DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Radrook]

Science sneaks God out, and sneaks around making up nonsense and pulling a con job, pretending it knows somewhat what it is talking about. It would be a crime against humanity NOT to put God back in.


Looking at butterflies, hummingbirds, ants and all the various created animals, and man, and current nature, and the solar system, and universe, one cannot help but see a design. To have blinded oneself so badly as to miss it, is the great danger of two bit little phony godless so called science. The creatures so blinded by science also show design, by the contrast to reality and sanity they demonstrate to all.

Now will come the usual responses of:

"Ï caint see nuffin!"


and the inevitable and ubiquitous:


"Da chemicals did it!"

 

[KCfromNC]

Now will come the usual responses of:

"Ï caint see nuffin!"


and the inevitable and ubiquitous:


"Da chemicals did it!"

Funny how different the actual response are than what this poster predicts they will be. Yet another disconnect between his faith and reality, I guess.

 

[dad]

Now will come the usual responses of:

"Ï caint see nuffin!"


and the inevitable and ubiquitous:


"Da chemicals did it!"

Ha.

 

[Radrook]

Funny how different the actual response are than what this poster predicts they will be. Yet another disconnect between his faith and reality, I guess.

Please note that those are accurate descriptions of the usual responses received. The claim of inability to see anything at all and the claim that chemicals are totally responsible. There is absolutely no misrepresentation.

BTW
My belief in an intelligent designer of life isn't based on blind faith. It is based on observation which inexorably leads to a justifiable conclusion. Please stop misrepresenting my view.

 

[Jimmy D]

Science sneaks God out, and sneaks around making up nonsense and pulling a con job, pretending it knows somewhat what it is talking about. It would be a crime against humanity NOT to put God back in.

Great response!

Looking at butterflies, hummingbirds, ants and all the various created animals, and man, and current nature, and the solar system, and universe, one cannot help but see a design. To have blinded oneself so badly as to miss it, is the great danger of two bit little phony godless so called science. The creatures so blinded by science also show design, by the contrast to reality and sanity they demonstrate to all.

Now will come the usual responses of:

"Ï caint see nuffin!"


and the inevitable and ubiquitous:


"Da chemicals did it!"

So it is about God? Make your mind up, your starting to come across as either extremely confused or a hippocrite.

 

[Radrook]

Great response!





So it is about God? Make your mind up, your starting to come across as either extremely confused or a hippocrite.

'Tis about an intelligent designer that you insist is referring to God. The confusion is yours.

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?

 

[Speedwell]

Science sneaks God out, and sneaks around making up nonsense and pulling a con job, pretending it knows somewhat what it is talking about. It would be a crime against humanity NOT to put God back in.

God is still there--it's a shallow and ignorant interpretation of the Bible that's out and good riddance.

 

[Vaccine]

You have no idea what a metaphor is, do you?

I do.
Metaphor - idea is used to suggest a likeness or analogy between them
Definition of METAPHOR

Of course I'm not the one asserting they meant an analogy.

English and French meet all the same criteria for being classed as human languages. Binary does not meet those criteria so is not a human language. As an expert, why do you consider it to be a language?

My mistake, I should not have mentioned binary.

You doubt it? You're putting yourself forward as the expert so you should know this stuff.

Yes, I seriously doubt scientists said to one another, "Well it's a partial match but I can't think of any word to describe that. What do you think Joe?
Close enough, let's call it a language."
I doubt a lack of vocabulary is what prompted them to name it cellese.

What you're doing is pretending you understand something about which you obviously know close to nothing. Just spouting the same assertions without demonstrating a) that you understand what the paper actually claims, b) that you have understood what other posters have said and c) why what they have said is incorrect does not achieve anything useful.

The paper claims the science of linguistics will aid in understanding how the cell operates. I simply take them at their word when they said it wasn't a metaphor, and literally named it a language. You've made every effort to assert an analogy, and then some ridiculous claim a lack of vocabulary caused scientists to call an approximation a language. That's a serious charge against any scientist. What have you got against scientists anyway?

 

[Jimmy D]

'Tis about an intelligent designer that you insist is referring to God. The confusion is yours.

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?

Mmmm, the second part of your post indicates that you don't believe that life (and therefore intelligence) could arise through entirely natural processes, is that fair to say?

Would that not imply that you belive that this "intelligent designer" is of supernatural origins then? Unless you believe some sort of eternal "designer" it doesn't make sense.

 

[Radrook]

Mmmm, the second part of your post indicates that you don't believe that life (and therefore intelligence) could arise through entirely natural processes, is that fair to say?

Would that not imply that you belive that this "intelligent designer" is of supernatural origins then? Unless you believe some sort of eternal "designer" it doesn't make sense.

Thanks for the very pertinent questions:

The ID position is one that doesn't delve into the exact nature of the intelligent designer.
The ID position is one which merely postulates an intelligent designer and stops there.
Creationism is the approach which identifies the intelligent designer as God and delves into the designers attributes. I am approaching the subject on this thread from a purely ID perspective. That is to say, identification of the reasons why we should conclude intelligent design and nothing more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

It's called chemistry (in particular, organic chemistry, the chemistry of carbon). Atoms elements tend to bind together in particular ways to form molecules. Molecules react together in various ways, binding or unbinding according to what other molecules are around them and variations in energy (e.g. heat). Carbon is able to bind in so many ways that it can form the basis for indefinitely complex molecules, such as those that make up living things.

Living things are ultimately just bags of reacting chemicals you know; all the essential chemical pathways that make things alive are known and understood - Metabolic Pathways Chart; I had to learn most of what's on that chart for the biochemistry module of my degree.

 

[Radrook]

It's called chemistry (in particular, organic chemistry, the chemistry of carbon). Atoms elements tend to bind together in particular ways to form molecules. Molecules react together in various ways, binding or unbinding according to what other molecules are around them and variations in energy (e.g. heat). Carbon is able to bind in so many ways that it can form the basis for indefinitely complex molecules, such as those that make up living things.

Living things are ultimately just bags of reacting chemicals you know; all the essential chemical pathways that make things alive are known and understood - Metabolic Pathways Chart; I had to learn most of what's on that chart for the biochemistry module of my degree.

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.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for the very pertinent questions:

The ID position is one that doesn't delve into the exact nature of the intelligent designer.
The ID position is one which merely postulates an intelligent designer and stops there.
Creationism is the approach which identifies the intelligent designer as God and delves into the designers attributes. I am approaching the subject on this thread from a purely ID perspective. That is to say, identification of the reasons why we should conclude intelligent design and nothing more.

OK, I understand your point.

It seems that your approach requires you to ignore/dismiss a lot of scientific research and evidence in favour of an idea that merely postulates and has very little by the way of tangible evidence and testable theories. If one wasn't already convinced that a 'designer' existed I think it would be extremely unlikely one would take this approach.

 

[Radrook]

OK, I understand your point.

It seems that your approach requires you to ignore/dismiss a lot of scientific research and evidence in favour of an idea that merely postulates and has very little by the way of tangible evidence and testable theories. If one wasn't already convinced that a 'designer' existed I think it would be extremely unlikely one would take this approach.

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. Please stop misrepresenting my view. Also, what you tag as ignoring science isn't ignoring science at all. It is ignoring selective blindness and blind irrational faith in a process that has never been observed in nature or forced to happen in a lab.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

So let's simplify this a bit. That is, it might be instructive to consider simpler chemical reactions than those involved in the chemistry of life. Do you think there is a boundary? A level of complexity below which the intervention of a designer is not necessary?
For example, when hydrogen combines with oxygen to make water, do you think that happens through natural causes or do you think that your "designer" has to be there, pushing the atoms into the right places so water results instead of, say, hydrogen peroxide?

 

[dad]

'Tis about an intelligent designer that you insist is referring to God.

Who else would have created it?

 

[dad]

God is still there--it's a shallow and ignorant interpretation of the Bible that's out and good riddance.

Dream on. The apostles and prophets who told us of the creation will never be out.

 

[dad]

Living things are ultimately just bags of reacting chemicals you know;

False.

 

[Loudmouth]

The article used those terms as most articles concerning DNA and RNA do.

Used what terms?

You are being very vague.

 

[Loudmouth]

1.They have a word for apparent match, it's called a metaphor. Which I'm sure you know they said it was not a metaphor.
2. English, French, or binary aren't exact matches, they're still languages.
3. There are two words for partial match, "partial match". I doubt some arbitrary restriction like only being able to use a single word to describe something or a limited vocabulary forced them to choose between calling it a partial match or actual language.
4. If all languages were the same there would only be one language. Being able to distinguish cellese from humanese doesn't mean it is analogous to, as, like, similar, or only a language in a certain sense.
5. So what? Binary isn't the same as German.
I'm only insisting you not impose synonyms for metaphors. I figured you would eventually run out of synonyms but aparrently you're just going to move to two words (partial match).

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?