Jump to content


Photo

Soft Option Kill & The Neo-Darwinian Tactic


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

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:53 AM

'Soft Option Kill' is a term used by the U.S. military intelligence community. As used by covert agents it refers to the tactic of deceiving people by using one set of arguments about a certain matter in one place but using a completely oppositeargument with other people in another setting. As it regards neo-Darwinists in the matter of intelligent design vs random forces they do this frequently.


Example: Posted Image The atheists Stanley Kubrick and author Arthur C. Clarke teamed together to produce 2001 A Space Odyssey in December of 1968 and released the film on the night our Apollo 8 astronauts orbited the moon for the first time in history. The storyline was about the discovery of a 1 by 4 by 9 metal block called 'the monolith' (one stone) as seen here:

Posted Image

Once news of the discovery was made the government ordered a 'hush/hush' gag and quarantined everyone on the moon base. They were afraid that news of this incredible discovery would create a world-wide panic on earth. The dialogue of the movie made that quite clear. The idea being that the monolith was obviously made by intelligent life for moonrocks were never formed in such a 1-4-9 ratio with a smooth surface and highly defined edges. So the object had to be of intelligent, extra-terrestrial origin. Such was the conclusion....and albeit a logical one if such an object were found on say, Mars.(?) To this we can all agree.

But..............take the evolutionist away from the telescope and let him look through a microscope at say, this:

Posted Image

and for some strange (odd!) reason he concludes that the object he is looking at happened by chance via random natural processes. Has he ever seen nature produce even one life form by natural processes? No. The same evolutionist looks at this:

Posted Image

an illustration concerning the DNA code and yet he concludes that it is NOT a code for life on earth after all. He insists that the only reason we call it a 'code' is because we lack a better expression to describe the natural forces of nature coming together in a chemical reaction that somehow produces life.

The inconsisitency of this matter on their part is to us, an overwhelming hypocrisy. Are we to conclude that a 1-4-9 ratioed monlith with smooth edges is PROOF of intelligent engineering and yet somehow the vast complexity of the DNA is not?

Carl Sagan, another atheist of the modern age carried this idea further. In his movie Contact the storyline is that a message from the Vega area of our universe gives man a coded bluprint as to how to build an aparatus that will put man in contact with the extra-terrestrial messengers who sent it. But one look at that coded information reveals that the information in the message is far less complex than the DNA which has brought us all living organisms on earth.

Posted Image So then are we to conclude that such a message from a distant region of space indicates intelligent life on other worlds....and yet the DNA is relegated to mere happenstance? What
utter, terrible hypocrisy. So.....like I intimated above; they preach one thing concerning intelligence (especially when it is against creationists) but they take a completely different view/attitude in another context and under different circumstances. Orwell called it, 'black white'....i.e. 'white is black (when it is convenient for us to declar it so) but black is white (when it is not convenient).





I have yet to see an atheist who was honest in this matter.</p>
  • Bonedigger likes this

#2 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:52 AM

'Soft Option Kill' is a term used by the U.S. military intelligence community. As used by covert agents it refers to the tactic of deceiving people by using one set of arguments about a certain matter in one place but using a completely oppositeargument with other people in another setting. As it regards neo-Darwinists in the matter of intelligent design vs random forces they do this frequently.


Example: Posted Image The atheists Stanley Kubrick and author Arthur C. Clarke teamed together to produce 2001 A Space Odyssey in December of 1968 and released the film on the night our Apollo 8 astronauts orbited the moon for the first time in history. The storyline was about the discovery of a 1 by 4 by 9 metal block called 'the monolith' (one stone) as seen here:

Posted Image

Once news of the discovery was made the government ordered a 'hush/hush' gag and quarantined everyone on the moon base. They were afraid that news of this incredible discovery would create a world-wide panic on earth. The dialogue of the movie made that quite clear. The idea being that the monolith was obviously made by intelligent life for moonrocks were never formed in such a 1-4-9 ratio with a smooth surface and highly defined edges. So the object had to be of intelligent, extra-terrestrial origin. Such was the conclusion....and albeit a logical one if such an object were found on say, Mars.(?) To this we can all agree.

But..............take the evolutionist away from the telescope and let him look through a microscope at say, this:

Posted Image

and for some strange (odd!) reason he concludes that the object he is looking at happened by chance via random natural processes. Has he ever seen nature produce even one life form by natural processes? No. The same evolutionist looks at this:

Posted Image

an illustration concerning the DNA code and yet he concludes that it is NOT a code for life on earth after all. He insists that the only reason we call it a 'code' is because we lack a better expression to describe the natural forces of nature coming together in a chemical reaction that somehow produces life.

The inconsisitency of this matter on their part is to us, an overwhelming hypocrisy. Are we to conclude that a 1-4-9 ratioed monlith with smooth edges is PROOF of intelligent engineering and yet somehow the vast complexity of the DNA is not?

Carl Sagan, another atheist of the modern age carried this idea further. In his movie Contact the storyline is that a message from the Vega area of our universe gives man a coded bluprint as to how to build an aparatus that will put man in contact with the extra-terrestrial messengers who sent it. But one look at that coded information reveals that the information in the message is far less complex than the DNA which has brought us all living organisms on earth.

Posted Image So then are we to conclude that such a message from a distant region of space indicates intelligent life on other worlds....and yet the DNA is relegated to mere happenstance? What
utter, terrible hypocrisy. So.....like I intimated above; they preach one thing concerning intelligence (especially when it is against creationists) but they take a completely different view/attitude in another context and under different circumstances. Orwell called it, 'black white'....i.e. 'white is black (when it is convenient for us to declar it so) but black is white (when it is not convenient).





I have yet to see an atheist who was honest in this matter.</p>


Now I am not sure the right approach is to accuse the people who disagree with you of being dishonest. I think there are better explanations than that. However I did like your colorful use of movies to make your point. Lets talk about the Monolith. What makes it designed is the fact that it has a 1-4-9 ratio, right? Now we know that naturalistic forces can produce things that follow mathematical rules, because nature operates according to the rules of mathematics.

For example, snowflakes are a perfect example of objects far more complex than any monolith that follow constrained proportions but are produced naturalistically. Now whoever or whatever created the planet that sometimes has the right environment for snow is a different question.

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:56 AM

Now I am not sure the right approach is to accuse the people who disagree with you of being dishonest. I think there are better explanations than that. However I did like your colorful use of movies to make your point. Lets talk about the Monolith. What makes it designed is the fact that it has a 1-4-9 ratio, right? Now we know that naturalistic forces can produce things that follow mathematical rules, because nature operates according to the rules of mathematics. For example, snowflakes are a perfect example of objects far more complex than any monolith that follow constrained proportions but are produced naturalistically. Now whoever or whatever created the planet that sometimes has the right environment for snow is a different question.


The rules? Who made those rules?

"For example, snowflakes are a perfect example of objects far more complex than any monolith that follow constrained proportions but are produced naturalistically"

Who says?

But there is your prejudice and also shallow thinking: You don't even consider what the snowflake is made of or where that moisture originated in the first place. Whether you like it or not cause & effect is a reality and one must consider that all things in the physical world have a cause.

Nature does not create life. All life generates from previously living organisms. Now...take it back to the origins cause; you should be saying to yourself, "Houston, we've got a problem here!"

#4 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:13 AM

The rules? Who made those rules? "For example, snowflakes are a perfect example of objects far more complex than any monolith that follow constrained proportions but are produced naturalistically" Who says? But there is your prejudice and also shallow thinking: You don't even consider what the snowflake is made of or where that moisture originated in the first place. Whether you like it or not cause & effect is a reality and one must consider that all things in the physical world have a cause. Nature does not create life. All life generates from previously living organisms. Now...take it back to the origins cause; you should be saying to yourself, "Houston, we've got a problem here!"


Snowflake:
Posted Image
And yes, in fact there are complex mathematics behind snowflakes:
http://www.shodor.or...asket_math.html

Snowflakes use mathematical concepts such as self-similarity, non-euclidean dimension, exponentiation, operations with fractions, symmetry, and infinity and limits.

I did take into account the fact that the initial conditions is a whole different question. However, if you have right planet, then they will be able to form. All you need are the water chrystal atmospheric pressure, and temperature, and they will form themselves into snowflakes. How can such simple naturalistic circumstances form such mathematically complex objects?

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

Snowflake: Posted Image And yes, in fact there are complex mathematics behind snowflakes: http://www.shodor.or...asket_math.html Snowflakes use mathematical concepts such as self-similarity, non-euclidean dimension, exponentiation, operations with fractions, symmetry, and infinity and limits. I did take into account the fact that the initial conditions is a whole different question. However, if you have right planet, then they will be able to form. All you need are the water chrystal atmospheric pressure, and temperature, and they will form themselves into snowflakes. How can such simple naturalistic circumstances form such mathematically complex objects?


You are really missing the point, friend. Origins, origins, origins....take it all the way back...a.b.c.d.e.f.g.....x.y.z. Do you unerstand what I am driving at?

I don't deny that snowflakes have a form of complexity. And? WHAT makes them that way? Secondly, WHERE does the moisture come from? How did it originate and from WHAT? And before that HOW did planets coalesce in the first place(& give an observed example. Document it). WHAT made those mathematical principles that you are so happy to discuss? What is the origin of mathematical laws? and furthermore what is the origin ALL natural laws? Did matter create itself? Give an observed example.

Do you see where I am going with this? Please heed the details if you wish us to think you really have something in your favor on this matter.

I am going to repeat my final challenge to you because you did not even mention it: "Nature does not create life. All life generates from previously living organisms. Now...take it back to the origins cause; you should be saying to yourself, "Houston, we've got a problem here!"

But if you can give us a single example of life generating from non-living matter then do so. Thank you.

#6 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:16 PM

You are really missing the point, friend. Origins, origins, origins....take it all the way back...a.b.c.d.e.f.g.....x.y.z. Do you unerstand what I am driving at? I don't deny that snowflakes have a form of complexity. And? WHAT makes them that way? Secondly, WHERE does the moisture come from? How did it originate and from WHAT? And before that HOW did planets coalesce in the first place(& give an observed example. Document it).


The point I was trying to make is that naturalistic forces can create complexity out of preexisting material or conditions. Maybe God set up the conditions so he know the forces would form the complexity, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that naturalistic forces can form complexity. Plus, this allows us to break complexity problems down, for example the task of explaining how a snowflake can be created naturalistically now reduces to the problem of how you create the kind of planet with the right conditions for creating snowflakes. Then since naturalistic forces can form complex things from preexisting conditions we can discover how planets are created from the preexisting matter. We can then find how the matter was created from energy.

Moisture is water in air at specific temperatures. It is possible for water to be created. For example, the chemical reaction creates water:
oxygen + glucose -> carbon dioxide and water

I did not respond to the rest of your post because answering it is rather lengthy. Lets take your questions one by one.

#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

The point I was trying to make is that naturalistic forces can create complexity out of preexisting material or conditions. Maybe God set up the conditions so he know the forces would form the complexity, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that naturalistic forces can form complexity. Plus, this allows us to break complexity problems down, for example the task of explaining how a snowflake can be created naturalistically now reduces to the problem of how you create the kind of planet with the right conditions for creating snowflakes. Then since naturalistic forces can form complex things from preexisting conditions we can discover how planets are created from the preexisting matter. We can then find how the matter was created from energy. Moisture is water in air at specific temperatures. It is possible for water to be created. For example, the chemical reaction creates water: oxygen + glucose -&gt; carbon dioxide and water I did not respond to the rest of your post because answering it is rather lengthy. Lets take your questions one by one.


I asked for examples and you gave me opinions.

Water is not 'created' it is merely recycled.

Natural law tells us:"The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another)" http://www.physicsce...=20120221015143

It will be interesting to see how you will get around this one since it is clear that nature doesn't create anything.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:59 AM

The real problem that evolutionists have with complexity and ultimately a code, (which refers to Contact in the OP) is that not only is intelligence required in the formation of the information, but also in the comprehension of said information...

Anything can be deemed to be "informative" I could spout out an entirely new dictionary with all the words reversed however the only way this can be recognised is if I explain it to someone.

The same problem exists within a cell. The start codons of DNA (as well as binding sites for transcription etc) are all recognised by their user enzymes... How did these enzymes come to "know" such things... Additionally the cognition of codons (STOP and START) by the ribosome and consequently the tRNA is another huge leap for which there is no evolutionary explanation... (Well there is "evolution did it" but that doesn't explain anything).

If evolution were true and the DNA code came about over millions of years then we should see totally different systems of DNA and their codons which have sprung up via random change... Perhaps for some the start codon would be Arg or perhaps Ala? Hypothetically in the formation of the information at the start there would be enough flexability for the DNA to take on different meanings within its codons... Considering the main evolutionary assumption that these systems sprung up over time, which would render them non-critical at that time.... Despite the fact that they are critical now.....

The fact that DNA conly has one formation of code which is consistent for each and every cellular system in each and every organism points to some form of commonality of the intelligence behind the information. Common design = Common designer.

#9 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 November 2012 - 02:05 PM

The real problem that evolutionists have with complexity and ultimately a code, (which refers to Contact in the OP) is that not only is intelligence required in the formation of the information, but also in the comprehension of said information... Anything can be deemed to be "informative" I could spout out an entirely new dictionary with all the words reversed however the only way this can be recognised is if I explain it to someone. The same problem exists within a cell.


The point I was tying to make in the OP is:

Why would we automatically think that this:

Posted Image...was created by intelligent engineering...and yet this:

Posted Image is considered by skeptics as something that developed by random natural processes.(???) But Dan4reason trots out the snowflake as his refutation of my thesis. But the snowflake likewise only pushes the question back to origins again...who or how did the snowflake originate in the first place. So posing another mystery does not answer the question at hand. But I didn't invent the thesis. It was atheists who made the monolith in 2001 and (in my opinion) the discovery of such a monolith would indeed merit an intelligent engineering source as an explanation. But why would the same atheists minds conclude that the bacterial flagellum, or even more so, the machinery in the living cell itself be considered as purely natural? It doesn't make sense.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:44 PM

The point I was tying to make in the OP is: Why would we automatically think that this: Posted Image...was created by intelligent engineering...and yet this: Posted Image is considered by skeptics as something that developed by random natural processes.(???) But Dan4reason trots out the snowflake as his refutation of my thesis. But the snowflake likewise only pushes the question back to origins again...who or how did the snowflake originate in the first place. So posing another mystery does not answer the question at hand. But I didn't invent the thesis. It was atheists who made the monolith in 2001 and (in my opinion) the discovery of such a monolith would indeed merit an intelligent engineering source as an explanation. But why would the same atheists minds conclude that the bacterial flagellum, or even more so, the machinery in the living cell itself be considered as purely natural? It doesn't make sense.


It certainly doesn't make sense, also considering the myriad of other systems within a cell, I like to use cellular respiration since that is required on day one of life.

#11 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:28 AM

The difference between monolith stones and snowflakes is simple:
One has a known explanation, the other does not.
One is a common and mundane observation, the other is not.
One can be inferred to have purpose and intent, the other cannot.

Yet as simple as these differences are, they are not at all simple to quantify.

There are so many qualities inherent in objects that cannot be quantified and it is these qualities that inform us about notions of intelligent design.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#12 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:30 AM

The difference between monolith stones and snowflakes is simple: One has a known explanation, the other does not. One is a common and mundane observation, the other is not. One can be inferred to have purpose and intent, the other cannot. Yet as simple as these differences are, they are not at all simple to quantify. There are so many qualities inherent in objects that cannot be quantified and it is these qualities that inform us about notions of intelligent design.


Good point, stripe. We have at least a partial explanation for where and how snowflakes originate for it is a common product of commonly known weather activity on earth. But nature nowhere makes 1 by 4 by 9 metal objects with smooth sides and 45 degree edges. So if such an object were indeed found on the moon, or Mars, or....on earth(!) for heaven's sake, men would think that some extra-terrestrial intelligence made it. AND.............since the living cell is NEVER naturally produced by nature alone then why would we not come to the same conclusion.

Furthermore, if we were to receive a message from deep space (i.e. via SETI) as in what was seen in Carl Sagan's CONTACT,Posted Image then how could we be justified in concluding that such a code equivalent to human language or less classifies as 'extra-terrestrial intelligence' and yet conclude that the DNA code does not!

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

Even if you were to get a cell's contents and put them close together a cell cannot form so how in the world is it logical for someone to think that a cell can form from chemicals when it can't even form from a mix of the fully assembled parts?

If anything I'd call it denial.

#14 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 December 2012 - 06:45 PM

I asked for examples and you gave me opinions. Water is not 'created' it is merely recycled. Natural law tells us:"The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another)" http://www.physicsce...=20120221015143 It will be interesting to see how you will get around this one since it is clear that nature doesn't create anything.


I gave you facts. Water is not created from nothing. Water is simply preexisting matter that is organized in a certain way, no matter or energy is created or destroyed. I already gave you a well known chemical reaction that creates water from other elements. Now the question is, how did the atoms get create? The answer is that they were fused from very simple atoms by stars. So where did these simple atoms come from? They came from the energy in the early universe? So where did this early energy energy come from?

Well where did the earth come from? Planetary formation. Where did earth's atmosphere come from? Earth's gravity pulled in gasses in the early solar system. Isn't it unlikely earth will be the right distance from the sun, with the right conditions for water and snowflakes? Well there are hundreds of billions of planets in the universe. At least one will get lucky. Then were did the sun come from? Stellar formation. Where did the gas come from? Energy in the early universe. Again, we are at that same question.

I ran through the ultimate origins rather quickly, but I was giving you the mainstream scientific perspectives on these questions, so we can debate each step specifically if you want. If I am right, then snowflakes ultimately come from energy in the very early universe, and there is no reason to think that a naturalistic force could not explain this energy.

However I was not trying to prove ultimate origins. I was only showing that complexity can form from preexisting forms. Since this is so, then it is possible that these preexisting forms can themselves be explained from other forms, until we get simpler and simpler forms. In the snowflake example, snowflakes come from water, that come from large atoms, that come from simple atoms, that come from energy. Maybe these preexisting forms are explained by a designer, but until there is evidence that they did not come by a naturalistic force, you cannot assume they came by a designer.

#15 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:05 PM

The point I was tying to make in the OP is: Why would we automatically think that this: Posted Image...was created by intelligent engineering...and yet this: Posted Image is considered by skeptics as something that developed by random natural processes.(???) But Dan4reason trots out the snowflake as his refutation of my thesis. But the snowflake likewise only pushes the question back to origins again...who or how did the snowflake originate in the first place. So posing another mystery does not answer the question at hand. But I didn't invent the thesis. It was atheists who made the monolith in 2001 and (in my opinion) the discovery of such a monolith would indeed merit an intelligent engineering source as an explanation. But why would the same atheists minds conclude that the bacterial flagellum, or even more so, the machinery in the living cell itself be considered as purely natural? It doesn't make sense.


I am not arguing that everything has their ultimate origin in naturalistic processes. All I am arguing is that the complexity we see today was formed from preexisting states using naturalistic forces. For example, the complexity of life was formed from the first organism. Now that doesn't mean that God did or did not create the planet for the first organism, or the first organism itself. The idea that God created the initial conditions of evolution and let it happen is known as theistic evolution and is perfectly reasonable in my view.

Since complexity can form from preexisting states, by naturalistic forces is shown to be true with snowflakes. There is no reason why those weird stones could not form from simpler preexisting material through naturalistic forces, or that the flagellum would not have formed from preexisting states through naturalistic forces.

#16 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

The real problem that evolutionists have with complexity and ultimately a code, (which refers to Contact in the OP) is that not only is intelligence required in the formation of the information, but also in the comprehension of said information... Anything can be deemed to be "informative" I could spout out an entirely new dictionary with all the words reversed however the only way this can be recognised is if I explain it to someone. The same problem exists within a cell. The start codons of DNA (as well as binding sites for transcription etc) are all recognised by their user enzymes... How did these enzymes come to "know" such things... Additionally the cognition of codons (STOP and START) by the ribosome and consequently the tRNA is another huge leap for which there is no evolutionary explanation... (Well there is "evolution did it" but that doesn't explain anything). If evolution were true and the DNA code came about over millions of years then we should see totally different systems of DNA and their codons which have sprung up via random change... Perhaps for some the start codon would be Arg or perhaps Ala? Hypothetically in the formation of the information at the start there would be enough flexability for the DNA to take on different meanings within its codons... Considering the main evolutionary assumption that these systems sprung up over time, which would render them non-critical at that time.... Despite the fact that they are critical now..... The fact that DNA conly has one formation of code which is consistent for each and every cellular system in each and every organism points to some form of commonality of the intelligence behind the information. Common design = Common designer.


The problem with your arguments is just because we cannot explain something with evolution does not mean it happened by creation.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:47 PM


The problem with your arguments is just because we cannot explain something with evolution does not mean it happened by creation.


Obviously you didn't read my post. Code and IC systems not only cannot be accounted for via evolution they also directly imply intelligence, thus a designer.

#18 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:19 PM

The difference between monolith stones and snowflakes is simple: One has a known explanation, the other does not. One is a common and mundane observation, the other is not. One can be inferred to have purpose and intent, the other cannot. Yet as simple as these differences are, they are not at all simple to quantify. There are so many qualities inherent in objects that cannot be quantified and it is these qualities that inform us about notions of intelligent design.


So because something does not have a known explanation then we can assume it is design? Just because something is uncommon does not make it less likely to be formed naturalistically. I would also not call a snowflake a mundane observation. Snowflakes are remarkable. Snow does have a purpose. It helps keep water on the ground for longer so that humans can use it. Just because you can't quantify things doesn't mean that they were created by intelligence.

#19 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:22 PM

Good point, stripe. We have at least a partial explanation for where and how snowflakes originate for it is a common product of commonly known weather activity on earth. But nature nowhere makes 1 by 4 by 9 metal objects with smooth sides and 45 degree edges. So if such an object were indeed found on the moon, or Mars, or....on earth(!) for heaven's sake, men would think that some extra-terrestrial intelligence made it. AND.............since the living cell is NEVER naturally produced by nature alone then why would we not come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, if we were to receive a message from deep space (i.e. via SETI) as in what was seen in Carl Sagan's CONTACT,Posted Image then how could we be justified in concluding that such a code equivalent to human language or less classifies as 'extra-terrestrial intelligence' and yet conclude that the DNA code does not!


So your main distinction between naturalistic complexity and some of these instances that you think are design are that these things have no known explanation. That doesn't could as a reason because just because you do not know of a naturalistic explanation for something doesn't mean there is none.

#20 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:23 PM

Obviously you didn't read my post. Code and IC systems not only cannot be accounted for via evolution they also directly imply intelligence, thus a designer.


They don't imply intelligence if evolution is also a possibility. To show that these systems must have been designed, you must show that they could not have come about naturalistically. And this is something you have not done.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users