How Molecular Biology Proves the Existence of God

Man has proved the existence of God by pulling down his genes and taking a close look. That close look began with what Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist, Francis Crick called the , “fundamental dogma of biology.”

Way back in the 1950’s he, James Watson, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin were able to work out the structure of the DNA molecule as a double helix shown in the center of the illustration below.

Chemical-structure-of-DNA

Crick’s “fundamental dogma of biology” is briefly summarized at the bottom right of the above illustration under the heading, ” From DNA to Proteins.”

What Crick’s “dogma” says in the King’s English is that the DNA molecule contains a code and a molecular structure that permits that code to be translated and then precision manufactured into the physical traits of a living creature whose cells contain that particular DNA molecule.

In my studies in molecular biology I was able to examine a specific gene that codes for a particular protein that processes environmental toxins like alcohol and pesticides.  At the same time we examined a specific mutation of that gene that yields a mutant form of the normal protein which contributes to alcoholism and late on-set Parkinson’s disease.

Here is what the normal gene looks like when its code is translated into the English alphabet:

A Gene's Code

The small letters are mRNA (very closely related to DNA) nucleotides. The nucleotides are described in the above Chemical Structure illustration on the left:  a for adenine, t for thymine, g for guanine and c for cytosine.

And in certain groups of three, called codons, the nucleotides code for specific amino acids.  For example, the first codon at position 86 is “atg” which codes for the amino acid methionine, abbreviated M.

And when amino acids are strung together by molecular factories called ribosomes (also proteins) they form proteins.

Below are images of the normal protein (left) and the mutation protein (right) which contributes to alcoholism and late on-set Parkinson’s disease:

1HDX Subunit Interaction1HT0 Subunit Interaction

To the naked eye, the two proteins look almost identical.

Let’s drill down to the point where the mutation occurs and take a look:

1HDX with Cyclohexanol and Valine
Cyclohexanol-Normal
1HT0 No Cyclohexanol and Isoleucine
No Cyclohexanol-Mutant

Notice that at position 102 (PDB 102) the amino acid “valine” is present in the normal protein:

valine

And at position 102 the amino acid “isoleucine” is present in the mutant protein:

120px-Isoleucine

Can you spot the difference in the atom structures of valine and isoleucine?

So where is God in all of this scientific palaver?

Well, when we pull down our genes and take a close look we see coded information that is used to manufacture products specifically spelled out by that coded information.

That undeniable, scientifically proven fact demonstrates the existence of intelligence.

And it is by this very same standard (the transmission of coded information) that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists determine the difference between intelligence and background noise. It is delicious irony that SETI was championed by that late, great atheist Carl Sagan.

Since intelligence infers being, the existence of God is proven by the molecular biology spelled out by Crick’s fundamental dogma of biology, proven in the microbiology laboratory and illustrated in molecular model illustrations created by yours truly.

114 responses to “How Molecular Biology Proves the Existence of God”

  1. Why do claim that ‘coded’ is synonymous with ‘intelligence’ which is synonymous with ‘being’? That’s a rather large assumption, I think.

    Yes, you’ve built rungs on a mental ladder-like framework leading to what you presume is a Designer (Blessed be His name!) but I don’t see the support rails that you assume connects them. Without these rails, you don’t have a ladder; without linking evidence between the effect you select – ‘code’- and the cause you claim – intelligence/design/being – you don’t have any molecular biological evidence for the existence of a god, never mind your preferred God.

    In fact, that you identified a small mutation in that code that produces a different protein indicates a natural, unguided, purposeless biological process at work. Doesn’t this fact decrease the likelihood of an overseeing interventionist creative Designer?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. tildeb,

      Coding is simply a way of expressing information.

      And what separates information from natural patterns or natural noise is coherence.

      Modern science has determined and now teaches in every university intro to molecular biology class along with evolution, that life happens when order, or organization or coherence achieves a certain level (Campbell et al, 2).

      The link you think doesn’t exist in the evidence is the scientific way of thought called inference.

      Inference is the bread and butter of modern science because whether looking at the mega-large as in the cosmos, or the Nano-small as in molecular biology, nothing is directly observable with the senses.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Such an ‘inference’ doesn’t explain how mutations occur.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. tildeb,

          It isn’t the purpose of “inference” to explain how mutations occur.

          Inference allows us to follow evidence to its logical conclusion when those conclusions lie beyond the capacity of our physical senses.

          With regard to mutations, they occur for various reasons but the bottom line is that they are the result of coding and decoding errors in DNA –>RNA transcription and RNA–>protein translation.

          These errors re-introduce natural noise into a system that requires coherence.

          That noise seems to someway always work its way into coherent systems is the bane of all science and engineering endeavors.

          The tendency of coherent systems to fall into disorder is completely unrelated to God’s existence.

          Modern molecular biology proves the existence of God because it proves that intelligence (the transmission of information) is integral to all living systems.

          Liked by 3 people

  2. Being a molecular biologist (with a Ph. D.), I have always felt that the structure and organization of living cells indicates that somebody knew what he was doing. I know that many of my peers would disagree with me, but I’ve never been convinced by the objections. It is interesting that those who invoke faith and those who deny it base their arguments on the same data.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Inferring the existence of God is not really about the data, but about the scientific thought process.

      If scientists, all trained in the same thought process, arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to one another using the same data set, then something else other than scientific thought is at work.

      I think atheists hallucinate for themselves some absurd notion of God that no sane person could possibly believe in and no rational thought process could ever approach.

      Thus the atheist has rigged the game so that atheism always comes out the winner.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. If scientists, all trained in the same thought process, arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to one another using the same data set, then something else other than scientific thought is at work.

        There’s your error.

        It is not logical to jump from the natural data set to an explanation dependent on the supernatural using the scientific method because there is no link between them, between the effect you select – code – with the cause you attribute for it – intelligence. This is not science. You dismiss important data like the cumulative effect of mutation because of this and then try to blame atheists ‘hallucinating’. This is insane because it’s irrational.

        It is the theist moving outside the realm of knowledge, outside of what can be known, outside of establishing causal links, who is unequivocally using “something else other than scientific thought’ to falsely claim to ‘arrive’ at god. It is not using thought whatsoever; it is using ignorance to just make stuff up in its place and then support that imaginary, magical thinking with a confidence in knowledge-empty claims they do not deserve. That’s why there are so many religions: the same ignorance covered up by wishful thinking called piety. This does not answer any questions with anything other than more wishful thinking, which is demonstrable by how many religions make contrary and incompatible claims with each other. This is obvious, it’s painful having to point it out time after time while you continue to vilify atheism rather than face what’s true: your religious beliefs are of your own creation and not adduced from reality.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. tildeb,

          The scientific principles expressed in microbiology prove that intelligence has expressed itself.

          That isn’t a data set, it’s a conclusion based on the very standards science has set up to define intelligence.

          Like

          1. You’re the one claiming ‘code’ is synonymous with ‘intelligence’ while at the same time understanding that “Coding is simply a way of expressing information.” The first part of this claim is simply a claim for which you have no linking evidence. A code that replicates – and sometimes inaccurately – is a replicating code that has the means to undergo incremental change over time. Claiming this process must be ‘intelligence’ designed by a ‘being’ is not a scientific claim without the links to demonstrate it. Your inference that this must be be the case is yours alone and not a logical conclusion adduced from molecular biology but a claim you impose it for reasons other than .

            Liked by 1 person

          2. tildeb,

            I am not the one who claims that “code” is synonymous with “intelligence.”

            What I have expressed here is a scientific definition that is used by SETI which was championed by atheist Carl Sagan.

            When SETI researchers point their instruments into the cosmos how are they able to tell the difference between natural noise and signals issued by intelligent beings?

            Liked by 2 people

            1. SOM, you said, “when we pull down our genes and take a close look we see coded information that is used to manufacture products specifically spelled out by that coded information.

              That undeniable, scientifically proven fact demonstrates the existence of intelligence.”

              You ARE defining code to be synonymous with intelligence.

              You continue: “And it is by this very same standard (the transmission of coded information) that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists determine the difference between intelligence and background noise. It is delicious irony that SETI was championed by that late, great atheist Carl Sagan.”

              You’re just making stuff up here about SETI. They are not looking for “the transmission of coded information”. They are looking specifically for narrow-band radio signals. Is this what DNA produces – narrow band radio signals? Of course not. You’re making a false analogy.

              The code in DNA is not in any way unusual for any biological molecule. For the analogy to work, you would have to be looking for a kind of unnatural biological molecule that indicated intentional intervention indicative of some divine agency equivalent to an unnatural narrow band radio signal . But that analogy doesn’t serve your purpose here because you know perfectly well that there is no such evidence for the kind of indicative tinkering being sought by SETI from radio signals that would suggest non natural intervention in DNA. That’s why your analogy fails and that’s why there is no irony in Sagan’s support for searching for highly patterned anomalies. DNA is NOT an anomaly: it is just another example of local units obeying local rules and producing emergent complexity.

              The point you continue to evade is that mutations and other changes to the double helix are the anomaly. Now you have to show how those anomalies are linked to an interventionist designing agency. And there is exactly zero evidence that these changes are in any way related or linked to a divine interventionist creative agency. Now, I know that fact disturbs your confidence in having to to have a Overlord Designer (Blessed be His name) for the biological molecule but that’s why you still have all your scientific work before you if you want to demonstrate how molecular biology proves the existence of some god. Until then, all you’re doing is saying, “Ooo… complexity… godidit.” And that’s not a scientific conclusion adduced from reality but a knowledge-empty, evidence-lacking religious belief you are imposing on it.

              Liked by 3 people

          3. tildeb,

            A narrow band signal simply points to a specific property of a signal. That is, the signal appears in a narrow wavelength range.

            But unless the signal on that narrow band is transmitting information, than we know the signal has not been transmitted by intelligent beings.

            The transmission of information is what determines its intelligent origin.

            Also, you continue to come back to the irrelevancy of errors that appear during transcription and translation.

            Errors are what produce mutation and mutation is what produce genetic variety.

            But that is a design issue and is irrelevant to the fact that our genes transmit information which proves the presence of intelligence.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. SOM, you reiterated that, “The transmission of information is what determines its intelligent origin.”

              Is it? Isn’t that exactly what reproduction is? You’ve got to wonder about how much intelligence goes into this purely biological function.

              By assuming mutation is a design function, you’re begging the question. We know mutation occurs randomly. That useful and well as damaging proteins – with different and sometimes novel information – can be developed by a mutated strand different from its parents is actually an indication of no design! No intelligence – no narrow-band signal – is detected in any of this.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. teldib,

              Reproduction is a completely different process than DNA–>RNA transcription and RNA–>protein translation.

              Comparing apples and oranges and then using that comparison to draw a conclusion about apples based on oranges doesn’t follow logically.

              Like

            3. SoM, SoM, SoM,

              You did not mean the transmission of information to mean DNA–>RNA transcription and RNA–>protein translation, as you now claim. If you did, you couldn’t use the analogy about SETI, now could you?

              You meant it as you wrote it originally: the transmission of information… information to be synonymous with ‘code’, which you then made synonymous with ‘intelligence’, which you then made synonymous with ‘being’ and then – supposedly by inference – claimed microbiology offered us compelling evidence for an intelligent designer you call god.

              This is not true but creative writing at work.

              Each step you take on this tortuous rationalized path is to make the incompatible faith claim you actually start with (there really, really, really is a creationist god intervening in human affairs) appear to be compatible with our scientific understanding of biology (from which there is no evidence for any divine intervention and twiddling of our DNA). What any honest study of molecular biology reveals is local units obeying local rules, out of which arises complexity. There appears to be – based on much evidence adduced from reality – only natural and understandable biological mechanisms and processes at work.

              Liked by 3 people

    2. BeingMulticellular Avatar
      BeingMulticellular

      Wow, I’ve noticed this, but thought it was silly for me to say. Thanks for saying it for me.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Good stuff SoM.

    To say that life was generated and is sustained apart from intelligence is somewhat ahem, hallucinatory…………… 😉 True science will always point to (THE) Creator.

    Squirrels do not reproduce acorns, and elephants do not give birth to cows. ‘After their kind’ is a principle of genius. Repeatable. Your structure agrees that life and God is verifiable and truthful. Arithmetic as a true science agrees with the first and great Scientist Himself.

    Something about Alpha and Omega…

    (Some will gripe though that the 1950’s were hardly the years of intellect. Sheesh)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. How would your Master Builder consider the amoeba proteus: a gelatinous, microscopic, single-celled blob of primitive organics that boasts a staggering 670 billion base pairs in its genome, whereas a 5 trillion-celled human being has only 2.9 billion base pairs?

    Doesn’t such wasted—junk—DNA speak only to accidents, not navigation?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. John,

      The only intelligent being who would design something according to your exacting standards would probably be someone on the mega-bodacious JZ Corporation payroll.

      Obviously, if God were on your payroll, you would give him THE DONALD treatment and tell him,

      “YOU’RE FIRED!”

      Nevertheless, though you have the power to fire him, you don’t have the power to wink him out of existence just because he fails to perform to your exacting standards.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. SoM, John raises a most disquieting fact about the amount of ‘code’ designed for a single cell critter is 231 times more than a 5 trillion cell critter exhibiting remarkable emergent properties. That’s hardly holding up an ‘exacting’ standard; it’s pointing out the very real yet surprisingly HUGE design differences to import the ‘information’ you claim is indicative of ‘intelligence’ from a ‘being’ by what molecular biology shows us. If your ‘logical’ claim were true, then the amoeba should demonstrate 231 times more intelligence, yes?

        Liked by 3 people

        1. tildeb,

          What you and John consider to be design flaws are irrelevant to topic, that Crick’s, “fundamental dogma of biology,” proves intelligence.

          Changing the subject from the relevant to the irrelevant is a logical fallacy, not a rational argument.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I didn’t say anything about a flaw, SoM. Look to yourself about changing the subject. I’m taking your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and asking you why it doesn’t seem to yield what you seem to think molecular biology says it should yield.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Scientific reasoning (inference) is not “my line of reasoning.”

              And scientific reasoning concludes that God exists.

              Like

            2. No it doesn’t or you would provide a link I could follow between the effects you claim as evidence and the cause. You substitute ‘inference’ that is wholly and completely a faith-based assertion. That’s not ‘proof’ and it’s not utilizing the scientific method. Therefore, the science of molecular biology does not do as you report. ‘Therefore God’ is not a scientific conclusion. It’s a religious starting point.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Yes, like Tildeb, I was going to note that I didn’t say anything about a “flaw.” The benevolent Master Craftsman—an artist obsessed with perfection and incapable of madness or mistake— has clearly seen Himself free to bless the amoeba proteus… I’m just wondering, why?

            Like

            1. John,

              You and tildeb are using a logical fallacy called, The Nirvana Fallacy.

              That is, something isn’t perfect, therefore it doesn’t exist or it is invalid.

              The scientific proof that God exists has absolutely nothing to do with tildeb’s and your line of questioning.

              You are in fact changing the subject and calling that an argument.

              Again, you and tildeb exemplify a logically flawed reasoning.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. SoM, you claimed that code was synonymous with ‘information’, which you claim is synonymous with ‘intelligence’. John simply pointed out that amoeba contained 281 times the amount of code as a human. I simply asked for your explanation why the amoeba was 281 times as intelligent than humans… if your explanatory model is to accurately reflect reality and not simply a belief you have imposed on it. All you’re doing now is deflecting and avoiding the problem inherent in your model, namely, that code is NOT synonymous with intelligence. But rather than deal straight up with this problem, you know make this problem synonymous with ‘not perfect’ as if ‘not perfect’ is what John and I are arguing here. We’re not arguing ‘not perfect’ here; we’re simply asking you to use your model and account for why the amoeba does not demonstrate 281 times the demonstrated intelligence humans possess. This is not a ‘logic’ problem we possess; it’s a problem that defies your explanatory model.

              Liked by 2 people

      2. Thanks for that, SOM, but I was kinda’ hoping for an answer. Now, granted, you can’t speak for the Great Master Builder, but I was at the very least hoping for a suggested explanation on your part. I mean, there has to be some explanation behind the 667 billion (billion, with a B) base pairs in a single-celled blob over that of a human being, which is, naturally, The Great Master Builders Grand Masterpiece, right?

        Like

        1. John,

          This post presents scientific proof of the existence of God, and nothing more.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. So, by your model (proof), the amoeba proteus is The Master Builder’s finest creation?

            Liked by 2 people

  5. Speaking of God’s finest creation, maybe you and Proteus are cousins?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I wish! Self-evidently, it would seem however that I’m not worthy to even clean the amoeba proteus’ spittoon. At 670 billion base pairs, that thing is a God to my humble 2.9 billion.

      Like

      1. John,

        The answer to your inquiry about the amoeba proteus is answered in this post, by the way.

        All the extra DNA is noise. It doesn’t code for any proteins.

        Like

        1. So now ‘proteins’ is synonymous with ‘intelligence’? I’m pretty sure you said ‘code’ was synonymous with ‘intelligence’ but now you’re saying only code for proteins is intelligence, right? All the other code is just noise. D
          I have that right? So is the loblobby pine the most intelligent species?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The genetic code is what produces proteins.

            That is Crick’s “fundamental dogma of biology” that is still taught today in intro microbiology classes at the university.

            The genetic code transmits coherent, understandable, reproducible, predictable information.

            And that, according to science, indicates intelligence.

            Like

            1. Som, you explain that, “The genetic code transmits coherent, understandable, reproducible, predictable information.”

              That’s true as far as it goes but you forgot to mention that reproduction also creates new information… small changes such as mutation subject to natural selection. You omitted that part. … the part that demonstrates that change over time requires no ‘intelligence’ but is a natural and unguided physical mechanism – a micro-process, if you like playing the micro-macro mambo – that cannot help but produce large scale changes over time, changes that come about without needing any exterior ‘designer’ or ‘being’ or ‘intelligence’ for the new code.

              Like

          2. tildeb,

            I have already addressed this.

            Change doesn’t negate intelligence.

            Like

            1. Well, it certainly elevates doubt about the code we find today requiring it by demonstrating how at the chemical level code can change over time. When we find a natural and unguided physical mechanism that does what you think requires intelligence and design – create and alter code that produces proteins – then your hypothesis cannot help but take a significant hit: molecular biology does not prove the existence of some designing God. In fact the level of ‘noise’ and the tremendous amount of code found where there is no requirement for it indicates the lack of any guiding overseer.

              Liked by 1 person

  6. Zande and tildeb sure are stubborn.

    If I wrote a formula for the manufacture of a new compound, that would be a sign of high intelligence. DNA contains the code for reproducing living creatures and that is reduced an accident. What a strange world!

    Liked by 2 people

      1. @tildeb

        Going back to childhood literature for your edification? Well, there is something to be said for going back to the basics. Still, if I had not already discovered something about what you think wise, I would consider that source an odd pick. What are the basics you think important? Apparently you equate the ability to spout prolific streams of ridicule with wisdom.

        When we ridicule an idea, we believe we have already determined the truth about it. We don’t regard that idea as close enough to the truth to seriously consider believing. We just want to destroy it.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. CT, I did not include that graphic. I don’t know how it appeared under my comment other than someone – perhaps the administrator – taking to editing and inserting stuff that appears to be from me when it is not.

        Nowhere did I ridicule SoM’s design hypothesis. I simply followed the reasoning he presented and pointed out where he was making a leap instead of a link between the effects he claims are ‘evidence’ for the supernatural cause he presumes. That’s not ‘ridicule’, CT; it’s a well-reasoned critical response. Nowhere do I claim that this leads to ‘truth’ but its use significantly reduce one’s credulity to a level of informed belief rather than indoctrinated religious dogma not tethered to any reality we share.

        You see, CT, some ideas are really poor ideas. The design hypothesis is one such poor idea because nothing from reality supports it. That’s why it’s a failed hypothesis. The level of confidence granted to the hypothesis therefore should be reduced accordingly and this is where religious believers go off the tracks of rational belief… and why confidence in some kind of Intelligent Designer (Blessed be His name) isn’t science; it’s theology and should be understand as such. Rather than take the elevator of informed belief down when this hypothesis fails to model reality well and does not account for the data we have accumulated, we should reduce the level of confidence in such an empirical biological claim. After all, it’s reality that simply doesn’t support the explanatory model offered by the design hypothesis. But rather than respect reality in this matter, creationists drop the scientific pretext and figuratively jump out the window and claim their faith will raise them to new levels of insight into biology.

        This is leaving the area of reason and rational thinking linked to reality altogether and replacing it with faith in imaginary and magical assertions about supernatural causal agencies. As a means to inquiring into reality, this methodological switch is not a virtue. It’s not a virtue because the shift doesn’t reveal knowledge about reality; it supplants it with self-created beliefs beyond the scope of testing and independent verification. And this willingness to shift methods because it doesn’t produce what one wants it to produce is guaranteed way to be fooled, to becoming gullible, to becoming a superstitious person, to becoming someone who confuses reality with their own magical and distorted imaginings and assumes they are interchangeable. They’re not.

        My issue with SoM is his presenting of his distorted imaginings as if adduced from molecular biology when they are not; his OP is an exercise of imagining that molecular complexity is evidence for a designing agency. That’s theology at work and not science. Molecular biology does NOT offer us evidence for some god. And it doesn’t do this because this inquiry does not provide us any links between the two – between the effects SoM has selected and the cause he claims – other than his belief. This is not evidence. This is leap. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to get this.

        Like

    1. Yes, stubborn how? Could you please explain this.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I believe I did. If you want more, you can read my response to tildeb.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Sorry, but i don’t see where you get “stubborn” from. Could you perhaps elaborate?

          “When we ridicule an idea, we believe we have already determined the truth about it. We don’t regard that idea as close enough to the truth to seriously consider believing. We just want to destroy it.”

          When an “idea” pretends to be science, yet cannot meet any recognised (scientific) method to verify itself, to be tested, then it deserves ridicule. At its most elemental level, true science makes predictions. What predictions does Creationism make? What experiments have been set up to test these predictions? What data has been accumulated? Indeed, what is the hypothesis forwarded by Creationism?

          Like

          1. @Zande

            How did Creationism get into this, and what is the point? It is also true that nobody has proven the Theory of Evolution.

            The Theory of Evolution did not cause silenceofmind to reference to Carl Sagan. Yet that man and others asserted that the Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. You could ask the same questions about the Theory of Evolution that you asked about Creationism, and you would get the similar answers. This debate has never actually been about proof according to the scientific method.

            All silenceofmind said is that the ordered nature of DNA — the presence of a code required to grow a life form — logically suggests that an intelligent being is responsible for creating the code. That is an exercise in logic, not a science experiment.

            Did life evolve or did God just create us as we are? I don’t know, but God could have directly created us or evolved us from lower life forms. With all eternity, He has no reason to hurry. What is at issue is whether life as we know it formed as the result of an entirely random process.

            Which is true? The Theory of Evolution or Creationism? Science would require us to form a testable hypothesis. Creationism, by definition, is based upon a hypothesis which cannot be tested. Theory of Evolution is base upon an hypothesis we don’t have capacity to test. Maybe we never will. Therefore, whether we are a Christian or an Atheist, we don’t know whether Creationism or The Theory of Evolution is true.

            Some people say the Bible favors Creationism, but I do not think the Bible is that specific. The debate over Creationism and The Theory of Evolution would have been meaningless to Moses. The Bible just says God created everything; it does not actually say how. The statements that God created Adam from clay and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs don’t have to be taken literally. The people who first read Genesis would have taken them literally, but they had no reason to do anything else. We, on the other hand, suspect the world is older than they did. So we have to reconcile what we know with what the Bible says, and those first several chapters in Genesis are not as simple as they may first appear.

            Like

            1. How did Creationism get into this, and what is the point?

              ID is Creationism. Period.

              It is also true that nobody has proven the Theory of Evolution.

              Ah. Okay, I think that ends this conversation. Debating with the willfully ignorant is nothing but an exercise in near-perfect futility. And just a heads-up, CT, the word “Theory” in science is not the equivalent of the word “theory” as used in common language.

              Like

            2. Beating a hasty retreat, I see.

              Like

            3. No. It’s the case that arguing with complete idiots is a waste of time.

              Like

            4. That must mean you don’t think I am an idiot. Thanks for say so. I was certainly beginning to have my doubts.
              😆

              Like

            5. @silenceofmind

              He acts like he thought I accepted the Theory of Evolution as proven. Yet he began the attack on on Intelligent Design. So why would he bother if he did not think I believed it.

              What is he is obviously not prepared to do is prove the Theory Of Evolution. That theory is supposedly proven by the preponderance of evidence and scientific consensus. Yet if someone points out that neither a preponderance of evidence or scientific consensus constitutes scientific proof, the defenders of the Theory of Evolution can do nothing but rush off in a huff.

              Knowing as a “fact” what is not so is not an indication of high intellect. I fear Zande and tildeb are just as dumb as the rest of us.

              Like

            6. @CT

              The reason why one does not argue with a creationist (and that is what ID is:”cdesignproponists” and the Wedge document) is because all of your reasons for doubting evolution have been thoroughly addressed not once, not dozens, not hundreds, but thousands upon thousands of times to absolutely no effect on the dedicated by evolutionary biologists. This is compelling evidence to not bother not because there is anything questionable about the theory (there isn’t) but because nothing from reality holds sway over those committed to believing Intelligent Design nee creationism is the case. Reality doesn’t matter to such people and any amount of evidence from it unworthy of attention.

              What fascinates me is the level of arrogance needed to presume that you and your juvenile reasons are somehow an equivalent scientific alternative. That takes an astounding amount of ego, to presume that you’re the smartest guy in comparison. You’re not. Your reasons are not unanswered; you just don’t like the answers. Your creationist beliefs are not equivalent. Unequivocally. In fact, on any level playing field of honest comparison, all the evidence that just so happens to comport with every avenue of inquiry undertaken except theology is entirely and utterly and completely on the evolutionary side. There is nothing on the other except theology. The theological collection box is starkly empty of anything from reality. There is literally no evidence adduced from reality to suggest any kind of Poof!ism or intervention or prior design at any point at any time ever.

              None.

              Yet the creationist/IDer simply doesn’t care about reality and what it has to say in this matter or they would understand why evolutionary theory is a foundation of biological knowledge while creationism/ID a null set. They would understand why nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of evolution. You don’t understand why, so you don’t understand either the theory or the mountains of evidence from reality that directly supports the explanatory model we call the theory of evolution. In fact, there is nothing anyone can offer you from reality that you’ll consider in an honest light fi it is against your starting belief that godidit… or you would dropped creationism already! From none of this actual and compelling evidence can one draw support for some kind of designing agency. That must come from elsewhere. Not reality. Not science.

              Now, you can sometimes have religion without creationism but you never, ever, have creationism without religion. Religion is the contrarian here, not science. Your beliefs in this matter stand contrary to knowledge. Those who support creationism are religiously inspired to do so because not one jot or tittle of support comes from science… because reality doesn’t provide any.

              Again, let’s be clear: the creationist/IDer doesn’t care about any of that. They have their faith-based belief and that’s that: Godidit. That ‘answer’ produces no applications, no therapies, no technologies, no knowledge of any kind. It’s also empty. But it’s worse than just willful ignorance; it is the basis upon which astounding arrogance such as you demonstrate here and incredible ignorance is exported to the young and the credulous clothed as if pious, as if virtuous and an expression of godly faith. It is pernicious for this reason and it is stupid beyond comparison because it fosters a deeply anti-scientific, anti-intellectual sentiment upon which various denialist movements hitch a ride. This is the legacy of Intelligent Design, of creationism: a godidit superstitious ignorance that promotes anti-skepticism, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-reality beliefs that cause incalculable harm to real people in real life each and every day.

              And, in case you wondering, this false equivalency, this manufactured teach-the-controversy meme (there is none in science) is why so many evolutionary biologists whose area of expertise has been so thoroughly misunderstood and vilified by the religiously arrogant and the stupid and the ignorant are some of the most ferocious and tenacious and influential New Atheists dedicated to reducing the number of credulous young people who you hope will fill the churches, temples, and mosques whose membership continues to manufacture and peddle this ignorant creationist claptrap.

              You’re losing. And rightly so. You are on the wrong side of history, of respecting knowledge adduced from reality, and will be mocked for scores of generations to come.

              Liked by 3 people

            7. Citizen Tom,

              But my entire post is all about the FACT the existence of God has been proven through scientific experiment.

              When we do science, God stares us in the face actually, practically and experimentally.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. @silenceofmind

              I suppose I have a relatively narrow view of what science does. I don’t dispute the fact that what we know about creation proves the existence of God. However, we knew that before men started formally practicing the art of science.

              Psalm 19:1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

              The heavens declare the glory of God;
              and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

              Science doesn’t have the tools to study God. We use science to understand the order within God’s creation. With mathematics we can model cause and effect relationships. However, when God is the direct cause, how can we model what he does? We can logically infer God’s existence and character, but we cannot reproduce what He done. We cannot create something from nothing.

              The study of God is not science. Science can neither proof nor disprove God. What science does, however, is allow us to marvel at what our Lord has done. Just as the firmaments above declare the glory of God, so does intricate code contained by a single molecule.

              Like

          2. @tildeb

            All that to tell me I am not worth arguing with? Amazing!

            About all you have said is that you have me all figured out. You don’t, but that is not surprising. It appears you are addressing a straw man, not a real person. As you said, I am not worth arguing with. What that apparently means is you don’t have to listen to or seriously consider the other side of the argument.

            What is true of Creationism is MORE THAN EQUALLY TRUE of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution produces no applications, no therapies, no technologies, no knowledge of any kind. It’s also empty. Such is also true of Global Warming, another bit of the pseudoscience you advocate.

            It seems you associate with that crowd that worships “science” by saying that scientific truth is whatever their politics demand to be true.

            Anyway, I don’t run around trying to get the government to fund Creationism. I endorse the Declaration of Independence. Because our rights are God-given, I do not believe I have the right to force my political and religious beliefs others. Yet you have made it clear in our previous debates you would properly educate the young and the credulous. No doubt you justify yourself as a “man of science.”

            Anyway, we have had this “dialogue” before. Do you actually have another to offer besides your absurd ridicule and insults? That is also empty.

            Like

            1. You just proved John’s point.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Shrug.

              You did not offer anything new, just another insult, but you at least said it succinctly.

              Like

            3. The Theory of Evolution produces no applications, no therapies, no technologies, no knowledge of any kind. It’s also empty.

              Yep, and there’s the ignorance shining through.

              Ever taken a medicine, CT? An antibiotic? A vaccine? Are you aware of modern agricultural practices? What about bio-engineering in herds? Pesticides?

              Honestly, you’re as bright as that senator who walked onto your senate floor with a snowball and said, “Climate change?”

              Like

            4. @Zande

              Darwin did not publish On the Origin of Species until 1859. The Industrial Revolution started in about 1760. Therefore, if timing mattered to you at all, you would have much trouble attributing the rapid progress in science over the last several centuries to the invention of the printing press and the publication of a certain book, The Holy Bible.

              Science only makes sense when we assume an orderly universe, which is something you have no good reason to suppose exists. Yet the Bible make it quite clear that our Creator promotes order.

              At any rate it seems to me that the technologies you mentioned all had their start before Darwin’s theory was proposed, much less accepted by many people. None of those technologies depended upon Darwin’s theory for their development. For example, what the Theory of Evolution suggests about antibiotics and pesticides is how bacteria and insects adapt. Nevertheless, we found out that insects and bacteria adapt and then someone suggested a reason.

              Really, all you do is throw mud on the wall and hoping some of it will stick. If that is the best you can do to support your position, why do you bother? I suppose you can fool and intimidate a few people, but when you know what you are saying is not true, what satisfaction could you possibly get out of it?

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Again, arguing with complete idiots (the willfully ignorant) is nothing but an exercise in near-perfect futility.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. @Zande

              I have learned not to overrate my intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and so forth. So I try to avoid speaking hastily. If I don’t know something, I try avoid speaking about it just because my pride demands I say something. Yet you have made wild claims you cannot and have not substantiated.

              If you are going to use the word, may I suggest some research?Most translations of the Bible use the word fool instead of idiot. Nevertheless, the Bible does have a lot to say about idiot behavior, especially the Book of Proverbs. Therefore, if you want to learn how to deal with idiots, that is a great place to start.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. “If I don’t know something, I try avoid speaking about it just because my pride demands I say something.”

              Really? That’s a thoroughly fascinating observation coming from the man who says “evolution has never been proven,” and “The Theory of Evolution produces no applications, no therapies, no technologies, no knowledge of any kind.”

              Tildeb might have more patience that me in explaining that without the working understanding of evolution (without gene theory) we would have neither antibiotics nor vaccines, including mosaic vaccines. We would not have GM food or GM livestock. Although morally reprehensible, animal testing of new medications and treatments would be impossible. We wouldn’t be able to test for genetic diseases, like breast cancer. We wouldn’t know how to slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, nor could we more effectively design breeding programs that maximise crop yields and quality. He might even want to explain the applications of genetic algorithms in engineering, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, geophysics, materials and systems engineering. Indeed, he might want to tell you how without the Theory of Evolution we would not have modern biology. The two are inseparable.

              He might, but I doubt it. I doubt it for the same reasons I couldn’t be bothered. To repeat: arguing with complete idiots who celebrate their ignorance is pointless.

              Perhaps you haven’t noticed, CT, but SOM is not coming to your rescue here. Want to know why? Because he thinks you’re an idiot, too. In fact, I’m almost certain he’s cringing every time you pen a ridiculous, ill-informed, anti-science comment. You’re merely confirming what he already thinks of evangelicals, that you’re “an incoherent mess”. I would add, an ignorant incoherent mess.

              That being said, celebrate your ignorance all you like. Purchase Sarah Palin books and dance with your fellow Creationists. Rejoice in your stupidity. I just hope you have no contact whatsoever with children. Your thoughts are diseased.

              Like

            8. The depth and scope of CT’s ignorance stands starkly juxtaposed to his view of himself (and therefore, his view of himself must be correct by self-proclaimed fiat). This dichotomy reveals a level of cluelessness that is a common thread held by creationists and is utterly mind-boggling to anyone who respects what is the case, who respects knowledge and its attainment, an ignorance that cannot be corrected by anyone who does not share certain faith-based tenets CT holds as immutable: tenets such as CT is wise, CT is open-minded, CT is honest, CT wants to know, CT respects what’s true, CT has concluded his beliefs, and so on.

              Never mind that all of these tenets are demonstrably wrong and are empty of any truth value; pointing out how and why they are all wrong is just waved away because they are conflict with his faith-based tenets.

              You see how that works? CT knows evolution is wrong not because it is on merit (it’s an explanation that works in all cases) but because he believes it is wrong first. That’s his starting premise, which – oh, by the way and of remarkable coincidence – is a mirror image time after time of his so-called ‘conclusion’.

              This technique guarantees that CT will maintain the vast ignorance he exhibits, that it will withstand all reality-based incursions, while at the same time fool him into thinking that he is humble and ‘concerned’ about finding out what’s true. Clearly, he cares nothing about any of that; he must maintain his creationist beliefs.

              What any rational person sees from CT is as much depth of ignorance (to stand contrary to a foundational scientific precept that has yielded a richness in new knowledge – like genetics, for example – unequaled in human history) as a towering arrogance to think his contrarian beliefs are equivalent in merit. That is just how clueless he is. And will remain so regardless of anything anyone anywhere at any time can bring forward for his consideration. None of it matters a tinker’s damn to someone utterly committed to a contrarian faith-based view. Reality is wrong but CT knows the truth. That’s idiotic, of course, and CT cannot help but demonstrate this idiocy every time he expresses his beliefs but he’s not alone; this is how creationism survives: not by merit, not by reality, not by evidence, but by faith-based belief.

              And that’s why faith-based belief is the correct target, the root problem, the underlying diseased thinking that requires exposure and treatment so that the next generation can take proper steps to avoid succumbing to this methodological succubus that turns one into an idiot, corrodes critical thinking into faith-based pablum and intellectual integrity into a distant memory.

              Liked by 1 person

            9. @Zande

              You say that without the Theory of Evolution we would not have all kinds of technologies, and I ask, “why not?” You can call me an idiot, but can you answer the question? No. It seems that all you can do is repeat an unsupported assertion.

              It is quite clear how the Bible and its publication contributed to scientific progress, so much so that you have not even challenged the Bible’s importance. Otherwise, don’t we both know you would?

              You may wish to consider this simple observation about truth. It is. Our egos don’t matter. In fact, they get in the way. The truth does not depend upon me. The truth does not depend upon you. The truth does not depend upon who or how many of us hold such and such thing to be true. All we can do is discover the truth.

              How do we discover the truth? We admit our own perspective is too limited. We set aside our pride and consider how things appear to others. Finally, we try to look upon creation from the view point of our Maker. It is then we begin to understand the need to worship Him.

              You, tildeb, silenceofmind, and I are so small. No man who ever lived could comprehend the hugeness and grandeur of Creation. Each of us, like a little child lost in a dark forest, finds himself lost among the stars. Yet because He takes notice of us, we don’t have to be lost. We don’t have to curse. We don’t have to scream in anger or fear. We just have to grasp the hand He has extended to us.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. “It is quite clear how the Bible and its publication contributed to scientific progress”

              That right there is why you should have no contact whatsoever with children.

              Like

            11. @Zande

              That coming from an atheist?

              I suppose I could defend the record of Christianity with respect to children, or I could attack the record of atheists. However, that would allow you your diversion. You cannot support the assertions you have already made, and you cannot refute what I have said about the Bible’s contribution to scientific progress. So what will I do instead?

              In reply to your insults (which do nothing more than display your own character), I will offer this. The Bible teaches that we should each love our neighbor, that each of us, because we belong to our Creator, has inalienable rights. When and where a people have observed these truths, that people has prospered because that people (especially their children) have grown in wisdom and knowledge.

              Liked by 1 person

            12. I make no apologies at all for this. By espousing Creationism (and by doing so denying the uncontested scientific fact of evolution) and expecting anyone to take you seriously, you have forfeited the right to be treated like an adult who is in command of their faculties.

              And again, ask yourself, CT, why isn’t SOM coming to your rescue? Ask yourself: Does he think I’m an ignorant, idiotic imbecile, too?

              The answer is: Yes, he does.

              Like

            13. @Zande and tildeb

              The Nazis and the Communists defended their views with similar logic, and they did so without apology. Then they murdered people by the millions. Undoubtedly, they did it for the sake of the children.

              You guys don’t want to believe in God. That’s your choice. I do believe is the God of the Bible, and I am perfectly willing to explain why. In fact, the Bible says I should. Christians should be able to explain what they believe and why.

              You can get your nose up in the air. You can try to stir of strife between silenceofmind and myself. But you cannot defend what you have said about evolution. Pathetic.

              Liked by 1 person

            14. Scientific Theories (ie. facts) aren’t “views,” you imbecile.

              Like

            15. @tildeb

              Since all you did insult anyone who would dare to disagree with your religious beliefs, the answer I gave Zande should suffice for you too.

              Like

            16. That’s not an answer, CT; it’s another series of empty claims. That’s your faith-based ‘thinking’ in action: ignorance, arrogance, assumption, attribution, assignment, all rationalized into elevating you in your own mind to have access to the Magic Kingdom. Sure, it’s juvenile, puerile and utterly typical religious mewling, but it’s still an idiotic method that, surprising to no one capable of rational thought, produces idiotic utterances. And you keep on delivering.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. SOM, adding to a person’s comment (be it words, or in this case, a picture) is not good form. Please remove it.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. You mean you did not put that there?
          😆

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I cannot tell a lie…

            JOHN DID IT! JOHN DID IT!

            Liked by 2 people

        2. John,

          You and tildeb have fun trolling the Christians.

          I have fun trolling the atheists.

          It’s a terrible, nasty vice I know. But I can’t help it.

          Like

          1. I never alter, edit or delete anyone’s comment. Unlike Citizen Tom, I’m perfectly confident in my position. You, however, have simply lowered your game to his standards here, and that’s nothing to be thrilled about.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Ditto… never altered or deleted anything… but I did edit if asked specifically by the author to make a specific change. This idea that criticizing bad ideas is trolling belongs solely to the faitheists who like to smear atheists because they can’t counter the criticisms on merit.

              Sad, really. And anyone is welcome to criticize on merit anything I write.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. @silenceofmind

            I think zande and tildeb enjoy complaining as much as you (and I) enjoyed the joke.

            I would like to hear Zande explain how he was actually harmed by it.

            Like

    2. It’ s what happens when you can’t allow a Divine Foot in the door. Just ask Richard Lewontin.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Chicagoja, when SoM says ” DNA contains the code for reproducing living creatures and that is reduced (to) an accident… he is demonstrating a lack of understanding about evolution generally and how DNA forms specifically. It is this lack of understanding AND SUBSTITUTING GOD DID IT that demonstrates why it seems to you good biologists don’t include some god to be any factor at all worth considering. There’s nothing knowledgeable to be gained by doing so but there is a very great risk that substituting some kind of ‘answer’ that involves POOF!ism appears to be somehow compatible with science when, in fact, it’s in direct opposition with attaining knowledge and synonymous with elevating ignorance to be an ‘answer’ of equivalency. It’s not. It’s ignorance masquerading behind the guise of religious belief to try to equivalent to knowledge. Those who present this ignorance as such are in effect trying to spread lies and deceit.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I totally agree…that you are the one trying to spread lies and deceit.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Tildeb,

          Nobody knows how the DNA molecule evolved.

          You use the same lapse of reasoning that you accuse me of, namely:

          You don’t know how DNA was engineered and designed so evolution did it.

          You just substitute evolution for God and have no idea what you are talking about.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Perhaps you should read up on the RNA World, SOM.

            And as for the origin of that RNA World, simple autocatalytic molecules marry to create amino acids, amino acids come together to model self-catalysing proteins and enzymes, proteins and enzymes experiment to prototype self-replicating systems where, according to the accepted paradigm of evolutionary biology, there is a continuum from simple to more complex organisms.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. John,

              You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

              I, on the other hand am a student of some of the best and most experienced biochemists in the world.

              Nobody knows how nucleic acids formed nor how they became RNA and DNA.

              Your little ditty from Google is only a conjecture.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Autocatalytic molecules marry to create amino acids, and amino acids are the building blocks of RNA/DNA.

              That’s basic chemistry, my dear fine fellow.

              Like

            3. John,

              Basic chemistry does not address how things got to be the way they are.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. And the Oogity Boogity! you’ve identified as the cause is where?

              Like

            5. Evolution, naturally!

              Like

            6. Seriously, SoM… you claim engineering and design so, show its link to your version of Oogity Boogity that you claim caused it. Show us, SoM.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Yes it does. Chemistry is everything!

              What do you think self-catalysing chemicals do, SOM?

              This is just some of the chemical reactions going on inside a cell

              Like

  7. @SoM

    It is sooooooooo hilarious to hear the perpetual gripes of atheists who say science and God are incompatible. True science will ALWAYS point to the Creator. Always.

    What is ultimately funnier, is how the atheist can say with a straight face to children……….that apes……….yes apes……..taught humans how to tie their shoes.

    WP needs a laugh button, that the godless may enjoy the carnival antics of PT Barnums: there is a sucker born every minute.

    ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ ‘He made the stars also.’ I will say this at every opportunity, that the arrogance of so called ‘serendipitious life,’ appearing without design, purpose, plan,function, or destiny,, exists purely to satisfy they who reject the God above all.

    Oh that men would see they are but tresspassers on another’s property……….fortunately, the Landlord is a bit more patient today…………………..

    Liked by 3 people

    1. True science will ALWAYS point to the Creator. Always.

      Not like the fake kind that doesn’t – you know, like the kind that produces the application and technology you use here to type such an idiotic logic-fail. If only the bible explained why you shouldn’t confuse a premise with a conclusion, you might actually think straight for once. Alas…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Uh tildeb

        You are in more capable hands here with the host and CT, but rest assured, a ‘mind’ that excludes the Creator of all intelligence is a small mind and incapable of thinking straight re. the ‘beginning.’

        Don’t you just hate absolutes? Kinda like the science of arithmetic which points to absolutes and the reliability of God’s word.

        God saw His creation was very good.

        Absolutely!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. When was it “very good,” John? When it was nothing but hard radiations for its first 500 million years (before the age of stars), or the 9 billion years before the earth was formed, or the next 4 billion years before the earth experience the Great oxygen Catastrophe which enabled muscular life? You do know, don’t you, that for about 70% of the earth’s history there was no oxygen. Was that time “good”?

          Like

          1. His creation was very good. Your inuendos and guesses? Eh, not so good.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Will it be “good” when the sun begins to swell in 5 billion years and incinerates the earth? Will it still be “good” when all the hydrogen that ever existed in this universe is exhausted (as it will be one day, that is guaranteed) and the last stars extinguish forever?

              Like

            2. i’m sorry john, but you have no say. Your question is irrelevant, and has no context in reality.

              Rest assured, there are no surprises in God’s creation.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. It’s true. I have no say in the life cycle of our sun. Electron degeneracy pressure rules that mass, and in 5 billion years when our sun has used all its hydrogen, fusion will stop. Sol’s hard-won equilibrium will be thrown and its energy output will no longer be sufficient to push back against the tremendous gravitational forces trying to crush it. The core will collapse and a cataclysmic end will seem unavoidable, but then something astonishing will happen. As the core is compacted the pressure inside will increase and push the temperature out to beyond 100 million degrees, enabling—forcing—our sun to do something it had not been able to do before: it will change its diet. To survive, Sol will begin to fuse helium into carbon and oxygen, and although this will stave off disaster, it will initiate a process that will eventually lead to its total annihilation. That death spiral will consume the earth and much of our solar system. Life here will be extinguished forever. That, John, is guaranteed. And yes, it’s true, I have no say in it.

              Like

            4. It would be best to keep my response from you………it is impossible to talk to a brick wall.

              Like

            5. Only in CS’s world is an open mind and critical thinking synonymous with a brick wall. But then, CS uses his very own language and entertains Himself with his towering arrogant ‘humbleness’.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. So you couldn’t wait to ‘pounce……….’ Great, some one else who agrees with little zande the god man, who KNOWS that in ‘5 billion years………..’

              ………when the ‘great minds’ of science and technology cannot get right a 5 day forecast………Please.

              But I’m pretty certain the towering arrogance abides in the minds of they who say ‘there is no God……..’ thus ousting Him from His own creation.

              Take another look at the title of this post.

              Like

            7. An accurate observation is now a ‘pounce’. Your dictionary would make a fascinating case study of the deleterious effects of religious thinking on Brocca’s area.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. No tildeb, between u and zande, you are becoming increasingly boring.

              Accurate observation? How about the fool says in his heart, there is no God.

              This is accurate. And positively true. And you know it. Your argument is never with believers; it is with God, by whom all things consist.

              Like

            9. “the fool says in his heart, there is no God.”

              You’re the fool.

              “This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

              Sorry John, but you’re going to be punished by the one true God. The Book (the Qur’an) says so.

              Like

            10. Yeah yeah, go ahead and try to put then in the same room. And the Joker says the mountains of the earth grew like brussel sprouts. So what.

              Fortunately the true God has no competitors, and has revealed Himself through nature, the conscience, history, geography, arithmetic, common sense, and of course scripture. And your very blog is proof enough that the scriptures and Christianity are worthy of your disdain, soooooooo unlike allaism.

              I’m guessing SoM may be growing weary of these side trips, so I’ll not serve you more coffee to keep you coming back.

              Like

            11. “This Book is not to be doubted (Qur’an 2:1)

              “He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” (Qur’an 3:85)

              Move towards the light of God, John. The Book is Truth. The Book says so.

              Like

            12. “who KNOWS that in ‘5 billion years………..’”

              Well, yes John, we do know this. You see, we know how much hydrogen is in the sun. We know this by its weight. It’s finite. We also know the rate of fusion. It’s rather simple math then to calculate when the hydrogen will be spent. When it is, the sun’s core will collapse, and as it does our sun will start to fuse helium (the waste product of hydrogen fusion) into carbon. We know this because astronomers are watching the same thing happen right now across the night sky. It’s seen in the light output. Our sun, though, is not massive enough to fuse anything more complex than carbon, so when the helium is spent the core will again collapse (eventually becoming a neutron star), but not before the sun swells to thousands of times its current size, shedding its outer atmosphere. In that 2 billion year-long process every planet out to Saturn will be incinerated… and become a planetary nebular.

              Fact.

              Like

  8. […] of Mind are relatively infrequent, but they are always interesting. silenceofmind‘s latest, How Molecular Biology Proves the Existence of God, proved to be especially good. argues that the code contained in the DNA molecule proves the […]

    Like

  9. Fascinating post Silence, really enjoyed it!

    Like

    1. Pity it’s nonsense 😉

      Like

      1. Nice to see you some things never change JZ…;0

        Liked by 1 person

        1. SOM-I meant my “some things never change” comment about JZ, not about your post being nonsense, which of course it was not.

          Like

  10. Great article. God is truly amazing and perfect in His design.

    Like

Leave a reply to tildeb Cancel reply