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.
Some agree with me and not with you. Now science is chalk full of analogies. It’s how we explain the action of what we are discovering. DNA works like any codes information except in a much more complex manner being dimensional. It is the information source which is code operating exactly like any code although more complex. You have not established that I am using it wrongly a employing a numbers argument shows a weakness.
No my arguments are stronger and more intelligent. You resort to “many agree with” you which is childish.
Please provide the scientific articles with observed new steps in the DNA arriving with no intelligent input as would be true if evolution were the case.
Wrong! I just asked for some.
Only paroting you and I returned to adulthood.
I understand more than you do on the subject.
I just gave you one. But of course if you understood evolution you would understand why your demand is largely nonsensical. Your attempts to refute the Long Term E. coli Experiment will illustrate why this demand is not valid. Meanwhile here is a video that goes over the creationist arguments on DNA and refutes them:Why is calling DNA code misusing it? Is it not a code?
And please provide the journal piece where scientists found spontaneous and positive addition to the DNA information that wasn’t benign or lethal (mutation) or whatever you think shows DNA information occurs without intelligence. Spontaneous non-intelligent additions to code usually are corrupting it rendering it unable to perform its function as good as before.
Actually there is a chemical law that "excuses" the action. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the energy available for work will always decrease. Life is an active agent of decreasing the energy available for work. There is no need for a "want". There only has to be a reason why life exists and that is a very good one. It is a bit ironic how creationists so often abused the Second Law in a vain attempt to refute evolution and now it is used to support it.All of nature has some laws or basic tenants. Why would DNA want to continue?
There are no chemical or biological excuses for "ensuring continuation".
That is a law of "life" which has no natural explanation for existing.
You might like to see things continue, but that speaks 100% to a being like you as a creator. You've "proven" the case for a creator that thinks like man does.
Because there are no laws for non-living materials that seek "continuation."
Yes, I did that earlier in this thread. In response to you I believe. Why did you not read the link that I provided?That should be easy to cite then. Very easy.
But you crossed over into the scientific realm when you talk about the beginning of the universe. No one is holding an idea hostage. The point was that your belief can be shown to be no more valid than beliefs in the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti's or other unobserved phenomena. Once again the time to believe something is when valid evidence has been provided for it.The question is arbitrary and if we hold belief hostage because of an evidence problem then we miss the point because science will never answer this question. It's like saying "when pigs fly" so the burden of proof reply is flawed because it demands science to answer a problem it has no capacity to answer (for or against). Of course the final answer is we don't know through a scientific lens and that's what it will always be. It's flawed because we know science can't answer this so why are we looking to science to answer it?
No, no, no no, since creators use "magic". If magic is not an option than creators are not an option. You are jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion. As I have pointed out elsewhere the correct answer is sometimes "We don't know yet".The argument is that magic is not an option. So a Creator is required.
The only argument I need is the proper technical definition of 'information' as it applies to molecular biology--as presented in Shannon's paper. Confusing 'information' with 'message' is lame obfuscation.Not me. You call the argument names instead of refuting it. But I can see why. There is no answer.
More likely you don’t have one. But love for others has compelled devoted believers to offer reasons.
I asked for your arguments, not borrowed ones. Have you none yourself??
Don't forget, Strathos, that these people don't believe that we are "real" Christians.So I and billions of others never believe that anything we ourselves say is valid?
The Gospel I love is truly "good news." It is delightful.It’s always amazing for me to read the posts of those who hate Christianity and cannot express what Christians believe. They hate what they are ignorant of. Christianity never pretended life following Jesus to be delightful. A rich life? Yes. Delightful? No.
For example, I like Leibniz' contingency argument.... that don't ultimately boil down to an argument from incredulity and/or awe?
edited to add for clarification:
By "creation" I'm referring to the typical supernatural creation stories about the creation of the universe, stars, the planets, life, etc.
But people have refuted your argument. They found your error and identified it for you. Your use of the word "code" is an equivocation fallacy. The problem is that you have not been clear in forming your argumentNot me. You call the argument names instead of refuting it. But I can see why. There is no answer.
More likely you don’t have one. But love for others has compelled devoted believers to offer reasons.
I asked for your arguments, not borrowed ones. Have you none yourself??
Leibniz' contingency argument.
Why? Please provide information however quantified that has no intelligent source. I ask for any quantified info that has no intelligent source.
Hint, quantity plays no role.
Only when atheists refuse to admit DNA contains information because of the obvious problem.
But you can quit if you want.
Its not exactly about the first cause.Yup, this is the first cause argument. I admit this is one such argument that is not necessarily contingent on incredulity or awe, although does depend on the form of the argument.
That said, the argument itself is still problematic.
Its not exactly about the first cause.
Its more about the necessity of explanation for everything that exists, the universe and God included.
And because the existence of everything that exists contingently must be explained by some non-contingent object, only God and abstract ideas qualify.
Do you know how many creator deities are listed on wiki who are purported to have created the universe?Zeus is based in our universe and so can be empirically proven or disproved and this is the same with the flying spaghetti monster. God is not based in our universe so he cannot be empirically proven or disproved.
Philosophical arguments are not about demonstrations, but about formal and logical consistency.Please demonstrate conclusively that an abstract idea cannot cause anything.
Please demonstrate conclusively that God is not an abstract idea.
Thank you.
Demonstrate that your are arguments are logically consistent. You assert, with no evidence, no justification, that an abstract idea cannot be a cause. Unless you can support this, formally and logically, it may safely be disregarded.Indeed, to do otherwise would be, potentially, dangerous.Philosophical arguments are not about demonstrations, but about formal and logical consistency.
The OP asked for an argument that is not based on tradition or belief. I gave him my favorite one.Demonstrate that your are arguments are logically consistent. Your assert, with no evidence, no justification, that an abstract idea cannot be a cause. Unless you can support this, formally and logically, it may safely be disregarded.Indeed, to do otherwise would be, potentially, dangerous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?