Wauw, really, you are free to walk on by and mind your own business. They are not self proclaimed prophets, they are doing what they believe is asked of them by their God. Freedom of speech exists for a reason and preaching the word of God is part of that very same free speech. They don't prey on people they share the Gospel. For someone who is a free thinker you sure go out of your way to make sure that only what you deem to be correct is the right way. And let's for argument's sake say that hell does exist, would you not want to hear about being able to get saved. And even if it does not exist, why bother airing your subjective opinion about something that annoys you mostly. Have you ever bothered or stop to think about the fact that these people actually want people to hear the Gospel. Have you ever bothered to read their bible, do you know about what they preach or are you just annoyed and that's it. Have you ever even bothered to ask them why they do, what they do? Have you as a free thinker ever started a real conversation and asked them why they do it? I highly doubt it, you are so absolutely sure about how you feel and let your annoyance get in the way of true free thought. You are probably of the mindset that you can clearly think for yourself, as long as nobody tells me their views or opinions. Or God forbid challenges your status quo. May God have mercy on your soul.
First off, I find it amusing that you tell me to “walk on by and mind my own business” while simultaneously defending people who preach unsolicited, unprovable claims in public spaces. If someone wants to broadcast their beliefs, they’re fair game for critique. Freedom of speech works both ways: they can preach, and I can point out the flaws in their reasoning. Hiding behind “freedom of speech” doesn’t make their message immune to scrutiny. Sharing the Gospel might be part of their beliefs, but beliefs don’t get a free pass from criticism just because they’re religious. Next, your assertion that they “don’t prey on people” but simply “share the Gospel” is naïve at best. Evangelizing often targets vulnerable people-those going through tough times or seeking answers-and it promises them unprovable rewards like eternal life or salvation. That’s emotional manipulation, plain and simple. If someone is in a desperate situation, using their hardship to push unverifiable religious claims isn’t noble; it’s exploitative. The hypothetical about hell existing doesn’t help your case either. If hell is real, the burden of proof is on you to show that it exists, not on me to refute it. Arguing “what if” is meaningless without evidence-it’s the same as saying, “What if there’s a magical unicorn that saves people from doom?” You wouldn’t take that seriously without proof, so why should I do the same for hell? Your entire point hinges on fear, not reason. You also seem to think my annoyance stems from a lack of understanding about what these people believe. On the contrary, I’ve likely heard their arguments more times than I can count, and they all share the same problem: they rely on faith instead of evidence. Asking someone why they do what they do is pointless when the answer boils down to “I believe it’s true.” Belief alone doesn’t justify preaching at others, and it certainly doesn’t make the claims valid. Finally, your attempt to discredit me as a “freethinker” is ironic. Freethought isn’t about rejecting ideas out of annoyance; it’s about rejecting ideas that lack evidence and reasoning. If you want to challenge my “status quo,” bring something other than tired, unproven claims. Invoking “God have mercy on your soul” is just another appeal to fear and emotion-a tactic that’s antithetical to free thought. If you want me to take your points seriously, drop the baseless threats and focus on presenting evidence. Until then, your argument is as hollow as the faith you’re trying to defend. And by the way, which God? Demonstrate that any god exists by using tangible evidence that can be measured, tested, analyzed or verified. Quoting scripture and using anecdotes are not evidence to support your unproven claim.
@@FreethinkerJourney there is no proof, of course there is, and it's not all by faith. You are saved by faith alone. You want proof, a design implies a designer. If you see a painting you know it was created, same goes with each and every thing around you. Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer. Every archeological dig ever done, only prioves the bibles historicity not once has it disproven anything that happened historically within biblical context. Let me continue about 2000 prophecies were done in the bible out of which over 1800 came out and to the letter. If that were to be scientific eveidence or considered as such it would be 80% accurate at which point it becomes fact or truth in a certain way. "There is a kind of religion in science: it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as 'refusing to speculate' - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker. .. At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." p113-114, 116 God and the Astronomers written by Robert Jastrow New York and London, W. W. Norton, 1978 "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow In response to Einstein's comment when his equations implied a beginning of space and time "irritates me". : "This is curiously emotional language for a discussion of some mathematical formulas. .. I suppose that idea of a beginning in time annoyed Einstein because of its theological implications." Let's go a bit deeper. Truth remains truth regardless of your opinion or assumption, there are two genders, how else can we procreate, murder is evil. Objective and testable truth. To name just a few. As when we would all murder and if we would all do it nothing is left. “Take away religion, take away philosophy, take away the higher aims of art, and you deprive ordinary people of the ways in which they can represent their apartness. Human nature, once something to live up to, becomes something to live down to instead. Biological reductionism nurtures this ‘living down’, which is why people so readily fall for it. It makes cynicism respectable and degeneracy chic. It abolishes our kind, and with it our kindness.” It makes for a shallow person and thinker. Design always implies a designer, without it nothing would exist. Evolution only needs two miracles, just to keep it simple for argument's sake. As many more are needed in fact. But nothing made everything and time will do the rest. I have too little faith for those things to be assumed as the truth. The eye alone in and of itself challenges even the most devout atheist scientist. Let me go even deeper. You're just not wise enough to generate a whole system of universally applicable values, morals and objective truth out of whole cloth in the span of your trivial life. Nor can the entire human species conjure up such a feat, It has to be there from the inception of life itself for it to function and work at all. 0,001% less nitrogen and we cease to be, 1% less gravity and we would not exist, the moon only 1 meter further away and we would not be here. All organisms here on earth serve as food for the other, from the blade of grass ro the smallest bacteria, they are incredibly fine-tuned. The entire universe we know of is like that. That is a moral and universal truth, and it has to be there. And for it to be there, there has to be a lawgiver, who is all knowing, eternal, all powerful and almighty, for it to be universally true and incorruptible, objective truth. And if you know you're the one doing that, or we’re able to do that, then you reduce life to a game. You have created the meaning of life. Then ask yourself this; Well, who is the creator? You, we? What gives you the right to do that? What gives you the power to do that? You did not create the universe. How can you write the laws of morality any more than you can write the laws of physics? You can't just impose them, you have to discover those values. They are in fact observed not created, that is the entire point. They are already there for us to witness and observe, we don't create?! We know the recipe of water, but we can’t create it. The search for truth is a real search... Only to find out that God created them for all of us. By implying there is no God, or omniscient, eternal, all knowing, loving and truthful God, you have made yourself into just that, the omniscient God. And by denying him you just become him. It a self defeating argument, my friend. You can't have cake and eat it too. Let me give you some scripture to ponder about. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own. 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. Psalm 139:13-14 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful,I know that full well. Romans 2:12-16 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Jeremiah 29:11 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. “I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world- and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.” Charles Colson a.k.a. the hatchet man God is the answer that has always been hiding in plain sight and who has always been there. May God bless you, my friend.
@@Lalaland.001 First, let’s talk about your claim that "design implies a designer." This is a classic argument, often referred to as the teleological argument. The problem is, it assumes that complexity must always be the result of intelligent design, without addressing natural processes like evolution, which clearly show that complexity can arise naturally through time, adaptation, and environmental pressures. Just because something appears to be designed doesn't mean it was. The example of a painting is faulty because, unlike the natural world, we know the artist who created the painting. You can’t apply that logic to the universe, as we don’t know who or what “designed” it-if it was designed at all. You also mention that “every archaeological dig proves the Bible’s historicity.” This is misleading at best. Archaeological evidence supports some aspects of the Bible’s historical context, but that doesn’t mean it proves the supernatural events described within it. The presence of cities mentioned in the Bible or the existence of ancient peoples doesn’t prove divine intervention or miraculous events. Correlating historical facts with mythology doesn’t make those myths true. The next point you bring up is even more problematic: the argument about prophecies. You claim that “2000 prophecies were done in the Bible, and over 1800 came true.” This is simply not true. Many of the so-called prophecies are vague, retrospective interpretations of events. For example, predicting the rise and fall of empires or natural disasters is not evidence of divine foresight, but rather a reflection of the ability to predict based on historical patterns. And let’s not forget that many prophecies have failed entirely, so this selective counting of successes only shows bias. Then, you attempt to draw a parallel between the Big Bang and Genesis, quoting Robert Jastrow to support your argument. But here’s the thing: Jastrow himself didn’t make the claim you’re trying to make. His work in astronomy is about observing the scientific evidence for the origins of the universe, not about proving Genesis right. The Big Bang theory, while still being refined, does not provide evidence for any divine creator. You’re misapplying his words to support your position, which only weakens your argument. Now, let’s tackle your claim that objective truth can only come from a divine being. You’re asserting that the laws of physics, biology, and morality must come from some higher power. But why? Why can’t we explain the laws of nature through empirical evidence and rational thought? Why must morality come from a divine source? Morality evolves through society, culture, and human interaction-not from divine command. The fact that societies around the world have independently developed systems of ethics and morality undermines the idea that morality is objectively derived from a god. And then there’s the incredibly arrogant implication that I, as an atheist, must be “just not wise enough” to understand your worldview. I find it deeply condescending that you assume I haven’t thought deeply about these issues just because my conclusions differ from yours. The reality is that I don’t need a supernatural being to explain the universe or morality. Human intelligence, compassion, and reason are sufficient to navigate the complexities of existence. You’re essentially arguing that humanity cannot come to its own conclusions without a higher power-a view that infantilizes human progress. Your final point about the universe being "fine-tuned" for life is another example of a flawed argument. Just because the conditions on Earth are conducive to life doesn’t mean it was designed. The universe is vast, and life as we know it is but a tiny blip in the grand scheme. The notion that Earth was specially created to support life ignores the vast number of planets that may or may not host life and the vast emptiness of the universe that seems far from “fine-tuned.” You claim that by rejecting God, I’ve somehow become a self-declared omniscient deity. This is an absurd claim. Just because I don’t believe in a god doesn’t mean I think I know everything or control the universe. It’s a ridiculous strawman argument that assumes atheism is about hubris, when in fact it’s about recognizing the limits of human knowledge and understanding that we must build our moral and ethical systems on evidence, reason, and empathy, not on ancient texts or unverifiable claims. Finally, your closing remark, "May God bless you," is both condescending and demeaning. It’s not a warm, compassionate blessing-it’s a veiled attempt to undermine my worldview by implying I’m somehow in need of divine intervention. That’s not kindness; it’s superiority disguised as pity. You’ve failed to demonstrate any actual proof for the existence of a god, and your arguments rest on assumptions, fallacies, and selective interpretation of evidence. If you want to have a true discussion, it needs to be based on facts, logic, and a willingness to question your own beliefs as much as you question mine. I'll think for you. Have a great day!
@@FreethinkerJourney By claiming he does not exist, you bocome the.very thing you claim to not exist. it's a self defeating argument. Don't understand how you do not get that simple yet pungeant clear point. By defeating an enemy you have now become said enemy. For what it's worth you lack basic understanding that even the modern scientist's have to agree upon, evolution is not key and there is zero proof that evolution is even possible. Micro evolution might by means of adaption, but evolution itself is a pipedream. Never in the history of mankind, has it ever been proven! Even Darwin had to contend with the impossibbility of the eye, on which I will elaborate. Let me ask you, is there proof, actual proof that a species, evolved into another species. And no not talking missing link and goldielocks circumstances that allow for monkey to suddenly become different monkey. No I mean one species to another. There is none/zero. Big bang is just not possible as we just found out that even the infinite has boundaries. Evolutionists need only a plthjora of miracles,e.g. one being nothing suddenly created everything. chaos becomes reason, immorality creates morality and time will do the rest. Also the odds on the eye having devoloped by sheer coincidence is talking about odds beyond our feeble comprehension. The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision. In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer: While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that: It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296) Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over 100,000 different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function. Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein. Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English. Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 × 1/27 × 1/27-for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a “virtual certainty” compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance! The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 × 10600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion cubic light years (about 1 × 10150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years! Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution). Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said: The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. I will leave it to you, miss know it all to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye. You're taking leaps of faith back there in order to get back here to make that argument, that presupposition has been tried before and it has led to catastrophe, Mine is based on presuppositions as well but has led to western civilisation. I'm not coming at this blind, I choose to believe in the bible, because it's a reliable collection of historical documents writtten by eyewitnesses, during the time of other eyewitnesses, they report supernatural events that took place in fullfillment of specific prophecies and they claim their writings are divine rather then human in origin. My assertion of something coming from God lead to western civilisation as we know it, your assertion has only lead us to the choas and destruction we have today. And stop taking everything so incredibly personal, you are on the internet and are having a conversation, things you experience as condescending are just factually correct and not just my opinion all you have to do is deal with that. Also I think you need to look up the definition of predotory as street preacher are not predatory in the least, but well meaning individuals who do anything but prey on the weak, they seek to give them some form of solace and hope, something you could use lots of. You seem lost, unhappy, very hurt, full of resentment, pent-up issues and you sound very lonely. Why else would you react in such a pedantic manner.. May God have mercy on your soul, be well and be blessed.
@@FreethinkerJourney By claiming he does not exist, you bocome the.very thing you claim to not exist. it's a self defeating argument. Don't understand how you do not get that simple yet pungeant clear point. By defeating an enemy you have now become said enemy. For what it's worth you lack basic understanding that even the modern scientist's have to agree upon, evolution is not key and there is zero proof that evolution is even possible. Micro evolution might by means of adaption, but evolution itself is a pipedream. Never in the history of mankind, has it ever been proven! Even Darwin had to contend with the impossibbility of the eye, on which I will elaborate. Let me ask you, is there proof, actual proof that a species, evolved into another species. And no not talking missing link and goldielocks circumstances that allow for monkey to suddenly become different monkey. No I mean one species to another. There is none/zero. Big bang is just not possible as we just found out that even the infinite has boundaries. Evolutionists need only a plthjora of miracles,e.g. one being nothing suddenly created everything. chaos becomes reason, immorality creates morality and time will do the rest. Also the odds on the eye having devoloped by sheer coincidence is talking about odds beyond our feeble comprehension. The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision. In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer: While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that: It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296) Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over 100,000 different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function. Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein. Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English. Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 × 1/27 × 1/27-for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a “virtual certainty” compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance! The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 × 10600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion cubic light years (about 1 × 10150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years! Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution). Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said: The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. I will leave it to you, miss know it all to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye. You're taking leaps of faith back there in order to get back here to make that argument, that presupposition has been tried before and it has led to catastrophe, Mine is based on presuppositions as well but has led to western civilisation. I'm not coming at this blind, I choose to believe in the bible, because it's a reliable collection of historical documents writtten by eyewitnesses, during the time of other eyewitnesses, they report supernatural events that took place in fullfillment of specific prophecies and they claim their writings are divine rather then human in origin. My assertion of something coming from God lead to western civilisation as we know it, your assertion has only lead us to the choas and destruction we have today. And stop taking everything so incredibly personal, you are on the internet and are having a conversation, things you experience as condescending are just factually correct and not just my opinion all you have to do is deal with that. Also I think you need to look up the definition of predotory as street preacher are not predatory in the least, but well meaning individuals who do anything but prey on the weak, they seek to give them some form of solace and hope, something you could use lots of. You seem lost, unhappy, very hurt, full of resentment, pent-up issues and you sound very lonely. Why else would you react in such a pedantic manner.. May God have mercy on your soul, be well and be blessed.
"I can think for myself as long as nobody challenges me."
Alright.
Hmm.
Atheists are Just Rebelling against God: th-cam.com/video/josh1_WN9Xg/w-d-xo.html
😂🤣
I must have hit a nerve with you.
L video
According to you.
Wauw, really, you are free to walk on by and mind your own business. They are not self proclaimed prophets, they are doing what they believe is asked of them by their God.
Freedom of speech exists for a reason and preaching the word of God is part of that very same free speech.
They don't prey on people they share the Gospel.
For someone who is a free thinker you sure go out of your way to make sure that only what you deem to be correct is the right way.
And let's for argument's sake say that hell does exist, would you not want to hear about being able to get saved.
And even if it does not exist, why bother airing your subjective opinion about something that annoys you mostly.
Have you ever bothered or stop to think about the fact that these people actually want people to hear the Gospel.
Have you ever bothered to read their bible, do you know about what they preach or are you just annoyed and that's it.
Have you ever even bothered to ask them why they do, what they do?
Have you as a free thinker ever started a real conversation and asked them why they do it?
I highly doubt it, you are so absolutely sure about how you feel and let your annoyance get in the way of true free thought.
You are probably of the mindset that you can clearly think for yourself, as long as nobody tells me their views or opinions.
Or God forbid challenges your status quo.
May God have mercy on your soul.
First off, I find it amusing that you tell me to “walk on by and mind my own business” while simultaneously defending people who preach unsolicited, unprovable claims in public spaces. If someone wants to broadcast their beliefs, they’re fair game for critique. Freedom of speech works both ways: they can preach, and I can point out the flaws in their reasoning. Hiding behind “freedom of speech” doesn’t make their message immune to scrutiny. Sharing the Gospel might be part of their beliefs, but beliefs don’t get a free pass from criticism just because they’re religious.
Next, your assertion that they “don’t prey on people” but simply “share the Gospel” is naïve at best. Evangelizing often targets vulnerable people-those going through tough times or seeking answers-and it promises them unprovable rewards like eternal life or salvation. That’s emotional manipulation, plain and simple. If someone is in a desperate situation, using their hardship to push unverifiable religious claims isn’t noble; it’s exploitative.
The hypothetical about hell existing doesn’t help your case either. If hell is real, the burden of proof is on you to show that it exists, not on me to refute it. Arguing “what if” is meaningless without evidence-it’s the same as saying, “What if there’s a magical unicorn that saves people from doom?” You wouldn’t take that seriously without proof, so why should I do the same for hell? Your entire point hinges on fear, not reason.
You also seem to think my annoyance stems from a lack of understanding about what these people believe. On the contrary, I’ve likely heard their arguments more times than I can count, and they all share the same problem: they rely on faith instead of evidence. Asking someone why they do what they do is pointless when the answer boils down to “I believe it’s true.” Belief alone doesn’t justify preaching at others, and it certainly doesn’t make the claims valid.
Finally, your attempt to discredit me as a “freethinker” is ironic. Freethought isn’t about rejecting ideas out of annoyance; it’s about rejecting ideas that lack evidence and reasoning. If you want to challenge my “status quo,” bring something other than tired, unproven claims. Invoking “God have mercy on your soul” is just another appeal to fear and emotion-a tactic that’s antithetical to free thought. If you want me to take your points seriously, drop the baseless threats and focus on presenting evidence. Until then, your argument is as hollow as the faith you’re trying to defend.
And by the way, which God? Demonstrate that any god exists by using tangible evidence that can be measured, tested, analyzed or verified. Quoting scripture and using anecdotes are not evidence to support your unproven claim.
@@FreethinkerJourney there is no proof, of course there is, and it's not all by faith.
You are saved by faith alone.
You want proof, a design implies a designer.
If you see a painting you know it was created, same goes with each and every thing around you.
Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer.
Every archeological dig ever done, only prioves the bibles historicity not once has it disproven anything that happened historically within biblical context.
Let me continue about 2000 prophecies were done in the bible out of which over 1800 came out and to the letter.
If that were to be scientific eveidence or considered as such it would be 80% accurate at which point it becomes fact or truth in a certain way.
"There is a kind of religion in science: it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event .
This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover.
When that happens, the scientist has lost control.
If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as 'refusing to speculate' - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker. ..
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." p113-114, 116 God and the Astronomers written by Robert Jastrow New York and London, W. W. Norton, 1978 "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow In response to Einstein's comment when his equations implied a beginning of space and time "irritates me". :
"This is curiously emotional language for a discussion of some mathematical formulas. ..
I suppose that idea of a beginning in time annoyed Einstein because of its theological implications." Let's go a bit deeper. Truth remains truth regardless of your opinion or assumption, there are two genders, how else can we procreate, murder is evil. Objective and testable truth. To name just a few. As when we would all murder and if we would all do it nothing is left.
“Take away religion, take away philosophy, take away the higher aims of art, and you deprive ordinary people of the ways in which they can represent their apartness. Human nature, once something to live up to, becomes something to live down to instead. Biological reductionism nurtures this ‘living down’, which is why people so readily fall for it. It makes cynicism respectable and degeneracy chic.
It abolishes our kind, and with it our kindness.” It makes for a shallow person and thinker. Design always implies a designer, without it nothing would exist. Evolution only needs two miracles, just to keep it simple for argument's sake. As many more are needed in fact. But nothing made everything and time will do the rest. I have too little faith for those things to be assumed as the truth. The eye alone in and of itself challenges even the most devout atheist scientist. Let me go even deeper. You're just not wise enough to generate a whole system of universally applicable values, morals and objective truth out of whole cloth in the span of your trivial life. Nor can the entire human species conjure up such a feat, It has to be there from the inception of life itself for it to function and work at all. 0,001% less nitrogen and we cease to be, 1% less gravity and we would not exist, the moon only 1 meter further away and we would not be here. All organisms here on earth serve as food for the other, from the blade of grass ro the smallest bacteria, they are incredibly fine-tuned. The entire universe we know of is like that. That is a moral and universal truth, and it has to be there. And for it to be there, there has to be a lawgiver, who is all knowing, eternal, all powerful and almighty, for it to be universally true and incorruptible, objective truth. And if you know you're the one doing that, or we’re able to do that, then you reduce life to a game. You have created the meaning of life. Then ask yourself this; Well, who is the creator? You, we? What gives you the right to do that? What gives you the power to do that? You did not create the universe. How can you write the laws of morality any more than you can write the laws of physics? You can't just impose them, you have to discover those values. They are in fact observed not created, that is the entire point. They are already there for us to witness and observe, we don't create?! We know the recipe of water, but we can’t create it.
The search for truth is a real search...
Only to find out that God created them for all of us. By implying there is no God, or omniscient, eternal, all knowing, loving and truthful God, you have made yourself into just that, the omniscient God.
And by denying him you just become him.
It a self defeating argument, my friend.
You can't have cake and eat it too. Let me give you some scripture to ponder about.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own. 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Psalm 139:13-14
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful,I know that full well.
Romans 2:12-16
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Jeremiah 29:11 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me.
How?
Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true.
Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world- and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.” Charles Colson a.k.a. the hatchet man God is the answer that has always been hiding in plain sight and who has always been there.
May God bless you, my friend.
@@Lalaland.001 First, let’s talk about your claim that "design implies a designer." This is a classic argument, often referred to as the teleological argument. The problem is, it assumes that complexity must always be the result of intelligent design, without addressing natural processes like evolution, which clearly show that complexity can arise naturally through time, adaptation, and environmental pressures. Just because something appears to be designed doesn't mean it was. The example of a painting is faulty because, unlike the natural world, we know the artist who created the painting. You can’t apply that logic to the universe, as we don’t know who or what “designed” it-if it was designed at all.
You also mention that “every archaeological dig proves the Bible’s historicity.” This is misleading at best. Archaeological evidence supports some aspects of the Bible’s historical context, but that doesn’t mean it proves the supernatural events described within it. The presence of cities mentioned in the Bible or the existence of ancient peoples doesn’t prove divine intervention or miraculous events. Correlating historical facts with mythology doesn’t make those myths true.
The next point you bring up is even more problematic: the argument about prophecies. You claim that “2000 prophecies were done in the Bible, and over 1800 came true.” This is simply not true. Many of the so-called prophecies are vague, retrospective interpretations of events. For example, predicting the rise and fall of empires or natural disasters is not evidence of divine foresight, but rather a reflection of the ability to predict based on historical patterns. And let’s not forget that many prophecies have failed entirely, so this selective counting of successes only shows bias.
Then, you attempt to draw a parallel between the Big Bang and Genesis, quoting Robert Jastrow to support your argument. But here’s the thing: Jastrow himself didn’t make the claim you’re trying to make. His work in astronomy is about observing the scientific evidence for the origins of the universe, not about proving Genesis right. The Big Bang theory, while still being refined, does not provide evidence for any divine creator. You’re misapplying his words to support your position, which only weakens your argument.
Now, let’s tackle your claim that objective truth can only come from a divine being. You’re asserting that the laws of physics, biology, and morality must come from some higher power. But why? Why can’t we explain the laws of nature through empirical evidence and rational thought? Why must morality come from a divine source? Morality evolves through society, culture, and human interaction-not from divine command. The fact that societies around the world have independently developed systems of ethics and morality undermines the idea that morality is objectively derived from a god.
And then there’s the incredibly arrogant implication that I, as an atheist, must be “just not wise enough” to understand your worldview. I find it deeply condescending that you assume I haven’t thought deeply about these issues just because my conclusions differ from yours. The reality is that I don’t need a supernatural being to explain the universe or morality. Human intelligence, compassion, and reason are sufficient to navigate the complexities of existence. You’re essentially arguing that humanity cannot come to its own conclusions without a higher power-a view that infantilizes human progress.
Your final point about the universe being "fine-tuned" for life is another example of a flawed argument. Just because the conditions on Earth are conducive to life doesn’t mean it was designed. The universe is vast, and life as we know it is but a tiny blip in the grand scheme. The notion that Earth was specially created to support life ignores the vast number of planets that may or may not host life and the vast emptiness of the universe that seems far from “fine-tuned.”
You claim that by rejecting God, I’ve somehow become a self-declared omniscient deity. This is an absurd claim. Just because I don’t believe in a god doesn’t mean I think I know everything or control the universe. It’s a ridiculous strawman argument that assumes atheism is about hubris, when in fact it’s about recognizing the limits of human knowledge and understanding that we must build our moral and ethical systems on evidence, reason, and empathy, not on ancient texts or unverifiable claims.
Finally, your closing remark, "May God bless you," is both condescending and demeaning. It’s not a warm, compassionate blessing-it’s a veiled attempt to undermine my worldview by implying I’m somehow in need of divine intervention. That’s not kindness; it’s superiority disguised as pity.
You’ve failed to demonstrate any actual proof for the existence of a god, and your arguments rest on assumptions, fallacies, and selective interpretation of evidence. If you want to have a true discussion, it needs to be based on facts, logic, and a willingness to question your own beliefs as much as you question mine.
I'll think for you. Have a great day!
@@FreethinkerJourney
By claiming he does not exist, you bocome the.very thing you claim to not exist. it's a self defeating argument.
Don't understand how you do not get that simple yet pungeant clear point.
By defeating an enemy you have now become said enemy.
For what it's worth you lack basic understanding that even the modern scientist's have to agree upon, evolution is not key and there is zero proof that evolution is even possible.
Micro evolution might by means of adaption, but evolution itself is a pipedream.
Never in the history of mankind, has it ever been proven!
Even Darwin had to contend with the impossibbility of the eye, on which I will elaborate.
Let me ask you, is there proof, actual proof that a species, evolved into another species.
And no not talking missing link and goldielocks circumstances that allow for monkey to suddenly become different monkey.
No I mean one species to another. There is none/zero.
Big bang is just not possible as we just found out that even the infinite has boundaries.
Evolutionists need only a plthjora of miracles,e.g. one being nothing suddenly created everything. chaos becomes reason, immorality creates morality and time will do the rest.
Also the odds on the eye having devoloped by sheer coincidence is talking about odds beyond our feeble comprehension. The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision.
In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer: While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.
If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that:
It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296)
Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over 100,000 different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.
Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.
Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.
Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 × 1/27 × 1/27-for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a “virtual certainty” compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!
The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 × 10600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion cubic light years (about 1 × 10150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!
Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution). Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said:
The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete.
I will leave it to you, miss know it all to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.
You're taking leaps of faith back there in order to get back here to make that argument, that presupposition has been tried before and it has led to catastrophe,
Mine is based on presuppositions as well but has led to western civilisation. I'm not coming at this blind, I choose to believe in the bible, because it's a reliable collection of historical documents writtten by eyewitnesses, during the time of other eyewitnesses, they report supernatural events that took place in fullfillment of specific prophecies and they claim their writings are divine rather then human in origin.
My assertion of something coming from God lead to western civilisation as we know it, your assertion has only lead us to the choas and destruction we have today.
And stop taking everything so incredibly personal, you are on the internet and are having a conversation, things you experience as condescending are just factually correct and not just my opinion all you have to do is deal with that.
Also I think you need to look up the definition of predotory as street preacher are not predatory in the least, but well meaning individuals who do anything but prey on the weak, they seek to give them some form of solace and hope, something you could use lots of. You seem lost, unhappy, very hurt, full of resentment, pent-up issues and you sound very lonely.
Why else would you react in such a pedantic manner..
May God have mercy on your soul, be well and be blessed.
@@FreethinkerJourney
By claiming he does not exist, you bocome the.very thing you claim to not exist. it's a self defeating argument.
Don't understand how you do not get that simple yet pungeant clear point.
By defeating an enemy you have now become said enemy.
For what it's worth you lack basic understanding that even the modern scientist's have to agree upon, evolution is not key and there is zero proof that evolution is even possible.
Micro evolution might by means of adaption, but evolution itself is a pipedream.
Never in the history of mankind, has it ever been proven!
Even Darwin had to contend with the impossibbility of the eye, on which I will elaborate.
Let me ask you, is there proof, actual proof that a species, evolved into another species.
And no not talking missing link and goldielocks circumstances that allow for monkey to suddenly become different monkey.
No I mean one species to another. There is none/zero.
Big bang is just not possible as we just found out that even the infinite has boundaries.
Evolutionists need only a plthjora of miracles,e.g. one being nothing suddenly created everything. chaos becomes reason, immorality creates morality and time will do the rest.
Also the odds on the eye having devoloped by sheer coincidence is talking about odds beyond our feeble comprehension. The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision.
In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer: While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.
If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that:
It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296)
Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over 100,000 different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.
Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.
Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.
Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 × 1/27 × 1/27-for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a “virtual certainty” compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!
The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 × 10600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion cubic light years (about 1 × 10150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!
Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution). Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said:
The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete.
I will leave it to you, miss know it all to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.
You're taking leaps of faith back there in order to get back here to make that argument, that presupposition has been tried before and it has led to catastrophe,
Mine is based on presuppositions as well but has led to western civilisation. I'm not coming at this blind, I choose to believe in the bible, because it's a reliable collection of historical documents writtten by eyewitnesses, during the time of other eyewitnesses, they report supernatural events that took place in fullfillment of specific prophecies and they claim their writings are divine rather then human in origin.
My assertion of something coming from God lead to western civilisation as we know it, your assertion has only lead us to the choas and destruction we have today.
And stop taking everything so incredibly personal, you are on the internet and are having a conversation, things you experience as condescending are just factually correct and not just my opinion all you have to do is deal with that.
Also I think you need to look up the definition of predotory as street preacher are not predatory in the least, but well meaning individuals who do anything but prey on the weak, they seek to give them some form of solace and hope, something you could use lots of. You seem lost, unhappy, very hurt, full of resentment, pent-up issues and you sound very lonely.
Why else would you react in such a pedantic manner..
May God have mercy on your soul, be well and be blessed.