DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Loudmouth]

You wish to make the ID perspective religious by default.

You yourself claim that atheists will refuse to accept ID. Why is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now will come the usual responses of:

"Ï caint see nuffin!"


and the inevitable and ubiquitous:


"Da chemicals did it!"

Yet another post devoid of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The ID position is one which merely postulates an intelligent designer and stops there.

That's why it isn't science. In science, we have this thing called the experimental test. You don't just stop at the postulate.

 

[Loudmouth]

BTW
How did your mindless chemicals go about DECIDING that they needed to repair themselves and to create, TEACH and assign other chemicals to do it?

God of the Gaps fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

We aren't claiming that chemicals don't react. Obviously chemicals react. What is being said is that the manner in which they react in the case of life indicates a planning, organizing mind, otherwise their reactions would be haphazard and not organized towards the purpose of constructing a such things as a heart, a digestive system, an eye or a brain.

Where is your evidence to back this claim?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't believe because I already believe. As I repeatedly point out but to absolutely no avail, my belief is based on observation and not on blind faith.

What observations?

You also cleverly avoid answering the question on exactly how your totally mindless and totally blind chemicals go about Deciding that they need self repair, then after deciding they need it, KNOW how to build a molecular device and HOW to TEACH or program that device how to keep the DNA in good shape? I'm waiting.

God of the Gaps fallacy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We aren't claiming that chemicals don't react. Obviously chemicals react. What is being said is that the manner in which they react in the case of life indicates a planning, organizing mind, otherwise their reactions would be haphazard and not organized towards the purpose of constructing a such things as a heart, a digestive system, an eye or a brain. There is absolutely nothing irrational in that view. What is indeed irrational is the insistence that blind mindless chemicals do what you are claiming they do simply berceuse they do it. We find that proposition to be preposterous.

There's really no reason to be so incredulous - we know that once the simplest replicator (e.g. a string of RNA) appears that can (imperfectly) reproduce itself in an appropriate environment, natural selection and replication with variation can do the rest - we know this because computer simulations of minimal replicators in far simpler environments readily produce ecosystems of variants (including more complex replicators) after a few tens of thousands of generations.

The knowledge gap is discovering how all the initial stages fit together to produce the simplest replicators - most of the stages thought necessary have been demonstrated or been shown to be possible in different ways in various environments, it's now a question of completing that work, and finding an early-Earth environment that can support every stage. We can never be sure exactly what really happened back then, but if we can produce replicators from organic 'building blocks' in a plausible early-Earth environment, that will complete the provisional causal chain and provide a solid foundation for research into the development of non-cellular life and cellular life as we know it.

Some skepticism is always a good thing in fundamental research, but calling such a well-progressing field 'irrational' and 'preposterous' and using such loaded and emotive language as 'blind, mindless chemicals' indicates more than healthy skepticism - definitely an antipathetic bias; would that be due to anxiety that demonstrable evidence will once again put precious beliefs at stake?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

False.

Go on... what else is there?

 

[dad]

Let's assume for the moment that DNA is a language. Now, where is the evidence that this language was created by an intelligent designer?

English was. So why not?

 

[dad]

Go on... what else is there?

There is the unique personalities and spirits. We are no more just bags of reacting chemicals, than we are sacs of doo doo.

 

[Loudmouth]

English was. So why not?

Humans also make diamonds. Does that mean every diamond is intelligently designed?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

English was.

Can't really argue with that. The history of how humans created the language is very well documented.

But you avoided answering Loudmouth's question. Where is the evidence that the language of DNA was created by an intelligent designer?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is the unique personalities and spirits.

Personalities are demonstrably the products of brain activity. Brains are, in essence, bags of chemicals - don't get me wrong, they're highly complex bags of chemicals with sophisticated organization - but, they are bags of chemicals.

Spirits - what are they? what are they supposed to do?

 

[Loudmouth]

Spirits - what are they? what are they supposed to do?

Spirits interact with that big bag of chemicals at the anterior end of your spine. I personally prefer the peaty wonderfulness of the Islay spirits.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Spirits interact with that big bag of chemicals at the anterior end of your spine. I personally prefer the peaty wonderfulness of the Islay spirits.

Yes, I love it - but there's another Islay that hits the spot on those occasions when an 'normal' Islay doesn't quite do it - I'm talking of Ardbeg Uigeadail. It's 52.5% proof instead of the usual 40%, with a mellow peaty mouth, and when you swallow, it's like a caramelized smoke-bomb going off in your throat...

Well worth the price

 

[Radrook]

Who else would have created it?

My point to the atheist is that bringing in religion when discussing the evidence of intelligent design in nature is unnecessary. From a religious viewpoint it is of course. But since this is a science forum I think that it would be out of place.

 

[Radrook]

What observations?



God of the Gaps fallacy.

The "I can't see nuffin!" response again!

BTW
I didn't mention God-you did.

 

[Radrook]

Where is your evidence to back this claim?

The "Ï cain't see nuffin cuz day is nuffin to see!" excuse again!

 

[Radrook]

That's why it isn't science. In science, we have this thing called the experimental test. You don't just stop at the postulate.

Well, when we test to see if DNA meets the qualifications which indicate planning mind we find that it does. .

 

[dad]

Humans also make diamonds. Does that mean every diamond is intelligently designed?

There is a lot that goes into making a diamond. I don't see that many well cut diamonds of beauty lying in the dirt.