Are there any arguments for creation...

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Actually I have. You cannot understand your error.

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

Please you are only fooling yourself and acting childish yourself.

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.

That is worded awkwardly, but okay:

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

Wrong! I just asked for some.

Seriously?

Only paroting you and I returned to adulthood.

Your previous quote tells us that this is not true.

I understand more than you do on the subject.

No, seriously you do not. Don't fool yourself. You do not even understand the basics. You do not even understand the concept of evidence and are afraid to discuss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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:

The narrator explains how the argument logically fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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."

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That should be easy to cite then. Very easy.

Yes, I did that earlier in this thread. In response to you I believe. Why did you not read the link that I provided?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The argument is that magic is not an option. So a Creator is required.

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".

 

[Speedwell]

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??

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.

 

[Speedwell]

So I and billions of others never believe that anything we ourselves say is valid?

Don't forget, Strathos, that these people don't believe that we are "real" Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

The Gospel I love is truly "good news." It is delightful.

 

[solid_core]

... 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.

For example, I like Leibniz' contingency argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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??

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 argument

What exactly do you mean when you say "DNA is a code"? When you explain that thoroughly we can show how you used an equivocation fallacy since all others that have made that argument made the same error.

 

[pitabread]

Leibniz' contingency argument.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Please provide information however quantified that has no intelligent source. I ask for any quantified info that has no intelligent source.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is our observation that no intelligent source is needed. That can be shown to be the case.

Hint, quantity plays no role.
Only when atheists refuse to admit DNA contains information because of the obvious problem.

Define your terms please. Believers such as you cannot even define "information" properly. If one accepts that a crystal has "information" because it is a highly ordered object then we have proved that information arises naturally.

But you can quit if you want.

Once again, you need to define the terms that you use. Vague terms only get vague rebuttals.

 

[solid_core]

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 either by other contingent things or by some non-contingent object, only God and abstract ideas in the end qualify.

And because abstract ideas cannot cause anything, God is the only explanation we have left.

 

[Strathos]

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.

I think the OP needs to clarify if he is defining 'creation' as 'A supernatural force ultimately created everything' or 'All life on earth was created in its present form several thousand years ago'.

 

[Ophiolite]

And because abstract ideas cannot cause anything, God is the only explanation we have left.

Please demonstrate conclusively that an abstract idea cannot cause anything.
Please demonstrate conclusively that God is not an abstract idea.

Thank you.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Do you know how many creator deities are listed on wiki who are purported to have created the universe?

 

[solid_core]

Please demonstrate conclusively that an abstract idea cannot cause anything.
Please demonstrate conclusively that God is not an abstract idea.

Thank you.

Philosophical arguments are not about demonstrations, but about formal and logical consistency.

 

[Ophiolite]

Philosophical arguments are not about demonstrations, but about formal and logical consistency.

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.

 

[solid_core]

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.

The OP asked for an argument that is not based on tradition or belief. I gave him my favorite one.

I am not here to convince you that the contingency argument is valid or that you must accept it. If you like it, you can study it yourself. I am not your personal convincer ;-)

Principle of sufficient reason - Wikipedia
Cosmological argument - Wikipedia