Reply to thread

9sublime

You have read a lot into my posts that just isn't there.


"Yes, it is a complex code. I agree with that. I dont agree that the fact it is a complex code guarantees a deity made it."


But DNA exists so it does have a source, a beginning somewhere. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are miniscule and there is no support in the natural world of other examples of evolved codes. So if it didn't evolve, why isn't creation a logical choice? In actuality, science can prove (or disprove) neither position so the science is a draw. Advantage neither position. My argument is based on logic and rational reasoning.


"Yes. At least evolution has some proof, and gaps that need to be filled in. Your theory works by filling in the gaps with whatever you want and having no proof at all."


Evolution has a lot of assumptions, projection and conjecture but very little "hard" data as proof. Evolution has far more gaps than the evolutionists would lead you to beleive. And what gap have I filled in that I haven't presented a logical and factual argument to support? The answer is none. I don't plug up holes with no proof. You may disagree with my interpretation of data but interpretation of data is all that evolution relies on. The evolutionist and the creationist have exactly the same data available.


"Why? Why is this the case? What proof do you have, or is this just some gut religious instinct youve come up with to fill in the gaps of human knowledge."


It is a logical conclusion that if a code as complex as DNA evolved, then hundreds or thousands of other simpler codes should also have evolved. DNA performs specific biological functions and surely there are many other specific biological functions that could be improved by a code. One measure of the reliablility of any theory is it's ability to predict things. Due to the non-existence of evolved codes, evolutionary theory is a louser predictor in this area. (Evolution is also a lousy predictor in the area of transitional fossils.


"No, there might be another we have not even thought of, because our puny brains cant comprehend it or think it up."


These are the only current choice acknowledged by people of science. While there may be others, if they aren't ackowledged by science they are beyond the scope of a science based forum.


"No its not."


Thanks for your opinion.


"No it doesn't. It works in your head, but you are someone who fills the unknowns with religion all the time." 


Again, I have made no statements that I have not reasonably supported by logic, science, mathematics or rational thought. I haven't quoted any Bible verses or presented any religious doctrines as evidence. I could care less whether or not you believe in God. That is your business and none of mine. I sift through information available, think about it and fill gaps and unknown with information that makes sense to me.


I agree with you on some levels about gaps in human knowledge. A great disservice is done when scientific knowledge gaps are filled in with pseudoscience, assumptions, conjecture and projections. Gaps in knowledge should be filled in with factual data that is well supported. Information that has obvious probblems, mathematical or scientific, should not be used to fill in the gaps. And the information used to fill in the gaps does not need to represent a concensus. There is room for evolution on the table as well as ID. Neither is perfect scientically but a reasonable case can be made for either. I can tolerate and accept evolutionists, even though I don't accept the basic premise of evolution. It is the evolutionists who can't tolerate ID. This tolerance of opposing veiwpoints is a one way street with all the intolerance on the evolution side.


I apologize to no one for bringing a presupposition to the table which includes a belief in God. Evolutionists bring their own presuppositions to the table and you bring yours. I apologize to no one for defending, with math, science, logic and reasoning, my beliefs. It is these presuppositions that each of us has that influence the way we think and interpret data.


If you have a problem with religious beliefs, that is your problem and not a valid topic for this forum.


Back
Top