Jump to content


Photo

"no Evidence" For God Or Creation, The Atheist Claims?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#21 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 09 June 2011 - 07:13 PM

I work for a company called Trimble  (we build asset-tracking GPS systems for heavy highyway equipment, among other things). Our office there is in the Riccarton suburb. They got hit pretty bad.


Havent heard of the place sorry. But if they were in riccarton then they should be going ok( you'l probably know more than me). The main problem is in the CBD where business owners cant even get in to see their building.


Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!


I almost didnt reply to this because i suspect you know better. As i have said in other posts( im working on my reply on that evolution thread), being atheist doesnt mean you think we came from nothing. The big bang theory proposes the matter was already there, just compressed.


Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster” (or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster” with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.


yes its funny thats the first time i'v actually mentioned the FSM myself.
The point i was making is that Goldliger was asking for proof that a god didn't create the universe etc. I could ask you do you have any proof there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. Would that be fair? Or would it be onto me to provide proof for it?

#22 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:36 AM

Certainly…



Actually, God Himself established His creation. But, having said that; given that Jesus is who He said He is, and has done what He said He did, and the eye witnesses are who they said they were, and saw what they said they did; that alone is enough evidence that God did what He said he did.

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!




Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster” (or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to analogously reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster” with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.




Great reply. The one, true God of the Bible is not an *arbitrary* concept, so there is zero comparison to flippant, arbitrary ideas. And of course, there is VAST *corroborating* evidence in a variety of forms supporting the Biblical God (historical, archaeological, scientific, medical (NDE's), etc., vs. absolutely zero evidence of realistic substance for flying pasta dinners and other such ridiculousness.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 June 2011 - 04:23 AM


Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?


Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.

View Post

Actually, God Himself established His creation. But, having said that; given that Jesus is who He said He is, and has done what He said He did, and the eye witnesses are who they said they were, and saw what they said they did; that alone is enough evidence that God did what He said he did.

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!


I almost didnt reply to this because i suspect you know better. As i have said in other posts( im working on my reply on that evolution thread), being atheist doesnt mean you think we came from nothing. The big bang theory proposes the matter was already there, just compressed.


Then you place yourself squarely into another series of conundrums Zendra, and I suspect you should have known better:

First - If you don’t think you came from nothing (which is contrary to mainline materialistic atheist thinking), then where did “the matter was already there” come from?

Second - And following up on that, if you are living your life believing in a proposal (sans any evidence) you are thusly living your life placing your entire faith (life and eternity) on an unsubstantiated proposal! That’s more faith than I have.



Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)


No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.

View Post

Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster” (or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster” with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.


yes its funny thats the first time i'v actually mentioned the FSM myself.

It is funny only because it (the flying spaghetti monster logical fallacy) is easily refuted as a non sequitur, and yet the atheist continues to use it. Further, the atheist only uses it when they are painted into a corner, and have no other argument to pull out of their bag, therefore they use fallacies like “Squared Circles”, “the paradox of the stone” etc…


The point i was making is that Goldliger was asking for proof that a god didn't create the universe etc.

That is incorrect and a misinterpretation (Purposefully or not?) of the argument Goldliger was making. His argument is basically; with ALL the evidence (logical, rational and scientific) for design (the Teleological Argument) we know there was a creator. Your fallacious argument was attempting to equate the flying spaghetti monster (for which there is no evidence) to the Christian God (for which there is ample evidence). Therefore your “point” is “moot”.


I could ask you do you have any proof there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. Would that be fair? Or would it be onto me to provide proof for it?


Actually, no, it would not be fair; because it make absolutely no sense. And mainly (as I pointed out above) because yours is a completely fallacious comparison:

First - The Christian posits God based upon eyewitness testimony, physical evidence (fingerprints of God’s presence), logical evidences (Teleological Argument, Cosmological Argument etc…)

Second - The Atheist posits the flying spaghetti monster based upon absolutely NO evidence; and solely as a fallacious argument against God. It is a totally refuted argument on many levels(logically, rationally and scientifically), and is therefore a non sequitur.

Therefore, YES, the responsibility is totally upon the shoulders of the atheist to provide proof for their claims that the flying spaghetti monster exists, because when you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide the facts to support that claim.

Further, the Christian Theist has many-many lines of evidence FOR the existence of God.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2011 - 04:27 AM

I almost didnt reply to this because i suspect you know better. As i have said in other posts( im working on my reply on that evolution thread), being atheist doesnt mean you think we came from nothing. The big bang theory proposes the matter was already there, just compressed.




You do realise that that will lead to an infinite regression, and that is not logical... Where did the matter come from in the first instance? This is the fundamental question..

Lets assume that the universe has been on this roller coaster of expanding and shrinking X amount of times... There must have been a beginning before this X amount of times otherwise with no finite beginning then in actual fact you are claiming that the world came from nothing, by definition of it having no beginning.

So what will it be? Illogical infinite regression and indirect admission to the world having no beginning and thus came from nothing, or will you admit that this is a silly idea?

#25 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 June 2011 - 04:37 AM

lol,magic matter that popped in the form of a grapefruit with the energy to form what we see today, yet we have know way of verifying this at all.nor could observe such phenomon. only agrue that stellar nucleo synthesis could happen via the argument by anology as the atom smashers and also the nuclear fission and fusion has been done in a controled enviroment.

#26 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 June 2011 - 12:30 AM

Zebra using the “spaghetti monster” as an argument fails as already pointed out.
I would like to use a different approach. You are an atheist. You do not believe in a creator God.
Lets for the moment consider the “spaghetti monster” as the creator. Will you believe and pray to this god. No, because you are an atheist. You do no believe in any god. So you yourself will not consider the “spaghetti monster” as a god. (The Christian God and the spaghetti monster are equally noting.)

To even consider the “spaghetti monster” as a god you need to move to the next step. You need to become a n agnostic. (This definition defers from person to person) An agnostic person believes in something “bigger”, but do not want to commit to any god or religion. (The Christian God and the "spaghetti monster" are equally something or nothing or not equally something or nothing (confusing))

Only after you consider believing in creator god/gods (a believer, a person of faith) can we argue witch god and religion are the true God and religion. Only at this point can you accept or dismiss the “spaghetti monster” as god. (The Christian God and the “spaghetti monster” are not equal)

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:51 PM

The evidence for God is all around us but unfortunately we are living in a time where over 200 years of antiGod philosophy and science have brainwashed everyone into thinking that there is no God.


I peronally don't care about Dawkins 'watchmaker' argument. It's still the most logial and common sense position on the existence of complicated things in our world/universe.

And to that this that this:

Posted Image

REQUIRES a watchmaker because nature cannot make one of its own accord...yet it is still much less complicated than this:

Posted Image

What fools the atheist evolutionists are.

Truly, we can see now the great truth of Paul's words: "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

#28 Cercis

Cercis

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Raliegh

Posted 27 June 2011 - 04:07 PM

"Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?"

No. The existence of a genetic code is not evidence God created it even if, in fact, God had. Consider the following. If James murdered Betty and Fred, does the murder of Betty and Fred prove James did it, given that if
James had murdered them, then no-one else did? It would be a lot simpler for the police if the fact that there had been a murder was instantly also proof of who committed it, but sadly it's a fantasy even CSI won't stretch to.
Formally, the error is of the following form: If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.


"Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language."

Do you have proof two gods didn't create it? Or three? Do you have proof 'n' gods didn't create it where n = 0, 1, 2, ...?
(Hint: No such proof exists.) The question cannot distinguish between no, one or many gods being responsible, hence is an example of a fallacy called "ignoratio elenchi". http://en.wikipedia....noratio_elenchi

Note also: Genesis 26
Why should I believe that is was the Christian god?

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

Bird song.
Courtship dances.
Threat displays.
Scent marking.
Territorial displays.
Alarm calls.
The markings on plants and insects that indicate that they are poisonous.

Oh and would geomagnetic signatures, sedimentary layers and tree-rings count as 'codes' too? Since they seem to encapsulate information we can access and interpret just like DNA does. Another flaw in this argument is that DNA works solely in chemistry, not in cryptology. Triazole and the enzymes that can actually "read dna" are often comprised of forty atoms or less.



On a secondary note- I looked at your website and what you describe as your evidence only cherry picks from the bible.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:48 PM

Why should I believe that is was the Christian god?


Why should you not? I could go into more detail, but I thouhgt we should keep it as simplistic as possible to begin, and see where your reasoning is attempting to go.

#30 SavageD

SavageD

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • trinbago

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:17 PM

Bird song.
Courtship dances.
Threat displays.
Scent marking.
Territorial displays.
Alarm calls.
The markings on plants and insects that indicate that they are poisonous.


When talking about intelligent design one refers to either "objects" or "systems". These examples do not represent either of them...

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 July 2011 - 07:05 AM

Why should I believe that is was the Christian god?


Your the one that brought up forensic investigation, so let's see why. A murder took place across town, We found tire tracks that match Fred's truck, witnesses that saw Fred leave his house just before the murder, and witnesses that saw a truck that was the same year-make-and model as Fred's at the crime seen. It doesn't prove Fred did it, but should we believe he's a prime suspect? In the same sense, we have thousands of eyewitness accounts that have been verified by archeological evidence from all over the middle east. Shouldn't that make the God of Abraham a prime suspect as well? Have you ever seen any evidence of Buddha except a statue? What about Thor, Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster?

#32 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:35 AM

"Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?"

No. The existence of a genetic code is not evidence God created it even if, in fact, God had. Consider the following. If James murdered Betty and Fred, does the murder of Betty and Fred prove James did it, given that if
James had murdered them, then no-one else did? It would be a lot simpler for the police if the fact that there had been a murder was instantly also proof of who committed it, but sadly it's a fantasy even CSI won't stretch to.
Formally, the error is of the following form: If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.


...Your analogy misses a critical element, rendering it invalid. Creation is the ACT. DNA is the material evidence. In your analogy, murder is the ACT (equating to creation). Where is your physical evidence? Now, if we 'adjust' your analogy to make the two murdered/dead bodies our evidence, are they not evidence of a murderer? Of course. And if James did it, they're potential evidence that James is the murderer assuming a logical connection. Again, I'm referring to evidence in a *potential* state, meaning we don't have *objective proof* despite the evidence on the table. DNA came from *somewhere*, so it's evidence of *something*. The question is whether it's evidence of natural causation, or Godly creation. Based on the attributes of DNA (encoded information, etc.) we can form an obvious, logical connection and conclude that it's evidence of the latter.

This again is why no atheist (in the world) can logically claim "no evidence" for creation. And yet they'll continue to parrot exactly that. To logically claim no evidence, they'd have to objectively prove that the whole of existence was NOT created, rendering all evidence "on the table" unapplicable.

#33 xbox

xbox

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Northfeild, Vermont

Posted 10 November 2011 - 01:09 PM

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God?

If it is true, yes, obviously. Demonstrating it to be true will take some doing however. Of course, what we call the genetic code is really an observation of the physical-chemical interactions of molecules. We call it a code metaphorically.

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

No proof for any negative argument exists. Do you have 100%objective proof that God DID create the genetic code and DNA TO create life? What if God created it for some other purpose, and life was a byproduct?

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?
...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

Establishing a definition in this way is simply creating a no-lose scenario for your argument, it is illogical. Each of your examples is a code only to those who understand to be such – a Bantu tribesman who has never been exposed to English will have no idea what English or morse code is, and would not identify it as such.

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

And under your ‘definition’, i.e., “Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible,” ALL OF NATURE is evidence for naturalistic processes.

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

Does not follow. Not having evidence that the moon is made of green cheese does not prove that it is really made of blue cheese.

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

It is question begging when, on the one hand, you claim that all the evidence could be for either creation or evolution, then follow that up with an assertion that all of creation is evidence for God.

#34 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 11 November 2011 - 02:44 AM

If it is true, yes, obviously. Demonstrating it to be true will take some doing however. Of course, what we call the genetic code is really an observation of the physical-chemical interactions of molecules. We call it a code metaphorically.

No proof for any negative argument exists. Do you have 100%objective proof that God DID create the genetic code and DNA TO create life? What if God created it for some other purpose, and life was a byproduct?

Establishing a definition in this way is simply creating a no-lose scenario for your argument, it is illogical. Each of your examples is a code only to those who understand to be such – a Bantu tribesman who has never been exposed to English will have no idea what English or morse code is, and would not identify it as such.

And under your ‘definition’, i.e., “Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible,” ALL OF NATURE is evidence for naturalistic processes.

Does not follow. Not having evidence that the moon is made of green cheese does not prove that it is really made of blue cheese.

It is question begging when, on the one hand, you claim that all the evidence could be for either creation or evolution, then follow that up with an assertion that all of creation is evidence for God.



Hi xbox...

> If it is true, yes, obviously.

You then agree with my primary point already. :)

> We call it a code metaphorically

No, it's literal code with the same attributes of any code - meaningful, sequential information that is encoded and decoded.

> Establishing a definition in this way is simply creating a no-lose scenario for your argument, it is illogical

Establishing a universal definition for 'code' is illogical? Quite the opposite. I can't understand Morse code. That doesn't negate the fact that it's code by definition.

> And under your ‘definition’, i.e., “Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective
> proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible,” ALL OF NATURE is evidence for naturalistic processes

You're correct. It works both ways. However, once we *examine* the evidence (imo) it's plain to see what worldview it supports. Keep in mind here, my point is that it's not logical for atheists (or agnostics) to claim "no evidence" for creation. That's what I'm establishing, and what it seems we already agree upon.

> Does not follow. Not having evidence that the moon is made of green cheese does not prove that it is really made of blue cheese

You're missing the other side of the equation here. I said we have 100% inference that the genetic code was created intelligently. The reason is because that's what we *observe* - encoded information derived ONLY from intelligence.

> It is question begging when, on the one hand, you claim that all the evidence could be for either creation or evolution, then follow that up with
> an assertion that all of creation is evidence for God

It's not question begging. The point is that we need to analyze the evidence 'on the table', and formulate a conclusion. Simple as that. I'm not claiming to have objective proof. I'm stating that in my view, the evidence leans 99.9999% in favor of intelligent creation. :)

Thanks for sharing ur thoughts.

#35 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 11 November 2011 - 02:59 AM

Ron or Jason - is there a way to edit my title so that the "No" is capitalized?

My typo is buggin me, lol...

Thanks guys!! :)

-Bryan

#36 xbox

xbox

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Northfeild, Vermont

Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:29 AM

Hi xbox...

> If it is true, yes, obviously.

You then agree with my primary point already. :)


Yes, of course - IF you can show something to be true, one would have to accept it or be shown to be a fool (or worse).

> We call it a code metaphorically

No, it's literal code with the same attributes of any code - meaningful, sequential information that is encoded and decoded.


No, it is a metaphorical code. Your depiction of it is a metaphorical description - it is how we describe it to make it understandable. If one looks into the details of genetics, one sees so many deviations from the 'rules' of 'codes' that to call it a code can only be for simplicity. WE append the concept of "meaning" to what goes on - there is nothing inherent in DNA or biochemistry that makes molecular interactions 'meaningful.'

> Establishing a definition in this way is simply creating a no-lose scenario for your argument, it is illogical

Establishing a universal definition for 'code' is illogical? Quite the opposite. I can't understand Morse code. That doesn't negate the fact that it's code by definition.

But if you did not know about Morse code, would you be able to know what it means? Or that it even is a code? Defining what a code is is fine, but then extrapolating that to the interactions of DNA and RNA and such is question begging - you are asking, in this case me, to accept that which has not been demonstrated.

> And under your ‘definition’, i.e., “Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective
> proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible,” ALL OF NATURE is evidence for naturalistic processes

You're correct. It works both ways. However, once we *examine* the evidence (imo) it's plain to see what worldview it supports. Keep in mind here, my point is that it's not logical for atheists (or agnostics) to claim "no evidence" for creation. That's what I'm establishing, and what it seems we already agree upon.

Well, lets examine the evidence and see. However, I must say that I agree only for the purposes of discussion. IF all of the evidence could be either for creation or natural processes, then we have to have a way, a criterion, to differentiate. What do you propose?

> Does not follow. Not having evidence that the moon is made of green cheese does not prove that it is really made of blue cheese

You're missing the other side of the equation here. I said we have 100% inference that the genetic code was created intelligently. The reason is because that's what we *observe* - encoded information derived ONLY from intelligence.

ONLY from human intelligence, yes. Thus, the ONLY logical inference you could make, providing your premises are correct, is that humans created DNA. Ambiguating (is that a word?) human intelligence by referring to it as "intelligence" does not change the facts. ALL 'codes' that we know of are human inventions. We do NOT have anything like 100% inference re: genetic code coming from an intelligence. At best, what you have is an argument via analogy. Analogies are not evidence.

> It is question begging when, on the one hand, you claim that all the evidence could be for either creation or evolution, then follow that up with
> an assertion that all of creation is evidence for God

It's not question begging. The point is that we need to analyze the evidence 'on the table', and formulate a conclusion. Simple as that. I'm not claiming to have objective proof. I'm stating that in my view, the evidence leans 99.9999% in favor of intelligent creation. :)

Thanks for sharing ur thoughts.


OK, fair enough. It is good to see that you are acknowledging that this is 'in your view' as opposed to presenting this as an objective factual position.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2011 - 03:53 PM

Ron or Jason - is there a way to edit my title so that the "No" is capitalized?

My typo is buggin me, lol...

Thanks guys!! :)

-Bryan


Done...

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:04 PM

Meh... For some reason its not working... I'll eventually make it work!

#39 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:20 PM

Yes, of course - IF you can show something to be true, one would have to accept it or be shown to be a fool (or worse).



No, it is a metaphorical code. Your depiction of it is a metaphorical description - it is how we describe it to make it understandable. If one looks into the details of genetics, one sees so many deviations from the 'rules' of 'codes' that to call it a code can only be for simplicity. WE append the concept of "meaning" to what goes on - there is nothing inherent in DNA or biochemistry that makes molecular interactions 'meaningful.'


But if you did not know about Morse code, would you be able to know what it means? Or that it even is a code? Defining what a code is is fine, but then extrapolating that to the interactions of DNA and RNA and such is question begging - you are asking, in this case me, to accept that which has not been demonstrated.

Well, lets examine the evidence and see. However, I must say that I agree only for the purposes of discussion. IF all of the evidence could be either for creation or natural processes, then we have to have a way, a criterion, to differentiate. What do you propose?

ONLY from human intelligence, yes. Thus, the ONLY logical inference you could make, providing your premises are correct, is that humans created DNA. Ambiguating (is that a word?) human intelligence by referring to it as "intelligence" does not change the facts. ALL 'codes' that we know of are human inventions. We do NOT have anything like 100% inference re: genetic code coming from an intelligence. At best, what you have is an argument via analogy. Analogies are not evidence.


OK, fair enough. It is good to see that you are acknowledging that this is 'in your view' as opposed to presenting this as an objective factual position.



> No, it is a metaphorical code.

No really, it's a literal code ;-) Here's a good read for you:
http://www.cosmicfin...heists/dna-code

> But if you did not know about Morse code, would you be able to know what it means

Logically, not knowing what something is, doesn't negate what that something is.

If I don't know an apple pie is an apple pie and I think it's a cheeseburger, it's
still an apple pie. Likewise, not knowing that a code is a code, doesn't make it non-code.

> Well, lets examine the evidence and see

Which brings us back to examining things such as the nature of DNA (code), etc.

> We do NOT have anything like 100% inference re: genetic code coming from an intelligence

Humans are intelligent. And therefore the 100% inference stands: code only from intelligent sources.

-Bryan

#40 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:28 PM

Meh... For some reason its not working... I'll eventually make it work!



Oh thanks Ron that's ok! Don't waste time on me, I was just being picky, hehe...

-Bryan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users