I can prove God exists

[invest07]

If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. And, for all you atheists or agnostics out there, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. So far no one has been able to do so. This is based on the writings of Perry Marshall, 2005.

Patterns versus Designs

Examples of patterns are stalgamites, snowflakes, crystals and tornadoes. The formation of patterns is part of the study of Chaos. The formula for a snowflake is "Water+cold air+gravity+wind+time". Patterns are not information. No information is programmed into a pattern and no information can be decoded from a pattern.

If you are seriously into math, then fractals and mandelbrot sets are patterns. Weather is a pattern but forecasts are notoriusly unreliable because the weather is driven by chaos.

No intelligence is required to form patterns. Only naturally occurring events.

Designs require intelligence. Designs are examples of information.

Music is an example of a design. Notes are represented symbolically on paper. The sounds generated depend on the placement of these symbols on the staff, the shape of the symbol and the order. Music also exists in physical form when the air vibrates in a musical composition.

Windows is a design. It is a binary code in which "on" and "off" signals are arranged in sequences to send coded electric signals to various components of a computer. The component decodes the sequence of ons and offs and takes action based on the coded instructions. Windows XP is estimated to contain in excess of 30 million lines of code. This means that componnents must be capable of decoding the same 30+ million lines.

Language is a design. Language requires symbols that have meaning. Meaning is determined by the specific choice of symbols, the sequence and a standard set of rules to decode the meaning. Languages are a design that requires intelligence.

Designs require encoding and decoding to determine the meaning of the coding.

DNA

The DNA molecule is an example of information. Humans have 3 billion base pairs on each DNA molecule. One DNA molecule is a blueprint for an entire living organism; The body, the organs, the enzymes and hormones, the nervous system, the brain. Everything we are is encoded in each DNA molecule in our body.

I am 5'10" tall with brown hair, brown eyes and light skin. I have an astigmatism in my left eye and a deep voice. I have a shallow foot arch and and am right handed. All this is due to the information encoded into my DNA. The DNA I received from my parents and based on the DNA they received from my grandparents.

DNA is an encoding and decoding system. DNA is a language. DNA can be compared with computer programming. DNA is a code.

And DNA cannot have occurred naturally, without intelligent input.

The Challenge

Give me one example, just one, of a code or language that arose naturally, without some intelligent input. Give me just one example of information that arose solely from naturally occurring events. Give me reasonable proof, with your argument and with sources, that clearly establish that your code or language arose spontaneously from natural forces, without intelligent input. Just one example is all it will take and I will retract my initial statement.

Is anyone up to this challenge?

[9sublime]

This doesn't prove God exists. It may go some way to convincing people of intelligent design, but it doesn't prove that the Christian God exists.

I believe that the Earth probably was formed by something else, but it doesn't mean to say it was a more intelligent or powerful being, especially not the Christian God. It was probably something we will never think of in a million years, something our brains will not ever conceive, wether or not we even have the capacity to understand and study it.

Until we definetly know the origins of the universe, we cannot even BEGIN to speculate about what created us. We can make it up in our own heads, maybe even brainwash other people into believing it once we convice ourselves of it enough, but we just don't have a clue.

Just because we can't explain the origins of life and the complexity of life itself, doesn't mean the Christian God created it. In fact, our lack of knowledge indicates that we know nothing about WHO created us, as we don't even understand HOW he created us.

If I was alive to see the day we found the hardest evidence to prove the origins of time and pure existence, then, based on the discovery, we could speculate about how we have DNA that makes up such unbelievable beings like humans.

You have proved nothing my friend, only pointed out that intelligent design is definetly something that must be taken into account. If anything, you should look at this and realise, you want hard evidence about life itself and its origins, but that you are willing to jump leaps and bounds of faith in order to invent the creator.

[invest07]

9sublime

Did you read the post?

My contention is that DNA could not have evolved. It was designed.

You can disprove my statement by citing just one example of a code or language that arose naturalistically, without intelligence. If no such code or language exists it proves that DNA was the result of design.

Can you give me just one example?

[9sublime]

Did you read my post?

I was challanging the thread title in regards to the content. What you posted is interesting, and a good point, and I cannot disprove it, but it doesnt prove that 'God' exists. It goes some way to making a good argument for intelligent design from somewhere

However, DNA evolved from simpler DNA, which evolved from single cell bacteria. Until you prove what started that, then you cannot prove God exists through your argument.

You can prove that I cannot disprove in intelligent design, and I am open to the idea, I'm agnostic. However, until you prove WHO created it, you must prove HOW he created, otherwise you have not proved God exists.

[Coyote]

9sublime

Did you read the post?

My contention is that DNA could not have evolved. It was designed.

You can disprove my statement by citing just one example of a code or language that arose naturalistically, without intelligence. If no such code or language exists it proves that DNA was the result of design.

Can you give me just one example?

Actually that's a fallacy - just because something is so complex we don't yet understand it does not mean it could not have evolved naturally. It just means we don't know how yet.

[invest07]

Coyote
Nice try but you didn't address my gauntlet. And by avoiding that you haven't addressed the issue at hand.

My contention is that DNA could NOT have evolved naturalistically because DNA is a code. And creation of a code requires intelligence.

All you have to do to to disprove my contention is give me one example of any code or language that evolved naturally with no intelligence. Doesn't have to be DNA. Any old code or language will do just fine.

Can you name one? Just one? Or does your evolutionary presupposition preclude even thinking such a thought?

Come one, coyote. This should be a piece of cake for you. Give this one to you fellow Darwin Kool Aid Drinkers. This should be easy for you to shoot down.

If creation of DNA requires intelligence it requires a designer. And I contend that proves the existence of God.

So just point out one code or langauage that evolved. Please, shoot me down. If you can, that is.

[invest07]

9sublime

You say DNA eveolved from simpler DNA which came from bacteria.

I say this is impossible and has never happened in the history of the world. I say you can't prove the existence of even one code or langauge that evolved naturlistically.

Can it be that I have brought up a topic the evolutionists are afraid to address?

Come on, MacroEv'ers. This should be a walk in the park. I mean, Darwin was 150 years ago and you must have all the answers by now, don't you? You must have all the evolution stuff sewed up into nice neat packages by now. Or do you. Is it possible, just possible, that there is no code/language that evolved? And if codes/languages can't be demonstrated as evolving, doesn't this mean intelligence was necessary to create DNA and doesn't intelligence mean God?

So answer my challenge. Give me ONE example of a code or language that you can demonstrate evolved. Just ONE. I say there is no such animal. Prove me wrong.

[9sublime]

9sublime

You say DNA eveolved from simpler DNA which came from bacteria.

[QUOTE=invest07;20133]I say this is impossible and has never happened in the history of the world. I say you can't prove the existence of even one code or langauge that evolved naturlistically.

Well it has. Bacteria has been seen to mutate. I'm no expert, but if bacteria mutates and its mutation benefits it, it will thrive, and eventually stumble accross a better mutation, and slowly it becomes more adapt and complex. I find evolution far more reassuring than a God in the sky who sends you to hell for the bad things you do for an eternity of pain but... loves you.


Can it be that I have brought up a topic the evolutionists are afraid to address?

I'm not afraid to address it. I've already said, I can't give an example. However, it doesn't prove God. It gives a convincing single point for intelligent design, but not the Christian God.

Come on, MacroEv'ers. This should be a walk in the park. I mean, Darwin was 150 years ago and you must have all the answers by now, don't you? You must have all the evolution stuff sewed up into nice neat packages by now. Or do you.

The difference between me and you clearly is that you need the answers, or you tweak out. I don't need the answers. I like pursuing them, but I don't have to make them up (i.e. religion). I can deal with not knowing the unknown. I don't have to jump on the religious bandwagon now just because I don't have it all worked out.

Is it possible, just possible, that there is no code/language that evolved? And if codes/languages can't be demonstrated as evolving, doesn't this mean intelligence was necessary to create DNA and doesn't intelligence mean God?

I don't know where the code came from, BUT you have NO proof that is HAS NEVER EVOLVED. You cannot prove that at the current time. You can only prove that somewhere down the line it came into existence.

So answer my challenge. Give me ONE example of a code or language that you can demonstrate evolved. Just ONE. I say there is no such animal. Prove me wrong.

I've already said, and I'll say it again... I CANT. However, I will also repeat that the thread topic is incorrect, as your point does not prove that GOD exists. It proves that intelligent design is a decent enough theory, but does not say which God created the earth.

[invest07]

9sublime

Are you aware that there is a difference between bacteria and DNA? One example of a bacteria is EColi. One of the simplest organisms in existence today and also one of the most common.

E Coli has 4 million base pairs in its DNA. So how does the whole (bacteria)evolve before the part (DNA)? How does DNA evolve from bacteria when DNA is a component of bacteria?

Question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

And how does highly complex programming in the EColi DNA get there? By chance? By roll of the dice? Remember that a mutation is a mistake. So you must believe that DNA is the result of a bunch of mistakes. The DNA in EColi is far more complex than Windows XP and you think this happened by mistake?

Give me a break. Give all who read this forum a break.

There is no proof that DNA evolved. Quite the contrary, all the evidence I see says that a code or language requires intelligence. Coding and decoding are highly complex acts and don't happen without planning and thought. And DNA is a coding/encoding mechanism.

Come on guys. Just give me one lousy example of a code or langauge that can be demonstrated as evolving. Doesn't have to be DNA. Just one example.

[Coyote]

9sublime

Are you aware that there is a difference between bacteria and DNA? One example of a bacteria is EColi. One of the simplest organisms in existence today and also one of the most common.

E Coli has 4 million base pairs in its DNA. So how does the whole (bacteria)evolve before the part (DNA)? How does DNA evolve from bacteria when DNA is a component of bacteria?

Question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

And how does highly complex programming in the EColi DNA get there? By chance? By roll of the dice? Remember that a mutation is a mistake. So you must believe that DNA is the result of a bunch of mistakes. The DNA in EColi is far more complex than Windows XP and you think this happened by mistake?

Give me a break. Give all who read this forum a break.

There is no proof that DNA evolved. Quite the contrary, all the evidence I see says that a code or language requires intelligence. Coding and decoding are highly complex acts and don't happen without planning and thought. And DNA is a coding/encoding mechanism.

Come on guys. Just give me one lousy example of a code or langauge that can be demonstrated as evolving. Doesn't have to be DNA. Just one example.


Just because it's highly complex now doesn't mean it started out highly complex.

Isn't a prion considered a very early primitive part of dna..or something?

I can't remember:p

[Coyote]

Coyote
My contention is that DNA could NOT have evolved naturalistically because DNA is a code. And creation of a code requires intelligence.


Why does creation of a code require intellegence?


All you have to do to to disprove my contention is give me one example of any code or language that evolved naturally with no intelligence. Doesn't have to be DNA. Any old code or language will do just fine.


DNA, RNA, photosynthesis, viral dna particles, chemical communication between fetus and mother, hormones, symbiotic relationships, parisitic relationships....


Can you name one? Just one? Or does your evolutionary presupposition preclude even thinking such a thought?


Huh?


Come one, coyote. This should be a piece of cake for you. Give this one to you fellow Darwin Kool Aid Drinkers. This should be easy for you to shoot down.


????



If creation of DNA requires intelligence it requires a designer. And I contend that proves the existence of God.


Who says it requires intellegence?



So just point out one code or langauage that evolved. Please, shoot me down. If you can, that is.

I think I did...

[9sublime]

9sublime

Are you aware that there is a difference between bacteria and DNA? One example of a bacteria is EColi. One of the simplest organisms in existence today and also one of the most common.

E Coli has 4 million base pairs in its DNA. So how does the whole (bacteria)evolve before the part (DNA)? How does DNA evolve from bacteria when DNA is a component of bacteria?

I know that bacteria is made of DNA. But bacteria has simpler DNA than that of a human. If something can have simpler DNA than another thing, it could have come from something even simpler. Where that comes from I don't know, but I know that its not the Christian God.

Question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

What we now know as the modern chicken came from the egg.

And how does highly complex programming in the EColi DNA get there? By chance? By roll of the dice? Remember that a mutation is a mistake. So you must believe that DNA is the result of a bunch of mistakes. The DNA in EColi is far more complex than Windows XP and you think this happened by mistake?

No, I am actually quite in favour of intelligent design. However, just because there is a code it doesn't mean that one God or another exists.

Give me a break. Give all who read this forum a break.

You asked someone to debate your points. Why are you telling me to stop debating now?

There is no proof that DNA evolved. Quite the contrary, all the evidence I see says that a code or language requires intelligence. Coding and decoding are highly complex acts and don't happen without planning and thought. And DNA is a coding/encoding mechanism.

Just because we dont have the evidence that DNA evolved doesnt mean we have evidence on the contrary.

Come on guys. Just give me one lousy example of a code or langauge that can be demonstrated as evolving. Doesn't have to be DNA. Just one example.

All languages have evolved over time.

[Hard Driver]

What you are really pondering is the creation of life. Basically, any self replicating system is life. The mystery is how, even the simplist of life, is very complex.

Once you get a self replicating organism, even of the simplist form, you kick start the beginning of evolution which over the 4 billion years of earths history, eventually leads to your highly complex DNA.

Well this first self replicating organism, this spark from dead material to live replication is one of the mysteries of science. So, I will not claim it offers proof that will satisfy you that informational design can occur randomly.

However, you should read about this mystery of life. For example:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060609_life_origin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory

I personally like the Iron-sulfer theory because it sticks with the simplist form. Basically there is chemical evidence of the ability of a metabolic cycle to form from chemical reactions on hydrthermal vents. Then these self replicating chemicals became more complex until a RNA strand was produced. This then created an RNA based form of life that then evolved into a DNA form of life. You body still uses all of these reactions and proteins in each of your cells.

[numinus]

I know that bacteria is made of DNA. But bacteria has simpler DNA than that of a human. If something can have simpler DNA than another thing, it could have come from something even simpler. Where that comes from I don't know, but I know that its not the Christian God.



What we now know as the modern chicken came from the egg.



No, I am actually quite in favour of intelligent design. However, just because there is a code it doesn't mean that one God or another exists.



You asked someone to debate your points. Why are you telling me to stop debating now?



Just because we dont have the evidence that DNA evolved doesnt mean we have evidence on the contrary.



All languages have evolved over time.

I believe invest is talking about how biological systems behave in a manner that is completely opposite the laws of entropy.

If entropy is indeed as universal as science would have us believe, then why is there so many forms of life on this planet?

[invest07]

coyote

"DNA, RNA, photosynthesis, viral dna particles, chemical communication between fetus and mother, hormones, symbiotic relationships, parisitic relationships...."

All of your examples are a result of the coding in DNA. DNA controls all of these examples. And it is effectively impossible for a highly complex code to evolve naturalistically, without intelligent input. So you still haven't provided any example of a code that has evolved naturalistically, without intelligence.

My proof for God is summarized below:

Fact #1. DNA is a code.
Fact #2. There are thousands of code/languages on earth and every one of them was created by intelligence.
Fact #3. There are no codes/languages in existence on earth that were initially vreated through naturalistic evolution without intelligence.
Conclusion #1. The design of DNA required intelligence.

The theory of intelligent design does not identify the designer. It may be a space alien or a reincarnated cow or it may be God. If you assume it was a space alien or a reincarnated cow, you haven't addressed the ultimate origin of life, only life on earth. Only the existence of God addresses the issue of the ultimate origin of life.

Therefore, if you can read this post, God exists.

The probability of DNA evolving naturalistically without intelligence is so miniscule as to be worthy of no serious consideration by a knowledgeable person.

EColi has 4 million base pairs on each DNA strand. There are 4 possible chemical combinations at each base pair position: A-T, T-A, C-G and G-C. So the chances of all 4 millions base pairs winding up in the correct order is 4 raised to the 4 millionth power. I don't have a calculator that can compute a number this small. By comparison, most organisms are far more complex than EColi. Human DNA has 3 BILLION base pairs.

And your next argument is that DNA started simple and evolved more compexity over time. This is one leg of the THEORY of evolution that has never been proven, or observed in nature. While it is theorized that this is possible, it has never been demonstrated as having actually occurred. Random mutations do not result in improvements and random mutations do not result in increasing levels of complexity. Random mutations, over time, produce gibberish.

A demonstration of this is at "randommutations.com". It takes about 10,000 conception events to produce a mutation so when you introduce one mutation into this program, you are actually simulating 10,000 conception events. You can go through a bunch of generations in a short time. And each random mutation only takes the intial order of your statement further into gibberish.

The THEORY of evolution is nothing more than a THEORY. Some scientists say that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis and doesn't even deserve theory status. Evolution is not a fact and can't be proven to be fact. It is seriously flawed and the flaws in evolution are increasingly being exposed daily. If evolution were a ship, the hull would have so many leaks the ship would be barely afloat. Evolutionists are going to have to seriously overhaul this theory or abandon it entirely within the near future.

Darwin published "Origins" 150 years ago. The curator of the Fields museum of Natural History has said that fewer undisputed transitional fossils exist today that in Darwin's time. The foundations of evolution are shaky and getting shakier every day.

numinus
Good point. The entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogeneisis are accepted as gospel by virtually every reputable person of science. The laws of thermodyanmics have been verified mathematically. And the laws of biogenesis have been verifed by observation. The THEORY of evolution violates both of these laws and has never been verified. Evolutionists ask you to believe in their theoretical interpretation of origions even though that interpretation requires violation of 2 accepted laws of science, which have been verified.

Don't be fooled when evolutionists say every person of science agrees with them. Check out these two web sites:

Dissentfromdarwin and doctorsdissentingdarwin

There is serious oppostion to evolution from within the halls of science.

coyote
the gauntlet I threw is still at your feet. Can you pick it up?

9sublime
You are correct when you say that every language has evolved. I should have been more careful in my choice of words. No language has ever been initially created through naturalistic evolution without intelligence. And my next question for you concerns the indentity of the designer. You believe that ID is a possibility for origins. So who is the designer?

[invest07]

Hard Driver

It has never been demonstrated that organisms can become more organized or more complex over time through naturalistic means. See my post above and try out the random mutation generator just for fun. Random mutations produce gibberish in short order.

While increasing complexity and organization is an important leg of the THEORY of naturalistic evolution, it has never been verifed or observed.

The laws of thermodynamics have been verified mathematically and are accepted by virtually every rational person of science. Increasing organization and increasing complexity violates the entropy law of thermodynamics. Life arising from non-life also violates the first laws of biogensis, which has been verified by countless observations.

[9sublime]

9sublime
You are correct when you say that every language has evolved. I should have been more careful in my choice of words. No language has ever been initially created through naturalistic evolution without intelligence. And my next question for you concerns the indentity of the designer. You believe that ID is a possibility for origins. So who is the designer?

Religons are bandwagons. When something cant be explained, every religion comes up with some answers, and people hop on to them. I don't need to hop onto a bandwagon and convince myself of who the designer is, I can live without knowing.

[Coyote]

coyote

"DNA, RNA, photosynthesis, viral dna particles, chemical communication between fetus and mother, hormones, symbiotic relationships, parisitic relationships...."

All of your examples are a result of the coding in DNA. DNA controls all of these examples. And it is effectively impossible for a highly complex code to evolve naturalistically, without intelligent input. So you still haven't provided any example of a code that has evolved naturalistically, without intelligence.


You have protein particles and prions, that that replicate and contain a very primative code that is not DNA but thought to be a precursor of what eventually evolved into DNA.



My proof for God is summarized below:

Fact #1. DNA is a code.
Fact #2. There are thousands of code/languages on earth and every one of them was created by intelligence.
Fact #3. There are no codes/languages in existence on earth that were initially vreated through naturalistic evolution without intelligence.
Conclusion #1. The design of DNA required intelligence.


Right there is a huge logical fallacy.

Just because there thousands of codes and languages created by intellegence does necessarily mean that ALL codes and languages were created by intellegence.

DNA could easily have evolved naturally and scientific research into it has discovered primitive replicating proteins thought to be precursors to the much more complicated DNA. Prions (such as that which causes Mad Cow Disease) are even more primative then virus' and contain code that may have developed into DNA. I am not that knowledgable on cellular biology and evolution so I'm only scratching the surface with what I remember reading and I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Conclusion: Evidence is there that DNA could have evolved naturally.


And your next argument is that DNA started simple and evolved more compexity over time. This is one leg of the THEORY of evolution that has never been proven, or observed in nature.

I believe it has substantial evidence supporting it. The discovery of replicating protiens and primitive proto-viral organisms and scientists have been able to produce very primitive replicating proteins in the lab.



The THEORY of evolution is nothing more than a THEORY.

There is a world of difference beween any old "theory" and a scientific theory. Scientific theories have a lot of hoops to jump through before they become excepted.


Some scientists say that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis and doesn't even deserve theory status.

What scientists?


The curator of the Fields museum of Natural History has said that fewer undisputed transitional fossils exist today that in Darwin's time. The foundations of evolution are shaky and getting shakier every day.

Fewer doesn't equal none. It doesn't alter the fact that there is clear evidence of transitions in the fossil record.


the gauntlet I threw is still at your feet. Can you pick it up?


It has been picked up, and tossed back.

If there is a "designer" - who designed the designer?

[invest07]

coyote

I checked a few web sources for Prions and protein particles
Here is what one source says:

"A gene for the normal protein has been isolated: the PRNP gene.[32] Prion diseases can be inherited, and in all inherited cases there is a mutation in the PRNP gene. Many different PRNP mutations have been identified and it is thought that the mutations somehow make PrPC more likely to spontaneously change into the abnormal PrPSc form."

Prions are a product of DNA.

Strike 2

Your statement that "DNA could easily have evolved naturally " is typical of evolutionist thinking but is indefensible. No evolution is easy.

And until you can point out just one code/language that you can prove evolved naturalistically without intelligence actually exists, you haven't established that it is even possible.

I discussed the ridiculously low probabilities of DNA aranging itself in the proper order without intelligence. If you think that 1 chance out of 4 to the 4 millionth power is possible, so be it. I can't suspend my brain enough to accept such odds as reasonable.

There are no examples of codes/languages arising without design. And the odds of complex codes happening by chance are virtuially zero. So assuming the existence of a designer is a reasonable conclusion. Certainly it is more scientifically defensible than assuming DNA beat incredible odds and "just happened".

And what is your anwer to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and violates the first law of biogenesis? Both of these laws have been verified, something that evolution can't say. So why accept an unverified THEORY when it requires the violation of 2 verifed laws?

As to your question about God's designer, the answer is I don't know. The Bible says God always existed. I understand you can't accept any statement from the Bible at face value but there is scientific evidence of the Bible's assertion.

Some physicists today accept a modified "Steady State" theorem that states the universe has always existed. While the Big Bang is the prevalent theory today, the Steady Staters go before the BB event and believe the matter and energy that fueled the Big Bang has always existed. In other words, the BB was not the beginning of everything but only our present universe.

If the universe has always existed, why not the designer?

And as for Evolution as a hypothesis rather than theory, the scientific process follows a logical order:
1. A hypothesis is proposed which seems to explain the evidence.
2. Initial data and observations are analyzed to see if the hypothesis explains all the data. If it doesn't, the hypothesis is modified to explain all the data or it is deep sixed. If it does explain all the data, the hypothesis is elevated to theory status.
3. Until a hypothesis explains all the data, it is not considered to be a theory.
4. Some theories can be tested (such as clinical drug testing) and may eventually be accepted as scientific fact.

The gaping holes in evolutionary theory are enough to relegate evolution to hypothesis status, which is a condition of lower reliability than a theory. Simply put, Evolution does not explain all the data. And the data that Evolution can't explain is growing daily. On a reliability scale, Evolution is going backwards. Evolution can never achieve the staus of #4 above (scientific fact).

coyote, the ship your'e on is sinking. Get off while you can. Or drown. Your choice.

[Coyote]

coyote

I checked a few web sources for Prions and protein particles
Here is what one source says:

"A gene for the normal protein has been isolated: the PRNP gene.[32] Prion diseases can be inherited, and in all inherited cases there is a mutation in the PRNP gene. Many different PRNP mutations have been identified and it is thought that the mutations somehow make PrPC more likely to spontaneously change into the abnormal PrPSc form."

Prions are a product of DNA.

Strike 2



I don't think so. What you are saying - if that is accurate - is that some prion diseases can be inherited.

That does not cover all prions as prions are also an infectious disease.

You left out the next sentance from your source: Prion diseases are the only known diseases that can be sporadic, genetic, or infectious.

No strike.

[Coyote]

coyote

Your statement that "DNA could easily have evolved naturally " is typical of evolutionist thinking but is indefensible. No evolution is easy.

We're talking billions of years here - a span of time unimaginable.

For some thoughts on how DNA could have evolved here is one article:
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=189

[Coyote]

coyote
As to your question about God's designer, the answer is I don't know. The Bible says God always existed. I understand you can't accept any statement from the Bible at face value but there is scientific evidence of the Bible's assertion.


That's hardly scientific.


coyote, the ship your'e on is sinking. Get off while you can. Or drown. Your choice.

My ship's doing fine thank you :p

But if you'll toss me a bucket I'll help you bail :D

[invest07]

coyote

No answer for the entropy law or the biogenesis law viloation of evolution?

Prions are a product of DNA. While they may also function as stand alone agents, they are the product, at some point in time, of DNA.

And still no code/langauge that you can prove developed without intelligence?
Could it be that no such code/language exists?

And there are still many physicists who subcribe to the theory that the universe has always existed. This is indirect support (and no doubt unintended) for the Bible's assertion that God has always existed. The Bible and many modern day physicists both say the universe has always existed.

My assertion concerning the existence of God does not require any verified laws of science to be violated. Evolution, which is an unverified hypothesis/theory, does violate 2 verifed laws of science.

Your comments concerning transition forms is an example of tunnel vision. Because you claim evolution has proceeded since the inception of life virtually every fossil should show some sign of transition. Every bird should be seamlessly evolving into Bird 2.0 and immediately into Bird 2.1. Every fossil (or certainly most every fossil), should show clear signs of transition. So why are these darn transition fossils so scarce? One measure of a hypothesis/theory is how well it predicts conditions. In this case, the hypothesis/theory of evolution is a lousy predicter.

Instead the fossil record contains very, very few transitional forms and most of those are disputed which means they are not clearly transitions to the experts. The fossil record supports Biblical assertions: Each species has a time on Earth and then extinction. Then a new species arises, seemingly spontaneously. The fossil record supports this position far more strongly than transition.

Transitions have never been observed, even in insects with short lives, and this is still an area of great speculation and no verification, even after 150 years. Speculation but no verification. No mutated fruit fly has ever turned into anything but another fruit fly. No mutrated fruit flies are birds or worms or fish or flowers. Only fruit flies. And none of the mutated fruit flies has ever demonstrated improvement. On the contrary, after mutation, they can't fly or are missing wings or have other serious impairments. I thought evolution required major improvements to be made. Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter. Instead mutations produce cripples.

And the possiblility of increasing complexity and increasing organization over time violates the entropy law of thermodynamics which has been verified. So your belief system is based on speculation and interpretation rather than verification.

coyote, your belief system is subjective when true science is objective.

Just for fun try this web site: randommutations.com. The hypothesis/theory of evolution requires random mutations to result in higher levels of complexity and higher levels of organization with passage of time. Instead random mutations produce gibberish over time.

Here is a quote from your DNA evolution story:
"TNA does not occur naturally today. Scientists have to create it in the lab in order to study it. Since we can't go back in time to witness the evolution of nucleic acids, we will never be able to prove whether natural TNA made an appearance on Earth. Indeed, says Eschenmoser, "talking about TNA as a a possible ancestor of RNA is actually premature."

coyote, has ANY leg of evolution ever been verified? 15o years and counting since Darwin and verification should just about be complete. That is, if the hypothesis/theory is true.

[Coyote]

coyote

No answer for the entropy law or the biogenesis law viloation of evolution?


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


Entropy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html


Prions are a product of DNA. While they may also function as stand alone agents, they are the product, at some point in time, of DNA.


Product or precurser?


And still no code/langauge that you can prove developed without intelligence?
Could it be that no such code/language exists?


DNA exists. Self replicating proteins exist - and they are not composed of DNA. RNA exists. It is not DNA. Those are biological codes that have nothing to do with a guiding intellegence unless you believe in a religious point of origin for it all but there is no scientific basis for that. Absence of evidence for one thing does not equal the presence of evidence for another.


And there are still many physicists who subcribe to the theory that the universe has always existed. This is indirect support (and no doubt unintended) for the Bible's assertion that God has always existed. The Bible and many modern day physicists both say the universe has always existed.


Just because A always existed and B always existed does not mean A is B or A created B. That is just not science.

That would be like saying:

Horses have hair.
Humans have hair.
Horses are humans.

The Bible does not say that the universe always existed. It says God created everything in a 6 day work frenzy.


My assertion concerning the existence of God does not require any verified laws of science to be violated. Evolution, which is an unverified hypothesis/theory, does violate 2 verifed laws of science.
[quote]

The definition of a scientific theory - Stephen J. Gould described this best:


In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Also:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

According to Wikipedia:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


[quote]Your comments concerning transition forms is an example of tunnel vision. Because you claim evolution has proceeded since the inception of life virtually every fossil should show some sign of transition. Every bird should be seamlessly evolving into Bird 2.0 and immediately into Bird 2.1. Every fossil (or certainly most every fossil), should show clear signs of transition. So why are these darn transition fossils so scarce? One measure of a hypothesis/theory is how well it predicts conditions. In this case, the hypothesis/theory of evolution is a lousy predicter.

Instead the fossil record contains very, very few transitional forms and most of those are disputed which means they are not clearly transitions to the experts. The fossil record supports Biblical assertions: Each species has a time on Earth and then extinction. Then a new species arises, seemingly spontaneously. The fossil record supports this position far more strongly than transition.

Transitions have never been observed, even in insects with short lives, and this is still an area of great speculation and no verification, even after 150 years. Speculation but no verification. No mutated fruit fly has ever turned into anything but another fruit fly. No mutrated fruit flies are birds or worms or fish or flowers. Only fruit flies. And none of the mutated fruit flies has ever demonstrated improvement. On the contrary, after mutation, they can't fly or are missing wings or have other serious impairments. I thought evolution required major improvements to be made. Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter. Instead mutations produce cripples.
[/quote[

I've discussed transitional fossils and genetic mutations before in another thread so I don't want to go over it again but here is are two good links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

[quote]

And the possiblility of increasing complexity and increasing organization over time violates the entropy law of thermodynamics which has been verified. So your belief system is based on speculation and interpretation rather than verification.


Entropy: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

[Coyote]

coyote, your belief system is subjective when true science is objective.


My "belief system" is based on science. If your "theories" can jump through the same hoops that a scientific theory must jump through to be accepted, I will consider it a valid theory. Until then it's only a religious belief.


Just for fun try this web site: randommutations.com. The hypothesis/theory of evolution requires random mutations to result in higher levels of complexity and higher levels of organization with passage of time. Instead random mutations produce gibberish over time.


Here's another view: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html


Here is a quote from your DNA evolution story:
"TNA does not occur naturally today. Scientists have to create it in the lab in order to study it. Since we can't go back in time to witness the evolution of nucleic acids, we will never be able to prove whether natural TNA made an appearance on Earth. Indeed, says Eschenmoser, "talking about TNA as a a possible ancestor of RNA is actually premature."


Of course. It's a possibility. It's no more unlikely then your statements that all codes require intellegence and the ONLY evidence for that is negative evidence.


coyote, has ANY leg of evolution ever been verified? 15o years and counting since Darwin and verification should just about be complete. That is, if the hypothesis/theory is true.

Yes. Transitional fossils, evidence of evolution in modern species have been witnessed and studied. 150 years of which how many have had the benefit of modern science particularly molecular biology and genetics which is advancing exponentially? We are talking of a very small time span indeed if we are truely talking science.

[Coyote]

coyote

Just for fun try this web site: randommutations.com. The hypothesis/theory of evolution requires random mutations to result in higher levels of complexity and higher levels of organization with passage of time. Instead random mutations produce gibberish over time.

Actually mutations aren't entirely random. Certain genes and sequences are weaker then others and more susceptable to damage which is why you see certain mutations arising over and over.

[numinus]

Entropy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

I'm not talking about entropy in terms of 'order and disorder'. That is a naive way of looking at it.

Entropy, in thermodynamics, is a state of homogeneity in temprature and material density.

Entropy, in the statistical occurence of biological populations, is analogous to that.

The existence of our solar system itself, not to mention the proliferation of all the different kinds of organisms on the planet points to exactly the opposite of entropy.

[invest07]

coyote

Thanks for your tip about prions. These are interesting organisms and also very scary.

These protein particles arise from mutations. And some may be spread to other organisms. What makes these particles interesting is that, so far, no one has found any nucleic acid. They are scary because the normal methods of destroying infection, cancers and other cell and organism caused diseases don't work.

I read in detail the pro/con discussion on Nova On-line and the jury is still out on these guys. They are definitely the product of DNA, as they arise in certain animals, sheep and cows. But they appear to carry only information that was obtained from the parent animal. If they do indeed lack nucleic acid,
they are the only living organism who do. The "folded" particles (the bad ones that cause disease) can not reproduce in the traditional sense. They can't divide and form new individuals. But when they touch a "good" protien particle, the good one is somehow transformed into the bad. Apparently some enzyme contained in the bad prion spreads to the good prion and converts it. In this way, the bad prions can multiply. But prions, by themselves, can't produce a second generation. New prions must be produced by the parent animal.

As to the information contained in them, there is no other known source for it other than the parents animal's DNA. If prions have no nucleic acid, then the information may be carried by enzyme sequence. Not enough is known about these guys to reach any definitive conclusion.

As to these guys being a forerunner of DNA, the probability is very low. Prions are a product of DNA so how could they be the parent? Either the chicken or the egg had to come first. And if prions can't produce a second generation.

The question of what is (and is not) a theory is a matter of definition and convention. My comments were not to spell out the specific reuirements of theories but rather to point out the flawed thinking of macroevolutionists.
The Nova article I referred to earlier contains a good explanation of the hypothesis to theory process which involves the perfection of a hypothesis.
The following quote is from David Bolton, Phd:

"People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results."

As to TalkOrigins, the problem with their transitional "tree of life" is that most of it is based on speculation and not actual fossils. A few years ago I reseached a sequence of their alleged transitions. I contacted the web site and asked what fossils these transitions were based upon. The told me that these transitions were based on morphological appearance. QWhen i pressed them on this issue, they couldn't cite one fossil in this sequence. So these alleged transitions are not based on facts, but on wishful speculation and guesses.

This site has proven itself to make statements that are not supported and any "information" taken from this site is effectively worthless.

As to Gould's article, doesn't the title itself say that it is not based on science? The title says a theory is also a fact. And then he procedds to convolute reality to support his flwaed statement. Macroevoutuion is an unproven hypothesis and is not a fact. And since no one can directly observe that past, interpretations do not establish fact.

I have heard crap like this for years from evolutionists delivered with a straight face, intended to decieve an unsuspecting public into thinking they have all the answers.

As to the TNA research at NASA, your defense says everything that needs to be said. It is not necessary to research feasible or probable topics. Only topics that may defend the established presupposition, evolution. And if this quack does pronounce his research a success, what has he accomplished?. He doesn't know if TNA ever existed or even could have existed. So after he finishes his research, we still don't have any answers. This research is a waste of money and exposes the thinking of evolutionists :
When you reach a deadend, just propose a new hypothesis, get more research dollars from the suckers and keep on truckin. No need to face reality here, just repeat the mantra that this is important research and it advances our knowledge and please be generous.

Predictable mutations are not the source of supposed improvements to a species. Every predictable mutation results in an impaired individual. Prions result in evetual death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal. These weak spots are well studied and produce deformities and never improvements.

Do you have any answers to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogenesis that does not source from TalkOrigins?

[Coyote]

coyote

Thanks for your tip about prions. These are interesting organisms and also very scary.

These protein particles arise from mutations. And some may be spread to other organisms. What makes these particles interesting is that, so far, no one has found any nucleic acid. They are scary because the normal methods of destroying infection, cancers and other cell and organism caused diseases don't work.


No they do not all arise from mutations. That's the whole point.


I read in detail the pro/con discussion on Nova On-line and the jury is still out on these guys. They are definitely the product of DNA, as they arise in certain animals, sheep and cows. But they appear to carry only information that was obtained from the parent animal. If they do indeed lack nucleic acid,
they are the only living organism who do. The "folded" particles (the bad ones that cause disease) can not reproduce in the traditional sense. They can't divide and form new individuals. But when they touch a "good" protien particle, the good one is somehow transformed into the bad. Apparently some enzyme contained in the bad prion spreads to the good prion and converts it. In this way, the bad prions can multiply. But prions, by themselves, can't produce a second generation. New prions must be produced by the parent animal.


That indicates some kind of code and that code is not DNA.


As to these guys being a forerunner of DNA, the probability is very low. Prions are a product of DNA so how could they be the parent? Either the chicken or the egg had to come first. And if prions can't produce a second generation.


What evidence do you have that all prions are the product of DNA? Perhaps they are one of the precursors that eventually became DNA? Like mitochondria in cells were once seperate organisms? They don't have to produce themselves to have a code. The very fact that they can transform proteins is code is it not? And that code is not DNA.


The question of what is (and is not) a theory is a matter of definition and convention. My comments were not to spell out the specific reuirements of theories but rather to point out the flawed thinking of macroevolutionists.
The Nova article I referred to earlier contains a good explanation of the hypothesis to theory process which involves the perfection of a hypothesis.
The following quote is from David Bolton, Phd:

"People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results."


The problem with all this is that evolution is still the best theory that fits all the available facts. Unless you want to throw in Deus ex Machina nothing else even comes close that could still be considered scientific.


As to TalkOrigins, the problem with their transitional "tree of life" is that most of it is based on speculation and not actual fossils. A few years ago I reseached a sequence of their alleged transitions. I contacted the web site and asked what fossils these transitions were based upon. The told me that these transitions were based on morphological appearance. QWhen i pressed them on this issue, they couldn't cite one fossil in this sequence. So these alleged transitions are not based on facts, but on wishful speculation and guesses.

I question some of this. Talk Origins lists sources and those sources are scientific articles - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs

TalkOrigins draws it's conclusions from the articles and conclusions of paleontologists (among others). I haven't seen sources from you. Can you argue against any of these sources that back up TalkOrigins arguments? This is not one person or website making these conclusions.

You discount morphology as "wishful speculation" - why? Morphology is one of many methods used to determine transitional forms and indeed morphology is a powerful tool in determining species relationships though by no means the only tool since species occupying similar niches develop similar morphologies. In the case of transitional fossils however, when you can see clear changes in structures ocurring over a timeline that is pretty clear that transitions are occuring - from fish to amphibian and certain structures are evident linking them.


This site has proven itself to make statements that are not supported and any "information" taken from this site is effectively worthless.


I don't know where you come up with this because the site lists many scientific sources supporting it's statements. Why don't you counter the arguments instead of the site?

[Coyote]

As to Gould's article, doesn't the title itself say that it is not based on science? The title says a theory is also a fact. And then he procedds to convolute reality to support his flwaed statement. Macroevoutuion is an unproven hypothesis and is not a fact. And since no one can directly observe that past, interpretations do not establish fact.


It makes distinctions between what is considered scientific "theory" and scientific "fact" which is different then the commonly used terms of theory and fact. I am not clear on what you are saying at all.


I have heard crap like this for years from evolutionists delivered with a straight face, intended to decieve an unsuspecting public into thinking they have all the answers.


Well, it is probably easier to call it crap then debate it, but I think defaulting to God is just as much crap and certainly not science.


As to the TNA research at NASA, your defense says everything that needs to be said. It is not necessary to research feasible or probable topics. Only topics that may defend the established presupposition, evolution. And if this quack does pronounce his research a success, what has he accomplished?. He doesn't know if TNA ever existed or even could have existed.

If TNA can be created then it is certainly possible it could have existed naturally. Will it ever be proved beyond a doubt? Who knows. But that doesn't mean it may never be. It's simply another small brick that may support evolution. So far, your entire premise is based on negative evidence, not science.


So after he finishes his research, we still don't have any answers. This research is a waste of money and exposes the thinking of evolutionists :
When you reach a deadend, just propose a new hypothesis, get more research dollars from the suckers and keep on truckin. No need to face reality here, just repeat the mantra that this is important research and it advances our knowledge and please be generous.


So any research that might advance our understanding of evolution is simply a waste of money. :rolleyes: Somehow, for all your vaunted words I do not think you are a scientist at all.

Your mind is made up.

You restrict yourself to evidence that supports your conclusions and discard anything else.

Scientists do not start with a conclusion and then gather evidence to support it. They start with evidence and form a conclusion based on that evidence.


Predictable mutations are not the source of supposed improvements to a species. Every predictable mutation results in an impaired individual. Prions result in evetual death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal. These weak spots are well studied and produce deformities and never improvements.


That is incorrect. Sickle cell anemia for example had a survival benefit in it's heterozygous form in countries where malaria is endemic. You need to do your research.


Do you have any answers to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogenesis that does not source from TalkOrigins?

Why don't you counter what TalkOrigins said? Or provide some scientific sources backing your claims?

[r0beph]

If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. And, for all you atheists or agnostics out there, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. So far no one has been able to do so. This is based on the writings of Perry Marshall, 2005.

Patterns versus Designs

Examples of patterns are stalgamites, snowflakes, crystals and tornadoes. The formation of patterns is part of the study of Chaos. The formula for a snowflake is "Water+cold air+gravity+wind+time". Patterns are not information. No information is programmed into a pattern and no information can be decoded from a pattern.

If you are seriously into math, then fractals and mandelbrot sets are patterns. Weather is a pattern but forecasts are notoriusly unreliable because the weather is driven by chaos.

No intelligence is required to form patterns. Only naturally occurring events.

Designs require intelligence. Designs are examples of information.

Music is an example of a design. Notes are represented symbolically on paper. The sounds generated depend on the placement of these symbols on the staff, the shape of the symbol and the order. Music also exists in physical form when the air vibrates in a musical composition.

Windows is a design. It is a binary code in which "on" and "off" signals are arranged in sequences to send coded electric signals to various components of a computer. The component decodes the sequence of ons and offs and takes action based on the coded instructions. Windows XP is estimated to contain in excess of 30 million lines of code. This means that componnents must be capable of decoding the same 30+ million lines.

Language is a design. Language requires symbols that have meaning. Meaning is determined by the specific choice of symbols, the sequence and a standard set of rules to decode the meaning. Languages are a design that requires intelligence.

Designs require encoding and decoding to determine the meaning of the coding.

DNA

The DNA molecule is an example of information. Humans have 3 billion base pairs on each DNA molecule. One DNA molecule is a blueprint for an entire living organism; The body, the organs, the enzymes and hormones, the nervous system, the brain. Everything we are is encoded in each DNA molecule in our body.

I am 5'10" tall with brown hair, brown eyes and light skin. I have an astigmatism in my left eye and a deep voice. I have a shallow foot arch and and am right handed. All this is due to the information encoded into my DNA. The DNA I received from my parents and based on the DNA they received from my grandparents.

DNA is an encoding and decoding system. DNA is a language. DNA can be compared with computer programming. DNA is a code.

And DNA cannot have occurred naturally, without intelligent input.

The Challenge

Give me one example, just one, of a code or language that arose naturally, without some intelligent input. Give me just one example of information that arose solely from naturally occurring events. Give me reasonable proof, with your argument and with sources, that clearly establish that your code or language arose spontaneously from natural forces, without intelligent input. Just one example is all it will take and I will retract my initial statement.

Is anyone up to this challenge?





Oh please. First of all you violate all forms of argumentative questioning with intense fallacy. You cannot define X as not being Y, and then ask someone to give you an X that is Y. It's an impossible and circular argument. The problem with your idea here is that you're purporting that a "Code" cannot be natural (which is kind of hard to prove either way, since DNA is a chemical code of sorts, and since everything alive has DNA and it being the most likely candidate for natural code, you've cut that off at the pass, leaving no recourse for anyo9ne to argue, however this idealism is blatantly problematic) ....

So the problems here are as thus;

A) you cannot with any amount of validity state that information must be intelligent in design.
A(1): There is tons of information held within mathmatics and physics, chemistry. Of course with your reasoning, physics and chemistry are god's responsibility and I must be wrong. However let me make a quick argumentative here. ----

You state DNA is "information" and thus "Code" and cannot be natural. However one could make the same argument adversely pointing out that a sepcific mineral content is water, found only in a hypothetical certain cave, would be the information carried within this water that forms a specific type of crystalline formation using the specific minerals contained in the cave walls and their interaction with the mineral content of the water. WOOO INFORMATION? OR SIMPLY CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS? Sure DNA is complex and this example is not, but so? It took longer to form something stable such as the human genetic blueprint than it took for the minerals to saturate the underground river....your point?
-----

B) You fail to realize that there is much simpler life out there, Viruses with but around 10,000bp. If we must look even smaller, the (HBV) contains 3400-4100bp, which is simply insane as to how very little "information" as you put it, is represented. The problem is that you assume that since life is functional, then it must have been intelligence, since no intelligence would have just led to a pile of useless gene folded proteins floating pointlessly around in a puddle of water without so much as a hint of life. However what you're forgetting is that for every single life since the beginning (whenever that was) there's likely 10,000 million that were non functional. (arbitrary and out my ass in terms of actual numbers, but let's just say that every life has tons that failed in it's wake) since a badly structured genome would simply snuff itself out by virtue of BEING a non viable genomic mutation. You simply stray to far from how things truly work and spend too much time spazzing over someone not answering your question....


C) "A pattern is not information! Patterns can be natural, code cannot" -- You. ---- Ok I'll give that "intelligent" code isn't usually spawned naturally. The problem with what you're using this methodology to prove is that you're doing it oh so incorrectly, tons of gaping holes, and enough fallacy to keep a pathological liar complacent for years. Sure, nature doesn't create works of art, broadway musicals, the script for last weeks episode of scrubs, or a recipe for browned scalloped potatoes and poached pheasant. You're assuming that nature even has the capability to produce such things, nature cannot "write" a book, as the prerequisites are too fantastic to be realistic. What nature does provide is the informational, if you will, template of chemistry, physics, and biology. Things pretty much work as they do, because that's simply how things are. The answer to your trick question is that DNA itself is the code that nature produced. Whether a god or gods had a hand in nature, I'm not going to even begin to act as if I can answer this with any hint of truth, I do not know.

Let's define "Information"

# a message received and understood

# data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"

# knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction

# (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; "the signal contained thousands of bits of information"

--------------

one could contend that DNA contains a message, that is received during transcription and so forth that makes these protein building blocks fold like we need them to. And that is very well what it is. Unlike your instructions for building a Lego Raptor Jesus, you can't fit the green blocks where the red blocks go, there is very specific and unchanging chemical interactions that will always function exactly as expected during replication. When things go wrong, it's not the fault of genetic biology, but rather something effecting or something wrong with the dna itself. The building blocks simply do what they're supposed to do, because they formed to do it, because if it DIDN'T form that way it simply COULD not exist given the manner in which physical interaction dictates. meh...you made me stop caring, I'll indulge you no further.

[invest07]

r0beph
"The building blocks simply do what they're supposed to do, because they formed to do it, because if it DIDN'T form that way it simply COULD not exist given the manner in which physical interaction dictates."

You say "they were formed to do it" This is exactly my contention. Design.

There is no question that DNA contains information. Huge amounts of information. A block of 3 base pairs is a codon and a codon controls the production of one enzyme. The order of the base pairs and left/right orientation must be precise to produce the enzyme.

Humans have 3 billion base pairs on each DNA molecule and each base pair has a definite function. If one of these base pairs contains an error, the human individual will be adversely affected. In some cases, one defectiove base pair is fatal. So getting every one of these base pais into the correct prostions is critical. There are 4 possible combinations of base pairs at each location: (A-t, T-A, C-G and G-C). So the number of different combinations of base pairs in human DNA is 4 raised to the 3 billionth power. If you chose to believe this could arise solely through unintelligent random and undirected forces, more power to you.

Some people believe WWE is real wrestling because it's on tv. And some people beleive in the Lock Ness monster and sasquatch because photos exist

Not impossible does not mean probable or likely.

"nature cannot "write" a book, as the prerequisites are too fantastic to be realistic." Remember that human DNA is far more complicated than any book ever written. So if I understand you right, nature can't produce a book (or the information contained in a book) but can produce the information in DNA, which is many tiomes more compicated?

Yep. Makes perfect sense to me that an evolutionist could beleive this crap.

[invest07]

coyote
It is well known that sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. The price paid for that resistance is certain death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal in 100% of affected individuals. So if the sickle cell anemia will certainly kill you, what good is malaria resistance? This is a classic case of what happens as a result of mutations. Mutations screw things up. This mutation results in death to the individual.

Do you know of any predictable mutations that enhance the individual?

[9sublime]

You have no proof nature could not make this code, just fact that every other code has been made by intelligent design from humans. This is not proof, just a nice little point.

[invest07]

Nine
Let me repeat my assertion;

Fact 1. DNA is a code.
Fact 2. Every code/lanugauge on this planet has been composed by intelligence.
Fact 3. No code/language on earth has been proven to have occured through naturalistics, unintelligent random forces.
Fact 4. The likelihood (probability) of DNA occurring without design is no small as to merit no serious consideration by any thinking person.

Conclusion: DNA is a result of intelligence.
Conclusion: intelligence requires a designer and I assert that designer is Yahweh (aha Jehovah).

In previous posts I have analyzed the probability of DNA arising randomly.

You can destroy my argument by pointing out just one code/language that you can demonstrate arose naturally, without intelligence. It doesn't have to be DNA or even biological in nature. ANY CODE OR LANGUAGE.

So far, no one has.

[vyo476]

Fact 1. DNA is a code.
Fact 2. Every code/lanugauge on this planet has been composed by intelligence.
Fact 3. No code/language on earth has been proven to have occured through naturalistics, unintelligent random forces.

This is a point. It is not a proof.

Fact 4. The likelihood (probability) of DNA occurring without design is no small as to merit no serious consideration by any thinking person.

Conclusion: DNA is a result of intelligence.
Conclusion: intelligence requires a designer and I assert that designer is Yahweh (aha Jehovah).

The likelihood that DNA arose without design is so small it doesn't have any merit...and somehow this proves Christianity?

That'd be a huge logical leap.

[Coyote]

coyote
It is well known that sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. The price paid for that resistance is certain death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal in 100% of affected individuals. So if the sickle cell anemia will certainly kill you, what good is malaria resistance? This is a classic case of what happens as a result of mutations. Mutations screw things up. This mutation results in death to the individual.

Do you know of any predictable mutations that enhance the individual?

You are wrong. Sickle cell in it's heterozygous state has very little affect on a person.

[invest07]

vYo

"The likelihood that DNA arose without design is so small it doesn't have any merit...and somehow this proves Christianity?"

If naturalistic evolution without intelligence is not a satisfactory explanation for origins, what is? So far, science has no alternative othjer than intelligent design.
If DNA couldn't arise without intelligence, whose intelligence created it?

My contention is
1. DNA is a product of intelligence.
2. The intelligent desigbner was the Christian/Judaic God.

If you have a different idea as the identity, let me know and we can debate that point.

[9sublime]

My contention is
1. DNA is a product of intelligence.
2. The intelligent desigbner was the Christian/Judaic God.

If you have a different idea as the identity, let me know and we can debate that point.

This is where your argument falls down. You have made a very good point to prove intelligent design, and for the sake of argument, I'll say I accpet your point about no natural codes as absoloute proof (I don't btw).

However, where do you get the proof its the Chrisitan God?

[vyo476]

It's a matter of belief, 9sub. In these arguments it always comes down to a matter of belief. One side can't prove evolution, the other side can't prove divine creation. One side can't disprove divine creation, the other side can't disprove evolution. Both sides are convinced they are right anyway. Why? Because it's a matter of belief.

[Coyote]

vYo

"The likelihood that DNA arose without design is so small it doesn't have any merit...and somehow this proves Christianity?"

If naturalistic evolution without intelligence is not a satisfactory explanation for origins, what is? So far, science has no alternative othjer than intelligent design.
If DNA couldn't arise without intelligence, whose intelligence created it?

My contention is
1. DNA is a product of intelligence.
2. The intelligent desigbner was the Christian/Judaic God.

If you have a different idea as the identity, let me know and we can debate that point.


Science has no evidence that an intellegence (or diety exists). You are depending on negative evidence for your conclusion. In other words - because science can not YET explain everything that somenow supports a conclusion that there is a diety involved. You find holes in evolution and you use those holes as evidence for your theory. That is not science Invest.

Even if there were an intellegent designer - what scientific evidence do you have for it being a Judeo-Christian God? Maybe it's Allah? Maybe it's Zeus? Maybe it's Mannawydden, Ceres, or Kali?

[numinus]

Science has no evidence that an intellegence (or diety exists). You are depending on negative evidence for your conclusion. In other words - because science can not YET explain everything that somenow supports a conclusion that there is a diety involved. You find holes in evolution and you use those holes as evidence for your theory. That is not science Invest.

Even if there were an intellegent designer - what scientific evidence do you have for it being a Judeo-Christian God? Maybe it's Allah? Maybe it's Zeus? Maybe it's Mannawydden, Ceres, or Kali?

I agree.

However, just because there is no scientific evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Unless of course, you think that the scientific method is the end-all, be-all of human knowledge. What is that, if not faith?

[Coyote]

I agree.

However, just because there is no scientific evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Unless of course, you think that the scientific method is the end-all, be-all of human knowledge. What is that, if not faith?

If you are trying to make a scientific argument then scientific evidence is the only evidence that counts, and that would mean the scientific method.

Faith is faith - it is not amenable to the scientific method and in the end, not really provable. Most evidence when it comes to faith is anecdotal, testimonial and I don't put much currency on that.

I don't consider science the end-all, be-all of human knowledge. Science is simply one of many languages, but I consider it important in trying to make sense of the physical and natural world.

[9sublime]

So you have actually failed to prove the existence of God.

You've made the point that: no code has ever been created naturally except DNA.

You've made the leap that this must be due to intelligence.

Then an even bigger leap to which designer created it.

[numinus]

If you are trying to make a scientific argument then scientific evidence is the only evidence that counts, and that would mean the scientific method.

Correct.

Science cannot prove nor disprove something that is not a material cause. That is why there is no 'scientific evidence' for god. You need to use another tool for that - logic and philosophy for instance.

Faith is faith - it is not amenable to the scientific method and in the end, not really provable. Most evidence when it comes to faith is anecdotal, testimonial and I don't put much currency on that.

Science postulates that everything has a material cause, doesn't it?

Where is the proof of that, hmm? Could it be that you accept the truth of that statment on nothing but faith?

I don't consider science the end-all, be-all of human knowledge. Science is simply one of many languages, but I consider it important in trying to make sense of the physical and natural world.

I do not question the importance of science - merely the absurd claim that something doesn't exist if it has no 'scientific' evidence.

And when you are no longer encumbered by the 'scientific method', you would realize that there is logical proof for god's existence.

[numinus]

Science has no evidence that an intellegence (or diety exists). You are depending on negative evidence for your conclusion. In other words - because science can not YET explain everything that somenow supports a conclusion that there is a diety involved. You find holes in evolution and you use those holes as evidence for your theory. That is not science Invest.

Even if there were an intellegent designer - what scientific evidence do you have for it being a Judeo-Christian God? Maybe it's Allah? Maybe it's Zeus? Maybe it's Mannawydden, Ceres, or Kali?

What are you saying - that logic and mathematics are inventions of the mind?

And the way scientific laws ALWAYS follow mathematical and logical operations is a coincidence, eh?

That the universe is OBLIGED to follow the way humans think, hmm?

Try googling the philosophy of science. It is the subject of exactly this sort of questions.

[Coyote]

What are you saying - that logic and mathematics are inventions of the mind?

And the way scientific laws ALWAYS follow mathematical and logical operations is a coincidence, eh?


How is that proof of a diety?


That the universe is OBLIGED to follow the way humans think, hmm?


I do not understand what you mean and how it proves a diety of any sort, much less the Judeo-Christian species.

[Coyote]

Correct.

Science cannot prove nor disprove something that is not a material cause. That is why there is no 'scientific evidence' for god. You need to use another tool for that - logic and philosophy for instance.



Science postulates that everything has a material cause, doesn't it?

Where is the proof of that, hmm? Could it be that you accept the truth of that statment on nothing but faith?



I do not question the importance of science - merely the absurd claim that something doesn't exist if it has no 'scientific' evidence.

And when you are no longer encumbered by the 'scientific method', you would realize that there is logical proof for god's existence.


I do not think that science explains all or can - which is why I've always seperated faith and science. I am not sure if philosophy and logic are as sound a yardstick for proving the existance of something though. For example I seem to recall (this is a long time ago) when I took a class in logic that logic could be mis-used to "prove" some truely ridiculous things.

[r0beph]

ohhhh whats this?!

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
neato...huh.

[Coyote]

ohhhh whats this?!

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
neato...huh.

Wow:eek:

Neato yes

[Mare Tranquillity]

ohhhh whats this?!

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
neato...huh.

As I recall Alzheimer's Disease causes the brain to fill up with a left-handed protein that is a mirror image of a naturally occuring protein in the human body. Very similar to this is the prion which causes the encephalopathies like Creutzfelt-Jakob Disease, Mad Cow Disease, and Scrapie. Prions act like they are alive but don't have DNA or any of the other things we have come to associate with living organisms.

Another vary bizarre creature is a plant/animal called Pfiesteria Piscicida, which has a 23 stage life cycle and lives quietly in estuary water most of the time, but when its water is polluted with enough sewage and fertilizer in can change into a predatory stage of its development and produce a toxin which dissolves flesh and causes open sores on fish in the water. The toxin also outgasses into the air and can cause weird, violent behavior in humans and also permanent memory loss. Fascinating book on the research around this strange critter was written by Rodney Barker, AND THE WATERS TURNED TO BLOOD.

Scientists have long wondered if life on this planet might not have been seeded here by space-born debris.

[numinus]

How is that proof of a diety?

(Sigh)

Proof of god's existence cannot come from science because science only investigate material causes.

There is, however, logical/philosophical proof - the cosmological argument and the argument from contingency to name a few.

I do not understand what you mean and how it proves a diety of any sort, much less the Judeo-Christian species.

The scientific method depends on sensory (or something reducible to it) evidence that are quantifiable. To a large extent, how we think utterly dependent on sensory input.

Are you telling me that everything manifests exclusively through our senses?

[numinus]

I do not think that science explains all or can - which is why I've always seperated faith and science. I am not sure if philosophy and logic are as sound a yardstick for proving the existance of something though. For example I seem to recall (this is a long time ago) when I took a class in logic that logic could be mis-used to "prove" some truely ridiculous things.

Science IS a materialist PHILOSOPHY - merely one of many such schools of thought.

I don't know what 'ridiculous things' logic proves, but I assure you, such conclusions proceed from fallacies or faulty reasoning.

There exist, however, formal paradoxes (skolem, banach-tarski, etc.) that represent the limits of logic, in much the same way that heisenberg's uncertainty represents the limit for which material phenomena can be measured.

In the end, all human inquiries fall prey to godel's first and second incompleteness theorems which go as follows:

"1. For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

2. For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e. effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent."

[ArmChair General]

(Sigh)

Proof of god's existence cannot come from science because science only investigate material causes.

There is, however, logical/philosophical proof - the cosmological argument and the argument from contingency to name a few.



The scientific method depends on sensory (or something reducible to it) evidence that are quantifiable. To a large extent, how we think utterly dependent on sensory input.

Are you telling me that everything manifests exclusively through our senses?

Metaphysics are nonsense. They can'not be proven. try again.

[ArmChair General]

Science IS a materialist PHILOSOPHY - merely one of many such schools of thought.

I don't know what 'ridiculous things' logic proves, but I assure you, such conclusions proceed from fallacies or faulty reasoning.

There exist, however, formal paradoxes (skolem, banach-tarski, etc.) that represent the limits of logic, in much the same way that heisenberg's uncertainty represents the limit for which material phenomena can be measured.

In the end, all human inquiries fall prey to godel's first and second incompleteness theorems which go as follows:

"1. For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

2. For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e. effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent."

Do you actually pride yourself in speaking like this? I mean do you do this in real life or just on the internet when trying to make yourself seam intelligent?

You are a prime example of sloppy writing. Which in turn brings sloppy thinking.

Now I am not against hard subjects, which require difficult writing. Kant, for instance whom I greatly respect and have spent much of my life studying is a very difficult philosopher to read. And Aristotle is not always easy. Wittgenstein is hard.

But these thinkers are hard because they're working at the very limits of what they can understand, and they're trying to make it clear. It's an honest attempt. What gets me about so much of the poststructuralist jargon that you and other assholes write is the fundamental dishonesty, the pretentiousness, the idea that you are writing in such a style because you are some deep thinker.

Its as if your point for being here isn't communication at all. Its that we should all fall on our knees and bow down because you are such an elevated person.

You are full of ****.

[BigRob]

9sublime

Did you read the post?

My contention is that DNA could not have evolved. It was designed.

You can disprove my statement by citing just one example of a code or language that arose naturalistically, without intelligence. If no such code or language exists it proves that DNA was the result of design.

Can you give me just one example?

That doesn't prove that at all. Perhaps DNA is the example of something that arose naturally, after all there were separate species of humans, perhaps they had differing DNA.

[9sublime]

Do you actually pride yourself in speaking like this? I mean do you do this in real life or just on the internet when trying to make yourself seam intelligent?

You are a prime example of sloppy writing. Which in turn brings sloppy thinking.

Now I am not against hard subjects, which require difficult writing. Kant, for instance whom I greatly respect and have spent much of my life studying is a very difficult philosopher to read. And Aristotle is not always easy. Wittgenstein is hard.

But these thinkers are hard because they're working at the very limits of what they can understand, and they're trying to make it clear. It's an honest attempt. What gets me about so much of the poststructuralist jargon that you and other assholes write is the fundamental dishonesty, the pretentiousness, the idea that you are writing in such a style because you are some deep thinker.

Its as if your point for being here isn't communication at all. Its that we should all fall on our knees and bow down because you are such an elevated person.

You are full of ****.

You've just been told, good and proper.

[numinus]

Metaphysics are nonsense. They can'not be proven. try again.

Metaphysics is about what we can say to be true with absolute certainty.

How the hell is that nonsense, hmm?

[numinus]

Do you actually pride yourself in speaking like this? I mean do you do this in real life or just on the internet when trying to make yourself seam intelligent?

You are a prime example of sloppy writing. Which in turn brings sloppy thinking.

Now I am not against hard subjects, which require difficult writing. Kant, for instance whom I greatly respect and have spent much of my life studying is a very difficult philosopher to read. And Aristotle is not always easy. Wittgenstein is hard.

But these thinkers are hard because they're working at the very limits of what they can understand, and they're trying to make it clear. It's an honest attempt. What gets me about so much of the poststructuralist jargon that you and other assholes write is the fundamental dishonesty, the pretentiousness, the idea that you are writing in such a style because you are some deep thinker.

Its as if your point for being here isn't communication at all. Its that we should all fall on our knees and bow down because you are such an elevated person.

You are full of ****.

Kindly direct your comments to wikipedia. The quoted passage is from there, fyi.

What godel was talking about was SET THEORY AS APPLIED TO THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM.

That's basic ARITHMETIC, in case the low-brows in the forum are thoroughly befuddled by now.

Poststructuralist jargon, indeed!

[numinus]

Metaphysics are nonsense. They can'not be proven. try again.

Metaphysics (singular despite the s) is nonsense, eh?

Kant's seminal work, fyi, is entitled 'the general principles of the METAPHYSICS of morals', which by your own admission, you spent a lifetime studying.

Any reasonable individual would therefore conclude from your statements that you are the sort of person who spends a lifetime dabbling in nonsense.

You are swimming in a pool of your own excrement and you are not even aware of it.

[ArmChair General]

Metaphysics (singular despite the s) is nonsense, eh?

Kant's seminal work, fyi, is entitled 'the general principles of the METAPHYSICS of morals', which by your own admission, you spent a lifetime studying.

Any reasonable individual would therefore conclude from your statements that you are the sort of person who spends a lifetime dabbling in nonsense.

You are swimming in a pool of your own excrement and you are not even aware of it.

metaphysics, is more or less, bunk.

Kant was correct when he said that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway.

[numinus]

metaphysics, is more or less, bunk.

Nothing here except YOUR opinion.

As I said, opinions are like anal passages....

Kant was correct when he said that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway.

His 'metaphysics of morals' is a work of logical and philosophical beauty. He discussed the principles by which we discern a moral good - not a list of moral commandments to be read like a grocery list.

So, he answered his metaphysical question just fine.

[ArmChair General]

Nothing here except YOUR opinion.

As I said, opinions are like anal passages....

metaphysical claims are not scientific and contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. and since coherent metaphysical beliefs cannot be refuted, philosophers adhere to their metaphysical theories more out of personal disposition and temperament than evidence and proof.

In other words, metaphysical claims are only someones opinions, nothing more.

[numinus]

metaphysical claims are not scientific and contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. and since coherent metaphysical beliefs cannot be refuted, philosophers adhere to their metaphysical theories more out of personal disposition and temperament than evidence and proof.

In other words, metaphysical claims are only someones opinions, nothing more.

When you say 'cannot be tested empirically', you are already ASSUMING empiricism as the ultimate metaphysical truth, no?

And what do you call logical and mathematical truths, if not immutable, eh?

Tell you what, sell your epistemological relativity somewhere else.

[9sublime]

Niminus, you have a good point, but you try to make yourself seem like a genius by using words like epistemological relativity. Its unneccessary, and only goes to prove Armchairs point that you are not a real philosopher, only a pretentious imposter.

[ArmChair General]

When you say 'cannot be tested empirically', you are already ASSUMING empiricism as the ultimate metaphysical truth, no?

And what do you call logical and mathematical truths, if not immutable, eh?

Tell you what, sell your epistemological relativity somewhere else.

The fact that the underpinnings of our knowledge are in some sense inscrutable (and may remain so), the fact that Hume's worries make sense, the fact that Wittgenstein can say things like "our spade is turned," does not place every spurious claim to knowledge on an equal footing with science. The discomfort induced in mathematics by Godel does not make the doctrine of Christianity or any other religion even slightly more plausible. There is still a difference between jumping a puddle and walking on water.

[numinus]

Niminus, you have a good point, but you try to make yourself seem like a genius by using words like epistemological relativity.

It is necessary to be PRECISE.

When one is speaking about the nature of human knowledge - what we deem to be true, how else can one explain it without using the word 'epistemology', eh?

Its unneccessary, and only goes to prove Armchairs point that you are not a real philosopher, only a pretentious imposter.

I have very little regard for opinions not corroborated by facts nor logic, like this statement. Break wind somewhere else.

Oh, incidentally, I am neither a philosopher nor a pretentious imposter. I am an engineer by profession.

[numinus]

The fact that the underpinnings of our knowledge are in some sense inscrutable (and may remain so), the fact that Hume's worries make sense, the fact that Wittgenstein can say things like "our spade is turned," does not place every spurious claim to knowledge on an equal footing with science.

What in heaven's name is your point??

Science is merely one of the many philosophical models we have. It operates under the ASSUMPTION that all phenomena are measureable. And when we come across something that cannot be measured, what then?

Even in our cosmological discussions, we have discussed phenomena that cannot be measured - planck lenght, time and energy, space-time singularities, absolute freezing, invariance of the speed of light, conservation of mass and energy - and yet, you are inclined to accept them as truth.

But, with regards to god's existence, the most common and universal HUMAN EXPERIENCE, backed with unassailable LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, you are quick to dismiss.

What is more absurd is that you use the scientific method to refute something that is clearly BEYOND its field of inquiry.

And you have the temerity to call my arguments spurious?! You need to re-take highschool science to have a better comprehension of what exactly you're talking about.

The discomfort induced in mathematics by Godel does not make the doctrine of Christianity or any other religion even slightly more plausible. There is still a difference between jumping a puddle and walking on water.
<LOL>

You call godel's incompleteness theorems a 'mathematical discomfort' and I'm the pretentious one?! Does it tick you off that the logical algorithm employed by your computer is finite?

And when exactly have I argued for christianity or any other religion, eh?

Is a metaphysical god necessarily a religious god, hmm?

[Cookie Parker]

If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. And, for all you atheists or agnostics out there, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. So far no one has been able to do so. This is based on the writings of Perry Marshall, 2005.

Patterns versus Designs

Examples of patterns are stalgamites, snowflakes, crystals and tornadoes. The formation of patterns is part of the study of Chaos. The formula for a snowflake is "Water+cold air+gravity+wind+time". Patterns are not information. No information is programmed into a pattern and no information can be decoded from a pattern.

If you are seriously into math, then fractals and mandelbrot sets are patterns. Weather is a pattern but forecasts are notoriusly unreliable because the weather is driven by chaos.

No intelligence is required to form patterns. Only naturally occurring events.

Designs require intelligence. Designs are examples of information.

Music is an example of a design. Notes are represented symbolically on paper. The sounds generated depend on the placement of these symbols on the staff, the shape of the symbol and the order. Music also exists in physical form when the air vibrates in a musical composition.

Windows is a design. It is a binary code in which "on" and "off" signals are arranged in sequences to send coded electric signals to various components of a computer. The component decodes the sequence of ons and offs and takes action based on the coded instructions. Windows XP is estimated to contain in excess of 30 million lines of code. This means that componnents must be capable of decoding the same 30+ million lines.

Language is a design. Language requires symbols that have meaning. Meaning is determined by the specific choice of symbols, the sequence and a standard set of rules to decode the meaning. Languages are a design that requires intelligence.

Designs require encoding and decoding to determine the meaning of the coding.

DNA

The DNA molecule is an example of information. Humans have 3 billion base pairs on each DNA molecule. One DNA molecule is a blueprint for an entire living organism; The body, the organs, the enzymes and hormones, the nervous system, the brain. Everything we are is encoded in each DNA molecule in our body.

I am 5'10" tall with brown hair, brown eyes and light skin. I have an astigmatism in my left eye and a deep voice. I have a shallow foot arch and and am right handed. All this is due to the information encoded into my DNA. The DNA I received from my parents and based on the DNA they received from my grandparents.

DNA is an encoding and decoding system. DNA is a language. DNA can be compared with computer programming. DNA is a code.

And DNA cannot have occurred naturally, without intelligent input.

The Challenge

Give me one example, just one, of a code or language that arose naturally, without some intelligent input. Give me just one example of information that arose solely from naturally occurring events. Give me reasonable proof, with your argument and with sources, that clearly establish that your code or language arose spontaneously from natural forces, without intelligent input. Just one example is all it will take and I will retract my initial statement.

Is anyone up to this challenge?

This isn't proof..it's a straw man..you have made assertions based upon the outcome you desire.

All codes of mutation arose without anything other than what the mutation was that was needed to protect the cell. How do cuts heal? The body tells it it needs to close the hole.

Next time you want to present ID as a bona fide scientific bases, dont' leave out the "Intelligence";)

[invest07]

Refferring to prions as an example of life without DNA

Prions are a part of the body's immune system. They occupy locations at synapses. For an unknown reason, some of these prions develop a distorted body, known as folded. These folded prions have the ability to cause healthy prions to do a similar distortion. This causes a "swiss cheese" effect in the brain, destroying synaptical connections.

So far, no one has identified any DNA in prions. They appear to function by using different proteins. Prions are a product of human DNA but do not appear to contain DNA. Prions exhibit life-like functions but not independent life. Folded prions can't reproduce a 2cd generation but can distort existing "good" prions, probably through some protein not present in the "good" prion.

Prions are NOT an example of a code that can be demonstrated as evolving naturalistically.

My gauntlet is still on the ground. So far, no one in this forum has come up with a code or language that can be positively demonstarted as having evolved naturalistically.

I don't understand why this isn't a piece of cake for you Darwin Kool Aid drinkers. I mean, some of you say "Evolution is a fact". So if it is a fact, prove it. Just one little code or language will do.

All you God Deniers, I am giving you a public forum to prove that DNA could have evolved without intelligence.

The gauntlet is still at your feet.

[Popeye]

Refferring to prions as an example of life without DNA

Prions are a part of the body's immune system. They occupy locations at synapses. For an unknown reason, some of these prions develop a distorted body, known as folded. These folded prions have the ability to cause healthy prions to do a similar distortion. This causes a "swiss cheese" effect in the brain, destroying synaptical connections.

So far, no one has identified any DNA in prions. They appear to function by using different proteins. Prions are a product of human DNA but do not appear to contain DNA. Prions exhibit life-like functions but not independent life. Folded prions can't reproduce a 2cd generation but can distort existing "good" prions, probably through some protein not present in the "good" prion.

Prions are NOT an example of a code that can be demonstrated as evolving naturalistically.

My gauntlet is still on the ground. So far, no one in this forum has come up with a code or language that can be positively demonstarted as having evolved naturalistically.

I don't understand why this isn't a piece of cake for you Darwin Kool Aid drinkers. I mean, some of you say "Evolution is a fact". So if it is a fact, prove it. Just one little code or language will do.

All you God Deniers, I am giving you a public forum to prove that DNA could have evolved without intelligence.

The gauntlet is still at your feet.

What's your point here? If evolution can't be proven to your satisfaction, you automatically jump to believing in a supreme being, that's quite a leap.

[9sublime]

What's your point here? If evolution can't be proven to your satisfaction, you automatically jump to believing in a supreme being, that's quite a leap.

Exactly my point popeye!

First of theres the jump from:

We don't have the knowledge to prove where DNA comes from, so it has to be a supreme being.

Then theres the jump from it must be a supreme being to... it must be the Christian God.

[invest07]

So, popeye.
Try to follow this reasoning.
1. There are no codes or languages that have occurred naturally. All codes and languages have been written by intelligence. If there is a code or language that occurred naturally, no one in the forum knows what it is.
2. DNA is a code.
3. Therefore, if no one can demonstrate ANY code or language that occurred without intelligence, why would anyone assume the basic foundation of naturalistic evolution is true?
4. And if naturalistic evolution did not occur, how did we get here?

All you have to do to destroy this argument is demonstrate just one code or langauge that you can present reasonable proof that occurred naturally without intelligence. Just one is all it will take.

It is amusing to me to watch all you God Deniers dance around this point and try to change the premise. I know you can't admit even the possible existence of a creator. But if evolution is true, can't you point out just one code or language that evolution says is common? I mean, according to the Darwin Kool Aid drinkers, DNA eveolved with only unfocused and random forces driving it. According to you Darwinists, human DNA with 3 Billion base pairs just arranged itself solely by chance over the ages. I think the chances of this occurring are so ridiculously small as to not merit serious consideration by any rational human mind.

Could it be that we God Believeres have a higher standard of proof for our beliefs than you God Deniers?

Try answering the challenge instead of dancing around the point.

[Coyote]

So, popeye.
Try to follow this reasoning.
1. There are no codes or languages that have occurred naturally. All codes and languages have been written by intelligence. If there is a code or language that occurred naturally, no one in the forum knows what it is.
2. DNA is a code.
3. Therefore, if no one can demonstrate ANY code or language that occurred without intelligence, why would anyone assume the basic foundation of naturalistic evolution is true?


Negative evidence is not evidence.

You state there are no codes or languages that have occurred naturally. If we assume DNA occurred naturally then there is ONE. DNA has building blocks portions of which exist seperately in more primitive cells.

Other codes: look at the physical sciences. Why do minerals and chemicals react the way they do? What holds atoms together? There natural laws. What are these natural laws? They are codes.


All you have to do to destroy this argument is demonstrate just one code or langauge that you can present reasonable proof that occurred naturally without intelligence. Just one is all it will take.


I did.


It is amusing to