Carlos Castaneda

[Mikee]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

Evolution 101

[Jonathan]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

Quit lying. God doesn't like it when you lie.

[Jonathan]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

Oh, come on. You didn't ask a simple direct question. You posed a loaded straw alternative buttressed by nothing but a big-numbers stunt and invited people to fall into that obvious trap.

Ellen

Exactly. The Creepy Stalker's loaded straw alternative was:

"For you... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of blind stupid mindless random chaos. For me... 27 billion miles of DNA strands in one human body is evidence of God's intelligent design."

The number of miles of DNA strands in the human body are evidence of neither "blind stupid mindless random chaos" nor God's intelligent design." The Creepy Stalker has offered an idiotic false alternative that's even less clever than the typical "Have you stopped beating your wife" type.

J

[Jonathan]

Greg,

Did you imagine that stalking Castaneda would make you famous or important? Was the act of stalking Castaneda sexually arousing to you and your wife?

J

[moralist]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

Oh, come on. You didn't ask a simple direct question. You posed a loaded straw alternative buttressed by nothing but a big-numbers stunt and invited people to fall into that obvious trap.

Ellen

There are two views on the design of DNA.

1. highly intelligent sublimely executed living biological design unfolding according to well ordered physical laws

2. just blind dumb stupid illogical irrational mindless random chance

And those "big numbers" are honest truthfully accurate rational descriptions of physical reality. However, there is nothing to prevent you from denying the reality of their veracity if you so choose. That's the blessing of free choice. Two completely different views can arise from observing exactly the same physical evidence.

Greg

[moralist]

The smokescreen of responses you are all throwing up provides a real time demonstration of how atheists RUN from a simple direct question about the design of the DNA which makes the existence of your own bodies possible.

Thank you.

Greg

Evolution 101

Evolution follows all of the exact same well ordered physical laws I had previously referenced.

So there are exactly the same two views on evolution:

1. highly intelligent sublimely executed living biological design unfolding according to well ordered physical laws

2. just blind dumb stupid illogical irrational mindless random chance

This is why no atheist would ever dare to answer the simple question I had asked.

Greg

[Mikee]

1. Natural physical laws are just that, physical laws. They cannot be broken. Which is what drives evolution.

2. There is nothing illogical about the laws of probability, they are nature's laws as well. See #1.

[Selene]

Fascinating.

Greg just spins an entraping semantic.

Not going to work on this forum.

Silver threads and golden needles...

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

I don't want your lonely mansion with a tear in every room
All I want's the love you promised beneath the haloed moon
But you think I should be happy with your money and your name
And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheating game

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine
And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wine
You can't buy my love with money cause I never was that kind
Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine
And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wine
You can't buy my love with money cause I never was that kind
Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

Greg can't sing really well either...

[moralist]

1. Natural physical laws are just that, physical laws. They cannot be broken. Which is what drives evolution.

2. There is nothing illogical about the laws of probability, they are nature's laws as well. See #1.

A tautology is only a failure to address 1. There is no reference to enforcement. That is another topic all together. The fact that they cannot be broken is evidence that they are greater than the physical world.

As to your number 2 answer referring to your original failure to address 1, at least you did admit to an intelligent design to logic, for it is. Just as it is impossible for order to arise from chaos without following specific preexisting laws which govern order.

And just to clarify, what is "nature" to you? I'm asking because you referred to laws as belonging to "nature" as if they were owned by it.

Greg

[moralist]

Fascinating.

Greg just spins an entraping semantic.

Not going to work on this forum.

Silver threads and golden needles...

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

I don't want your lonely mansion with a tear in every room

All I want's the love you promised beneath the haloed moon

But you think I should be happy with your money and your name

And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheating game

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wine

You can't buy my love with money cause I never was that kind

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wine

You can't buy my love with money cause I never was that kind

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine

Greg can't sing really well either...

You get points for at least a creative evasive smokescreen.

Greg

[Mikee]

1. Natural physical laws are just that, physical laws. They cannot be broken. Which is what drives evolution.

2. There is nothing illogical about the laws of probability, they are nature's laws as well. See #1.

A tautology is only a failure to address 1. There is no reference to enforcement. That is another topic all together. The fact that they cannot be broken is evidence that they are greater than the physical world.

As to your number 2 answer referring to your original failure to address 1, at least you did admit to an intelligent design to logic, for it is. Just as it is impossible for order to arise from chaos without following specific preexisting laws which govern order.

And just to clarify, what is "nature" to you? I'm asking because you referred to laws as belonging to "nature" as if they were owned by it.

Greg

Your words: "The fish always follow the bait". No thanks. Your manner of speaking reminds me too much of this guy.

[moralist]

1. Natural physical laws are just that, physical laws. They cannot be broken. Which is what drives evolution.

2. There is nothing illogical about the laws of probability, they are nature's laws as well. See #1.

A tautology is only a failure to address 1. There is no reference to enforcement. That is another topic all together. The fact that they cannot be broken is evidence that they are greater than the physical world.

As to your number 2 answer referring to your original failure to address 1, at least you did admit to an intelligent design to logic, for it is. Just as it is impossible for order to arise from chaos without following specific preexisting laws which govern order.

And just to clarify, what is "nature" to you? I'm asking because you referred to laws as belonging to "nature" as if they were owned by it.

Greg

Your words: "The fish always follow the bait". No thanks. Your manner of speaking reminds me too much of this guy.

Ok, I'll just acknowledge your predicted evasion of the question just like the rest did. When faced with a clear choice between mindless random chaos and well ordered physical laws, it becomes obvious that ordered laws cannot rise out of chaos without a preexisting order of laws to govern their rise. This simple reality is what makes atheists run for cover, as is necessary to protect the internal integrity of their denial.

...and those aren't my words. It's "The fish always matches the bait."

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Just a reminder that you evaded a simple direct question by jumping to critiquing conclusions...

... when I had asked nothing beyond your own opinion on the quality of design of the DNA in your own body, Brant.

So I'll ask the same simple direct question again:

Is the physical fact of 27 billion miles of DNA in your own body the result of a highly intelligent design?... or is it there only by stupid random chance?

I can also add that the fact of 27 billion miles of DNA (and you have no idea just how fantastically long that actually is in real physical terms) in every human body is nothing when compared to the REAL kicker...

That's 27 billion miles of written lines of genetic software code which specifically determines the form and function of your body. 27 billion miles of information.

The deeper scientists explore the physical nature of our bodies... the more absolutely jaw dropping truths they continue to discover.

Greg

Still waiting for the reference on the 27 billion miles. All I've found is 85mm.

Whatever it is DNA is incredible and I've no idea how and where it came about. You claim knowledge of one of two posited alternatives. I don't even know enough to know if there might be other choices. I am ignorant. You keep refusing to accept my ignorance. I am certainly ignorant of a Supreme Being outside the universe that made it all including us.

I hope you understand I agree with a lot of what you say respecting how people bounce off each other and self responsibility, but you cannot steamroller me out of my ignorance. That is not the way to knowledge. All you can do, if I let you, is reduce me to a blubbering idiot.

Reality, reason logic, scientific method, if not thinking itself--all these you eschew. I suppose that's the way to be one with your God but did He grant thee His divinity? If He gave you anything it was a brain to figure things out BUT not about HIM. That's the accepting job of faith. By eschewing reason but not above-the-board proclaiming faith, you contemn both your God and your fellow man. I suppose this makes you the individualist of individualists but it also makes you a man alone.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

There's a core Brant hit on that aligns with my thinking.

You offer a dichotomy: either God explains the origin of order, or chaos does.

I offer a third alternative. We don't know the origin of order and, using conceptual reference to observed reality as our core epistemology, there is no way we can know. Not yet at this stage of human evolution, anyway.

In my view, people who posit absolute knowledge on either side of your dichotomy are operating on faith. Believer and atheist alike. If they posit one or the other as the most likely speculation, that is another issue.

I found peace of mind when I accepted my own ignorance on matters outside the human "size" to understand, so to speak, and became comfortable with that ignorance. As the Buddhist would say, some things are for me to experience and some things are not. Certain knowledge on the origin of order is not to be for me. Oh well.

I would love to become eternal and infinite so I could observe origins, but that is beyond my capacity.

The believer says I already am eternal and infinite--after this life on earth and before. The atheist says I am no such thing. Both claim absolute knowledge about this. Or at least they claim absolute knowledge that the other is wrong.

I say I don't know. I have a druther and that's about all.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I want to add something to my thought above to Greg.

I see people getting wound up because he repeats his beliefs a lot. But I don't see him fishing for converts. I think he's talking more to himself than others when he does that.

This is a habit of believers (hardcore atheists included). They frequently tack on a statement of belief to things they marvel about or that interests them. In Brazil, they constantly say, "God exists" in the places Greg gives his pronouncements.

I think this repetitive manner of reinforcing a neural pathway does not change reality, although it does change perception of reality. With enough repetition, you can make your perception reach this level:

That is a natural distortion of perception that happens as we grow. There is a correspondence of a humongous number neural connections to explain it, too. (A part of our brain is devoted to the human face.) I'm not sure we can attain that level of neural connections with enough repetition, but I think we can come close.

This is probably the main reason hardcore believers and atheists seem so unreasonable. They literally see reality the way they say and they got there from countless repetitions.

But I do believe constant repetition is necessary for epistemology and morality. This is because we think on so many different levels and ranges (short, medium and long term for just one example) and the different parts of our brain deal with those contexts in widely different manners. We have to align them and put in what nature does not automatically provide if we want the reason part of our brain to prevail.

I have noticed that when a person declares a moral virtue of something like honesty (within proper contexts), he doesn't just decide he wants to be honest and he's done, i.e., he will never lie again in the wrong context. He needs constant reinforcement during the temptations and tribulations of life. It's like eating food. You don't eat just one meal and you're done.

Greg's "faith as knowledge" repetition doesn't bother me as much as others around here because he always frames it as his own belief and acknowledges that others have their own views. I also don't feel he is putting others down because they think differently than he does, i.e., that this is a vanity game for him like I see with other people intent on "trouncing" enemies.

When he says certain things, I think, "Oh, that's just Greg. There he goes again." Like I do with some others, in fact.

I don't think, "How dare he say such things?" I only reserve that mode for unmistakable bigotry and things like that.

If you notice, he is not nasty to anyone, but others are starting to become nasty to him.

I think this is interesting to observe and try to figure out.

Michael

[moralist]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Just a reminder that you evaded a simple direct question by jumping to critiquing conclusions...

... when I had asked nothing beyond your own opinion on the quality of design of the DNA in your own body, Brant.

So I'll ask the same simple direct question again:

Is the physical fact of 27 billion miles of DNA in your own body the result of a highly intelligent design?... or is it there only by stupid random chance?

I can also add that the fact of 27 billion miles of DNA (and you have no idea just how fantastically long that actually is in real physical terms) in every human body is nothing when compared to the REAL kicker...

That's 27 billion miles of written lines of genetic software code which specifically determines the form and function of your body. 27 billion miles of information.

The deeper scientists explore the physical nature of our bodies... the more absolutely jaw dropping truths they continue to discover.

Greg

Still waiting for the reference on the 27 billion miles. All I've found is 85mm.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090902201816AAoUNqI

The human body contains about 50 trillion cells.

The distance from Earth to sun is about 150 billion meters.

There are about 6 billion base pairs of nucleotides in each human diploid cell, each separated by 3.4 Angstroms, or 3.4e-10 meters. Therefore the unraveled DNA from one human cell will stretch for about 2 meters.

The human body contains about 50 trillion cells. All the DNA in a human body, unraveled and set end-to-end, would stretch 100 trillion meters. This is 666 times the distance from Earth to the sun.

We might remember that red blood cells contain no nucleus, hence no nuclear DNA, and that human gamete cells have only a haploid set (half of a diploid set). The reduced estimate might well be around 400 times the Earth-to-sun distance.

[moralist]

I see people getting wound up because he repeats his beliefs a lot. But I don't see him fishing for converts. I think he's talking more to himself than others when he does that.

That's a perceptive assessment, Michael. I've been repeatedly expressing ideas as practice to refine their verbal expression.

And you're also correct about "converts" being a moot point, as I've stated (also more than once) we each take our chosen view along with all of its consequences that we have already chosen, with us to our graves. That fact alone renders words on a computer monitor completely impotent to alter a chosen view. Only our real life direct personal experience of the consequences of our own actions possesses the power to do that.

Greg

[moralist]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Just a reminder that you evaded a simple direct question by jumping to critiquing conclusions...

... when I had asked nothing beyond your own opinion on the quality of design of the DNA in your own body, Brant.

So I'll ask the same simple direct question again:

Is the physical fact of 27 billion miles of DNA in your own body the result of a highly intelligent design?... or is it there only by stupid random chance?

I can also add that the fact of 27 billion miles of DNA (and you have no idea just how fantastically long that actually is in real physical terms) in every human body is nothing when compared to the REAL kicker...

That's 27 billion miles of written lines of genetic software code which specifically determines the form and function of your body. 27 billion miles of information.

The deeper scientists explore the physical nature of our bodies... the more absolutely jaw dropping truths they continue to discover.

Greg

Still waiting for the reference on the 27 billion miles. All I've found is 85mm.

Whatever it is DNA is incredible and I've no idea how and where it came about. You claim knowledge of one of two posited alternatives.

Yes, Brant.

But as I've clearly stated many times before, it can only be personal knowledge. And as such, it is not transferable to others because they have also already made their own choice. As a adult who is responsible for yourself, you have already made your own choice. And you are certain that the choice you have already made is the right one. Only the real life consequences of the choice you have already made could ever ultimately convince you of the true nature of the choice you made.

Greg

[Selene]

Yes, Brant.

But as I've clearly stated many times before, it can only be personal knowledge. And as such, it is not transferable to others because they have also already made their own choice. As a adult who is responsible for yourself, you have already made your own choice. And you are certain that the choice you have already made is the right one. Only the real life consequences of the choice you have already made could ever ultimately convince you of the true nature of the choice you made.

Greg

Wow, there is that loud sucking sound again...

[Brant Gaede]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Just a reminder that you evaded a simple direct question by jumping to critiquing conclusions...

... when I had asked nothing beyond your own opinion on the quality of design of the DNA in your own body, Brant.

So I'll ask the same simple direct question again:

Is the physical fact of 27 billion miles of DNA in your own body the result of a highly intelligent design?... or is it there only by stupid random chance?

I can also add that the fact of 27 billion miles of DNA (and you have no idea just how fantastically long that actually is in real physical terms) in every human body is nothing when compared to the REAL kicker...

That's 27 billion miles of written lines of genetic software code which specifically determines the form and function of your body. 27 billion miles of information.

The deeper scientists explore the physical nature of our bodies... the more absolutely jaw dropping truths they continue to discover.

Greg

Still waiting for the reference on the 27 billion miles. All I've found is 85mm.

Whatever it is DNA is incredible and I've no idea how and where it came about. You claim knowledge of one of two posited alternatives.

Yes, Brant.

But as I've clearly stated many times before, it can only be personal knowledge. And as such, it is not transferable to others because they have also already made their own choice. As a adult who is responsible for yourself, you have already made your own choice. And you are certain that the choice you have already made is the right one. Only the real life consequences of the choice you have already made could ever ultimately convince you of the true nature of the choice you made.

Greg

I'm curious as to the real life consequences of yours for your position or "view" that have convinced you of something so abstract. Also, how do you know that whole DNA Double Helix thingy isn't fraudulent? After all, isn't it just a "view"? How did it get transferred to you, BTW?

--Brant

did "we" really go to the moon--does Australia exist (all I have "personal" knowledge of is the accent)?

I'm not really arguing with Greg, nor am I arguing with the rocks in my backyard no matter how much I might curse them; if it were just him and me the conversation would have ended long ago although I could do business with him for the same reason I could do business with a Mormon, even break that bread (in the 19th C. some Mennonite ancestors of mine got into an argument over whether it was permissible to cut bread so some became Seventh-Day Adventists)

[PDS]

I see people getting wound up because he repeats his beliefs a lot. But I don't see him fishing for converts. I think he's talking more to himself than others when he does that.

That's a perceptive assessment, Michael. I've been repeatedly expressing ideas as practice to refine their verbal expression.

And you're also correct about "converts" being a moot point, as I've stated (also more than once) we each take our chosen view along with all of its consequences that we have already chosen, with us to our graves. That fact alone renders words on a computer monitor completely impotent to alter a chosen view. Only our real life direct personal experience of the consequences of our own actions possesses the power to do that.

Greg

I don't agree. I have had my mind changed by the words on a computer monitor before.

And I have certainly had my mind changed by the words on the written page, which are in principle no different than a computer monitor (e.g., The Fountainhead can be bought on one's Ipad, for instance).

Greg: I am quite certain you are a good man, but you are a slippery one, and overly fond of asseverations that only you seem to have special knowledge of. Following up on MSK's point about trying to "figure out" why some on this board are getting annoyed with you, you might be giving yourself a smidgen too much credit if you think it is the substance of your argument.* It is actually, in my personal opinion, the wobbly "good faith" of your argument, which seems to shift and change whenever you run into trouble.

*As just one point, is there really a philosophical difference between one quarter inch of DNA and 27 billion miles of it? Each strand arose, initially, from either God or the muck. You need to give your audience here a little more credit than to try this move...

[Jonathan]

Ok, I'll just acknowledge your predicted evasion of the question just like the rest did.

Stalker,

We didn't evade your question. You evaded our answers which identify your tactics as loaded, strawman question-begging. And you evaded our questions in response to yours. You seem to think that ignoring responses makes them go away.

In post #193, I asked if you are aware of the fact that atheists have answered the questions that you're asking (they've also answered many that you haven't thought of yet). I suspect that you're completely unaware of those answers. Do you know which writings I'm referring too?

J

[anthony]

Greg, Have you noticed how - after you or anybody has made a particular purchase, say a new car or a camera - you tend to be aware of and seek out every advert, write-up and personal criticism of that product? Even more after buying it, than before, which is strange, but very human behaviour. We put it down to substantiation or positive reinforcement and whatever else - but it all apparently has one purpose: to 'prove' we made "the right choice". This reminds me a little of religious folk.

Not meant to be critical, but have you noticed how often you say "choice"? As in THE choice, your choice, my choice? Always singular.

Whereas Believers (in general) did once make a single, fundamental choice - and then spend lifetimes really doing not much more than trying to substantiate it - atheists (well, I'm guessing-can't speak for all) started making choices a long time back, too; beginning (probably) as kids, with the simplest question: "Did I see, feel, sense or hear God, today?"

( No. Except for what I was told by authorities, reading from an old Book. But how do THEY know?).

Induction is supremely critical to a person's knowledge; and often what didn't occur is of greater importance than what did, and only the individual can arrive at an aggregated, general conclusion after he's sincerely been looking for God for a long while. Deduction does the rest.

"Choices" to me are like opening a door and finding a hall-way with dozens of more closed doors. Select one, and it leads to another hall-way of closed doors .Open one...etc,etc...ad infinitum.

A lot of dead ends and a lot of back-tracking - but eventually you begin narrowing down the options and your route. IOW, all endless choices (plural).

There won't ever be that single final answer - but a gradual refinement of truth, with the law of diminishing returns ensuring one never quite completely arrives there. This I can believe in, whole-heartedly. It gels with reality as I know it.

Instant Grace and bestowed Revelation is a man-made construct as the result of man's fearful defiance of that basic reality, I think.

[moralist]

Please note, again (not for Greg; it's hopeless) that "your view of a transcendently sophisticated sign made by stupid random chance" is NOT my "view."

Ok, Brant.

I'll bite.

So then your view is that 27 billion miles of DNA IS a transcendently sophisticated design? Either it is or it isn't. So please, just a simple answer of yes or no will do.

I'm sure of my ignorance. I can talk about my ignorance. You cannot talk about yours, but you must talk about something or the fire goes out. You claim something out of nothing, a Big Bang of epistemology. You pin the God tail on the reality donkey but do not acknowledge the blindfold so you likely miss the ass claiming the contrary.

--Brant

if we cannot talk about ignorance we cannot talk about anything: I have no explanation for the genesis of DNA; I agree DNA's incredible (can you reference that 27 billion miles?)

Just a reminder that you evaded a simple direct question by jumping to critiquing conclusions...

... when I had asked nothing beyond your own opinion on the quality of design of the DNA in your own body, Brant.

So I'll ask the same simple direct question again:

Is the physical fact of 27 billion miles of DNA in your own body the result of a highly intelligent design?... or is it there only by stupid random chance?

I can also add that the fact of 27 billion miles of DNA (and you have no idea just how fantastically long that actually is in real physical terms) in every human body is nothing when compared to the REAL kicker...

That's 27 billion miles of written lines of genetic software code which specifically determines the form and function of your body. 27 billion miles of information.

The deeper scientists explore the physical nature of our bodies... the more absolutely jaw dropping truths they continue to discover.

Greg

Still waiting for the reference on the 27 billion miles. All I've found is 85mm.

Whatever it is DNA is incredible and I've no idea how and where it came about. You claim knowledge of one of two posited alternatives.

Yes, Brant.

But as I've clearly stated many times before, it can only be personal knowledge. And as such, it is not transferable to others because they have also already made their own choice. As a adult who is responsible for yourself, you have already made your own choice. And you are certain that the choice you have already made is the right one. Only the real life consequences of the choice you have already made could ever ultimately convince you of the true nature of the choice you made.

Greg

I'm curious as to the real life consequences of yours for your position or "view" that have convinced you of something so abstract.

The answer can be found in how you posed your (implied) question. You have already chosen to view God as an abstraction, while I had already chosen to experience Him as a reality. Relating mundane details of my life are pointless as they have absolutely no power to convince anyone to change the view they have already chosen. And this point is important: It's pointless to try to convince anyone to change their view when only the reality of a person's own life has that power.

Also, how do you know that whole DNA Double Helix thingy isn't fraudulent? After all, isn't it just a "view"? How did it get transferred to you, BTW?

DNA is a great real world example because it is such a fantastic sublimely sophisticated and intricate literal design of billions of miles of lines of biological software code written in trillions of individual living cells in our bodies. And the more sophisticated tools scientists develop and employ to explore DNA the more amazing facts they continue to uncover. DNA is also intimately personal, as it determines the form and function of each of our own bodies.

So you and I are each are informed of exactly the same scientific truths about DNA... and yet we each are perfectly free to draw completely different conclusions from it. So it is either by God's design... or it's the result of random chaos. For me, the reality of the intelligent design of DNA didn't change my view. Rather, it only confirms the view I had already chosen. And it's worth noting that exactly the same information about the design of DNA also confirms the view you have already chosen.

Now why is this so?

The answer is love. Love is utterly devoid of any form of coercion. If our choice either to affirm or to deny God was coerced in any way. It could not be a choice, and there would be no love. This, too, is by deliberate purposeful design... an inviolable choice freely made. With love, it cannot be any other way.

Greg

[Serapis Bey]

An aside: I have been reading and enjoying Robert Lanza's Biocentrism:

http://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe/dp/1935251740

It is shoring up some of my hunches I wrote about in the Kolker/Acid thread, but more to the point, it has allowed me to appreciate Greg's perspective a whole lot more (sans his Jesus stuff, however). Recommended.

I don't agree. I have had my mind changed by the words on a computer monitor before.

And I have certainly had my mind changed by the words on the written page, which are in principle no different than a computer monitor (e.g., The Fountainhead can be bought on one's Ipad, for instance

That's the weakest, most anemic form of change. Think of the difference between surface wind blowing dandelions around and the massive but slow tectonic movement deep below the Earth's crust.

"Fine philosophies reflect more the need to _feel good_ than how anyone has lived their lives." - C.S. Hyatt