1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

I can prove God exists

Discussion in 'Culture & Religion' started by invest07, Aug 14, 2007.

  1. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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?
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    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.
     
  3. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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?
     
  4. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    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.
     
  5. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    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.
     
  6. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  7. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  8. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
     
  9. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  10. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep

    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
     
  11. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    Why does creation of a code require intellegence?

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

    Huh?

    ????

    Who says it requires intellegence?

    I think I did...
     
  12. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    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.
     
  13. Hard Driver

    Hard Driver New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. numinus

    numinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  15. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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?
     
Loading...

Share This Page