Are there any arguments for creation...

[Larniavc]

I have a theory that all atheists are angry at God. I have not met every atheist, so I can't prove it.

You mean hypothesis and you can disprove it by finding one atheist who is not angry at God.

Me, for one.

Hypothesis disconfirmed.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No it isn't. Don't confuse anger with god's followers as anger with god.

Yes it is very common. I could comb through posts to show you few are angry with christians but more are angry at God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You mean hypothesis and you can disprove it by finding one atheist who is not angry at God.

Me, for one.

Hypothesis disconfirmed.

So you’ll accept “most” or “many” are but not “all?”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you're looking for a definition of information as used with respect to DNA, it depends.

Why does the definition of information change for DNA besides the desire of atheists to use semantics?

Most of the time even in scientific papers, the term information is used in a somewhat colloquial fashion. Often it just refers to the base pair sequences themselves. The measure of information would just be the number of base pairs. The formation of any novel sequences (via mutations for example) would be an example of the formation of new information.

That’s like saying the information in a recipie is counted by the number of words used. Of what use is this? Does it render it “not information?”

Now there are other cases where information is used in the context of information theory and how that has been applied to DNA. (See here for example: Application of information theory to DNA sequence analysis: A review - ScienceDirect). In those contexts the definitions and quantification of information are mathematical in nature.

Is there a specific threshold in quantification results that render it either information or not information?

However even in the latter cases, there is nothing strictly prohibiting the formation of new, measurable information in DNA via observed mechanisms that alter DNA sequences over time.

So it’s all information no matter what?

There is nothing to suggest that the only way information in DNA sequences can arise is from deliberate, intelligent editing of DNA sequences.

Except how do mindless processes produce information in the first place? There’s nothing that says mindless water running over a page cannot change the information on a document. Doesn’t explain how the information got there in the first place.

That's not how science works. The conclusions that Pasteur made were in relation to modern life forms not spontaneously arising.

Single cell life forms aren’t modern and that’s the only kind he could have hoped to show.

Such conclusions are provisional, not a blanket statement forever prohibiting life arising from non-life.

Some faith is hard to kill no matter what science is provided.

The original life on Earth would have had to arisen from non-life. Such a process would involve organic chemistry.

Except we KNOW it cannot have done so by all observed scientific research. Faith, of course, doesn’t need to heed science if there are stronger reasons for believing. Depends upon the heart.

 

[46AND2]

Yes it is very common. I could comb through posts to show you few are angry with christians but more are angry at God.

No. You really can't. If you find anger at god, they aren't atheists. I suspect most of what you would post, however, is indeed equating anger at christians with anger at god, despite your claim otherwise..

 

[Aussie Pete]

You mean hypothesis and you can disprove it by finding one atheist who is not angry at God.

Me, for one.

Hypothesis disconfirmed.

At last, my dream is fulfilled.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's silly.

It is indeed. My observations lead me to that (I am duly corrected) hypothesis. Why people should be angry at a Being they do not believe in makes no sense to me.

 

[46AND2]

Why does the definition of information change for DNA besides the desire of atheists to use semantics?
That’s like saying the information in a recipie is counted by the number of words used. Of what use is this? Does it render it “not information?”
Is there a specific threshold in quantification results that render it either information or not information? So it’s all information no matter what?
Except how do mindless processes produce information in the first place? There’s nothing that says mindless water running over a page cannot change the information on a document. Doesn’t explain how the information got there in the first place.
Single cell life forms aren’t modern and that’s the only kind he could have hoped to show.
Some faith is hard to kill no matter what science is provided.

Except we KNOW it cannot have done so by all observed scientific research. Faith, of course, doesn’t need to heed science if there are stronger reasons for believing. Depends upon the heart.

Information is attributed to data sets by the receiver. It can be, but need not be, intentionally implanted in the data set.

 

[46AND2]

It is indeed. My observations lead me to that (I am duly corrected) hypothesis. Why people should be angry at a Being they do not believe in makes no sense to me.

I've yet to see it. I have, however, seen a lot of false accusations of it from christians.

 

[Jimmy D]

I’m very angry about something I don’t believe exists, makes my blood boil it does

 

[Aussie Pete]

I've yet to see it. I have, however, seen a lot of false accusations of it from christians.

You live a sheltered life. Go on an atheist blog and pretend to be a Christian. You probably have gleaned enough to fake it. See how that works for you.

 

[46AND2]

You live a sheltered life. Go on an atheist blog and pretend to be a Christian. You probably have gleaned enough to fake it. See how that works for you.

How atheists treat you has no bearing on whether or not they are mad at god. Or at the very least is not indicative of said anger.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How atheists treat you has no bearing on whether or not they are mad at god.

Oh yes it does. Talk about any subject you like except anything to do with God. Watch the hackles rise and the fur fly.....

 

[46AND2]

Oh yes it does. Talk about any subject you like except anything to do with God. Watch the hackles rise and the fur fly.....

Like I thought....You are MUCH more likely confusing anger at theists and their culture with anger at god. But I get it, it's easier to dismiss them when you assume they have this insane misdirected anger that makes no sense. They must be mental.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you provide an example of quantified or measured information? What ruler or units are used to do this?

Information is measure in "bits."

I can assume that you can do this for us right? Other than the longest “word” known, I’ve never heard of the units used to quantify DNA information. How does being able to measure the quantity of information render it non-information? If a man testified as to a crime, does the jury have to quantify that information before they KNOW it is information?

No. "Information" is a way of characterizing patterns of physical entities--in the case of your example, the sound patterns of speech. Any speech utterance contains information, but then, so does the white noise coming off the cooling fan ii your computer.

 

[46AND2]

Oh yes it does. Talk about any subject you like except anything to do with God. Watch the hackles rise and the fur fly.....

But really, let's call a spade a spade here....the real reason for your "hypothesis" and Dorothy Mae's agreement with it, is that the Bible says, basically, that there is really no such thing as an atheist. It claims that everyone knows he exists, but some will choose to reject him. So any claims contrary to your hypothesis are just lies (whether actual lies to you, or lies to our (atheists) selves.

So it's not so much your hypothesis...it's what you've been taught as fact.

 

[Speedwell]

God created the universe so he does not "live" in the universe but rather separate to it. If the universe were to fold up God doesn't fold up with it. Science is based on the laws within the universe not outside so science can measure everything inside the universe but nothing outside and it is outside where the mystery of the existence of God is. This also means God is not measured by things like space time and matter but is above these things. Science can disprove or prove things like a yeti because yetis are based in the universe. but science does not have the capacity to peek outside of the universe and obverse God as it needs to observe things based on space/time (inside the universe) otherwise according to science it doesn't exist. Science can neither prove nor disprove God it can only say within the space time continuum it cannot find God.

It appears that you believe 1. That there is there a supernatural entity of some kind which is responsible for the existence of the universe, and 2. That science can be relied upon to give us reasonably accurate explanations for material phenomena such as the age of the universe, the origin of species, etc. Is that right?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No. You really can't. If you find anger at god, they aren't atheists. I suspect most of what you would post, however, is indeed equating anger at christians with anger at god, despite your claim otherwise..

Actually I can. Pretty amazing that you assume what I cannot do. That you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

How atheists treat you has no bearing on whether or not they are mad at god. Or at the very least is not indicative of said anger.

Not convinced you guys could detect the anger if you read it.

 

[46AND2]

Actually I can. Pretty amazing that you assume what I cannot do. That you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Not so amazing. I also assume you can't fly.