• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You didn't offered any arguments to support that the Fine Tuning doesn't exist

I don't need arguments to support that something does *not* exist.
It's upto the people that claim this something DOES exist to give arguments in support of it.

It's called the burden of proof, you might have heared of it.


The anthropic principle ISN'T AN ARGUMENT!

Indeed, it's not.

It's just the idea that it's not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe in which we can exist. If anything, it's stating the obvious.

If things were different we wouldn't be here to discuss it, okay, then?

No, not okay. We could still be here discussing it if things were different.
It kind of matters what the difference would be :)

It was due to chance physical necessity or design? Or Luck?

I don't know. You're the one who pretends to know.

"luck" is not an appropriate word in any case. "Luck" is not some objective phenomena. It's rather a subjective label that people put on seemingly random events. A single event can be "good luck" for you and "bad luck" for me simultanously. It even depends on what you consider important and beneficial.

The word "luck" is irrelevant in this discussion. "luck" is all about hindsight and subjective opinion.

The cosmos that produced you doesn't really care about your odds of winning anything. It doesn't really care about your odds of being born. If the solar system and everything it contains disappears tomorrow, the universe would look exactly the same.

You should let go of this juvenile teleological and narcistic thinking.

Prove that the rest can account for our existence and i will announce myself a random cosmic mistake like yourself today!

I don't need to prove statements that I didn't make.
Perhaps you should try to support your own case instead of trying to plug holes in what-you-consider-to-be other people's opinions.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
When someone claims that our existence doesn't need an explanation because if it were different we wouldn't be here he is beginning the question and implies luck.

I never said that our existence doesn't need an explanation.

Once again, you are misrepresenting me, putting words in my mouth and arguing strawmen.

I'm tempted to call you a liar now. I'll refrain for the time being, but don't let me catch you a 5th time doing this.
 
Upvote 0

olderguy

Dedicated Follower of Lord Jesus
Apr 4, 2014
131
15
USA
✟22,937.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
A few months ago I saw an excellent You-Tube on this topic. It was long, over an hour. It didn't advocate 1 religion over others for most of it. Rather, it made points of just how marvelously designed the entire universe is. Everything from the movements of the celestial bodies down to the movements of sub atomic particles. It also pointed out the mathematical perfection by which all things are made. From DNA, to leaves, and again to planets and stars. Nature doesn't create perfection. Nature is chaotic, and left to itself, tends to break things down and destroy them. Such as rust, and wood rot. So how is it the cosmos speaks of such perfection? The only answer is God, who is Himself perfect.

Therefore, I totally agree with the premise of this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,669
15,113
Seattle
✟1,167,635.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
A few months ago I saw an excellent You-Tube on this topic. It was long, over an hour. It didn't advocate 1 religion over others for most of it. Rather, it made points of just how marvelously designed the entire universe is. Everything from the movements of the celestial bodies down to the movements of sub atomic particles. It also pointed out the mathematical perfection by which all things are made. From DNA, to leaves, and again to planets and stars. Nature doesn't create perfection. Nature is chaotic, and left to itself, tends to break things down and destroy them. Such as rust, and wood rot. So how is it the cosmos speaks of such perfection? The only answer is God, who is Himself perfect.

Therefore, I totally agree with the premise of this thread.


No, it really is not the only answer and no amount of credulity will make it so.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,669
15,113
Seattle
✟1,167,635.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Well Belk,

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who refuse to believe, no amount of proof is enough."

You sure proved this statement is true. Sad.


You don't even have evidence let alone proof. That I find special pleading and poor logic unconvincing should not be a reason for sadness.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,669
15,113
Seattle
✟1,167,635.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
There is more evidence for God than for anything else that can't be proven with human methods. But you refuse to look at it with an open mind and an open heart.


a2faa_ORIG-cool_story_bro8.jpg
 
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟22,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't need arguments to support that something does *not* exist.
It's upto the people that claim this something DOES exist to give arguments in support of it.


DogmaHunter i am really starting to believe that you have serious psychological problems that cause you selective blindness, i can't explain differently how after the facts i have presented you still deny the Fine Tuning. Here is a more recent paper about the Fine Tuning (I hope you will see it)

A More Finely Tuned Universe – at insidescience.org

https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/a-more-finely-tuned-universe-at-insidescience-org/

Susskind makes the claim that there is Fine Tuning, yes i know he is delusional too..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

Lots of other Atheists Scientists make the claim (no need to paste the quotes again, i did it numerous times)



It's called the burden of proof, you might have heared of it.

Look who's talking lol.


It's just the idea that it's not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe in which we can exist. If anything, it's stating the obvious.

Here we go again...It is true that, given the fact that we’re here and we’re alive, we should expect to observe a life-permitting universe. This is called the Anthropic Principle. But that expectation, and our observations which confirm it, do nothing to explain why the universe is life-permitting when it didn’t have to be. A life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one, so why does a life-permitting universe exist? What is the best explanation? Is it chance, necessity, or design? Fine-tuning cries out for an explanation, but the anthropic principle is not the answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is helpful once more: “While trivially true, [the anthropic] principle has no explanatory power, and does not constitute a substantive alternative explanation.”

No, not okay. We could still be here discussing it if things were different.
It kind of matters what the difference would be :)

I already refuted that since it has been proven that if the Hubble Constant were much smaller or much bigger the Universe wouldn't exist. Yes you can change some constants BUT you will have a lifeless Universe, the burden of proof is up to you to prove that you can have life with different constants not me.

I don't know. You're the one who pretends to know.

"luck" is not an appropriate word in any case. "Luck" is not some objective phenomena. It's rather a subjective label that people put on seemingly random events. A single event can be "good luck" for you and "bad luck" for me simultanously. It even depends on what you consider important and beneficial.

I don't believe in Luck since it implies randomness and randomness doesn't exist.


The cosmos that produced you doesn't really care about your odds of winning anything.

Of course it doesn't, God does and God precedes the Material Universe, the Universe has no Consciousness or free will to care about us. Then again you are using the lottery ticket fallacy which i refuted multiple times, the lottery machine draws probabilities from something physical therefor you can't put it "before' the Universe since there was nothing physical to draw probabilities from.

It doesn't really care about your odds of being born. If the solar system and everything it contains disappears tomorrow, the universe would look exactly the same.

That's an easily refuted argument since i can die in this reality and move to another reality which we call afterlife and God leave this Universe to exist eternally or until is run out of energy.

Here are some videos that will help you understand why this type of thinking is flawed. They provide peer review papers to support their claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70


I don't need to prove statements that I didn't make.
Perhaps you should try to support your own case instead of trying to plug holes in what-you-consider-to-be other people's opinions.

Of course you did silly, whatever was not intended it is by definition an accident. Atheists think of themselves as random accidents that nothingness spewed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟22,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
You don't even have evidence let alone proof. That I find special pleading and poor logic unconvincing should not be a reason for sadness.


The fine tuning of the universe. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The moral sense. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The fact that a natural universe cannot logically have a natural cause. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The fact that there is something instead of nothing. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The overwhelming odds against the Darwinian story being true (estimated at 10^-1018 by atheist Eugen Koonin). Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The irreducible complexity of biological systems. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The vast amounts of complex computer-like code stored in DNA. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The miracles that have been reported throughout history. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

My subjective self-awareness. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The fact that we do not even have plausible speculations to account for the origin of life. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
The fact that a natural universe cannot logically have a natural cause.

That's like saying a natural cloud can not have a natural cause. That makes no sense.

The overwhelming odds against the Darwinian story being true (estimated at 10^-1018 by atheist Eugen Koonin). Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

Creationist math is really bad.

The odds of evolution happening as it did are 1 in 1 . . . because it happened. When something does occur, the probability of it occurring are 1 in 1.

The irreducible complexity of biological systems. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

We have the multiple evolutionary steps for irreducibly complex systems, such as the mammalian middle ear.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The vast amounts of complex computer-like code stored in DNA. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

It is a bare assertion, which is why it isn't considered evidence.

The miracles that have been reported throughout history. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

Stories are not evidence.

My subjective self-awareness. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

What is that supposed to be evidence of?

The fact that we do not even have plausible speculations to account for the origin of life. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

That would be an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The fine tuning of the universe. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The moral sense. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The fact that a natural universe cannot logically have a natural cause. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The fact that there is something instead of nothing. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The overwhelming odds against the Darwinian story being true (estimated at 10^-1018 by atheist Eugen Koonin). Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The irreducible complexity of biological systems. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The vast amounts of complex computer-like code stored in DNA. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The miracles that have been reported throughout history. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

My subjective self-awareness. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

The fact that we do not even have plausible speculations to account for the origin of life. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Belk

We've been through this before. It appears that your main strategy here is to appeal to ignorance as evidence for the divine, which is fallacious. That we do not know how X happened does not entail that Goddidit.
 
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟22,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't suppose you have a link to where he said this, do you?

Dr. Eugene V. Koonin, who is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Dr. Koonin is also a recognized authority in the field of evolutionary and computational biology. Recently, he authored a book, titled, “The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution” (Upper Saddle River: FT Press, 2011). I think we can fairly assume that when it comes to origin-of-life scenarios, he knows what he’s talking about. In Appendix B of his book, “The Logic of Chance<", Dr. Koonin argues that the origin of life is such a remarkable event that we need to postulate a multiverse, containing a very large (and perhaps infinite) number of universes, in order to explain the emergence of life on Earth. The reason why Dr. Koonin believes we need to postulate a multiverse in order to solve the riddle of the origin of life on Earth is that all life is dependent on replication and translation systems which are fiendishly complex. As Koonin puts it:
The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system.
Dr. Koonin provides what he calls “a rough, toy calculation, of the upper bound of the probability of the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system in an O-region.” (By an “O-region,” Dr. Koonin means an observable universe, such as the one we live in.) The calculations on pages 434-435 in Appendix B of Dr. Koonin’s book, “The Logic of Chance,” are adapted from his peer-reviewed article, The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life, Biology Direct 2 (2007): 15, doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-15. The model itself is not intended to be realistic one – that’s why it’s called a toy model – but it makes some very generous assumptions about the availability of RNA on the primordial Earth. After performing what he calls “a back-of-the-envelope calculation” of the odds of the emergence of “a primitive, coupled replication-translation system,” which requires, at a minimum, the formation of “two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides,” “10 primitive adaptors of about 30 nucleotides each,” and “one RNA encoding a replicase” with “about 500 nucleotides”, Dr. Koonin calculates:
In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P < 10-1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, at the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions.
 
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟22,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's like saying a natural cloud can not have a natural cause. That makes no sense.

So its all turtles all the way down?

The sky is blue because the sky is blue is not a reasonable answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Existence_of_infinite_causal_chains


Creationist math is really bad.

I see, so he is a Creationist now LOL
You are hardcore believers no matter what you say you will call names to whoever disagrees with your religion, here take that, your religion is fake.

Dr. Koonin provides what he calls &#8220;a rough, toy calculation, of the upper bound of the probability of the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system in an O-region.&#8221; (By an &#8220;O-region,&#8221; Dr. Koonin means an observable universe, such as the one we live in.) The calculations on pages 434-435 in Appendix B of Dr. Koonin&#8217;s book, &#8220;The Logic of Chance,&#8221; are adapted from his peer-reviewed article, The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life, Biology Direct 2 (2007): 15, doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-15. The model itself is not intended to be realistic one &#8211; that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s called a toy model &#8211; but it makes some very generous assumptions about the availability of RNA on the primordial Earth. After performing what he calls &#8220;a back-of-the-envelope calculation&#8221; of the odds of the emergence of &#8220;a primitive, coupled replication-translation system,&#8221; which requires, at a minimum, the formation of &#8220;two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides,&#8221; &#8220;10 primitive adaptors of about 30 nucleotides each,&#8221; and &#8220;one RNA encoding a replicase&#8221; with &#8220;about 500 nucleotides&#8221;, Dr. Koonin calculates:
In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P < 10-1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, at the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions.



The odds of evolution happening as it did are 1 in 1 . . . because it happened. When something does occur, the probability of it occurring are 1 in 1.

So intelligent life can arise only in one planet in the Universe, earth, so we are unique, lol thanks. Tell that to the other random cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed, this will cheer them up a little and maybe they won't think their lives as purposeless. :D


We have the multiple evolutionary steps for irreducibly complex systems, such as the mammalian middle ear.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

HOW SWEET. This article is used as a proof from Darwinists to prove Macroevolution WHEN IT DOESN'T OFFER ANY PROOF IN IT. The 29 evidences game is based on loaded assumptions and assertions, and I suggest beginning instead by challenging the claim that life&#8217;s origin can be grounded on blind watchmaker forces of chance and necessity.

Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of &#8220;micro-evolution&#8221;!

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of &#8220;elementary&#8221; sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.
A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.
In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.
Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the &#8220;function&#8221; of the software.
Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.
Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution

The best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:
Campbell&#8217;s Biology (4th Ed.) states: &#8220;macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.&#8221; [By contrast, this book defines &#8220;microevolution as &#8220;a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations&#8221;]
Futuyma&#8217;s Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, &#8220;In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa.&#8221; (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts &#8220;microevolution&#8221; -- &#8220;slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.&#8221;]
In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that &#8220;[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.&#8221; (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, &#8220;[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.&#8221; (pg. 39)
The scientific journal literature also uses the terms &#8220;macroevolution&#8221; or &#8220;microevolution.&#8221;
In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists&#8217; understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology:
&#8220;The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.&#8221; (Roger Lewin, &#8220;Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,&#8221; Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)
Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Science entitled &#8220;Paleontologists confronting macroevolution,&#8221; contending:
&#8220;The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. &#8230; apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.&#8221; (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)
So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, &#8220;microevolution,&#8221; and (b) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: &#8220;macroevolution.&#8221;



A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there&#8217;s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution



http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/


A CRITIQUE OF "29 EVIDENCES FOR MACROEVOLUTION" PART 1
By Ashby L. Camp

http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/camp_all.pdf

It keeps getting worse for Darwinists
Recent fossil find a &#8220;Cambrian explosion&#8221; for humans?


Neuroscientist David A. DeWitt writes to say,
That is a real problem since it means that humans overlapped with australopithcines including especially sediba which is a mere 2 million years old.
Humans dated 2.8 million years ago? Sophisticated tools used by H. erectus? Neanderthal genes in modern humans? Range of variation in Dmanisi overlapping H. erectus to modern humans? A. sediba is a mixture of Homo and Australopithecine remains in South Africa?
What we essentially have is a Cambrian explosion type phenomenon for human origins.



http://www.livescience.com/50032-earliest-human-species-possibly-found.html




It is a bare assertion, which is why it isn't considered evidence.


Let me begin with a quote from agnostic Bill Gates. Nearly twenty years ago, he wrote:
Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.
(Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p. 228)

ID advocate Casey Luskin&#8217;s article, A Response to Dr. Dawkins&#8217; &#8220;Information Challenge&#8221; (Part 1): Specified Complexity Is the Measure of Biological Complexity over at Evolution News and Views, contains a very interesting quote from New Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins:
&#8230; [t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.
(River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, pg. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).)

Dawkins himself believes that processes of random mutation and unguided selection generated the information in genes. But is he right? I&#8217;d like to conclude with a quote from an article in a creationist journal by CSIRO botanist Alex Williams, titled, Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism (Journal of Creation 21(3) 2007). Some of the material in the article (including the ENCODE findings on junk DNA) remains hotly contested, but when I came across the article eight years ago, I was electrified by this passage:
The traditional understanding of DNA has recently been transformed beyond recognition. DNA does not, as we thought, carry a linear, one-dimensional, one-way, sequential code &#8212; like the lines of letters and words on this page&#8230; DNA information is overlapping &#8211; multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards&#8230; No human engineer has ever even imagined, let alone designed an information storage device anything like it. Moreover, the vast majority of its content is metainformation &#8212; information about how to use information. Meta-information cannot arise by chance because it only makes sense in context of the information it relates to.
Information that reads both backwards and forwards, and which is multi-layered and multi-dimensional? And meta-information too? As someone who worked for ten years as a computer programmer, I have to say that sounds like the work of an intelligent agent to me.

Stories are not evidence.

I see...everyone hallucinates lol



What is that supposed to be evidence of?

Evidence that a mechanical brain cannot produce subjective experience.


That would be an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

If you don't have evidence about the origin of life how can you say that it was not due to intention?
 
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟22,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
We've been through this before. It appears that your main strategy here is to appeal to ignorance as evidence for the divine, which is fallacious. That we do not know how X happened does not entail that Goddidit.

I don't see ignorance, i see evidence. Appear to ignorance is for the Atheists which believe RANDOMNESS NOTHINGNESS AND LUCK, these 3 are the definition of ignorance since they don't provide a cause.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Appear to ignorance is for the Atheists which believe RANDOMNESS NOTHINGNESS AND LUCK, these 3 are the definition of ignorance since they don't provide a cause.

That's obviously a straw man of atheists. They generally believe in natural processes, and that certainly involves causes.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0