Spirituality
04 May 13
05 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseReal scientist, who agree with biogenesis, don't believe in evil-lution either.
It's amazing just how little you know of real science. Why do you think biogenesis is a "LAW"? Real scientists say no such thing. If a real god comes down and picks up a rock and turns that rock into a baby kitten, you might have an argument but since that never happened you have nothing but words written down thousands of years ago with no inspiration from any god, just creative writers wanting to start a political movement.
05 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357A computer program or anything that acts like a computer program has never been observed to come about without an intelligent source for the information code. So the logical conclusion is that the DNA information code must have originally come from an intelligent source and that is called intelligent design today. Don't forget that true scientific knowledge is based on what can be observed and not just imagination.
Your question is exactly what I had in mind. Is "program" the best metaphor for the arrangement of molecules on a messenger RNA strand that determines the composition of a protein assembled by mitochondria? How far does the metaphor say we must go? If we use that metaphor, does a program imply a programmer? It does, when there are observable human programmers, ...[text shortened]... rogrammer? I thing the obligation to accept all the implications of a metaphor is unjustified.
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsA god has never been observed to come about without being invented by man. The logical conclusion is that every god, even the biblical one, is an invention of man.
A computer program or anything that acts like a computer program has never been observed to come about without an intelligent source for the information code. So the logical conclusion is that the DNA information code must have originally come from an intelligent source and that is called intelligent design today. Don't forget that true scientific knowledge is based on what can be observed and not just imagination.
05 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerYou seem to forget about God's appearance to Moses in the form of the angel of the Lord, the one JWs call Jehovah. He also appeared in the form of an angel to Abraham before that and he walked and talked with Adam in the garden of Eden before that. Then finally He became flesh in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, who appeared to many after that. He left an image of Himself from His resurrection on His burial cloth, known today as the Shroud of Turin, so that all can observe it even to this day. So you are without excuse.
A god has never been observed to come about without being invented by man. The logical conclusion is that every god, even the biblical one, is an invention of man.
The Instructor
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsGot anything in the way of real evidence? No? Nothing new there then.
You seem to forget about God's appearance to Moses in the form of the angel of the Lord, the one JWs call Jehovah. He also appeared in the form of an angel to Abraham before that and he walked and talked with Adam in the garden of Eden before that. Then finally He became flesh in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, who appeared to many after that. He left an i ...[text shortened]... rin, so that all can observe it even to this day. So you are without excuse.
The Instructor
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat is your take on the fact that certain plants have more genes than humans,given intelligent design?
A computer program or anything that acts like a computer program has never been observed to come about without an intelligent source for the information code. So the logical conclusion is that the DNA information code must have originally come from an intelligent source and that is called intelligent design today. Don't forget that true scientific knowledge is based on what can be observed and not just imagination.
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo plants would be a more complex organism than a human then? I say this because as you point out,god needs more genes? (You realise of course that genes are comprised of the same materials and it is sequencing that defines their individuality.)
God apparently needed those genes to make those plants. Don't forget that God made many plants to be food for a lot of different kinds of animals.
05 May 13
Originally posted by OdBodNo. It is not just the number of genes that make a living thing more complex. Although I am not an expert on the subject, it seems obvious that complexity is determined by gene content and number, number and type of cells, morphology, and physiology at a minimum.
So plants would be a more complex organism than a human then? I say this because as you point out,god needs more genes? (You realise of course that genes are comprised of the same materials and it is sequencing that defines their individuality.)
The Instructor
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe organism is defined by it's genetic structure . Simple question RJ,why would god need more genes to make a plant than a human?
No. It is not just the number of genes that make a living thing more complex. Although I am not an expert on the subject, it seems obvious that complexity is determined by gene content and number, number and type of cells, morphology, and physiology at a minimum.
The Instructor
05 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodLike i said, I do not know all the answers. But my educated guess is that God made the plants before the animals in order to provide all that the animals needed to maintain a healthful and happy life. There was a tree of life in the Garden of Eden that if man eat it, he would be able to live forever. That plant became forbidden to man after the sin.
The organism is defined by it's genetic structure . Simple question RJ,why would god need more genes to make a plant than a human?
I remember reading about one plant that can only be pollinated by a special bee and that bee will not pollinate any other plant. I don't know if it is true or not, but apparently, if the plants are not pollinated, they will die out and all animals need plants for food or to provide food for the animals that are used as food for other animals. Therefore, since God made so many different animals, he needed to provide plants with genes that could fulfill all the needs of the animals.
But of course it is God's choice as to how he wanted to do this and certainly He must know better than any of His creatures, including man.
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI think you are trying to side step the problem. If you truly are interested in resolving this issue you might look into "gene switches" , environment ,and yes the dreaded evolution.But of course you won't ,because it might lead you to some inconvenient conclusions .It seems you have to ignore so much knowledge in order to sustain your faith, it devalues that faith and deprives you of intellectual growth.
Like i said, I do not know all the answers. But my educated guess is that God made the plants before the animals in order to provide all that the animals needed to maintain a healthful and happy life. There was a tree of life in the Garden of Eden that if man eat it, he would be able to live forever. That plant became forbidden to man after the sin.
I ...[text shortened]... wanted to do this and certainly He must know better than any of His creatures, including man.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsStating it as a logical argument:
A computer program or anything that acts like a computer program has never been observed to come about without an intelligent source for the information code. So the logical conclusion is that the DNA information code must have originally come from an intelligent source and that is called intelligent design today. Don't forget that true scientific knowledge is based on what can be observed and not just imagination.
Computer programs imply that computer programmers exist,
DNA information is like a computer program,
Therefore DNA information implies something like a computer programmer exists,
...doesn't work unless you prove DNA information IS like a computer program in one particular way: that it implies that something like a computer programmer exists. Which means you are begging the question.
06 May 13
1 edit
No argument there. I work in an industry were the way something is worded can cause problems but things are said or stated a certain way which to somebody else outside of the industry would not make sense or what have you. It is amazing though that the DNA-RNA just does what it does automatically....aka like computer code. I would say computer code in not conscious either.
PS: sorry this was in answer to JS357
Manny