Universal Origins

[Faith.Man]

Discovery One — The Universe Had a Definite Beginning -Dr. John Ankerberg, Ankerberg Show - Watch Christian Video, TV

Discovery Two — Space and Time Had a Beginning -Dr. John Ankerberg, Ankerberg Show - Watch Christian Video, TV

 

[philadiddle]

Discovery One — The Universe Had a Definite Beginning -Dr. John Ankerberg, Ankerberg Show - Watch Christian Video, TV

Discovery Two — Space and Time Had a Beginning -Dr. John Ankerberg, Ankerberg Show - Watch Christian Video, TV

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

What made you and kept you as a theist?
These arguments work in some ways.

 

[philadiddle]

What made you and kept you as a theist?
These arguments work in some ways.

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.

 

[Faith.Man]

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.

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?

 

[philadiddle]

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?

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.

It seems so much more powerful when people turn their lives over to God because of the immediate experiences they have in the present and God's impact on their lives and on the lives of their loved ones.

 

[Verticordious]

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.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

Very interesting point. I like how you put it.

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.

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.

 

[Faith.Man]

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.

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.

Your statement that "the universe did not have a beginning" is pure bs.

 

[DamonWV]

Honestly, from any view, how could anyone possible know. none of us had any consciousness back then, what ever time then you believe in. No one was there to witness it, expect for God from a Biblical point of view. From a world point of view it gets really complex with quantam mechanics, Cashmir effect , ect ect . But even then, no one was there to witness if that is how it happened, it would have to start off with an assumption or best guess.

 

[Verticordious]

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.

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.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

Understanding math doesn't make anyone an expert in biochemistry.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Verticordious]

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.

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.

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.

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.

How does someone write music? They think about it, plan it out, and write it down. How does someone write a book? They think about, plan it out, and write it down. How does someone write a computer program? They think about it, plan it out, and write it down. How does someone design a house? They think about it, plan it out, and write it down. How does someone plan out a computer network? They think about it, plan it out, and write it down. How does the plan for a living organism get created? Nobody thinks about it, nobody plans it out, we just wait a few billion years... right...

The reason that people have to think about it, plan it out, and write it down is because languages are arbitrary. There is no law of physics that explains why the symbols 'sun' put next to each other represent the big ball of burning hydrogen in the middle of our solar system. Someone decided to use 'sun' to refer to the sun, and we all agreed, and so for us 'sun' refers to the sun. However, for someone who doesn't speak English, 'sun' means nothing to them. 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. Without a conscious mind the only option you have is to rely on random chance, which, as we've already discussed, has impossible odds.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

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.

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.

DNA directly produces chemical reactions, on it's own. This is very different from notes on a page or information on a hard drive.

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.

This is completely wrong. The entire field of biochemistry studies why DNA acts the way it does.

Without a conscious mind the only option you have is to rely on random chance, which, as we've already discussed, has impossible odds.

Random chance didn't produce us, natural selection did.

 

[shernren]

Circuit design and programming are one of the few fields that actually required advanced mathematics, like trigonometry and linear algebra.

Have you heard of evolutionary circuit design?

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.

The book title is Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005. (It's right there on the site.)

Now that raises an interesting quandary, isn't it? Yockey is both an intelligent person who believes that Shannon's communication model is applicable to DNA and an evolutionist. How can that be? There are a few possibilities:

1. Yockey just isn't that intelligent after all, not having been able to conclude from information theory that creationism is right. (In which case, why should we trust his defective intelligence to conclude that DNA is code?)

2. Yockey is intelligent, but has some kind of unspecifiable moral defect which causes him to irrationally reject creationism. (In which case, what if his unspecifiable moral defect is what has also caused him to irrationally believe that DNA is code?)

3. Yockey is intelligent and reasonably moral, but believes that just because DNA is code doesn't mean it is "designed" in the ID sense. (If your response is "Why Yockey, you git, any half-blind fool knows that all code is designed!", you really believe in one of options 1 or 2, in which case his book is therefore untrustworthy and unevidential.)

Now I also believe that just because DNA is code - that is, because it can be treated using Shannon's information model - doesn't mean that it is "designed" in the ID sense. Explaining this requires a little knowledge about Shannon theory. So let's start with the following:

My little Internet post has a few thousand characters in it. Let's call it "Text A". Suppose I were to randomly generate a few thousand characters and call that "Text B". Text A and Text B have the same length, but one is the product of a (vaguely, slightly) intelligent human mind, while the other is purely random.

According to Shannon theory, which text has more information?

 

[Verticordious]

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.

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.

"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

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 directly produces chemical reactions, on it's own. This is very different from notes on a page or information on a hard drive.

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.

This is completely wrong. The entire field of biochemistry studies why DNA acts the way it does.

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.

Random chance didn't produce us, natural selection did.

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.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

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.

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.

So you weren't born? You were just poofed into existence?

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 itelf creates the chemical reactions here, it is more like chemistry than computer programming.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[duordi]

One could make the logical assumptions as follows.

1. Everything that exists had a cause.
2. Everything that exists had a beginning.
3. Time exists and therefore had a beginning.
4. Time exists and therefore had a cause.
5. “Something” caused time but was before time.
6. This is one atribute that the Bible gives for God therefore God caused time but was before time.

 

[philadiddle]

1. Everything that exists had a cause.

How do you know this?

 

[shernren]

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.

Oh, you'd be surprised. My flipping a coin is also left to blind chance, and yet it would be silly for me to expect to need trillions of universes lasting trillions of years for me to flip a head - because the chance of flipping heads is just 1/2.

So what are the chances of "providing a viable result"? Let's first go over, once again, the rules of successful transcription. For a string of DNA to transcribe to a viable protein, it must have the following properties:

1. Its length must be a multiple of three.
2. It must begin with a start codon: ATG.
3. It must end with a stop codon: TAA, TGA, TAG.

Now let's assume firstly that we're coming up with a string of DNA from scratch. We're going to make up a random sequence of A, T, C, and G, and we're going to see how often we come up with a string that can make a protein.

First off our string is going to have to be a multiple of three long. That immediately rules out two-thirds of all possible strings. (In fact, it also rules out any string of up to twelve bases long - three would make only one codon, six would make just a start followed by a stop, and nine would make a start, a single amino acid, and a stop. So a little over two-thirds.)

Now that that's so, what other constraints are there? The first codon has to be ATG - 1 out of 64 possibilities. The last codon has to be a stop codon - 3 out of 64 possibilities. Multiply those together and you get 3 out of 4096 possibilities. But once you have those two sorted, anything in between is valid. Furthermore, that applies no matter the actual length of the DNA string.

So all in, the chance of any randomly generated DNA string coding for a protein is just under 1/3 * 3/4096 = 1/4096 - any length, any content. Now that's not as good as the odds of a coin flipping heads, but neither does it require trillions of universes lasting trillions of years. The obvious objection is, "how many of these proteins would do anything?" Firstly, isn't that natural selection's business? You yourself admit that natural selection can have a positive outcome on the proteins produced by random mutation.

Secondly, that would be shifting the goalposts. You asked if mutations could obey the "syntax, grammer (sic) and structure of the genetic code". Well, if the purpose of the genetic code is to code for proteins, then I would consider any string which codes for any protein a string which obeys syntax, grammar and structure.

You could compare it to English. The sentence "Hand me your money, or I will slit your throat" is a bad, bad sentence! And yet it fully obeys the syntax, grammar and structure of the English language - indeed, it is admirable in its brevity and effectiveness. For that matter, the sentence "Sing me your fish, or I will know your necktie" is nonsense - and yet it, too, obeys the syntax, grammar and structure of the English language. In the same way, any protein, whether it be good, bad, or pointless, qualifies the DNA string that produces it as one which obeys the syntax, grammar and structure of the genetic code. And I have shown that just under 1 out of every 4,000 randomly generated DNA strings will obey the genetic code, which isn't half bad for random chance.

But it gets better. Mutations don't cook up random strings, they modify already-existent DNA strings - most of which already code for proteins. What are the chances of a mutation changing a string which codes for a protein to one which doesn't?

We can immediately rule out almost any insertion or deletion, since they change the length of the string. (You'd be surprised, though - an insertion will reactivate a string which has previously suffered deletion, and vice versa; furthermore, deletions of 3bp are mysteriously more common than deletions of 2bp, and the former leave strings that do code validly for proteins. But I want to give the creationist the benefit of the doubt.)

It turns out that indels only occur once in every four to six mutations (source here); the bulk of mutations are single-nucleotide substitutions - and almost all of those do leave the string coding for a valid protein. In fact, about one in every three will leave the string coding for the exact same protein, since codons are often synonymous in their middle bases. Of course, there are certain exceptions: anything that changes the start codon, or anything that changes the stop codon to a non-stop codon, will disable the transcription.

So, if I have a sequence 60 bases long (and that's short by protein standards), how many possible substitutions can render it illegible? Turns out to be (less than) 6 out of 60: three at the start, three at the stop, or under 10%. You can see that the longer the sequence, the better the odds, until for a very long protein a single substitution anywhere along it is unlikely to turn it into an illegible sequence.

So there you have it: there are plenty of mutations that turn one valid sequence of DNA into another valid sequence of DNA. Next objection? And oh, by the way, you still haven't told me whether a text in English or a randomly generated string of similar length will have more Shannon information.