Reply to thread

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?


Back
Top