• 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.

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
97
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist

No, that will be enough.....you've demonstrated your limitations sufficiently.....
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
97
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist

No,it's meaningless because there's nothing 'common' about it and people will disagree as to whether it makes 'sense'....try to pay attention.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
72
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, that will be enough.....you've demonstrated your limitations sufficiently.....

My, sharp tonight, lol

No,it's meaningless because there's nothing 'common' about it and people will disagree as to whether it makes 'sense'....try to pay attention.

Maybe you can get them to remove the term from the dictionary? Let me know how that goes.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,759
52,872
Guam
✟5,239,714.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From Wikipedia:
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.
Instructions imply an instructor.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
47
Brugge
✟89,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Technically, to answer DNA is to beg the question since it is assuming that DNA arose from Natural Selection in a purely Naturalistic Materialist world. I assume the OP is inferring this is not the case.

No. DNA is known to be shaped, formed, changed, mutated,... by the processes of evolution. This is observable fact.

There is nothing in DNA that can't demonstrably be accomplished by these processes.

For DNA to satisfy, it would therefore require us to show that its existance began independant of a creator in entirety or has always existed.

A random new-born has some 50-ish mutations, yet nobody has ever observed any entities fiddling about with the genes during conception.

In fact, we know what these mutations are and how they occur. No "creators" required.

This is a tall order and frankly not possible to show.

Even running with that, this smells like a preparation for an argument from ignorance.

For even if the initial event solely was due to such a being, the rest arising materialistically, all else would still follow from this first act.

True. So, I guess all you would need to do is demonstrate that the first DNA strand was made by god - oeps, sorry, I mean "creator" / "designer".

Good luck with that.

The question as I understand it, rather asks this to either support DNA possibly being such a type of code or to undermine it if no other example can be given.

Why would there HAVE to be another example?

I would rather suggest Crystallisation or atomic energy states, although the idea of it being 'information filled code' is less clear cut.

It all depends on how you wish to define the words "information" and "code".
Usually, when biologists use those terms, they mean something very differently as opposed to when creationists use those terms.

Creationists, however, love to pretend as if they mean the same thing. Which is why they tend to draw terribly wrong conclusions.
 
Reactions: SteveB28
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
47
Brugge
✟89,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
DNA is not a code because that title is not convenient at the moment.

It is a code by analogy. Not literally.
Literally, it is a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction.

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

And I'm sure people have lectured you in response to those rants, explaining how the evolution of the eye is actually very well understood.

Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence

Evidence trumps "common sense". Because one doesn't know what is sensible in advance.

"Common sense" didn't include the relativity of time.
"Common sense" didn't include black holes.
"Common sense" didn't include quantum mechanics.

New discoveries, more often then not, defy our common sense.

, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence.

False. Common sense allows to draw sensible conclusions based on the knowledge we actually have. Common sense can't account for the things we do not know.

For example, if you don't know what fire is, then common sense will not dictate that you'll hurt yourself if you put your hand in it.

So, when it comes to phenomena that we do not understand, "common sense" is NOT a pathway to understanding such phenomena. Instead, common sense will only lead to conclusions based on nothing but ignorance, concerning those phenomena.

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

Same thing.

Again: common sense is only usefull to draw conclusions about things you actually already know and understand.

You know what paper is and what it is made off.
You also know what fire is and how the heat can affect certain materials.

Knowhing and understanding those things, common sense will lead you to conclude that paper will burn if your put it in the fire.

If you do not know what paper is, then common sense will be useless until you understand the nature of paper.

, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical,

Arguments from incredulity, ignorance and complexity, are fallacious.

they are simply impossible.

This claim requires evidence.

At least that's what common sense tells me.

And I have just explained rather extensively why common sense is not usefull regarding things you do not know.
 
Reactions: SteveB28
Upvote 0

LionL

Believer in God, doubter of religion
Jan 23, 2015
914
648
54
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and N. Ireland
✟52,066.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
From Wikipedia:
Instructions imply an instructor.
Maybe.
My take on it is that God created the rules of Physics, Chemistry and Biology knowing that DNA would develop - and consequently life.
It's all conjecture though.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
16,827
10,178
53
✟442,901.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

Yes, yes, the sky is falling in.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
47
Brugge
✟89,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Is that more or is it less complex than a code?

Then what code?

I don't see the relevancy anyway.
Its complexity or simplicity doesn't change its nature.

You seem to be hinting towards the idea that the more "complex" something is, the least "likely" it is to be a natural phenomena. I don't see the logic in that at all, especially considering how many obviously natural things are extremely complex.

It also depends on what you mean by "complex". It's rather subjective, imo.
What is complex to you might be simple to me and vice versa.

I'ld define the "complexity" of a thing, by the amount of parameters involved.
I see no reason to state that "a lot of parameters = intelligent intervention".

Take a hurricane for example. LOTS of complexity in that thing. Not only in its workings once it is raging, but also in its formation. SO much complexity that it's close to impossible to accurately describe it in all its aspects.

But they form quite happily on their own, born out of complex circumstances of air pressures, winds, temperatures, etc etc etc.

Complexity is not a sign of "design" or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
47
Brugge
✟89,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

So, I guess you took the red pill when you met Morpheus?
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
47
Brugge
✟89,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The truth of how we were created is very scary to most people.

Tell me about it....
One just has to look at all the mental gymnastics going on in this thread, just to stick to some bronze age myth and resist 21st century biology.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
72
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And I'm sure people have lectured you in response to those rants, explaining how the evolution of the eye is actually very well understood.

The Wizard of Oz is a story that's well understood too, but that doesn't mean it happened.


Include? Takes common sense to understand all those things, as well as to understand what may not be real/ only conjecture. Takes common sense to see what is true evidence and what is not. Sure, you'd like to do away with it as a necessity, it's required in almost everything we do. Hard to believe this is even an argument....or that the argument is any more than funny.

False. Common sense allows to draw sensible conclusions based on the knowledge we actually have. Common sense can't account for the things we do not know.

LOL...that's basically what I just said, yet you said it was false. I said nothing about accounting for things we don't know. This is one screwy conversation.

If you do not know what paper is, then common sense will be useless until you understand the nature of paper.

But we have the common sense to understand the nature of paper. Sorry, you just can't get rid of those facts on CS by talking a lot.

Arguments from incredulity, ignorance and complexity, are fallacious.

Please. Do all atheists take the same course?

This claim requires evidence.

It requires little more than common sense, and that is example of precisely why you work so hard to make common sense worthless for anything other than what supports your end.

And I have just explained rather extensively why common sense is not usefull regarding things you do not know.

You explained nothing, you only talked, and made little sense at that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0