God's Finger Print:The Semiotic Dimension of DNA

sk0rpi0n

AfterInfinity..

There ya go. Some transitional fossils

''some''??? I asked to see ALL of them. Whats that? You can't produce them? In that case, those supposed ''transitional forms'' never existed. No evidence = they never existed. Once again, please present the fossils of every single SUPPOSED transitional specimen in the so called evolutionary gradient. If you can't do so then stop asking theists direct evidence for God.

edit on 9-3-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Why do you need to see all of them? Surely if you see a puddle, you know there's a lake somewhere? One might liken your leaps in logic to a game of Frogger. Boymonkey was kind enough to show us some transitional fossils, so why don't you cough up some evidence that you know exactly who and what wrote our DNA?

Akragon
Have you seen the real Mount Sinai video?
It seems to fit the biblical description perfectly...
That seems to be evidence of the exodus... Or at least Moses...

I could describe Mt. Shasta and I've never been there. Others have and they've passed on their descriptions. Same with Mt. Sinai. Just because someone can describe the mountain doesn't mean that the Exodus story is accurate. In fact, most of the evidence points to the fact that it didn't happen anything like the Bible Story. Moses may have existed ... or may not have ... but it is impossible for millions of Hebrews to have left Egypt and lived in the desert for 40 years. There is no evidence of this happening. Not a single human bone; not a single animal bone; not a shard of pottery; no evidence of any disruption to the Egyptian military machine that was supposedly wiped out in the Red Sea .... nothing.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


So no evidence of God = doesn't exist? by your thought pattern anyhow lol.

Do you want genetic evidence we share a common ancestor with chimps? because it proves it.
Really stupid to demand all of the evidence knowing full well that it is imposable but even with the stuff we have found it proves evolution.
But please keep on being ignorant eh?.

AfterInfinitye....

Why do you need to see all of them? Surely if you see a puddle, you know there's a lake somewhere?

I need to see all of them by YOUR own standards. No evidence of transitional fossils=it didn't happen. I need evidence to believe...or evolution joins the ranks of unicorns and leperchauns. Period.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


But there are tons of transitional fossils which = evidence.
Why oh why are you continuing to be so ignorant...my guess is your religion because religion breeds ignorance.

FlyersFan

Akragon
Have you seen the real Mount Sinai video?
It seems to fit the biblical description perfectly...
That seems to be evidence of the exodus... Or at least Moses...

I could describe Mt. Shasta and I've never been there. Others have and they've passed on their descriptions. Same with Mt. Sinai. Just because someone can describe the mountain doesn't mean that the Exodus story is accurate. In fact, most of the evidence points to the fact that it didn't happen anything like the Bible Story. Moses may have existed ... or may not have ... but it is impossible for millions of Hebrews to have left Egypt and lived in the desert for 40 years. There is no evidence of this happening. Not a single human bone; not a single animal bone; not a shard of pottery; no evidence of any disruption to the Egyptian military machine that was supposedly wiped out in the Red Sea .... nothing.

Well again I agree with you... but this spot is pretty compelling, the blackened mountain top, evidence of Bull worship... theres is clear evidence of an alter at the base of the mountain, theres even a cave looking over the valley... and the rock that moses supposedly split and ater came out of it, theres water erosion at the base of the crack...

Im not saying it proof of the exodus, but this area fits the description perfectly... and the authorities have it fenced off, which makes me believe it even more...

I don't believe the story of the exodus either, but something happened at that spot that was so similar to the description given its almost creepy

reply to post by boymonkey74


Oh and watch this and try and refute any of the claims in the video....oh please try.



My guess is you will not watch the video because you will never change your mind...far to gone and brainwashed.
Oh this is a reply to scorpion.

@boymonkey74......''Really stupid to demand all of the evidence '' so...we are not supposed to ask for evidence??? so why do you ask for evidence of God?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You are demanding all of the fossils but I have explained we have enough but seeing we can prove it with genetics it doesn't matter really.
So watch the video above and try and refute it please.
Oh and I believe in God not a man made one though.

reply to post by Akragon


Not to preach to the choir (Akragon already knows this stuff well) but I'll post for the sake of the others -

Sure ... someone may have been there. That's why the Exodus story is considered folklore and not total myth. Folklore (as you know) is something that has a tiny bit of basis in truth with a whole lotta embellishments added in. It's possible there was a fella named Moses who was royal and well educated ... and it's possible he left Egypt with a few hundred or a few thousand Hebrew workers ... and it's possible that they camped out for a while on Mt. Sinai. But it's impossible for there to have been millions of former Hebrew slaves leaving Egypt and it's impossible for the Egyptian Army to have been wiped out in the Red Sea and it's impossible for there to have been millions of Hebrews living in the dessert for 40 years ... and as I've shown elsewhere, it's most probable that Moses 10 Commandments came from a human origin because they had already been around for hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the alleged Exodus story.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I think what he's saying is that it would be more logical to default to agnosticism if you feel there isn't enough evidence to prove either case. And if nothing less than the complete fossil record of every transitional species will satisfy you, then I would hope you hold your religion to the same standard.

sk0rpi0n
@op.... Information can exist as an idea or concept without a physical medium. The information in DNA is NOT the same as the DNA molecule. Its like the difference between an ink splatter and a sentence in english written with the same ink. The sentence indicates the presence of an external intelligence. Similarly, the information encoded in the DNA also points to the original source of the information.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

 

Actually, he would need to prove that it was in fact a god that did it, which requires locating and examining that god, then establishing a basis by which to recognize it as a god. There's an awful lot of assumptions being made right now, even if it turns out semiotic DNA is a product of intelligent design.

I am curious as to when anyone saw me say that I have proved God. I said that I believe this argument makes a theistic world view more logical, because it gives an answer to the question of where the information of DNA came from and Science will never be able to answer that.

Now one might argue that aliens created humans, but if aliens exist within this dimensions, then they to had a beginning. You would then have to check their genetic material, which would most likely have the same semiotic nature within it.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

And in the same vein, lack of evidence for a Being beyond our percievable reality is an even weaker case in favor of atheism.

Its a moot argument. You wanna believe in sky wizards, go for it. Just don't run for office, please. The subject here is semiotics, and my point is that if it really is like a book, then you still haven't proved who wrote it or what they are.

Let me ask you this, Do you believe the problem of evil is a decent argument against or for a creative designer?

FlyersFan
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Deflection.

YOU just said "no evidence = never existed". YOU said that. Therefore, according to YOU, Abraham, and Adam and Eve, and Noah and his ark, and Moses Exodus, and the mountaintop Ten Commandments never existed. Right? Not only is there no evidence to support the Noahs Ark myth, but there is a mountain of evidence AGAINST it. Therefore according to your 'logic', Noahs Ark didn't happen. Right?

I have got about 24000 ancient manuscripts that say otherwise.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Ok well that is a pretty big leap of faith dont you think? How does he know that is from fusion? Has fusion of two chromosomes ever been observed

He also talks about mitochondrial DNA the topic of the post still stands. If you wish to say an atheistic world view is logical, you must give me an answer to where the information in that DNA comes from.

Scientist like to trick a lot of people with a percentage when it comes to DNA of humans and chimpanzees. They like to say we share 98% of our DNA with the great apes, but the numbers do not give an accurate assumption of the information. 2% of DNA is an incredible amount of information. Don't think so? Let me rearrange 2% of your DNA and see what you look like ;P

boymonkey74
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

So you want religious in Government? just your one I suppose.
Religion should be kept away from School, the public and Government..keep the crap in your places of worship please.
Oh and you know we can not give you all the fossils that prove it but at least we have some proof of it (in the list above) and proof in the genetics of us and other animals...God has zero proof but you still ignore the proof we have.
Ignorant.

God has no proof yet I give you two arguments that when taken together give a very logical reason to take the theistic world view : One, which you have yet to reply to is the topic of this post. The other is the problem of Evil. These two taken together show that a Creator is a very logical view of the world.

Why? Semiotics point to a creative mind behind DNA which means a creator of life. Second, when the problem of Evil is raised it is raised about a person or by a person. This implies that persons have intrinsic worth. If there is no creator how do you give intrinsic worth to a product of time plus matter plus chance?

boymonkey74
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

So no evidence of God = doesn't exist? by your thought pattern anyhow lol.

Do you want genetic evidence we share a common ancestor with chimps? because it proves it.
Really stupid to demand all of the evidence knowing full well that it is imposable but even with the stuff we have found it proves evolution.
But please keep on being ignorant eh?.

Also some more food for thought. Why don't you look into how many historians believe there is a large amount of evidence for the Resurrection?

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

And in the same vein, lack of evidence for a Being beyond our percievable reality is an even weaker case in favor of atheism.

Its a moot argument. You wanna believe in sky wizards, go for it. Just don't run for office, please. The subject here is semiotics, and my point is that if it really is like a book, then you still haven't proved who wrote it or what they are.

Let me ask you this, Do you believe the problem of evil is a decent argument against or for a creative designer?

Evil isn't a problem in it self… it's just a matter of relative perspective.

In regard to the original post it's simply a tiny twist on the justification of the existence of god through the teleological argument. I find flaws in it because you can form alternative theories that can account for the perceived design of the universe around us. I believe most of the complex things we know may be as a result of chaos. I think order is a concept of what we perceive to be logically efficient and humans perceiving vast amounts of order in the universe without explanation might jump to conclusion that it must be based on design. My theory against justification of god through teleology is that the perceived abundance of order around us which some attribute to design is just or has come from chaos that happened to work for the given environment. That is to say I think it could be said we see so much order (perceived logical efficiency) in the universe because the universe has been around so damn long and in the grand scheme of things order tends to persist or just generally sticks around longer than chaos (inefficacy) because chaos burns it self out. An example would be a sun vs. a moon. The sun produces its energy through chaos but will one day destroy it self, but a moon left alone with no other influences will continue to be that rock forever because it’s composition is more simple and orderly.

Imagine the world we now know and everything else came from what we think we know as “nothing” then grew from the energy of randomness and chaos. (This wasn't too clear… the "nothing" is actually energy as energy has always existed based off of empirical observation. For some reason it's common for people to think the natural state/pre existing state of what we know to be emptiness… the reasons for which I cannot be sure.)

Picture different sized shapes (blocks, spheres, pyramids, etc. etc.) forming out of what we perceive as “nothing” falling from the sky (the longest and most expansive game of 3d Tetris ever with gravity and physics). For this example lets say when the shapes unsuccessfully stack and or fall to the ground they rot and turn to base components which ends up as dirt. The shapes will randomly fall into neater or messier stacks while some shapes will fail to stack at all and rot automatically due to the nature of how the shapes fit together and how they fall. Some stacks that are less than sturdy may persist through the initial falling but may succumb to other environmental factors. Eventually if anything would be left at all would be the luckiest, sturdiest and most efficient stacks of shapes for the environment through random chance. If someone did not witness the act of the shapes falling they could attribute the stacks and shapes composing the successful stacks to planned design. In the example the shapes are like the base ingredients of what the universe is composed of, the stacks ultimately would be how things randomly fit together into forming things like us, the planets, the stars, etc. Over enough time a lot of the less efficient combinations of ingredients ceased to exist and the combinations we have left at this point is what has been most successful for their given environments.

Strayed

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

And in the same vein, lack of evidence for a Being beyond our percievable reality is an even weaker case in favor of atheism.

Its a moot argument. You wanna believe in sky wizards, go for it. Just don't run for office, please. The subject here is semiotics, and my point is that if it really is like a book, then you still haven't proved who wrote it or what they are.

Let me ask you this, Do you believe the problem of evil is a decent argument against or for a creative designer?

Evil isn't a problem in it self… it's just a matter of relative perspective.

In regard to the original post it's simply a tiny twist on the justification of the existence of god through the teleological argument. I find flaws in it because you can form alternative theories that can account for the perceived design of the universe around us. I believe most of the complex things we know may be as a result of chaos. I think order is a concept of what we perceive to be logically efficient and humans perceiving vast amounts of order in the universe without explanation might jump to conclusion that it must be based on design. My theory against justification of god through teleology is that the perceived abundance of order around us which some attribute to design is just or has come from chaos that happened to work for the given environment. That is to say I think it could be said we see so much order (perceived logical efficiency) in the universe because the universe has been around so damn long and in the grand scheme of things order tends to persist or just generally sticks around longer than chaos (inefficacy) because chaos burns it self out. An example would be a sun vs. a moon. The sun produces its energy through chaos but will one day destroy it self, but a moon left alone with no other influences will continue to be that rock forever because it’s composition is more simple and orderly.

Imagine the world we now know and everything else came from what we think we know as “nothing” then grew from the energy of randomness and chaos. (This wasn't too clear… the "nothing" is actually energy as energy has always existed based off of empirical observation. For some reason it's common for people to think the natural state/pre existing state of what we know to be emptiness… the reasons for which I cannot be sure.)

Picture different sized shapes (blocks, spheres, pyramids, etc. etc.) forming out of what we perceive as “nothing” falling from the sky (the longest and most expansive game of 3d Tetris ever with gravity and physics). For this example lets say when the shapes unsuccessfully stack and or fall to the ground they rot and turn to base components which ends up as dirt. The shapes will randomly fall into neater or messier stacks while some shapes will fail to stack at all and rot automatically due to the nature of how the shapes fit together and how they fall. Some stacks that are less than sturdy may persist through the initial falling but may succumb to other environmental factors. Eventually if anything would be left at all would be the luckiest, sturdiest and most efficient stacks of shapes for the environment through random chance. If someone did not witness the act of the shapes falling they could attribute the stacks and shapes composing the successful stacks to planned design. In the example the shapes are like the base ingredients of what the universe is composed of, the stacks ultimately would be how things randomly fit together into forming things like us, the planets, the stars, etc. Over enough time a lot of the less efficient combinations of ingredients ceased to exist and the combinations we have left at this point is what has been most successful for their given environments.

edit on 9-3-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)

So in your eyes Evil doesn't exist. Its all relative. So if a person wants to murder someone, how do you justify putting them in jail if it was within there moral frame work? Was Hitler just flesh guided by mindless processes? Is the extermination of a race just a fact? Or is it Evil?