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.
Lol the Discovery Institute...Meyer....same old.
Lol the Discovery Institute...Meyer....same old.
These arguments are great for edifying the views of people who already believe in God, but for the rest of the world they just don't cut the mustard. Even as a theist I don't use these arguments when talking to an atheist, they just don't work.
My current relationship with God. What happens in the present is the best testimony of His existence. When people have to cling to events in the past as evidence of God's existence it makes me wonder what is missing from their lives that they can't see God in the present.What made you and kept you as a theist?
These arguments work in some ways.
These arguments have been more than adequate to turn some scientists into theists, sometimes against their will, as the program notes. Maybe you think you're smarter? Is that the case? If so, who is deluding who?Lol the Discovery Institute...Meyer....same old.
These arguments are great for edifying the views of people who already believe in God, but for the rest of the world they just don't cut the mustard. Even as a theist I don't use these arguments when talking to an atheist, they just don't work.
I'm not sure why you are trying to make this about ego. Meyer's view of the effect these arguments have on scientists is greatly exaggerated. It's a statistical fact that the higher the education level of a group the higher the percentage of non-believers.These arguments have been more than adequate to turn some scientists into theists, sometimes against their will, as the program notes. Maybe you think you're smarter? Is that the case? If so, who is deluding who?
Very interesting point. I like how you put it.Strictly speaking, the universe did not have a beginning. Time is just as much a part of the universe as space, therefore it is scientifically correct to state that there was never a time in which the universe has not existed. It is, however, correct to say that the universe is not eternal. We can trace back time all the way to 0:00:00, so the universe is not infinitely old.
If you try to argue the universe had a beginning, then you will have to also argue that God had a beginning. God is eternal because there has never been a time where he didn't exist. Likewise, there has never been a time the universe did not exist. If you can prove there was a time where universe did not exist, then you can prove the universe had a beginning. Obviously, though, time is part of the universe so there is no answer to that question.
I had watched his video a few years ago. I have to say, the way you feel about a philosopher talking about science is the same way I feel about a communications engineer talking about science. It seems there are holes in his definition/understanding of biology but if you want to discuss it maybe we could start a new thread so that we don't get too far away from what the OP in this thread is about.Also, I was going to watch the video, but as soon as he said "philosophy of science" I lol'd and exited the page. Philosophy is the very antithesis of science, so it's hard to take anyone who thinks they're similar seriously. I will give them credit for at least making mention of how DNA proves the existence of God, but, like I said, I didn't want the video so I don't know if they explained it well or not. Someone who does explain it well, however, is Perry Marshall. Go to Cosmic Fingerprints, he has audio and video presentations you can watch and listen to for free.
Time is a dimension just like width, length and height. So the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, the universe that God created. God exists outside of time, and cannot be measured by it.Strictly speaking, the universe did not have a beginning. Time is just as much a part of the universe as space, therefore it is scientifically correct to state that there was never a time in which the universe has not existed. It is, however, correct to say that the universe is not eternal. We can trace back time all the way to 0:00:00, so the universe is not infinitely old.
If you try to argue the universe had a beginning, then you will have to also argue that God had a beginning. God is eternal because there has never been a time where he didn't exist. Likewise, there has never been a time the universe did not exist. If you can prove there was a time where universe did not exist, then you can prove the universe had a beginning. Obviously, though, time is part of the universe so there is no answer to that question.
Also, I was going to watch the video, but as soon as he said "philosophy of science" I lol'd and exited the page. Philosophy is the very antithesis of science, so it's hard to take anyone who thinks they're similar seriously. I will give them credit for at least making mention of how DNA proves the existence of God, but, like I said, I didn't want the video so I don't know if they explained it well or not. Someone who does explain it well, however, is Perry Marshall. Go to Cosmic Fingerprints, he has audio and video presentations you can watch and listen to for free.
Circuit design and programming are one of the few fields that actually required advanced mathematics, like trigonometry and linear algebra. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone it's not science. Also, biology is just the study of organic machines. There are many difference, yes, but also many similarities. His argument is about the informational aspect. I forget exactly which book it was, but there's a book about DNA written by an atheist he cites, and in that book the atheist specifically goes and copies the diagram from Claude Shannon's communication book and says the communication model applies exactly to DNA (Is DNA a Code?). If anything, communications engineers and programmers are the most qualified to talk about the coding and data aspects of DNA.Very interesting point. I like how you put it.
I had watched his video a few years ago. I have to say, the way you feel about a philosopher talking about science is the same way I feel about a communications engineer talking about science. It seems there are holes in his definition/understanding of biology but if you want to discuss it maybe we could start a new thread so that we don't get too far away from what the OP in this thread is about.
Understanding math doesn't make anyone an expert in biochemistry.Circuit design and programming are one of the few fields that actually required advanced mathematics, like trigonometry and linear algebra. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone it's not science.
Well, he thinks that this page (click here) is a valid comparison to how DNA is copied. That alone is enough to show us that he doesn't even have a basic grasp of what is going on.Also, biology is just the study of organic machines. There are many difference, yes, but also many similarities. His argument is about the informational aspect. I forget exactly which book it was, but there's a book about DNA written by an atheist he cites, and in that book the atheist specifically goes and copies the diagram from Claude Shannon's communication book and says the communication model applies exactly to DNA (Is DNA a Code?). If anything, communications engineers and programmers are the most qualified to talk about the coding and data aspects of DNA.
His point there is that information cannot be created randomly, which is what strict Darwinists believe. If you rely solely on random chance, then even the chances of changing a few words has a statically slim chance, let alone an entire dna sequence. Even with a trillion universes making trillions of attempts every second for trillions of years wouldn't get close to being statistically probable. When you're talking about numbers with hundreds of thousands of zeros at the end, a few billion years isn't even noticeable.Well, he thinks that this page (click here) is a valid comparison to how DNA is copied. That alone is enough to show us that he doesn't even have a basic grasp of what is going on.
DNA being a code is not just semantics. Why is is that your DNA resulted in you, and not a dog, or a tree? Your DNA is complete plan for a human being, you. Your DNA isn't you, just like sheet music isn't sound, but your DNA is a plan that, when followed, results in you, and sheet music is a plan that, when followed, results in a particular song.Even if we defined DNA as a code so what? It's just semantics. We still evolved and God still exists. Perry misapplied how information in computers works to how information in DNA works. If you would like to sum up the parts of his argument that you think are compelling I'd like to discuss it with you, but I'm not going to respond to a link with a thousand word essay on it written by someone else, I'd rather talk directly with you about it.
Do you know what the chances of you existing are? For the right sperm and the right egg to have gotten together out of all of the other millions of possibilities is 1/[huge number]. Of course, that number wouldn't be as big as the number you referred to, but we can get there. Compound the odds of your parents being born, and their parents etc etc makes for an astonishing figure. Not to mention the odds of everything else in the world putting the right people in the right place at the right time. Statistics tell me that you shouldn't exist, so I can therefore ignore any evidence of your actual existence. It's just basic math, you can't argue with that.His point there is that information cannot be created randomly, which is what strict Darwinists believe. If you rely solely on random chance, then even the chances of changing a few words has a statically slim chance, let alone an entire dna sequence. Even with a trillion universes making trillions of attempts every second for trillions of years wouldn't get close to being statistically probable. When you're talking about numbers with hundreds of thousands of zeros at the end, a few billion years isn't even noticeable.
DNA directly produces chemical reactions, on it's own. This is very different from notes on a page or information on a hard drive.DNA being a code is not just semantics. Why is is that your DNA resulted in you, and not a dog, or a tree? Your DNA is complete plan for a human being, you. Your DNA isn't you, just like sheet music isn't sound, but your DNA is a plan that, when followed, results in you, and sheet music is a plan that, when followed, results in a particular song.
This is completely wrong. The entire field of biochemistry studies why DNA acts the way it does.Likewise, there is no law of physics that explain why DNA uses the particular encoding and decoding system that it does. Encoding and decoding systems require an arbitrary choice, and arbitrary choice requires a conscious mind.
Random chance didn't produce us, natural selection did.Without a conscious mind the only option you have is to rely on random chance, which, as we've already discussed, has impossible odds.
Circuit design and programming are one of the few fields that actually required advanced mathematics, like trigonometry and linear algebra.
I forget exactly which book it was, but there's a book about DNA written by an atheist he cites, and in that book the atheist specifically goes and copies the diagram from Claude Shannon's communication book and says the communication model applies exactly to DNA (Is DNA a Code?). If anything, communications engineers and programmers are the most qualified to talk about the coding and data aspects of DNA.
I don't see how this helps your arguement. Humans are the result of intelligently designed program, DNA. The probably that DNA would result in successful organisms is quite good, assuming a compentent designer. For example, DNA has the ability to splice itself into 100,000 and reassemble itself. That's an engineered process if ever there was one. The probability of a randomly constructed computer functioning is impossible. The probability of a designed and precisely constructed computer functioning is quote possible, obviously.Do you know what the chances of you existing are? For the right sperm and the right egg to have gotten together out of all of the other millions of possibilities is 1/[huge number]. Of course, that number wouldn't be as big as the number you referred to, but we can get there. Compound the odds of your parents being born, and their parents etc etc makes for an astonishing figure. Not to mention the odds of everything else in the world putting the right people in the right place at the right time. Statistics tell me that you shouldn't exist, so I can therefore ignore any evidence of your actual existence. It's just basic math, you can't argue with that.
"There is abundant evidence that internal genetic engineering systems have been major actors in natural populations and in genome evolution. Our own survival literally depends upon genetic engineering. Our immune system cells form an essentially infinite array of antigen recognition molecules by rearranging and specifically mutating the corresponding DNA sequences. In some organisms, genome restructuring is part of the normal life cycle. In the ciliated protozoa, for example, the germ line genome is regularly fragmented into hundreds of thousands of segments, which are then processed and correctly reassembled to create a functioning somatic genome of radically different system architecture."
-James A. Shapiro
The Significance of Cellular Activity in Genome Reorganization = Formatting and reformatting the genome for computation and exp
DNA symbolically represents something other than itself. Certian sequences contain information about one protien, and others contain information about other protiens. If this were not true then there would be no way for your body to produce and use the correct proteins for a given situation.DNA directly produces chemical reactions, on it's own. This is very different from notes on a page or information on a hard drive.
I was not talking about how DNA acts, but why it uses the coding scheme it does. For example, you can save an image on your computer in an number of formats. Jpeg, Gif, PNG, BMP, tiff, etc. You can even have an image in a vector or raster design, both complete different methodologies of storing the data for an image, yet all have the potential to produce the same results. The same is true for ALL information. There are an infinte number of coding schemes too choose from because a coding scheme is completely arbitrary. As long as both the sender and recieve agree on the coding scheme then communication can be successful. There's no law of physics that explain why it has the coding scheme that it has.This is completely wrong. The entire field of biochemistry studies why DNA acts the way it does.
Natural selection comes after the mutation process, not before. The random mutation must first provide a viable result in order to have a positive outcome from natural selection. That mutation process is completely random, as there is no process that causes the mutations to obey the syntax, grammer, and structure of the genetic code. Thus the results are left to blind chance, of which the odds are impossible even in a trillions universes lasting trillion years, let alone one lasting a few billion years.Random chance didn't produce us, natural selection did.
I was explaining that the chances of your existence are very very small to show you that arguments from probability don't mean anything. It doesn't help my argument, just shows how yours is weak.I don't see how this helps your arguement. Humans are the result of intelligently designed program, DNA. The probably that DNA would result in successful organisms is quite good, assuming a compentent designer. For example, DNA has the ability to splice itself into 100,000 and reassemble itself. That's an engineered process if ever there was one. The probability of a randomly constructed computer functioning is impossible. The probability of a designed and precisely constructed computer functioning is quote possible, obviously.
So you weren't born? You were just poofed into existence?Also, I, obviously, believe that the universe was created by a designer. I would agree that if the universe had no designer that the probability of me existing would be impossible, but, unless you can definitely prove that it did not, then that fact only suggest that it did have a designer.
DNA itelf creates the chemical reactions here, it is more like chemistry than computer programming.DNA symbolically represents something other than itself. Certian sequences contain information about one protien, and others contain information about other protiens. If this were not true then there would be no way for your body to produce and use the correct proteins for a given situation.
Yes, the laws in chemistry explain why it works the way it does. We probably agree that God designed the laws of the universe to work the way it does. The fact that evolution occured is a result of His design for the universe.I was not talking about how DNA acts, but why it uses the coding scheme it does. For example, you can save an image on your computer in an number of formats. Jpeg, Gif, PNG, BMP, tiff, etc. You can even have an image in a vector or raster design, both complete different methodologies of storing the data for an image, yet all have the potential to produce the same results. The same is true for ALL information. There are an infinte number of coding schemes too choose from because a coding scheme is completely arbitrary. As long as both the sender and recieve agree on the coding scheme then communication can be successful. There's no law of physics that explain why it has the coding scheme that it has.
The results are not left to blind chance. Mutations occur and are random, some good, some bad, and some neutral. Natural selection will always choose the good mutations, that is not random, it is a fact that we have observed.Natural selection comes after the mutation process, not before. The random mutation must first provide a viable result in order to have a positive outcome from natural selection. That mutation process is completely random, as there is no process that causes the mutations to obey the syntax, grammer, and structure of the genetic code. Thus the results are left to blind chance, of which the odds are impossible even in a trillions universes lasting trillion years, let alone one lasting a few billion years.
How do you know this?1. Everything that exists had a cause.
The random mutation must first provide a viable result in order to have a positive outcome from natural selection. That mutation process is completely random, as there is no process that causes the mutations to obey the syntax, grammer, and structure of the genetic code. Thus the results are left to blind chance, of which the odds are impossible even in a trillions universes lasting trillion years, let alone one lasting a few billion years.
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?