-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A code needs a coder.
- Thread starter -57
- Start date
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,474
- 806
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,474
- 806
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,429
- 7,165
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
As I said, geneticist and biology professor Dennis Venema is a Christian. And he describes a mechanism whereby the genetic code could have appeared by natural, physiochemical processes. Which also supports my point in the other thread that many Christians have no problem with naturalistic evolution and biogenesis. And I'll give kudos to BioLogos.org for publishing his article.
Upvote
0
Resha Caner
Expert Fool
Agreed. However, I think the "intelligent designer" thing an impossible riddle to solve.
Upvote
0
DNA is not a code because that title is not convenient at the moment.
I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could
) but this cuts right to the chase...the code that makes it all possible.
Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence. Though, for some, common sense may not tell what is most likely to be, it should at least tell them what is not likely to be, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical, they are simply impossible.
At least that's what common sense tells me.
I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could
) but this cuts right to the chase...the code that makes it all possible.Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence. Though, for some, common sense may not tell what is most likely to be, it should at least tell them what is not likely to be, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical, they are simply impossible.
At least that's what common sense tells me.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could
Biologists understand the evolution of the eye. Just because you do not, does not make what you are saying accurate.
This isn't common sense. It's argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make you correct.
Upvote
0
Oh brother.
Like I said, some people just aren't fond of common sense. Just because you don't have it, doesn't make me incorrect.
Upvote
0
Oh brother.
Like I said, some people just aren't fond of common sense. Just because you don't have it, doesn't make me incorrect.
"Common sense" is a meaningless term. It means something different to each person. What I find unusual, you might find commonplace; what I consider sensible, you might feel is illogical. Unfortunately, the term is often used to disguise the phrase "I just can't believe any other explanation".....as you are using it here.
Upvote
0
DNA is not a code because that title is not convenient at the moment.
I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could
Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence. Though, for some, common sense may not tell what is most likely to be, it should at least tell them what is not likely to be, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical, they are simply impossible.
At least that's what common sense tells me.
"Introkit"...!!??
And you want us to trust your common SENSE....??
Upvote
0
You do realise that the evidence from biology indicates that the 'eye' has evolved on at least 40 different occasions....?
.
.
Upvote
0
I know it's already been answered but....
DNA
DNA is not comparable with computer code (if that's what you're getting at).
Chemical reactions are not 'code'.
The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes.
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code
Upvote
0
I don't have a problem with interpreting DNA as a code in the sense that JimmyD describes; a codon codes for an amino acid or a transcription stop. But calling it a code is just a human convenience.
It's not the same sort of code as computer code, such a fragile control system could not evolve; it's more like a set of templates - mutations in genetic code generally don't crash the program because there isn't really a program. Mutations change the proteins produced or how their production or expression is regulated. It's robust because it has evolved to be robust - fragile versions don't persist.
It's not the same sort of code as computer code, such a fragile control system could not evolve; it's more like a set of templates - mutations in genetic code generally don't crash the program because there isn't really a program. Mutations change the proteins produced or how their production or expression is regulated. It's robust because it has evolved to be robust - fragile versions don't persist.
Upvote
0
Tell me, Steve, what exactly does a single misspelled word say about a person to you? I get that it would mean they don't have common sense in your mind...anything else?
And if you like, I can get into what indicates small mindedness to me, and how people will say the darnedest things when they have no other defense.
Upvote
0
Like I said, some people don't like the term, and pretty sure that's because it gets in the way of their agenda. but going so far as to call it a meaningless term is a pretty far fetched way to try to make it go away.
Always tickles me how Atheists like to redefine words, but removing their meaning all together, is a new one on me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
