The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Speedwell]

You said in post #157:

"That's what is astounding about it--that it is just chemicals. Your God couldn't do it that way. Mine can. "

You think that amounts to a claim that God is chemicals? How?

 

[Radrook]

You think that amounts to a claim that God is chemicals? How?

You clearly claimed that your God is superior after claiming that chemicals did it. So the logical conclusion is that you are deifying chemicals in some way manner or form. Please note that the one who said that your God is superior after saying that chemicals did was you-not me.

 

[Speedwell]

You clearly claimed that your God is superior after claiming that chemicals did it. So the logical conclusion is that you are deifying chemicals in some way manner or form. Please note that the one who said that your God is superior after saying that chemicals did was you-not me.

No, I am proclaiming a God who can create and diversify life without having to be constantly fussing with it afterwards at the material level.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying that DNA doesn't contain a message that is decoded by RNA?
Claiming that it just involves chemicals doesn't explain the evidence of information and doesn't identify the information's SOURCE.

There is no message. The genes are a set of templates for proteins, each codon corresponding to an amino acid. The rest of the DNA is a complex mass of interacting switches and regulators that switch genes on or off to control the production of certain proteins depending on chemical feedback signals. These productive, active areas of DNA are randomly interspersed with 'dead' areas that don't get transcribed, 'active' areas that are transcribed but the products do nothing, and broken or dysfunctional switches and regulators.

There's no 'set of instructions' as in a computer program, it's a mass of stuff that looks as if it's been thrown together at random - because, in a sense, it has. The stuff we see today works because all the trillions of variants produced over the last 3.5 billion years, that didn't work well enough, just died. We still see this happening when kids are born with genetic diseases.

The messy structure and function of DNA itself is pretty solid evidence that it arose through random mutation and natural selection rather than intelligent design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you saying that I am imagining that RNA is a conscious entity that actually has a brain and eyes and literally reads DNA as humans read a book? That's a rather naïve and presumptuous assumption.

Then describe the process for me and show me where an intelligence is involved in the process.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find your idea that chemicals did it or are responsible for the whole sequence of events leading the formation of the human brain and all its supporting organs totally unsatisfactory.

There is no physical law that states explanations must be found satisfactory. There were many people who found the position of the Sun and Earth within the solar system to be unsatisfactory. Doesn't change the fact that the Sun sits in the middle of the solar system with the Earth moving about it.

The results of the whole sequence should be enough to dispel that inane notion of totally mindless events behaving as if they were a planning mind.

How so?

 

[Radrook]

There is no physical law that states explanations must be found satisfactory. There were many people who found the position of the Sun and Earth within the solar system to be unsatisfactory. Doesn't change the fact that the Sun sits in the middle of the solar system with the Earth moving about it.



How so?

We aren't talking about physical laws per se. We are talking about logic. Claims can be made concerning nature which are inherently irrational and demand either blind faith or a drastic suspension of disbelief.

How so? How so should come naturally as a consequence of observation and logical conclusion.

 

[KCfromNC]

We aren't talking about physical laws per se. We are talking about logic. Claims can be made concerning nature which are inherently irrational and demand either blind faith or a drastic suspension of disbelief.

Yes, that's why ID and other forms of creationism are left to churches rather than being taught in public schools.

 

[Radrook]

Then describe the process for me and show me where an intelligence is involved in the process.

I never claimed that an intelligence is DIRECTLY involved by necessity each time the process occurs.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, that's why ID and other forms of creationism are left to churches rather than being taught in public schools.

Atheistic Bias is the real reason.

 

[KCfromNC]

Atheistic Bias is the real reason.

That and the fact that creationists / ID supporters couldn't convince a conservative Christian judge that they weren't full of it.

 

[Radrook]

That and the fact that creationists / ID supporters couldn't convince a conservative Christian judge that they weren't full of it.

He CLAIMS to be a Christian conservative.
There are many reasons why people CLAIM things.

 

[KCfromNC]

He CLAIMS to be a Christian conservative.
There are many reasons why people CLAIM things.

Just to be clear, you're saying that Judge Jones is lying about his religious beliefs?

 

[Radrook]

Just to be clear, you're saying that Judge Jones is lying about his religious beliefs?

I am merely saying that a mere claim of being something doesn't automatically mean that the person cannot have motives which go completely contrary to what is being claimed. I have encountered such people all my life. Professors claiming to be in favor of affirmative Action while savagely insulting minority students in class. Brothers in the faith claiming love while displaying bitter hatred. Females claiming to be decent women while committing adultery with every Tom Dick and Harry in town. Add to that the temptations posed by monetary bribes, the fear imposed by threats, and sudden personal dislikes of certain personalities with a good dash of envies for good measure and humans cannot be trusted.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheistic Bias is the real reason.

Prove it, with evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Atheistic Bias is the real reason.

You realize, I hope, that you are accusing close to two billion Christians of atheistic bias. Many of those Christians have a theology which stretches back virtually unchanged to the Apostolic Fathers. Hubris anyone?

 

[Radrook]

So much so that atheistic evolutionists don't even ask "who" anymore.



I see no need to suppress a "who" as a possible cause for biological life. In fact, suppressing that possibility is a sign of willful ignorance.



Agreed, education and the willingness to explore all possibilities, including a "who" as a possible cause for biological life.

Once the objectivity you mention is lost it can no longer be called science.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am merely saying that a mere claim of being something doesn't automatically mean that the person cannot have motives which go completely contrary to what is being claimed. I have encountered such people all my life. Professors claiming to be in favor of affirmative Action while savagely insulting minority students in class. Brothers in the faith claiming love while displaying bitter hatred. Females claiming to be decent women while committing adultery with every Tom Dick and Harry in town. Add to that the temptations posed by monetary bribes, the fear imposed by threats, and sudden personal dislikes of certain personalities with a good dash of envies for good measure and humans cannot be trusted.

That's not an answer. Do you or do you not believe that the judge in the Dover case is lying about his religious beliefs?

 

[KCfromNC]

Once the objectivity you mention is lost it can no longer be called science.

Yeah, but it isn't like creationism has been taken seriously by actual scientists for generations so I think your worry is misplaced.

 

[Radrook]

Yeah, but it isn't like creationism has been taken seriously by actual scientists for generations so I think your worry is misplaced.

Calling any scientist who is or was not an atheist not a scientist proves my point about the loss of objectivity. It also places you in the dubious position of having to disqualify all those famous scientists which were indeed believers in an ID such as Newton, and others who have contributed to science and who continue to do so despite your petty opinion.

List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia