Intelligent Design & the Odds of Life

[Phi for All]

I have no obligation to respond to all posters.

You have an obligation to back up assertions with evidence when asked.

 

DNA contains LITERALLY a code, by all means.

 

 

 

http://www.cosmicfin...eists/dna-code/Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

From your link, regarding the scientific qualifications of the author:

Perry Marshall is an author, speaker and consultant in Chicago with expertise in digital communication networks, control systems, acoustics and e-commerce.

In other words, Perry is not a scientist.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

When a scientist says one can "think of DNA as an instructional script", he IS using analogy, LITERALLY. You use an unqualified source to say it's not an analogy, then you try to sneak past a quote from a reputable scientist who clearly claims it IS an analogy. Cheap trick, and very intellectually dishonest.

 

kkkk....

 

Do you really know what you are talking about ??

 

Francis Crick would strongly disagree with you.......

 

http://nobelprize.or...e-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life

Again, a clear use of analogy. Scientists often make the mistake of using analogy to make things clearer to an uneducated audience. Unfortunately, it's often these very analogies that get quoted and misrepresented, both by the innocently uninitiated and by those with a purposely devious agenda.

[Elshamah]

So, you will just choose to ignore the rest of my post that pre-empted your reply and already answered the questions you posed, is that correct?

 

If I understand your argument correctly, you're basically saying that DNA is just information ?

 

No. DNA is not information. DNA is a information carrier. It contains all the information to develop the functions of a body.

 

 

 

 

I don't care if the scientists are secular or religious. I want papers that are peer reviewed.

 

here it goes :

 

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html

 

I also don't care for what is "common knowledge". Common knowledge is inferior to actual scientific evidence.

 

common scientific knowledge is based on actual scientific evidence.

 

De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes:

 

In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins.

 

 

Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430

 

 

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

No. DNA is not information. DNA is a information carrier. It contains all the information to develop the functions of a body.

 

Not it isn't / Yes it is! / No it isn't / Yes it is! / NO IT ISN'T! / YES! / NO! / YES! / NO---- do you know what solves this rather repetitive exchange? Actual evidence.

 

Please read Phi's post above.

 

 

here it goes :

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html

 

This is clear indication that you go at this discussion with a CONCLUSION already set, but let's move on to the actual link.

 

Here's the thing: This page is full of quotes that were taken (supposedly) out of peer reviewed papers. Why are there no links to the ACTUAL PAPERS so we can read the context? The only links on this page are to a non-reputable non-science organizations, like the Discovery institute, which is a creation/intelligent-design specific source.

 

This is rather easy. We asked for peer-reviewed evidence, not quotes without context that might be misquoted. Can you find us those peer-reviewed papers so we can discuss the source and not a potential interpretation?

 

Alternatively, you could go over the beginning of the thread and read the sources that were posted there. Just an idea.

common scientific knowledge is based on actual scientific evidence.

Not always, which is why you need to show it, and not just tidbits of quotes without source and without context.

 

De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes:

 

In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins.

 

 

Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430

 

You found one sentence from one scientist. Great, I guess it's a start. This, however, is out of context, and it's a far cry from saying that a peer-reviewed scientific paper supports your claim.

 

"Encoded within DNA" suggests that there should be another mechanism to decode this so called information -- which is what RNA is doing and what was previously explained in the same context in this thread and others. You're just quote-mining right now.

 

You are moving the goal post as well as ignoring the links we put forth to you. Stop claiming you read our links, it's clear you hven't. Please go over talkorigins page again; I feel like copy/pasting half the resource every time you're making a claim YOU think is novel, and we've heard multipole times before (and answered successfully on multiple places, including TalkOrigins)

 

We're not here to entertain your preaching. Please cooperate on an intellectually honest discussion. Thanks.

 

~mooey

[Elshamah]

Again, a clear use of analogy. Scientists often make the mistake of using analogy to make things clearer to an uneducated audience. Unfortunately, it's often these very analogies that get quoted and misrepresented, both by the innocently uninitiated and by those with a purposely devious agenda.

 

False. DNA contains LITERALLY a code.

 

http://www.dnatutorial.com/

 

An organism (be it bacteria, rosebush, ant or human) has some form of nucleic acid which is the chemical carrier of its genetic information. There are two types of nucleic acids, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) which code for all the information that determines the nature of the organism's cells.

 

http://phys.org/news...na-insight.html

 

Living systems owe their existence to a pair of information-carrying molecules: DNA and RNA. These fundamental chemical forms possess two features essential for life: they display heredity—meaning they can encode and pass on genetic information

http://www.biology-o...information.htm

 

Genetic Code

 

Genes are sequences of DNA nucleotides that carry and transmit the information specifying amino acid sequences for protein synthesis. Each DNA molecule contains many genes. The genome refers collectively to the total genetic information coded in a cell.

 

http://www.cosmicfin...eists/dna-code/

 

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

 

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Edited August 4, 2012 by Elshamah

[doG]

If there are no known chemical or physical laws which can create this complex and specified information needed for a self-replicating molecule, then this stage of the origin of life faces severe hurdles.

So!!! The whole basis of debate rooted in the ideology that this or that could not have happened such and such a way because we don't know or understand how it might have happened in such and such a way is no way to argue in favor of, "it must have happened my way". You could completely disprove all current theories of abiogenesis and that would provide no evidence whatsoever in favor of anything like intelligent design. Disproving any theory is not evidence in favor of any other theory. What to you hope to accomplish with your unsubstantiated assertions that current theories couldn't be correct?

Edited August 4, 2012 by doG

[mooeypoo]

For the sake of consistency and educational purposes for the way scientific discussions probably should be done here, here is a list of proper scientific resources that support evolution.

I must say that if we go at the challenge of posting "all evidence" we will have a very very long very very arduous task, since there are quite a LOT of evidence for evolution, from multiple angles, multiple fields, and over a large span of time.

 

That said, you can start here:

 

• Evidence for evolution by natural selection. http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
  
• The Science of Evolution (Berkeley, includes references within): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
  
• Smithsonian Institute, Evidence of Evolution (references within) https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
  
• Evidence of common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
  Yes, I know this is wikipedia, but in this case, it isn't a source of its own, but it is a source of the LINKS for peer reviewed evidence. There are 137 references linked in that article, as references for peer-reviewed articles, and the article does a good job describing their meaning and linking to the source.
  

 

There are more, if you insist.

 

Enjoy.

 

~mooey

[Elshamah]

Information is just a term we humans apply to help us better understand certain things, and DNA really is not information in the way you are asserting, nor is it a book containing information in the way your argument requires.

 

False

 

from a peer review paper :

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246854/

 

Unfortunately, the student is not taught that those theories still require complex and specified information contained in functioning proteins, which cannot be explained or self-generated

 

 

 

 

 

So!!! The whole basis of debate rooted in the ideology that this or that could not have happened such and such a way because we don't know or understand how it might have happened in such and such a way is no way to argue in favor of, "it must have happened my way". You could completely disprove all current theories of abiogenesis and that would provide no evidence whatsoever in favor of anything like intelligent design. Disproving any theory is not evidence in favor of any other theory. What to you hope to accomplish with your unsubstantiated assertions that current theories couldn't be correct?

 

Well, i think we do have just 3 mechanisms to explain the existence of the universe, and LIFE.

 

1. Physical necessity.

2. Chance

3. Intelligent design.

 

If 1 and 2 are discarded, no.3 is a logical deduction.

 

from my peer reviewed paper :

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246854/

 

the student is not taught that the four nucleotides do not spontaneously form in nature (20). There is no self-organizing principle that would guide or facilitate alignment of nucleotides (21, 22). Any experimentally manufactured nucleotides are mixtures of L (left-oriented) and D (right-oriented) isomers. Since DNA is composed of only D isomers, the probability of alignment of thousands of specified D isomers becomes even more remote (23, 24). Even if there was a self-organizing pattern, the probability of even a short strand of nucleotides occurring in a precisely specified linear pattern that would code for even the smallest single-celled organism with approximately 250 genes has been calculated to be 1 in 10¹⁵⁰—1 in 10⁷⁰ less than the chance of finding a particular electron in the entire universe

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the sake of consistency and educational purposes for the way scientific discussions probably should be done here, here is a list of proper scientific resources that support evolution.

I must say that if we go at the challenge of posting "all evidence" we will have a very very long very very arduous task, since there are quite a LOT of evidence for evolution, from multiple angles, multiple fields, and over a large span of time.

 

That said, you can start here:

 

• Evidence for evolution by natural selection. http://www.nature.co...olutiongems.pdf
• The Science of Evolution (Berkeley, includes references within): http://evolution.ber.../0_0_0/lines_01
• Smithsonian Institute, Evidence of Evolution (references within) https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
• Evidence of common descent: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent
  Yes, I know this is wikipedia, but in this case, it isn't a source of its own, but it is a source of the LINKS for peer reviewed evidence. There are 137 references linked in that article, as references for peer-reviewed articles, and the article does a good job describing their meaning and linking to the source.

 

There are more, if you insist.

 

Enjoy.

 

~mooey

 

 

Are we debating Evolution, or Abiogenesis ??!!

 

here a good number of peer reviewed papers, which do represent my standpoint :

 

 

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

 

 

Edited August 4, 2012 by Elshamah

[mooeypoo]

Please read this: http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/a-response-to-joseph-kuhns-dissecting-darwinism/

 

And this http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/02/more-bad-science-in-the-litera/

 

As both contain answers to the above paper; it's been quite extensively discredited, and the above two are just examples. Before you start yelling about those not being peer reviewed, read them through -- they use peer reviewed data to corroborate their findings, which is more than what was done in this thread.

 

That said, irreducible complexity has been proven bunk for a while now http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html (will you read talkorigins or should we just give up in advance?)

 

Are we debating Evolution, or Abiogenesis ??!!

 

here a good number of peer reviewed papers, which do represent my standpoint :

 

 

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

I don't know anymore, you keep dancing around the subject and moving the goalpost. People answered multiple time on the claim you keep saying is false. You tell me.

[doG]

Well, i think we do have just 3 mechanisms to explain the existence of the universe, and LIFE.

 

1. Physical necessity.

2. Chance

3. Intelligent design.

 

If 1 and 2 are discarded, no.3 is a logical deduction.

First, saying there are only 3 possibilities is itself an assertion you need to support.

 

Second, disproving current theories that assert physical necessity and/or chance does not disprove or preclude new theories with the same assertions. You could never disprove all possible theories in 1 or 2 and doing so does not prove the 3rd. The approach is fatally flawed. Quit wasting your time and provide scientific evidence of the 3rd if that is your goal. Disproving the others will not do that for you.

[dragonstar57]

I wish you had the time to study what you're scoffing at, you sound like such a smart person!

 

Life wouldn't have started with a nucleic acid as complex as DNA, it just needed a strand with the blueprints for its own reproduction that could catalyze reactions in some of the available chemicals.

 

Please stop using DNA as an example of irreducible complexity. It wasn't around when life formed.

he could study the subject or he could just watch this YouTube video!

[Elshamah]

Please read this: http://afarensis99.w...ting-darwinism/

 

And this http://scienceblogs....-in-the-litera/

 

As both contain answers to the above paper; it's been quite extensively discredited, and the above two are just examples. Before you start yelling about those not being peer reviewed, read them through -- they use peer reviewed data to corroborate their findings, which is more than what was done in this thread.

 

That said, irreducible complexity has been proven bunk for a while now http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/behe.html (will you read talkorigins or should we just give up in advance?)

 

 

I don't know anymore, you keep dancing around the subject and moving the goalpost. People answered multiple time on the claim you keep saying is false. You tell me.

 

Who is moving the goal posts ? you present now a paper about irreducible complexity . Please define , what do you want to debate about ? evolution, abiogenesis, or irreducible complexity ? and please : just post a link, or youtube video, is a waste.

Please present your arguments here at this thread.

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

I'm reacting to your claims and the paper you posted. It talks about irreducible complexity, and you've been talking about it throughout the thread as well.

 

This is getting tiring. The person that needs to prove their claim true is you, and so far your evidence have been sub par to say the least. "Institute of Creation Research" (ICR) is not a scientific source. Discovery institute (creationist / intelligent-design proponents) is not a scientific source.

 

When you give a scientific source, please link or quote the full paper, because quote-mining (as was done before) is also not science, and is intellectually dishonest.

 

So far the only semi-valid evidence you posted is a paper in the NIH by a surgeon talking about, among other things, irreducible complexity, a paper that was comprehensively discredited in various places.

 

If we're talking about abiogenesis, DNA "information" is almost invalid on its own, because no scientist claims that DNA just "popped into being" randomly. The idea of abiogenesis is that this stage occured slowly, incrementally, over chemical processes and bonds that we managed to replicate.

 

Do you have any other claims you're interested in supporting, please do so, even just for the sake of organizing this thread and getting back on whatever topic you intended to focus on rather than having us reading articles that tend to go all over the place, and when we answer the "all over the place" points, you claim we're off topic.

 

 

~mooey

[Elshamah]

provide scientific evidence of the 3rd if that is your goal.

 

There are only two possibilities : spontaneous generation of life, or creation. Once spontaneous generation can be discarted based on the scientific knowledge and evidence, design is a logical inference.

The amazing scientific discoveries of the last twenty years have indeed revealed to us, that biologic systems are machines - far more complex , even at the deepest , molecular level, than we could imagine in our wildest dreams. And astrophysics has shown us that not only on a microscopic level, but also on macroscopic scale, everything is finely tuned to make life possible . There are hundreds of fine-tune constants, which evidence in a very evident way : we were created by a super intelligent creator.

 

I'm reacting to your claims and the paper you posted. It talks about irreducible complexity, and you've been talking about it throughout the thread as well.

 

This is getting tiring. The person that needs to prove their claim true is you, and so far your evidence have been sub par to say the least. "Institute of Creation Research" (ICR) is not a scientific source. Discovery institute (creationist / intelligent-design proponents) is not a scientific source.

 

ok. you want to keep our discussion in regard of irreducible complexity in the cell ? so you were asking for peer reviewed articles. I provided them to you. So now that is not enough, right ? So now, you ask for secular sources ?

 

no problem.

 

The cell is indeed irreducibly complex. That makes spontaneous generation impossible.

 

Popper, K.R., Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science; in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974.

the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:

'What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. "'Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.

 

 

When you give a scientific source, please link or quote the full paper, because quote-mining (as was done before) is also not science, and is intellectually dishonest.

 

I have always linked the source of my quote. Is that not enough ?

 

So far the only semi-valid evidence

 

are quotes from Dawkins, Crick, Collins etc. semi valid ? If so, what kind of evidence is valid to you ? only the one , that fits your pre conceived world view ??!!

 

 

If we're talking about abiogenesis, DNA "information" is almost invalid on its own, because no scientist claims that DNA just "popped into being" randomly.

 

Of course not. No scientist has a time machine, to back in the past, to find out what really happened. The conclusions are just personal opinions and beliefs.

 

 

 

The idea of abiogenesis is that this stage occured slowly, incrementally, over chemical processes and bonds that we managed to replicate.

 

Correct. Abiogenesis is based on a belief.

 

Do you have any other claims you're interested in supporting, please do so, even just for the sake of organizing this thread and getting back on whatever topic you intended to focus on rather than having us reading articles that tend to go all over the place, and when we answer the "all over the place" points, you claim we're off topic.

 

Well, i was actually concentrating in showing that DNA contains actually literally a code.

 

until you came up with evolution and irreducible complexity. How about we figure out, if DNA contains literally a code, or not, and then we draw our conclusions , or move forward ?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2012 by Elshamah

[iNow]

There are only two possibilities : spontaneous generation of life, or creation.

Are you familiar with the concept of a false dichotomy?

 

No. DNA is not information. DNA is a information carrier.

So are farts and the structure of termite mounds. So what?

 

False

 

from a peer review paper :

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246854/

Well, thanks... But I preferred the response to that article that pointed to several of its flaws and problems.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246855/

[doG]

There are only two possibilities : spontaneous generation of life, or creation. Once spontaneous generation can be discarted based on the scientific knowledge and evidence, design is a logical inference.

No there is really only creation and it's only only debatable whether or nor it occurred naturally. You could never rule out natural causes because it always's possible that it happened naturally and we just don't understand how, it will never just automatically infer that the only possible solution is a creator. Science doesn't have all the answers but that's no reason to just make up answers like ID. You can hypothesize it if you want but don't think the disproving of other hypotheses would ever prove yours.

[John Cuthber]

abiogenesis is not possible because DNA contains complex, specified, codified information. And that can come only from a mind. In the same way as chance cannot create Shakespeares Hamlet, it cannot create the instruction script for life. Therefor, the best explanation for life is a intelligent, living creator.

 

This is logically inconsistent.

If abiogenesis is impossible then nothing could have created the " intelligent, living creator".

[Elshamah]

No there is really only creation and it's only only debatable whether or nor it occurred naturally.

 

The outcome is the same. Once its been established, that a natural causation is very unlikely, a supernatural cause is the logical alternative.

 

 

 

You could never rule out natural causes because it always's possible that it happened naturally

 

How do you possibly know ?

 

 

and we just don't understand how

 

its also possible that Santa Claus exists. We has just not found him yet....

 

 

Science doesn't have all the answers but that's no reason to just make up answers like ID.

 

ID is not a made up answer, but a logical inference based on what we have discovered through science.

 

 

You can hypothesize it if you want but don't think the disproving of other hypotheses would ever prove yours.

 

Proofs, only in mathematics.

 

 

 

 

 

This is logically inconsistent.

If abiogenesis is impossible then nothing could have created the " intelligent, living creator".

 

I do not believe, God was created, but exists eternally, without beginning, without a end.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, thanks... But I preferred the response to that article that pointed to several of its flaws and problems.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246855/

 

Could you point out the flaws, the the document pointed out, that convinces you the paper is wrong ?

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

The outcome is the same. Once its been established, that a natural causation is very unlikely, a supernatural cause is the logical alternative.

 

 

ID is not a made up answer, but a logical inference based on what we have discovered through science.

 

 

I do not believe, God was created, but exists eternally, without beginning, without a end.

 

 

Iff it were established that a natural cause was unlikely then you would have a point.

However there is nothing unlikely about it.

 

ID is made up.

The courts have ruled on it.

The nature of the universe is not decided by your beliefs.

[mooeypoo]

 

Well, i was actually concentrating in showing that DNA contains actually literally a code.

Which people repeatedly told you is incorrect, why it's incorrect, and supplied evidence on the matter. But none of this matters, because you seem to be convinced of the conclusion you want to believe in, and nothing we show you, claim, or explain, seems to matter.

 

Why bother, then? We're really not here to hear you preach, Elshamah.

 

~mooey

 

its also possible that Santa Claus exists. We has just not found him yet....

 

I am absolutely flabbergasted that you give this example about the magical invisible Santa Claus and doesn't see that it's exactly the same case as any magical invisible intelligent designer.

 

Do you really miss the fact that an intelligent designer without a single evidence is more similar in concept to Santa Claus than a natural process with some evidence?

 

If so, this entire discussion is just pointless.

 

~mooey

[Greg H.]

... a supernatural cause is the logical alternative.

 

The irony of this sentence fragment is just stupefying. Aliens seeding the earth would be more logical than God did it. God did it is not logic, it's a jump to a preassumed conclusion to fill a gap in present knowledge. It isn't science, and it certainly any kind of actual logic.

 

How do you possibly know ?

Because thus far science has not failed to find natural explanations for any other process in Nature, and there is no reason to expect science to fail us now. It does not necessarily follow that an answer does not exist just because it's not obvious or easy to find.

ID is not a made up answer, but a logical inference based on what we have discovered through science.

Intelligent design is, at its heart, one huge argument from incredulity. It's not inferred from science at any level. The fact that it's wrapped in fancy sciencey sounding words does not change the fact that the entire idea is built on a giant fallacy, and has one purpose - to make sure people stick to the God did it answer. On the other hand, at least its is obvious.

No there is really only creation and it's only only debatable whether or nor it occurred naturally. You could never rule out natural causes because it always's possible that it happened naturally and we just don't understand how, it will never just automatically infer that the only possible solution is a creator. Science doesn't have all the answers but that's no reason to just make up answers like ID. You can hypothesize it if you want but don't think the disproving of other hypotheses would ever prove yours.

Proofs, only in mathematics.

The let me rephrase what doG means: Failure to find evidence for any given hypothesis does not provide evidence for any other particular hypothesis. If you want to prove that there is a creator, you need to provide positive evidence that such a creator exists. And I'll stop you before you get started "Look at the world around you" is not evidence of God. It's evidence of Nature.

I do not believe, God was created, but exists eternally, without beginning, without a end.

And people used to believe that the world was flat, and that the sun was carried across the sky in a chariot. What we believe, however, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of reality. All that matters is the evidence that can be provided.

[iNow]

Failure to find evidence for any given hypothesis does not provide evidence for any other particular hypothesis. If you want to prove that there is a creator, you need to provide positive evidence that such a creator exists. And I'll stop you before you get started "Look at the world around you" is not evidence of God. It's evidence of Nature.

Correct. In much the same way, thunder is not evidence of Thor, and ocean currents are not evidence of Poseidon.

[Elshamah]

Iff it were established that a natural cause was unlikely then you would have a point.

However there is nothing unlikely about it.

 

You will have a point, if you can show me one, just one example of naturally arosen complex, specified, coded information, as contained in DNA.

 

 

 

 

Which people repeatedly told you is incorrect, why it's incorrect, and supplied evidence on the matter.

 

you seem like a kid, that taps the ears, and lalalalalaaaaa.......

 

 

http://www.biology-online.org/9/4_genetic_information.htm

 

The genome refers collectively to the total genetic information coded in a cell.

http://regentsprep.org/regents/biology/2011%20Web%20Pages/Genetics-%20DNA-RNA%20page.htm

The inherited instructions that are passed from parent to offspring exist as a code. The DNA molecule which makes up our genes contains this code.

What do you not understand about this ?

 

But none of this matters, because you seem to be convinced of the conclusion you want to believe in, and nothing we show you, claim, or explain, seems to matter.

 

doesnt that seem to be rather your case ?

 

Why bother, then? We're really not here to hear you preach, Elshamah.

 

~mooey

 

 

I am absolutely flabbergasted that you give this example about the magical invisible Santa Claus and doesn't see that it's exactly the same case as any magical invisible intelligent designer.

 

Do you really miss the fact that an intelligent designer without a single evidence is more similar in concept to Santa Claus than a natural process with some evidence?

 

 

Well, you exist. we exist. Our universe exists. That demands for a explanation. Do you have good reasons to believe, our natural universe is all there is, and needs no cause ? If so, how about you present your reasons ?

 

 

 

[ecoli]

You will have a point, if you can show me one, just one example of naturally arosen complex, specified, coded information, as contained in DNA.

 

... pick any sequence you want. Any gene-encoding sequence to fit your request. With the exception of a few oligo sequences generated by biotech, they all fit this description.

 

 

Well, you exist. we exist. Our universe exists. That demands for a explanation. Do you have good reasons to believe, our natural universe is all there is, and needs no cause ? If so, how about you present your reasons ?

 

The desire to give the universe meaning doesn't mean you get to make up a reason and call it science. Illegitimately shifting the burden of proof is a slimy debate tactic, since you're the one advancing an untestable theory: that the universe has a designer. Why don't you get around to proving this assertation and then maybe it'll be appropriate for mooey to defend her reasons.

[Elshamah]

The irony of this sentence fragment is just stupefying. Aliens seeding the earth would be more logical than God did it. God did it is not logic, it's a jump to a preassumed conclusion to fill a gap in present knowledge.

 

I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

 

 

 

Because thus far science has not failed to find natural explanations for any other process in Nature, and there is no reason to expect science to fail us now. It does not necessarily follow that an answer does not exist just because it's not obvious or easy to find.

 

Scientific data actually points clearly to a supernatural origin of all universe, since naturalism is not able to explain convincingly why our universe is finely tuned to create life, and life per se. And the origin of the universe points us to a cause of it. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

 

 

Intelligent design is, at its heart, one huge argument from incredulity.

 

nope.

 

http://www.ideacente...ils.php/id/1186

 

the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.

 

 

If you want to prove that there is a creator, you need to provide positive evidence that such a creator exists. And I'll stop you before you get started "Look at the world around you" is not evidence of God. It's evidence of Nature.

 

And how did this nature came to be ?

 

http://www.gty.org/r...t-or-not-part-1

 

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

 

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild.

 

And people used to believe that the world was flat.

 

a case of a creator, page 107

Writers of astronomy textbooks just keep recycling the myth, sort of like the flat-Earth myth, which was the idea that Columbus was told the Earth was flat and he thought it was round. That's just wrong too.""Scholars at the time knew it was a sphere," added Gonzalez. "Even the ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere."They'd known it for a thousand years or more," said Richards.I knew they were right about that. David Lindberg, former professor of the history of science and currently director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, said in a recent interview:One obvious [myth] is that before Columbus, Europeans believed nearly unanimously in a flat Earth-a belief allegedly drawn from certain biblical statements and enforced by the medieval church. This myth seems to have had an eighteenth century origin, elaborated and popularized by Washington Irving, who flagrantly fabricated evidence for it in his four-volume history of Columbus.... The truth is that it's almost impossible to find an educated person after Aristotle who doubts that the Earth is a sphere. In the Middle Ages, you couldn't emerge from any kind of education, cathedral school or university, without being perfectly clear about the Earth's sphericity and even its approximate circumference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct. In much the same way, thunder is not evidence of Thor,

 

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

 

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t410-thunder-lightning-proof-of-god

 

 

Edited August 5, 2012 by Elshamah

[John Cuthber]

1

I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

 

 

2

And how did this nature came to be ?

 

 

3

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

 

 

1

Well, you are half right. The cell contains information.

There is no need or logical reason to suppose that it comes from a mind.

2

How did God come to be?

At least I can point at the red shift as evidence for how the universe started. (there's plenty of other evidence too)

That's a whole lot more evidence than you can put forward.

3

There goes the neighbourhood.