Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

reply to post by Barcs

let's stick with this topic form a moment so that I can clarify it further for/to you because you seem to be confused.

God is OMNISCIENT = He knows EVERYTHING. There is no "if I knew" with god. You either know everything or you do not. There is no in between. If god doesn't know absolutely everything, then he is not omniscient! It's not that complicated of a concept. According to the bible, based on God's actions, he is certainly not omniscient. You just proved my point.

Like I said - don't forget FREE WILL - as in Free Moral Agent.

Although God IS "OMNISCIENT = He knows EVERYTHING" it doesn't mean that he has no choice. And again like I said, the scriptures shows us that God is a FREE MORAL AGENT having the ability to chose.

But if you purposely are denying this one very important aspect of him, then that explains your incorrect and nonsensical understanding of God.

Consider the implication of what you're saying if Jehovah God is OMNISCIENT but not Free.

It means that from the beginning of time - God knew everything that would happen - past, present and future. This means that before evil existed in the universe he already knew what would happen.

This means that if the Creator of mankind had no freedom of choice to use his his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26)

In other words what you're saying is - we're all predestined. You Barcs was predestined to believe in evolution while I'm predestined to believe in Creation. All murderers, lairs, cheerers, all wicked men were predestined to be the way they are because God knew already what they are/were going to do.

And because of this INABILITY to chose to know or not to know the future as you imply he was aware of all the badness before it happens.

Thus all of the badness done from time immemorial can be blamed to God.

Am I right so far?

If this is the case then explain to me please what Mr.XYZ failed to explain.

That is:

Please explain to me if God is capable of badness, why did Jesus said the following:

“And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.” (Mark 10:17, 18)

If Jesus is the epitome of goodness why did he say that "Nobody is good, except one, God"?

Why did Jesus gave the glory to his father and God if you say that God is bad?

Furthermore -

“Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.” (John 7:16, 17)

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." - (Jhn 6:37 KJV)

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." - (Jhn 6:38 KJV)

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." - (Jhn 6:39 KJV)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." - (Jhn 6:44 KJV)

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:" - (Jhn 17:1 KJV)

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - (Jhn 17:3 KJV)

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." - (Jhn 17:5 KJV)

"O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me." - (Jhn 17:25 KJV)

If you really know your Bible you should be able to answer my simple questions, namely:

Why did Jesus gave the glory to his father and God if you say that God is wicked?

Why did Jesus say "Nobody is good, except one, God" if you say that God is wicked?

And why did he say "O righteous Father if you say that God is wicked?

Who is correct here? You or Jesus Christ?

Do you know God better than Jesus?

Originally posted by vasaga
@malicaha: All I see from certain people is circularity... The matter in the video has not been settled at all, although they all pretend it's the same so they can keep using the same baseless assertions over and over, which is why I left the discussion. It's like trying to explain to water how to be dry.

edit on 5-2-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

vasaga - I very much respect your pov and your opinions but why do you say "The matter in the video has not been settled at all"?

In other words, are you saying that chance events can create a highly organized information such the DNA code?

And that there's no possibility at all that an Intelligent Entity was responsible for such programing?

Or are both concept possible? If so which one in your pov holds more merit?

That is, which one is the most logical answer as to where the information in the DNA molecule came from?

Why?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by vasaga
@malicaha: All I see from certain people is circularity... The matter in the video has not been settled at all, although they all pretend it's the same so they can keep using the same baseless assertions over and over, which is why I left the discussion. It's like trying to explain to water how to be dry.

edit on 5-2-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

vasaga - I very much respect your pov and your opinions but why do you say "The matter in the video has not been settled at all"?

In other words, are you saying that chance events can create a highly organized information such the DNA code?

And that there's no possibility at all that an Intelligent Entity was responsible for such programing?

Or are both concept possible? If so which one in your pov holds more merit?

That is, which one is the most logical answer as to where the information in the DNA molecule came from?

Why?

I was saying that because Barcs said "^The video is a pile of subjectivity and it's been clearly demonstrated in this thread. We've gone past the silly video. " He's pretending that all of them already 'debunked' the video while that's far from true. I was saying that to malicaha so he/she doesn't unfairly believe that the video was already irrelevant like all those sheeple in here are pretending.

Chance events can not create DNA code.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Like I said - don't forget FREE WILL - as in Free Moral Agent.

Although God IS "OMNISCIENT = He knows EVERYTHING" it doesn't mean that he has no choice. And again like I said, the scriptures shows us that God is a FREE MORAL AGENT having the ability to chose.

But if you purposely are denying this one very important aspect of him, then that explains your incorrect and nonsensical understanding of God.

Consider the implication of what you're saying if Jehovah God is OMNISCIENT but not Free.

It means that from the beginning of time - God knew everything that would happen - past, present and future. This means that before evil existed in the universe he already knew what would happen.

Obviously god is free to make whatever decisions he wants, but that doesn't take away from the fact that god knows everything. There is no choice involved in the knowledge as he knows EVERYTHING. You are claiming he purposely chose not to know something. Guess what that means. He's NOT omniscient. You cannot argue that nomatter how many times you try to talk around it.

Please explain to me if God is capable of badness, why did Jesus said the following:

What Jesus allegedly said about god has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. God murdered more people than anybody else in the bible, more than Satan. You can't deny this. God encouraged and condoned slavery, inferiority of women, brutal punishments, sacrifice and worship, stoning to death people who commit adultery, ordered the pillaging of cities, etc etc etc. The list goes on. There is absolutely no justification for any of that for an all knowing, all powerful, loving god. That's exactly why you can't take that stuff literally. Some of it ridiculous.

Originally posted by vasaga
I was saying that because Barcs said "^The video is a pile of subjectivity and it's been clearly demonstrated in this thread. We've gone past the silly video. " He's pretending that all of them already 'debunked' the video while that's far from true. I was saying that to malicaha so he/she doesn't unfairly believe that the video was already irrelevant like all those sheeple in here are pretending.

Chance events can not create DNA code.

There is nothing scientific in that video. We've already been over this. There is no objective evidence of the process of creation, or a creator. NONE. I guess you didn't read the thread. Your opinion on how certain things could have arisen naturally or DNA complexity is just an opinion filling in the gap of what science doesn't yet know. It is not objective evidence of a creator or creation event. You are quick to drop posts like the one above and then ignore every argument that counters it and pretend as if it hasn't been thoroughly debunked. If you've got science to present, then present it, if not my argument stands. Let the scientists do their job, I'm sure they'll eventually figure it out and solve exactly how RNA evolved into DNA. You guys oversimplify it and claim the "code" that is in DNA today, is exactly the same as it was 2 billion years ago. Where is the justification in that? Obviously, DNA like everything else evolved slowly over time. It didn't just poof into existence as it is today.

reply to post by Barcs

Obviously god is free to make whatever decisions he wants,

Okay but - --

but that doesn't take away from the fact that god knows everything.

Okay but ---

There is no choice involved in the knowledge as he knows EVERYTHING.

Now that's where you're mistaken again!!

Here let me help you. Let's reason this one out:

You said that:

There is no choice involved in the knowledge as he knows EVERYTHING.

But in the same vain you also said that:

Obviously god is free to make whatever decisions he wants,

So you admit that God is a free moral agent - having the freedom to choose, correct?

If so, then does he have the FREEDOM to choose whatever he wants to KNOW?

I say yes based on what you said - that is: "Obviously god is free to make whatever decisions he wants,".

In that case does he have a choice whether to know or not what Adam and Eve were going to do in the future?

I say yes based on what you said - that is: "Obviously god is free to make whatever decisions he wants,".

If so, is it possible then that he choose NOT to know what Adam and Eve will do when he gave them the command "Not to eat from the fruit of the tree that's in the middle of the garden"?

I say yes based on this simple command - "Not to eat..". because if God knew already why the command?

I might also add - it's the same case in Noah's day - God needed to find out what's the heart of man before the flood.

Here it is again what God said:

“. . .Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.” (Genesis 6:5)

It's also the same with you and I - we determine our destiny not like what others incorrectly say - that God had already pre-ordained / determined our destiny.

If we obey God's laws and commands - good for us. Disobey suffer the consequences of your own doing as God already KNOW what will happen when we disobey.

God knew what will happen if Adam and Eve will disobey so a warning was also given to them. But the choice was still theirs. And God allowed them that freedom just like as he allowed himself the freedom not to foreknow what his children will do.


I hope this will clear it up if not oh well.

Edit:

What Jesus allegedly said about god has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

In other words you don't know the answer to my question - you don't know the reason why Jesus called his Father and God "O righteous Father" and said that "Nobody is good, except one, God".

I wish you did because many of the things you said below will be cleared up.

God murdered more people than anybody else in the bible, more than Satan. You can't deny this. God encouraged and condoned slavery, inferiority of women, brutal punishments, sacrifice and worship, stoning to death people who commit adultery, ordered the pillaging of cities, etc etc etc. The list goes on. There is absolutely no justification for any of that for an all knowing, all powerful, loving god. That's exactly why you can't take that stuff literally. Some of it ridiculous.

But if you still insist that "God encouraged and condoned slavery, inferiority of women, ...blah, blah" would you say that Jesus didn't know his Father that well but you know more than him? How is that possible?

You - so wiser than Jesus the son of God who was in the beginning with God.

Are you that wise Barcs?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
I was saying that because Barcs said "^The video is a pile of subjectivity and it's been clearly demonstrated in this thread. We've gone past the silly video. " He's pretending that all of them already 'debunked' the video while that's far from true. I was saying that to malicaha so he/she doesn't unfairly believe that the video was already irrelevant like all those sheeple in here are pretending.

Chance events can not create DNA code.

There is nothing scientific in that video. We've already been over this. There is no objective evidence of the process of creation, or a creator. NONE. I guess you didn't read the thread. Your opinion on how certain things could have arisen naturally or DNA complexity is just an opinion filling in the gap of what science doesn't yet know. It is not objective evidence of a creator or creation event. You are quick to drop posts like the one above and then ignore every argument that counters it and pretend as if it hasn't been thoroughly debunked. If you've got science to present, then present it, if not my argument stands. Let the scientists do their job, I'm sure they'll eventually figure it out and solve exactly how RNA evolved into DNA. You guys oversimplify it and claim the "code" that is in DNA today, is exactly the same as it was 2 billion years ago. Where is the justification in that? Obviously, DNA like everything else evolved slowly over time. It didn't just poof into existence as it is today.

edit on 6-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

See what I mean.. The whole documentary is based on information science and biological science. The premises of evolution violate the rules of information science, whether you like it or not. All your rambling is useless when you're putting things in boxes they don't belong.

The problem with the whole religion thing, is that man was created in god's image, therefore we are better, or we see ourselves better than any other being in the universe that doesn't look like us. How does this make sense? God creates the whole universe, and we are the divine beings, better than all the rest??? Or do other intelligent beings not exist, and life only exists on planet earth??

Originally posted by vasaga
See what I mean.. The whole documentary is based on information science and biological science. The premises of evolution violate the rules of information science, whether you like it or not. All your rambling is useless when you're putting things in boxes they don't belong.

The conclusions are not based on science. If you are claiming they are, please provide the evidence. Simple request. The video does not show anything other than some guy speculating about the complexity of DNA. Please provide objective evidence of a creator or creation process. If you can't, there is no science behind ID (as we already know). I don't know why I have to keep asking you to back your claims up, I'm not interested in banter, I'm interested in science. What the video does is speculate on how certain things could have arisen naturally. AKA filling in the gaps of scientific knowledge with a guess.

Originally posted by Barcs


There is nothing scientific in that video.

Actually, that's exactly what the video is... science.

The video explains what science has learned about the cell, how it functions, the various processes, how one part interacts with other parts, etc. This video is an excellent primer on microbiology and information science.

A viewer of the video will learn that proteins are linear chains of amino acids, and that every protein is chemically defined by the unique sequence of amino acids. Like letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form different words, different sequences of amino acids are linked together to form a vast variety of proteins... and much more about cellular microbiology.

Here are some short clips from OP's video and they are full of scientific information:

Proteins: www.youtube.com... (2:19)
Protein Synthesis: www.youtube.com... (2:51)
Biological Computers: www.youtube.com... (4:05)
Cells: www.youtube.com... (3:47)
DNA: www.youtube.com... (8:48)

In conformity with the 'Scientific Method' en.wikipedia.org... , inferences and deductions are made from this scientific data. The dispute, as I see it, is that you do not agree with the conclusions of the OP and others. That's certainly your right to draw whatever conclusions you wish from the data. But, to complain there is no science in the video is simply disingenious.

reply to post by Cataclysm


Disguising a speculative claim amongst scientific facts doesn't make the claim any more accurate. The only argument that they have is that certain things are too complex to arise naturally, which is a guess, filling in the blanks for what science doesn't know. Again, objective evidence that indicates the process of creator or a creator is all you need to start a theory. Unfortunately guessing about what science does not yet fully understand, does not count as objective evidence just because you talk about how amazing the cell is.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Cataclysm

 

Disguising a speculative claim amongst scientific facts doesn't make the claim any more accurate. The only argument that they have is that certain things are too complex to arise naturally, which is a guess, filling in the blanks for what science doesn't know. Again, objective evidence that indicates the process of creator or a creator is all you need to start a theory. Unfortunately guessing about what science does not yet fully understand, does not count as objective evidence just because you talk about how amazing the cell is.

[emphasis added]

First, from your use of "speculation' and "guess", it is apparent that a better understanding of the 'Scientific Method', inductive & deductive reasoning is required. In addition to the link in my last post, consider these:
www.criticalthinking.com...
www.cod.edu...
www.hartnell.edu...

Second, the argument by the OP and others (at least, in this thread) is NOT that DNA is "too complex", as you assert. Their argument is, that:

1. science has given us an understanding of the structures, functions and processes in the cell (DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, etc.);

2. DNA functions as a code, similar to computer software, containing information that is transferred and acted upon by other cellular structures;

From #1 & 2, accepted scientific reasoning is applied:

3. There are no information codes (other than in DNA) produced, in nature, by natural selection:

4. The DNA information code was not produced in nature, by natural selection:

5. All "information" is generated by intelligence, and

6. The DNA code was generated by intelligence.

At this point, the creationist, on the one hand, and the intelligent design/agnostic, on the other, differ as to the source of the intelligence.

The naturalist/Darwinist/neo-Darwinist reaches an altogether different conclusion from #1 &2 (above): that is, the DNA information code came about by chance, through undirected, random mutations... which I think requires a great deal more faith than the ID/creatiionists conclusions.

Originally posted by Cataclysm
1. science has given us an understanding of the structures, functions and processes in the cell (DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, etc.);

Ok fair enough.

2. DNA functions as a code, similar to computer software, containing information that is transferred and acted upon by other cellular structures;

This is where science starts to go out the window. It DOES NOT function like computer software. Not even close. Link me to 1 peer reviewed science paper that claims this. DNA uses pairs of atoms to pass on or replicate genetic functions. You cannot provide me with any evidence that suggests it is like a computer language. In fact, the EMC2 guy even posted what is known as the genetic code (even though it just describes types of atoms that are paired) and it looks absolutely nothing like an organized computer program as shown when he posted the ATS source code.

3. There are no information codes (other than in DNA) produced, in nature, by natural selection:

Prove this. Or are you just referring to lack of scientific knowledge again?

How about this:

There are no information codes produced by an external intelligent force or creator. That statement is just as accurate.

4. The DNA information code was not produced in nature, by natural selection:

Duh, natural selection didn't create DNA, because the DNA has to already exist in order for it to happen. Clearly you don't really have a decent understanding about how natural selection works or any other mechanisms of evolution.

5. All "information" is generated by intelligence, and

6. The DNA code was generated by intelligence.

This is the exact same argument that everyone is claiming in this thread. You can't prove all "information" is generated by intelligence, OR THAT DNA code is the same as all "information". You have no evidence of any intelligent force ever existing, so how can you assume that anything was ever created by them?

At this point, the creationist, on the one hand, and the intelligent design/agnostic, on the other, differ as to the source of the intelligence.

Do you realize what you are saying? Source of intelligence? Science does not know exactly how DNA came about. That doesn't mean it was automatically ID. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you guys, but every time I do, it is ignored and then the same played out poor leaps in logic like the 6 steps above are repeated.

The naturalist/Darwinist/neo-Darwinist reaches an altogether different conclusion from #1 &2 (above): that is, the DNA information code came about by chance, through undirected, random mutations... which I think requires a great deal more faith than the ID/creatiionists conclusions.

Wrong again. Evolution (not darwinism lol) is backed by tons of facts, and IS NOT responsible for the creation of DNA. Evolution is about how mutations in DNA lead to changes in organisms that shows the diversity of life on earth. How can you possibly try to discount evolution without even knowing the fundamentals of the theory? Pick up a science book. If you want to try to discount abiogenesis, then go for it, but evolution is a fact of life, I'm sorry if that hurts your worldview, but it's the only theory with objective evidence behind it. Please provide me the genetic code and show me how it works like a computer program, or how it is even organized in the first place. This is why the conclusion is NOT scientific. It is your guess, based loosely and poorly on the parts that science doesn't fully know. If you want to try to debunk evolution or science, then you need to first study it. All I see above is ignorance about science and evolution and assumptions that genetic "code" is anything more than pairs of various atoms. Again, if that's your faith I have no problem with it, just stop calling it scientific because you put a couple scientific facts amongst your ridiculous conclusions.

woops, double post, sorry.

Originally posted by Barcs
woops, double post, sorry.

edit on 8-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

just curious Barcs - got tired of your "philosophical" argument so back to science again?

But I thought you said:

I'm just dealing with the philosophy right now, because the science has been done to death and we already know who the science is in favor of.

Does this mean then that you have no clear and logical answers to my simple Qs?

If so then good luck to your "scientific" argument because most of it doesn't make sense as confirmed by many smart posters here like vasaga and Cataclysm.

And judging from your replies you're just going in circles in your arguments - no wonder you're getting tired.

good luck.

Originally posted by edmc^2

just curious Barcs - got tired of your "philosophical" argument so back to science again?

Honestly, I'm just having fun killing time in between jobs. The philosophy started going in circles, then Cataclysm posted the same non scientific stuff that you have been talking about and claimed it was science. I had to set the record straight.

Does this mean then that you have no clear and logical answers to my simple Qs?

I don't remember seeing anything that hasn't been already answered or repeated. I'll check again to see your simple questions.

If so then good luck to your "scientific" argument because most of it doesn't make sense as confirmed by many smart posters here like vasaga and Cataclysm.

And judging from your replies you're just going in circles in your arguments - no wonder you're getting tired.

good luck.

I just do this because it's fun and people might learn something. The science behind evolution is strong. The science behind ID is nonexistent as I've clearly demonstrated the faulty logic that all 3 of you are using.

reply to post by Barcs

Honestly, I'm just having fun killing time in between jobs.

I applaud you for your hard work - in between jobs.



Hopefully you have enuff time to devote to your family. If you're on your own - more power to you.

I applaud you for your hard work - in between jobs.

I appreciate it, although I didn't mean I'm actually in between jobs. I meant that I am at work now, waiting for more work to come in, so while I have down time I post on here. Sorry if I worded that confusingly.

Originally posted by edmc^2
So you admit that God is a free moral agent - having the freedom to choose, correct?

According to YOUR beliefs.

If so, then does he have the FREEDOM to choose whatever he wants to KNOW?

Nope, because it is not possible to chose not to know something. You need to first know what it is that you are ignoring. I just looked up the score of the last Knicks game. I now know it. How do I choose not to know who won when the knowledge is already there. I might forget it someday, but the knowledge can't just be pretended to not exist, because it DOES. OMNISCIENCE = knowing everything. Choosing not to know something = not knowing everything. I'm not repeating this again, because you choose to ignore it or not comprehend it. God is not omniscient. End of story.

In other words you don't know the answer to my question - you don't know the reason why Jesus called his Father and God "O righteous Father" and said that "Nobody is good, except one, God".

Nope. In other words, it is irrelevant to the argument unless you pretend god's actions in the old testament did not happen.

But if you still insist that "God encouraged and condoned slavery, inferiority of women, ...blah, blah" would you say that Jesus didn't know his Father that well but you know more than him? How is that possible?

That's the point. It's a giant contradiction of the bible. God is a tyrant in the old testament and rules with an iron fist. Then later on Jesus comes around and says that many of those things are not want god wants. This indicates that either the god of the OT was a different god, or that he is completely inconsistent in his behavior (or that Jesus lied/wasn't his son). You can't really have it both ways.

Theres an excerpt where the bibles says something like, man was created in His image, which means man was created in the image of god. So its good to know that we have a accurate and truthful religion, because man is really the most intelligent, best thing in the universe. Unless we come across E.T.'s in which case would eradicate it completely. Thats the problem with religion, it claims to have figured everything out, and it clearly hasn't.

Hubert P. Yockey, PhD, is a Darwinist and has worked as a physicist and information theroist. He worked on the Mahattan Project and was affiliated with UC Berkley. en.wikipedia.org...

Yockey concludes the the origin of life is unknowable.

In his book, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life books.google.com... -ELMfG4hjI#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20life%20DNA%20coded%20information&f=false: he observes:

The genetical informational system, because it is segregated, linear and digital, resembles the algorithmic language by which a computer completes it logical operation.

page 3

It may seem strange that the numerous biological compounds in all living things, from ameoba to man, are constructed from the same 20 (or 21) amino acids. The twenty-six letters of the English alphabet are enough to form all the plays of Shakespeare. The eighty-eight keys of the piano are enough for the piano concertos of Beethoven.

page 5

Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory and are not synonyms, methaphors or analogies.

page 6

Those readers of this book who are computer oriented will easily understand that the chemistry of life is controlled by digital sequences recorded in DNA.... Life is guided by information and inorganic processes are not.

page 8

...[L]ife is more than complicated chemistry...; the digital information in DNA sequences is sent to the digital information in the proteome by means of a code.

page 10

In computer technology, the information in the binary source alphabet is called a bit; these extensions are called byte. In molecular biology, these extensions are called codons. Accordingly, because of the structure of DNA and mRNA, the natural choice for the source genetic alphabet is four letters that correspond to the four nucleotides typical of DNA or mRNA.

page 15

Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” is the paper that made the digital world we live in possible. Scientific American called it “The Magna Carta of the Information Age.” This is a good summary of Shannon's paper: www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

Did you every notice that this troll, Barcs, never cites any authority? Check out his posts in this thread and others. What he does is bellow, "you're wrong", demand sources from you but never cites any himself.
Who has more credibility on these scientific issues, PhDs or a computer repairman? Let us see some authority for your pronouncements.