DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Subduction Zone]

To the small minded like myself/you, and others, something like creation will seem like magic, just as a transistor radio would seem like magic to someone who has no knowledge of technology, but that doesn't mean its magic. However, if the concept is too much for us, magic's fine if we must, and something we can deal with a little easier, just know it's likely not magic and could be understood once/if explained.

The problem is that your God claims and magic claims are indistinguishable. And don't project and call others "small minded". That appears to be your flaw here. Creationists can't seem to understand the concept of "burden of proof". When a person makes a positive claim the burden of proof is upon him. And please note that this is a colloquial use of the word "proof" it is not the mathematical use of the word.

Besides, surely you know the general alternative to God creating can be seen as magic just as easily, maybe more so. Point of that? Might as well drop the magic stuff, it cancels itself out in this area for that reason, even though it is a favorite for some.

No, we simply state that we don't know yet. We are not taking a hard position either way. There may be a natural explanation. There may not be one. But one does not assume something because there is a lack of evidence. We are not stating that it had to be no God. We are simply pointing out that there has been no need for a God as yet. You are trying to claim that you have evidence of God and no one has presented any yet.

Does it matter? I just assume you have an alternative because we are here after all, and you disagree with my ideas so....

Assuming an answer when there is none is a dead end in thought. It does no one any good. Scientists are not assuming what caused the universe. They are still trying to figure it out. No scienctst has claimed that they have disproved God. Certain versions of God, yes those have been disproved, but not the concept of a God in general.

If you don't have an alternative, then I guess it's pretty easy to figure out what to do with that question.

This is merely a weak attempt at a strawman. KC does not need an alternative. He is probably fine with leaving the problem as unsolved right now.

 

[Radrook]

To the ignorant of such technology like myself/you, and others, something like creation will seem like magic, just as a transistor radio would seem like magic to someone who has no knowledge of technology, but that doesn't mean its magic. However, if the concept is too much for us, magic's fine if we must, and something we can deal with a little easier, just know it's likely not magic and could be understood once/if explained.

Besides, surely you know the general alternative to God creating can be seen as magic just as easily, maybe more so. Point of that? Might as well drop the magic stuff, it cancels itself out in this area for that reason, even though it is a favorite for some.



Does it matter? I just assume you have an alternative because we are here after all, and you disagree with my ideas so....

If you don't have an alternative, then I guess it's pretty easy to figure out what to do with that question.

True, one very popular atheist response to the creation of our universe is that we are saying it was via magic.
It doesn't seem to occur to them that the being who created it could have been using power in order to carry out his purpose. In fact he is biblically described as using holy spirit to create. One denomination refers to that holy spirit as his active force. So the accusation of magic just doesn't hold true. In contrast we seem them claiming that life spontaneously emerged from dead matter and that it MUST be doing so somewhere out there all the time even though we don't see it happening here nor can they force it to happen in a lab. Now that indeed is magical.

 

[Kenny'sID]

True, one very popular atheist response to the creation of our universe is that we are saying it was via magic.
It doesn't seem to occur to them that the being who created it could have been using power in order to carry out his purpose. In fact he is biblically described as using holy spirit to create. One denomination refers to that holy spirit as his active force. So the accusation of magic just doesn't hold true. In contrast we seem them claiming that life spontaneously emerged from dead matter and that it MUST be doing so somewhere out there all the time even though we don't see it happening here nor can they force it to happen in a lab. Now that indeed is magical.

It's no more than a small minded unrealistic view, or by design a term to make it appear unreal, or both.

 

[Radrook]

<staff edit>

Here is another for you to tag as an ignoramus:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (

)Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

 

[quatona]

Here is another for you to tag as an ignoramus:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests [...]

Fortunately, he made it clear that he didn´t speak as a scientist.

 

[Radrook]

Fortunately, he made it clear that he didn´t speak as a scientist.

Ah but he did mean exactly what he said:

Fred Hoyle

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

• Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527
• -----------------------------------------------------------------

Fred Hoyle:

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 141, 144, 130

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is another quote from Hole in support of a creator of the universe: Actually, he devoted a whole chapter to that concept in his book The Intelligent Universe:

“A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.”
― Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW
Here is another for you to tag as an ignoramus:

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (

Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.

 

[quatona]

Ah but he did mean exactly what he said:

Sure. He appealed to his common sense. Not exactly a scientific approach.

 

[Radrook]

Sure. He appealed to his common sense. Not exactly a scientific approach.

The following is what is unscientific and what doesn't make sense:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

10 Lewontin, Richard, Review ofThe Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

As for appealing merely to common sense, he clearly tells us that his conclusions are based on his knowledge of physics. So that "common sense interpretation is your biased opinion" which is motivated by a compelling need to tag everyone who disagrees with atheism as an ignoramus regardless of their academic qualifications.

 

[KCfromNC]

To the ignorant of such technology like myself/you, and others, something like creation will seem like magic

But it is far different from seeing things literally popping out of nothing, so it is kind of irrelevant to the point. Do you actually see such examples of creation ex nihilo when to Just "look around" and "go outside an look around some more"?

Besides, surely you know the general alternative to God creating can be seen as magic just as easily, maybe more so.

Nope, sure don't.

I just assume you have an alternative

I don't feel obligated to discuss things which exist only in your head.

 

[quatona]

As for appealing merely to common sense, he clearly tells us that his conclusions are based on his knowledge of physics.

How did the peer review turn out.

So that "common sense interpretation is your biased opinion"

I would kindly ask you to quote me on what I said - not to fabricate quotes containing that which would be more convenient for you to address. Thank you.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts were removed or edited for being off topic or flaming/goading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

<staff edit>

Here is another for you to tag as an ignoramus:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (

)Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

In that case I was right. Hoyle was speaking of a subject well outside of his area of expertise. His statement is no better than mine in this case.

You just made an appeal to authority fallacy:

Appeal to Authority

An obvious one would be on this order:

"Dr. Horton says that coffee leads to hear attacks" where Dr. Horton was a dentist When you appeal to an authority make sure that he is an expert in the matter under discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

True, one very popular atheist response to the creation of our universe is that we are saying it was via magic.
It doesn't seem to occur to them that the being who created it could have been using power in order to carry out his purpose. In fact he is biblically described as using holy spirit to create. One denomination refers to that holy spirit as his active force. So the accusation of magic just doesn't hold true. In contrast we seem them claiming that life spontaneously emerged from dead matter and that it MUST be doing so somewhere out there all the time even though we don't see it happening here nor can they force it to happen in a lab. Now that indeed is magical.

What is generally meant by 'magical' is the temporary suspension of natural law to achieve a particular phenomenon (OK, if God does it, we'll call it a miracle). In any case, for most of us--theists and otherwise--abiogenesis is merely unexplained. It is not yet known how abiogenesis came about so calling our position "magical" implying that we think a suspension of natural law was involved is premature and unjustified. In fact (Biblical creationists having their own extra-scientific scenario) only believers in ID assert an a priori requirement of an ad hoc suspension of natural law for abiogenesis to occur.

 

[TBDude65]

This video provides reasons why DNA is definite evidence that there is indeed a creator.

Why do you think that science and scientists don't draw the same sorts of conclusions about the data regarding DNA as christians do?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there were any deficiency in the explanations provided or if there were and vagueness or obscurity I might attempt to clarify. However, since I detect none of these it's impossible for me to improve what to me is already perfectly clear. So I guess we will just simply have to agree to disagree.

Lol. That's a very eloquent way to say "na-ha, i don't want to!!"

Please also note that my posting the video isn't an attempt at convincing atheists. My posting the videos is simply an attempt at edification of fellow Christians who will appreciate the information

I thought ID wasn't about religion?
Or at least, that is what you keep saying...

Since this is a Christian website I find absolutely nothing unusual, unexpected or out context in doing so.

This forum has a bunch of sub-forums, each with a different statement of purpose.
If "edification of fellow christians" was your purpose, then the science sub-forum, which is open to everybody, was not the place to post it.

In that case, mods should move this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. So I guess we simply disagree. However, please keep in mind that disagreeing without offering any counterargument to any of the points brought out in the video isn't really any rebuttal of those points. It is merely a remark.

Please also note that the forum rules and general net-etiquette require you to actually bring an argument in your own words, instead of just posting up videos.

Posting links to videos, blogs, articles, magazines,... is okay if it is done as a reference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but I am the one who determines the degree of that involvement. When someone uses a strawman he forces me to call it a strawman.

Merely asserting something to be a strawman and subsequently refusing to explain how it is a strawman, is not really constructive.

BTW
I only attempt paraphrasing with messages or information that is expressed in a very unclear fashion or for people who might be mentally handicapped in some way. There is absolutely NOTHING unclear in the manner in which the video is expressed and neither do I consider the atheists here mentally challenged in understanding plain English.

Youtube is blocked on all my devices. I can't watch it.
Please paraphrase it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Classic argument from ignorance: It's complicated, therefore god.

Nope, classic argument from common sense. You wanna know what's ignorant? Thinking something so complicated just happened.

Funny. So first you disagree that it says "it's too complicated" and in the very next breath you say the exact opposite.

That's quite hilarious.

even the most minuscule particle of dust couldn't just happen, yet people still believe all that is out there, did just that.

Complicated things "just happen" all the time.

Take a hurricane for example. Try to mathematically describe what exactly goes on there, how it forms, how it behaves, how it develops.

I'ld call that quite complicated.... But I don't see why we should assume hurricane-creating fairies to account for it...

Matter of fact, it's so ignorant it's all I can do not to burst out laughing at the idea, even though it's no laughing matter, it's just sad people are so intent on not seeing what is so obvious, as well as obliviously not....Mind boggling.

The only obvious thing here, is the blatant argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's like seeing a gorgeous car and some guy claiming it just appeared here...we'd all just laugh at him

...only because we know for a fact where cars come from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good point, the genetic code points to a Creator. Based on what we know codes are the product of intelligence. Applying a known cause to explain a past event is called an inference to the best explanation. Since it's based on what we know the charge of an argument from ignorance doesn't apply in this case.

DNA is a molecule and no more of a code then any other chemical engaged in a (chain) reaction.