Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is nothing inherent in natural laws that make them work together.
If they were random, gravity might not be strong enough, or molecular
bonds too strong, or any number of combinations that would make
life impossible anywhere.
If the forces were formed randomly, then this universe (with the forces it has) would be just as likely as any other universe with other forces.
Yes, if the forces were different then things would be different.
Point?
The fact that there is information in DNA that guides processes. This information existed before human intelligence.
The most common sense understanding is that information can only come from intelligence
, therefore, the fact that information existeded before human intelligence clearly suggests a higher intelligence as the source for the information found in DNA.
This higher intelligence designed the DNA and encoded it with information to perform functions.
This is a powerful explanation
However, those who do not believe in God will go to great lengths to complicate this simple explanation
and try to contrive some other explanation that removes the need for a higher intelligence for reasons unknown(most likely personal reasons)
So, are you saying that nature is undesigned, or God was designed?
This is why I like the first cause argument better anyway.
Not really. Have you ever solved cryptograms? DNA is far more complex than any code
devised by man.
For anyone to study how it works and deny it is proof of an intelligent
creator is not science, it is foolishness based only on the need to deny God in any form.
I'm not sure what "information" you're referring to...but if you're speaking about DNA in general it's true that we organize it into information.
The fact that we are able to look at genes or DNA and figure out what those genes or DNA do in the process of a life's development doesn't mean that something "wrote" that information. In fact, there are lots of aspects to dna that would suggest it isn't "written" by some intelligence.
What aspects?
Well depending on which geneticist you ask...anywhere between 20-98% of our DNA is "useless" junk DNA. Is that what you would expect to see if we were created by an "intelligence" of some kind?
I think not.
Well depending on which geneticist you ask...anywhere between 20-98% of our DNA is "useless" junk DNA. Is that what you would expect to see if we were created by an "intelligence" of some kind?
I think not.
Also, I find it interesting that some of the DNA appears useless. I don't view it as useless, but rather as potential. If we assume a designer then possibly this "useless" DNA we perceive is simply just not being used yet because the designer has future plans for that "useless" DNA.
This is far more interesting to me that simply saying there is no point or reason for why our DNA is the way it is.
I still think that the fact that we observe apparent design in DNA points to a designer more significantly than it points to nondesign.
If DNA were not designed, I'd expect to not see apparent coding of information within it, yet this is exactly what we see. I'm left with the only obvious conclusion, until it's proven that DNA has developed from meaningless processes.
Well there is a reason...evolution...you don't have to accept it, but it's a rather good reason for why our DNA is the way it is.
No, because the theory of evolution cannot explain why or how life came to exist on this planet. It only explains the apparent progression that life has apparently taken. Evolution is not fact, it's a theory that interprets evidence in a particular way. This particular way of interpreting the evidence could be wrong because any interpretation of evidence is fallible.
The truth is what counts, to me at least.
So, are you saying that nature is undesigned, or God was designed?
This is why I like the first cause argument better anyway.
No, because the theory of evolution cannot explain why or how life came to exist on this planet. It only explains the apparent progression that life has apparently taken. Evolution is not fact, it's a theory that interprets evidence in a particular way. This particular way of interpreting the evidence could be wrong because any interpretation of evidence is fallible.
The truth is what counts, to me at least.
Lol that it points to non-design at all refutes this argument. Can you think of anything designed by man that is 20-98% useless?
I'm not sure about that. Would you say we have 100% understanding of our own DNA and how it functions? If not then there's a possibility that what we percieve as "useless" is not actually useless because we don't yet fully understand it.
I'll leave it to the experts to study and understand it. Then I'll interpret their findings and figure out what to believe is true from there.
Gotcha.
You prefer explanatory power with no evidence to evidence with little explanatory power.
Suppose we have both one day for "how life began"...and it wasn't a god. Would that change your view?
No...we don't have 100% understanding of DNA. You're right to think that it's better to wait until all the evidence is in before drawing a conclusion.
That's not what you did though. You decided god did it.
No, it's impossible(at least irrational) to believe something without some form of evidence. I have a higher tolerance for evidence than you do. For instance I consider sound reasoning as evidence of truth.
I don't understand this question.
If abiogenesis is true, it doesn't prove God is false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?