Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ jnv3
Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are spewing mental diarrhea.
And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.
rmfr
You have no idea what validates something as rational, you have proved it again and again, and have proved it here again.
An argument belief or assertion based on something we don't know or cannot fully explain is by defintion irrational, and so by definition cannot be asserted as logically valid.
Still wondering if the cell's ability to code nucleotides into sequences evolved simultaneously as it's ability to decode into proteins?
@ jnv3
You first. Still awaiting objective hard empirical evidence of your claim. You were the one who came here and made a preposterous assertion based on your presupposed assumptions. It is up to you to prove your claim.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.
Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are wrong.
And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.
"Still wondering if the cell's ability to code nucleotides into sequences evolved simultaneously as it's ability to decode into proteins?:"
Since you know nothing about even Biology 101, perhaps you should not have skipped that class in high school. What you are asking is basic cellular biology. Go back to a community college and learn something this time around.
rmfr
Anyone?
@ jnv3
You first. Still awaiting objective hard empirical evidence of your claim. You were the one who came here and made a preposterous assertion based on your presupposed assumptions. It is up to you to prove your claim.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.
Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are wrong.
And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.
J N Vanderbilt III cannot answer the challenge of his own presupposed assumptive assertion, so like all cowardly Religious Absolutists, he changes the subject and turns the tables. J N Vanderbilt III why are you so scared to answer your own challenge? You were the one who made the assertion that an intelligent deity created DNA as a code. Why are you acting like such a coward yourself and refusing to answer my Formal Challenge?
rmfr
I saw some clouds in the sky today and they were shaped like little dots and dashes... It looked like some kind of code. ..-. ..- -.-. -.- / -.-- --- ..- I felt like God was talking to me.
So you think cloud formations encode instructions? Do they make improbable proteins?
So did a cell's ability to code nucleotides into sequences evolve simultaneously as it's ability to decode into proteins?
Obviously.
So which came first the chicken or the egg?
@Cog Re: "So which came first the chicken or the egg?"
Too easy. Both! The very first chicken was created with a fully formed egg already inside it. BINGO! BAM! POW! Damn, I'm good!... *attempting to pat self on back*... Okay, so where's my check? I was told there would be a monetary reward for the correct answer. Pay up.... *holding out hand, palm up*....
Wrong! The egg came first. If you were not a Tin Man, you would have known that.
But the egg in the chicken had a chicken in it. So two chickens and one egg all at the same time. Hah!
God are you dense! What a metal head. Dinosaurs laid eggs. Eggs were around millions of years before chickens ever evolved. I guess evolution just isn't your cup of egg-nog. :-)
@Cog Re: "Dinosaurs laid eggs. Eggs were around millions of years before chickens..."
Riiiiiight..... So, basically, one day a mommy dinosaur lays an egg, and out pops a chicken. And, of course, the daddy dinosaur is standing there all confused and looking suspiciously at the mommy dinosaur. So, either some spontaneous mix-up happened that made the chicken inside the egg, or mommy dinosaur had a fling with a chicken. And you call ME dense?... Puh-leeeeease.... *rolling eyes*....
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Smartiepants, dinosaur eggs are not the same as chicken eggs. So there.... *sticking out tongue*...
Where in the hell did you see me stipulate "Chicken Eggs: *eyes rolling* Eggs came before chickens and dinosaurs didn't have baby chickens. If there were chickens, there would still be dinosaurs. Cave men would have eaten the chickens and left the damn dinosaurs alone. You ever tried to put a dinosaur in a frying pan? It takes a week just to hack off a drumstick with a dull rock.
@ jnv3
You first. Still awaiting objective hard empirical evidence of your claim. You were the one who came here and made a preposterous assertion based on your presupposed assumptions. It is up to you to prove your claim.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.
Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are wrong.
And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.
J N Vanderbilt III cannot answer the challenge of his own presupposed assumptive assertion, so like all cowardly Religious Absolutists, he changes the subject and turns the tables. J N Vanderbilt III why are you so scared to answer your own challenge? You were the one who made the assertion that an intelligent deity created DNA as a code. Why are you acting like such a coward yourself and refusing to answer my Formal Challenge?
rmfr
Absurd question. Nucleic acids arose before the cells emerged as we see them today. And those free acids could be catalyzing the production of proteins without a cell. On the other hand, if we do not know, we do not know, that does not imply that God has done it.
Notice due to arakish previous hostility I will not entertain his articulations
@ jnv3
That's all right. Cause until you answer our first demand that you prove your preposterous presupposed assumptive fantasy, I think everyone else is just going to have fun making jokes at you.
rfmr
So the cell's ability to code nucleotides into sequences DID evolve simultaneously as it's ability to decode into proteins?
THIS is amazing
@ jnv3
You first. Still awaiting objective hard empirical evidence of your claim. You were the one who came here and made a preposterous assertion based on your presupposed assumptions. It is up to you to prove your claim.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.
Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are wrong.
And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.
J N Vanderbilt III cannot answer the challenge of his own presupposed assumptive assertion, so like all cowardly Religious Absolutists, he changes the subject and turns the tables. J N Vanderbilt III why are you so scared to answer your own challenge? You were the one who made the assertion that an intelligent deity created DNA as a code. Why are you acting like such a coward yourself and refusing to answer my Formal Challenge?
rmfr
Told you, you are a hostile fiend that I ain’t going to deal with, nothing to do with things I’ve already explained, that is my final missive to you
J N Vanderbilt III
You still have offered no answers to my questions here.
1) What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or anything supernatural?
2) Please demonstrate one example, **with objective evidence, of a code created by intelligence - other than human, or not as part of the natural material world?
Sheldon, there are miracles of the Bible, Fatima, MANY near death experiences and general logic that point to the Deity. I don’t understand the 2nd part of your question.
So do you think the cells ability to code and decode evolved simultaneously?
"Sheldon, there are miracles of the Bible"
There are claims in the bible, I asked for objective evidence not unevidenced claims. No book can validate it's own claims, that is axiomatic. The bible also contains things that are demonstrably erroneous nonsense.
" Fatima, MANY near death experiences"
So two more claims and still no objective evidence, do you even now what objective means?
"general logic that point to the Deity. "
No it doesn't, Hitchens's razor applied.
----------------------------------------------------
You still haven't answered my question:
Please demonstrate one example, **with objective evidence, of a code created by intelligence - other than human, or not as part of the natural material world?
Hell, Sheldon. You, like me, ought to know he is going to be like SfT. He ain't even answered his own OP question. jnv3 is nothing but a troll.
rmfr
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I'm inclined to agree, but now and then despite his rank dishonesty I get the sense he genuinely believes the verbiage he's posting. I mean he keeps claiming to be using logic to evidence in arguments his deity, and that is clearly now sheer mendacity, as the logical fallacies in his arguments have been thoroughly explained to him again and again.
I think he isdelusional, but how much willful duplicity and how much ignorance is hard to say.
His argument that nature has never created a code, and that intelligence is always required is hilarious though.
Since nature exists, and in every single instance the codes are created by human intelligence, he must see adding unevidenced supernatural causes would require sufficient objective evidence.
Sadly he doesn't seem to know what objective means, or want to learn how it applies here.
@ jnv3
"So do you think the cells ability to code and decode evolved simultaneously?"
I do NOT think. I know. Go study Theory of Evolution. Then again, it might be beyond your limited mental faculties.
rmfr
So you think I’m delusional to think that only codes come from intelligence? Quite the vice versa my friend, if codes don’t come from humans then they come from other sources of intelligence, ex is animals. Show me otherwise
Also what a miracle about cells ability to code and decode happend “evolved” simultaneously!!!!!!
You have shown nothing to prove otherwise.
rmfr
Pages