Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
OH indeed, I am paying great attention. For centuries over the millennia Christians have kept faith in their faith, impressed by the wisdom of it, by the wisdom of those in the Good Book speaking to us, particularly placing their faith in the update which Christ brought with His own bodily self, providing us with some very special evidence of our God's omniscience, increasing our conviction in the truths of Christianity. We fully acknowledge we never were and still are not by any law, nor social expectation, legal diktat or requirement, obliged to prove anything pertaining to our faith, for the simple reason it is just that, a faith. The definition of faith is to believe without seeing, to believe by placing trust in something or someone. Nevertheless, since the time of Christ, archaeological and historical evidence just keeps pouring in at a great rate.
Unlike the freedom of faith in the absence of evidence, science is obliged to provide evidence and support its claims, because that is the moral expectation, the moral integrity of its purpose and the moral, social, legal and philosophical obligation which those who fund it, invest in it and who reward its academia with great recognition, demand from it.
What's most interesting is that of the these two disciplines, theology and science, it seems theology has put science's back up against the wall regarding two of its Theories - Evolution and the Big Bang. In requesting material and hard evidence which supports either, we are shocked to find that none actually exists, only extrapolations, conjecture and cobbled-together narratives, unlike Christianity which has a plethora of both hard and material evidence to support its claims.
I can't possibly cover all of it, particularly not the raft of ancient texts, scrolls, antiquities and archives of real-in-the-flesh-material hard evidence. Below is just a smattering of it, from sources outside of the Biblical texts, verified and authenticated by historians, scientists and governments, which cover only key events in the historical record of Christ's life. I remind you, all of this evidence comes from cultures and people who were hostile to Christianity. None of it is based on "faith", but all drawn from the record and from hostile eye-witness accounts. I use an earlier post already made by me ...
In addition, are just a few examples of that plethora of evidence on the historical record. Below is an excerpt from a respected archaeological journal which shows that recent archaeological discoveries now disprove the JEDP Theory with hard evidence to back up the reasons why that theory is no longer viable.
.
Below is an excerpt referencing that same archaeological evidence, but from a different and equally respected Archaeology Journal, discussing in more detail exactly what that hard evidence reveals on the Sumerian clay tablet nearly 8,000 years old ...
Below is the chronological order of these Biblical historical accounts inscribed on these ancient Sumerian tablets found at Ebla in Syria, with each separate tablet dated later then the previous one and each signed by the identities listed in the far right column. As you can see, no author is attributed to the first tablet recording Chapter One of the Book of Genesis, which is the record of creation, before God had created man. There was no human alive to author it, so although it has been dutifully recorded and matches perfectly the record in the Book of Genesis, no signature is provided at the end of this ancient inscription, as found on the earliest of these set of ancient tablets. The rest follow in the correct chronological order as in the Book of Genesis as we know it today. So Moses compiled these records already written before his time, transcribing them faithfully and accurately.
The following is the historical record, as written by the highly regarded and respected historian Josephus. All of his work is an archive of that which he thoroughly researched and verified to his satisfaction, before committing it to the record. This is what he said, now archived in the Jewish Antiquities, but remember he is a Roman, who were pagans at the time and the hostile occupiers of Israel ...
There is other hard and material evidence found on the ground and on sea beds discovered by archaeologists too. One such discovery is that of a 515 foot mighty ship 6,000 feet above seal level in the Mountains of Ararat, (today's Turkey), the measurements of which and the construction of which match precisely the record given in the Biblical texts of Noah's Ark and it found exactly where the Biblical account said it came to rest after the flood waters had subsided. Samples have all been taken from the excavation and lab tested, properly dated, examined and recorded. The undeniability of the gobsmacking question, how did such a great whacking sea vessel come to be 6,000 feet above sea level cannot be dismissed? Surely, that alone is hard evidence of the Great Flood, in conjunction with the dating of the artefact itself?
The Turkish government, (a bunch of Moslems hostile to Christianity, don't forget), sent in its scientists from its Dept. of Antiquities to examine the whole site and the samples. They could not deny the evidence. After considerable pressure from both academic quarters in the West from its historical, archaeological and antiquities disciplines and other academia, the Turkish Government declared a National Park around the site to protect the artefact and built a viewing platform with a visitors' centre for tourists to see it. An extract from a brief news article on the discovery is below. The lamination of the timber beams in the structure is technology way before our time, likewise is evidence of the use of alloyed metals, also way before our time and not previously known to have been in use in BCE - obviously knowledge later lost and re-discovered by us.
This is just a tiny part of the record of one archaeological discovery with hard, material evidence which is indisputable and proves the authenticity of the Biblical text and the events described in it, right down to the exact measurements of the structure of the Ark, all recorded in the Biblical text. Another example is the discovery of hundreds of skeletons all in one spot on the sea bed of the Red Sea of an Egyptian army, of many remains of Pharaoh's chariots, the wheels, axles and hubs, also of horse fema bones, etc., all found in hundreds of feet of water. What would an army be doing trying to cross the Red Sea in hundreds of feet of water? There is no evidence of any sea-going vessel, only of land transport, like chariots and all dated properly, fitting the exact era which the Bible describes as the Exodus of the Israelites fleeing from Egypt with the Pharaoh and his army in hot pursuit. On the shore on each opposite bank of the sea at this point, are two pillars with inscriptions, commemorating this historic crossing, erected by King Solomon, a ruler of the Israelites in Israel.
Then there is the evidence of the destruction and razing to the ground of Sodom and Gomorrah by "hail, fire and brimstone", as described in the Biblical texts, evidenced today by the ghostly spectres of these cities' remains, still standing on the now desolate plains, once full of lush pasture in a fertile valley. The valley is now completely barren. Nothing has grown in it for many millennia. Why not? Geologists can't work it out. The Bible text states when God destroyed these cities He cursed the land so that nothing would ever grow in it again, not even a single blade of grass and that is the exactly what we see, in spite of rain falling in this once fertile place.
If you walk across the ground you can see the brimstone lying around and embedded in the now petrified skeletal structures of the remains of the destroyed buildings. This same brimstone is always found in perfectly spherical balls like hailstones. It is also pure white, not yellow at all. This brimstone has been tested and it is pure sulphur. The only known sulphur that has ever been sourced on earth is a luminescent yellow and does not have the percentage of sulphur that the brimstone at Sodom and Gomorrah has and nowhere on earth has any ever been found with that 100% sulphur composite, except that lying on the ground at these two places. For centuries, theologians could never work out why the Biblical text said "hail" in the same context as "fire and brimstone". Once these little spherical balls of brimstone were discovered, that made sense.
There is a plethora of literature, hundreds of videos, thousands of records in evidence, all similar to the above, about many different sites, finds and artefacts which prove the accuracy and authenticity of events recorded in the Biblical texts. Atheists are just ignorant of them. That ignorance leads them to believe in their unfounded hubris, that therefore Christianity is a "myth" merely based on fairy tales, but it is undeniably proved already, that it is anything but based on "myths". The problem atheism has is this. This information has been around for many, many decades. Atheists simply refuse to acknowledge it, refuse to research it, refuse to discuss it whenever it is put in front of them. That just multiplies their ignorance further and further as the evidence in support of Christianity just keeps mounting and mounting. It is no longer a viable claim to call it a "myth" at all because Christianity has presented far more hard and material evidence to support it than either the Theory of Evolution or of the Big Bang ever have, can or ever will, because evidence is now exposing them as the myths.
.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.64  
  Sources: 15  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
John, I have to admit this is way, way, way, out of my league. Whether further explanation of it will be fruitful or not I cannot know and don't wish to press you if you can see fairly clearly that it would probably not help. However, I'll ask anyway and see where it takes us.
Are you, maybe, even on the brink of solving the equation for gravity? Perhaps? ... or suggesting that gravity has a relationship of relativity to Einstein's equation of General Relativity? .... or nothing like that? I'm struggling here.
When you use the term "elasticity of number and numbers" are you speaking literally about any numerals? If so, then I honestly don't understand what is meant by "elasticity" when applied to numerals, let alone numerals sharing a "modulation" that is "reverberating" on them. Worse, how that might then create an "attraction to a number or numbers" just goes way over my head because I have no idea what the three terms of "elasticity", "modulation" and "reverberation" mean when applied to numerals or numbers, so I am lost at the starting gate. Therefore, how that could reach a conclusion of "relationship ratio over-approximation" just flies over my head, although I think I can see that you could possibly be referencing how Einstein's use of algebra gave him knowledge of that relationship. That's the best I can do.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here, kind of....lol
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not sure what you mean by "carried by Donald Trump". Maybe you mean they "carried" him to an election win? If that is the case, then maybe they were fed up with Socialist, leftie policies? That would be a logical deduction to make, I think. Intolerant of others' right to vote are we? Typical Democrat.. Socialism creates poverty and a dependency on the State. That's its primary purpose. It's ultimate goal IS to control the people. Lenin admitted that "the goal of Socialism is Communism". Communism requires we hand all we own over to the State with the State in complete control of our lives. The people rejected that all across this nation, not just in "Bible belts". To pretend otherwise, is just atheistic sour grapes, ignoring the demographics of the different voting blocs right across the nation. Wallow in your ignorant whine. It won't make you any the smarter.
Not a single American saw Donald Trump as any kind of flagship for Christianity. If anything, his life and lifestyle had always suggested the very opposite. So, No. Your premise is twaddle. It is only SINCE he became President, not until the beginning of the second year of his term that this became apparent as a strong binding principle which he embraced. Possibly the influence of his VP, Mike Pence. Then you claim ....
There is only one way the Courts can get involved in the results of elections and that is if foul play is alleged and proved. Obviously, The Democrats got caught cheating at the polls or via the electoral process. There is ample evidence of that fairly widespread across the nation, Broward County and Brenda Snipes the flagship of that and the canary in the coal mine, which woke up the Republican camp to be a little wiser about what was going on. You want a dishonest system, so that Democrats can keep on cheating, just so your criminal politicians can win via corrupt means. That figures. All Democrats are corrupt and dishonest.
Mate, you're positively unhinged. Need a lesson in civics? These two Presidents aren't the ONLY Presidents at all, who didn't win the popular vote. The system was deliberately designed by the Founding Fathers to ignore the popular vote. Nearly every President ever elected has never won it. There is a solid reason for that - all of the big city States would always continually hold the majority of seats in Congress, leaving fly-over America and the smaller States out in the cold with no representation. That is the whole purpose of the Electoral College system, to prevent that. It just so happens the big metropolises are strongholds for Democrats. I bet you London to a brick that if rural and regional America were strongholds for Democrats you wouldn't be whining like a stuck pig about the popular vote, yet that's all we ever see from Democrats, intolerance of anything even-handed and fair when they can't win in an even-handed and fair manner. Instead they want to CHANGE the system to anything but even-handed and fair so that it favors them so they can win anyway, no matter how, as long as they win. They're not Democrats at all. They're tyrannical little shitheads, power-drunk, intolerant, bleating, whinging bullies whenever they lose. You epitomize that by your long and exhaustive whine in your post.
You're so ignorant. The Republican quarter doesn't control the electoral system. Democrat bureaucrats do. They introduced these vile voting machines, all manufactured by a company owned by George Soros - the anti-democracy, anti-American, Marxist prick and key donor of the DNC. Get your facts straight, Bozo. Trump wants a return to paper ballots for the very reasons you complain about. If you want the corruption in the electoral system cleaned up, then go and talk to your dirty mates down in Broward County, in Florida, in L.A., in Seattle, in Texas, in Omaha, etc. all caught with their hands in the ballot boxes.
Oh! I see. Ignoring history too, now are we? Who brought that law in and when? ... against the churches? A disgruntled Senator by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Bill in the 1950s, all because a heap of clergy and church groups called his policies out for being "Communist" policies. They lobbied against his policies and blocked his run for the Senate. In retaliation he tabled a Bill to silence them, robbing them of their right to exercise their freedom of speech and an allegiance to a Political Party. Until then, over the entire history of America the churches had always had that right, but suddenly in the 1950s they had to , all because of a butt-hurt Snowflake Senator who was too thin-skinned to accept fair and warranted criticism, so he silenced them with his bully-boy tactics. i suppose you support censorship of free speech too. Only weasels do.
I think I just proved who the bullies in the pulpit are and it ain't Christians or the churches. LOL! I suppose you will deny that 90,000 Christians are slaughtered every year by your Islamic mates, which your daft Political Party lets into this country to trash it, to defy our Constitution, break our laws, rape our women, smash in our shop fronts, bludge off our taxpayers, rob our neighbours and burn our flag. Happy now? You do realize that not a single Republican owned a slave, right? You do realize the very nations which your dippy daft Democrat Immigration Policies allow to swarm into our nation had the largest, most brutal and bloodiest network of slave trading on the record in the entire world? Used it all to fund their next brutal, bloodthirsty rampage of slaughter against the next innocent nation - a sustained activity of slaughter, rape and slavery for nearly 1,000 years.
It doesn't actually. I've already proved to others who made the same claim, that the Bible texts which portray that are not authentic, are bastardizations of the original translations. I showed them the earliest translations in English which use the word "servant" and how it has been replaced with the word "slave". Christ warned us of that - that "there will be many false prophets who will come in My name". 90% of the passages in the bastardized translations substitute the words of servant and hireling with "slave" and alter the text. These times are prophesied to usher in the anti-Christian era, like you, followed by the Anti-Christ whom you will worship and whom God will smite down. I think you had better re-think your strategy, Bozo, and search for truths, rather than fabrications to feed into your seething, unhinged, bile and hatred.
Your words aren't "rough". They're delusions based on fabrications, which I have already shown them to be. Your thinking is based on confirmation bias, an uncontrolled and deep-seated bigotry. Loot to feed it.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mate, what's your definition of the word "faith"? Do you have faith in your wife's fidelity? Faith in your brand of vehicle? Faith in your horse, in your sports team, in your Mother, in your father, your brother, your son, your news sources, your dog, your decisions, your politic, etc.? So what does faith really mean? It means T R U S T. Right? What builds that trust? A demonstration of reliability, of soundness of mind, of soundness of principle, a soundness of logic, a soundness of performance, a consistency in results, in meeting expectations, in delivering, in loyalty, etc. None of these relationships ever provide PROOFS of the same nature that is demanded of science. Faith in a God is the same. It is built on trust. There's no obligation that any of these should produce "evidence", nor that they must, let alone any legal requirement for it.
To pretend otherwise is a dishonest argument, a sleight of hand, fabricating that I said "we live by no law". That's not the context in which I said Christians have no legal requirement to provide evidence and you damned well know it isn't. Misrepresenting another's argument is not debating. It's cheating, bleating, obfuscating and dodging the argument, which to quote your own words, "shows you lost". LOL!
Your post is a typical leftie, Snowflake, atheist fake whine. You make the claim that I dodged your question, while ignoring that I put on the page - WITH NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO - a reasonably exhaustive measure of evidence, which actually goes well beyond the requirements of a platform such as this, yet somehow that's "dodging the argument"? Really? It is? Well then, Sunshine, you had better enlighten me. If it wasn't evidence which supports Christianity that you challenged me to produce, then what was it, exactly? You got a truckload of it. Sorry I wasted your time - and mine. Please put me out of my perplexed state here.
The other problem with your reply is that you make no attempt to rebut it with any counter evidence in support of your quasi science of Big Bang flops and fake Evolutionary ancestors. What happened to that? No evidence, Sunshine? To add to this deluded reply of yours, you then after all of that, have the gall to claim that I "dodged the argument". Me thinks thou doth protest too loudly for it appears, from your very own reply, that it is you who is doing the dodging here. With your kind of swagger, I am amazed you can fit your balls into trousers.
.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: definition of faith    con   exclusion of proof   faith  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
My response: You are avoiding an explanation and you are avoiding evidence. Explanation and evidence are really important in debating.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: scientific evidence    proofMy response   1st definition   faith  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have posted so many links including proof. https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10703130/Proof-of-the-Big-Bang.html
https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html
https://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-the-big-bang-theory-background-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.16  
  Sources: 8  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: last argument    PAY ATTENTION   words   links  
  Relevant (Beta): 12%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is the numbers in math that when are elastic, can modulate, and set a reverberation with other values in a string that demonstrate an ability to draw numbers together at one point of rotation around them. Drawling values into the process of effect with a certain result.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: proceeding value    attraction of numbers   mathematic principles   different orbits  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 28%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: abusive language    end      
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Science just does not work like this. It is not science. It is a narrative using backward reasoning, creating the narrative to fit an Agenda, as opposed to going where the evidence leads.
H A D T O H A V E B E E N A L R E A D Y in existence for it to be even possible for a big bang to occur? You cannot have a Big Bang in the cosmos without matter, without space and without time already in existence. This is what atheists refuse to admit.
.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: passionate young women    arguments   par   shot  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/eight-reasons-christianity-is-false/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/the-most-powerful-argument-against-christianity-problem-of-divine-hiddenness-atheism/
A link for big bang:
https://www.reference.com/science/evidence-support-big-bang-theory-3f7479a7a4046ab6
@Grafix It works like this. Chemistry element of big bang:Elements mixing together forming new and complex ones. Thermodynamics element: 2nd law and conversion of mass and energy. Physics element: The forces like gravity which help pull things together. Biology element: theory of evolution and the first DNA forming.
Science doe work like this. Chemistry is about mixing like stated. Thermodynamics is about conversion as stated. Physics is the study of forces. Biology is the study of life.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.52  
  Sources: 9  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Chemistry element    Biology element   Thermodynamics element   Physics element  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: passionate young women    brilliant website   arguments   par  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
I really do understand these things, RS, but they really are not the point at all. The fact we know that all of this stuff occurs is great. However, we are not talking bout what we know. We are talking about what we DON'T know and cannot pretend to know by making up furphies where no evidence to support the furphies can be found in the rigors of scientific methodology.
Just because we have this knowledge, which you mention, doesn't provide licence for science to USE that knowledge to backward reason A POSSIBILITY that these elements came from an EVENT, yet which event they can provide no evidence for, let alone claim the extrapolated event as F A C T. A possibility, due to the knowledge of chemical reactions, fusions and whatever, is N O T P R O O F of the claimed event without evidence to support its occurrence. It is, instead, mere extrapolations and conjecture made on the basis of this knowledge - conjecture merely because it could be possible. It's backward reasoning, creating a narrative of a possibility. That's not allowing the facts to lead us where they take us. It's creating facts from knowledge we have to create a possibility and declaring it as fact. Not science, mate.
Let's look at what Dr. James Tour, the top molecular chemist, bio-chemist and nano-technology scientist in the world says about the Theory of Evolution, (TOE). He has proven that four basic chemicals are imperative for the very first building blocks of life which must group with others to form the very first living molecule and that molecule must then group together with other molecules to form the very first living cell. He has proven that if they just join together randomly, they merely create a BLOB, because they do not know what their specific function is, what structured characteristic or feature to build, consequently they are just a mass of cells with no function, just a BLOB. He builds molecules starting with those four chemicals, which are carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids and lipids. He has to go out and purchase them, so even he does not know how to begin the building blocks of life ab initio - from nothing. He cheats by using what is already in existence, extracted from other living matter.
He knows how to build living cells using these four basic chemicals by going through the process, but at the end of the day, he doesn't know how to tell them to organize themselves in the correct order, the correct design and correct number or shape to make an ear, or a nose, or hair, nor the colour of it, let alone how to tell the cells to make bone or a heart or a lung, a hoof, or trunk, etc. So how do the cells know? They have an instruction manual, known as DNA. DNA is not a material entity. It's information and is housed in our protein chains. The cells have to form protein chains to house the DNA.
As DNA is like information in our P.C., it cannot be created by nature itself. It can only be copied by nature and transported from cell to cell by RNA. As we, like nature, cannot make DNA either nor reproduce it in a test tube, where does it come from, yet no living cell is functional without it. The best we can do is what nature does, make clones from existing cells, which already have their own DNA DNA cannot replicate the same way a cell divides from a parent cell and then it becomes a parent cell when a cell divides from it copying the DNA it inherited down the chain. The DNA of every cell in our body is identical to the next cell's DNA. These cells know how to organize themselves to make different characterizations of our body parts. How do they know how to do that, even though their DNA in each cell is identical? Cell's have no intellect, no brain.
DNA proves that we did not evolve from a common ancestor, otherwise we'd all have the same DNA marker but we don't. We don't even have the same DNA. We have filial markers, which identify our genealogy, our family, all the way back to the original family ancestor. We have homo sapien makers that identify us as humans, but apart from those each person's DNA is unique. That's why we are all individuals. DNA proves that even the different species of mammals did not evolve from one another, i.e. lions from leopards, or tigers from Cheetahs, etc. We know that because they don't have the same DNA group markers. Like us, there is a different group marker for each mammal set, just like our homo sapien marker, therefore the Common Ancestor notion is a myth as is the evolution between species.
Dr. tour also demonstrates why cell's trying to grow into a different species from another species die and cannot survive, so he has proved unequivocally that evolution from one species to another is impossible, that it's all a big fat lie. If two different species copulate and produce offspring, it is always infertile, sterile, and cannot reproduce. This is because of the conflicting genetic DNA. Through demonstrating the behaviour of molecules, nano-cars, protein chains and DNA, Dr. Tour proves evolution is not possible. He pulls no punches, accusing establishment science of lying. He says, "It's a lie. They lied to you." If they lied about Evolution, it's easy to accept they're lying about the BBT. The bigger question is why the heck is establishment science lying to us? What is the purpose? What do they hope to gain? What is the Agenda. Many of us have a very good idea why, but do you?
.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Chemistry element    Biology element   N O T   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is how I will express it. It is just a simple way. Lets say there are atoms a - n. A+A = b A *A = 2A B+A=C C+A=D D*A=DA B D+D = H H+D = L L+B = N DA*N=DNA
Obviously it is way more complex in the real world but that is the basic/simplified version of he Big Bang - Evolution transition.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: D D    DA B D   L L   real world  
  Relevant (Beta): 19%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bit         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Besides atoms don't carry DNA, only cells do.
.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Dr. Tour    End of lesson.Besides atoms   atoms   DNA  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Stephen Hawking         
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: DNA    atoms      
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Grafix
Well this just takes the cake, shoves it up a donkey's A$$ and sucks it out through a straw.
did you think DNA is made out of? Fairy dust and angel S**t?
DNA is very much made out of atoms, everything that we call "matter" is made of atoms, including DNA. I went to a dirt poor school in rural America, and even here I fondly remember doing an experiment that allowed us to extract and measure the DNA from some strawberries, to figure out how much DNA they have by weight. Clearly you got to experience no such experiment, otherwise you would know how completely ludicrous what you said is.
https://littlebinsforlittlehands.com/strawberry-dna-science/
You can do this experiment right now, at home, for under $20.
There is no bottom to the pit of your ignorance is there?
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 34%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.88  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Atoms can collide all day long and produce all sorts of complexities of molecular whatever, but as neither carry or create DNA their activity is irrelevant to DNA. DNA must be inherited, that is why it can only be carried in a higher order of matter, a living cell. The fact that every family has identifying DNA markers which are genetically inherited from the beginning of time by every blood relative down through the ages, the fact that every homosapien has the same homo sapien marker repeated down through the ages of time, the fact that every different species has its own identifying marker repeated down through the ages of time, I think we can safely deduce that DNA is not created by random collisions of anything. It is very specific and the characteristics it designs are very specific.
The absolute kicker, though, is that it is not matter, therefore matter cannot create it. It can only be inherited. But even the inherited DNA does not explain the uninherited DNA which makes all of us an individual. It is our I.D. that not another single living thing has. It's uniquely our own. So where does that unique DNA come from which is not inherited from our Mum and Dad? Nature can't produce NEW codes of DNA. It can only copy an existing code already in an existing cell.
I know atheists will die their last dying breath denying it, but DNA is intelligent information. Natural cell structure, atoms, nuclei, peptides, anzymes, etc. have no intelligence, so how could they produce information? Another word for information is intelligence. Whatever way we look at it, matter cannot produce DNA, it can only copy it. Even that is pretty gobsmacking.
.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: D D    DA B D   complicated molecules DNA   real world  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have no idea what you are talking about, and it is painfully obvious.
I have already explained to you, and so have others, why you are wrong, but still you refuse to accept you have no F***ing clue what you are saying!
You prescribe intelligence to DNA because you yourself have no idea what intelligence is!
You will die the D***A** that you are unless you make an effort to learn anything. Until then, you are fit only as an ignoramus thrall to your beliefs.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: D D    complicated molecules DNA   DA B D   beginning of time  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    scientific theory   Atheist   research journal  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is to say, naturalism is a set of guiding principals for examining reality, and therefore is useful in that it helps to discover objective truth, rather than being something that is objectively true itself?
IDK, it just feels like comparing apples to oranges here, since although many religions are sort of the ancestors of philosophy, they get out of hand when they are believed to be literally true.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sort of the ancestors of philosophy    objective truth   facts   naturalism  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I fully "get" the confusion about this and there is a great deal of it. The first thing that must be recognized above all things is that DNA is merely a CODE . It uses only the four letters which you correctly show in your image, namely A,T,G,C. In this discussion the quintessential thing to never lose sight of is that fact, that DNA is a CODE of intelligent information as represented by those four letters, no different from the text on this page. Those letters ARE information. So if you can MAKE EVERY ENDEAVOR not to lose sight of that fact, we can then progress to explain what it is that your image actually shows..
DNA code is arranged in a different way for each individual. That arrangement is reflected in or manifested in how the matter arranges itself, although the matter IS NOT the DNA itself. Remember DNA is a code. You are not looking at the code. You are looking at a manifestation of it. Don't forget that. When we look at the helix, which is where the DNA is stored inside the protein chains, we know that the reason for all the different shapes, sizes, lengths, curves, coils and spirals of the helix is an EXPRESSION of how the code has been arranged in that helix, but we must not make the mistake of believing that the helix itself or part of it is ACTUALLY the DNA. IT IS NOT. The helix is merely the carrier of the DNA, and its shape expresses the INDIVIDUALITY of the arrangement of the code..
Unfortunately and regrettably in the lay language used to discuss DNA people everywhere refer to the matter which is involved in the regulation, encoding, modification, transcription, expression and carrying of DNA as if it were the actual DNA itself and this is where the confusion arises. The substances mentioned like sugars, proteins and the like may be REGULATORS of gene expression or FACILITATORS of the code, but again they themselves are not the code itself. This is equally as critical to never forget, despite what you read. REAL science when discussing DNA speaks of "encoding", "transcription", "recognition", "expression", "sequence", "facilitators", etc. These are not words applicable to matter. They are words applicable to ...
I N T E L L I G E N T I N F O R M A T I O N
Just to illustrate the complexity of this subject, so that no-one gets the idea it can be explained away with a few pompous lines and a single image, worse, make the mistake of believing that Happy_K or myself understand the science of DNA in an educated manner, I've selected an image of a more complex helix to demonstrate that we are just not qualified to discuss the deeper mechanisms of DNA. There are billions upon billions of different shaped helices (plural for helix) expressing DNA.. The image below depicts just one of such, which is an Helix-turn-Helix (HTH) and which is not to be confused with the helix-loop-helix, (HLH). These are really complex helices and their functions are equally as complex. To explain their functions goes off the planet, introducing terminology like bacteriophage lambda & C.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.58  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
When you try to come back and fis your mistakes and then keep saying wrong things that show that your level of knowledge is less than that of the average high school student.
Those letters are not really there, they are shorthand for the name of the nucleobase present, Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine in case you didn't know that. It isn't a code the way that words are, there is no semantic meaning there. It is a physical thing.
Your lack of knowledge reflects your inability to say anything meaningful, or even vaguely accurate. Just admit you have no idea what you are talking about, you seem to be the only one who is unaware of that fact.
Also, don't forget to clean the straw out when you are done.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: average high school student.Those letters    physical thing.Your lack of knowledge   level of knowledge   name of the nucleobase present  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
W H I C H I S A N I N T E L L I G E N T A R R A N G E M E N T.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: actual helix    real life   naked eye   microscope  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is like that in a lot of ways.
Just imagine if the holes told the piano how to build a new piano, complete with a copy of the instructions to build more. That is basically what cells do, but at the end of the day, it is still just a piece of paper with holes in it. Nothing special or intelligent there. The holes of course need the piano to turn them into something meaningful, like music or a new piano. However, someone could rearrange the way the data is read to make it mean something else entirely. One of the exciting technologies being developed now is DNA based memory for computers, which turns the DNA into computer code. The meaning of that code however is based on how the computer interprets it, thus the meaning of the words is relative.
So the same information that produces a bacteria cell might be used to make a messy image with a computer.
P.S. No, that picture isn't DNA under a microscope, it is a 3D render, more of an artist's picture really. As far as I can tell, it came from this website https://www.createdigital.org.au/synthetic-biology-technology-21st-century/
Here is a real picture:
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 5  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bunch of holes    player piano   semantic meaning   exciting technologies  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am interested only in ensuring that F A C T S aren't distorted, misrepresented, twisted into pretzels and spewed out resembling your bush school peanut gallery. You really do have it bad, clinging to every last vestige of the attack-dog mentality, that you have to now try to debunk the photograph of the genuine helix, taken from a University paper. Your link obviously lifted it from that. HA. HA. HA.
We're done here. If you can't climb over your meglomanaical proclivities then it's your problem not mine, mate. Have a nice day and don't let the facts stand in your way while you keep building your heaps of crapola higher than the burj khalifa. You never know. One day you'll be able to jump over it, unlike your ego. Bye.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    N O T H   F A C T S   burj khalifa  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
WOW! If you could solve the equation for gravity, you would become the modern-day Einstein. Solving it using maths alone sounds tricky, but what do I know. Best of British good luck with it.
On the elasticity of numbers, reverberations and modulations, I can't stop laughing at your obvious brilliance and my complete lack of understanding, although your explanation is not unclear nor imprecise. I can see that to someone versed in what you do, it would be perfectly clear. I myself am the obvious plank in the eye here, being at the opposite end of the spectrum of knowledge in your league of maths.
That said, you mentioned earlier that maths has proved atheism cannot present a plausible or even possible explanation for existence and life itself, or something like that. Einstein came to the same conclusion, so you are in good company. If you can solve your equation which proves that atheism is the biggest load of croc on this side of the galaxy, then the world will owe you a great debt.
Godspeed and don't look back. I really enjoyed our chat. I'm just sorry I couldn't measure up. Cheers.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: proceeding value    math principles   modern-day Einstein   attraction of numbers  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 71%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: argument    nbsp   Libral   Welcome  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
And atheists think we're the joke. Some even peddle atheist sophistry and get PAID for their speaking tours. I guess you could call that a vested interest in lying. Hard to believe, isn't it? LOL!
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    Hi Vaulk   Atheist   scientific theory  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you rolled 100 dice 5 times and got all different numbers, would you look at that data and go Woa! it must be intelligent for it to have not landed the same way!
That is basically what you are arguing here.
You just seem more interested in spewing your alt-facts and misconceptions like the moron you are.
almost forgot about all the funny giraffe pictures I meant to show you:
If you think that life and DNA is intelligent or is evidence of intelligence, then that means you think that everything in nature is intelligently designed, including the obscure parts.
Male Giraffes drink the urine of the female to determine if she is ready to mate.
Now tell me, does this seem intelligent to you, at all?
If you wanted to design an animal, is this how you would do it?
This makes sense if evolution is the result of random processes, and random mutations in DNA lead to these traits and developments, including the original formation of DNA from inorganic matter.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: funny giraffe pictures    obscure parts.Male Giraffes   good indicator of randomness.If   urine of the female  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nicer way         
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Unnecessary to say his image isn't relevant to the DNA code, least of all relevant to the intelligence required to create DNA codes in the correct sequence, with the correct number of sequences and in an accurate arrangement to provide the correct information for cells to then know how to correctly construct our physical characteristics. Without this information cells are just a non-functioning BLOB. Remember the top scientist in this field has proved that. Harry Ha Ha thinks he's the top scientist here. He's not. The single DNA code for any single individual is .... wait for it .... miles long if it were recorded in the way shown in the image below. The ticker tape of the code, if written like this on a piece of paper, would literally stretch for miles, because there are billions of sequences of the four letters, (expressing the sequence of the 4 nitrogenous bases), in one single DNA code.
Unlike humans, animals don't copulate for pleasure. They only participate in sexual intercourse to reproduce offspring and for no other reason, so "Daddy" giraffe here, is just doing his "Daddy" job. Of course, I am not really a giraffe, so again, one has to laugh at Harry Ha Ha's parting shot and take it with a grain of salt. If I were a giraffe, then I would be a very unusual phenomenon, indeed, but I know I am not, for no scientific institution has ever shown the slightest bit of interest in me, therefore I know I am a pretty normal human being. Have a nice day, mate.
.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't think you understand what I am saying here, if you think DNA is intelligent, then that means you think that drinking urine is intelligent.
Do you think drinking urine is intelligent?
If you were making an animal, would you make it so that it drinks urine to tell when females are in estrus?
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: urine    humans   mammals   DNA  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
The one obstacle larger than proving the God of religion and belief is proving GOD is not a religion or belief in a united state of all people. By context is the one obstacle larger than proving god the answer of religion and belief, is vanity, as just a translation made on 400 11 500, everyday numbers looking for no answers yet getting the problems anyway.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: God of religion    answer of religion   con   everyday numbers  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    post      
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
Although I agree with the stated obstacles, I think you are being very generous and overly kind to atheism in attributing mere vanity as the reason for its investment in a multi-billion dollar global network - its Ministry of Propaganda - which involves the hijacking of Western scientific establishments, the hijacking of Departments of Education, school texts and syllabi, as well as the inculcation of the halls of scientific academia, of teaching institutions, politics and so on. Surely, such a carefully crafted orchestration with the investment of billions of dollars has to be an Agenda which points to much more than the hubris of vanity?
It is actually a full-on information war to win hearts and minds to derail its Nemesis, Christianity, which takes us to the very core of this debate. Of what interest is it to the atheist cabal, whether the populace believes in a God or not and of such interest that it invests billions in influence peddling to win the hearts and minds of the people, in order to persuade them that there is no God and no proof of any God? it is social engineering reflecting both a political AND a spiritual Agenda, hence the information war, The Great Apostasy, which the Biblical texts prophesied in Revelation.
Can you explain what you mean by the statement that the gematra of 400 11 500 "is everyday numbers looking for no answers and getting the problems anyway"?
P.S. I THINK my light bulb just went on. You are saying that using gematra and construing numbers is not really a genuine endeavor to source a genuine answer, but is in reality merely a ruse to pretend that is the purpose of the endeavor, while all along knowing the answer will not prove there is a God, but pretending the methodology is an accredited methodology and therefore pretending that the answer is "proof" of no God OR, alternative designed to pretend there is proof of God. Right? Which one is it, or is it both?
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
What about when you're laughing at how rubbish the argument is? Points is just a number.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: God    PO      
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
"You are saying that using gematria and construing numbers is not really a genuine endeavor to source a genuine answer, but is in reality merely a ruse to pretend that is the purpose of the endeavor, while all along knowing the answer will not prove there is a God"
The revers. The proof is that there is a GOD that God is not religious. Atheism is not real, it is a proof request of god held public without being a test for political office.
Roman numerals have a mathematical principle as an unlining guide, they are not simple translation of value made between a start and end sequence. Though generally believe to be so as it is far easier for common use when excepted. The identity of "IN GOD WE TRUST" is the easy to remember way of a much larger formulation of sequencing numbers by value 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 - 100.. In dollars, the list of numbers is 1,2,5,10,20,50,100 not 1-100 The savings are self-evident truth of a sharable trust when the speed saved in counting to 100 is made. Just look below.
1. Counting from 1-100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, etc.100) 100 - 25 is 75
2. Counting by 2 to 100.(2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58,60,62,64,66,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84,86,88,90,92,94,96,98,100.) 100 - 50 is 50
3. Counting by 5 to 100. (5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,75,80,85,90,95,100.) 100 - 20 is 80
4 Counting by 10 to 100. (10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100.) 100 - 10 is 90
then, counting by 20 to 100. (20,40,60,80,100.) 100 - 5 is 95
and the last counting by 50 to 100.( 50,100.) 100 - 2 is 98
The numbers not written when added is the savings of the trust by GOD( 400,11,500). 98, 95,90,80,50,75 equaling 488 savings is avalible for every 600 dollars in value spent and becomes avaliable. The united state of TRUST does not work with just random numbers, or credit asignd from random numbers.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra