Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

gcthomas

New member
Very good..... yes we can deduce things from materials. But there is no knowlege... no information..... no coded system in dog poop. All codes have a creator. DNA is the most sophisticated, complex code that has ever been created.

Bill Gates: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

As a code, DNA is extremely simple. In fact so simple it its hard to credit or with being a code at all. It is closer to being a knitting pattern, but a pattern which can be cut up and swapped about, have pieces removed and random parts inserted, and it will still function as a pattern. It has no code book and no arbitrary symbols. It is self interacting. How many codes do that?

You still haven't answered the circular argument challenge: how can you use the assumption that all codes are designed to prove a contended system is designed? You have assumed it was designed at the outset.
 

alwight

New member
Very good..... yes we can deduce things from materials. But there is no knowlege... no information..... no coded system in dog poop. All codes have a creator. DNA is the most sophisticated, complex code that has ever been created.

Bill Gates: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
We use our own knowledge to make deductions from the information in all kinds of evidence, because we have the ability to interpret evidence as information.

DNA however is part of a mechanical chemical process while also being the basic blueprint for life. However it's a mindless process that will mindlessly transcribe any mutation or adaption into RNA and protein where its selectability may be put to the test in real life.
Life and DNA evolves and adapts together.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Very good..... yes we can deduce things from materials. But there is no knowlege... no information..... no coded system in dog poop. All codes have a creator."
Give us a clear definition of what makes a code. Evidently it must have things in the definition that exclude the information in dog droppings or in sand dune patterns as qualifying. One of the crucial elements in a good scientific definition is that it does not impose unnecessary restrictions, Specifically, if you demand that all codes have an intelligent creator, that becomes part of the definition you want to be used. In that case, you are implicitly avoiding even asking if purely natural systems can encode and respond to information. It does not mean natural things do not use codes, just that you require that they be excluded from consideration.
 

iouae

Well-known member
So kindly define what you consider a "kind" (not sure if pun intended)
and when is it "new" for you.

KIND
"To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. It is generally assumed that the "created kind" is analogous to the taxonomic Family, although numerous exceptions certainly exist. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and identifications are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record.

It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10]
Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo."
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind

NEW
adjective \ˈnü, chiefly British ˈnyü, in place names usually (ˌ)nu̇ or nə or (ˌ)ni\
Simple Definition of new
Popularity: Top 40% of words
: not old : recently born, built, or created

Would you like me to define "is" too :)
 

6days

New member
gcthomas said:
As a code, DNA is extremely simple. In fact so simple.....

Bill Gates said:
DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.

GC... you obviously are once again unwilling to follow the evidence no matter where it leads.....to the Creator God of the Bible.


DNA is a code... every code has a creator.


Also, it would seem you know nothing of the complexity and sophistication of our DNA. Geneticists continue to marvel as they begin to see overlapping layers in the messaging...and some which even seems to be able to be read backwards.*


In the beginning God created.
 

iouae

Well-known member
Hey, I am also still very much interested in science and prayer. I am having a real hard time getting some believer who will go beyond just words, though, when they declare prayer really works. So if you don’t mind, can I tag along (with a bit of science equipment in tow) to document your prayer and measure the physical manifestation of that answer? You know – like in the Bible it resulted in everything from parting the Red Sea to water from rocks to feeding a lotta people with just a snack, to changing the course of battles, and on and on – real observable and measureable stuff. But if you are just referring to a “feel-good answer”, instead I’ll be glad to send you a bottle Alka Seltzer as a backup in case the prayer doesn’t get answered.

Suppose one gets a chance to meet one’s favourite celebrity.

What you get out of that meeting will be what you put into it, and the attitude you approach it with. If you come with a critical attitude, the celeb will probably not waste too much time with you SINCE THEY DON’T NEED YOU. You need them.

Those coming to Christ came in various attitudes, and each got out of Christ completely different things. Some came away healed. Some came away thinking he was a fraud, or that his works were of the devil. Some never came to Him and came away with nothing.

What about those who never came to Him at all, but came as spectators to those who came to Him. Some, like zacchaeus were saved. Some, like the Pharisees came critical, and left critical.

God has givens each us a well of salvation to draw from. And He has given to us alone the power to poison the water we draw from that well.
 

gcthomas

New member
Every code we know of has been created... morse, braille, traffic lights etc.
Hoping that there might be a code that creates itself is psuedoscience

Yeah, that's like saying since every swan you have seen is white, the black swan must be white too.
 

alwight

New member
Every code we know of has been created... morse, braille, traffic lights etc.
Hoping that there might be a code that creates itself is psuedoscience
Clearly the honey bee's waggle/dance code for finding food most probably evolved, at least you can't honestly claim to know otherwise.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Codes are a set of instructions that expect to be understood and acted upon.
Nonsense. Nothing "expects to be understood" except relatively advanced life forms. No inanimate thing has any expectations at all. Is it your belief that Morse Code or DNA has some innate expectation that someone or something will understand it and act on it?
 

6days

New member
gcthomas said:
6days said:
Every code we know of has been created... morse, braille, traffic lights etc.

Yeah, that's like saying since every swan you have seen is white, the black swan must be white too.

No GC....We know black swans exist.

Its more as if you are saying you haven't sen a flying spagetti monster, but it might exist.

Codes have a creator. DNA is a code. DNA is evidence of a creator.*
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
6days said:
Codes are a set of instructions that expect to be understood and acted upon.

Nonsense. Nothing "expects to be understood" except relatively advanced life forms. No inanimate thing has any expectations at all. Is it your belief that Morse Code or DNA has some innate expectation that someone or something will understand it and act on it?

You now seem to agree with me. There is no information in dots and dashes... there is no information in sugar molecules... there is no information in raised bumps on a piece of paper...... there is no information in a red light.

But somebody made a code from dots and dashes.*

Somebody made a code from bumps on a piece of paper so that blind people could read.

Somebody made a code that says let a red light represent stopping.

Codes are always created.Yes when information is relayed through a code, it is expected that the receiver understands.
 

6days

New member
Clearly the honey bee's waggle/dance code for finding food most probably evolved, at least you can't honestly claim to know otherwise.
Probably created..... the bee code is language....evidence of intelligence. It requires a sender... and a receiver to understand and act upon the instructions.
 

DavisBJ

New member
You now seem to agree with me. There is no information in dots and dashes... there is no information in sugar molecules... there is no information in raised bumps on a piece of paper...... there is no information in a red light.

But somebody made a code from dots and dashes.*

Somebody made a code from bumps on a piece of paper so that blind people could read.

Somebody made a code that says let a red light represent stopping.

Codes are always created.Yes when information is relayed through a code, it is expected that the receiver understands.
But who does the “expecting”? You said it was the codes themselves that do the expecting: “Codes are a set of instructions that expect to be …” Are you serious? Does a drop of blood on a microscope slide have DNA that laments that it is going to just dry up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top