Darwin vs DNA

[The Irish Ram]

Well, lets look at the evolution of this thread:
me- a complex digital code requires intelligence and decision making
you- the code evolved in complexity over billions of years
me- then explain the even more complex digital code of the amoeba at the beginning of your origin of species.
you- you suck. you're dumb, you pervert science, Sunni you're incoherent, Christians are heretics..........

Hollie, Sunni's post was coherent and on topic.

Jake Snarkey, Well, unlike you, I understand that DNA is NOT the result of evolution. I offered proof that refuted your claim that it is. As for this comment:

For those of us who are religious, a silly error is to think that theory of evolution and our stand on it must be a salvation issue. It is not. God can work as God wills, and our simple minds are not capable of judging God, whether religious or atheists.

This thread is about evolution and DNA. For salvation, turn to Christ. For complex digital codes from the very beginning, look to the handwriting of God, not Darwin.
And for "those of you" who are religious, If that religion is Christianity I'd like to suggest an excellent book on the origin of species, King James version.

Kiss, your weeds adapted to their environment. They are stronger more resistant weeds. What they won't do is evolve into peach trees, or lizards. We've become resistant to antibiotics. Bacteria adapts to it's environment. It becomes stronger---bacteria.

Gateau, my topic is DNA, my proof is scientific, my theology is the explanation.

I love when science catches up with God. Do you know if Einstein had just added the 2 dimensions that Luke referred to, to his theory of relativity it would have worked without him have to "fudge" the numbers? In fact, Paul gave Einstien the fourth dimension. Hubble just pointed it out to him. Actually, there was someone in the 13 century that was light years<excuse the pun ahead of Einstein. He said there were 10 dimensions 4 of which we are subject to here on earth. So science is haphazard at best and subject to change with every new discovery. God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. It just easier to start out with Him than to end up with Him.

The issue of whether God exists or not is irrelevant to evolution anyways.

Do you speak for all evolutionist?
The issue was extremely relevant to Darwin. It drove him nuts, along with disease and his dead daughter following him around.

Back on topic, If you are right, and our 30 billion letter, 4 digit code is the result of lengthy evolving, just explain how it was as complex at the beginning of the evolutionary journey. That's all. No need to get cranky.
An explanation is all that's required.
In code.
With no thought as to which digits............. :0

 

[KissMy]

Kiss, your weeds adapted to their environment. They are stronger more resistant weeds. What they won't do is evolve into peach trees, or lizards. We've become resistant to antibiotics. Bacteria adapts to it's environment. It becomes stronger---bacteria.

Orange trees did not exist hundreds of years ago. If information is add & subtracted to the genome then nearly any phosphorus life form can eventually turn into another.

Life may have even started a second time on earth. NASA Unveils Arsenic Life Form

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sonny, if the thread is about Darwin and DNA, then, yes, you are wrong, because it is about evolution and DNA.

You offered proof of nothing that refuted nothing, TIR.

Babble on, as long as you understand that evolution has nothing to do with salvation.

Well, lets look at the evolution of this thread:
me- a complex digital code requires intelligence and decision making
you- the code evolved in complexity over billions of years
me- then explain the even more complex digital code of the amoeba at the beginning of your origin of species.
you- you suck. you're dumb, you pervert science, Sunni you're incoherent, Christians are heretics..........

Hollie, Sunni's post was coherent and on topic.

Jake Snarkey, Well, unlike you, I understand that DNA is NOT the result of evolution. I offered proof that refuted your claim that it is. As for this comment:

For those of us who are religious, a silly error is to think that theory of evolution and our stand on it must be a salvation issue. It is not. God can work as God wills, and our simple minds are not capable of judging God, whether religious or atheists.

This thread is about evolution and DNA. For salvation, turn to Christ. For complex digital codes from the very beginning, look to the handwriting of God, not Darwin.
And for "those of you" who are religious, If that religion is Christianity I'd like to suggest an excellent book on the origin of species, King James version.

Kiss, your weeds adapted to their environment. They are stronger more resistant weeds. What they won't do is evolve into peach trees, or lizards. We've become resistant to antibiotics. Bacteria adapts to it's environment. It becomes stronger---bacteria.

Gateau, my topic is DNA, my proof is scientific, my theology is the explanation.

I love when science catches up with God. Do you know if Einstein had just added the 2 dimensions that Luke referred to, to his theory of relativity it would have worked without him have to "fudge" the numbers? In fact, Paul gave Einstien the fourth dimension. Hubble just pointed it out to him. Actually, there was someone in the 13 century that was light years<excuse the pun ahead of Einstein. He said there were 10 dimensions 4 of which we are subject to here on earth. So science is haphazard at best and subject to change with every new discovery. God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. It just easier to start out with Him than to end up with Him.

The issue of whether God exists or not is irrelevant to evolution anyways.

Do you speak for all evolutionist?
The issue was extremely relevant to Darwin. It drove him nuts, along with disease and his dead daughter following him around.

Back on topic, If you are right, and our 30 billion letter, 4 digit code is the result of lengthy evolving, just explain how it was as complex at the beginning of the evolutionary journey. That's all. No need to get cranky.
An explanation is all that's required.
In code.
With no thought as to which digits............. :0

 

[The Irish Ram]

I'm pretty sure the O P stated it was about Darwin vs DNA.
Why you keep making it evolution vs salvation I have no idea.
Here. Again:
1. Want salvation? Christ is the answer
2. Want complex DNA code? God is the answer.

Your contention, DNA evolved over a billion years.
Mine, No it didn't. Proof-amoeba

Your contention, Digital codes can be produced with out thought or decision.
Mine, No they can't. Proof- you have evolved into a person that can't produce a complex digital code.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand your argument. I think it is wrong. However, do give me several links to do some reading. Always willing to look at new argumentation.

 

[InDoctriNation]

I'm pretty sure the O P stated it was about Darwin vs DNA.
Why you keep making it evolution vs salvation I have no idea.
Here. Again:
1. Want salvation? Christ is the answer
2. Want complex DNA code? God is the answer.

Your contention, DNA evolved over a billion years.
Mine, No it didn't. Proof-amoeba

Your contention, Digital codes can be produced with out thought or decision.
Mine, No they can't. Proof- you have evolved into a person that can't produce a complex digital code.

So can you please explain to me how a snowflake is able to form into a complex fractal shape seemingly all by itself? I suppose you think that God hand crafts every individual snowflake like he hand crafted DNA? I mean, you must think this since you apparently don't believe that anything complex in nature could have arisen due to natural, unintelligent, processes. Or maybe you're willing to make an exception for the snowflake and say that God created the natural laws that allow a snowflake to from in all of its unique and complex beauty.

Oh yeah, your amoeba argument sucks, since the present day amoeba has evolved to its present state over billions of years, just like any other life form.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm pretty sure the O P stated it was about Darwin vs DNA.
Why you keep making it evolution vs salvation I have no idea.
Here. Again:
1. Want salvation? Christ is the answer
2. Want complex DNA code? God is the answer.

Your contention, DNA evolved over a billion years.
Mine, No it didn't. Proof-amoeba

Your contention, Digital codes can be produced with out thought or decision.
Mine, No they can't. Proof- you have evolved into a person that can't produce a complex digital code.

The concept of DNA was foreign to Darwin.

Again. You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

I mean, your whole schtick is basically "I believe this is just too complicated to ave happened randomly" non-sense that you are going to try and wrap in pseudo-intellectual blather.

It would be amusing if it didn't happen every month with new poster who think they are oh so clever from regurgitating something they saw in someone else's website.

 

[geauxtohell]

Gateau, my topic is DNA, my proof is scientific, my theology is the explanation.

Hilarious.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I'm pretty sure the O P stated it was about Darwin vs DNA.
Why you keep making it evolution vs salvation I have no idea.
Here. Again:
1. Want salvation? Christ is the answer
2. Want complex DNA code? God is the answer.

Your contention, DNA evolved over a billion years.
Mine, No it didn't. Proof-amoeba

Your contention, Digital codes can be produced with out thought or decision.
Mine, No they can't. Proof- you have evolved into a person that can't produce a complex digital code.

So can you please explain to me how a snowflake is able to form into a complex fractal shape seemingly all by itself? I suppose you think that God hand crafts every individual snowflake like he hand crafted DNA? I mean, you must think this since you apparently don't believe that anything complex in nature could have arisen due to natural, unintelligent, processes. Or maybe you're willing to make an exception for the snowflake and say that God created the natural laws that allow a snowflake to from in all of its unique and complex beauty.

Oh yeah, your amoeba argument sucks, since the present day amoeba has evolved to its present state over billions of years, just like any other life form.

Yeah I can explain it. water droplets freeze and crystallize. Their unique shape begins with crystallization, which gives the flake sides, which is what the snowflake builds on, and is affected by temperature changes and moisture. They are not perfectly symmetric, so you can rule out God crafting each individual snowflake. If He was crafting each one, they would be perfect.
So water, temperature, and distance to earth creates snowflakes. Nothing too difficult. Certainly nothing complex.

What I don't believe is that a 30 billion letter, digitally encoded to 4 characters, was a fluke, produced without intelligence, or decision, or design.

A complex design of DNA existed in the amoeba. That it evolved into complexity is simply incorrect. Regardless of any adaptations, they started out with a complex digital code. DNA did not evolve. The code has been there since the beginning. Sorry.

Geauxtohell , Your statement, "The concept of DNA was foreign to Darwin." Is a real eye opener considering DNA was foreign to everybody until the 20th century!!
It's Darwin vs DNA, not Darwin embraces DNA. And you call me dumb??
Is it hilarious that you bring nothing to the discussion but sarcastic personal remarks?
and:
Jake do your own research.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gateau, my topic is DNA, my proof is scientific, my theology is the explanation.

Hilarious.

OK, the Ram is only a slicker peddler of snake oil.

Got it.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Ram mops floor with anyone who disagrees.
2. I don't see anything that holds water from the Darwinians.
3. Ouch!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ID/creationist side has some interesting arguments from the philosophical side.

On the scientific side, the evolutionists rule.

Simplly fact.

 

[InDoctriNation]

I'm pretty sure the O P stated it was about Darwin vs DNA.
Why you keep making it evolution vs salvation I have no idea.
Here. Again:
1. Want salvation? Christ is the answer
2. Want complex DNA code? God is the answer.

Your contention, DNA evolved over a billion years.
Mine, No it didn't. Proof-amoeba

Your contention, Digital codes can be produced with out thought or decision.
Mine, No they can't. Proof- you have evolved into a person that can't produce a complex digital code.

So can you please explain to me how a snowflake is able to form into a complex fractal shape seemingly all by itself? I suppose you think that God hand crafts every individual snowflake like he hand crafted DNA? I mean, you must think this since you apparently don't believe that anything complex in nature could have arisen due to natural, unintelligent, processes. Or maybe you're willing to make an exception for the snowflake and say that God created the natural laws that allow a snowflake to from in all of its unique and complex beauty.

Oh yeah, your amoeba argument sucks, since the present day amoeba has evolved to its present state over billions of years, just like any other life form.

Yeah I can explain it. water droplets freeze and crystallize. Their unique shape begins with crystallization, which gives the flake sides, which is what the snowflake builds on, and is affected by temperature changes and moisture. They are not perfectly symmetric, so you can rule out God crafting each individual snowflake. If He was crafting each one, they would be perfect.
So water, temperature, and distance to earth creates snowflakes. Nothing too difficult. Certainly nothing complex.

What I don't believe is that a 30 billion letter, digitally encoded to 4 characters, was a fluke, produced without intelligence, or decision, or design.

A complex design of DNA existed in the amoeba. That it evolved into complexity is simply incorrect. Regardless of any adaptations, they started out with a complex digital code. DNA did not evolve. The code has been there since the beginning. Sorry.

Geauxtohell , Your statement, "The concept of DNA was foreign to Darwin." Is a real eye opener considering DNA was foreign to everybody until the 20th century!!
It's Darwin vs DNA, not Darwin embraces DNA. And you call me dumb??
Is it hilarious that you bring nothing to the discussion but sarcastic personal remarks?
and:
Jake do your own research.

So the snowflake just builds itself into a complex structure without any help from a designer, correct? Your assertion that a snowflake is not complex while DNA is complex is simply one of opinion and not fact.

You say if God was crafting each snowflake, they would be perfect. You also say that if something isn't perfect, I can rule out God having created it. Well, there are these things called mutations that prove that DNA is not perfect, so I guess by your logic God did not create DNA.

You also baldly assert that DNA did not evolve. I'd like to see what your evidence is for this statement.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yes, the snowflake builds itself. A similar example would be the pearl, which starts out as an irritant. A grain of sand, lets say. The edges of the grain irritate the oyster, so it coats the grain with layers and layers of slime that eventually hardens and replaces the sharp edges of the grain with a smooth orb, and we wear them around our necks. No evolution. Production.

Same thing with the snowflake. freezing drops of water coat a particle. Dust, lets say. And over the coarse of it's production, layers and layers of freezing water.................

DNA is digital. The formation of a snowflake is natural. Fact. No opinion necessary.
Were I to cease to exist, DNA would still be digital and snowflakes would still be the product of their environment.

Nowhere did I say that if something isn't perfect we can rule out God as having created it. He created MAN. Ask any women if she's found a perfect one yet!

My evidence shows it was complex from the beginning. Complex and digital. Requiring an intelligent decision making process, from the beginning.
If you look at the def. of complex, digital, and code, you'll understand that you can't make or produce one without thought. Try it.
As for mutating DNA, drink Pepsi.

Last but not least, Jakie,

The ID/creationist side has some interesting arguments from the philosophical side.
On the scientific side, the evolutionists rule.

What they are ruling on today is the fact that they were wrong yesterday. Amoebae didn't evolve a way to reproduce as evolutionists were sure they had. It's been there all along.

The smarter evolutionists get, the more evident it becomes:
In the beginning was God...........

 

[InDoctriNation]

Here is your quote: "They are not perfectly symmetric, so you can rule out God crafting each individual snowflake. If He was crafting each one, they would be perfect."

This statement of yours implies that I can rule out god having crafted anything that isn't perfect. So God crafts imperfect humans, but if he was to try his hand at crafting snowflakes they would all be perfect? You're not making a lot of sense here...

But that is beside the point. Your argument boils down to one big argument from ignorance. You can't think of any way that DNA could have arisen through natural processes and declare it impossible (with no evidence to make such a declaration), therefore God did it. If we were having this debate 1,000 years ago, you would be arguing that it's impossible for snowflakes to form such complex, intricate structures without the hand of god being directly involved. Natural explanations have always supplanted supernatural explanations throughout history, and it has never come to pass that a supernatural explanations has either been upheld or supplanted the natural explanation. You are on the losing side of history here, not that you would accept the natural explanation in this case if it slapped you in the face, anyways.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You can't think of any way that DNA could have arisen through natural processes and declare it impossible (with no evidence to make such a declaration), therefore God did it" is the issue TIR can't get over.

But what atheists or absolutists don't realize, that as far as God and salvation are concerned, none of it matters: at all.

One is a world of empirical data and the other is the world of faith. And that difference does not matter.

 

[geauxtohell]

And what the dogmatics don't understand is that, if you want to insert God into a scientific theory, you would first have to be able to falsify the existence of God.

Good luck with that.

This is why it is painfully obvious that most of these people are high school biology flunkies who couldn't be bothered to learn the discipline until later in life when they erroneously concluded it conflicted with their world view.

So instead of studying it in a systematic and disciplined way, they cherry pick their arguments with hilariously predictable results.

 

[KissMy]

"You can't think of any way that DNA could have arisen through natural processes and declare it impossible (with no evidence to make such a declaration), therefore God did it" is the issue TIR can't get over.

But what atheists or absolutists don't realize, that as far as God and salvation are concerned, none of it matters: at all.

One is a world of empirical data and the other is the world of faith. And that difference does not matter.

If you stick your finger into a world where people only saw & understood 2 dimensions, they would believe you were a circle.

We are in a Universe of at Least 10 Dimensions, yet we can only see 3 & understand 4 dimensions. God may well be controlling DNA & Evolution. We just don't know what we don't know.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here is your quote: "They are not perfectly symmetric, so you can rule out God crafting each individual snowflake. If He was crafting each one, they would be perfect."

This statement of yours implies that I can rule out god having crafted anything that isn't perfect. So God crafts imperfect humans, but if he was to try his hand at crafting snowflakes they would all be perfect? You're not making a lot of sense here...

But that is beside the point. Your argument boils down to one big argument from ignorance. You can't think of any way that DNA could have arisen through natural processes and declare it impossible (with no evidence to make such a declaration), therefore God did it. If we were having this debate 1,000 years ago, you would be arguing that it's impossible for snowflakes to form such complex, intricate structures without the hand of god being directly involved. Natural explanations have always supplanted supernatural explanations throughout history, and it has never come to pass that a supernatural explanations has either been upheld or supplanted the natural explanation. You are on the losing side of history here, not that you would accept the natural explanation in this case if it slapped you in the face, anyways.

Geez, you're just being obstinate.
God does not create each snowflake. He created the environment that produces them, and his system works perfectly in creating snowflakes. Each flake takes the perfect form for maximum efficiency and effectiveness for its particular journey. At any given time it is perfectly formed for its environment, ie, a wind gust, or drop in temperature. Before they hit earth they may bump into each other, attach to each other, float for awhile in a breeze, nevertheless, they capitulate to gravity and do their job perfectly.
There is no rule that insists that snowflakes be perfectly symmetrical, just as there is no rule that oysters have to produce a perfectly symmetric pearl to accomplish it's goal.

As a fan of quantum physics, I can think of all kinds of ways for things to happen. As a fan of logic, there is no way that you can convince me that DNA became complex through billions of years of evolving, when I know and science knows that complex encoding existed from the beginning.

Your statements imply that DNA required evolution to become complex. It simply did not.
After billions of years of evolving, you still can't produce what God started out with.

Throughout history man has continually adjusted his explanation of the natural, to conform to the latest information available.

The supernatural told us the earth was round. How long was it before man supplanted his flat earth explanation for the horizon, to accommodate the supernatural fact that it wasn't?

 

[The Irish Ram]

"You can't think of any way that DNA could have arisen through natural processes and declare it impossible (with no evidence to make such a declaration), therefore God did it" is the issue TIR can't get over.

But what atheists or absolutists don't realize, that as far as God and salvation are concerned, none of it matters: at all.

One is a world of empirical data and the other is the world of faith. And that difference does not matter.

If you stick your finger into a world where people only saw & understood 2 dimensions, they would believe you were a circle.

We are in a Universe of at Least 10 Dimensions, yet we can only see 3 & understand 4 dimensions. God may well be controlling DNA & Evolution. We just don't know what we don't know.

Yay Columbia! FINALLY!
Our "evolutionary" time line of discovery:

June 10, 1854: the most important mathematical lecture ever given&#8230;It
took over 60 years for it to be applied&#8230;Georg Riemann&#8217;s lecture on
Metric Tensors.

1915: Einstein, Four-Dimensional Space-time: Einstein went to his grave
frustrated over his inability to reconcile issues which subsequently
yielded by applying his previous insights.

1953: Kaluza-Klein: 4+n Dimensions (Light & Supergravity).

1963: Yang-Mills Fields (Electromagnetic & Both Nuclear Forces).

1984: Superstrings, 10-Dimensions (The current thinking among quantum
physicists is that our universe consists of one-dimensional
&#8220;superstrings&#8221; vibrating in 10 dimensions&#8230.
Dimensions of &#8220;Reality&#8221;

OR, they just could have done what this guy did, and used the supernatural to get it right the first time:

Nachmonides (13th Century): 10 dimensions, only 4 are &#8220;knowable&#8221;
(Commentary on Genesis, 1263). Particle Physicists (20th Century): 10
dimensions, 4 are directly measurable: (3 spatial + time) and the other 6
are &#8220;curled&#8221; into less than 10-33 cm, and thus inferable only by indirect
means.
^ In the year of our Lord, 1263

Yay Billion $ Hadron Collider! for confirming the supernatural intelligence of Genesis 101.