Are there any arguments for creation...

[Dorothy Mae]

No, you merely abuse it. And why would I have to make my case to those that agree with me?

How does calling DNA “code” abuse it? Be specific. Is it not information at all?

Wrong again so you lose again. You need to be able to define your terms. You cannot do so. All you have are failed arguments. If you cannot define your terms you lose the argument before you even start. The argument is "semantics" because you have been abusing terminology.

This is a childish answer.

Please, you are not fooling anyone. If you knew you could support your claims. I keep asking you to do so and you keep dodging and ducking. It is not "coded information" in the same sense that a book is. It is more akin to a recipe than anything else.

A recipe is coded information. It requires a mind too, by the way. There are different kinds of coded information, you know.

Once again I offer to go over the concept of evidence. Once you have that down we can move on to more complex concepts.

Your responses of “you lose” show a rather simple thinking.

It’s clear that you have NO answer to the fact that DNA is the longest and most complex codes information we’ve ever discovered which leads to evidence for the most complex mind we’ve ever encountered. I offered evidence and you don’t like it. Shows me that this is a really good argument to use in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claimed the moral high ground, not me.

And I can support it. Though there may have been some amoral atheists they do not tend to perform amoral acts in the name of atheism. Christians cannot claim the same.

Will you drop the absurd gravity? That has nothing to do with our discussion? Shall I start bringing in points of character to prove evolution is wrong getting you to admit to my point or risk saying there is no such thing as honor or kindness?

You have no grounds for complaint. You made an absurd argument and gravity pointed that out. Why does the scientific fact of evolution bother you so much? Do you realize that like gravity evolution is both a fact and a theory?

You don’t understand the argument it seems. On what do you see your morality?

What makes you think that? And your last question is poorly formed. Can you ask it again?

So those who fulfill their desires are behaving rightly, correct? If a man desires to rob a bank or rape a girl, “wrong” is going against that desire and right is fulfilling that desires? I am testing your theory in real life, the scientific method.

I never said that or implied that. Why ask that question?

Judged by whom? The majority? Is it right for the strong majority to pursue their maximum freedom if only a minority, maybe a handful, experience harm?

My point is that you will not be able to come up with a moral standard starting from man.

Judge by those that can reason rationally. And you may not realize this but all morality starts with man. The Constitution of the United States has much the same idea in majority rule bu minority rights. Your right to swing your arm freely ends at my nose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does calling DNA “code” abuse it? Be specific. Is it not information at all?

Because you are using a different definition than scientists use. They are only using it as an analogy. You want to claim that it is a code indicating intelligence. They do not agree with you.

This is a childish answer.

I am sorry, but it is not. You are making childish arguments in that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

A recipe is coded information. It requires a mind too, by the way. There are different kinds of coded information, you know.

Yes and they are not necessarily evidence of intelligence. We know how "new steps" arise. No intelligence needed. You do not seem to want to go into the details of how we know what we know.

Your responses of “you lose” show a rather simple thinking.

It’s clear that you have NO answer to the fact that DNA is the longest and most complex codes information we’ve ever discovered which leads to evidence for the most complex mind we’ve ever encountered. I offered evidence and you don’t like it. Shows me that this is a really good argument to use in the future.

You yourself have used that phrase when you clearly did not win. And no, my use of it merely indicates a fact.

And yes, I do have an answer, but you so far have refused offers to learn the basics. Until you learn the basics there is no moving on. And no, you did not offer evidence. Your own posts indicate that you do not understand the concept which is why I offered to go over it with you. Why did you run away from that more than reasonable offer? I was not rude at all in the offer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is getting late. I am going to bed. Take some time and ask one clear question. I will try to answer tomorrow.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Because you are using a different definition than scientists use. They are only using it as an analogy. You want to claim that it is a code indicating intelligence. They do not agree with you.

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.

I am sorry, but it is not. You are making childish arguments in that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

No my arguments are stronger and more intelligent. You resort to “many agree with” you which is childish.

Yes and they are not necessarily evidence of intelligence. We know how "new steps" arise. No intelligence needed.

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.

You do not seem to want to go into the details of how we know what we know.

Wrong! I just asked for some.

You yourself have used that phrase when you clearly did not win. And no, my use of it merely indicates a fact.

Only paroting you and I returned to adulthood.

And yes, I do have an answer, but you so far have refused offers to learn the basics. Until you learn the basics there is no moving on. And no, you did not offer evidence. Your own posts indicate that you do not understand the concept which is why I offered to go over it with you. Why did you run away from that more than reasonable offer? I was not rude at all in the offer.

I understand more than you do on the subject.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is getting late. I am going to bed. Take some time and ask one clear question. I will try to answer tomorrow.

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.

 

[DamianWarS]

And we are back to the fact that the word "creation" puts a burden of proof upon the person using that term. It demands evidence and none has been given. My point is still the only one that is rational. It is that we simply do not know. A claim of "creation" is not justified as of yet.

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?

 

[Larniavc]

God. Really simple.

Odd reply. I have no idea why they zip in and out of existence.

What evidence do you have that Goddidit?

 

[Larniavc]

The only wonder of evolution is that anyone believes it.

So everyone is stupid but you.

You’re part of the reason I keep coming back to CF.

 

[Larniavc]

Why did you conflate atheism and evolution?

It’s basically a ‘let’s you and him fight! Who’s with me?’ situation.

 

[Larniavc]

in spite of my atheist father promoting evolution to me.

That makes everything more clear. You had a bad experience with an atheist and that has coloured your perceptions.

Have you considered forgiving him?

 

[Larniavc]

The trouble with circular arguments is that you never know when you've got to the end, so it is really difficult to get off. Trapped on a fairground ride for eternity, the towns the carnival visits and revisits slowly decaying into dust as the haunting strains of the Calliope echo in your confused mind.

No. Not for me. I vote for sceptical analysis and education.

That’s a wonderful yet haunting image. I shall shamelessly steal it and use it it my next D&D game.

 

[Larniavc]

God is both existent and non-existent at the same time.

As are a whole host of other supernatural beings from Zeus to Xenu.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've also never seen a particle disc accrete into a planet, or Pluto complete an orbit. No person has. Does that mean neither of those things can occur? Or does the absence of personal observation by humans not actually matter at all?

If you say you don't know biology, chemistry, and have never seen any forms of life, then you need to get out more.

 

[SkyWriting]

That would be the job of scientists, not a science journal. Any yes, there have been multiple hypothesis forwarded and published about how the laws of nature would allow for the formation of life from simpler non-living elements. There have even been papers published in the last few years that suggest that life is not just likely, but an inevitable result of the physical laws of the universe.

That should be easy to cite then. Very easy.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no requirement that "living organisms benefit the earth". This is a total red herring. Living organisms benefit themselves (by ensuring their own survival). If you really want to be reductionist, you could view life as just DNA's way of ensuring its own continuation.

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."

 

[SkyWriting]

You've not heard an answer to such a question, because I suspect no-one with even a vague notion of abiogenesis as a topic could form it before dissolving into fits of laughter.

Oh they always whine about "Why" because they must do that.
And I explain that the reason WHY we smell things is that molecules diffuse.
WHY grass is green is because chemical reaction happen.
WHY mud is warm is because the sun radiates energy.
So why no theories on WHY life evolves? The laughter is nervous laughter.

Because when faced with nonsense questions, scientists get more serious.
Rather than showing nervous laughter. In this case, scientists have no
option other than ridicule the questioner. Because the reason life exists
should be as obvious as the air we breath.

It's like asking why do fish wiggle when in water. The answer should be obvious. At least to reasoning creatures who claim to have skills in observation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That makes everything more clear. You had a bad experience with an atheist and that has coloured your perceptions.

Have you considered forgiving him?

I have forgiven him and everyone else I've had a problem with. God demands that of Christians. Towards the end of his life we got on really well. He had his reasons for being mad at God. You know, the one he did not believe existed. A paradox indeed.

 

[SkyWriting]

I can accept the answer that belief in creation is a matter of faith. Based on everything I've read in terms of arguments for creation, that is what it seems to boil down to.

Its a matter of observation and science. All of science says that matter is somewhat stable and continuous. Since we don't see matter forming, then there must have been a creator.

Now, if we did see matter forming on a regular basis, then no creator would be needed.
The world would be a result of Magic. But that's not the case. There is no natural magic.

 

[Gene2memE]

That should be easy to cite then. Very easy.

Spontaneous fine-tuning to environment in many-species chemical reaction networks

Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 038001 (2017) - Self-Organized Resonance during Search of a Diverse Chemical Space

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3bo2jvAeUFZ1QWV3yE1cvU

Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 058102 (2010) - Marginally Stable Chemical Systems as Precursors of Life