Can Non-Life Produce Life?

[InTruth]

To maintain your belief in atheism, you would have to believe nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness and non-reason produces reason. How can you still have enough faith to believe this? Therefore, the most logical and reasonable thing you could do is take a step of faith not against the evidence but towards the direction the evidence is pointing which is a logical thing we do every day in various ways and put your faith in Jesus Christ.

Debate with William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Dennison (Sponsored by The Christian Book Expo and Christianity Today),

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/CT-Expo-Panel/ (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/CT-Expo-Panel/)
or
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=41178da2dab2e1e83d93 (http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=41178da2dab2e1e83d93)

William Lane Craig makes 7 points...


The Biblical God Exists Rather than Nothing or Something Always Existing Because:

1) Whatever exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence that explanation is best explained to be God. The universe, obviously, exists. From that it follows, if the universe has an explanation of its existence then God exists.

2) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Philosophical and scientific evidence shows the universe began to exist. What follows is a transcendent cause beyond the universe of space and time which brought the universe into being form nothing.

3) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design. It's improbable and implausible that it is due to necessity or sheer chance from which it follows it must be due to design.

4) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. These values and duties are obligatory and binding independently of whether anybody believes them or not. Objective moral values and duties do exist. In our moral experience we do apprehend such values. From which it follows necessarily and logically God does exist.

5) The ontological argument (essential properties of a being) says if it is even possible God exist then God exists. God is a maximally great being. There can be nothing greater than God. A maximally great being would be omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect in every possible world. If it is possible there is a being like that, it follows there is a world for which a maximally great being exists. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, he exists for all possible worlds, including our actual world or universe. Therefore, it reasonable to believe that God exists. So, if it is even possible God exists, then He must exist. An atheist would have to not only deny God exists but would have to disprove that it is even possible for God to exist. The atheist utterly fails in this attempt.

6) Jesus radical personal claim and resurrection from the dead is the revelation of the Creator God of the universe that is apprehended through the arguments of natural theology that the best explanation for the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances and the origin of the disciples belief in Jesus' resurrection, is that God raised Jesus from the dead because Jesus is God. It therefore follows that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

7) God can be known immediately through personal experience. Philosophers call this properly basic beliefs. They are not based on deeper esoteric inferences or hidden secret knowledge but are foundational to a person's system of basic beliefs. These are not arbitrary, but grounded in daily experience and that's what makes them properly basic. A person who knows God, who has a personal relationship with Him, the belief that God exists is a properly basic belief grounded in his experience of God; and therefore, it is both rational and justified to believe God exists in a properly basic way.

An atheist will accept nothing as proof for God's existence and parlor tricks, of course, don't count. But a Christian will accept nothing as proof for God's non-existence because you can't prove something happens all by itself in nature or disprove the exponential progression of conscience. So what then? It all hinges on the resurrection. If no naturalistic explanation fits the data for the resurrection claim, then Jesus is God. A Christian will accept Jesus is not God if a naturalistic explanation can be put forward that fits the data, but an atheist will not accept the proof Jesus is God if they can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data accepted by skeptical scholars. But Hitchens said the golden rule is to treat others as he would like to be treated, yet he has a double standard. So here is an example of Hitches breaking his own moral values showing that objective moral values don't exist in atheism, since objective moral values don't exist without God.

An atheists has a double standard because he accuses the system of God, but the system obviously nonetheless exists anyway, so he is really accusing atheism. Why is an atheist allowed to accuse God for the system but not atheism for the events of nature that take place anyway? Makes no sense. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

[DD2014]

Synthetic Life


A common argument used by theists to support their belief in God, is that life is so complicated that it could have only been made by God. Often this is accompanied with the assertion that there is a "vital force" that separates inanimate objects from living things, and that God is the source of this "vital force". This philosophy, called "vitalism", has now been totally discredited. The following research report in the highly respected peer-reviewed journal Science details the de novo creation of a complete functional virus from synthetic chemicals.
Some people will probably say that a virus is not a living thing, but that all depends on how you define life. Clearly a simple virus is not as complex as a mammal, but it does have much more properties associated with living things than properties associated with inanimate objects. For example viruses reproduce, evolve, contain genetic information, and have a life cycle. These are characteristics in common with a pet dog, not a pet rock.
Even today, the study of chemistry is divided into "organic" and "inorganic" chemistry. This is a throwback to an era when it was believed that only living things could create the carbon bonds that define the difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. This has been discredited in 1828, when Wöhler synthesized urea. The year 2002 marks another milestone in science, with man's first creation of a virus, a living thing, from nonliving material.
I have copied the complete article here along with the author's supplemental material at the end.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________


Copyright © 2002 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science


Volume 297(5583) 9 August 2002 pp 1016-1018


Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template


[Research: Reports]


Cello, Jeronimo; Paul, Aniko V.; Wimmer, Eckard*
Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, School of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5222, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ewimmer@ms.cc.sunysb.edu
Supporting Online Material: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1072266/DC1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1072266/DC1%20); Materials and Methods; Fig. S1; References and Notes
26 March 2002; accepted 25 June 2002
Published online 11 July 2002; 10.1126/science.1072266
Include this information when citing this paper.
Abstract
Full-length poliovirus complementary DNA (cDNA) was synthesized by assembling oligonucleotides of plus and minus strand polarity. The synthetic poliovirus cDNA was transcribed by RNA polymerase into viral RNA, which translated and replicated in a cell-free extract, resulting in the de novo synthesis of infectious poliovirus. Experiments in tissue culture using neutralizing antibodies and CD155 receptor-specific antibodies and neurovirulence tests in CD155 transgenic mice confirmed that the synthetic virus had biochemical and pathogenic characteristics of poliovirus. Our results show that it is possible to synthesize an infectious agent by in vitro chemical-biochemical means solely by following instructions from a written sequence.


Research on viruses is driven not only by an urgent need to understand, prevent, and cure viral disease. It is also fueled by a strong curiosity about the minute particles that we can view both as chemicals and as "living" entities. Poliovirus can be crystallized (1) and its empirical formula can be calculated (2), yet this "chemical" replicates naturally in humans with high efficiency, occasionally causing the paralyzing and lethal poliomyelitis.

Poliovirus, an enterovirus of the Picornaviridae, is a small, nonenveloped, icosahedral virus consisting of five different macromolecules: 60 copies each of capsid polypeptides VP1, -2, -3, and -4 and one copy of the positive-sense, single-stranded RNA genome (~7.5 kilobases in length) (Fig. 1A) (3). The chemical sequence (4, 5), the genetic map of the genome (4), and the three-dimensional crystal structure of the virion (6) were determined 2 decades ago. Poliovirus employs one of the simplest genetic systems known for proliferation (3, 7). The virus enters the cell after attaching to the cellular receptor CD155 (8, 9). Immediately after the virus particle uncoats inside the cell, the genomic RNA is translated under the control of the internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) into a single polypeptide, the polyprotein (10, 11). The polyprotein is then processed into functional proteins by two viral proteinases (3, 7). With the aid of viral proteins, most notably the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 3Dpol and the genome-linked protein VPg, along with cellular components, the viral RNA is transcribed into minus-strand copies that serve as templates for the synthesis of new viral genomes (plus-strand RNA). Newly synthesized plus-strand RNA can serve as messenger RNA for more protein synthesis, engage further in RNA replication, or be encapsidated by an increasing pool of capsid proteins (7, 12). In suitable tissue culture cells (for example, HeLa cells), the entire replication cycle is complete in only 6 to 8 hours and yields 104 to 105 progeny virions per cell.
http://www.evilbible.com/images/Synthetic_Life_2_files/fig1.jpg
Fig. 1. Genomic structure of PV1(M) and strategy for the synthesis of its full-length cDNA. (A) The positive-stranded RNA of poliovirus is shown with VPg at the 5' end of the NTR. In the cDNA, VPg is replaced by the T7 RNA polymerase promoter. The polyprotein contains one structural (P1) and two nonstructural (P2 and P3) domains. The 3' NTR contains a heteropolymeric region and is polyadenylated (shown as AAAn). (B) PV1(M) cDNA carrying a T7 RNA polymerase promoter at the 5' NTR end was subdivided into three large fragments for the synthesis of full-length sPV1(M) cDNA. The sizes of the fragments (in bp) are depicted above or below each rectangle that represents the respective fragment. The genome sequence encoded by each fragment was described in (13). (C) The three DNA fragments were synthesized as described in the text. The DNA fragments were assembled stepwise via common unique restriction endonuclease cleavage sites to yield full-length sPV(M) cDNA (F1-2-3 pBR322). The sequence of sPV(M) cDNA was confirmed by automated sequence analyses.
Here we describe the de novo chemical-biochemical synthesis of infectious poliovirus from basic chemical building blocks, independent of viral components previously formed in vivo and with the use of the known sequence as the only instruction for engineering the genome. The succession of macromolecular events in an infected cell was reproduced in a test tube containing a cell-free extract devoid of nuclei, mitochondria, and other cellular organelles and seeded with viral RNA. This result confirms that the genome sequence originally deciphered from virion RNA is correct (4, 5) and demonstrates the feasibility of chemical-biochemical synthesis of an infectious agent in the absence of a natural template.

The strategy of synthesizing the genome of poliovirus type 1 (Mahoney) [PV1(M)] began with the assembly of a full-length cDNA carrying a phage T7 RNA polymerase promoter at the (left) 5' end (Fig. 1) from three large, overlapping DNA fragments (F1, -2, and -3). Each DNA fragment was obtained by combining overlapping segments of 400 to 600 base pairs (bp). The segments were synthesized by assembling purified oligonucleotides [average length, 69 nucleotides (nt)] of plus and minus polarity with overlapping complementary sequences at their termini, and the segments were then ligated into a plasmid vector (13). Five to 15 clones were sequenced to identify either the correct DNA segments or the segments containing small numbers of errors that could be eliminated, either by combining the error-free portions of segments by an internal cleavage site or by standard site-directed mutagenesis (13). To ascertain the authenticity of the synthesized viral genome [sPV1(M)] and to distinguish it from the wild-type (wt) sequence of PV1(M) [wt PV1(M)] (4, 5), we engineered nucleotide substitutions into the sPV1(M) cDNA as genetic markers (13).

We have shown previously that poliovirus cDNA carrying a phage T7 promoter for the phage RNA polymerase can be transcribed with T7 RNA polymerase into highly infectious RNA (14). Accordingly, the sPV1(M) cDNA and wt PV1(M) cDNA were transcribed (13) and were found to yield transcript RNAs of the same length as virion RNA (15). De novo synthesis of poliovirus from transcript RNA of wt PV1(M) cDNA in a cell-free extract of uninfected HeLa cells has been previously described by Molla et al. (2). Therefore, the incubation of transcript RNA from sPV1(M) cDNA in cytoplasmic extracts of uninfected HeLa cells should result in the generation of poliovirus. To examine this possibility, transcript RNA derived from sPV1(M) cDNA was incubated with a cytoplasmic extract of HeLa S3 cells, and the synthesis of virus-specific proteins and infectious viruses were monitored. The products of sPV1(M) cDNA-derived RNA translation and proteolytic processing were the same as those obtained with wt PV1(M) RNA (Fig. 2), an observation suggesting that the open reading frame (ORF) of the sPV1(M)-specific RNA is intact. We then tested for the presence of infectious virus particles in the cell-free incubation mixture by adding aliquots of the incubation mixture to monolayers of HeLa cells. After 48 hours, plaques appeared [0.5 to 1 × 105 plaque-forming units (PFU) per µg of transcript RNA in 50 µl of reaction] whose heterogeneous morphology was characteristic of those produced by authentic poliovirus (Fig. 3). All together, these results indicate that the input synthetic RNA was translated and replicated in the cell-free extract and that newly synthesized RNA was encapsidated into newly synthesized coat proteins, resulting in the de novo synthesis of infectious poliovirus.
http://www.evilbible.com/images/Synthetic_Life_2_files/fig2.jpg
Fig. 2. Products of in vitro translation and proteolytic processing of poliovirus RNAs in a HeLa cell-free extract. Transcript RNA derived from sPVM cDNA (13) and virion RNA derived from wt PV1(M) were translated and analyzed as described in (13). Lane 1, wt PV1(M) marker (M) displaying a lysate of [35S] methionine-labeled poliovirus-infected HeLa extract; lane 2, virion RNA derived from wt PV1(M); lane 3, RNA derived from sPV1(M) cDNA. Bands correspond with the segments in Fig. 1A. VPO, 2BC, 3AB, and 3CD are precursor polypeptides.

http://www.evilbible.com/images/Synthetic_Life_2_files/fig3.jpg
Fig. 3. Plaque phenotypes of polioviruses generated in the HeLa cell-free extract. De novo synthesis of poliovirus from transcript RNA in cell-free extract of uninfected HeLa cells was done as described in (13). (A) Plaque phenotype of virus derived from transcript sPV1(M) RNA. (B) Plaque phenotype of virus derived from virion wt PV1(M) RNA.
Experiments were then carried out to confirm that the infectious material isolated from the cell-free extract was indeed sPV1(M), as designated by the oligonucleotide sequence. Restriction enzyme digestion of the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) product of the viral RNA recovered from sPV1(M)-infected HeLa cells revealed the presence of all engineered markers (fig. S1, lanes 1 and 2).

We also tested the effects of the poliovirus receptor-specific monoclonal antibody (Mab) D171 and type-specific hyperimmune sera on plaque formation by sPV1(M) (Table 1). Mab D171 has been shown to completely block infection of all three serotypes by specifically binding to CD155, the cellular receptor of poliovirus (8, 9, 16). The treatment of HeLa cells with Mab D171 before the addition of sPV1(M) completely abolished plaque formation (Table 1). Similarly, no plaques were observed when sPV1(M) was incubated with poliovirus type 1-specific rabbit hyperimmune serum [anti-PV1(M)]. Neutralization of the synthetic virus was type-specific because hyperimmune serum to poliovirus type 2 (Lansing) [PV2(L)] did not inhibit plaque formation (Table 1). These results were in full agreement with those obtained with wt PV1(M) (Table 1). They imply that the de novo poliovirus particles synthesized in the cell-free extract were serotype 1, requiring the authentic poliovirus receptor for infection.

http://www.evilbible.com/images/Synthetic_Life_2_files/table1.jpg
Table 1. Biological characterization of sPV1(M). Plaque reduction assay in the presence (+) and absence (-) of antibodies as described in (13). Anti-PV1(M) and anti-PV2(L) are neutralizing polyclonal antibodies specific for types 1 and 2 poliovirus, respectively. Neuropathogenicity of sPV1(M) and wt PV1(M) was assayed in hPVR-tg mice as described in (13). PLD50 is defined as the amount of virus that caused paralysis or death in 50% of the inoculated mice.
The sPV1(M) virus was assayed to determine whether it expresses a neurovirulent phenotype in mice transgenic for the human poliovirus receptor [CD155 tg mice strain ICR.PVR.tg I (17)]. When injected with wt poliovirus strains, these animals develop a neurological disease indistinguishable, clinically and histologically, from primate poliomyelitis (17-19). Intracerebral injection of sPV1(M) caused flaccid paralysis or death in CD155 tg mice, resembling the disease produced by wt PV1(M) (13). However, a larger inoculum of sPV1(M) than PV1(M) was necessary to paralyze or kill the animals (Table 1). The increase in the magnitude of attenuation was unexpected, because all nucleotide substitutions introduced into sPV1(M) resulted in silent mutations in the ORF, except for the newly created Xma I and Stu I sites in the 5' nontranslated region (NTR) and 2B region, respectively. These latter changes had been shown previously to have no influence on viral replication in tissue culture (20, 21). However, the silent mutations that we introduced into the poliovirus genome may exert a strong influence on pathogenesis by hitherto unknown mechanisms.

The presence or absence of genetic markers in the inoculated virus and the virus isolated from the spinal cords of paralyzed mice was confirmed by amplification of the viral RNA by RT-PCR and restriction enzyme analysis. Our results show that the viruses isolated from the spinal cords of paralyzed mice resembled the inoculated virus (fig. S1). Our data also confirm that the synthetic virus was the causative agent of the flaccid paralysis observed in the sPV1(M)-infected mice.

The chemical synthesis of the viral genome, combined with de novo cell-free synthesis, has yielded a synthetic virus with biochemical and pathogenic characteristics of poliovirus. In 1828, when Wöhler synthesized urea, the theory of vitalism was shattered (22). If the ability to replicate is an attribute of life, then poliovirus is a chemical

[C332,652H492,388N98,245O131,196-P7501S2340, see (2)] with a life cycle.

As a result of the World Health Organization's vaccination campaign to eradicate poliovirus (23), the global population is better protected against poliomyelitis than ever before. Any threat from bioterrorism will arise only if mass vaccination stops (23) and herd immunity against poliomyelitis is lost. There is no doubt that technical advances will permit the rapid synthesis of the poliovirus genome, given access to sophisticated resources. The potential for virus synthesis is an important additional factor for consideration in designing the closing strategies of the poliovirus eradication campaign.
References and Notes
1. F. L. Schaffer, C. E. Schwerdt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 41, 1020 (1955). [Context Link]

2. A. Molla, A. Paul, E. Wimmer, Science 254, 1647 (1991). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

3. T. Pfister, C. Mirzayan, E. Wimmer, in The Encyclopedia of Virology, R. G. Webster, A. Granoff, Eds. (Academic Press Ltd., London, ed. 2, 1999), pp. 1330-1348. [Context Link]

4. N. Kitamura et al., Nature 291, 547 (1981). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

5. V. R. Racaniello, D. Baltimore, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78, 4887 (1981). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

6. J. M. Hogle, M. Chow, D. J. Filman, Science 229, 1358 (1985). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

7. E. Wimmer, C. U. T. Hellen, X. Cao, Annu. Rev. Genet. 27, 353 (1993). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

8. C. L. Mendelsohn, E. Wimmer, V. R. Racaniello, Cell 56, 855 (1989). [Context Link]

9. S. Koike et al., EMBO J. 9, 3217 (1990). [Context Link]

10. S. K. Jang et al., J. Virol. 62, 2636 (1988). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

11. J. Pelletier, N. Sonenberg, Nature 334, 320 (1988). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

12. W. K. Xiang, A.V. Paul, E. Wimmer, Semin. Virol. 8, 256 (1987). [Context Link]

13. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online. [Context Link]

14. S. van der Werf, J. Bradley, E. Wimmer, F. W. Studier, J. J. Dunn, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 82, 2330 (1986). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

15. J. Cello, A. V. Paul, E. Wimmer, unpublished data. [Context Link]

16. P. Nobis et al., J. Gen. Virol. 66, 2563 (1985). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

17. S. Koike et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88, 951 (1991). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

18. H. Horie et al., J. Virol. 68, 681 (1994). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

19. M. Gromeler, H.-H. Lu, E. Wimmer, Microb. Pathog. 18, 253 (1995). [Context Link]

20. C. Mirzayan, E. Wimmer, Virology 189, 547 (1992). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

21. W. Xiang, K. S. Harris, L. Alexander, E. Wimmer, J. Virol. 69, 3658 (1995). Bibliographic Links [Context Link]

22. F. Wöhler, Ann. Phys. Chem. 88, 253 (1828). [Context Link]

23. A. Nomoto, I. Arita, Nature Immunol. 3, 205 (2002). [Context Link]

24. We thank A. Wimmer and J. Benach for valuable comments on the manuscript. We are indebted to B. L. Semler for a sample of cell-free HeLa cell extract. Supported by Contracts N65236-99-C-5835 and N65236-00-M-3707 from the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency.

[Churchwork]

Notice how it took an intelligent being to intelligently design to put this together. It couldn't just happen all by itself in nature. Therefore, "vitalism" always remains true. And life has to be able to replicate itself. How you get from what is essentially a virus created like a machine from fabricated parts that can't come together in nature by chance to having not only world-consciousness and self-consciousness, but also God-consciousness is a fantastical leap of faith without God's vitalility.

Naturalism's major problem always is how mindless forces could give rise to minds, knowledge, and sound reasoning. Really, you're problem is you don't know how to think "outside the box." It is too scary for your to let go of control you have on yourself and your universe you have created for yourself to reject God. It can be scary to believe in someone else who takes control of your life, because you have gripped so tightly to it for so long. You don't know any better. You don't know how else to be. What a weight upon your shoulders when you do though. I think though you know what is expected of you to be saved and not spend an eternity in Hell.


The Math of It

Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning.

The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 1018 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days (http://www.thebereancall.org/5488), pp. 224-25).

Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

[DD2014]

Notice how it took an intelligent being to intelligently design to put this together. It couldn't just happen all by itself in nature.

Once again you assume too much.

Evidence of intelligence, only prooves inteligence. It does not proove "God". If we can create life because we have intelligence, then We are "God". We have the same chance to be the creation of a higher life form. As we do a Magical Sky Daddy.

[Churchwork]

Once again you assume too much.

Evidence of intelligence, only prooves inteligence. It does not proove "God". If we can create life because we have intelligence, then We are "God". We have the same chance to be the creation of a higher life form. As we do a Magical Sky Daddy.
You are misunderstanding.

We can take the materials to design intelligently certain things to an extent, but not all things; hence, a greater intelligence than us is needed for that fine tuning. And since nothing in nature can happen all by itself, we are left with the only known possibility, the uncreated created who intelligently designed. We are not God obviously, because we are not the creators of these higher originations back to the big bang, nor are we uncreated. To think you are God is, obviously, pompous. That's Satan's deception to get you to think in various manipulative ways you can be like God.

Remember, God exists outside nature, outside of the sky, outside of the daddies and mommies and outside man's so-called magical illusions.

[DD2014]

Remember, God exists outside nature, outside of the sky, outside of the daddies and mommies and outside man's so called magical illusions.


According to your logic, so does the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And even you cannot deny that.

[Churchwork]

According to your logic, so does the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And even you cannot deny that.
Not at all. Just like other claims on deity need to be compared to God of the Bible to determine which is right and which is wrong so must your Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Your invisible pink unicorn already fails at the outside because it contradicts itself since that which is pink is not invisible, and horses are part of nature.

[DD2014]

Your invisible pink unicorn already fails at the outside because it contradicts itself since that which is pink is not invisible, and horses are part of nature.

Remember, The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists outside nature, outside of the sky, outside of the daddies and mommies and outside man's so-called magical illusions. So don't think you could ever understand how the all-powerful Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Your stupid human brain cannot comprehend her awsomeness.

Ummm...when was the last time you saw a Unicorn in the wild?

[Churchwork]

Remember, The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists outside nature
Pink is a color of nature, not outside nature, so that is a contradiction. We know how pink is formed in nature. The evidence we have for unicorns is simply as a story fairy tale, nor do unicorns every make the claim of being uncreated.

[DD2014]

Pink is a color of nature, not outside nature, so that is a contradiction. We know how pink is formed in nature.

You contradict you own logic by beliving in the bible


Revelation 1:14-16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Revelation%201.14-16),
We know that the color white, wool, snow, fire, bronze, funraces and water are formed in nature and yet the bible claims "head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters." I am fairly sure that all these things appear in nature, so don't claim things that make you a hypocrite.

If the color pink is the only thing you have to disprove the IPU then according to your logic (and Revelation 1:14-16) IPU is less of a contradiction then your God

Colossians 1:15-17, "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together".

So explain to me how we can be made in the image of an INVISIBLE GOD? Because that is a contradiction. Oh and didn't Revelation 1:14-16 claim that God is not invisible? I sense some confusion within the early christians about what to belive.



The evidence we have for unicorns is simply as a story fairy tale,

And I can claim the same for the bible.



nor do unicorns every make the claim of being uncreated.

Mine does, and you cannot prove otherwise, so it must be true. Remember, The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists outside nature, outside of the sky and outside of the universe. Do not anger her or she will send you to a land where lechpricans rape you 24/7

See how your logic defeats itself?

[Churchwork]

This is an important principle. God makes Himself obscure enough for you to reject Him if you want, but also clear enough to receive Him if you are willing. Being made in God's image refers to His characteristics, not skin color. How silly. So there is no contradiction that God is invisible. The Bible never presents itself other than the real people being talked about, places and time. Whereas admittedly, your PU is found in fairy tale books created by man. Your PU, you follow it alone by yourself, not well multiply attested, having no religio-historical context and certainly not well accessible. It has meaningless context. Like I said, anyone can make claims for a deity, but by comparison one prevails. You give no explain for how your PU is both pink and invisible. But the Bible fully explains itself and is well sourced and proven by resurrection. You fashion your PU after a horse as an idol you set up to reject God. Compare this to God of the Bible. You have no evidence for it like exists for God of the Bible through prophecy, miracles and the resurrection. Personally, I feel a god who is so unaccessible like your god is the evil spirit because it seems the only people that can get to your god is you and they must go through you. Plus, you contradict yourself, because you argue for the PU yet you are atheist. You change your position based on what you are arguing about. You have no ground or moral compass for it keeps shifting. Very unstable.

1.10b-16 THE VISION OF THE GLORIOUS CHRIST
(1) The voice heard was a great voice as of a trumpet. A trumpet is sounded to gather people together. Here the Lord was especially calling John to write to the seven churches. These seven churches actually existed at the time. They were specially chosen to serve as types of the church throughout the ages.
(2) The sight seen was the seven golden candlesticks (or lampstands), which are the seven churches (v.20). Such are the churches in God’s view, which ought to be their spiritual reality, since the churches are to illuminate this dark world for the Lord. Yet the candlesticks themselves cannot give out light unless they are filled with oil. And hence the churches need to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
(3) "One like unto a son of man"—The Son of man was in the midst of the candlesticks to inspect the churches (2.1). What was the likeness of this Man? He looked like a son of man, which is to imply that He was somewhat different from what He had been on earth. So the word "like" is used. As to His appearance, it was described as follows:
(a) "Clothed with a garment down to the foot—"which signifies the Lord’s glory, the glory that He had before His incarnation (Is. 6.1). He is now being restored to His former glory. The garment not only signifies His original glory, it also indicates His priesthood; for He is now our high priest (Heb. 8.1).
(b) "And girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle"—which attests to His righteousness and faithfulness (Is. 11.5).
(c) "And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow"—which shows how He is in possession of glory (Prov. 16.31, 20.29) and holiness (Dan. 7.9).
(d) "And his eyes were as a flame of fire"—which fire is used for proving (1 Peter 1.7) so that whatever is good or bad may be manifested. With His eyes as a flame of fire everything will be exposed immediately by His look. The fire referred to in 1 Corinthians 3.13 is the fire of the Lord’s eyes. The meaning of 1 Corinthians 4.5 likewise agrees with what is expressed here.
(e) "And his feet like unto burnished brass"—feet are for walking and brass in the Bible typifies judgment. Wherever the brazen feet go, there goes judgment. Since the Lord’s feet are now in the church, the Lord is presently judging His church first (1 Peter 4.17).
(f) "And his voice as the voice of many waters"—which denotes that His voice is full of majesty and power (Ps. 29.4).
(g) "And he had in his right hand seven stars"—which stars are the angels (or messengers) of the seven churches (v.20). Their being in the Lord’s hand means that they are being used, controlled, and protected by the Lord.
(h) "And out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword"—which sword is used to deal with the world as well as with the church (19.15-21, 1.16).
(i) "And his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength"—the Lord was manifested in the same way on the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17.2). The scene on the mount of transfiguration typifies the kingdom, because the Lord is most glorious in the kingdom.

God manifests Himself in Christ for us to see either visions or in Person. When He returns we will see Him in Person.

[DD2014]

We can take the materials to design intelligently certain things to an extent, but not all things; hence, a greater intelligence than us is needed for that fine tuning.

All that is needed is adaptation obtained over time (i.e. Evolution).

[Churchwork]

All that is needed is adaptation obtained over time (i.e. Evolution).
Evolution can't produce itself. You first need to come up with a replicating single-celled organism. The universe can't cause itself. It needs an Intelligent Designer. You are putting the cart before the horse. You also need a Savior, because man can't save himself. A person once sinned is eternally separated from God without atonement.