-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
DNA information
- Thread starter momo666
- Start date
Rumraket said:
I ususally do not spend my time responding to people of which i have such a low opinion. But you do respond me. It seems you do not value much your time ? Time is precious, spend it well, each moment in time you cannot repeat.... Once its gone, its gone. So my council to you : STOP WASTING YOUR PRECIOUS TIME WITH ME.
Rumraket said:
wow. The first sensible answer from you. Should that not make you think, why you still stick to naturalism ?? It cant be by rational ground. So what is it ? A blind irrational wish God not to exist ??
Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : Emergent properties, and physical reactions, are perfectly capable to produce the code stored in DNA.
Theist : There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to encode the information stored in DNA
Atheist: God of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, does not mean, Godidit.
Theist : "The sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"
Atheist: "Emergent properties, and physical reactions are perfectly capable to screen these letters to the monitor"
Theist : "There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to type these letters and they to appear on the screen"
Atheist: "Argument of the gaps. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, that does not mean, a intelligence did it"
Rumraket
Active Member
We've already been over that, for the sake of argument I accept that the probability for a natural origin of life is very low.
What I want to know is how you calculate the probability that god created life on Earth? How did you get the number you wrote earlier?
You understand that when you make a probability argument, you need to know the probability of both the options you put on the table, right? You can't just say one thing is unlikely if you don't even know the probability for the alternative you want to declare the winner.
And you can't just make the number up, you need to have good reasons for thinking you have the right number. You write a lot of nines before, how did you get that number? (Honestly, I know you made it up on the spot, but you think god creating life is very likely. How do you know that?).
What I want to know is how you calculate the probability that god created life on Earth? How did you get the number you wrote earlier?
You understand that when you make a probability argument, you need to know the probability of both the options you put on the table, right? You can't just say one thing is unlikely if you don't even know the probability for the alternative you want to declare the winner.
And you can't just make the number up, you need to have good reasons for thinking you have the right number. You write a lot of nines before, how did you get that number? (Honestly, I know you made it up on the spot, but you think god creating life is very likely. How do you know that?).
Rumraket said:
I am THAT precious that Jesus Christ died on the cross in order to save me. He paid a VERY HIGH price in order to have me with him. So i know about my value.
You however esteem yourself unworthy of receiving such high grace and love. What a tragedy......
Rumraket
Active Member
Thank you for this beautiful statement about your beliefs. It is clear that your religion is important to you and I can see that it seems to make you happy, I'm glad to hear that and I don't think you are a bad person.Elshamah said:
But, is the work for the number you put forward earlier forthcoming?
Elshamah said:wow. The first sensible answer from you. Should that not make you think, why you still stick to naturalism ?? It cant be by rational ground. So what is it ? A blind irrational wish God not to exist ??
Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : Emergent properties, and physical reactions, are perfectly capable to produce the code stored in DNA.
Theist : There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to encode the information stored in DNA
Atheist: God of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, does not mean, Godidit.
Theist : "The sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"
Atheist: "Emergent properties, and physical reactions are perfectly capable to screen these letters to the monitor"
Theist : "There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to type these letters and they to appear on the screen"
Atheist: "Argument of the gaps. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, that does not mean, a intelligence did it"
Created =/= Design.
I use to believe that creation equaled design. Our atheists friends, plus some books, helped change my position. I'm still a Deist and my position now is, there is/was a creator that set the laws of nature into motion, but it does not interact with humans, or f the universe. You have yet to prove that a God interacts with humans. All you have is the Bible and that can be easily be dismissed due to all the contradictions. Unfortunately my position is an Appeal to Intuition. I have no evidence that a creator exists and neither do you.
I would also like to make a point in regard to the "common-blueprint" argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, since my knowledge of biology is superficial...but that argument doesn't hold water if you really know how we know DNA points to a common ancestor.
The common argument is that DNA was "re-used" in all organisms on earth hence the illusion of evolution.
BUT every time an organism reproduces it passes on some kind of signature viruses (retro viruses if I'm correct) left on its DNA, thus it's virtually impossible for all organisms on earth to share those virus signatures without them being related. And wasn't there the Mitochondrial DNA thingy that is passed on from mother to mother?
So, what you think? Did I got something right?
The common argument is that DNA was "re-used" in all organisms on earth hence the illusion of evolution.
BUT every time an organism reproduces it passes on some kind of signature viruses (retro viruses if I'm correct) left on its DNA, thus it's virtually impossible for all organisms on earth to share those virus signatures without them being related. And wasn't there the Mitochondrial DNA thingy that is passed on from mother to mother?
So, what you think? Did I got something right?
Rumraket said:
Intelligent minds can invent complex specified codes, and use them, producing coded information. The message on the screen is a proof of that. So the number you asked for is ONE. We have 100% proof intelligent minds are capable of producing coded information. We have no evidence that unguided natural forces and mechanisms can do the same.
Rumraket
Active Member
Yes, but how do we know they actually did it in this case?Elshamah said:
How do you know the number is 100%?
I don't care about what intelligent minds are capable of. I want to know whether they actually did it. So, how do you get the 100% number?
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Elshamah said:
Fixed it for you.
It really does surprise me, after having had your ignorant arse handed to you by hundreds of people to my certain knowledge, that you can't even manage a good imitation of what's been done to your stupid shit. It really does take galactic level of fail.
SpecialFrog
New Member
What evidence do you have that intelligence can exist without a biological brain?Elshamah said:
SpecialFrog said:
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1284-near-death-experience-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism
Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)
"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
hackenslash said:
:lol: :lol:
River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:
“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:
“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T).
For the ones that deny that DNA carries literally coded information, but argue that its just metaphorically a code
. Look what Richard Dawkins has to say on the issue : See after the seventh minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa55s9Gs_Eg
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1281-dna-is-literally-a-code
