Jump to content
Islamic Forum
parvez mushtaq

Nothing Created Everything .....a Question To Atheists

Recommended Posts

No soul has authority over another. Guidance and straying is a matter between God and you.

 

 

aakwrAllahwbHu

 

 

lol no. But this does bring up another point. If DNA was created by Allah then the designer must take responsibility and culpability for the defects of his creation. That means Allah is responsible for all the biological suffering in the world. A claim I am sure no advocate of a designer is willing to take.

 

Hey there, xocoti. You are talking about the defects in His creation, then also inform us about the purpose of His creation.

 

 

la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Al-‘Atheemu Al-Haleemu, la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Rabbul ‘arshil-‘atheemi, la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Rabbus-samaawaati wa Rabbul-ardhi wa Rabbul-‘arshil-kareemi

there is no god except Allah, the All-Mighty, the Forbearing; there is no god except Allah, the Lord of the Mighty Throne;

there is no god except Allah, Lord of the heavens, Lord of the earth and Lord of the noble Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Hey there, xocoti. You are talking about the defects in His creation, then also inform us about the purpose of His creation.

 

The question is as meaningful as "what is the purpose of a snowflake?" It does not have a purpose, it just is what it is. Only thinking beings have a purpose and that is whatever they chose it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No soul has authority over another. Guidance and straying is a matter between God and you.

 

 

aakwrAllahwbHu

 

 

The question is as meaningful as "what is the purpose of a snowflake?" It does not have a purpose, it just is what it is. Only thinking beings have a purpose and that is whatever they chose it to be.

 

I appreciate your comment, even though it hardly applies in the context of what xocoti said. Now to wait and see what he comes up with.

 

 

la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Al-‘Atheemu Al-Haleemu, la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Rabbul ‘arshil-‘atheemi, la ilaaha illaa Allaahu Rabbus-samaawaati wa Rabbul-ardhi wa Rabbul-‘arshil-kareemi

there is no god except Allah, the All-Mighty, the Forbearing; there is no god except Allah, the Lord of the Mighty Throne;

there is no god except Allah, Lord of the heavens, Lord of the earth and Lord of the noble Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A + on the word play. Christian Intelligent Designers do a better job though. I would suggest reading Signature in the Cell, a ID proponent that proposes the same ideas as you, but of course it is the Christian God that is the designer. I[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'m sure that isn[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t a problem. Now keep in mind that no one in science has it been shown that DNA is a code. Why is that? Well because to have a scientific definition you must narrowly define the word [##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" code[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" which is not done here. If the meaning of code is to transmit information from one mind to another such as the map, blueprint, or instructions then DNA is not a code. There isn[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t another mind to transmit data to in this definition of code. If it is meant a physical means of replicating data then DNA is a code but language is not.

 

In fact, implicate in the idea of a code is the idea of human observers. The only people who can recognize a code for a code in the sense of containing meaning. It appears the definition of data being used is simply something that transmits data, but as it has already been explaining natural phenomenon such as seasons and storms can [##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" transmit[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" data is there is a human mind there to interprate data, otherwise it is just a natural occurring.

 

*rolls eyes*

 

*yawn*

lol no. But this does bring up another point. If DNA was created by Allah then the designer must take responsibility and culpability for the defects of his creation. That means Allah is responsible for all the biological suffering in the world. A claim I am sure no advocate of a designer is willing to take.

 

Salam, quite a mouthful you have got there xocoti, for one that is in a completely hopeless situation that is... :sl: IA I will address a few of the points that you and Tim brought up perhaps later in the evening..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

A + on the word play. Christian Intelligent Designers do a better job though. I would suggest reading Signature in the Cell, a ID proponent that proposes the same ideas as you, but of course it is the Christian God that is the designer. I[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'m sure that isn[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t a problem. Now keep in mind that no one in science has it been shown that DNA is a code. Why is that? Well because to have a scientific definition you must narrowly define the word [##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" code[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" which is not done here. If the meaning of code is to transmit information from one mind to another such as the map, blueprint, or instructions then DNA is not a code. There isn[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t another mind to transmit data to in this definition of code. If it is meant a physical means of replicating data then DNA is a code but language is not.

 

In fact, implicate in the idea of a code is the idea of human observers. The only people who can recognize a code for a code in the sense of containing meaning. It appears the definition of data being used is simply something that transmits data, but as it has already been explaining natural phenomenon such as seasons and storms can [##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" transmit[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" data is there is a human mind there to interprate data, otherwise it is just a natural occurring.

 

Now this leads us to what ID are really saying, that DNA is a tool by which to replicate data ( DNA). Now you may say, aha! A tool must be designed, but you would be wrong. A rock can be used to scrape leather, a tree branch as a club, both of which were not designed to be tools.

 

"A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder."

 

True. That would take intelegence.

 

DNA does not fit with this deinition. It is something else.

 

Noone is science refers to DNA as code?

OK, first let me drive home this point on what DNA is as described by reputable scientific organisations and scientists:

 

Source 1: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetwisegeek(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/what-is-dna.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetwisegeek(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/what-is-dna.htm[/url]

 

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid present in the cells of all living organisms. It is often referred to as the “building blocks of life,†since DNA encodes the genetic material which determines what an organism will develop into. In addition to maintaining the genetic blueprints for its parent organism, DNA also performs a number of other functions which are critical to life.

 

Source 2: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbiotechnologyonline.gov.au/biotec/whatisdna.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbiotechnologyonline.gov.au/biotec/whatisdna.html[/url]

 

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a very important molecule found in all living cells. It contains information used in everyday metabolism and growth and influences most of our characteristics.

DNA is often described as the blueprint of an organism. It enables various cells to develop and work together to form a fully functional body, and controls characteristics such as eye colour. How much DNA influences very complex features, such as intelligence, is not yet fully understood.

Source 3: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/DNA"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/DNA[/url]

DNA, is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms, with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage ofinformation. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

 

Definition of code:

code (k d)

n.

1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.

2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.

3.

a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.

b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.

4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program.

5. Genetics The genetic code.

6. Slang A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in cardiac arrest.

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/code"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/code[/url]

 

The above is pretty much self explanatory..Notice some of the terms used by science: Encodes genetic materials, blueprints, enables various cells to develop and work together to form organs, recipe, code, performs function which are critical to life…

 

Obviously there are no codes, blueprints, recipe, or instructions without a ‘mind’ behind it hence the only rational and logical conclusion is that, there has to be a ‘mind’ behind DNA. "A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder." Is as simple as that.

Are we clear on this point?

 

of course not because we have seen them being made, recognize man made vs naturally made.

I had shown clearly how we can establish fact using reason. We can establish fact that we have great great grandparents that lived 1000 years ago, no one had seen, talked, has any record of them etc, but we know they existed simply because of the fact that we are here, right now. So no, you don’t have to actually see something being made to establish that there is a creator or a designer.

Naturally made? Perhaps you can describe what elements of nature that can make things like DNA, solar system, galaxies and so on?

 

Responsible is in quotes because you want to give DNA the human quality of responsibility when it has none. Responsibility would imply a consciousness where DNA has none. It simply is a replication of data.

*yawn*

lol no. But this does bring up another point. If DNA was created by Allah then the designer must take responsibility and culpability for the defects of his creation. That means Allah is responsible for all the biological suffering in the world. A claim I am sure no advocate of a designer is willing to take.

 

There you go making assumptions again. Responsible is in quotes because the One who would be truly responsible would be the ‘MIND’ behind the DNA not DNA itself..

 

If you read my earlier post, science only knows about 5% of the DNA, a big chuck is still unknown and subject to further study and research. To classify anything as ‘defects’ or ‘error’ would be quite dumb at this point of time. Militaries used codes all the times to transmit messages between themselves and sometimes they throw in some fakes messages to confuse the enemy, not a good analogy but you get the point..

Another point is, even if there are ‘defects’, this does not in anyway disprove the existence of the ‘mind’ behind DNA.

In addition, for you to call it a ‘defect’, you need to know the effect of that defect in its entireties, which no human can.

In Islam, we believe that our faculties such as seeing, hearing, thinking, etc come with responsibility and we would be questioned over them on the day of judgement, hence a blind person or the deaf/dumb would be much better off than their seeing/hearing counterparts

 

As much as you want to blame the ‘biological suffering’ on Allah, you need to put things in the right perspective, Allah is the Creator and He is not accountable to anyone, we are His creation, it is us that would be questioned..

 

"A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder."

True. That would take intelegence.

 

DNA does not fit with this deinition. It is something else.

The next point:-

 

OK this thread is yours so ask your next question.

 

SO Tim, unless you are willing to provide references to dispute the established definitions of DNA above and provide references on what do you mean by 'something else' with regard to DNA (from reputable sources), then it is obvious that we are stuck at 'there is a MIND with intellect behind DNA'..Are we in agreement?

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xocoti can you answer my reply to your statement please.

 

Sure I didn't notice it at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam,

Noone is science refers to DNA as code?

OK, first let me drive home this point on what DNA is as described by reputable scientific organisations and scientists:

 

Source 1: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetwisegeek(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/what-is-dna.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetwisegeek(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/what-is-dna.htm[/url]

 

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid present in the cells of all living organisms. It is often referred to as the “building blocks of life,†since DNA encodes the genetic material which determines what an organism will develop into. In addition to maintaining the genetic blueprints for its parent organism, DNA also performs a number of other functions which are critical to life.

 

Source 2: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbiotechnologyonline.gov.au/biotec/whatisdna.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbiotechnologyonline.gov.au/biotec/whatisdna.html[/url]

 

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a very important molecule found in all living cells. It contains information used in everyday metabolism and growth and influences most of our characteristics.

DNA is often described as the blueprint of an organism. It enables various cells to develop and work together to form a fully functional body, and controls characteristics such as eye colour. How much DNA influences very complex features, such as intelligence, is not yet fully understood.

Source 3: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/DNA"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/DNA[/url]

DNA, is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms, with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage ofinformation. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

 

Definition of code:

code (k d)

n.

1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.

2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.

3.

a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.

b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.

4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program.

5. Genetics The genetic code.

6. Slang A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in cardiac arrest.

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/code"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthefreedictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/code[/url]

 

The above is pretty much self explanatory..Notice some of the terms used by science: Encodes genetic materials, blueprints, enables various cells to develop and work together to form organs, recipe, code, performs function which are critical to life…

 

Obviously there are no codes, blueprints, recipe, or instructions without a ‘mind’ behind it hence the only rational and logical conclusion is that, there has to be a ‘mind’ behind DNA. "A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder." Is as simple as that.

Are we clear on this point?

 

I think you are still equivocating meaning of code as having an intelligence behind it and the way those scientists are using the word code as a set of data without the intelligence behind it. Y Again you seem to be ignoring what I have been saying. The meaning of code in your definition implies an intelligence to create and an intelligence to decipher the data points to give it meaning, while the sources listed above give no implication. This is known as quote mining in which a person searches for a word from a source but doesn't look at the context leading to a misconstruction of what the source meant. Your definition has the implication that DNA has some kind of subjective meaning that human beings give to mean code. This does not happen at all with DNA. A blueprint for a building does not cause a building to be built by itself unless there is a human intelligence to decipher the blueprint. There is no intelligence to decipher DNA or to give it the meaning of a "code", DNA "instructs" or is "responsible" for creating an organizing in the same sense that a sprocket is "responsible" or "instructs" an machine on which way to operate. In the example already brought up by using the "creationist" idea of a what a code is air temperature and sea temperature create a code that "instructs" a hurricane on how to be created. We know this isn't true, but this is the same definition used.

 

Christian apologists have already brought this up in court when they tried to push "Intelligent design" though the courts. It failed on that point.

 

 

I had shown clearly how we can establish fact using reason. We can establish fact that we have great great grandparents that lived 1000 years ago, no one had seen, talked, has any record of them etc, but we know they existed simply because of the fact that we are here, right now. So no, you don’t have to actually see something being made to establish that there is a creator or a designer.

 

I completely agree that you don't actually have to see something to infer from past knowledge. Lets take your example about ancestry. We do not accept that we came from ancestors that we cannot see because someone dogmatically tells us so, but because we draw on past experience and knowledge, and rudimentary logic to try and test the consistency of the idea. We see the idea of ancestry in other mammals, couples pairing having children etc. We also DO have evidence, fossils, and DNA from our ancestors. My ancestors came both from Asia and from Europe. I know this because I have had my genome mapped, and there is evidence that my DNA matches the DNA variations of those dispate groups. Now, when it comes to the supernatural we have no previous experience, no practical experience, nor a method by testing the supernatural. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that positive claims have to be weighted by the impossibility of their verification.

 

 

Naturally made? Perhaps you can describe what elements of nature that can make things like DNA, solar system, galaxies and so on?

 

Well to go back to the original question, lets take an example. You find a jagged rock. Was this rock made jagged by human beings or not? Well it depends on the context. If we discover this rock in the middle of the desert, far from any human civilization we may have a high confidence that this rock was indeed created by naturalistic elements such as the wind, volcanoes etc. Now if we pick up this rock in the Jagged Rock Inc. company which takes smooth rocks and breaks them into jagged parts we may have a high confidence that this rock was made jagged by human means. In this case we know that something is naturally made because we do not see evidence that an entity has created it. If we are going to say that something was supernaturally made we need to be able to discern between supernaturally made and "naturally made". We can't do that or there isn't any way to try and attempt it.

 

 

 

If you read my earlier post, science only knows about 5% of the DNA, a big chuck is still unknown and subject to further study and research. To classify anything as ‘defects’ or ‘error’ would be quite dumb at this point of time. Militaries used codes all the times to transmit messages between themselves and sometimes they throw in some fakes messages to confuse the enemy, not a good analogy but you get the point..

Another point is, even if there are ‘defects’, this does not in anyway disprove the existence of the ‘mind’ behind DNA.

In addition, for you to call it a ‘defect’, you need to know the effect of that defect in its entireties, which no human can.

 

I will tie all these points together because show a certain willingness to dodge the point.

`) if only know 5% of DNA we cannot say that is an intellegence behind it or not because we don't know enough about the data itself to make a judgement

2) if we cannot say that defects make it improbable that an superior intelligence created it then we cannot say that its efficacy is proof that it is

3) If we say that defects are part of Gods creation this turns the whole idea that DNA has some kind of intelligence behind it because it cannot be disprove because everything good and bad was created by god.

4) there is no evidence that DNA was created by an intelligence. The assertion that DNA is a code in the sense of having an intelligence behind it , is not using a definition of code that DNA is.

 

 

In Islam, we believe that our faculties such as seeing, hearing, thinking, etc come with responsibility and we would be questioned over them on the day of judgement, hence a blind person or the deaf/dumb would be much better off than their seeing/hearing counterparts

 

A small concelation for those who are lacking their senses, and I might say one that removes the incentive to try and restore their sight or their hearing which can be partially done today and continues to be tried today, apparently damning those who receive it to a harder existence.

 

As much as you want to blame the ‘biological suffering’ on Allah, you need to put things in the right perspective, Allah is the Creator and He is not accountable to anyone, we are His creation, it is us that would be questioned..

I don't blame the suffering on Allah at all I blame it on the fact that we are mammals, underdeveloped and aggressive; on the fact that bacteria and viruses adapt to our immune system and cause us to die on and on. If he were to exist though the concept of God seems to be very evil. He demands that we see the beauty of his creation, but not to be blamed for its defects or that its defects are "beyond our comprehension". Claims to be source of all objective morality but whose morality cannot be questioned. These lead me to tend to not want to the the "right" perspective might not be so right after all. We cannot say that the universe is "beautiful" without some way of recognizing its defects if it has any. If its flaws are so far beyond its comprehension then so it its beauty and we cannot can such a thing beautiful, in fact we cant call it anything.

 

 

SO Tim, unless you are willing to provide references to dispute the established definitions of DNA above and provide references on what do you mean by 'something else' with regard to DNA (from reputable sources), then it is obvious that we are stuck at 'there is a MIND with intellect behind DNA'..Are we in agreement?
We already have several times. The definition of code that is used by creationists is not DNA is nor is it the same meaning that scientists ascribe to it when they talk about code. It is simple word play. The above listed "sources" for code are used in what is called quote mining, in which people search for the word they are looking for without looking at the surrounding context and therefor misconstruing the meaning of the source. You are going to have to show that the word code used by scientists means "created by an intelligence", and you haven't done that, nor have you refuted the claim that the word code simply means " a set of data" when being used by scientists. Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,,sheesh is it just me or am I the only one thinking I am talking to a brick wall here? The context that the scientists are refereeing to when they used the words such as codes, blueprints etc are beside the point, obviously they were not discussing about creations or intelligence design. They were merely stating facts that their finding or research concluded. So let's stick to facts.

-Do you have any problem or disagreement with those definitions of DNA that I quoted? If yes then offer your evidence that they are wrong and evidence to support your definition of DNA. Obviously you have none hence your continuous side stepping.

 

I don't know how to make this any easier, and this may sound a little insulting..here's what I want you to do..

Go to the nearest grocery store, peel off the stickers (with numbers and black and white stripes on them) at the back of several products, go and stand in the corner somewhere and try to decipher the meaning of each sticker or what it supposed to say. Obviously you can't. Now ask these questions:

-Can those stickers be refereed to as codes: Yes, they are called barcodes

-Can these codes be randomly assigned and randomly generated: No, they need to follow certain specified standards

-Is there a need for you or the teller to be able to read the codes : No, the scan machine would read the codes and interpret its meaning and display the appropriate information.

 

Does DNA also play a similar role to barcodes (among other things)?: Yes, DNA of a person can be precisely identified and this evidence can be used in the court of law against or for that person.

 

For you not to agree on the use of term code for DNA, simple, just provide proof and evidence that there is no mind and intelligence behind the bar codes of stuff they sell at your nearest grocery store..Can you?

 

You further wrote:A blueprint for a building does not cause a building to be built by itself unless there is a human intelligence to decipher the blueprint.

Obviously, we had already established that no single human is responsible or has anything to do with the formation of his body organs. As you can readily subscribe to the fact that constructing a building requires intelligence, what more structures and components that are beyond compare in complexities to buildings, our complex organs and various bodily systems that we have in our body?

You obviously need to learn and research more on the subject. DNA is at the nuclei of a cell. We are made up of trillions of cells and at at one point, we were all just a single cell that multiplies to build us..Think about that for a minute..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam,,sheesh is it just me or am I the only one thinking I am talking to a brick wall here? The context that the scientists are refereeing to when they used the words such as codes, blueprints etc are beside the point, obviously they were not discussing about creations or intelligence design. They were merely stating facts that their finding or research concluded. So let's stick to facts.

-Do you have any problem or disagreement with those definitions of DNA that I quoted? If yes then offer your evidence that they are wrong and evidence to support your definition of DNA. Obviously you have none hence your continuous side stepping.

 

I don't know how to make this any easier, and this may sound a little insulting..here's what I want you to do..

Go to the nearest grocery store, peel off the stickers (with numbers and black and white stripes on them) at the back of several products, go and stand in the corner somewhere and try to decipher the meaning of each sticker or what it supposed to say. Obviously you can't. Now ask these questions:

-Can those stickers be refereed to as codes: Yes, they are called barcodes

-Can these codes be randomly assigned and randomly generated: No, they need to follow certain specified standards

-Is there a need for you or the teller to be able to read the codes : No, the scan machine would read the codes and interpret its meaning and display the appropriate information.

 

Does DNA also play a similar role to barcodes (among other things)?: Yes, DNA of a person can be precisely identified and this evidence can be used in the court of law against or for that person.

 

For you not to agree on the use of term code for DNA, simple, just provide proof and evidence that there is no mind and intelligence behind the bar codes of stuff they sell at your nearest grocery store..Can you?

 

You further wrote:A blueprint for a building does not cause a building to be built by itself unless there is a human intelligence to decipher the blueprint.

Obviously, we had already established that no single human is responsible or has anything to do with the formation of his body organs. As you can readily subscribe to the fact that constructing a building requires intelligence, what more structures and components that are beyond compare in complexities to buildings, our complex organs and various bodily systems that we have in our body?

You obviously need to learn and research more on the subject. DNA is at the nuclei of a cell. We are made up of trillions of cells and at at one point, we were all just a single cell that multiplies to build us..Think about that for a minute..

It isn't that hard to understand. You are making a false equivocation between code such bar code and software code that requires an intelligence to design and an intelligence to decode the information and DNA which is a set of data that does not have an intelligence that decodes the information or any evidence of a designer.

 

Second, the idea that DNA is a code requiring a intelligence implies that the designer designed some defective and some correctly. 98.5% of life forms that have existed on the earth have gone extinct.

 

Third, the idea that DNA was intelligently created has no predictive power. It holds no weight to tell us how or why things came to be the way they are. They can only say that it was designed. If there is no way to predict or to test then the "theory" isn't a theory at all.

 

Fourth, religious people will try to side step this by saying their specific deity was the originator of this code. Unfortunately this enters their historical and creation ideas into the realm of science in which every one of those theories either hold little or no weight or are completely wrong. In other words religious ideas as a scientific theory, even one matching intelligent design at best cannot prove their deity was the one who matches this designer and at worse, disprove themselves.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't that hard to understand. You are making a false equivocation between code such bar code and software code that requires an intelligence to design and an intelligence to decode the information and DNA which is a set of data that does not have an intelligence that decodes the information or any evidence of a designer.

 

Is DNA just a random set of information or codes? Let's address this point by way of an example:

Let's say Tim the Plumber committed a crime and he left a strand of his hair, or his saliva or his blood, at the crime scene.

Now forensic scientists can run test and subjected the materials through several processes to derive or decode the DNA of the criminal. Now do those forensic scientists need intellects, skills, knowhow, tools etc to decode the DNA information? Absolutely, hence your statement above that DNA does not require intelligence to decode falls flat on its face. Do you think for a second that if the DNA do not have the information or codes, or science classified it as of random patterns such as of that of a snowflakes, this evidence would be usable in the court of law? Absolutely not! It like you're asking a crazy person with no intellect to stick barcodes to things, everything would go hay wire and the system would fail..l

 

The fact of the matter is, as much as the bar codes contains information that can be deciphered to represent a product, DNA can be deciphered,using intellegence, to represent a unique person. That is a classic definition of what code is!.

 

Second, the idea that DNA is a code requiring a intelligence implies that the designer designed some defective and some correctly. 98.5% of life forms that have existed on the earth have gone extinct.

 

Third, the idea that DNA was intelligently created has no predictive power. It holds no weight to tell us how or why things came to be the way they are. They can only say that it was designed. If there is no way to predict or to test then the "theory" isn't a theory at all.

 

Fourth, religious people will try to side step this by saying their specific deity was the originator of this code. Unfortunately this enters their historical and creation ideas into the realm of science in which every one of those theories either hold little or no weight or are completely wrong. In other words religious ideas as a scientific theory, even one matching intelligent design at best cannot prove their deity was the one who matches this designer and at worse, disprove themselves.

 

Your other points are basically emotional arguments,,I will not address them at this point..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is DNA just a random set of information or codes? Let's address this point by way of an example:

Let's say Tim the Plumber committed a crime and he left a strand of his hair, or his saliva or his blood, at the crime scene.

Now forensic scientists can run test and subjected the materials through several processes to derive or decode the DNA of the criminal. Now do those forensic scientists need intellects, skills, knowhow, tools etc to decode the DNA information? Absolutely, hence your statement above that DNA does not require intelligence to decode falls flat on its face. Do you think for a second that if the DNA do not have the information or codes, or science classified it as of random patterns such as of that of a snowflakes, this evidence would be usable in the court of law? Absolutely not! It like you're asking a crazy person with no intellect to stick barcodes to things, everything would go hay wire and the system would fail..l

 

You are still failing to resolve the problem. DNA is not random, but intelligence is not needed to create non random phenomon. As used before, a hurricane is a "code" of air pressure, humility, and sea and air temperature. The word code as you are trying to use it require an intelligence and a cognitive process to decipher this data into a meaningful concept as is what happens when I call a hurricane a code. This does not happen with DNA and hurricanes. Both are products of naturalistic processes. A software program is not because it requires an intelligence create and an intelligence to decode the data to call it a code.

 

 

The fact of the matter is, as much as the bar codes contains information that can be deciphered to represent a product, DNA can be deciphered,using intellegence, to represent a unique person. That is a classic definition of what code is!.

 

DNA can, but it are not in the process of creating an organism. There is no cognitive process that looks at the DNA and makes a decision to create that specific organism. It happens because of the natural properties of the acids of DNA without intelligence.

 

Your other points are basically emotional arguments,,I will not address them at this point..

 

They aren't emotional points at all. They are the problems that happen when theistic people try and use intelligent design as a "scientific theory".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are still failing to resolve the problem. DNA is not random, but intelligence is not needed to create non random phenomon.

 

Read the scientific definitions again, DNA contains genetic codes, codes that defines who and what each person is. It is also described as blueprints with instruction of how each cell is supposed to behave and act. DNA also requires intellect and skills to decipher..The ONLY way for you to dispute this point is to prove that codes, a set of instructions, maps, can arise without a mind behind them. You can't even bring one..How could you when the entire human experience tells us that it is not possible. Try and ask the cashier at your grocery store for a barcode that is not generated via a faculty of a mind and she would probably point to her head and draw imaginary circles, that how stupid and silly your points of arguments on this point is. To top it off, you need to prove that those established scientific statements are wrong to describe DNA as codes and blueprints..

 

 

This does not happen with DNA and hurricanes. Both are products of naturalistic processes. A software program is not because it requires an intelligence create and an intelligence to decode the data to call it a code.

DNA can, but it are not in the process of creating an organism. There is no cognitive process that looks at the DNA and makes a decision to create that specific organism. It happens because of the natural properties of the acids of DNA without intelligence.

 

First off, huricanes produce chaos and disorder, DNA is 'responsible' for the multiplication of the cells to produce complex organs and systems needed to enable a person to live, they are worlds apart. It REQUIRES intellect, skills and know how to decipher DNA codes, it also require massive computing power.

 

It happens because of the natural properties of the acids of DNA without intelligence.

 

Now you are confusing yourself.. did I ever suggested that DNA itself has intellect? Barcodes are just printed labels without intellect.. I'm talking about the 'Mind' and Intellect BEHIND them..

 

They aren't emotional points at all. They are the problems that happen when theistic people try and use intelligent design as a "scientific theory".

 

On the contrary, it is you that adopted double standard and keep shifting the goal posts around. You claimed to subscribe to science, but when scientific facts are provided, resorted to words twisting, stating things with no evidence and turn your back on science. I see no further point of continuing this..let's see if Tim the Plumber has anything to add..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salom,

 

The problem of us understanding each other here is that when science finds a new system which we lack the words to describe it uses what is availible. So the word code is used but it is not exactly used in the same way as it is used everywhere eles.

 

To use my river deposit example. The information contained in the river deposits can be examined to give an understanding of the flow levels of the river in past times. This could be described as de-coding the river deposits.

 

One of the biggest differences between science and the arts is the use of language. You have to be very careful with your words in science. Once you define your terms then you have to stick to them and if you describe something using a new word you will have to justify the use of the new word. When we are being poetic we use as many flowery words as possible to sound good. The use of the words code, and responsible, in describing the make up, and action, of DNA are good for popular science so we can get the idea but without a good understanding of what is actually happening then it will get you confused.

 

My friend is a mathamatitian. He says that quantum physics is easy to understand if you understand the maths of it. For the rest of us it is utterly mind bending weirdness.

 

I hope I have been helpful and I always fell that the debate here is a lot more intelegent than when I talk to the christian types. They are a bunch of closed minded fools. Christian theologhy is more constraining and they have to twist themselves in knots to avoid the obvious non-sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the scientific definitions again, DNA contains genetic codes, codes that defines who and what each person is. It is also described as blueprints with instruction of how each cell is supposed to behave and act. DNA also requires intellect and skills to decipher..The ONLY way for you to dispute this point is to prove that codes, a set of instructions, maps, can arise without a mind behind them. You can't even bring one..How could you when the entire human experience tells us that it is not possible. Try and ask the cashier at your grocery store for a barcode that is not generated via a faculty of a mind and she would probably point to her head and draw imaginary circles, that how stupid and silly your points of arguments on this point is. To top it off, you need to prove that those established scientific statements are wrong to describe DNA as codes and blueprints..

 

What intelligence or cognitive ability deciphers DNA to create an organism? None. It happens though a natural process. This does not happen with a human code, a bar code, or any other example brought up. All of these require an intelligence to decipher the meaning. You can read if you wish the Dover case with rejected Intelligent design as a theory. the problems with the theory I have already explained. It has no predictive ability, it doesn't explain anything of how things came to be the way they are.

 

 

 

First off, huricanes produce chaos and disorder, DNA is 'responsible' for the multiplication of the cells to produce complex organs and systems needed to enable a person to live, they are worlds apart. It REQUIRES intellect, skills and know how to decipher DNA codes, it also require massive computing power.
You missed the point entirely. a hurricane and DNA are both "codes" in the sense they are a set of data when observed from a human observer and both use naturalistic processes.

 

 

Now you are confusing yourself.. did I ever suggested that DNA itself has intellect? Barcodes are just printed labels without intellect.. I'm talking about the 'Mind' and Intellect BEHIND them..

 

There is no mind behind DNA. As already explained before bar codes require an intelligence to decode it and to know that it is a code. DNA does not, it is simply a data set, or which can be produced though naturalistic means by the example of the hurrican, the fossil record, or any other set of organized data points.

 

 

On the contrary, it is you that adopted double standard and keep shifting the goal posts around. You claimed to subscribe to science, but when scientific facts are provided, resorted to words twisting, stating things with no evidence and turn your back on science. I see no further point of continuing this..let's see if Tim the Plumber has anything to add..

 

Not at all, no "scientific facts" have been presented. The definition of "code" has been applied differently went applied to DNA and natural processes and when applied to man made codes. A blueprint etc require a cognitive process to decipher, no such thing exists for DNA. DNA isn't cognitively decoded to create an organism, it is done though naturalistic processes. further more the idea that DNA is a code isn't logically coherent as it supposes a designer that cannot be named. It has no predictive qualities, and cannot explain how or why things are the way they are. Intelligent design has already been thrown out of the courts as not coherent in the Dover trail.

 

 

 

.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salom,

 

The problem of us understanding each other here is that when science finds a new system which we lack the words to describe it uses what is availible. So the word code is used but it is not exactly used in the same way as it is used everywhere eles.

 

To use my river deposit example. The information contained in the river deposits can be examined to give an understanding of the flow levels of the river in past times. This could be described as de-coding the river deposits.

 

One of the biggest differences between science and the arts is the use of language. You have to be very careful with your words in science. Once you define your terms then you have to stick to them and if you describe something using a new word you will have to justify the use of the new word. When we are being poetic we use as many flowery words as possible to sound good. The use of the words code, and responsible, in describing the make up, and action, of DNA are good for popular science so we can get the idea but without a good understanding of what is actually happening then it will get you confused.

 

My friend is a mathamatitian. He says that quantum physics is easy to understand if you understand the maths of it. For the rest of us it is utterly mind bending weirdness.

 

I hope I have been helpful and I always fell that the debate here is a lot more intelegent than when I talk to the christian types. They are a bunch of closed minded fools. Christian theologhy is more constraining and they have to twist themselves in knots to avoid the obvious non-sense.

 

Salam,Tim, I can kind of relate to what you are saying ..perhaps this is a genuine misunderstanding of some terms and miscommunications. Thanks for making your point. Still, as what I would say to any atheist, what have you got to lose? You are in a totally hopeless situation anyway, so how about looking at others point of view that at least provides some hope?

 

I have to disagree with your river and snowflakes examples for a simple reason that patterns and codes are two totally different animals altogether. Patterns produces by rivers, snowflakes, hurricanes are knows in science as ‘chaos and fractals’ effects. They don’t contain instructions, blueprints or code. In short, with patterns, what you see is what you got.

Barcodes OTH provide the exact id of a product, price, perhaps additional details such as manufacturing, expire date , serial no. etc. Expire date is an instruction to take the product of the shelf, sn represents the product unique id and so on. We can’t assign a particular snowflake to a specific snow storm, nor can we assign a specific pattern caused by a river to a specific river.

 

In the case of DNA, let’s say xocoti committed a crime (haha) and left behind perhaps skin tissue, blood or whatever at the crime scene, that can be processed and analyses and that can be an ironclad evidence that he was at the crime scene and can be used against him in the court of law. Barcode provides id for a specific product, DNA provides the exact id for xocoti, we can sample a billion people, even his siblings or parents, that evidence would still point to him.

 

Even if we disagree on this point, rationality, logic and common sense tell us that an anlogy of DNA in comparison to a bar code has its merit and perhaps makes more sense than comparing it to patterns by rivers or snowflakes..We agreed that codes, instructions, blueprints cannot arise without a mind behind them..hence there is a possibility that there is a MIND behind DNA, however remote this possibility is, isn’t still worth investigating though? Like I said before what have you got to lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question can best be answered by an example. A large majority of the support for israel comes from fundamentalist Christians in the US who believe whole heartedly that by supporting israel AND supporting the more antagonizing and religious in israel they are hastening the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. They believe it whole heartedly.

 

Now what do I have to lose by believing in a fundamentalist Christian sect who supports israel's religious scoundrel's who think all of Palestine belongs to them by virtue of their religion? If they are right then I am headed to heaven and if they are wrong then nothing.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question can best be answered by an example. A large majority of the support for israel comes from fundamentalist Christians in the US who believe whole heartedly that by supporting israel AND supporting the more antagonizing and religious in israel they are hastening the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. They believe it whole heartedly.

 

Now what do I have to lose by believing in a fundamentalist Christian sect who supports israel's religious scoundrel's who think all of Palestine belongs to them by virtue of their religion? If they are right then I am headed to heaven and if they are wrong then nothing.

 

Xocoti, what you have got to realise is that, everybody has their own brand of the 'truth' but simple reason and rationality tells us that they all CANNOT be right. Your position is that, you looked at one and conclude that since one is wrong, therefore ALL of them are wrong. That is irrationality in itself.

To arrive to the correct conclusion, we have to look at all facts and evidence before us, no matter what. Lile I said before, you adopted double standard and irrationality to arrive to your conclusion, a small oxygen tank, a human did it, an entire surface of a planet..uh uh random and chaos did it..

 

Back to your point, everybody has their own brand of truth that they subscribe to, and reason tells us that they all cannot be right simply because these 'truths' contradict each other. So what is the rational approach to it? We need to sort out truth from falsehood, by looking at the evidence that each has to offer.. Atheism for example subscribe to the fact that things, living things can appear from nothing, or living things can appear from non living things, or things that did not exist before can bring themselves into existence or a set of complex codes, instructions, blueprints etc can appear without a mind behind them or worse, from some lifeless and mindless matters..

We don't find this in our entire human experience and to top it off, this is against what science already established as well..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xocoti, what you have got to realise is that, everybody has their own brand of the 'truth' but simple reason and rationality tells us that they all CANNOT be right. Your position is that, you looked at one and conclude that since one is wrong, therefore ALL of them are wrong. That is irrationality in itself.

To arrive to the correct conclusion, we have to look at all facts and evidence before us, no matter what. Lile I said before, you adopted double standard and irrationality to arrive to your conclusion, a small oxygen tank, a human did it, an entire surface of a planet..uh uh random and chaos did it..

 

Back to your point, everybody has their own brand of truth that they subscribe to, and reason tells us that they all cannot be right simply because these 'truths' contradict each other. So what is the rational approach to it? We need to sort out truth from falsehood, by looking at the evidence that each has to offer.. Atheism for example subscribe to the fact that things, living things can appear from nothing, or living things can appear from non living things, or things that did not exist before can bring themselves into existence or a set of complex codes, instructions, blueprints etc can appear without a mind behind them or worse, from some lifeless and mindless matters..

We don't find this in our entire human experience and to top it off, this is against what science already established as well..

I'll just say you missed the entire point of my point. The point is that to believe in a religion is more than a simple "The there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger", cool, now I'm ok in the afterlife so I'll go back to what I was doing. These beliefs entail changing behaviors, supporting things, being prohibited from others. This have real world consequences for better or worse in the world. Those deviations from what someone would normally do is what there is to lose, also the loss of intellectual integrity at changing lifestyles, not based on principle but based on a "trying to get out of hell free" trick. I mean if someone really wanted to make sure they get it completely right, they should just believe in every God. It reminds me of Homer Simpson when he was in an accident exclaimed, " Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha I love you all!"

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just say you missed the entire point of my point. The point is that to believe in a religion is more than a simple "The there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger", cool, now I'm ok in the afterlife so I'll go back to what I was doing. These beliefs entail changing behaviors, supporting things, being prohibited from others. This have real world consequences for better or worse in the world. Those deviations from what someone would normally do is what there is to lose, also the loss of intellectual integrity at changing lifestyles, not based on principle but based on a "trying to get out of hell free" trick.

 

What am i missing? So you get to decide that if truth requires certain actions to be taken or certain rules to be followed, then you are not interested? Life doesn't work like that my friend..Most people would just like to sit around and do nothing, but most people do realise that they have to get up certain time in the morning, travel to work and spend most days working. This is for obvious reason that, the truth is, they need to work to provide food and shelter for their family and themselves..

 

I mean if someone really wanted to make sure they get it completely right, they should just believe in every God. It reminds me of Homer Simpson when he was in an accident exclaimed, " Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha I love you all!"

 

Wow, either ALL is wrong or ALL is right, you do realise how stupid that is right? :sl:

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next point: Have we ever experienced life coming from non-living objects? Obviously not, it is a scientific fact that life cannot arise from non living objects. Here’s an interesting fact that I learnt fro my geology class years ago, rocks are made up of atoms and so do humans, in fact, everything consists or made up of atoms and subatomic particles. The interesting thing is, our atomic structure is much denser than that of the rock, so much so that if we zoom everything up to an atomic level, a human can actually walk though rocks since the rocks’ atomic binds are much more sparse..interesting, but that is not the point that I want to make..

 

Now if we look around us, we would see that everything is made of atoms and sub atomic particles even the air that we breath.(obviously we can’t see air, but we know its there).

This is amazing, when we see a cat or a chair, we are in fact looking at a pile of atoms/neutrons/electrons..Let’s substitute lego blocks for atoms, we are looking at two piles of lego blocks, yet one is living ,breathing, breeding and so on and yet the other one just sits there, lifeless..Why this is so? We don’t find non living objects acquire life nor can life appear from non-living object. Living things has to come from living things! This is a scientific fact.. But still, to ask WHY is still valid and rational, since everything is made up of lego blocks including us human, why some lego blocks are alive and why some lego blocks are lifeless?

 

Your so called leading biologists or beloved Darwin cannot answer this simple yet rational question but Islam can..let me illustrate this point..

 

Here’s what I want you to do, and this may sound a little insulting :sl: , but here goes,..go to your nearest junkyard or rubbish dump site and collect bits of metals, steels, aluminums, plastics, rubber, some organic materials, some earth and heap them together. Now ask youself, if you add fuel to that, can that heap of materials fly to the moon? No? Why not? Apollo 11 was made of the exact same materials and it landed on the moon!. The point is this, while we know that substance or material is important, the ability to get these thing to the moon can only the brought about by combining these materials in a very special DESIGN, using intellect and know how.

Similarly if we think about a living subject, we are made up of cells,there is set of DNA at the nucleous of every cell, and all these are made of of atoms, the same way that a very special design was responsible for a spacecraft to land on the moon, it is reasonable and rational to conclude that a very special design is required to arrange atoms and make them into cells that formed a living being..,

 

So either you subscribe to life originates from some non living objects, which is irrational and against what science already established or the above proposition, is in fact, a more rational explanation and agree with our voice of reasons..

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The next point: Have we ever experienced life coming from non-living objects? Obviously not, it is a scientific fact that life cannot arise from non living objects. Here’s an interesting fact that I learnt fro my geology class years ago, rocks are made up of atoms and so do humans, in fact, everything consists or made up of atoms and subatomic particles. The interesting thing is, our atomic structure is much denser than that of the rock, so much so that if we zoom everything up to an atomic level, a human can actually walk though rocks since the rocks’ atomic binds are much more sparse..interesting, but that is not the point that I want to make..

 

Now if we look around us, we would see that everything is made of atoms and sub atomic particles even the air that we breath.(obviously we can’t see air, but we know its there).

This is amazing, when we see a cat or a chair, we are in fact looking at a pile of atoms/neutrons/electrons..Let’s substitute lego blocks for atoms, we are looking at two piles of lego blocks, yet one is living ,breathing, breeding and so on and yet the other one just sits there, lifeless..Why this is so? We don’t find non living objects acquire life nor can life appear from non-living object. Living things has to come from living things! This is a scientific fact.. But still, to ask WHY is still valid and rational, since everything is made up of lego blocks including us human, why some lego blocks are alive and why some lego blocks are lifeless?

 

Your so called leading biologists or beloved Darwin cannot answer this simple yet rational question but Islam can..let me illustrate this point..

 

Here’s what I want you to do, and this may sound a little insulting :sl: , but here goes,..go to your nearest junkyard or rubbish dump site and collect bits of metals, steels, aluminums, plastics, rubber, some organic materials, some earth and heap them together. Now ask youself, if you add fuel to that, can that heap of materials fly to the moon? No? Why not? Apollo 11 was made of the exact same materials and it landed on the moon!. The point is this, while we know that substance or material is important, the ability to get these thing to the moon can only the brought about by combining these materials in a very special DESIGN, using intellect and know how.

Similarly if we think about a living subject, we are made up of cells,there is set of DNA at the nucleous of every cell, and all these are made of of atoms, the same way that a very special design was responsible for a spacecraft to land on the moon, it is reasonable and rational to conclude that a very special design is required to arrange atoms and make them into cells that formed a living being..,

 

So either you subscribe to life originates from some non living objects, which is irrational and against what science already established or the above proposition, is in fact, a more rational explanation and agree with our voice of reasons..

? Science has never proven that life cannot come from non living objects.

 

Lets take your logic and apply it to a conclusion you disagree with.

 

Love and intellect sometimes conflict no? I mean sometimes love makes us do things that aren't the smartest thing to do right?

Yes

Sometimes intellect wins out and we overcome our emotions and do the rational thing and sometimes our emotions get ahold of us and we do something rash right?

Yes

And can science explain why we have these emotions and why they conflict and where does the nature of that conflict come from and how it is good for us?

Well no,

Therefore the Greek God Eros and Aphrodite are real and the human Psyche is real because this story explains how the human mind and the emotions of love and lust interact. it goes into intimate detail on why Eros is able to overwhelm Psyche and how and why Psuche is able to over come Eros and then give explicate instructs that we are supposed to analogize this to the human condition.

 

I don't think you'll agree with the conclusion, but it is your logic.

 

We don't see something coming from nothing

Science can't explain how life came about

Therefor horses can fly, jinn exist, we all came from Adam and Eve and not gorillas, and God exists

 

The last phrase in both strings of logic are non sequiturs. They don't match with the rest of the phrases. It is an appeal to ignorance.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
? Science has never proven that life cannot come from non living objects.

 

Lets take your logic and apply it to a conclusion you disagree with.

 

Love and intellect sometimes conflict no? I mean sometimes love makes us do things that aren't the smartest thing to do right?

Yes

Sometimes intellect wins out and we overcome our emotions and do the rational thing and sometimes our emotions get ahold of us and we do something rash right?

Yes

And can science explain why we have these emotions and why they conflict and where does the nature of that conflict come from and how it is good for us?

Well no,

Therefore the Greek God Eros and Aphrodite are real and the human Psyche is real because this story explains how the human mind and the emotions of love and lust interact. it goes into intimate detail on why Eros is able to overwhelm Psyche and how and why Psuche is able to over come Eros and then give explicate instructs that we are supposed to analogize this to the human condition.

 

I don't think you'll agree with the conclusion, but it is your logic.

 

We don't see something coming from nothing

Science can't explain how life came about

Therefor horses can fly, jinn exist, we all came from Adam and Eve and not gorillas, and God exists

 

The last phrase in both strings of logic are non sequiturs. They don't match with the rest of the phrases. It is an appeal to ignorance.

 

Xocoti, please do not jump too far ahead, let’s stick with the issue/point in hand, one by one ..I will address your irrational logic in due time IA..

The point raised is this: All matters in our universe is made up of protons, electrons and neutrons, i.e atoms, this include living and non living objects. Atoms are the building block of all things around us, including ourselves.

 

You wrote:

 

? Science has never proven that life cannot come from non living objects.

 

I’m beginning to seriously doubt that you had ever completed your high school or perhaps you need to go back there for a refresher..

Science or biology clearly defines what a life(living) or dead (non living) object is.

Non living things do not move, eat, breath, go to the toilet,feel, have sex, give birth etc. Non living things also do not have DNA nor they are made up of cells, have no feeling, emotion etc.

 

If you were to declare to a life could appear from a rock or a stone, or that you could prove that a 5000 year old mummy can become alive again, then the whole world of science would declare you as a nut case, nobody would take you seriously. Why are you disputing such a simple basic science? Read back what I wrote above and stick to the facts and deal with them, as said earlier we would deal with your irrational logic and arguments in due time IA..Now let’s see if Tim has anything to add..

 

& W'salm to Linus.. :sl: Welcome to the forum brother

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to disagree with your river and snowflakes examples for a simple reason that patterns and codes are two totally different animals altogether. Patterns produces by rivers, snowflakes, hurricanes are knows in science as ‘chaos and fractals’ effects. They don’t contain instructions, blueprints or code. In short, with patterns, what you see is what you got.

Barcodes OTH provide the exact id of a product, price, perhaps additional details such as manufacturing, expire date , serial no. etc. Expire date is an instruction to take the product of the shelf, sn represents the product unique id and so on. We can’t assign a particular snowflake to a specific snow storm, nor can we assign a specific pattern caused by a river to a specific river.

 

In the case of DNA, let’s say xocoti committed a crime (haha) and left behind perhaps skin tissue, blood or whatever at the crime scene, that can be processed and analyses and that can be an ironclad evidence that he was at the crime scene and can be used against him in the court of law. Barcode provides id for a specific product, DNA provides the exact id for xocoti, we can sample a billion people, even his siblings or parents, that evidence would still point to him.

 

The pattern of a river's deposits is unique to the river and to the moment it made that deposit. If the deposit is studied it will tell where it was laid down, when this happened, what rock had been eroded to create the deposited material, how this had happened, when it had happened, what the climete was like when it happened and lots more. There is a huge ammount of information there.

 

If Xocoti committed a crime and left behind DNA it would be unique just like the river valley deposits. If he left behind a foot print it would be unique.

 

Informatin can be got from analising the world if you like you can call this decoding foot prints. DNA shows no sign of being designed.

 

DNA is in dead aniamls. It is in some fossils.

 

Rock and humans have the same density of atoms. If we had a higher number of atoms per unit volume we would be heavier than rock. All matter is made of atoms. Other particles are things like light and radiation. Sub-atomic particles are the things that make atoms. All chemistry is the study of the interactions of the outer "skin" of atoms.

 

The special thing about carbon is that it bonds with 4 other atoms at once. This makes it natures natural building block for all manner of interesting and complex formations. These large molecules can form when you have lots of carbon sloshing around in water with no oxygen around. When this happens selfreplicating long chain polimers start to form. As they grow at one end of the molecule they get longer and longer. Eventually they break. Then they can grow at both ends of the molecule.

 

Thus we have a puddle with molecules growing using up the raw materials to grow with and often growing through each other using each other as material to use to grow. The best at growing and best at avioding being used as raw material become numerous at the expense of those weaker molecules. Evolution has begun.

 

This has been demonstrated in the lab. Often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xocoti, please do not jump too far ahead, let’s stick with the issue/point in hand, one by one ..I will address your irrational logic in due time IA..

The point raised is this: All matters in our universe is made up of protons, electrons and neutrons, i.e atoms, this include living and non living objects. Atoms are the building block of all things around us, including ourselves.

 

You wrote:

 

? Science has never proven that life cannot come from non living objects.

 

I’m beginning to seriously doubt that you had ever completed your high school or perhaps you need to go back there for a refresher..

Science or biology clearly defines what a life(living) or dead (non living) object is.

Non living things do not move, eat, breath, go to the toilet,feel, have sex, give birth etc. Non living things also do not have DNA nor they are made up of cells, have no feeling, emotion etc.

 

If you were to declare to a life could appear from a rock or a stone, or that you could prove that a 5000 year old mummy can become alive again, then the whole world of science would declare you as a nut case, nobody would take you seriously. Why are you disputing such a simple basic science? Read back what I wrote above and stick to the facts and deal with them, as said earlier we would deal with your irrational logic and arguments in due time IA..Now let’s see if Tim has anything to add..

 

& W'salm to Linus.. :sl: Welcome to the forum brother

sigh. Again you missed the whole point. The idea that god created life is a non sequiture. It is a mythology. It doesn't follow any theory, cannot be tested on and on. It is an appeal to ignorance as was Greek mythology.

 

Now moving on to abrogenesis ( the study on how life started), science does not know how life started. They have a general idea of what was needed, but they ultimately don't know. This is not licence to fill in the gap with any fairy tale one wishes. If one wishes to say God created life they need to detail out by which processes it was completed or at least give us more data than any other hypothesis, which the creationist idea doesn't. It just says God did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×