Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by claudio fernando maciel on January 5, 2011 at 12:20pm

Hi Jason, it's quite hard for me some days to make myself clear in English as I use Portuguese all day long. So, perhaps if I could help with just some reference today. Have you ever read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins? It's full of great scientific explanations there. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D. Johnson on January 5, 2011 at 12:30pm

I am reading this now actually!  Haven't gotten that far yet!  :)  funny you mention it! lol....I just couldn't wait to get to this part I guess because I won't be able to walk away from this computer til I've debunked this guy's crap. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by claudio fernando maciel on January 5, 2011 at 12:36pm

LOL! It's a great book, isn't it? I like Dawkin's sense of humor!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will H on March 6, 2011 at 1:31pm

yea, i have that. the portable atheist is a good one too because its like the anti-bible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on January 5, 2011 at 12:55pm

First of all, I'd love for him to explain why DNA is a language, yet RNA is not.  I'm willing to bet he has no idea how to begin to answer that question.  DNA is simply a molecule that replicates.  There are others that have been found to do this when placed in a test tube by people.  Does that mean that the people who dumped the molecules into the test tube designed the subsequent replicating structure?  Absolutely not.  It just happens, the way gravity pulls bodies together and the way heat transfers media.  

 

The second part of this claim that annoys the crap out of me is that he's trying to call DNA a language.

If thatwere true, then every single individual creature would have to be a newlydesigned creation, because no two organisms are genetically identical.  Therefore, if intelligence were necessary tocreate this “language” then an ongoing intelligence would be necessary to editthe language for each and every single creature that is born.  That’s simply ridiculous.  Every single individual creature would be anew design.  And the intelligence wouldbe necessary to interpret the “language” to create each specific individual,which means that if this alleged creator were necessary to interpret thelanguage, then the language would be unnecessary in the first place, since thecreator would necessarily already know how to create the beings.  It’s just a bunch of foolishness.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on January 5, 2011 at 1:15pm

DNA requires a Mind, because there is no known mechanism by which natural processes produce information.

I would need to probe what he means by information creation. Air moving around Earth leaves information trapped in ice as to what has gone on in the world from volcanic eruptions to the beginning of the Industrial Age. Clearly no mind intended that effect, but it exists. You could carry that out in multiple areas, that's just one.

When you sit and look at the world through the glasses of wonder and awe, you might miss the patterns. Of course he's using those patters to suggest a god, but they are no different than the patterns of the tides, air movement, or rain. Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand the tides< face="Palatino, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif">, and leads you to believe that it must be god. I do wonder how they get those tide charts if no one knows how it is caused. Simply not seeing the pattern, does not relegate the cause to supernatural causes. The same is true of seeing a pattern. There is a whole science called Emergence that looks into things like why some flocks of birds fly without a leader in all sorts of crazy patterns. He might cite the mind of the bird individually, but the act as a collective without a leader and with no clear purpose. It may go back to questions like why Amoeba move in certain directions. Clearly they don't possess sentience. If they don't possess sentience, yet they produce patterns, and we can derive information such as acidity of the water, does that disprove the claim that only a mind can cause it?

< face="Palatino, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif">It's simply a shallow view of both science and religion. You can't square up Evolution with Genesis Creation. He is simply trying to impose his view of God on a confusing world. If he'd stop trying to disprove the position, or prove his own, and just absorb the information, the world would be less confusing and the requirement for a God to clear it up would fade.

< face="Palatino, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif">But as to a question, for debate... Why would God reuse DNA from dinosaurs in Chickens? Why is Chromosome #2 fused in humans and traceable in monkeys? Ken Miller doesn't believe in a "deceptive God." Why would't God create new DNA for each creature. We are talking about a being that can speak the universe into existence yet DNA is too much work? Why do I share ERV's in 14 exact same locations as Bonobo's if we are not related? Why do I not share this characteristic with all Apes considering the line of excuses he is likely to develop along the lines of being similar. (The answer is the timing of the insertions).        

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on January 5, 2011 at 1:20pm

Sorry for the HTML problem. I corrected the color and it left that. Ran out of steam in fixing it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by idcollapse Ra on March 6, 2011 at 3:04am

i like your discussions and videos Gaytor

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on March 6, 2011 at 11:28am

Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on June 23, 2011 at 12:46am

Sorry to play Devil's Advocate Gaytor but the correct christian response to your argument is that the DNA is information, stuff trapped in ice is data. Also in regards to the sharing of DNA: do you ever make anything? if I am writing some software I try to reuse as many components from previous projects as I can. If I were to be writing in DNA, of course I would re-use as much as I could between species(projects)...This of course invalidates the idea of an omnipotent god, since being omnipotent would mean he is not a lazy programmer like me :P

 

I am curious to hear your response to this...personally I think the discussion is fairly meaningless until the existence of god is proven (or at least plausible)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirk Holden on January 5, 2011 at 1:18pm

Obviously language can only come from a yellow school bus full of unicorns singing DNA song lyrics. Duh.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on January 5, 2011 at 10:27pm

Wrong. Orthodox unicorns have to be pink, but not all unicorns have to be orthodox.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page