DNA Code Indicates Creator

[xianghua]

If it is indistinguishable from a life form that is the result of a natural process, how could you tell the difference?

so a robot or a watch that made from organic components arent evidence for design?

 

[Skreeper]

so a robot or a watch that made from organic components arent evidence for design?

If it is part of nature then no, it is not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so a robot or a watch that made from organic components arent evidence for design?

You didn't answer the question.

Here it is again:
If it is indistinguishable from a life form that is the result of a natural process, how could you tell the difference?

In order to call it a "robot" or a "watch", you'ld need a proper way of identifying it as such, after all.

So, I repeat my question... if it is indistinguishable from something that is the result of a natural process, then how could you tell the difference?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok. but why to believe in evolution if we cant test it and when we have evidence against it?

Evolution is very testable and to my knowledge, there is no evidence against it. Only in support of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

ok. lets start with the suppose test to falsified evolution (according to evolutionists criteria like prof dawkins). do you agree that one fossil in the wrong place will falsified evolution? (for example a monkey with a dino fossil).

Are modern, living reptiles out of place because mammals evolved from reptile ancestors millions of years ago?

 

[dad]

None of those 12 witnesses would be able to know if the truck driver did it on purpose, was drunk, was having a seizure, or if the breaks of the truck failed, etc...

Maybe not, but having witnesses places the accused in the vehicle...the scene of the crime.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe not, but having witnesses places the accused in the vehicle...the scene of the crime.

That's not true either.

Check out The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

That's a website which details cases where people were wrongly convicted of crimes and later set free thanks to new evidence.
In the vast majority of them, the original convictions were based on eye witness testimony and the overruling happened based on DNA evidence.

So that is a direct refutation of your claim here...
Eye witness testimony DOES incorrectly place people at the "scene of the crime".

You can find thousands of cases where objective evidence (like DNA) overrules mere testimony.
NEVER do you find testimony overruling objective evidence.

Ask yourself why that is so.

I'll give the answer: because objective evidence is ... objective, while "testimony" can be incorrect. Humans make mistakes, misinterpret circumstances, they lie, their brains can simply misfire, their memory can be clouded or simply incorrect, etc etc etc.

Human opinion, is not trustworthy.

 

[dad]

That's not true either.

Check out The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

That's a website which details cases where people were wrongly convicted of crimes and later set free thanks to new evidence.
In the vast majority of them, the original convictions were based on eye witness testimony and the overruling happened based on DNA evidence.

So that is a direct refutation of your claim here...
Eye witness testimony DOES incorrectly place people at the "scene of the crime".

You can find thousands of cases where objective evidence (like DNA) overrules mere testimony.
NEVER do you find testimony overruling objective evidence.

Ask yourself why that is so.

I'll give the answer: because objective evidence is ... objective, while "testimony" can be incorrect. Humans make mistakes, misinterpret circumstances, they lie, their brains can simply misfire, their memory can be clouded or simply incorrect, etc etc etc.

Human opinion, is not trustworthy.

Great so got any DNA from Noah's day we can objectively examine? No. Ha.

 

[Speedwell]

so a robot or a watch that made from organic components arent evidence for design?

We've been over this. "Design" as intention is not directly detectable in an object. The way one tells functional organization from intentional organization is to look for indications of human (or other intelligent) manufacture. Absent those indications, no conclusion about design can be drawn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great so got any DNA from Noah's day we can objectively examine? No. Ha.

You're the one making the claim.

Got anything besides human opinions and beliefs?

 

[dad]

You're the one making the claim.

Got anything besides human opinions and beliefs?

The claim is that science doesn't know what genetics/DNA was like in the former nature when Adam and Noah lived. I place the flood probably somewhere around the KT layer. Show us DNA from there, or face the obvious.

 

[quatona]

The claim is that science doesn't know what genetics/DNA was like in the former nature when Adam and Noah lived.

So you are assuming that DNA evolved?

 

[dad]

So you are assuming that DNA evolved?

I am assuming that life was different, and life processes. We lived @ 1000 yrs. Trees grew in weeks. Animals evolved lightning fast compared to now. People could marry relatives. Etc. So the genetics had to be different! I assume the fundamental forces like the nuclear forces, and forces that control atoms were different. Atoms control chemical reactions and life processes. So however the genetics of that day worked, if it was even all that similar, we do not know now.

How info was passed on, transposed, what shape the helix was then, the nucleobases, hydrogen bonds, what the now non coding stuff was like...etc etc. It all depended on the nature of the day! Therefore, to look at how evolution happens NOW, and how genetics NOW works has no bearing on the far past, that we know!

 

[quatona]

I am assuming that life was different, and life processes. We lived @ 1000 yrs. Trees grew in weeks. Animals evolved lightning fast compared to now. People could marry relatives. Etc. So the genetics had to be different! I assume the fundamental forces like the nuclear forces, and forces that control atoms were different. Atoms control chemical reactions and life processes.

So much for your assumptions. Got any evidence?

 

[dad]

So much for your assumptions. Got any evidence?

YES. The evidence is science doesn't know, and Scripture tells us so. Either you prove science does know, or your side loses.

 

[Skreeper]

YES. The evidence is science doesn't know, and Scripture tells us so. Either you prove science does know, or your side loses.

What a terrific idea. If we have no answer for something we can just believe whatever we want without supporting it with evidence.

I'll stick with science since it has a much better track record than your scripture.

 

[dad]

What a terrific idea. If we have no answer for something we can just believe whatever we want without supporting it with evidence..

Yes, of course we can. Science needs solid evidence of it's foundational premise of a same nature in the past. End of story.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[quatona]

YES. The evidence is science doesn't know,

That´s not evidence for the accuracy of your assumptions.

 

[dad]

That´s not evidence for the accuracy of your assumptions.

Yes it is when my assumption is they don't know! Since they don't know, the bible is lookin awfully good about now!