I can prove God exists

[invest07]

And just because you don't know where DNA came from does not mean it evolved.

My challenge to you is to name one code or language that exists and did not require intelligence. If you can do that you can demonstrate that DNA may have evolved. This cuts to the very core of evolution. If DNA is not possible without intelligence, than the central premise of evolution is bunk.

And if DNA can evolve without intelligence then there should be other examples. Since human DNA contains 3 billion base pairs it is highjlky complex. There should be tones of other evolved codes that are simpler than DNA. Just name one.

The point I am making here is that the central premise of evolution has NEVER been demonstrated after 150 years and it is my opinion it will never be demonstrated. True science is based on demonstrable facts that can be verified. The central premise of evolution has NEVER been verified.

 

[invest07]

coyote,
Good to talk to you again. As usual, your arguments dance around the point.

You preface one of your statements "If we assume". I thought true science was about demonstrable facts that could be verified. You start this statment exactly like any other Darwin Kool Aid drinker - by making an assumption which you hope to be true but have no proof.

Natural laws are not codes or languages. Codes/languages require information to be encoded and then decoded. Minerals reacting with each other does not require encoding and decoding. In my first post I explained wht patterns are not codes. Chemical reaction are not codes either. Molecular bonds are not codes. They are physical realities but no encoding or decoding is involved.

What makes codes and languages different from physical laws is that information is involved. No information is involved in a chemical reaction.

What holds atoms together is a mystery and if you follow quantum mechanics at all you know this a deep, confusing and seemingly contradictory mystery. But there is no encoding and decoding involved.

Come on coyote. If a molecule as complex as DNA can evolve, then there must be thousands of other simpler examples you can name. Evolution of codes or languages must happen all the time.

That is, if evolution is real.

Hey, maybe it's not real and didn't happen the way you would like it to have happened. Maybe the only alternative to evolution (God) is too terrible for you to even imagine. I mean, God is not PC in the hallowed halls of academia. God is not allowed in a US courtroom and a US school room and must be driven from society.

You've tried but, so far, the gauntlet is still on the ground. Why don't you check out TalkOrigins? They seem to have pat answers for all you Darwin Kool Aid drinkers.

 

[Coyote]

coyote,
Good to talk to you again. As usual, your arguments dance around the point.

Strange...I could've sworn I nailed the point right on it's head...

You preface one of your statements "If we assume". I thought true science was about demonstrable facts that could be verified.

You are starting out with the assumption that DNA is not natural. That is not a demonstrable fact that can be verified.

I am choosing to start out with the opposite assumption: that it is natural.

You start this statment exactly like any other Darwin Kool Aid drinker - by making an assumption which you hope to be true but have no proof.

I don't drink Kool Aid bubba. I drink Crystal Lite.

Natural laws are not codes or languages. Codes/languages require information to be encoded and then decoded. Minerals reacting with each other does not require encoding and decoding.
What makes codes and languages different from physical laws is that information is involved. No information is involved in a chemical reaction.

The genetic code is itself is nothing more then a series of chemical reactions. Why do you exclude non-biologically based chemical reactions?

If you exclude them, then consider the following:

All codes and languages that we are aware of are the result of DNA - directly and indirectly.

Within that whole is a small group of "languages" or "codes" that are used by animals (including humans) to communicate.

You are creating a fallacy by stating that because this small group of codes was created by intellegence interacting with DNA - then the larger group - all DNA - must there fore be created by an intellegent being because an intellegent being created this smaller group.

I could just as easily conclude that DNA naturally evolved and from it came other code-makers. then there is no need for me to invent a diety to explain it.

Come on coyote. If a molecule as complex as DNA can evolve, then there must be thousands of other simpler examples you can name. Evolution of codes or languages must happen all the time.
That is, if evolution is real.

Not necessarily. What works is what survives in evolution. DNA works. Very well. More to the point it offers proof to common origins of life on earth. Not proof of a deity.

Hey, maybe it's not real and didn't happen the way you would like it to have happened. Maybe the only alternative is to evolution (God) is too terrible for you to even imagine. I mean, God is not PC.

Who gives a fig about PC? I don't need scientific proof to believe in a deity and I don't have to compromise science for it either.

You've tried but, so far, the gauntlet is still on the ground. Why don't you check out TalkOrigins? They seem to have pat answers for all you Darwin Kool Aid drinkers.

The gauntlet is churned into the mud buddy...keep trying.

 

[Coyote]

And just because you don't know where DNA came from does not mean it evolved.

But just because you don't know where DNA came from then that means it was created? Come on!

My challenge to you is to name one code or language that exists and did not require intelligence.

DNA. All other codes are a spin-off.

If you can do that you can demonstrate that DNA may have evolved. This cuts to the very core of evolution. If DNA is not possible without intelligence, than the central premise of evolution is bunk.

There's research on that....
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/tripletcode020805.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219253.200.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;312/5775/870 (DNA may have come from simpler RNA based organisms)

So far, you aren't showing me any research supporting your points.

And if DNA can evolve without intelligence then there should be other examples. Since human DNA contains 3 billion base pairs it is highjlky complex. There should be tones of other evolved codes that are simpler than DNA. Just name one.

You have the precursor to DNA - RNA.

The point I am making here is that the central premise of evolution has NEVER been demonstrated after 150 years and it is my opinion it will never be demonstrated. True science is based on demonstrable facts that can be verified. The central premise of evolution has NEVER been verified.

What central premise?

 

[9sublime]

Invest, you really don't know how to debate do you.

WE UNDERSTAND YOUR CHALLANGE.

Here are our counterpoints, please debate them without just referring to your original challange every post if thats possible for you:

1. Just because it is a code and is very complex doesn't mean it was made by a divine creator, it just means we dont know where it comes from.

Religion is what man always turns to when it does not know the answers, namely the origins of life and what happens after death.

2. For the sake of argument, lets say your point obviously proves a god made it. It doesnt, IN ANY WAY, prove that it was created by the Christian God.

Please, debate these points, rather than just saying this over and over:

My challenge to you is to name one code or language that exists and did not require intelligence. If you can do that you can demonstrate that DNA may have evolved. This cuts to the very core of evolution. If DNA is not possible without intelligence, than the central premise of evolution is bunk.

We do not need to disprove your point, because you have not proved evolution is bunk/or the existence of God, you have just told us over and over that DNA is a code.

 

[invest07]

9 sublime

I think we both agree you and me came from some source. There are currently only 2 explanations for biological existence:

A. We are a mistake.
B. We are the result of intelligent design.

I think that we can also agree that DNA is a code and a damned complex one at that.

Science can not offer empirical data to definitively prove or disprove either position. So what we are left with is "circumstantial" evidence. We can't witness evolution or creation but we can look at what remains from the past. We can analyze what's left and put that together with other things that we can observe, quantify and measure and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Whether or not DNA can evolve naturally is at the central core of whether or not evolution is a realistic explanation of biological origins. If it is impossible for DNA to evolve, then evolution as espoused by the Darwin Kool Aid drinkers is also impossible.

My premise is that if a highly complex code like DNA could evolve then there should be hundreds or thousands of other codes/languages that naturally evolved and finding them should be a piece of cake. Because there are none, the likelihood that as highly complex a code as DNA could evolve naturalistically is highly unlikely and certainly not demonstrated in nature.

You may not realize how complez DNA really is. Human DNA has 3 billion base pairs on every DNA starnd in the human body. That is 6 BILLION chemical compounds, each of which is located where it is supposed to be and arranged in the proper order. There are 4 different chemical compounds that may be present at each location and 6 billion locations. The mathematical probability of that happening by chance is 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. This number is so ridiculously small as to merit NO serious consideration by any rational and unbiased thinker.

To summarize, there are at least 2 reasons to conclude DNA did not evolve naturalistically:

1. The mathematical probabilities are zilch.
2. There are no other examples of naturally evolving codes/languages.

If there are only 2 explanation of how we got here and A is clearly not feasible, the only alternative is B.

This is reasonable proof of the existence of a creator. This line of reasoning is thoroughly scientific and meets the demands of any courtroom.

 

[invest07]

coyote

Chemical reactions are not codes or languages. There is no encoding or decoding and no information exchanged.

Oxygen and water do not get together and write a manual which tells iron how to rust. And they don't go up to iron and say "Buddy, sorry but it's time for you to start checking out". And iron does not need to read that manual to know how and when to rust.

There is no information exchange during a chemical reaction.

While DNA is composed of chemicals, the action of those chemicals is controlled by a defined, readable code. A code that allows for change and reaction to environmental factors and multiplication. A code that contained information encoded at one end and decoded at the other end. An instruction manual or blueprint. A musical ledger which is encoded by the composer and decoded by the player.

Information is exchanged when DNA passes it's encoded info on to every cell in the organism and onto the next generation.

And if I understand you right, you are saying that nature does not require ANY other codes or languages except DNA. This is a bold statement, undemonstrable and flies in the face of reason. Surely you can't mean that there isn't at least one or maybe two other minor functions anywhere in the natural world that couldn't be improved by information.

You see common origins in DNA. I see a damned good design that permits life in many forms and the basic architecture being reused. If the basic design is solid, why reinvent the wheel with each of the millions of species? I see Ford building a Ranger and an Explorer and a van and an RV on the same platform. I see Bob Marley and all the reggae artists since him using a reggae beat with the same basic architecture because it works. I see Monet painting in the impressionist mold because there was a market for impressionist works.

We both bring our own presuppositions to the table. You have been quick to point out that my presuppositions are not scientific as they rely on the existence of a creator.

I am pointing out that your presuppositions have never been proven, can't be proven, and are based on assumptions that are being challenged today from many disciplines. What worked for you in the past is not necessarily valid in light of new discoveries and challenges to your belief system. And information science is one of the biggest challenges to naturalistic evolution. Your presuppositions are not as scientific as you believe them to be.

One of the points I am making in this forum is that the naturalistic evolution of DNA is necessary for biological evolution to have occurred. And evolution of DNA has never been proven. It is, so far, undemonstrable by science, even 150 years after Darwin. So a belief in evolution is based on an unproven assumption, an assumption for which there is no other naturally occurring example in nature. And an assuption which is mathematically virtually impossible.

The foundation upon which evolution is constructed is indeed shaky and may yet prove to be non-existent.

But keep trying. You are getting further into the ozonosphere with each post.

 

[Questerr]

9 sublime

I think we both agree you and me came from some source. There are currently only 2 explanations for biological existence:

A. We are a mistake.
B. We are the result of intelligent design.

Where the heck do you get that evolution says that we are a mistake? Just because evolution implies that "random" chance effects the growth and modification of organisms doesn't imply mistakes.

If we were mistakes under evolution then we would all be dead. Genetic mistakes die, functional adaptations live.

And where do you get that ID and evolution are diametrically opposed? ID deals with the reason for creation, evolution deals with the mechanic. The are similarly related and complement each other perfectly.

My premise is that if a highly complex code like DNA could evolve then there should be hundreds or thousands of other codes/languages that naturally evolved and finding them should be a piece of cake. Because there are none, the likelihood that as highly complex a code as DNA could evolve naturalistically is highly unlikely and certainly not demonstrated in nature.

Have you ever thought that DNA might have been a key evolutionary trait sometime ago? Possibly everything that didn't possess DNA died because their genetic codes couldn't carry enough information or provide enough adaptability.

And as pointed out, all codes and languages have evovled as a result of the evolution of DNA, so all codes and languages are natural codes.

You may not realize how complez DNA really is. Human DNA has 3 billion base pairs on every DNA starnd in the human body. That is 6 BILLION chemical compounds, each of which is located where it is supposed to be and arranged in the proper order. There are 4 different chemical compounds that may be present at each location and 6 billion locations. The mathematical probability of that happening by chance is 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. This number is so ridiculously small as to merit NO serious consideration by any rational and unbiased thinker.

Yes, the chance of that evolving by itself is very small. But the chance of it evolving over billions of years from progressively more simple molecules is incredibly high. DNA is not spring into existance fully formed form its father's head like Athena. It came from simpler, less adaptable genetic codes that were not able to keep up with environmental circumstances and thus died. Creatures with proto-DNA lived on and those creatures eventually evovled into creatures with modern DNA.

And about your qoute of really high numbers equally impossibility, from the Skeptic Report:

A Deck of Cards


Ever hear impossibly-large numbers quoted as the odds against a cell or a particular DNA molecule having formed "by accident" to create the first living thing? It's an example of the propensity of creationists to entirely miss the point and set up a specious straw man, ripe for destruction. Ronald Stearns suggests the following to help them see where they are missing the point:
One demonstration that has worked well for me in illustrating the difference between a priori and a posteriori calculations just uses a deck of cards. Give someone a deck of cards, ask him to shuffle it, and then read off the first 26 cards. After your subject does that, jump at him and question his veracity. "You don't really expect me to believe that sequence is what you pulled up, is it? The odds against getting exactly that sequence is 2 x 10 41-to-1 against!" Then, of course, explain that what the odds were before the exercise is irrelevant, because what is important is that SOME sequence occurred, and that the idea is to understand what that sequence actually was, not what the chances were of obtaining that sequence. If your subject has kept the stack of cards intact, then you can show that you have the evidence. It also looks a lot like a set of geological strata, and you can show that it remains valid even if you take the stack and slide it around, twist it, and fold it a bit, [to provide an analogy for how] geologists really can still unlock the story of geological history, with a lot of work.

And a further suggestion from Jay Laudig:
Begin by asking a creationist if he denies his own existence, or the fact that he was produced by the sexual reproduction of his parents. Assuming he says yes (if he says no, creationism is the least of his problems) point out the odds that his parents produced HIM, specifically, are one in 70 trillion (roughly). This is based on the 46 total chromosomes, each a 1 in 2 shot, contributed by his parents. If those odds aren't astronomical enough, go after his grandparents next. (Admittedly the chromosomal probability is a simplification of the entire process...but any further complications would only make an individual LESS likely, so the argument works fairly well.)

This is reasonable proof of the existence of a creator. This line of reasoning is thoroughly scientific and meets the demands of any courtroom.

I would again like to point out that existence of a creator does not in any way invalidate evolution as evolution deals with the mechanics not the reasoning or the source of creation.

 

[9sublime]

9 sublime

I think we both agree you and me came from some source. There are currently only 2 explanations for biological existence:

No, we don't. I don't find a gap in our knowledge and make up something to put in its place. I dont know how DNA started, and so I am not even going to bother speculating on the endless possibilites of the source.

A. We are a mistake.
B. We are the result of intelligent design.

No, neither of those are proved or even suggested by the fact that DNA is a code.

I think that we can also agree that DNA is a code and a damned complex one at that.

Yes, it is a complex code. I agree with that. I dont agree that the fact it is a complex code guarantees a deity made it.

Science can not offer empirical data to definitively prove or disprove either position. So what we are left with is "circumstantial" evidence. We can't witness evolution or creation but we can look at what remains from the past. We can analyze what's left and put that together with other things that we can observe, quantify and measure and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Yes. At least evolution has some proof, and gaps that need to be filled in. Your theory works by filling in the gaps with whatever you want and having no proof at all.

Whether or not DNA can evolve naturally is at the central core of whether or not evolution is a realistic explanation of biological origins. If it is impossible for DNA to evolve, then evolution as espoused by the Darwin Kool Aid drinkers is also impossible.


My premise is that if a highly complex code like DNA could evolve then there should be hundreds or thousands of other codes/languages that naturally evolved and finding them should be a piece of cake. Because there are none, the likelihood that as highly complex a code as DNA could evolve naturalistically is highly unlikely and certainly not demonstrated in nature.

Why? Why is this the case? What proof do you have, or is this just some gut religious instinct youve come up with to fill in the gaps of human knowledge.

You may not realize how complez DNA really is. Human DNA has 3 billion base pairs on every DNA starnd in the human body. That is 6 BILLION chemical compounds, each of which is located where it is supposed to be and arranged in the proper order. There are 4 different chemical compounds that may be present at each location and 6 billion locations. The mathematical probability of that happening by chance is 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. This number is so ridiculously small as to merit NO serious consideration by any rational and unbiased thinker.

To summarize, there are at least 2 reasons to conclude DNA did not evolve naturalistically:

1. The mathematical probabilities are zilch.
2. There are no other examples of naturally evolving codes/languages.

If there are only 2 explanation of how we got here and A is clearly not feasible, the only alternative is B.

No, there might be another we have not even thought of, because our puny brains cant comprehend it or think it up.

This is reasonable proof of the existence of a creator.

No its not.

This line of reasoning is thoroughly scientific and meets the demands of any courtroom.

No it doesn't. It works in your head, but you are someone who fills the unknowns with religion all the time.

i need to write here or it wont let me post.

 

[invest07]

Questerr

I guess I'm just a dumb hick from the sticks as I didn't grasp anything at all relevant from your "Deck of Cards" quote.

I am the result of the union of my parents and half my DNA is from each of them. After I am here, the probability of exactly me being here is 100%. Before I was concieved the probability of exactly me being concieved was 2 raised to the 46th power. The genetic probability of any two humans being identical genetically to each other out of the 6 billiion or so alive today is virtually zero. So what is the point of mathematical masturbation? Sounds like an irrelevant straw dog introduced to cloud the water.

Evolution requires an genetic mutation. This is the starting point for EVERY alleged evolutionary event. A mutation is a mistake. DNA puts 2 and 2 together and gets something other than 4. When the DNA molecule rips in half, a base pair stays intact or falls off and is lost. Either way, it is a mistake in division and the result is a random change, which is almost always detrimental to the individual.

And there is evidence that mutations may not stick in the long run. Drysophila experiments have mutated thousands of generations and never produced anything that was not a fruit fly (Translation: no speciation). And when individuals with similar mutations are allowed to breed only with like kind, the mutation disappears after 4-5 generations.

Mutations are a mistake and evolution requires millions of such mistakes to be made in sequence. One way of looking at the result of evolution is that we are all just the end result of a long series of mistakes.

ID and evolution are, indeed, diametrically opposed. We are either created or are the result of genetic mistakes. I maintain that we are too perfect and too complex to have ever arisen out of mistakes.

Regardless of how evolution is painted by supporters, the only forces driving evolution are random and unfocused. The initiating event for all evolution is a mistake. Mistakes, randomness and unfocused energy do not now and have never resulted in highly complex levels of organization. If I dump a pile of blocks and shingles and pipe on a vacant lot the wind and sun don't put them together into a house. Assembly requires intelligence and focused energy. So if a house can't be put together by unfocused energy and random forces, how does DNA evolve which is thousands of times more complex than any house ever built?

If you would like to see an example of random mutations, check out the web site randommutation. Type in a coherent phrase and start generating random mutations. The order and coherence of your phrase will disappear in short order.

One of my points in this forum is to point out that the alleged evolution of DNA is highly unlikely. Mathematically it is improbable, even given a few billion years of mistakes. And there are no other naturally occurring examples of codes or languages. The alleged evolution of DNA is an assumption with no mathematical support and no support from nature.

And even if DNA did arise from simpler beginnings, human DNA still requires 6 billion complex chemicals to position themsleves in precisely determined locations. Whether this happened all at once or over a few billion years is irrelevant. Evolution says this happened over a few billion years so the mathematic probability is the same, just spread out over more time. All 6 billion must wind up in the right place.

Window XP is an exmaple of a code, as is DNA. Windows is estimated to contain 30-35 million lines of code. So your DNA is many times more complex than anything Gates and Company have produced. Ask Bill Gates sometime if Windows XP occurred naturally. Ask him it those 30-35 million lines of interrelated code wrote themselves. And Human DNA is several times more complex that Windows and it is supposed to have arisen as a result of mistakes?

Science gives us only 2 choices to explain why we are here:

A. We are here as the end result of a series of mistakes.
B. We were intelligently created.

If DNA did not evolve, then evolution is impossible. And there is no mathematical support for DNA evolution and no support from other naturally occurring codes in nature. So if A is not true then the only alternative is B.

Unless you have a third alternative, that is.

 

[invest07]

9sublime
You have read a lot into my posts that just isn't there.

"Yes, it is a complex code. I agree with that. I dont agree that the fact it is a complex code guarantees a deity made it."

But DNA exists so it does have a source, a beginning somewhere. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are miniscule and there is no support in the natural world of other examples of evolved codes. So if it didn't evolve, why isn't creation a logical choice? In actuality, science can prove (or disprove) neither position so the science is a draw. Advantage neither position. My argument is based on logic and rational reasoning.

"Yes. At least evolution has some proof, and gaps that need to be filled in. Your theory works by filling in the gaps with whatever you want and having no proof at all."

Evolution has a lot of assumptions, projection and conjecture but very little "hard" data as proof. Evolution has far more gaps than the evolutionists would lead you to beleive. And what gap have I filled in that I haven't presented a logical and factual argument to support? The answer is none. I don't plug up holes with no proof. You may disagree with my interpretation of data but interpretation of data is all that evolution relies on. The evolutionist and the creationist have exactly the same data available.

"Why? Why is this the case? What proof do you have, or is this just some gut religious instinct youve come up with to fill in the gaps of human knowledge."

It is a logical conclusion that if a code as complex as DNA evolved, then hundreds or thousands of other simpler codes should also have evolved. DNA performs specific biological functions and surely there are many other specific biological functions that could be improved by a code. One measure of the reliablility of any theory is it's ability to predict things. Due to the non-existence of evolved codes, evolutionary theory is a louser predictor in this area. (Evolution is also a lousy predictor in the area of transitional fossils.

"No, there might be another we have not even thought of, because our puny brains cant comprehend it or think it up."

These are the only current choice acknowledged by people of science. While there may be others, if they aren't ackowledged by science they are beyond the scope of a science based forum.

"No its not."

Thanks for your opinion.

"No it doesn't. It works in your head, but you are someone who fills the unknowns with religion all the time."

Again, I have made no statements that I have not reasonably supported by logic, science, mathematics or rational thought. I haven't quoted any Bible verses or presented any religious doctrines as evidence. I could care less whether or not you believe in God. That is your business and none of mine. I sift through information available, think about it and fill gaps and unknown with information that makes sense to me.

I agree with you on some levels about gaps in human knowledge. A great disservice is done when scientific knowledge gaps are filled in with pseudoscience, assumptions, conjecture and projections. Gaps in knowledge should be filled in with factual data that is well supported. Information that has obvious probblems, mathematical or scientific, should not be used to fill in the gaps. And the information used to fill in the gaps does not need to represent a concensus. There is room for evolution on the table as well as ID. Neither is perfect scientically but a reasonable case can be made for either. I can tolerate and accept evolutionists, even though I don't accept the basic premise of evolution. It is the evolutionists who can't tolerate ID. This tolerance of opposing veiwpoints is a one way street with all the intolerance on the evolution side.

I apologize to no one for bringing a presupposition to the table which includes a belief in God. Evolutionists bring their own presuppositions to the table and you bring yours. I apologize to no one for defending, with math, science, logic and reasoning, my beliefs. It is these presuppositions that each of us has that influence the way we think and interpret data.

If you have a problem with religious beliefs, that is your problem and not a valid topic for this forum.

 

[icono1]

...."God does not play dice with the universe"...... Chaos Theory is a rational attempt at explaining the the 'apparent' randomness of the universe we live in.

 

[Coyote]

coyote

You see common origins in DNA. I see a damned good design that permits life in many forms and the basic architecture being reused. If the basic design is solid, why reinvent the wheel with each of the millions of species?

And that might be why other biological codes haven't evolved.

 

[numinus]

Negative evidence is not evidence.

Really?!

You have no idea how your computer's algorithm works, do you? Its a box load of negative logic, fyi.

You employ it so much in your daily life, I cannot imagine anyone functioning normally without it.

 

[9sublime]

Invest, you said you could prove the EXISTENCE OF GOD, with this argument you've come up with, so religion does have a place in this argument.

BUT YOU HAVE A GAP. The gap is the jump between DNA is a complex code, and we don't know how it started to >> It had to have been a deity.

This jump of knowledge shows your argument is based on no logic at all.

And just because the maths is miniscule, doesn't mean its impossible. The maths that some form of DNA could have come about is not so small, it just had to develop into the exact kind we have today.