of a creator. As for the creation account from the bible, no, that's just some amusingly childish ancient fables and my estimation of the magnitude of human achievement is slightly reduced each time I encounter an adult who can express himself but who yet believes it.

So you are open to anything as long as you don't have to commit to it? Or have you actually committed to believe in something? Are you open to atheism as well theism? Or do you have a personal preference?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It's a public forum buddy, if you don't want to talk to me, you go right ahead and don't, I promise I won't mind.

I am entirely open to the possibility of a creator. As for the creation account from the bible, no, that's just some amusingly childish ancient fables and my estimation of the magnitude of human achievement is slightly reduced each time I encounter an adult who can express themself but who yet believes it.

May I ask, at what point in the first few chapters of Genesis do you feel you've hit something "amusingly childish" of an ancient fable ?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you are open to anything as long as you don't have to commit to it? Or have you actually committed to believe in something? Are you open to atheism as well?

Why do you feel a need to 'commit' to believing something that you cannot know is true? I don't feel that need, I'm able to accept that there are some questions for which satisfactory answers or explanations don't exist. I do not feel, as you appear to, that choosing to 'believe' an unsatisfactory and unsubstantiated explanation is in some way a better position to hold.

I am actually an atheist, in the sense that I don't hold a belief in any god or gods (a-theist). I am agnostic in my atheism, in that while i don't currently hold such a belief, I accept that a higher power may exist.

Originally posted by sonship
May I ask, at what point in the first few chapters of [b]Genesis do you feel you've hit something "amusingly childish" of an ancient fable ?[/b]

I hope you won't mind if I don't take up this discussion with you sonship. While I do respect your commitment and passion towards your faith, I am afraid I am profoundly cynical of the scriptural basis thereof. You and I will find little common ground upon which to base an exchange of views, I fear.