DNA, A Witness for God, Part 2( The essence of information)

DNA, A WITNESS FOR GOD IN DIVERSE WAYS

1. When I began doing the necessary research for this hub I came to the conclusion that I may have to title it, "DNA, A Witness for God, Part 1 of about 153." For example, Its 3 dimensional structure is exquisitely designed, as is all of its internal structures. This alone would take copious hubs to elucidate, but it does not stop there. The more I studied these structures, the more fascinating and complex they appeared, and the more there was to write about, especially as these structures are attributed to God. Also the 3 major classes of RNA( ribosomal, transfer and messenger) are all "synthesized under the direction of DNA templates, [which is] a process known as transcription"( B. α 252, Page 852, par.1). Then "ribosomes enzymatically link together amino acids to form proteins"( B α 252, page 18, C1, par.3). All of these unfathomably complex processes are executed under the direction of the information that God stored within the geometric structure of DNA molecules. This information is molecularly read, understood, and used to execute the intricate construction of over 100,000 different proteins, the building blocks of our bodies. Somewhere along the course of my life I learned how to add. So when I peer into the complexity of DNA, and into its association and communication with other molecules, and how DNA initiates the entire construction of our physical bodies . . . well, it all adds up to not only proof of God's existence, but of His omniscience also.

INFORMATION, A WITNESS FOR GOD

2. Unfortunately, the only thing that will be addressed in this hub is the informational aspect of DNA. Part 1 of DNA addressed its informational density. Another hub will give an argument that this density is even much greater than we have supposed. This hub will begin to address the essence of information. What is information? Where does it come from? How is it responded to? Why does it exist? I doubt we will get to all of this in this hub, but at least we can get started. I do not think that information can be considered a physical quality; its storage is physical, but its origin is not. In my writing and comments here at hubpages I have quoted Job 38:36 many times, but only the 1st part of it. The 2nd part is "who has given understanding to the heart?" I think this is a very general and all encompassing statement by God. I believe God is referring to understanding who is God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This part of the verse is also referring to understanding right and wrong, good and evil, having discernment, judgement and common sense. I think God is also referring to processing experiences. He has not only given humans this ability, but to a certain extent to animals also. For example, you will burn your hand if you stick it into a fire. The actual burning of your hand does not constitute information. Being cognizant of what happened, understanding its destructive effects, remembering this and using this knowledge to avoid doing it again---this is information, and this is not a physical quality. The burning is physical; cognizance of it is from God. Job 39: 13--17 demonstrates this difference. In this Scripture it is not information "that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them," but rather it is the awareness of this damage that constitutes information. Cognizance of what this destruction actually means is understanding, and doing something about it is wisdom, and all of this is from God( verse 17). Humans have had DNA in their bodies since Adam and Eve, but all the knowledge we have accrued concerning it has occurred relatively recently; therefore, only now has it become information. God constructed the universe, and everything in it, and it took an enormous--beyond our comprehension--amount of information to do so. As we continue to learn what God has done then His information becomes information to us. We are now aware of it.

INFORMATION--THE ESSENCE OF ORDER:

3. Can you think of any structure--any structure at all--that does not require information to build it? Even something as simple as a paper airplane requires information to build. You would have to type considerable instructions on how to make the folds, and at what angles they need to be made. This is assuming you are typing this information for a person who knows how to fold paper. If you are going to program a machine to do it then the task becomes enormous--and you still have to make the machine! From a paper clip to a skyscraper, and from a toothpick to the Saturn V rocket, and from a pencil to a computer, everything that has ordered structure requires information to build, and it requires a builder. There is no exception. What about the atom itself? Yes, above all things of which we are aware, the atom requires an enormous amount of information to construct. At paragraph 21 of hub#12.3 I alluded to the unfathomable complexity of the atom. In our classical view of the atom, the electron travels at nearly 5 million miles per hour( explained further at paragraph 12 of hub#12.6). This generates a huge current at this scale, which in turn creates a powerful magnetic force. These many powerful forces within each atom, including the proton repulsion, should blow the atom apart, but God has designed all these forces to work together to make atoms structurally stable, and this design required omniscience( information--and lots of it). Ultimately, it is Jesus Christ who keeps it all together( Colossians 1:16-17).

INFORMATION IN DNA--A WITNESS FOR GOD:

4. Does the information you are reading in this hub originate from your computer screen? Does the information you read in a book originate from the pages of the book? Can you think of any information, stored anywhere, that has not required an author to put it there? Why would an author write something that no one is going to read? Not only does he/she expects someone to read it, but to understand it also. Someone may be able to read a textbook in mathematics but he may not be able to understand it. It takes a lot of study and work to understand it, as is true for most disciplines. Do you think the information stored within DNA originated from DNA? How would that be possible? It is not possible with computers; it is not possible with the books you read. Why would anyone think it would be any different with DNA? What reason would there be for the information God stored in DNA if not for the foresight of using it for constructive purposes? If random processes put the information on DNA, then how did random processes( RP) have this foresight? And how would RP store this information on DNA? Paragraph 21 of hub#12.5 explains how the electromagnetic force( EMF) may access information that God stores in the structure of space in order to construct complex molecules as DNA, as well as millions of other structures. The EMF is the typewriter, DNA is the paper, and God, through Jesus Christ( Colossians 1:13-17; Hebrews 2:9-10) is the typist. I would be very interested in any atheist trying to explain how the information--and such an enormous amount of it--got placed on DNA by random processes.

MOLECULAR READERS---WITNESSES FOR GOD:

5. We've talked about authors. What about the readers? What are they doing? Well, what we do when we read is recognize geometric figures and their relationship with spaces. As I explained at paragraph 14 of hub#12.1 our entire brains work on this task; well at least a significant portion of them. Yet the molecules, which God created, do the same thing at the molecular level. Book α252 has on page 889, par.1, states, "The central dogma of molecular biology states that 'DNA makes RNA makes protein'( although RNA can also 'make' DNA)." These molecules do this by processing the information God put on DNA via the electromagnetic force( EMF). Ponder this! Our brains are 175 trillion times bigger than DNA( a molecule). If the DNA molecule was the size of our brain, then our brain would be a cube of over 3.69 miles to a side. Or to put it another way, 175 trillion brains placed side by side would be a length of 15.22 billion miles. It would take nearly 29,000 years to travel that distance driving 60 MPH. How do you suppose these molecules know how to do this; that is read the information, process it and then execute the instructions inherent in the information? The proteins they meticulously and exquisitely construct are enormously more complex than any machine we have ever made, including computers. Can anyone seriously think random processes is responsible for this rather than God, the Creator?

HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES TESTIFY OF GOD:

6. Image 1 offers a schema of hierarchical protein structure. The amino acid linear sequence( the specific order of amino acids) constitute the primary structure. Keep in mind that each amino acid also has a specific( a word I will be using a lot from here on) structure consisting of specific atoms in specific relation to one another; their angular orientations are specific as are their bonding lengths.

7. Predominant secondary structures are the alpha helices and beta sheets which in turn form specific tertiary 3D( three dimensional) structures. If we think of the specific atomic structures as the micro realm then as we " walk away " from these we see their macro structures : helices and sheets. The helices have specific curvature and torsion. Torsion of a curve, in this case, is the rate at which the curves separate from each other. Think of placing one end of a spring on your table. Now raise the spring in the air. The torsion measures the way the curves of the spring are separating producing a helix. God made this specific in protein structures. The beta sheet have specific linearity, width, length and twist.

8. As shown in Image 1, the secondary structures execute specific orientations to make specific tertiary structures, which in turn form sub-units with specific orientations to make the quaternary structures. Take a look at the protein images on this hub, and ponder the fact that these structures are specific. Every curve, twist, angle, space, and atomic orientation is specific, as God designed it. The amount of information required to construct these proteins is beyond our comprehension. To claim, or believe that random processes could accomplish this monumental task is laughable. As I alluded to at paragraph 21 of hub#12.3 , no one with any sense would try to explain how a skyscraper, or computer can be built by random processes. Yet this is precisely what is taught in biology classes---that not only proteins but our entire bodies are build by random processes.

GOD, EVIDENCES, AND BLINDNESS:

9. God has inundated all of us with evidences that He is the Creator, and the evidences are endless. A dozen people can spend their entire lives expounding how DNA and proteins testify of God as Creator. But that leaves so much more: trees, bees and spiders; quasars, black holes and galaxies; our eyes, ears, and brains, and everything that makes them work. Don't forget electrons, gluons( carrier of color force--a very strong nuclear force), and neutrinos; dark matter, dark energy and light( EMF) including all the different wavelengths so we have color and other benefits. The angular momentum of planets, stars and galaxies must be included in our list; the amount of energy it required from God to get all these structures to spin and rotate is astronomical. Rotational energy of the earth alone is 2.137 X 1029 Joules, which is about how much energy the United States can produce in 2.74 billion years. We need to include the expansion of the universe, forces of nature, and information stored probably in the structure of space( see paragraph 4 above). Space has structure; therefore God had to create it. The laws of quantum mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics are informatively based phenomena, which we have discovered, but these laws themselves were created by God. Lets not forget ants, flowers, and horses; lions, tigers and bears, and . . . and . . . and . . . . How is it possible that so many people believe that all these things can be produced by random processes? So why is it that so many people--and in some cases, apparently intelligent people--can not see these evidences, and unquestionably know that random processes can not build a universe? God has amply answered this question : Deuteronomy 20:4; Isaiah 44:18; Jeremiah 5:21; John 12:40; Romans 11:8-10.

Image 1 :
Image 1 : | Source

VERY EXCITING! DON'T MISS OUT ON THE FUN!

10. You can click onto each of the links I provided for each image below. Then click the image again after it finishes downloading. Now you should have the image with a magnifying glass with a + sign in the middle of it. You can move this + around and click wherever you want and the image is magnified two to four times bigger. You have to do this to at least image 2, 5, 8, or 9--IT IS SO COOL!!!

11. Now after you have done this with at least one of those mentioned, just gaze at it and ponder this: These are schema of molecular structures. They represent a small part of all the details inherent in these structures, and yet even at this schematic resolution they scream "SPECTACULAR" in glory to God. Even at this schematic resolution look at the exquisite detail that God designed into these proteins! UNBELIEVABLE!

Image 2
Image 2 | Source
Image 3 ; Author: Nevit Dilmen
Image 3 ; Author: Nevit Dilmen | Source
Image 4
Image 4 | Source
Image 5
Image 5 | Source
Image 6 ;  Haemoglobin
Image 6 ; Haemoglobin | Source
Image 7;  Membrane Protein---potassium channel. Author is Andrei Lomize.
Image 7; Membrane Protein---potassium channel. Author is Andrei Lomize. | Source
Image 8
Image 8 | Source

GET THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THIS HUB IS ABOUT:

E1. Tuoba sibuh sihtt ahwfo ecnes seeht teg--->Can you read this? Most people will not be able to read this because the order is out of order. Actually it still has order, but it is not immediately recognizable. It is the title of this paragraph written backwards with a space every 5 letters. Now I could write, gettheessenceofwhatthishubisabout, and, because you have a brain, you may recognize this as the title without the spaces. Now if I were to randomly write all those letters in any order whatsoever, or without any order whatsoever, then there is no way--without tremendous effort--that you could figure out what those 33 letters are trying to say. Now suppose we can rotate the letters, as for example, put the E's facing down or up, letters on their side or facing upside down. How about we take out the middle line in the E's so we just have a rectangle with one side missing. Do you think you can recognize it as an E? No, because it is no longer an E. Now let's say you cut out each of these letters and arrange them in 3D space( three dimensional space). Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to read something in 3D space? Or to write something in 3D space?

E2. This is the point of these very specific protein molecules. God, through Jesus Christ, gave them very specific 3D structures including various bond lengths between atoms, and various bond strengths. Some of the internal structures are twisted at specific rotations and angles. Some chains have one carbon atom, two, or three at their end, and they have specific orientation to one another. Random processes could no more make a protein than they can a skyscraper with all the plumbing and electrical all properly hooked up. In fact it would be much more probable that a tornado could construct a properly working skyscraper than random processes making a protein molecule. It is absolutely laughable to even ponder such a thing.

E3. God is the Creator. One "must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."( Hebrews 11:6). That is the only Way to get eternal life in heaven rather than eternal torment in hell. PONDER THE EVIDENCE, and make a decision to obey Christ.

Image 9
Image 9 | Source

WHAT IS NEXT?

12. I don't know. That is the problem with writing about God's creative powers, even if it is on a single subject as DNA. In this informative and technological age our sciences are discovering more and more of the complexities which God designed into His creation. If I lived to be a million years old, I still would not scratch the surface of what could be written about DNA, and I mean this literally. There will be a hub in this series on DNA entitled, "DNA a Witness for God, part?--Get Your Own Dirt:" If I don't get to it in the Get Your Own Dirt hub then there will be a hub explaining the number 1 chance in 1050,000,000,000 of DNA forming by random processes, which I mentioned at paragraph 14, hub#12.6. I plan to have a math hub on using vector calculus to determine an estimate on the length of a DNA molecule. I hope this math hub will reveal to the reader the complexity involved in making curved structures--God is omniscient; that is for sure.

AN OUTSTANDING HUB!

13. One of the most remarkable hubs I've read on the complexity of this molecular realm is ID Science's hub, Why Darwinian Evolution is Impossible. This hub will enable you to build faith. It not only will build your own faith in God as the Creator but it will help you to build the faith of others. It is a masterpiece of logic, and jam packed with information, links and videos.

More by this Author


Comments 114 comments

Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

How odd that you need to go to such lengths to defend your ridiculous beliefs. Almost as though you don't actually believe it yourself.

You could have condensed this down to a few words.

"Life is so complex a goddunit."

And saved yourself an awful lot of angst. It must be very frustrating for you and I wish you well in your jopurney from the disease that is afflicting you.

Be well.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

You don't believe in God. Believe it or not, Mark, I picked up on that in the forums, as subtle as the evidence was.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

A lot of people miss that lol.

Just because something is complex or "unlikely" doesn't mean a god most have done it.

Let's face it - assuming you choose to believe there must be a god - there is an infinite number of possible gods - therefore you god is infinitely improbably, which makes the chances of DNA forming naturally far more likely - therefore - by your standards - you have now proven that your god does not exist.


North Wind profile image

North Wind 4 years ago from The World (for now)

Amazing, Caleb DRC,

Please continue to apply the word of God to all that is around you and share your revelations with the rest of us. It was no coincidence that I read about DNA today elsewhere. Now, I see your hub and you have made it much clearer for me. Who is like God? There is none like Him. Your explanation caused a long trail of thought and my mind will probably be a buzz for days. For instance, when you mentioned the rotational energy of the earth,it made me think well what about the energy of the universe? And then if that power is so huge I cannot even comprehend, how much is the power of God? The fact of the length of time the rotation would take the U.S. made me think of eternity and truly how eternal it is! Wonderful, wonderful work that was written for His glory, dear friend in Christ.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

Great Hub Caleb DRC

I have come to the conclusion anyone that knows the true nature of the cells, and can still believe chemical reactions created them, is not capable of evaluating the evidence rationally.

@ Mark Knowles

The reason why people believe "Life is so complex a goddunit", is because a sentient calculating mind is the only mechanism proven to create the specific complexity we see in the cells.

The molecular machines and the codes that instruct them work exactly like the machines & codes we just recently learned how to design and build. And naturalists have never produced a demonstrable mechanism to create these machines & codes.

There is a major gaffe in logic and reason by naturalists that jump over the origins of life while smugly claiming no intelligent designer is needed.

Until you can produce a natural mechanism to create these machines and coded languages (that a mind has repeatedly produced), your claim that no intelligent designer is necessary to create the cell has no validity.

Your hypothesis of naturalism stands on illogical philosophical faith in atheism


americanidle7 profile image

americanidle7 4 years ago

I was just thinking about this the other day. DNA is really a beautiful and incredibly complex structure that is a reflection of God's genius. Being both a Christian and a Biology major may seem like conflicting interests, but I find that the more I learn about God's creation the more I praise Him and give Him the glory for it.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

IDScience - please stop lying at me. Nothing has been "proven"

I understand you need to attack genuine science that "proves" no designer is needed - this is why your religion causes so many fights.

Your basic argument of "I don't understand how it could happen naturally, and no one has managed to replicate the process, therefore it was Majik" is illogical, irrational and nonsensical.

You are the one making the positive claims of Majik - please prove it.

Why is my argument "smug"? Why the need to verbally abuse people because they have proven "majik" is unnecessary?


americanidle7 4 years ago

Ok I'm not one to get into internet arguments, but I have to say that you, Mark Knowles, are being incredibly rude and immature. Please stop portraying Christians as illiterate backwoods fools. Having faith does not mean one is ignorant. It never ceases to amaze me how acidic people can be towards believers in God. Little do they know, they're only making themselves look despicable.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

So pointing out that making ridiculous claims that are actually lies is being "despicable" huh?

Odd - I though Jesus did that as well. Illiterate backwoods fools? I said no such thing. Please stop lying about me or you will burn in hell for all eternity.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"Your basic argument of "I don't understand how it could happen naturally, and no one has managed to replicate the process, therefore it was Majik" is illogical, irrational and nonsensical"

That's not my basic argument. My argument is I do understand how complex information systems with many frozen codependent parts happen. They are always (100% of the time) observed to come from an intelligent source, and never do we observe these things to come from a non-intelligent source.

In deductive logic your conclusion is always true if your premise is also always true

Premise-All coded information systems are observed to come from an intelligent source, and never do we observe coded information systems to come from a non-intelligent source

Premise-The cells contain coded information systems

Conclusion-The coded information systems in the cells came from an intelligent source.

I.D. has absolutely nothing to do with "Majik" , thus your claim that I.D. posits magic as a mechanism is illogical, irrational and nonsensical

"You are the one making the positive claims of Majik - please prove it."

Craig Venter said at an origins of life symposium , "The Great Debate What is Life", on the science network, that science will eventually intelligently design a cell.

So unless Venter intends to use "Majik" to I.D. a cell, evolutionary science does not agree with your premise that Majik is needed

Atheists have a habit of equating the logically obvious with the absurd. They then blindly accept THE MOST absurd hypothesis in science (chemical cell evolution) without any evidence it is even possible, and all the evidence suggesting it is impossible


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Long winded way of saying "I don't understand how it could happen naturally, and no one has managed to replicate the process, therefore it was Majik" because you stated clearly "how complex information systems with many frozen codependent parts happen. They are always (100% of the time) observed to come from an intelligent source" but - this is a lie. Complex information systems do not always (100% of the time) come from an intelligent source.

See: DNA. LOLO

Evolution has been proven to happen and replicated.

Little wonder your religion causes so many fights.

Odd you need to hide your identity. Why is that?


americanidle7 profile image

americanidle7 4 years ago

I actually laughed out loud at that comment. "Little wonder your religion causes so many fights." Take a good hard look at your very first comment. I think it's fairly obvious that YOU started this "fight" with your unprovoked cruel words. The fact that you relate religious beliefs with a "disease" is about as arrogant as it gets. pretty sure that's how the Holocaust started.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"but - this is a lie. Complex information systems do not always (100% of the time) come from an intelligent source. See: DNA. LOLO"

You missed the argument completely.

All observable instances of information systems coming into existence are the source and premise of the deductive argument, and are always observed to come from an intelligence. The information system in the cells are the target and conclusion of the deductive argument

If we knew where the information systems in the cells came from there would be no need for the deductive argument, now would there?

"Odd you need to hide your identity. Why is that?"

I have no identity on hubpages to hide. Why is my identity important to this argument?


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark, how can I be well if I have a disease?

Anyway, your conclusion is ok on your 2nd comment but your premise is fallacious, which makes your conclusion invalid.

ID Science has given you impeccable logic, but here is the problem. You have more faith than all of us combined. We believe in God because He has innundated us with evidences of His existence in the universe He created. He gave us Scripture that has a flawless record of fulfilled prophesy( 1 chance in 10^1050 of that happening by guessing), and Christianity is the only religion of which its prophets could heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, command the weather, and divide seas, to name just a few.

It is easy for us to believe in God for these reasons. But you Mark . . . well, I just bow my head in shame when I begin to compare my puny faith to your powerful, warrior like confidence in your god-of-random-processes. I envy such unquestioning faith as yours. If I could have just 1/300th of your faith then . . . well, by golly I think I could walk on water.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

It is always GREAT to hear from you, North Wind.

The earth is a speck of dust and yet it has such enormous rotational energy. The sun and all stars have much more! Not only do all these celestial bodies have this rotational energy, but they all also have orbital energy, which is greater. I plan on doing a hub about this, and I'm just so grateful I got a calculator that will not begin to smoke when it works on these numbers. It is really annoying when the smoke alarms go off. In physics is the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum, which states it takes a force to get something to spin, and it takes a force to stop it. The force required by God to spin this universe the way He did is . . . well, the number is out there in the Twilight Zone!


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

ID Science, God has given you the gift of logic. Your clear reasoning and analytical thought is always welcomed here. God gives each of us gifts, and also specific gifts. Your specific gift is cutting through the sophistry( bull) and exposing it for what it is--sophistry.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Americanidle 7

Your profile was very refreshing and funny. I like dark chocolate, but I agree with you on the cold coffee. I never tried banana flavored laffy taffy; however, if I say it three times in row I'm put in a good mood. I only wear high heels when I'm walking behind slow people because then they don't seem slow, but I may get the heel from someone behind me.

You could not have chosen a better discipline that biology. Astronomy reveals God's omnipotence, but I think biology reveals God's omniscience more than any other science. I know you are being taught evolutionary theory, but I sense you have the intelligence and revelation from God to know that the conjectures of evolutionary theory are based upon some of the most simple-minded thinking imaginable. Good luck in your studies . . . wait a minute . . . oh, I remember, hard work does bring good luck, doesn't it?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

ID - They are not always observed to come from an intelligence. This is a lie. Please stop treating me as though I am an idiot.

You making an illogical assumption does not make it fact - no matter how many other religionists pat you on the back and tell you you are using "logic".

This is why your religion causes so many fights.

Everything we understand about biology points to there being no need or involvement of a god - or indeed any planning whatsoever. Evolution is by definition a "suck it and see" process with the only driving force being to reproduce.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Caleb - Sorry - I missed your comment. I said it as a blessing. You are sick and I hope you get better.

As for your refutation of my argument I guess all I can say is "LOL" rather than the word salad you prefer.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Caleb DRC

You may already know this, but I just recently learned about black holes being God's galaxy making machines.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/08/nation/na-...

"Astronomers think they have finally solved the cosmic chicken-and-egg problem of what came first -- the giant black holes lying at the center of many big galaxies or the galaxies that feed them?"

The answer: the black holes.

"The finding, which surprised even the scientists involved, implies that black holes grow the galaxies surrounding them, like a garden springing from a single seed or a man growing a suit of clothes."

I also heard a physicist on youtube say they have detected extremely accurate rhythmic "beeps" coming from some black holes which is evidence of a calculated precision coming from them

Mark Knowles does not understand the foundations of his belief system are based in irrational concepts

Atheistic science rejects having faith in God based strictly on the fact he is unfalsifiable (incapable of being proven false), they are then forced by intelligent design's main argument for design (teleological) to have faith in the equally unfalsifiable multi-verse hypothesis just to explain the fine tuning problem of the universe.

Atheists then establishes cell evolution (abiogenesis) as true in all text books, not from its own merits, but based from the fact an intelligent designer is incapable of being proven false.

Its funny to listen to these atheists in science talk about how complex and "design like" the cells are, while telling us we must ignore the blatant logical inference for design, based on the fact a designer can not be eliminated as the creator of the cell. The reasoning atheists use is so completely in left field its laughable.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Please stop lying about me. I do no such thing. I logically deduced that your Invisible Super Being is invisible because it is not there. If you would care to break that chain of logic I would love to hear it.

Still - at least now you are calling your "proven facts" by the correct terminology. i.e. "inference." That is a step towards you being a little more honest.

It sure is funny to see all these religionists talking about "facts" and logically inferring things because they canniot be disproven. That is laughable reasoning - if it was not accompanied by such aggressive behavior it would actually be funny.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

"ID - They are not always observed to come from an intelligence. This is a lie. Please stop treating me as though I am an idiot."

Then give me just one example of an information system with both sending and receiving ends that understand and agree on the meaning of some arbitrary symbols, coming into existence by any mechanism other than a mind.

It does not exist, and this is why you did not provide a reference for your claim

========

"Everything we understand about biology points to there being no need or involvement of a god"

Not even close. Everything we know points to extreme conservation. This is why Gould needed to invent punctuated equilibrium. because species don't evolve like Darwin predicted they would

"The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." Eldredge

You observe minor fluctuations in each species and extrapolate a theory that huge radical changes took place from these minor environmentally induced fluctuations, and without having any evidence of it other than your imaginary mechanism of P.E. (evolution so fast it leaves no trace it ever happened)

Then we have living fossils that have defied your theory of evolution in every layer of the fossil record starting from "3.5" billion years ago (cyanobacteria) , and going all through Cambrian

Nothing in the fossil record or molecular biology supports your theory of large scale radical evolution


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"ID - They are not always observed to come from an intelligence. This is a lie. Please stop treating me as though I am an idiot"

Every information system that is observed to come into existence, is observed to come from a mind. You have no observable evidence of your claim that an information system can come into existence without the aid of a sentient calculating mechanism, and this is why you did not post any sources for your claim

Using the information systems in the cells as your example is invalid because you don't have any evidence how that system came into existence in the first place

The information system in the cells is the target you are trying to prove, not the source argument you are using to hit your target with. Its circular logic to use the preexistent information systems in the cells, as evidence the information systems in the cells do not need a designer

Conserved (unable to evolve) functional elements and information systems are NEVER observed to come into existence from a non-intelligent source. So until you have observable evidence of your claim, you have no argument to make


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark, At the end of this hub I have provided a link to ID's hub on the impossibility of evolution. The logic it contains is irrefutable. You should check it out.

Regardless of how intelligent someone may be, he/she is not going to be able to convince anyone that a tornado can build a skyscraper, and that is what you are up against here. You are trying to convince us that random processes can build God's magnificent creation.

Romans 1:20 makes it clear that it is a no-brainer, and that was written at a time when we did not have a clue of just how complex God's creation is.

Even if we were to allow for the "favorable mutations" (which is mathematically impossible) argumentation of evolutionists, entropy would destroy those mutations long before the next "favorable mutation" rambled along.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

ID Science, I checked out that link . . . cool! I did not have a clue that black holes may be building galaxies. I always assumed that they depleted a galaxy of surrounding material, not added to it. The laws of physics breaks down at that realm; therefore it would be hard to predict what is happening or will happen. They may provide a door to other spacial dimensions, or even the past and future.

Someone asked the question in one of the forums, "What is a black hole?" There were several very good, scientific answers, but mine was the only right one. A black hole is my wallet. Put money into it and it is never to be seen again.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Evolution is a proven fact. We have replicated the process in a lab. Irrefutable? Dear me.

ID - You already said it was "inference" not fact - why the need to continue to lie at me?

Sorry that science upsets you so much. Odd you choose to use the fruits of that to spread your nonsense.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Caleb DRC

This is a cool video from the Hubble telescope of a galaxy being created. It corresponds with the Genesis account

Hubble Confirms Genesis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KMd-5MVF_E

Biology, physics & astronomy are all pointing to I.D.

Physicists now have the problem of explaining the mechanisms of galaxy creation without the aid of a designer. This will be fun to watch


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

LAWL Physicists have no such "problem." Science has already determined that a Majikal Invisible Super Being is not necessary for the universe to exist.

Your "god of the gaps" is shrinking every day. No wonder you are so angry. This is why your religion causes so many fights.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

ID Science, thanks for the 2nd link. I'll check it out. I have believed for a long time that God designed the galactic structures and orbital planets because of all the perturbations involved. Only God can design such stability with such dynamics systems.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark, What does LAWL mean? You or someone else answered this for me but I forgot. Also what did you mean by "the word salad you prefer".

There is no way I believe that science has proven evolutionary theory. I have nothing against micro evolution because even the Bible backs that up, but you will have to link me to the sites that claim macro evolution( transition of species) has been proven.

To claim that science has proven evolution is analogous to saying that science has proven that a tornado can build a skyscraper. Would you believe that?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Ah - more word salad. Your analogy is flawed. Evolution has been proven which means your Invisible Super Being doesn't exist. Is that why you are so angry with science?

LAWL is LOL +1. Think of it as "laughing in your face."

I am laughing in your face at your disingenuousness. Science has proven evolution. Micro and Macro. Odd you need to lie about this.

Even odder that you think majik becomes the default answer even if your claims were true, Why does majik become the default exactly?

As I proved earlier - your god is infinitely improbable (assuming you believe in majik) so the odds of your god doing majik are even less than the odds of life spontaneously arising.

I would also love some proof that there was a time when the Universe did not exist.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"Science has already determined that a Majikal Invisible Super Being is not necessary for the universe to exist."

Right, and the way science has determined this is by having blind faith in endless invisible, unfalsifiable universes (multiverses) and we just got lucky to be living in the one universe with the constants finely tuned for life

The atheists in science exercise just as much faith as theists do. At least the faith of theists is logical

===========

"Science has proven evolution. Micro and Macro. Odd you need to lie about this"

You could not be further from the truth

"The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution." Koonin EV.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.....In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."

Why do you think Gould invented punctuated equilibrium?, Because macro evolution is not observable in the fossil record. You need to Google "fossil record quotes" and study. Stasis is the predominate feature in the fossil record

=============

"As I proved earlier - your god is infinitely improbable"

Tell me how you proved an all knowing being is "infinitely improbable". I would love to hear your liberal logic


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

I guess you don't actually bother reading anything I say do you? Just attack "blind faith in proven facts" lol

Macro evolution - i.e. a change in species - has been replicated in a lab and observed in the wild.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm...

As to my logic regarding the virtual impossibility of your Invisible Super Being, that is simple and I will repeat myself as you only seem to be capable of cutting and pasting religious liars and do not bother reading anything:

Assuming you accept the need for a god - surely there must be an infinite number of possible gods? Assuming you answer "yes" as I don't see any other answer - YOUR GOD is infinitely improbable.

Why bring politics into it? Oh yes - your religion is a political party. Liars for Jesus. No wonder your religion has causes so much hatred.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

"Macro evolution - i.e. a change in species - has been replicated in a lab and observed in the wild"

Macro means large and micro means small. Macro (large scale changes to phenotype) is never observed in species. Most of the evolution going on is either phenotypic plasticity, or switching a pre-existing gene on or off, neither of which change DNA sequences, thus can not be used as evidence for evolution.

Talkorigins has no examples of large scale changes in a species body plan, thus MACRO evolution is never being observed. Only micro evolution is observed

Understand your theory stands or falls on its ability to specifically arrange DNA sequences. If any part of DNA or RNA is not subject to the evolutionary mechanism of change, your theory of "evolution" has been invalidated.

Creationists are not going to let you get away with starting your theory (of entire system evolution) with millions of long functional DNA sequences & proteins that can not be changed, thus can not evolve.

Your theory must explain the huge percentage of the genome that is not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. It has no explanation other than blind luck and the selection thereof.

There is a major gaffe in logic & reason if you think you can just blow off the conserved (unable to evolve) elements all throughout the genome and still claim the entire biological system can and did evolve

===========

"surely there must be an infinite number of possible gods? Assuming you answer "yes" as I don't see any other answer - YOUR GOD is infinitely improbable"

Yes I completely disagree, by what reasoning do you use to conclude there MUST be an infinite number of possible Gods?(all knowing thus all powerful beings). There is just as much probability there are an infinite number of Gods, as there is an infinite number of all other possible life forms.

Its far more likely there is only one God because one Gods existence is much easier to explain than an infinite number of possible Gods. You get your wild imagination tangled up with critical thinking

Secondly it appears you do not know the definition of a God. Its originates from the Hebrew. Elohim (plural), which means a position of authority

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [men] are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

God is a position of authority just as president is a position of authority

=========

By "liberal" I do not mean voting preference. I mean the emotional mind that believes feelings are valid indicators of what is true or false. Most liberal voters do not have emotional minds, however most emotional minds identify as liberals. There is a saying that conservatives think and liberals feel. The liberal invention of political correctness is nothing more than lying to spare bad feelings.

And well over 90% of atheists identify as liberals. and atheism is rooted in feelings that God does not exist.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Sorry - I don't understand - you "feel" there is a majikal invisible super being in the sky - does that make you a liberal in that case?

In any case - I "feel" no such thing - a god is logically impossible and common sense dictates (along with proven science) that one does not exist. It sure would be nice if you stopped lying about me - please stop.

You also seem confused and unable to supply a definition of the Invisible Majikal Super Being - or Beings now?

You also do not seem to understand basic probabilities, so I will try and explain. As you seem to also be unable to understand possibilities I will try and combine the 2 - maybe that will help.

You also seem incapable of explaining the existence of this god you cannot define.

In fact - it appears your ignorance knows almost no boundaries. Lets try it again:

If you believe in majik and Invisible Super Beings, there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE Invisible Super Beings - being as they are invisible and whatnot.

Now - if you also make the insane assumption that - not only is there an Invisible Super Being - there is only one and you know what it is - you must then see that this Invisble SUper Being which you cannot define - is INFINITELY IMPROBABLE.

Therefore less likely than life spontaneously arising.

Or are you saying that these other possible Gods - IDK - Thor, Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc, etc, etc - are NOT POSSIBLE? Because I want to hear that argument. lol

Sorry you did not understand the actual proof I provided for you that species arise out of other species by evolution. You sure can read fast - that was weeks of solid reading of scientific facts that you managed to plough through in less than an hour - well done - where did you take your speed reading course?

Liars For Jesus (TM)


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"In any case - I "feel" no such thing - a god is logically impossible and common sense dictates (along with proven science) that one does not exist."

You have yet to explain your position from a logical manner. And you prove your completely disengaged from reality, or a blatant liar by claiming science has "proven" God does not exist.

Find me just ONE scientist that claims science has proven God does not exist. You will not find one that claims this because anyone with even a basic understanding of science knows God is UNFALSIFIABLE (incapable of being proven false) therefor its impossible for science to prove God does not exist.

This is how I know your an emotional philosopher and not a critical thinker because you make knee jerk illogical statements that have no basis in reality.

Ill show you how easy it is to dismantle your reasoning

We exist therefore other life in the universe can logically exist

We coexist with a vast range of life forms with a vast range of intellects and attributes, therefore a vast range of intellects and attributes can logically exist elsewhere in the universe

If you accept other sentient life in the universe can exist, by what reasoning do you use to limit the attribute levels of all other sentient life that can exist?

You have no reason based in critical thinking to believe a being with "God like" attributes can not exist. You only have emotional philosophies that originate from a mind that can not comprehend orders of magnitude, nor recognize logical absolutes , therefore you use flawed subjective philosophy and confuse it with logic

True logic has no reason to limit the attribute level of all possible life, just as logic has no reason to limit the size of the universe or the size of anything else for that matter. Unimaginably large and small things can logically exist

============

"If you believe in majik and Invisible Super Beings, there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE Invisible Super Beings - being as they are invisible and whatnot."

Wrong, there is no logic in that statement. By your reasoning because something is unseen , this equates there MUST BE an infinite number of them.

No one in science agrees with your reasoning, because if they did, string theory (which predicts 11 other unseen dimension) must include an infinite amount of other dimensions based on your criteria that .."the unseen MUST equate the infinite". Quantum physicists would laugh you out of their office if you told them the unseen MUST equate the infinite

You have yet to explain the theory of why everything that is unseen MUST include an infinite amount. You simple parrot your flawed philosophy over & over without ever giving a logical reason why the unseen must equate the unlimited.

And if you admit the unseen does not equate the unlimited, you then have no argument to make about God being infinitely improbable

===========

"Now - if you also make the insane assumption that - not only is there an Invisible Super Being - there is only one and you know what it is - you must then see that this Invisble SUper Being which you cannot define - is INFINITELY IMPROBABLE."

You have yet to explain why a all knowing sentience is "insane". You start with an illogical presupposition then attempt to build an argument from it. Your premise that an all knowing being can not exist is illogical & irrational to begin with because sentient cognition can exist in any size.

The fact that humans coexist with amoebas is evidence a sentience has no boundaries and can exist in any and all sizes. Therefore your claim that a "God like" sentience can not exist is not based in logic & reason, but in your own inability to comprehend orders of magnitude

========

"Sorry you did not understand the actual proof I provided for you that species arise out of other species by evolution. You sure can read fast - that was weeks of solid reading of scientific facts that you managed to plough through in less than an hour - well done - where did you take your speed reading course?"

I'm sorry you did not understand the definition of the words macro & micro. Giving me a reference of small changes in species and claiming its evidence of MACRO evolution tells me you do not understand the definition of the words

The reason why you just through up a talkorigins link (a common tactic for novice evolutionists) and never posted any information from the site, is because there isn't any reference on that page of observable macro (large scale) evolution in species.

Nor is there evidence of macro evolution in the fossil record, this is why Gould invented P.E. (evolution so fast it leaves no evidence it happened) because macro evolution is nonexistent

If you want to be inundated with stasis quotes, just let me know


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Having a reading issue are you? Odd you have not addressed the completely logical arguments I have made.

I gave you proof of macro evolution. If you had bothered to actually read any of the content and references I gave you - you would see that. Simply parroting religious drivel is not working for me.

If you would care to address the points I made rather than attacking everything I say as needing PROOF!

The logical first place to start is the most simple one. There is no god. You then tell me you believe in something that I have proven to be infinitely improbable - that is insane.

As in not sane, logical, rational or reasonable.

How is assuming that there must be an unlimited number of POSSIBLE majikal invisible super beings not correct?

How is Thor impossible? How is FSM impossible?

I did not say there MUST be an infinite number. I said there MUST be an infinite number of POSSIBLE super beings.

Therefore deciding that ONE PARTICULAR Invisible Majikal Super Being exists is INSANE.

I guess you prefer to ignore what I actually said, but - if you would care to explain why all these other possible gods are IMPOSSIBLE - I would love to hear it.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Oh - and if you don't like talk origins - here is another list. LOL

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/13511-observed-...

Let me know if all of these are lies also.

No wonder your religion causes so many wars is it?


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"I gave you proof of macro evolution. If you had bothered to actually read any of the content and references I gave you - you would see that. Simply parroting religious drivel is not working for me......Oh - and if you don't like talk origins - here is another list. LOL"

You gave me no references at all, you threw up links and claim you posted evidence. For what reason do you think Its my responsibility to search an entire webpage for a reference you claim is valid?

When I post a link, I always post the pertinent information along with the link. Posting a link is not a valid response in a debate. Posting the relevant information from that link is a valid response.

==========

"If you would care to address the points I made rather than attacking everything I say as needing PROOF"

That's a good one. The only valid points are the points with actual proof of the claim. And when you post the actual evidence of your claims, I will address it. So far all you have done is post links along with your philosophical claims that I know for a fact are not true.

Macro evolution (large scale change) is NEVER OBSERVED in biology. All of your "speciation" references are examples of either breeding preferences of identical species, or separating minor pre-existent variations by selection.

Your not following the points in this debate. I said macro evolution (large scale phenotypic change) is never observed. You respond with throwing up links with examples of small scale evolutionary changes, while claiming its macro evolution.

Either post your empirical evidence (not a link) of large scale changes to a species phenotype, or stop reiterating your false claims that MACRO evolution is observable.

Do you understand unless large scale changes are verified, Darwinian evolution in not verified?. Darwinian evolution stands or falls on the evidence these large scale changes in proteins & homeostasis systems are possible. If large scale changes are proven impossible, the only choice you have left is intelligent design of the individual groups, and your infinitely improbable God suddenly becomes highly probable

===========

"I did not say there MUST be an infinite number. I said there MUST be an infinite number of POSSIBLE super beings'

What that means is "there MUST be an infinite number of POSSIBLE (have the potential to be) super beings".

You still claim "There "MUST BE" an infinite amount of (X)"

Its not logically possible for there to be an infinite & unlimited amount of (X). The foundation of your argument is not rational to begin with. No mathematician will agree there is an unlimited & infinite amount of ANYTHING that is quantifiable. You don't seem to comprehend the concept of the unlimited.

========

"The logical first place to start is the most simple one. There is no god. You then tell me you believe in something that I have proven to be infinitely improbable - that is insane."

This is your problem, you make philosophical & metaphysical claims like "the simplest answer is there is no God" and that "God is infinitely improbable" without any logically valid explanation as to why.

And even after I show you that God is UNFALSIFIABLE, thus incapable of being proven false, you still respond with how you have proven false, something that is incapable of being proven false. This is clear evidence your mind is not based in objective logic, but in subjective philosophy

It is the essence of ignorance and arrogance for someone that does not even know everything that exists in our own solar system, to make emphatic claims about what possible life forms can and can not exist throughout the entire universe.

This is why you did not address my responses.

Is it insane for other sentient life to exist?. Is it insane for other sentient life to be vastly superior to us humans in every way?. The only insane part of this is your inability to distinguish the logically possible from the truly insane.

Your narrow mind can not comprehend many orders of magnitude, therefore you claim the concept of God is "insane", only because your mind can't comprehend it. When the fact is BIG LIFE is just as logically plausible as small life is

Your like an amoeba debating another amoeba on the possible existence of humans. Your narrow amoeba mind has difficulty grasping large concepts, so your amoeba-like understanding invents irrational concepts like..... "there MUST BE an infinite number of possible humans, thus makes humans infinitely improbable"

========

Quantum physics has proven a mind must exist first before any observable reality can exist

SSE Talks - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness 1/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttB3Wze3Y8

Therefore it would not even be possible for abiogenesis to take place unless a conscious observer was observing it to take place. Quantum physics is proving consciousness is the fabric that holds the observable universe together, and without it observable reality can not exist.

And I give reference only for the other people that are reading this. I know you have no intention of objectively researching the evidence because of your unyielding faith in atheism. You will response with your same irrational philosophical arguments without addressing the arguments made against your position

I have debated hundreds of atheists and the vast majority of them never give (or address) verified data. Nearly all atheists arguments are philosophical, thus emotional positions


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

For Pete's sake, Mark, you can't give me a link that doesn't put me to sleep before I get to the end of it. I had to read it in a bathtub filled with coffee, while slapping myself silly to stay awake.

Seriously, the article was well written; the author certainly did his homework, and I might add he was honest.

ID Science has given you some of the best argumentation I have seen concerning this topic, and I have not seen anything substansive from you to refute it.

Let's take a look at the link( talkorigins) you gave as "evidence" for your assertions: At 2.2.2--1st sentence he said there has been "considerable criticism of BSC validity".

2.4 is ambiguous, and not reliable with statements as, "If this occurs in nature, it could undermine the usefulness of PSC"--this is the last sentence of 2.4

2.5 is a summary of how subjective the definition of speciation is, and therefore cannot be relied upon.

3.0 At 3.0( 1st paragraph) it states that there is not much evidence of speciation events. Keep in mind the definition is ambiguous; therefore, it would not matter is there was evidence. At paragraph 2 of 3.0 it says speciation is assumed but not confirmed. Paragraph 3 of 3.0 is conjecture. At paragraph 5 of 3.0 the author himself says there are lots of assumptions but "few examples of observed speciation."

4.0: Right off the bat, we have ambiguity with the 1st sentence of 4.0. At 4.1 it solicits BSC to prove speciation but BSC was discredited at 2.2.2.

At 4.1.1 we have NOTHING to substantiate speciation; however, the author has a great sense of humor here, which I desparately needed at this point( paragraph 5)

4.2 discredits other tests with its 1st sentence, "There is no unambiguous criterion for determining that a speciation event has occured in those cases where it BSC does not apply", but BSC was discredited at 2.2.2.

The coup de grace is chapter 5, which substantiates the Bible. The Bible confirms micro evolution but denies macro evolution. Chapter 5 is concerned with micro evolution.

Sorry for any misspellings but I'm posting this before I loose it!


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Today is Sunday, and Sunday is a good day for me to post comments; therefore, I'll add to my previous comment.

As ID Science stated, there is no evidence of transition of species; nor will there EVER be any evidence, but my primary objection with evolutionary conjecture is not with transition of species; it is with random processes violating entropy, especially to such an unfathomable degree. Entropy is foundational and fundamental to science, and mathematics is foundational and fundamental to understanding and quantifying entropy. I have never encountered an atheist( evolutionist)-- either personally or indirectly by the written word, videos, etc---who has used science and math to argue how random processes can violate entropy( going from order to disorder, not the other way around). DNA forming by chance is 1 in 10^50,000,000,000, and that is just one molecule of DNA. How are trillions upon trillions going to form, and then construct eyes, ears and brains? Then these systems have to connect and work together. After explaining how random processes created us we can move onto explaining the biosphere, and ALL its lifeforms, and then go onto the design of the solar system, etc.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark, you do know that this debate is not going to be resolved. Neither ID Science nor myself will convince you that God is the Creator through Jesus Christ. I gave Biblical reasons for this in this hub. There is other verses besides what I gave. There is also Scripture stating that you will be unable to convince us that God is not the Creator.

Interestingly, Scripture teaches that there will be a God of forces in the last days. I believe that the evidence will become so overpowering that God is indeed the Creator that atheists will invent this God of forces to replace random processes. This will then be an easy sell since it is forces that construct molecules, and molecules construst everything else. It will probably deceive and lead many millions into eternal torment, but such is the fate of those who love their sin more than righteousness.

This is the power of false religions : to give one what he wants rather than what he needs, and this is the power of arrogance, demanding desires over spiritual needs.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

LOL Gosh you guys are funny. Now it is "last days" huh?

There is no debate going on here - just a couple of religionists denying proven science.

ID - you cannot possibly have had the time to follow any of that research so please stop lying at me. At least now we know why you still deny proven facts - it is too "boring" for you to read.

Still - we are back to spouting biblical drivel so all I now have to say is LOLOLOLOLO

ciao


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Enjoy your "last days" like the babble dun tel yer. Not insane at all LOLOLOL


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"ID - you cannot possibly have had the time to follow any of that research so please stop lying at me. At least now we know why you still deny proven facts - it is too "boring" for you to read"

No, its not my responsibility to search a lengthy website for information you claim exists. If the information was actually on the website why didn't you just copy and paste it?

Why am I required to do the research for both sides of the debate?


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

The bible also predicted a philosophy of deception based on tradition, and the principles of the world.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Just a coincidence this fits evolutionary science perfectly?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

ID - I Cannot copy and paste that much information - don't be silly. I gave you links to pages that contained references that you choose not to read. Macro evolution has been proven.

The bible tells you rape also - http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Apparently rape is OK

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

LOLOL That you think the bible tells you that proven scientific facts are vain deceit - just goes to show how little you understand. No wonder your religion causes so many fights.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"ID - I Cannot copy and paste that much information - don't be silly. I gave you links to pages that contained references that you choose not to read. Macro evolution has been proven"

I'm sure the pertinent information would not take anymore than a few paragraphs, and it can't be any longer than the novels I post. I'm sure Caleb DRC will not protest you posting several long posts if needed to prove your claim

So please post the information

===============

"Apparently rape is OK"

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

No apparently the International Standard Version got the translation wrong.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas...

The word being used in Deu 22:28 is "shaw-kab" which means

Definition

to lie down

(Qal)

to lie, lie down, lie on

to lodge

to lie (of sexual relations)

to lie down (in death)

to rest, relax (fig)

(Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)

(Pual) to be lain with (sexually)

(Hiphil) to make to lie down

(Hophal) to be laid

The actual rape and the punishment (death) for the rape took place a few verses earlier when the man forces the act

Deu 22:25 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die.

So your passage says nothing about rape, its referencing premarital sex and the consequences of that is marriage

===========

"LOLOL That you think the bible tells you that proven scientific facts are vain deceit"

You have evidence cell evolution is a fact?, I would love to see it.

Atheism stands or falls on cell evolution, if cell evolution is proven invalid, the only other alternative is intelligent design of the cell, you don't have a third hypothesis.

And If I.D. is proven valid (and it will), then God can not be logically rejected as the designer, and the foundation of atheism crumbles

The fact is you have faith in your naturalistic philosophy, after the traditions of men, and after the rudiments of the world.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

I have provided the evidence - you refused to read it. I cannot paste 2 million words - sorry - you need to go read the references for yourself. That is your argument against proven science? No wonder your religion causes so many wars.

Still - now it is a matter of translation huh?

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

LOL That ID will be proven valid. ID cannot be proven valid unless you prove there is a D to begin with - odd you have no proof at all and still believe in majik.

You still have not explained why all the infinite number of POSSIBLE gods are not possible. Why is that?


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"LOL That ID will be proven valid. ID cannot be proven valid unless you prove there is a D to begin with - odd you have no proof at all and still believe in majik."

I did not say the designers identity will be validated by science, I said the hypothesis of I.D. will be validated by science (if God does not return before it happens)

The evidence of design exists in the object, not the objects designer. If we find a statue of an elephant on mars, we need not know anything about, WHO, HOW, WHEN or WHY to know the glaringly obvious, it was designed by an intelligence.

You illogically and willingly deceive yourself into believing creationists believe in "majik" as a mechanism. It amazes me adults who claim to be intelligent can resort to such irrational silliness as a response to intelligent design.

The only difference between I.D. and methodological naturalism is, naturalism predicts the selection of the luckiest randomness arranged sequences. And I.D. (which creationism is a subset) predicts a sentient calculating mind using intelligent foresight arranged sequences.

No I.D. proponent believes in *wizz-bang-poof*, and when the smoke clears, there stands a species. Your self deception that "majik" is a prediction of creationism is ridiculous, and only makes you appear to be out of touch with reality.

A sentient intelligent mind will always will the battle of specific sequences arrangement. Your mechanisms are nothing more than blind random luck, and the selection thereof

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate by I.D. proponents, I suggest you drop the "majik as a mechanism" bit

============

"You still have not explained why all the infinite number of POSSIBLE gods are not possible. Why is that"

You have not explained why it is possible. You set up an irrational straw man as fact, then tell me I have not proven your straw man invalid


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

If your majikal invisible super being is possible - so is an infinite number of others - yes?

Why is it just your majikal super being possible and none of the others?

Why would I want to be taken seriously by Majikal proponents exactly? You say ID which is actually majik. If you majikal proponents want to be taken seriously - stop lying and attacking actual knowledge.

This is why your religion causes so many fights.

LOL that you think any scientists take "majik" seriously. As I mentioned in the first instance - your entire argument is "it is complex, therefore majik was needed to create it" lol

Go ahead and prove there was a time when nothing existed.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"If your majikal invisible super being is possible - so is an infinite number of others - yes?. Why is it just your majikal super being possible and none of the others?"

Continuing to assert your position without addressing the arguments against it is not a debate, its a dogmatic monolog.

Your assumption that God exists only in your imagination, therefore if you can imagine an infinite number of them your hypothesis is valid, is illogical to say the least.

To follow your reasoning to its ultimate conclusions, you must believe a infinite amount of everything imaginable exists.

There must be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of Mark Knowles having an infinite number of debates with an infinite number of IDScience's. Nothing about your reasoning against Gods existence makes any rational sense.

The simple definition of God is another sentient life form with all knowledge thus all power. You have no rational reason to reject another conscious life from existing, and you have no rational reason to limit the amount of knowledge, thus power another life form can have. Atheism must attempt to equate a rational concept with the absurd to validate their faith in Gods non-existence.

I can not take you seriously as a rational thinker when you continue with your foolish "majik" references. The entire universe and all life forms follow very precise laws of information. There is no MAGIC involved in the creation process, its all a highly conserved tightly regulated extremely sophisticated information system.

Your problem exists in your inability to mentally comprehend Gods existence therefore you equate what you can not comprehend with the absurd

============

"Go ahead and prove there was a time when nothing existed"

Why would I try to prove something that is not a rational concept, and not what theists believe?

Atheists are the ones forced to believe in the irrational concept of a un-caused universe that came from nothing. Logic and the first law of thermodynamics dictates the eternal must exist. And if the eternal must exist, God must also exist


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

I have yet to understand your argument - sorry. Surely if your majikal being is possible - any others we can think of are also?

I don't understand why there is only one POSSIBLE super being. Perhaps you could explain how all the others are NOT POSSIBLE?

I don't believe as you stated - please stop lying about me. Far as I am concerned - the Universe has always existed. As you just explained - to me - The Universe is eternal. LOL

My mistake that the Universe did not exist in the Theists world - glad you agree there was no need for it to be created in that case. Odd - I thought you had been arguing it was created by majik from nothing. How silly of me to think that.

My inabilty to mentally comprehend majik? Not understanding that either - probably my inability to mentally comprehend stuff so far above my intellectual capacity huh?

No wonder your religion causes so many fights.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Admit it, Mark, ID Science has kicked your rear end in this debate. Bit off more than you could chew this time, did ya? Confucius say, Let not poodle thinketh he can taketh on pit bull. But, hey, don't you worry; your secret is safe with me--I will not tell anyone!

As far as the "proof" you keep bringing up, I asked you to link me to it, and you did; however, I tore it apart point by point, and gave you the exact locations so there would be no ambiguity or ambivalence. So why do you keep saying there is proof?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

LOL Please - don't be silly. You did not tear anything apart.

No wonder your religion causes so many fights.

All you have said is "Majik" over and over and over.

Enjoy your "last days".LOL

Any time you can offer an argument as to why there was a time the Universe did not exist and needed to be "created from nothing" or that all the other infinite POSSIBLE gods are not possible - go ahead.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"I don't understand why there is only one POSSIBLE super being. Perhaps you could explain how all the others are NOT POSSIBLE?"

First, if there truly is an infinite number of all knowing & all powerful beings, the tenets of atheism have been invalidated an infinite number of times by an infinite number of beings instead of just one. And the tenets of theism have been validated an infinite number of times by an infinite number of beings instead of just one.

The question you need to ask yourself is, is it theoretically possible there could be JUST ONE being that invalidates your beliefs. And if that is possible, then why compound your problem an infinite number of times by having an infinite number of beings you will have to answer to?

So I reiterate my point, by what lines of reasoning do you use to believe an all knowing & all powerful life form can not and does not exist?

The main argument used by atheists against Gods existence is

"If God existed he would be doing things "THIS WAY", but because things are not being done "THIS WAY", this suggests God does not exist"

Which is only a valid argument if God was EXACTLY like you. Even "intelligent" educated atheists make this illogical philosophical argument and confuse it for logic & reason.

Just as its impossible for an amoeba to predict what a human would do, it is equally impossible for a human to predict what a God would do if he existed. You can't reason as anyone other than yourself, therefore you can't predict the actions of anyone other than someone exactly like yourself

=========

"I don't believe as you stated - please stop lying about me. Far as I am concerned - the Universe has always existed. As you just explained - to me - The Universe is eternal. LOL"

Atheists would love for the universe to be eternal, this gives them all eternity for their naturalistic hypotheses to be valid. You have faith in time and chance, and the more time you have, the greater the chances become a unimaginably unlikely event will take place. But you do not have all eternity.

Why do you think science believes in a big bang 13-14 billion years ago?, because they know its not possible for the universe to be eternal.

The second law of thermodynamics, thus entropy dictates the universe could not be eternal because there would be no usable energy left for life to exist. The energy in the universe is winding down like a battery losing power, and eventually it will reach the "heat death" and there will be no usable energy left unless it receives energy from a source outside of its self

This is also what Caleb DRC was telling you. With entropy everything always goes from order to disorder, from heat to cold, unless there is an outside source feeding it.

Atheists use the sun as this outside source to prevent entropy, but the suns energy has no ability to create ordered information, and the suns energy is useless, unless there are machines (photosynthesis) to harness and direct the energy. Just as the sun wont power your house without solar panels installed first

Only a source of information quantifiably equal to or greater than the information in all biological life could have created the information in the cells

I never once said the universe is eternal, I said "something" must exist forever because something (like our universe) can't be produced from nothing, that defies all know laws.

Therefore this eternal "something" MUST BE equal to or greater than the total amount of energy & information in our universe


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Still deliberately missing the point huh?

This is the key word - POSSIBLE. Not ACTUAL.

Now address that and explain why all these others are IMPOSSIBLE.

Then we can talk.

Odd - you just argued that something cannot be created from nothing. This is awesome, because this is what I think also.

Either your majikal super being did not create the universe from nothing - he just used something that already existed. In which case he is not a creator. Or - the Universe is eternal. Which is it? LOL


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

The "creation" process comes from God converting his own energy into the elements of matter, and then specifically arranging that matter to produce information systems that will in-turn produce life.

By your definition the designer and builder of a watch is not creator of that watch because he used Pre-existing materials

The universe only becomes "the universe" after its assembled, just like the house does not become the house until the materials are assembled in a precise manner


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

What nonsense. Who created the pre-existing materials? See how your argument makes no sense at all and means that your majikal super being did not create anything at all.

Still waiting for you to explain why all the other infinite number of POSSIBLE gods are impossible.

But - good to hear you now agree that making something out of pre-existing materials - as you say your god did - does not constitute "creation."

You just argued yourself away. No creation - we agree at last.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"Still waiting for you to explain why all the other infinite number of POSSIBLE gods are impossible."

I'M still waiting for a rebuttal to several posts in which I explained it in detail

==========

"But - good to hear you now agree that making something out of pre-existing materials - as you say your god did - does not constitute "creation."

I have no idea what post you are reading because I explicitly said the opposite. You can't be this dense not to understand this.

By your reasoning if God is eternal and did not create himself he can not be the "creator" of anything else because there is something (himself) that he did not create.

Your reasoning is beyond deeply flawed.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

No - you just stated it as an absolute because you believe. You offered no logical explanation as to why these gods are IMPOSSIBLE.

God created himself huh. How is that ;logical exactly? To create himself - he must have already existed - therefore - as you once again state - he did not create anything.

Come on - at least attempt to offer some reason as to why none of the infinite number of other gods are NOT POSSIBLE.

Not that they don't exist because yours does - which is the pathetic argument you made. But - why they cannot exist - logically.

Speaking of deeply flawed - you now seem to be saying that your majikal super being is eternal, but did not use the energy you say it used.

I am confused - did your majikal being create everything from nothing - or did it use existing materials? I thought you believed creation was not from nothing - therefore your majik super being used materials it did not create. See how your reasoning is nonsensical?

Come on - you are deliberately misunderstanding I said. I never said there is an infinite number of gods that exist. I said that - if - as you do - you accept the possibility of a majikal super being - there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE super beings.

Therefore - for you to claim to know which one exists is insane.

Please address that instead of pretending to be stupid.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"God created himself huh. How is that ;logical exactly? To create himself - he must have already existed - therefore - as you once again state - he did not create anything."

I never said God created himself, you need to read my posts slower. God (a sentient form of energy) existed forever and was not created. That sentience converted his eternal energy into the building blocks of matter and created a universe from that matter. Thus God created the physical observable universe from unseen energy

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

============

"Speaking of deeply flawed - you now seem to be saying that your majikal super being is eternal, but did not use the energy you say it used"

I said exactly the opposite, your not understanding anything I'm saying. I said, quote

"The "creation" process comes from God converting his own energy into the elements of matter, and then specifically arranging that matter to produce information systems that will in-turn produce life"

======

"I am confused - did your majikal being create everything from nothing - or did it use existing materials? I thought you believed creation was not from nothing - therefore your majik super being used materials it did not create. See how your reasoning is nonsensical?"

Wrong, I'm not going to continually explain what should be a very simply understood concept. God created the atom from his own energy, and from those atoms everything visible is created.

==========

"Come on - you are deliberately misunderstanding I said. I never said there is an infinite number of gods that exist. I said that - if - as you do - you accept the possibility of a majikal super being - there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE super beings."

What you said makes no sense what so ever.

No you did not say "THERE IS an infinite number of gods that exist"

You said "THERE MUST BE an infinite number of possible super beings"

Your proposition starts with the assertion "there MUST BE and infinite amount of X". It appears you are wording your proposition incorrectly. What you should be saying is

"There possibly could be an infinite number of super beings"

Not

"There MUST BE an infinite number of POSSIBLE super beings"

Just because something unseen can exist, does not mean there MUST BE an infinite number of them, it means hypothetically speaking its possible there might be an infinite number of them. So you need to reword your proposition.

And I already explained to you, explaining the existence of just one thing is far easier than explaining an infinite number of that same thing.

Your belief that the probability an infinite number of (X) can exist, is mathematically equal to the probability of only one (X) existing is not logically sound

One things existence is far easier to explain than an infinite number of them, therefore the more "super beings" you add to your hypothetical equation the more difficult it becomes to explain. Thus an infinite number of them become infinitely harder to explain

========

"Therefore - for you to claim to know which one exists is insane"

Never once did I say I claim to KNOW the name of the "super being". I have faith he exists and I have faith he is the God of the bible.

The problem is you do not recognize you also have faith that this "super being" does not exist.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Ah - Semantics and lies. So - you no longer claim to know which of the infinite number of POSSIBLE majikal super beings exists. LOL

At least you now seem to accept that the other infinite number is possible? Because I don't see you explaining why they are IMPOSSIBLE.

No wonder your religion causes so many fights. See how everything you say is just nonsense?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Awesome that god was not created - guess that proves that things can come into existence without a creator. LOL

See - my previous arguments. LOLOL that you have argued yourself out of it once again.

Still waiting for you to argue how them infinite POSSIBLE gods are not POSSIBLE.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Something unseen can exist - but YOU KNOW where the limit is? Interesting. There cannot be an INFINITE number of POSSIBLEs?

Still waiting on yer ter tell me why that is so - other than your irrational assertions.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"Ah - Semantics and lies. So - you no longer claim to know which of the infinite number of POSSIBLE majikal super beings exists. LOL"

Show me where I ever claimed to KNOW this?. It is you that has resorted to lying. And even when your statements are proven to be wrong, you will not address the refutation of your arguments, but pretend like it never happened.

You are intellectually dishonest thus not worth my time anymore.

========

"At least you now seem to accept that the other infinite number is possible? Because I don't see you explaining why they are IMPOSSIBLE. No wonder your religion causes so many fights. See how everything you say is just nonsense?"

What is nonsense is you trying to conclude an infinite amount of something can exist just as easily as one of them can. Do you believe an infinite number of Mark Knowles can exist?, and if not, why not?.

By your reasoning you must believe if one Mark Knowles can exist, there MUST BE an equal possibility an infinite number of them can exist.

Just because one Mark Knowles can exist does not make it logically sound an endless number can exist. Equally just because one God can exist, it does not logically follow there can be an infinite number of them

Maybe one day you will realize your "infinite amount of Gods" is a seriously flawed illogical argument

=========

"Awesome that god was not created - guess that proves that things can come into existence without a creator. LOL See - my previous arguments. LOLOL that you have argued yourself out of it once again."

No it proves something can be eternal just as theists believe

=======

"Something unseen can exist - but YOU KNOW where the limit is? Interesting. There cannot be an INFINITE number of POSSIBLEs"

Of course There could be an infinite number of possible potato chips that look like a human face, or an infinite number of possible albino ducks that can only fly in circles.

The problem is no logically thinking person would propose there can be an infinite number of potato chips that look like a face or albino ducks that can only fly in circles because its an irrational proposition, and because of the exponential improbability.

One potato chip or one duck existing is a rational proposition, but to propose an infinite number of them can mathematically exist just as easily as one of them can, is not even in the realm of rational thought, and if you proposed this to a mathematician he would laugh at you.

And its getting seriously funny to listen to you continue to argue this position as if its a legitimate rational argument against Gods existence.

Its not rational to believe there could be an infinite (never ending) number of ANYTHING, no matter what it is. This is your first mistake, you can't see the mathematical odds for your "infinite argument" is illogical to begin with

So I am done debating these topics with you Mark Knowles. And I suspect the infinite number of possible IDScience's are also going to cease debating these topics with the infinite number of possible Mark Knowles


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Once again avoiding the point I made. This is why you are lying - dishonest attacking potato chips is just drivel to obscure the fact that you are saying nothing. Any time you want to prove there CANNOT be an infinite number of potato chips existing and - then show how that is the same as my argument I would love to hear it.

I - Mark Knowles - am not the same as a majikal Invisible Super Being that created itself and everything else.

I think it is wonderful that you now no longer claim a particular god exists. That is great.

But - still you have not addressed the point I made. That your Particular Majikal Invisible Super Being is infinitely IMPROBABLE and therefore less likely than life coming into existence spontaneously. The whole point of this article was - originally - that the odds of life spontaneously arising were so long - there must have been a Majikal Invisible Super Being wot dunnit.

I have proven that the odds of there being a Majikal Invisible Super Being are so long as to be less likely than spontaneity.

Any time you care to address the point I have made - I will listen. Why are all these POSSIBLE not ACTUAL gods not possible?


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

ID Science: You have my gratitude for such a zealous attempt to get Mark to see the Light( John 1:5); however, there is an ethereal hint, a subtle suggestion, and a tenuous clue that even an infinite amount of ID Sciences over an infinite amount of time will not be able to get that job done. Your argumentation is superb, but even if a blind man sat on the sun, he still will not see the light.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Ah - back to self righteousness and superiority. This is why your religion causes so many fights.

ID Science is a misnomer. ID - by definition - is a faith based belief system. Unless you can propose some repeatable tests of course.

Argumentation? Where was that? All I saw was a religious zealot - you got that right - repeating illogical, nonsensical drivel in an attempt to avoid the questions I posed.

Perhaps you could explain why god can create itself and nothing else can? "Majik" perchance? LOL


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@ Caleb DRC

Yes I agree, atheism is deeply ingrained in their emotions. Even if DNA contained a letter from God explaining the entire creation process step by step, atheists would still claim its just a bizarre coincidence, coin a phrase for this bizarre coincided (anthropic x10^1000) to explain it away

Actually what this does is reveal the power of deception. Something that should be glaringly obvious to people is not. Instead they will invent irrational theories of naturalism that defy all known laws just to adhere to their faith in Godlessness.

They swallow a camel and stain on a gnat.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark: Here is a bit of trivia that may interest you. It was an atheist who got me again on the path to believe in God. He was, in my opinion, the most intelligent person I've met. We were working the graveyard shift at Kaiser on the coil slitters. Shift ended at 7 AM, and we stood in the parking lot until the swing shift came in--8 hours later. As smart as he was he could not answer any of my questions concerning evolution violating entropy, and he knew more science than I did. I had to ask myself, How can anyone be so smart, and yet so stupid? And why would he so tenaciously stick to an opinion that he, himself, can not back up? I did not have much of an opinion concerning God one Way or the other, but I guess I had enough faith to know I was not going to base my eternal soul on the opionion of someone who could not validate his own beliefs.

As I have made very clear in my hubs, and comments, I believe in God because the evidence of His existence is overwhelming. You demand a rational explanation for God's existence, and yet you have no such demand concerning how entropy can be violated at such an astronomical degree. In ID Science's last comment above, about 5 lines from the bottom he wrote, " . . . you can't see the mathematical odds . . . ." Frankly, I think you can see them, but stiff knees obscure judgment.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

ID Science, did you say, Swallow a camel, or was it, Swallow a ball of fire?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

How funny - not really interested in your trivia - no - sorry. Sorry you need to be so dishonest in your arguments. You know your Majikal Super Being will burn you for that - right?

Let me get this straight - you started believing in a Majikal Invisible Super Being because an atheist you know could not explain something to ya? LOL

This is why your religion causes so much ill will ant fighting. Entropy violated? Ah - I see you do not understand thermodynamics either. OK then. Don't understand thermodynamics? - therefore a Majikal Super Being that wrote a book for you dunnit - gotcha.

I showed you the mathematical odds - infinitely improbable.

Even if? You say that as though you had anything other than an irrational need to believe you will live forever to offer. LOL

If there were some evidence other than what you have presented - which as I said in my opening statement could have been reduced to "it is really complex, therefore a godddunit."

Still waiting on why your god doesn't need a creator and why all the other POSSIBLE gods are not possible.

You say "I believe in God because the evidence of His existence is overwhelming" but that is a lie. Show me the evidence and I will believe they Majik. lol


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Caleb DRC

Actually I remembered it wrong, it says they strain OUT a gnat (from the water) but will swallow the camel that's in that same water

Matthew 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel

Atheists in science will reject minor irrational ideas and swallow the laughably irrational abiogenesis (camel) without any observable evidence it ever took place (which is nothing more than having faith in it) and get others to swallow it also.

And the camel is ultimately a ball of fire


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

LAWL - No answers then? Just superiority and condescension.

This would be why your religion causes so many fights.

Any time you want to answer my questions - I am all over it.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

There is extensive first had evidence of the "mjikal super being" from near death experiences.

---

"Cardiac Surgeon's Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArfUILUr-SA

----

"Howard Storm (Part 1 of 5) former atheist - near death experience (NDE) conversion"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_GmifF8Fkc

----

"An Agnostic Atheist Physician had a Near Death Experience - Dr Donald Whitaker"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3adbayvKWA

---

Plane Crash Survivor (Mickey Robinson) Discovers God Is Real

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcOvWGuQTow

---

But you have shown you are far from objective so you are not even willing to be wrong. And if your not willing to be wrong, do not deceive yourself into believing your scientifically objective.

Remember true science is truly objective at all costs. If you are unwilling to examine any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you can not claim to be truly scientific, and you are just as dogmatic and subjective as all religions are. In fact science has become an atheistic religion

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)." --Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], "In the eye of a storm", New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

I think you mean "personal, subjective experience" not "evidence".

True science is objective - I agree. This is not objective evidence.

I suggest buying yourself a better dictionary.

Still waiting on you to explain why those infinite POSSIBLE gods are not possible.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark: I do not know why you keep bringing up this "infinite possible gods are not possible." It makes no sense to me. ID Science not only answered this so called "argument" of yours, but he answered it exhaustively.

The Bible states that God is eternal, he has no beginning or ending. You are trying to discredit God's existence by using the pathetic stature of human intelligence and understanding. You darken counsel by words without knowledge( Job 38:2), and you open your mouth in vain and multiply words without knowledge( Job 35:16).

I can't think of a single "argument" you presented that either ID Science, or myself, have not addressed. You are the one who is stone walling by going in circles. You remind me of my dog when he chases his tail, and you both cover about the same distance.

As G. Gordon Liddy would say, "Let us agree to disagree."


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

No - he did not. Neither have you answered my question. The bible also states "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" so - it agrees with me that there are other gods.

So - seeing as the bible states there are other gods - surely you must agree that there are others?

So - given that there are an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods - choosing one is INSANE - yes? LOL That you think the bible is objective science now. Which is it - you want objective - or are you going with your majik book and defending it's ridiculousness?

I will not agree to disagree - your arguments are nonsense and your religion causes nothing but division and fights. In fact - it is one of the blights on our societies, rivaling Nationalism and Politics for the division it causes.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"I think you mean "personal, subjective experience" not "evidence

True science is objective - I agree. This is not objective evidence."

Wrong. When the person having the NDE describes in detail what took place in the operating room while they were out of their body, and the doctors that worked on them describe the exact same thing, this is objective evidence.

When a lady (Vicki Noratuk) blind from birth, who does not even dream visually because she has no point of reference, has a NDE and describes in detail what took place in the operating room, this is objective evidence

Vicki Noratuk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewyxp6uxMo0

If NDE were a "subjective" experience there would not be any atheists having them. But the fact is every atheist that has had a NDE has dramatically changed their beliefs because of it. The subjectivity comes from your refusal to look at their experiences objectively.

-------

"Still waiting on you to explain why those infinite POSSIBLE gods are not possible."

No offense Mark, but I'M starting to think there is something wrong with you. How can you still be waiting for me to explain something that I have already explained about 6 times already.

If you believe my responses are in error, then you need to explain why I'M wrong, and you have yet to do this.

If someone gives an argument for why X is true, and someone responds with an argument why X is not true. The first person with the argument must give a rebuttal to the argument against him. But you have not done this, every time a response to your argument is given, you respond with... "I'm still waiting.....", which is getting ridiculous.

Your mind obviously does not comprehend the term "infinite" which means there is no possible end to the numbers of them, they just go one forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever etc.. etc..

You seem to think that an infinite amount of X, can just as easily exist as one X can, simply because you can imagine it. The very foundation of your argument is illogical.

And the funny part about this is, if I agree with you that an infinite number of Gods can exist just as easily as one can, then by your own line of reasoning, you MUST believe that an infinite (never ending) amount of ducks can also exist.

But if I ask you if you honestly believe an INFINITE number of ducks can also exist, you will say of course not, that's a ridiculous notion. Yet when it comes to your "infinite Gods" hypothesis you seem to think it makes sense.

Or, you realize an infinite number of Gods is a completely ridiculous concept and your attempting make the concept of just one God, just as ridiculous as an infinite number of Gods, by making the two scenarios equal. And your "infinite Gods" hypothesis makes just as much sense as a "infinite ducks" hypothesis does.

This "infinite Goods" hypothesis only makes you look completely out of touch with reality


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

No offense, but - I suggest a real dictionary. Completely out of touch with reality? Like wot Majik u sed?

This is why your religion causes so much ill will and division. Like wot Jebus sed innit.

Objective - like wot he sed he sed? lol Long as a religionist sed it - it is objective.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Odd you need to equate ducks with god. Almost like you are a total liar. Oh wait - yes - you are.

Any time you want to stop lying - I am here to listen and show you the light.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Come on IDScience - when are you going to understand that being condescending and telling me I don't comprehend something is the reason I disagree with your nonsensical statements is the reason your religion causes so many fights.

Come back to me when you have looked up the meaning of "objective" and "subjective" - and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

POSSIBLE is another word you might want to look up. Assuming there is one ACTUAL god - which you do - there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods to choose from - yes?


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

I know exactly what subject & objective means. The subjective position makes decisions based strictly on a particular subject matter and not the object, experiment or data. The objective position makes decisions based strictly on the data taken from the object or experiment and not any particular preconceived subject matter.

The objective position is open minded and willing to change its opinion of the subject matter , the subjective position is not open minded and not willing to change its position of the subject matter

Evolutionary science is admittedly biased towards the subject matter of naturalism (the tenets of atheism), just as you are.

You, nor evolutionary science are open minded to the possibility that God could exist and could have created life. Therefore evolutionary science is not objective science, but is subjective science towards the subject matter of naturalism

====

And the word you might want to look up is "ODDS", or the chances of somethings being POSSIBLE.

Your problem is, the concept of the ODDS of something being POSSIBLE are flying right over your head. You don't understand odds at all. You don't understand by adding "the infinite" to your equation dramatically changes the odds of your hypothesis.

This is why you can believe in the laughably ridiculous abiogenesis because you don't recognize the odds against it.

In fact the odds have been calculated for simple things like the odds of a specific DNA sequences arrangement, or the odds of a protein fold etc.. The odds are longer than the age of the universe.

Levinthal's Paradox is one example

"Levinthal's paradox is a thought experiment in the theory of protein folding dynamics. In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very? large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. An estimate of 3300 or 10143 was made in one of his papers.[1] For example, a polypeptide of 100 residues will have 99 peptide bonds, and therefore 198 different phi and psi bond angles. If each of these bond angles can be in one of three stable conformations, the protein may misfold into 3198 different conformations. Therefore if a protein were to attain its correctly folded configuration by sequentially sampling all the possible conformations, it would require a time LONGER THAN THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE to arrive at its correct native conformation."

Once you start to understand and calculate the odds, you will recognize the odds of one God existing is not anywhere near the same as an infinite number of Gods existing.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Laughably ridiculous? And that is supposed to be an objective statement. Understand and calculate the odds? LOL

How is "infinitely improbable" not longer odds? As we have proven that your majikal super being is infinitely improbable, you have once again made my argument for me.

I think I was simply giving you too much credit and you do not understand English. When you understand subjective and objective - perhaps we can talk reasonably? Personal experience as related by these so-called NDEs to prove there is a majikal super being is not"objective".

Odds against it mean is it indeed POSSIBLE. lol

Are you being deliberately obtuse - or do you simply not understand. Add POSSIBLE to your last statement - then explain why these gods are IMPOSSIBLE.

I never said there was an infinite number of gods - I said that - if you believe a majikal super being can exist - as you do - there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods to choose from. Yes?


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"How is "infinitely improbable" not longer odds? As we have proven that your majikal super being is infinitely improbable, you have once again made my argument for me."

No, what you have proven is (and I have repeatedly agreed with) an infinite number of Gods is infinitely improbable.

But your lame and illogical attempt to equate the odds of one God existing, with the odds of an infinite number of Gods existing is ridiculous to everyone who understands basic math.

You clearly have no grasp of the concept of ODDS. In your head you think if you can establish an infinite number of X is infinitely improbable, then one X is also infinitely improbable, and even a grade school math student understands your math is ...not good, to put it politely. You have proven math is not your forte

============

"Odds against it mean is it indeed POSSIBLE. lol"

Right, but the odds of you winning the lotto every week for a ten years straight is also possible.

But the obvious problem is no RATIONAL mind would believe the odds of winning the lotto every week for ten years straight, are the same odds as winning the lotto just once.

Your attempt to make the two wildly different odds equal, only reveals you completely lack of critical thinking on this issue, and makes you appear completely ignorant of basic math.

The chances of other sentient life existing is highly probable, and the chances of other sentient life being all knowing is also highly probable if this other life is eternal and can never die.

============

"I think I was simply giving you too much credit and you do not understand English. When you understand subjective and objective - perhaps we can talk reasonably? Personal experience as related by these so-called NDEs to prove there is a majikal super being is not"objective"."

Of course they are objective. If only Christians or theists had these experiences, or interpreted these experience in the same way, they would be subjective. But the fact that atheists and agnostics also have them, and report an experience contrary to their beliefs tells us they are objective experiences. The atheist NDE is not consistent with the SUBJECT of atheism, therefore his experience is objective

And the doctors (many of which did not believe in NDE) who confirm the experiences in the operating room, also tell us they are objective experiences

Your unwillingness to be wrong about the NDE is subjective based on the subject of atheism


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

No - you have not explained why there is not an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods. Until such times as you address that - I think we must agree that one particular Majikal Invisible Super Being is infinitely improbable.

I see you are still having trouble understanding the definition of "objective".

By definition - there are subjective experiences. LOL Try this:

Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; phenomenal; arising out of or identified by means of one’s awareness.

Objective: existing independent of mind; belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods; expressing or involving the use of facts; derived from sense perception.

So - one person's personal experience is SUBJECTIVE.

Buy a new dictionary.lol


jacharless profile image

jacharless 4 years ago from Between New York and London

Well Marcus, once observed the Objective becomes Subjective, as it is stored in the memory of the mind from whichever singular or multiple parameters of said observation. Sensibly phenomenal!

Mr Caleb, before I comment thoroughly on your reiteration of wiki DNA, I want to read part 1. This subject is of very deep interest to me. Shall return shortly.

James


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"No - you have not explained why there is not an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods. Until such times as you address that - I think we must agree that one particular Majikal Invisible Super Being is infinitely improbable."

You are hilarious and full of illogical contradictions

You continually assert there MUST BE an infinite number of possible Gods, and continually tell me I have yet to prove an infinite number of possible Gods can not exist, while simultaneously asserting an infinite number of possible Gods is infinitely improbable.

Make up your mind Mark, is an infinite number of Gods POSSIBLE as you continually assert, or is an infinite number of Gods infinitely improbable as you also continually assert?

No religion claims an infinite number of Gods exist, so you have no basis to use this "infinitely improbable" claim in your argument.

Creationists claim 1 God exists, so you need to calculate the odds for JUST ONE GOD existing, not calculate the odds for an infinite number of Gods existing, then illogically apply those odds to only one God existing

If someone tried debunking string theory, that posits 11 dimensions, by claiming there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE other dimensions (which would be infinitely improbable), therefore the 11 dimensions of string theory is also infinitely improbable, they would be considered a complete idiot

Your logic is so painfully bad its laughable.

============

And if you have such trouble understanding the difference between the odds of ONE vs the odds of the INFINITE, its no surprise you do not understand objective vs subjective.

The NDE is the OBJECT, and included in this object is the bright light, seeing themselves hovering over their bodies, being operated on by the doctors using specific tools , seeing dead loved ones etc..

How someone interprets this experience is the SUBJECT. And because everyone that has the NDE (including atheists) all interpret the experience as being a real , and not just hallucinations caused by a dying brain, this makes the experience truly objective

Just as everyone that gets hit by a car at high speed (the object) all come away with the same subject (It hurts) , therefore the experience of getting hit by a car is an objective experience

Now if some people who had the NDE did not believe the experience was real but only a hallucination, this would make the experience subjective, but there is not one person who actually had the NDE that believes it was not real, therefore the experience is objective


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Nothing illogical about my statement IDScience. You have yet to understand what I was saying so I am not surprised that you failed to respond properly. I seem to have run out of English words to explain it though so I guess I have to give up on that one. Just in case - key word is "possible". There is an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods - if like yourself and Jim Bob you believe in majik.

Hey Jim Bob - awesome that there is no such thing as objective. This is why you religious people have caused so many wars - semantics. Now you are supporting all them Brendas lol


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

"I seem to have run out of English words to explain it though so I guess I have to give up on that one. Just in case - key word is "possible". There is an infinite number of POSSIBLE gods - if like yourself and Jim Bob you believe in majik"

Your problem is you presume God is imaginary, therefore if you can imagine one God, you can just as easily imagine infinite Gods, and because both scenarios can be just as easily imagined, they both have equal probability. That's not the way logic & reason works

You must break down what you claim does or does not exist and examine it piece by piece

God is another life form that existed before we did

Can another life form exit before we did?

God is another life form that is all knowing thus all powerful

Can another life form be all knowing thus all powerful?

God is eternal

Can the eternal exist?

There are no logical arguments against any of these statements. Your arguments against Gods existence consist of irrational odds using faulty reasoning, erroneously equating highly sophisticated information systems as "majik", and equating the rational idea of a vastly superior life form, with the irrational idea of a flying spaghetti monster.

You deceive yourself with extremely bad philosophy that you interpret as logic & reason

And in virtually every post you make a remark about how my religion causes so many wars. This suggest you correlate religion with war and you judge religion based on what you think of war.

My religion does not cause wars, my religion teaches to turn the other cheek, bless those that cures you and forgive 70 times 7.

You confuse the evil men that make war under the guise of being religious to cover & justify their evil deeds, with what the religion actually teaches.

Or maybe its just your bad philosophy again trying to justify your faith in atheism


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

No - that is not the problem at. Sorry - not sure what all the condescending crap about evil men has to do with it. lol

Logically - if an Invisible Majikal Super Being can exist - as you feel the need to believe - then there must be an infinite number of POSSIBLE invisible Majikal Super Beings. Please address that.

The reason your religion causes so many fights is being aptly demonstrated right now.

Rather than turning the other cheek - you have made some outrageous statements and are now vociferously defending them by attacking my intelligence, capacity for logical thought and ability to discern intent.

I suspect this is beyond your comprehension. Seeing as you are incapable of understanding the difference between objective and subjective.


jacharless profile image

jacharless 4 years ago from Between New York and London

@marcus: cheeky monkey! Objective-subjective are cyclical, parallel -Duality. Object, the subject; subject, the object. Subjective Objective; Objective Subjective. Same same. Once the object is subjected to optic or any other parameter of testing, inherently becomes subjective. The subjective then becomes cause-effect for further objectivity, as the wheels on the bus go round. lol. It is all semantics, my man.

and no, i am not supporting or deporting Brenda-Christianity. Am nearly pointing out the irrelevance of arguing the evoking of god is Great or god is a majik man.

@caleb. So I read part 1 and part 2. I now these concepts well and there is much more you should explain, without the 20 odd injections of "Allah, hu akbar" (translated: God is great). Having to constantly evoke the phrase or reminder is a bit more than religious, it is redundant, obsessive. Same as Marcus and his Majik...Conflicts rhetoric. Creator does not need defending, proving nor marketing assistance. But, yes, those who lack faith -aka the religious- do need these things to sustain themselves -pro and con...

Off the record, the chromatic sequence of energy has three known properties/charges -which are defined as positive, neutral, electric. They also have three characteristics defined as Dominant, Equal and Submissive. There is a prim to each sequence of light and eight sub-sequences that make up a single unit of energy, in theory. The base probabilities of a charge are precisely the same as the total chromatic sequence. Furthermore, there are semiotics throughout each pattern, that seem to form a language or alphabet of like symbols. Coincidence? Maybe.

Cheers.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Sorry Jim Bob - spouting needlessly verbose meaningless rhetoric to appear more knowledgeable than others does not help matters and actually lends support to the theistic word salad already on the page. Claiming esoteric knowledge is called "religion".

Observing objective evidence does not make it subjective. Sorry. Objective evidence stands alone regardless of the observer. The rock I throw at you will not become "subjective" just because I hit you with it. LOL

This is why your religion causes so many fights. Probably time to tell me you do not believe in a god or have religion........?

"Seem" would be subjective.

Say some more majik for us. :D


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowles

You mentioned "your religion causes so many fights" 14 times on this page already. I wonder how many times you have posted that phrase on the entire web.

You don't need a degree in psychology to understand you have an adverse emotional association between war and religion

Atheists Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot killed far more people than any Christian religion did

You also completely ignored the fact that the Christian religion its self teaches the opposite of war.

Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Which makes you intellectually dishonest


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark:

You lost the debate . . . enormously!

I warned you not to bite off more than you can chew. You bite off more than you can chew, your cheeks will stick out. You want your cheeks to stick out?

I can not think of a single point you made that ID Science has not properly addressed with very sound logic.

The branch of mathematics that determines probabilities is applied to real life, physical circumstance. There is a 100% chance of any god I want to exist to actually exist if the only criterion is my imagination. This is one of the reasons why ID Science is not allowing your "POSSIBLE" gods argumentation to carry any credibility. There is a 100% probability that I will win the lottery if the only criterion is I won it in my imagination. The mathematics of probability can be applied to the chances of real life physical constructs-- as DNA, other complex molecules, eyes, ears, and brains-- being constructed by random processes, and it has proven this to be impossible. Infinite time will not help here because entropy will destroy any useful construction long before anymore favorable construction aimlessly wanders on the scene.

God is eternal. He has always existed and will always exist. No one can comprehend this let alone explain it. You claim that Christians believe in magic because they believe in God, and yet random processes constructing complex lifeforms . . . how is this not magic?


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Jacharless:

Concerning your last paragraph: WHAT?


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Caleb - Deleting my comments? LOL

This is why your religion causes so many fights.

LOL that you comprehend something wot I cannot understand. Odd you need to lie and behave the way you do. I don't blame you for deleting my comments - they make too much sense I suppose.

Goodbye. I will leave you to your delusions now. Ciao.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Mark, I have never deleted any comments from any of my hubs including yours. If you were deleted, it was not me who did it. I--so far--have always kept comments from atheists on my hubs because I think it is conspicuous to others how weak the argumentation is from atheists.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

"This is why your religion causes so many fights" #15


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

Weak arguments? LOL

Still - at least you are being more honest and making blanket statements that mean you understand something that I cannot comprehend instead of copying science and tacking on "therefore it is so complex that goddunnit."

This is why your religion causes so many fights.

All the time you keep starting fights - I will keep calling you on it. Sorry -that must be very offensive. Probably me starting it - right? Not your condescending statements about my inability to comprehend something. LOL

I 'spect god removed the comment that vanished - he hates it when people prove he doesn't exist. LAWL


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

"This is why your religion causes so many fights" #16

I'm started to think Mark Knowles is a BOT


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

No - It is in response to a condescending remark you made.

Condescending remark# 17 gets you another reminder of why your religion causes so many fights.

You keep making condescending remarks - I keep telling you why your religion causes so many fights.

But - I am liking you being more honest now. Instead of some faux "logic" - you have reverted to telling me that the majik is eternal and I don't understand.

Once you then grasp that the Universe is eternal and you don't need any majik - maybe you will see the light?

Or not - you really, really, really need to think you will live forever and are better than others - don't you?


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

Uh huh.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 4 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ

("Once you then grasp that the Universe is eternal and you don't need any majik - maybe you will see the light?")

If the universe is eternal, then science would have to throw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Also, can you explain eternity to the present? You would have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to right now, which is impossible.

The problem arises from two issues:

The universe would have already run out of useable energy.

The explanation of crossing infinity to get to now.

Please clarify this enlightenment.


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

PlanksandNails:

You made some very good points here, but clarification will be impossible because the arguments you made can not be refuted.

I would also add that it would not matter if the universe was infinitely old because entropy would destroy any favorable constructions before any new ones could be added to it.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

Caleb DRC

Hubpages unpublished my Hub stating it had material that was duplicated on other Hubs, I find it strange it took them many months to take this action, and even after several attempts of removing 80% of my references, they still have yet to republish it.

So I am no longer linking my other websites to Hubpages. My Hub with all of its original reference can be found at ...

http://idscience.wordpress.com/


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

IDScience,

Any evidence submitted? What other hubs? How do they know it is not the other way around; i.e. they duplicated your material? Any dates submitted? For example, your hub published before their's. Also I do not remember but was this hub published before your name change from tubesucker to IDScience, because that would be relevant concerning dates. Your pseudonym is associated with intelligent design; are these other hubbers associated with the type of content your write about, or is your hub a diamond in their rough? For example, does your hub at these other sites cause their typical content to go from 3 bean salads and doily design to complexities of protein structure? What about the links you supplied? Links give evidence of research done. Oh, I could probably come up with a dozen more questions, but my point is I find the action arbitrary and dubious.

I've already signed up at your site to be notified of any more articles you write.

I've already linked your hub, but I'll link it in a couple of my most popular math hubs--it merits all the promotion we can give it. I'm not done with the DNA series, and information in your article will validate what will be in a forthcoming part. It has to do with the DNA sequence being read forward, backward, every second and third letter, etc. When I read that in your hub, it did not come as a surprise. Here is why. Say 2% of the sequence is applied to protein synthesis. That leaves 120 million letters distributed over 100,000 proteins; therefore, dedicating about 1,200 letters to each protein. This comes to a couple of inches of typing on a page---impossible! Each nucleotide pair must be yielding more information collectively than what we expect individually.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

Well the problem seems to be with the links I posted, not with my thesis (so they say). The email I received said this was a human decision, but the problem I have is why don't they specify what duplicated links they are referring to so I know what to remove. If its a human decision there should be no problem specifying exactly what links need to be removed. Making someone randomly guess at what links to remove and what links to keep is an inept system

If you go to my Hub, http://idscience.hubpages.com/, it says I have no content, yet I submitted my Hub for review 4 days ago after removing over 80% of my references, and they still have not responded to me. This suggest incompetence or a personal bias against my Hub.

Yes the overlapping read frames only compounds the already staggering amount of information that can be stored in DNA, its a truly brilliant way of storing information, I would love to read your Hub on it. And ENCODE is finding non-coding DNA (no longer "junk") is littered with these evolutionary frozen overlapping sequences.

The demise of Darwinian evolution is less than 20 years away. This will be fun to watch.

You should duplicate your Hubs on wordpress, you have a lot of great info that needs to be seen by a wider audience. I have my Hub on 5 different sites


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

ID, This stuff seems to be flat-out over my head. I can not think of any reason why they would have a problem with the links. If a hundred hubbers linked the same site---so what. Links build credibility to the article, and it should not even be relevant who and how many link to whatever. Let's say I write the hub I mentioned above, and since it is concerning informational density as you described in your hub, I link to the very same sites you did . . . so what! If we have different angles, writing styles, and information focused at the same topic, and therefore we link the same sites to validate our articles . . . what is wrong with that? The links in your article adds credibility to it. You take away the links, then you take away some of the credibility; plus it would deprive the reader of further study.

I will check out Wordpress. It seems everyone's views have dropped here at HP. I've been reading the forum comments on it but I'm not perceiving why it is happening. My views dropped over 80%, and one hubber said her's dropped 95%. So this would be a good reason to check out wordpress all by its self.


Mark Knowles profile image

Mark Knowles 4 years ago

What makes you think all links are credible? Most of the links to anti-knowledge pages such as this are not exactly "credible." In fact - most of the links I see religious zealots posting are frankly incredible.

More likely you posted too many links to the same site. I think the limit is 2 to the same site. Plus - as you are probably linking to religious liars - they tend to be interlinked and copying the same stuff over and over and over again. I would check how many links to to the same domain and whether or not these sites are actually considered to be "bad neighborhoods" full of anti-education and other religious hatred. That could also be an issue.

Wordpress org will also shut you down for linking to the same religious liars over and over. Best bet - set up your own websites. You could even share one with several other people who reproduce the same stuff over and over and over. Then you can pretty much do what you want.

If you need a hand - drop me a line - it is not that hard.


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Mark Knowels

I have multiple links to PUBMED , Nature, Sciencedaily and Sciencedirect websites , but not to the same webpage, and I virtually never link to creationist/religious sites. If Hubpages only allows 2 links to the same domain they have unrealistic restrictions.

Wordpress does not have the same restrictions, nor does blogspot or weebly, I have had my same Hub on those sites for many months without a problem.

Incorrect wordpress will not shut you down for linking to religious sites, there are many religious wordpress sites

I will recreate the same Hub without any links or quotes, I will have one link to my wordpress site for all the references, we will see what happens


IDScience profile image

IDScience 4 years ago

@Caleb DRC

Here is the email Hubpages sent me

Dear IDScience,

Your Hub's content has been detected as published previously on another site. Duplicate content is not allowed on HubPages, even if you wrote it or retain the copyright.

Duplicate content can mean:

* Text that appears on another site or in whole or large part on HubPages

* Substantial similarity to another work. This includes close paraphrasing, among other forms of misappropriation or copying of another written work (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarit... for more information)

Your Hub has been unpublished. When you are finished editing it so it complies with our Terms of Use, please click the "Submit for Publication" button. We will then review your Hub and publish it if it is no longer in violation.

Repeatedly attempting to publish duplicate content on HubPages will result in a permanent ban from HubPages. We encourage you to familiarize yourself with our Terms of Use and our Learning Center before publishing again:

http://hubpages.com/help/user_agreement

http://hubpages.com/community/Learning-Center-Mode...

Sincerely,

The HubPages Team


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 4 years ago Author

@ Mark Knowels, Mark, thankyou for your advise, and offer to help; I appreciate it.

@ IDScience, OK it is clear to me what is going on now. You would have to rewrite the entire article to comply with HP. I like the way it is written now and I'm glad I have access to it with the link you provided.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working