Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[Oncedeceived]

Could you provide an example of an organism this is designed?

What I am referring to are the structures, features, systems and functions within all living organisms. See my videos.

 

[Larniavc]

What I am referring to are the structures, features, systems and functions within all living organisms. See my videos.

If you can't that's okay; I can't point to a designed organism either. I look forwards to the day when a designed organism can be identified: that would rock the scientific community!.

I can't view videos from here. Can you identify a structure that we know has been designed?

 

[Smidlee]

It's weird. It's like one moment you get it:



And then the next, you don't:




No, the "code" is an abstraction. It models the existing chemistry. It is not the chemistry itself! Calling a certain codon AGT or GCA is an abstraction. It's a code that represents matter that is not a code. One moment you understand the concept, the next, you don't. Maybe drunk Cadet is confused, I dunno.

You seem to be saying the exact same thing I was saying.

 

[The Cadet]

You seem to be saying the exact same thing I was saying.

The code is the abstraction of the existing data. You can craft a code by imposing a pattern onto any semi-random system (the example I keep bringing up being the location and type of atoms in a rock, where you take a rock and the code gives you back a list of 4-tuples in the form (x-pos, y-pos, z-pos, atom type)); this does not mean that DNA is a code. Similarly, the eye does not send a "code" to the brain, it sends a pattern of electrical pulses onto which a pattern can be imposed in order for us to read out that information. This is, however, ostensibly not how the brain processes the information, just like it is not how ribosomes code for proteins. When you take the code analogy too far, you can get confused about these things.

 

[Givemeareason]

Like I said you can't have 24 hour days without the sun and moon, so we know that it can't represent our 24 hour days that we have today. WE also know that It depends where you are in space how time passes. We don't know God's vantage point and thus don't know the time involved from that aspect.

Who says you CAN have days longer than 24 hours. It sure doesn't say that in the Bible. And even if it did, there is no reason to redefine days to be millions of years. I doubt Moses even had a concept of a number like that. All you are doing is trying to reinterpret Genesis to fit your views. So how about including theistic evolution in your view of how life was created. It's the same thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So do I, but God is not one of them. I have knowledge of God, I have evidence that confirms that knowledge is accurate.[/QUOTE]

No, you do not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you can't that's okay; I can't point to a designed organism either. I look forwards to the day when a designed organism can be identified: that would rock the scientific community!.

I can't view videos from here. Can you identify a structure that we know has been designed?

Design is supported by the structures, features, systems and functions due to their resemblance to the only intelligent design we recognize. All living things have the resemblance and apparent design with a purpose in their structure and make up. We know the mechanisms in which evolution works and no evidence has been provided that evolution produced the apparent design observed. Thus, the evidence of design with purpose in living things is best explained by design by intelligence rather than evolution alone.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So do I, but God is not one of them. I have knowledge of God, I have evidence that confirms that knowledge is accurate.

No, you do not.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, I do.

Demonstrate it.

If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who says you CAN have days longer than 24 hours. It sure doesn't say that in the Bible. And even if it did, there is no reason to redefine days to be millions of years. I doubt Moses even had a concept of a number like that. All you are doing is trying to reinterpret Genesis to fit your views. So how about including theistic evolution in your view of how life was created. It's the same thing.

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

What this tells us in a Biblical sense is that God is outside of time and time is not the same as it is with us humans. It is Biblical and it makes more sense in reference to God creating the sun and moon for marking time and they not being first in order of the days referred to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Demonstrate it.

If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

That is simply false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Informational codes doesn't have to be in "English" code.

Then what code is it in?

 

[Givemeareason]

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

What this tells us in a Biblical sense is that God is outside of time and time is not the same as it is with us humans. It is Biblical and it makes more sense in reference to God creating the sun and moon for marking time and they not being first in order of the days referred to.

I disagree. You are on a slippery slope and are applying words regarding prophecy to justify the creation story. This is not applicable nor does it conform to the YEC view of Genesis to be taken literally. You cannot go around reinterpreting the words of the Bible and still claim the Bible is literal truth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree. You are on a slippery slope and are applying words regarding prophecy to justify the creation story. This is not applicable nor does it conform to the YEC view of Genesis to be taken literally. You cannot go around reinterpreting the words of the Bible and still claim the Bible is literal truth.

Yes I can. First of all even if it were six 24 hour days, there is nothing in the Bible that says the universe is only six thousand years old. Secondly, the Genesis Narrative is a translation from a language that is very limited when translated. There are sometimes not the right word in other languages that mean exactly the same thing in them. Most importantly, I have a relationship with the Creator of the universe and I know that logic states that there could not be a 24 hour day without the sun and moon as markers of such. Knowing this and God assures me that the day spoken of in the narrative of unknown time. I don't know for certain what that time period holds in our framework of time. It doesn't specify how a day could be marked when the reason for the sun and moon are meant for that purpose. So logic tells me that days in this case are not reflective of the days after Creation.

 

[Larniavc]

Design is supported by the structures, features, systems and functions due to their resemblance to the only intelligent design we recognize. All living things have the resemblance and apparent design with a purpose in their structure and make up. We know the mechanisms in which evolution works and no evidence has been provided that evolution produced the apparent design observed. Thus, the evidence of design with purpose in living things is best explained by design by intelligence rather than evolution alone.

I'm sorry that you are unable to given an example of a designed organ or structure.

I was hoping that you would be able to as I have been personally unsuccessful.

When you do feel confident to give an example of a designed organ or structure please can you bring it to my attention: I would find such a thing of immense interest.

A all the best.

 

[The Cadet]

Design is supported by the structures, features, systems and functions due to their resemblance to the only intelligent design we recognize. All living things have the resemblance and apparent design with a purpose in their structure and make up. We know the mechanisms in which evolution works and no evidence has been provided that evolution produced the apparent design observed. Thus, the evidence of design with purpose in living things is best explained by design by intelligence rather than evolution alone.

Please demonstrate a robust, reliable mechanism where I can, in general, input "has traits X, Y, Z, ..." and come out with "Is Designed: Yes/No". I have been challenging you on this for weeks and you will not do it.

Also, please demonstrate that all living things have purpose.

Also, we have demonstrated that many such complex systems believed to be "designed" have evolved through natural means. The fact that you do not consider the evidence convincing does nothing to refute the fact that it is there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry that you are unable to given an example of a designed organ or structure.

I was hoping that you would be able to as I have been personally unsuccessful.

When you do feel confident to give an example of a designed organ or structure please can you bring it to my attention: I would find such a thing of immense interest.

A all the best.

A cell is an example of systems that have the human like design features we recognize as design. These systems and functions are recognizable designs found in intelligent design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please demonstrate a robust, reliable mechanism where I can, in general, input "has traits X, Y, Z, ..." and come out with "Is Designed: Yes/No". I have been challenging you on this for weeks and you will not do it.

Also, please demonstrate that all living things have purpose.

Also, we have demonstrated that many such complex systems believed to be "designed" have evolved through natural means. The fact that you do not consider the evidence convincing does nothing to refute the fact that it is there.

I don't have to. The claim was that the design with a purpose that we observe in nature in living organisms is the evidence for design. It is incumbent on those who claim this appearance of deliberate design is in fact mimicking design is produced by evolutionary processes to provide evidence to explain the design that is observed.

 

[bhsmte]

Help me out folks.

How does one prove something mimics something else, if the thing that it is supposed to mimic, has not been defined and can not be tested for to see if it even exists?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Help me out folks.

How does one prove something mimics something else, if the thing that it is supposed to mimic, has not been defined and can not be tested for to see if it even exists?

How would we know if it were mimicking it if it is not recognized and has been observed by scientific methods to show it exists?