|
Post by cuckingfunt on Nov 23, 2011 23:40:25 GMT
DNA contains the codes for all life. All things contain DNA. There are patterns all over the universe, mathematical patterns which cannot happen at random. The universe is the result of a design. Atheists say that there's no god but they don't consider these things because they have a view to defend. But nevertheless, the universe was created. This is a fact. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 24, 2011 0:56:20 GMT
I'd respond to each point, but I can't take you seriously with a username like that. I'm not going to waste my time on a potential troll.
|
|
|
Post by cuckingfunt on Nov 24, 2011 1:04:34 GMT
I'd respond to each point, but I can't take you seriously with a username like that. I'm not going to waste my time on a potential troll. I'll have you know that's a family name.
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Nov 26, 2011 11:39:03 GMT
And here I was, actually expecting evidence.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Nov 26, 2011 19:31:54 GMT
DNA contains the codes for all life. All things contain DNA. I think you mean that all life contains DNA. But okay. There are patterns all over the universe... So far, so good. ...mathematical patterns which cannot happen at random. The universe is the result of a design. And here is where you go off the rails. On what grounds do you claim that a mathematical pattern cannot emerge at random? It seems to me that you're just sneaking in the assumption that if something can be understood in some mathematical way then it has to have been the result of a deliberate act of creation. This is supposed to be the conclusion of your argument but here we find you using it as a premise. Furthermore, on what grounds do you claim that we must make the choice between these mathematical patterns emerging at random or emerging as the result of a deliberate act of creation? Why can't we assume that they're the result of some natural process that we don't know about yet? Really this is where all design arguments tend to fail. They lack imagination. Paley was content to reduce our choices to god or chance with respect to biological design only to have Darwin demonstrate that the apparent design we find in nature is explained much better by evolution by natural selection. With the question of design in the universe itself, I think that there is an additional problem. We have no frame of reference. What would an undesigned universe look like? How could we tell the difference? See, it strikes me that there actually is use for this intelligent design stuff if we're talking about things like archeology where we need to use that sort of framework in determining what things we find are just rocks and what things we find were once used as tools. When we move over to the example of a universe, the question just doesn't make a lot of sense. Furthermore, if we're only dealing with our corner of the observable universe we don't really have much to compare it to. So yeah, you've got no argument here. Just some assertions. Atheists say that there's no god but they don't consider these things because they have a view to defend. You know, it occurs to me that you're making an argument about physics and biology and how they relate to the question of whether or not there is a creator. What's ironic is that professional physicists and biologists, the people that dedicate their lives to considering these sorts of things, tend not to believe in a god by some pretty strong majorities. And if we look at the most elite scientists, the majorities only become stronger. A survey done of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, showed that only 7 percent of respondants (which was about half of the whole Academy) believed in a personal god. For biologists, the number was actually lower, with about 5 percent affirming a belief in a personal god. See: www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.htmlBut nevertheless, the universe was created. This is a fact. Discuss. You can think that all you want but don't delude yourself into thinking that you've proven anything. Peace
|
|
|
Post by pinchbeck on Nov 27, 2011 13:13:58 GMT
Timo, do you believe that dna is not a code? Are you suggesting that dna is somehow an elaborate accident? That's very far fetched. It would make more sense to assume that it's a code, information.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Nov 27, 2011 19:15:53 GMT
DNA can most certainly be thought of as a code. But I don't buy the apologetic line that information has to have some sort of intelligent source. To me, it's just a question begging premise. As is your assertion that this elaborate code emerging by accident is "very far fetched." You've provided me no evidence to back your assertion.
The fact is, we don't know how the first self replicating molecules that we might call life emerged and therefore aren't really in a position to decide whether or not this phenomenon was probable or improbable. Furthermore, if we find that the process by which life was likely to have emerged was improbable, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Your existence is supremely improbable but there you are.
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Nov 29, 2011 0:53:05 GMT
I agree Timo. Science is getting a clearer idea of how it is possible for life to have arisen naturally. DNA is only a code for amino acids, which self assemble into proteins, in a sequence which matches the sequences in DNA bases. Of course it's complex, and took millions of years to produce life and the living systems that we see today. However, the Theory of Evolution has the power to explain all that naturally, and beats the notion that it happened "by magic", supernaturally.
|
|
|
Post by supernaut on Dec 1, 2011 1:51:06 GMT
There is no god. God said, I believe it, that settles it!!
|
|
|
Post by tarek on Dec 1, 2011 7:52:04 GMT
DNA contains the codes for all life. All things contain DNA. I think you mean that all life contains DNA. But okay. So far, so good. And here is where you go off the rails. On what grounds do you claim that a mathematical pattern cannot emerge at random? It seems to me that you're just sneaking in the assumption that if something can be understood in some mathematical way then it has to have been the result of a deliberate act of creation. This is supposed to be the conclusion of your argument but here we find you using it as a premise. Furthermore, on what grounds do you claim that we must make the choice between these mathematical patterns emerging at random or emerging as the result of a deliberate act of creation? Why can't we assume that they're the result of some natural process that we don't know about yet? Really this is where all design arguments tend to fail. They lack imagination. Paley was content to reduce our choices to god or chance with respect to biological design only to have Darwin demonstrate that the apparent design we find in nature is explained much better by evolution by natural selection. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4 power 1000=10 power 600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension. The number 4 power 1000 is the equivalent of 10 power 600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way: We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one - which is possible- and the combination of these with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by coincidence, as the result of an evolutionary process: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue: In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other Evolution deceit , Haroun Yehia If you are going to say that the human cell evolved , I'd tell you that the same example is still applied on yeast cell , algae and plant cells which are still extremely complicated. So life can't start without an original creator. Every great design must have a designer and sb who did it so it's not strange to say so. What's really strange is to claim the contrary . You say that may be it was done by an eery and this is what I call total dodging and equivocation. You are escaping the logical, scientific and axiomic facts to go nowhere. You are going the way fo nothing. You are saying that matter came from nothing and the intricate design came from nothing and this is a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by tarek on Dec 1, 2011 8:01:45 GMT
When sb sees a Tv or any other device created by man he can't say that it originated from nothing. First, there was the raw material which didn't come from nothing but was provided by God since the raw material itself has a far more intricate design and nature than what man is going to make to claim that he is a champion and everything in the world. The brain that man uses is far far more intricate and well-designed than the device he is willing to make so you'll find that man is very little to igore God and abjure His blessings. Then, the actions and thinking of humans come who finally brag that they had done a perfect invention.
After, this all we can't logically say that this is not designed as it can't come by chance this way.We all now it but some people indulge their whims and caprices to do perfectly what the mind can never try to approach to. The mind knows its limits but the vile human nature may not. The wind and other forces can't make a TV or a radio so there must be an intelligent designer which is the one you see when you look to the mirror. So, you ought to deliver to your mind a message...The world has a designer and a creator.
Good bye
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Dec 1, 2011 8:06:42 GMT
^^^^^ I am amazed that you took nonsensical "information" (apparently plagiarized seeing how you didn't exactly "cite" it) chock full of "quotes" in your post from sites like these: www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit10.phpwww.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_15.htmlto refute actual arguments. Tell me, do you have ANY idea as to what they're talking about or even what the actual theory of evolution is? Seriously. Okay, so what would an undesigned universe look like? How do you know it's designed other than your own simple notion that the universe in all its glory MUST have been designed? Can you actually provide evidence that it was DESIGNED instead of providing dubious content and holding up the universe and saying, "Wow! How complex! Must have been made by this great designer!" I'm pretty sure now that you're confusing the subjects of DNA, evolution and abiogenesis at the same time.
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Dec 1, 2011 8:08:16 GMT
Baseless assertions, no evidence, nothing. Just the usual.
Good bye.
|
|
kali
Newbie
Posts: 6
|
Post by kali on Dec 1, 2011 9:38:53 GMT
DNA contains the codes for all life. All things contain DNA. There are patterns all over the universe, mathematical patterns which cannot happen at random. The universe is the result of a design. Atheists say that there's no god but they don't consider these things because they have a view to defend. But nevertheless, the universe was created. This is a fact. Discuss. ...what?
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Dec 1, 2011 18:42:09 GMT
What up, tarek? A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4 power 1000=10 power 600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! Alright, so I really don't know a whole lot about biology and so I'm happy to take your word for it that all your facts and figures are correct. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation... Okay. Let me stop you there. Again, I'm not exactly a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not sure that there's anyone that's claiming that the formation of RNA and DNA came about by "coincidental accumulation." I certainly wasn't. In fact, I've already addressed this point in the post you quoted. See: ...Why can't we assume that they're the result of some natural process that we don't know about yet? Really this is where all design arguments tend to fail. They lack imagination. Paley was content to reduce our choices to god or chance with respect to biological design only to have Darwin demonstrate that the apparent design we find in nature is explained much better by evolution by natural selection. There's no good reason to think that our options in explaining abiogenesis are limited to a creator and random chance. It could be the case that we don't yet know enough about what the earth was like 3 billion or so years ago. It could be the case that life began as the result of some sort of phenomenon that we don't know about or understand yet. Who knows? All I know is that betting on science eventually tackling the question, as opposed to "god did it" seems to me to be the safe bet here. Because these sorts of arguments tend to go the same way. There will be some question, some phenomenon that a proponent of design will hold up as an example of design only to have someone come along and explain it without appealing to a god. For example, as brilliant as Sir Isaac Newton was, he couldn't figure out how our solar system remained stable through mathematical analysis and therefore concluded that it must be the handiwork of Yah. About a century later, Pierre Laplace figured that out. I mean, maybe I'm wrong and there are no other possible explanations out there but to assume that this is the case just strikes me as actually kind of arrogant in a way. Who's to say that smart people in the future won't figure out something that we couldn't? If anything, we should assume that this will be the case. Also, too: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. In other words, our hypothetical honest man would (correctly) admit that we don't know how life began to exist on this planet and therefore somehow...magic is real? I'm not sure that I follow the argument here. And anyway, the fact that something is seemingly impossible when you run the numbers doesn't make it actually impossible in reality. The chances of your existence personally were pretty minescule as well. And yet, there you are. And finally: You say that may be it was done by an eery and this is what I call total dodging and equivocation. You are escaping the logical, scientific and axiomic facts to go nowhere. You are going the way fo nothing. You are saying that matter came from nothing and the intricate design came from nothing and this is a logical fallacy. I'm not claiming to know how anything happened. Where did you read that? This is what they call a strawman argument since you're big on logical fallacies. And really my entire point in this thread is that design arguments like the ones you're running rely on another logical fallacy. Namely, a false dichotomy. In these arguments creationists like you falsely claim that we only have two choices in explaining some natural phenomenon: the majestical hand of god or random chance. In conclusion, study up on logical fallacies before accusing others of committing them, remember to cite your sources and eat a balanced breakfast every morning. Peace
|
|