Every atheist should read this book..

So here's the thing in what context it was said.

"On the one hand the nuclei and the protoplasm in the cellular chambers are fortified by this impervious double protective layer of lipids against the possible penetration of the surrounding plasma. On the other hand they need a constant supply of energy to be transported across the lipid covers. To meet this essential requirement, the measures taken by nature are so amazingly profound and intricate as boggles the mind.

It is inconceivable for these measures to have been planned and executed by a mere blind collusion of chances. In fact, the intricate internal structure and order of arrangement of the transporter protein, which delivers glucose molecules to the cells, had to be exactly designed to do the needful. Again, complementary measures had to be taken for each recipient cell to harmonize perfectly with the working of the transporter protein. As some readers unfamiliar with scientific terminology may find it difficult to keep track of this subject, every effort is being made to make it generally comprehensible even for the lay reader."

This is said under the chaper, "survival by accident or chance".Now it wasnt refering to the whole evolution was it?:roll:

And it furthur says,

"It is evolution of course, but not blind evolution. At every cross-section of their journey, it was never the living who made their choices as to the bearing they should take. There was no fixed destination, if there was no conscious Designer and Creator of life. Hence, every step which life took, could have moved in any direction. A single step to be taken in the right direction is an outside chance. For each step to move invariably in the right direction, a billion times over and to pursue unfalteringly the course which could only lead to the creation of man, is something so bizarre and unreal that even the phantom figures of fairy tales would not believe in it. Yet, there are some scientists who do!"

Stranger_4

So here's the thing in what context it was said.

"On the one hand the nuclei and the protoplasm in the cellular chambers are fortified by this impervious double protective layer of lipids against the possible penetration of the surrounding plasma. On the other hand they need a constant supply of energy to be transported across the lipid covers. To meet this essential requirement, the measures taken by nature are so amazingly profound and intricate as boggles the mind.

It is inconceivable for these measures to have been planned and executed by a mere blind collusion of chances. In fact, the intricate internal structure and order of arrangement of the transporter protein, which delivers glucose molecules to the cells, had to be exactly designed to do the needful. Again, complementary measures had to be taken for each recipient cell to harmonize perfectly with the working of the transporter protein. As some readers unfamiliar with scientific terminology may find it difficult to keep track of this subject, every effort is being made to make it generally comprehensible even for the lay reader."

This is said under the chaper, "survival by accident or chance".Now it wasnt refering to the whole evolution was it?:roll:

And it furthur says,

"It is evolution of course, but not blind evolution. At every cross-section of their journey, it was never the living who made their choices as to the bearing they should take. There was no fixed destination, if there was no conscious Designer and Creator of life. Hence, every step which life took, could have moved in any direction. A single step to be taken in the right direction is an outside chance. For each step to move invariably in the right direction, a billion times over and to pursue unfalteringly the course which could only lead to the creation of man, is something so bizarre and unreal that even the phantom figures of fairy tales would not believe in it. Yet, there are some scientists who do!"

Stranger_4

Wonderful. The old "it's pretty improbable, so let's just round the probability to zero and say its impossible" argument. How convincing :roll:.

You just convinced me that there is absolutely nothing new presented in this book, and that there is no reason for which I should.

[QUOTE="Stranger_4"]

So here's the thing in what context it was said.

"On the one hand the nuclei and the protoplasm in the cellular chambers are fortified by this impervious double protective layer of lipids against the possible penetration of the surrounding plasma. On the other hand they need a constant supply of energy to be transported across the lipid covers. To meet this essential requirement, the measures taken by nature are so amazingly profound and intricate as boggles the mind.

It is inconceivable for these measures to have been planned and executed by a mere blind collusion of chances. In fact, the intricate internal structure and order of arrangement of the transporter protein, which delivers glucose molecules to the cells, had to be exactly designed to do the needful. Again, complementary measures had to be taken for each recipient cell to harmonize perfectly with the working of the transporter protein. As some readers unfamiliar with scientific terminology may find it difficult to keep track of this subject, every effort is being made to make it generally comprehensible even for the lay reader."

This is said under the chaper, "survival by accident or chance".Now it wasnt refering to the whole evolution was it?:roll:

And it furthur says,

"It is evolution of course, but not blind evolution. At every cross-section of their journey, it was never the living who made their choices as to the bearing they should take. There was no fixed destination, if there was no conscious Designer and Creator of life. Hence, every step which life took, could have moved in any direction. A single step to be taken in the right direction is an outside chance. For each step to move invariably in the right direction, a billion times over and to pursue unfalteringly the course which could only lead to the creation of man, is something so bizarre and unreal that even the phantom figures of fairy tales would not believe in it. Yet, there are some scientists who do!"

Funky_Llama

There are chances in evolution at every step. Just becasue it was not all chance does not mean that the element of chance is gone..

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Stranger_4"]

So here's the thing in what context it was said.

"On the one hand the nuclei and the protoplasm in the cellular chambers are fortified by this impervious double protective layer of lipids against the possible penetration of the surrounding plasma. On the other hand they need a constant supply of energy to be transported across the lipid covers. To meet this essential requirement, the measures taken by nature are so amazingly profound and intricate as boggles the mind.

It is inconceivable for these measures to have been planned and executed by a mere blind collusion of chances. In fact, the intricate internal structure and order of arrangement of the transporter protein, which delivers glucose molecules to the cells, had to be exactly designed to do the needful. Again, complementary measures had to be taken for each recipient cell to harmonize perfectly with the working of the transporter protein. As some readers unfamiliar with scientific terminology may find it difficult to keep track of this subject, every effort is being made to make it generally comprehensible even for the lay reader."

This is said under the chaper, "survival by accident or chance".Now it wasnt refering to the whole evolution was it?:roll:

And it furthur says,

"It is evolution of course, but not blind evolution. At every cross-section of their journey, it was never the living who made their choices as to the bearing they should take. There was no fixed destination, if there was no conscious Designer and Creator of life. Hence, every step which life took, could have moved in any direction. A single step to be taken in the right direction is an outside chance. For each step to move invariably in the right direction, a billion times over and to pursue unfalteringly the course which could only lead to the creation of man, is something so bizarre and unreal that even the phantom figures of fairy tales would not believe in it. Yet, there are some scientists who do!"

Stranger_4

There are chances in evolution at every step. Just becasue it was not all chance does not mean that the element of chance is gone..

Oh, and how is it obvious that that isn't referring to evolution in general? Enlighten me.

There are chances in evolution at every step. Just becasue it was not all chance does not mean that the element of chance is gone..

Stranger_4

The hardest thing to change about someone is their ideology, TC. Shad0ki11

He speaks the truth TC. Don't waste your time. People are gonna believe what they wanne believe no matter what anybody tells them.

There are chances in evolution at every step. Just becasue it was not all chance does not mean that the element of chance is gone..

Stranger_4

Genetic mutations are random. Natural selection, however, is one of the most logical processes on the planet.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]The hardest thing to change about someone is their ideology, TC. KH-mixerX

He speaks the truth TC. Don't waste your time. People are gonna believe what they wanne believe no matter what anybody tells them.

the last 5 minutes of Bill MAher's "religulous" pretty much states my viewpoint on religion.

1. religious people should not be in charge of things such as countries

2. if religion was a country it would have been destroyed by all the other countries of the world millions of times over for all the unprovoked attacks, terror, etc.

3. after the food and water and shelter crises of the world were solved, people needed another way to hold power over another. tihs is all religion is.

4.religious wars need to end. seriously guys. most people in the world are rational now, we just need the religious people to come join us. (no offense to anyone in

particular)

edit: to clarify my fourth point, my belief is that religious people are irrational. there is much evidence to support this but i think a plain old example will clarify my point.

take cancer. what does a scientist do? help the people who have the disease, and try to cure it.

what does a religious leader do? pray to god to help cure their disease.

it's quite obvious which is the rational side to me.

just to clarify again i'm not saying that the two are mutually exclusive this is just how the majority of people are. i know for a fact there is much good that religion and religious people do, but i don't think the good outweighs the bad in this case.

I don't read books. :PCitrus25

Amen.