DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So is this how it's going to go:
Various posters give actual reasons that show that DNA is not a code created by a creator.
Radrook in a roundabout way calls them lies and ignores them completely and just rehashes their own arguments.
Various posters give actual reasons that show that DNA is not a code created by a creator.
And repeat ad nauseam?

 

[Radrook]

Can you not answer a straightforward question?

We both know that Collins views ID and irreducible complexity as unscientific. I don't take issue with any of the quotes of his you've used, he's a Christian so obviously he has faith that his God had a hand in creation, he's also on record as saying that his involvment ended with the big bang, do you agree with that? Do you agree with him that common descent is true without any reasonable doubt?

What is straightforward to us is always evasive to you folks. Like bishops of opposite colors in chess-they never meet.

Agreeing with EVERYTHING Collins said isn't essential to the thread theme. Only agreement with his DNA views in relation to an intelligent designer are.

BTW
Please note that I am under absolutely no obligation to accept atheistic evaluations of theistic arguments. So telling me what atheists have unanimously concluded is really irrelevant and useless in terms of persuasion in my case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is straightforward to us is always evasive to you folks. Like bishops of opposite colors in chess-they never meet.

Agreeing with EVERYTHING Collins said isn't essential to the thread theme. Only agreement with his DNA views in relation to an intelligent designer are.

BTW
Please note that I am under absolutely no obligation to accept atheistic evaluations of theistic arguments. So telling me what atheists have unanimously concluded is really irrelevant and useless in terms of persuasion in my case.

So Collins is an atheist now?

 

[Jimmy D]

What is straightforward to us is always evasive to you folks. Like bishops of opposite colors in chess-they never meet.

Yet you went out of your way to avoid the question. I don't blame you, it seems you wear your vagueness as a shield.

Agreeing with EVERYTHING Collins said isn't essential to the thread theme. Only agreement with his DNA views in relation to an intelligent designer are.

Ah, so you don't accept him as an authority then, or is it only when his statements appear to back up your point. Seems a bit hippocritical to me but such is the MO of the Cdesignpropenstists.

BTW
Please note that I am under absolutely no obligation to accept atheistic evaluations of theistic arguments. So telling me what atheists have unanimously concluded is really irrelevant and useless in terms of persuasion in my case.

Why? Evidence is evidence isn't it? If you're telling me that your ideas are faith-based I have no issue at all. Why pretend that they're scientific though?

 

[Radrook]

Yet you went out of your way to avoid the question. I don't blame you, it seems you wear your vagueness as a shield.



Ah, so you don't accept him as an authority then, or is it only when his statements appear to back up your point. Seems a bit hippocritical to me but such is the MO of the Cdesignpropenstists.



Why? Evidence is evidence isn't it? If you're telling me that your ideas are faith-based I have no issue at all. Why pretend that they're scientific though?

But there is the crux of the matter! You have absolutely no evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer. So what I am rejecting cannot be evidence.

Belief based on what? Faith? You need to stop repeatedly misrepresenting my viewpoint. Once again! No, my belief isn't based on blind faith as you keep insisting after ignoring all my clear explanations to the contrary. My belief is founded on observation and a totally justifiable inductive leap based on the observations.

I deploy a shield of evasion? No shield at all is being used. In fact, on my other post I just proved that your claim of DNA non-communication is bogus. Nothing vague or shielded about that.

As for accepting him as an authority-well, as I clearly pointed out but you choose to evasively ignored as usual, his testimony is relevant to the thread theme. It is within that relevant context that I employ it. In contrast, you strive might and main to introduce totally unrelated side issues. It's called moving the goal post and is a very common well-known fallacy employed by the logically cornered who lack an adequate response and desperately wish to distance themselves from that hapless situation.

Umm, no, there is NOTHING unclear about his conclusion that an intelligent designer is involved. Please desist from misrepresentations. They undermine believability in all other matters you might present.

BTW
The ones pretending to be scientific are those who deploy selective blindness and inconsistency of policy such as you are doing. Please stop projecting!

 

[Jimmy D]

But there is the crux of the matter! You have absolutely no evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer. So what I am rejecting cannot be evidence.

I haven't got evidence against a great number of things, does that make them true?

You're the one advocating ID, where is your evidence? (Hint: Analogies and incredulity do not count as empirical evidence).

I deploy a shield of evasion? No shield at all is being used. In fact, on my other post I just proved that your claim of DNA non-communication is bogus. Nothing vague or shielded about that.

I don't remember claiming that.

As for accepting him as an authority-well, as I clearly pointed out but you choose to evasively ignored as usual, his testimony is relevant to the thread theme. It is within that relevant context that I employ it. In contrast, you strive might and main to introduce totally unrelated side issues. It's called moving the goal post and is a very common well-known fallacy employed by the logically cornered who lack an adequate response and desperately wish to distance themselves from that hapless situation.

Umm, no, there is NOTHING unclear about his conclusion that an intelligent designer is involved. Please desist from misrepresentations. They undermine believability in all other matters you might present.

And it's well documented that he thinks that an 'intelligent designer' can't be demonstrated scientifically and that it's a matter of faith. Besides, the 'testimony' you posted is his personal opinion, nothing more. Unlike you, he isn't trying to pretend that there is anything scientific about his views on the matter.

 

[Radrook]

I haven't got evidence against a great number of things, does that make them true?

You're the one advocating ID, where is your evidence? (Hint: Analogies and incredulity do not count as empirical evidence).



I don't remember claiming that.



And it's well documented that he thinks that an 'intelligent designer' can't be demonstrated scientifically and that it's a matter of faith. Besides, the 'testimony' you posted is his personal opinion, nothing more. Unlike you, he isn't trying to pretend that there is anything scientific about his views on the matter.

I never claimed that lack of evidence proves anything at all. I simply said that your claim that I am opposing evidence against an intelligent designer is wrong because what you are proposing isn't evidence since no evidence can be shown which proves the absence of an intelligent designer. Please stop twisting what I say into pretzels.

As for actual evidence for an intelligent designer look in the mirror. But of course you will say that : "Ummm-Chemicals did it!" So I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

About the fellow I quoted, if he indeed contradicted himself, then that is HIS flaw not mine.

 

[Jimmy D]

I never claimed that lack of evidence proves anything at all. I simply said that your claim that I am opposing evidence against an intelligent designer is wrong because what you are proposing isn't evidence since no evidence can be shown which proves the absence of an intelligent designer. Please stop twisting what I say into pretzels.

Eh? I think you're getting confused. Besides, I don't even rule out a 'designer' out of hand, I do think it's extremely unlikely though.

As for actual evidence for an intelligent designer look in the mirror. But of course you will say that : "Ummm-Chemicals did it!" So I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

There you go again, the Theory of Evolution does a good job of explaining where I came from, with empirical evidence - your opinion doesn't trump that. If you want to believe that we were intelligently designed that's fine, maybe you're right. If you want to convince others (irrespective of their religion or lack of) though, you need to back up your assertions.

About the fellow I quoted, if he indeed contradicted himself, then that is HIS flaw not mine.

So now Francis Collins is 'flawed' because he's honest? That's not a very nice appraisal of one of your authorities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Origin is justifiably inferred based on observation of the results of its function. Something that meticulously proceeds to assemble a computer such ass the human brain cannot be glibly dismissed as a mindless process without sacrificing logic which begs otherwise.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[Radrook]

Eh? I think you're getting confused. Besides, I don't even rule out a 'designer' out of hand, I do think it's extremely unlikely though.



There you go again, the Theory of Evolution does a good job of explaining where I came from, with empirical evidence - your opinion doesn't trump that. If you want to believe that we were intelligently designed that's fine, maybe you're right. If you want to convince others (irrespective of their religion or lack of) though, you need to back up your assertions.



So now Francis Collins is 'flawed' because he's honest? That's not a very nice appraisal of one of your authorities.

My opinion is based on observable reality and a justifiable inductive leap. That you call that invalid is your opinion and nothing more.

As for evolution? Well there you go again Jimmy! I am not arguing against theistic evolution. Please desist from using straw man.

Anyone who expresses a view and then contradicts himself is rationally flawed. Reagan became known for that in his latter years of presidency but that was due to age.

Convince others? My primary intention was to share this with fellow believers for mutual encouragement. Atheists converged on the threads and I am responding out of courtesy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why DNA is important.
This article provides many compelling reasons why an ID is strongly indicated in DNA.

Is God Real?

Computer Code

DNA Code

Shouldn't that title read "is the intelligent designer real"?

To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."3
Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, The Language of God, (Free Press, New York, NY), 2006, p 1.

Why do you quote Francis Collins, who completely supports mainstream biology and completely rejects "intelligent design"?

For example, you could also have chosen to quote this part:

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These people disagree with you:

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5

More dishonest quote mining.

Collins completely rejects ID and considers it completely irrational to try and deny that life shares ancestry and has evolved by the process described in the mainstream biological theory of evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

As for evolution? Well there you go again Jimmy! I am not arguing against theistic evolution. Please desist from using straw man.

I certainly will desist with pleasure! I didn't even know what your views on TE it were.

(I have asked about what you accept and don't accept in the past and you wouldn't tell me so it's not entirely my fault)

Convince others? My primary intention was to share this with fellow believers for mutual encouragement. Atheists converged on the threads and I am responding out of courtesy.

Fair enough.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tagging statements from authorities on the subject as irrelevant isn't a counterargument. It is a mere panic- motivated evasion. Your aversion to quotes from authority is understandable since they effectively expose exactly how your opinion stands with those who count.

1. Not authorities, but experts. There are no authorities in science (not to mention that the argument from authority is a fallacy)

2. You are dishonestly quote mining Collins. He does not, in any way, agree with you.

For example:


Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention. Again, watch out for the God-of-the-gaps.


Dr. COLLINS: Intelligent design, while a thoughtful, well-argued perspective, I do not think is taking us to the Promised Land. I think this will be an argument which ultimately will not do damage to science; it will do damage to faith. The problem is the examples that intelligent design puts forward we are learning a lot about. And the notion that those are examples of irreducible complexity is showing serious cracks.


In his book "The Language of God", which you are quoting here, he even explicitly rejects ID and YECism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But there is the crux of the matter! You have absolutely no evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer. So what I am rejecting cannot be evidence.

We don't have any evidence 'against' undetectable pink graviton fairies, either.

 

[Vaccine]

I have not said it is not a language, I have said it is not a language in the sense that you insist on using. As I pointed out earlier, linguistics and semiotics are not your area of expertise.

Says the person who insists it is a language but not equal to a language. That it is a language but is not a language in a certain sense. What nonsense.
Those scientists didn't mean it was a language, in a certain sense. Quite the opposite, they went to great lengths to avoid any ambiguity. Adding you own condition is just playing some mental gymnastics to avoid admitting it is literally a language.

 

[Vaccine]

So is this how it's going to go:
Various posters give actual reasons that show that DNA is not a code created by a creator.
Radrook in a roundabout way calls them lies and ignores them completely and just rehashes their own arguments.
Various posters give actual reasons that show that DNA is not a code created by a creator.
And repeat ad nauseam?

Just sayin' There isn't going to be any direct evidence of a Creator, so there isn't any direct evidence showimg the code was made by him.
The indirect evidence is compelling.

Just asserting it wasn't created by a Creator isn't an actual reson either, it's a conclusion. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't confuse a conclusion with actual reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Says the person who insists it is a language but not equal to a language. That it is a language but is not a language in a certain sense. What nonsense.

You should stop looking at thing in black and white.

Let's look at two other "languages": English and C++

English is a human language: spoken and written.
C++ is a programming language: written and compiled, but not spoken

Books are written in English. Books are not written in C++.

Clearly, while both are refered to as "language", these are not the same kind of language.

When during a programmer job interview, I ask the candidate what languages he has experience in, he will not answer "English and Spanish". He will answer "C++, javascript,..."

In other words, from the context of my question, he will understand what kind of language I am refering to.

Your insistance on pretending as if C++ and English are the same thing simply because they are both being refered to with the word "language" is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

And yes, in context of C++, we programmers also talk about the "grammar and syntax" of the language.

In context of C languages, we even talk about dialects (C++, Visual C++, C, Ansi C, C#, ..)

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you really believe those scientists didn't know the dictionary definition of language?

Which of them are saying it is created by a mind like all of the other languages we know of?

 

[KCfromNC]

Agreeing with EVERYTHING Collins said isn't essential to the thread theme. Only agreement with his DNA views in relation to an intelligent designer are.

Why do you get to be the final decider on which parts of his views were supposed to cherry pick?

Please note that I am under absolutely no obligation to accept atheistic evaluations of theistic arguments.

At least you're beyond admitting there's any scientific backing for your claims - it is all mythology and theology.