InDoctriNation
Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 271
- 34
- 16
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?
You are still not providing any justification for your claim that DNA could not have had simple beginnings. Can you please provide a scienctific source that argues that "complex coding existed from the beginning." You say that science knows this, but you provide no sources that scientific consensus has reached this position.
I love how you say that as a fan of logic, there is no way I could convince you that DNA became complex through billions of years of evolution. That's about the most contradictory statement anyone could make.
One giant "god of the gaps" argument from ignorance. If that's all you've got, I'm done wasting my time here.