Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin's theory of evolution is a sealed tight argument that has no holes that need filling?
I can't really find anything meaty enough in their that convinces me that such evidence affirms anything at all. Just lots of citations and links that don't really lead to much except other citations and links
. I can point you to just as many links that would go some way in refuting the idea that life just happened to come into existence all by itself without any influence by a guiding intelligence at all. Like this from Darwinism Refuted.com (A Muslim site I think):
It is very 'meaty'. Though if you are not familiar with the terminology it can be hard to follow. This first paper investigates the feasability of natural abiogenesis occurring during a given era. The second is a basic example of investigating how certain chemical mechanisms affect our theories of abiogenesis.<probability of left-handed molecules argument>
"The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth."
This is an old straw-man argument that most Creationists have thankfully stopped using. The link below is a pro-creationist website denouncing the argument.
http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Life_uses_only_left-handed_amino_acids
In short, nobody claims the left-handedness of life occurred by chance. The claim above is 'interesting' to say the least. Do they, by any chance, cite the britannica article?Here's a couple of interesting videos from Youtube. Do you want to tell me that these micro machines just know what to do? That there is no preprogramming that has gone into this process? That it just happens? No information processing going on whatsoever and that it bares no resemblance to information processing that we execute everyday in computers and other media processing machines like tape drives and such?
From RNA to Protein Synthesis
Transcription and Translation
Beyond astonishing. And Wicknight says that this bares no resemblance to how computers process information? Come on now.
While I don't fully agree with Wicknight's aversion to code analogies, I agree with his concern that there is a lot of teleological baggage associated with words like "coding" and "information".
[edit]-Tidied up quotes0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
So you would not know if an event was unlikely, and so worth studying, without studying it! Or maybe you mean you are able to make an initial assessment of its probability, but without scientific investigation you would be unable to confirm that assessment or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You said one could not assess if the events were unlikely. Now you accept one can.
No I didn't. I said one could not assess if the events were unlikely purely on their own personal assessment. Empirical study is required.
How does this work in practice? If you are Moses, and the Red Sea opened overnight when you gave the command, and closed again the following day when you gave the command, do you tell yourself you are unable to say if this really happened? That your memory was playing tricks? That maybe you just asked for something to happen and this just happened to be the next to occur?
That you need to write the command down in the front of scientific witnesses and then ask God to do it all again, just to make sure?
Even the Egyptian experts were not so skeptical:
Exodus 8:18 Now the magicians so worked with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not. So there were lice on man and beast. 19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.
It doesn't have to be naturally impossible events to make an obvious miracle - just the event coming at the requested junction. You would not be able to conclude the Red Sea opening for Israel's need and closing again for their need, both at the command of Moses, to be a 'beyond reasonable chance' event. If we posted recorders at the locality and measured how many times the sea opened like this over a millennia, do you think we would see anything? But let's be generous and say we get a parting once every century - that's one day in 365x100 = 36,500 to 1. Unless you insist Israel will come to that spot more than once - at bit difficult in view of the pursuing Egyptian army.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What caused the unlikely event is another matter.
Its not because without knowing what caused them you cannot possibly hope to accurately assess how likely they are.
It becomes, as I suspect your arguments for the miracles you believe you have experienced, a claim from ignorance. I don't know how these things might have happened but I imagine they couldn't all happy together so I'm going to believe they are very unlikely.
If I witnessed the conjunction of Moses' command and the sea parting, and the sea return at his word, I would draw the conclusion that something very unlikely had happened. If I were Moses and had the inner experience of God command and promise about the parting and closure, I would not be unbelieving in God. Only a hard heart would be.
Seems to me the idea that some mutations have advantage and therefore the organism tends to survive better is simple enough for any one to understand.If you believe otherwise it goes a long way to explaining why you are a theist and why you reject scientific theories like evolution.
Common sense tells us that evolution won't happen. It tells us this because human brains are very bad at imagining large complex processes, which is what evolution is, and as such we cannot imagine billions of life forms producing trillions of mutations interact with other trillions of mutations some of which are selected by millions of natural processes acting in millions of different ways.
To understand evolution you need to look at it with mathematics because our brains simply cannot hold the information in our heads.
Likewise with your miracles. Your brain cannot accurately process the millions of things that happen to you in a given day, the billions of permutations of how you interact with the world and how it interacts with us. It simply can't. We fall back on much more basic understandings of the world in order just to get by. Our brain pattern matches because if we tried to store and process everything we simply couldn't, our brains aren't powerful enough.
The difficulty I have is seeing how the fully functioning organism came to be in the first place, to allow mutations any possibility of giving it an edge. It had to start with the simplest form and advance, banking each mutation until enough of them existed to make a beneficial information sequence. As JC has often pointed out, the maths for that makes the miracles of the Bible look small beer. O, Atheist, great is your faith!
It's amazing how I drive hundreds of miles every work night, and still manage to find my way home. All those possibilities that my observations and memory are faulty. But maybe you reckon only 'spiritual' matters are beyond belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I cannot prove to anyone else that such things happened to me, but I remember them as well as any other important personal event.
Such a claim is irrelevant. If your memory was inaccurate you wouldn't know since you only have one memory and without any external measurement you cannot tell if you are simply remembering wrong.
The only fall back is the assertion that you wouldn't remember wrong. Given that we know humans do this that assertion is invalidated.
Thank you, accurately would have been the right word.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Some careless or boastful people may well make wild claims. But you are saying no one can experience such things and honestly report them.
No, first of all I never said anything about honesty. I do not believe you are lying when you say you remember it this way, nor do I believe you are lying when you say you have assessed it as being highly unlikely that this would just happen.
Honesty is not the issue. Accuracy is.
I'm saying no one can experience such things and know they are accurately reporting them if that assessment is left entirely up to them.
Again, most of these things are not open to check after the event. One would need to record the prayer before the answer came. Excitable people often make wild claims, but that does not address the possibility of non-excitable people being accurate in their reports.Anytime anyone has tried to assess the accuracy of these claims using something more than simply personal assessment they have found it increasingly difficult to show the claims are actually accurate.
I was responding to your suggestion of a bias in the believer's reporting. We are all in danger of bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A big jump, one that is motivated by the desire to discredit spiritual things.
I'm not going to pretend that some people are not interested in discrediting spiritual things, but you have to ask yourself a) why does that matter, surely you either can or cannot show that something is likely or unlikely what ever your motivation
I'm all for revealing the truth. If one can show a claim is unsupported, then good. Society is full of bogus spiritual claims. I just point out that saying all spiritual claims are unsupported and unreliable/unknowable by those who claim to experience them is also unsupported.and b) why is decrediting spiritual things a bad thing if they are demonstrating that some spiritual claim is not supported? Isn't truth more important?
A couple of examples - Others witnessed at least one of the events:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I have measured my experiences.
I would be very interested in the process and the data you used to do this.
An unbeliever, who put the coincidence of my prayer and the critical outcome down to amazing 'luck'.
Another was also thought by an unbeliever to be a sort of miracle, though they did not know of my months of previous prayer. Could I have imagined I prayed for that outcome? Only if I can have imagined my time at secondary school, for example.
Your ability to know anything is determined by such scientific testing? You must live a very nebulous existence, unsure of everything you experience!Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I gather you want me to set up an experiment where I ask God for something beyond reasonable chance and then see if it happens. With the request dated and noted by witnesses beforehand.
If you want to assess the accuracy of your claims. You say that as if it is a bad thing, I suspect because you know deep down your claims would be shown to have little support, certainly not the support you believe they have now.
No, I didn't do it. God did it for me. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God is not my lab. technician. And I'm not trying to prove His ability.
That is some what contradictory because you have already given these as justification for how you know he exists. So you have already done this, you just haven't done it to any particular high standard.
Thankfully I do not have to exist in that sceptical limbo. My experience of God's goodness to me is not a matter of doubtful experiences long ago or today, but of life-changing experiences then and now. It works. I enjoy the blessings He gave me and am certain He will hear me again when I call.Say you are going to refuse to test God's existence to a higher standard seems like a hollow argument, an excuse to simply not test God's existence to any standard beyond personal assessment that opens up the possibility that your original assessment is inaccurate.
You say I could be deceiving myself, without scientific testing of the experiences. I say only a fool would experience them and put it down to 'luck'.
Certainly, but you will be behaving rashly if you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm only telling you what I have experienced. If you think I'm incapable of recognising an unlikely event or remembering if I had specifically asked for it, then that's up to you.
True. I can't make you do any of this, but I can ignore claims that you have personally assessed that your God exists without doing any of this.
You seem to be confused about the nature of science and spiritual reality. Science can only speak about material things, based on physical observation and testing. Science can test scientific claims; it can even test a person's observation and memory ability. But it cannot test whether anyone's claim to a spiritual experience is true or false.Also it makes your claims about evolution, scientists and your own personal assessment highly hypocritical. You hold scientists up to a standard far beyond the low standard you hold your own assessments and those of your religion to.
When you say such claims are unsupported, and by inference not worth considering as possibly true, you go beyond scientific capability. You are then making assessments based on your atheistic bias, not science.
__________________
I'm sorry, I may not get back until at least next Sunday: my 60hr week Christmas pressure overtime starts tomorrow night.
_________________________________________________________________
Luke 4:9 Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. 10 For it is written:
‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you,’
11 and,
‘ In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”
12 And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”0 -
-
-
Or maybe you mean you are able to make an initial assessment of its probability, but without scientific investigation you would be unable to confirm that assessment or not?
Exactly. You can suspect that something is unlikely and worth of study.
The problem is when you don't actually do the "worth of study" bit, and just conclude that because you think it is unlikely it is. Which seems to be what you are doing with your miracles.How does this work in practice? If you are Moses, and the Red Sea opened overnight when you gave the command, and closed again the following day when you gave the command, do you tell yourself you are unable to say if this really happened?
I would be completely at a loss as to what really happened. I've no idea how a sea can be held back, and it would require a heck of a lot of study to establish this.
I imagine the answer I was supposed to give was I would assume it was the explanation given to me, ie God did it. This is the mistake so common among theists. You think that any explanation is good enough so long as it explains what happened, even if you have no idea if it actually is the current explanation.
So Moses says "That was God who did that" we are supposed to not question, because after all who else could do it? Well actually if we are happy to suppose that supernatural deities exist then pretty much any of them. Moses claims it is God, but the only people who would simply accept that are those who already believe. I'm sure if you talked to an Egyptian that day he would say it was Ra.That your memory was playing tricks? That maybe you just asked for something to happen and this just happened to be the next to occur?
Pretty much. If we assume it was a supernatural event why would we also assume it was the supernatural event that Moses claims it was?
For example, if you talked to an Egyptian and was told it was Ra punishing the Egyptians for mistreatment of slaves, how would you tell whether Moses or the Egyptian was telling the truth?
That would be a start. Theism has always had a problem with the fact that their gods cannot be modeled and tested, and as such we still have thousands of religions, where as we have one theory of electricity.That you need to write the command down in the front of scientific witnesses and then ask God to do it all again, just to make sure?
You problem see this as a good thing, a test of faith?Even the Egyptian experts were not so skeptical:
Exodus 8:18 Now the magicians so worked with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not. So there were lice on man and beast. 19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.
Which god? The Egyptians believe in many.It doesn't have to be naturally impossible events to make an obvious miracle - just the event coming at the requested junction.
Nonsense. People pray all the time, there are billions of "requested junctions", the odds that a natural event will line up with one of these some where is very probable. I'm sure the Israelites were praying constantly as they tried to flee Egypt.
A far more likely explanation is that a parting of shallow water occurred through wind that allowed the Israelites to cross yet the next day when the Egyptians arrived the wind had died down. This is a natural and reasonably well understood phenomena now, but to the Israelites it would have seen just what they needed.
Of course if it hadn't happened they would have died and you would probably be worshiping Athena now. History remembers the time when seemingly miraculous events occur and easily forgets when they don't. Just like people.If we posted recorders at the locality and measured how many times the sea opened like this over a millennia, do you think we would see anything? But let's be generous and say we get a parting once every century - that's one day in 365x100 = 36,500 to 1. Unless you insist Israel will come to that spot more than once - at bit difficult in view of the pursuing Egyptian army.
Yes but you are making the fatal mistake of retroactively assuming the particular outcome was the desired one.
This is exactly the sort of cognitive bias I'm talking about, the thing you say you don't do.
Take your once a century occurring "miracle". Now, what are the odds that it will happen when there is someone around to record it happening. Very high.
Narrow it down a bit, what are the odds that it will happen when someone is trying to cross. Probably not as high but still pretty high.
So the Israelites were the people trying to cross at the time. Good for them, but if it had been someone else then the story would have been written down by them as their god doing something miraculous for them. The Israelites would have perished and we would have never heard from them again.
You see what you did there, the cognitive bias I'm talking about. You assume it was very unlikely because you are trying to get one particular outcome, the one that happened, rather than looking at what outcome would still count as a "hit" rather than a "miss" in terms of pattern matching to a miraculous event.
If you do this in your own life no wonder you think you are consistently experiencing miracles.If I witnessed the conjunction of Moses' command and the sea parting, and the sea return at his word, I would draw the conclusion that something very unlikely had happened.
I know. That is the issue (see above)Seems to me the idea that some mutations have advantage and therefore the organism tends to survive better is simple enough for any one to understand.
The difficulty I have is seeing how the fully functioning organism came to be in the first place, to allow mutations any possibility of giving it an edge.
The theory of evolution doesn't say a fully functioning organism just come to be.
Says it evolved from unicellar life which itself evolved from proto-cell life which evolved from self replicating molecules.
If you don't understand what evolution actually says how can you know it is wrong?It had to start with the simplest form and advance, banking each mutation until enough of them existed to make a beneficial information sequence. As JC has often pointed out, the maths for that makes the miracles of the Bible look small beer. O, Atheist, great is your faith!
No, that isn't actually wha JC is pointing out, even if what you said was correct.
JC's maths (incorrect as they are) are the odds that a protein would just randomly form. Since there is no theory of biological evolution that supposes a protein did just randomly form this is utterly irrelevant to the discussion (its like saying the theory that Jesus was a hamster is not Biblically supported). This has been pointed out to JC many many times but he continues to insist this is "proof" that God made life. That should speak to his sincerity in this debate.
As for "banking each mutation" it is true that it can be a few mutations that on their own do little but when combined have a survival advantage, but the way you put it implies that that evolution must some how know which ones to save. It doesn't work like that, evolution is not forward thinking.It's amazing how I drive hundreds of miles every work night, and still manage to find my way home. All those possibilities that my observations and memory are faulty. But maybe you reckon only 'spiritual' matters are beyond belief.
People get lost all the time. I imagine the hundreds of miles you drive are largely helped by the numerous sign posts along the way.
Again empirical study helping human memory because human memory is poor. That is why we make maps and put up sign posts.Again, most of these things are not open to check after the event.
That doesn't mean they are accurate. Saying God can't be tested is irrelevant to whether you are accurately reporting what you have experienced. Some claim doesn't become accurate simply because you can't figure out a way to test it. Quite the opposite in fact, accepting things that you can't assess just speaks to cognitive bias.One would need to record the prayer before the answer came. Excitable people often make wild claims, but that does not address the possibility of non-excitable people being accurate in their reports.
Yes, that is exactly what one would need to do. For example this is what people do in the studies about whether prayer helps sick people.
How excitable the person thinks they are is rather irrelevant since most people don't retroactively admit they were excited or being anything other than clear headed.
You don't appear to be. You seem all for accepting the first explanation that comes along.I'm all for revealing the truth.If one can show a claim is unsupported, then good. Society is full of bogus spiritual claims. I just point out that saying all spiritual claims are unsupported and unreliable/unknowable by those who claim to experience them is also unsupported.
Like I said, if anyone can actually demonstrate something is of significance is actually happening come forward and demonstrate it. And then collect your Nobel Prize.
The problem so far is that no one can, and when they can't various excuses such as God doesn't like to be tested, are rolled out. A far more reasonable explanation is that people are simply misinterpreting what they experience. They wouldn't be the first. You guys happily say that other religions are doing this, yet seem shocked at the suggestion that you probably are as well.A couple of examples - Others witnessed at least one of the events:
An unbeliever, who put the coincidence of my prayer and the critical outcome down to amazing 'luck'.
And? Did either of you attempt to assess what it actually was? Or are you expecting your friend to be more able to assess based on personal judgement than you are, and thus if he says it was "amazing luck" that means it was?Could I have imagined I prayed for that outcome? Only if I can have imagined my time at secondary school, for example.
I'm pretty sure you imagine things in secondary school that didn't actually happen, this would not be uncommon at all. I remember playing a game of basket ball in the new sports hall and getting into a fight. The only problem was I remember this in 3rd year and the new hall wasn't built till 5th year. My memory is filling in details that aren't actually present and shaping how I remember them.
I'm not suggesting you didn't pray. But the idea that can accurately recall exactly what you prayed for is unsupported. It might be correct, but you wouldn't know if your memory is faulty, which is why in scientific studies people are asked to write down exactly what they just prayed for.
I am unsure of everything I experience, I highly recommend it. It stops you being manipulated by the first person to come along and give you an explanation.Your ability to know anything is determined by such scientific testing? You must live a very nebulous existence, unsure of everything you experience!No, I didn't do it. God did it for me. Big difference.
That is my point. You already had to have it demonstrated to you. Your problem was that your standards weren't very high, and as such you were left with a conclusion you can't support.
There is no reason to believe that if God actually exists he won't demonstrate himself to people who have better standards than you.
The fact that you consider it a bad thing again speaks to cognitive bias. You accept the answer because it is an answer that is pleasing, both emotionally and mentally. Whether or not it is true comes a distant second.Thankfully I do not have to exist in that sceptical limbo.My experience of God's goodness to me is not a matter of doubtful experiences long ago or today, but of life-changing experiences then and now. It works.
Of course it works. Religion has always worked, there are thousands of religions around the world who's followers all say it works.
The issue is though that it doesn't work for the reasons the religions claim. Scientology does not make you happier because you have dead aliens in your head. Christianity does not make you happier because you enter into a relationship with God/Jesus.
They all work because all religions fit a particular pleasing and comforting narrative, a story designed to appeal to various aspects of the way we process the world around us.Certainly, but you will be behaving rashly if you do.
I'll take my chances. Unless you want to explain why your explanation is any better than any of the other thousand or so explanations for all the other religions?
Let me guess, they are all deluded and following Satan. Christians alone know they are following the true religion.
You seem to be confused about the nature of science and spiritual reality. Science can only speak about material things, based on physical observation and testing. Science can test scientific claims; it can even test a person's observation and memory ability. But it cannot test whether anyone's claim to a spiritual experience is true or false.
Correct. Which means neither can you. Because if you could so could science, since science is just people.
You can continue to believe the explanation put forth by what ever religion happens to be dominate in the region you were born in, but that is not the same thing.
You don't hold these personal assessments up to the same standard because you really really want them to be true. Science doesn't have the luxury, it is trying to find out what actually is true, not what the individual scientists hope is true.
The fact that you happily use unsupportable personal assessment to accept things about the world yet rail at science for the way it opperates just speaks to the hypocracy at the heart of Creationism.When you say such claims are unsupported, and by inference not worth considering as possibly true, you go beyond scientific capability. You are then making assessments based on your atheistic bias, not science.
Have you ever wondered why you are able to do this but science can't?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I happen to have Computer Science qualifications ... so that's another invalid conclusion by your good self!!!
... and the thing with good programming is to build in sufficient redundancy that the programme neither crashes nor becomes unstable when processing data extremes!!!
If I were to randomly mention some sort of discipline, area of academia or interest and then introduce it to this thread as debate I get the feeling that you will claim some sort of qualification in the mentioned area.... 0 -
-
-
... I only claim qualifications that I possess ... and my writings on each subject that I claim to be qualified in proves that I am!!!Ghost Buster wrote: »If I were to randomly mention some sort of discipline, area of academia or interest and then introduce it to this thread as debate I get the feeling that you will claim some sort of qualification in the mentioned area....0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ghost Buster wrote: »If I were to randomly mention some sort of discipline, area of academia or interest and then introduce it to this thread as debate I get the feeling that you will claim some sort of qualification in the mentioned area....
Welcome. I see you've started to find your way around. :pac:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »So when Bill Gates says something like that in response to what he has learned about DNA in biology he is just speaking out of school?
Well if you didn't just accept the quote mine then you'd see that's exactly where he was speaking out of.
Chapter 9 of his book - The Road AheadWe have all had teachers who made a difference. I had a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs - just hacking them to pieces, actually - and our teacher didn't explain why. My chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found biology totally boring.
He's talking about his experiences in high school and his experiences in education as a whole. He later read one book about biology and then made this statement.BG is the founder of the Microsoft corporation one of the most successful companies ever, so he knows a thing or two about computer code.
Yeah and Mark Zuckerberg made Facebook. Doesn't mean he's a 'great' programmer.
If you want an authority on software you need to look at people who create new technology. Not people that were business opportunists/innovators.His qualifications in Biology don't have to add up to much in order for him to make this observation.
So because he's an authority on computer technology / Software (I refuse to say he's an authority on computer science) he's now an authority on Biology as well ? Come on now, you don't believe that anymore than I do.Wicknight has no qualifications in Biology either and yet his statement(s) that DNA has is nothing like computer code goes unchallenged by you. Why is that?
Because he's correct. Because while I'm not technically a programmer and neither am I a biologist I have a lot of interest in both fields. Because of this interest I read a lot of material on the subject and can see that they are very different indeed. I can read the views of actual experts in both fields, that of biology and computer science. DNA and computer code could be called superficially similar yes but go into any depth and they are completely different.Yes but somebody originally modeled the algorithms? Algorithms are rules or sets of instructions for solving certainty types of problems. At some point somebody originally created them, and created them for a purpose.
Of course.Computer screens. Monitors etc. What you see on your monitor that looks like the letter 'A' is a computer hardware simulation of [SIZE=-1]01000001. You type A on your keyboard, the computer understands this as [SIZE=-1]01000001, but transmits it to the screen as A so that you can understand it. This all takes place in a virtual two dimensional space. Normal jigsaws are two dimensional, however the new globe shaped jigsaw are three dimensional. Protein formation is three dimensional[/SIZE][/SIZE]
The screen is a two dimensional display for human readability.
Computers, like math, model many numbers of dimensions. The display device has nothing to do with it except for how we perceive it.Chemistry is only like computer code if you align certain chemicals in a particular sequence.
Biology = Advanced Chemistry.
Maybe you haven't met my friend, Mr DNA.
Chemical structure of DNA. Hydrogen bonds shown as dotted lines.
How did it get there? How did the blueprint for life get hard coded in the sequences of nucleotide bases in the first place?
Getting off topic aren't we ?
Did you ever manage to read about the proposed hypothesis' for Abiogenesis ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThis question is at the crux of this whole debate. If it cannot be shown how those instructions could have some how come about by natural means (and that hasn't been shown) then there is just one option left to consider, i.e. it was designed that way by a designer.
How do you make that jump ? Isn't it possible that 'shock horror' we simply don't know yet ?
And again, have you read about Abiogenesis yet ? Because I don't think you have.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement