B
buffalo
Guest
The DNA molecule is an information carrier. The DNA language runs the system.
- Status
K
Kei
Guest
Did I do that?
But, I imagine if you’d find any similar activity, say something that did the similar with rocks, you would find it absurd to say it is not intelligent activity.
But, I imagine if you’d find any similar activity, say something that did the similar with rocks, you would find it absurd to say it is not intelligent activity.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Ah. This is what I find in Henry Woods’s Augustine and Evolution.
“III. The creatures that began to exist without seed, each in its own kind, are, according to St.
Augustine, those with which we are familiar, definite in their species unchanged to the present day.
Hence, for him, existing species are the result of immediate creation, not of a long-drawn evolution.”
To me this implies the spontaneous creation of all the millions of different species of living things that have ever existed. Is that what you believe? I understand that many creationists think that God only created a couple of thousand different ‘kinds’, from which the multitudes of different species are descended.
“III. The creatures that began to exist without seed, each in its own kind, are, according to St.
Augustine, those with which we are familiar, definite in their species unchanged to the present day.
Hence, for him, existing species are the result of immediate creation, not of a long-drawn evolution.”
To me this implies the spontaneous creation of all the millions of different species of living things that have ever existed. Is that what you believe? I understand that many creationists think that God only created a couple of thousand different ‘kinds’, from which the multitudes of different species are descended.
I think you are getting a bit closer to a sensible definition of “random” here. Within the laws of physics and given a few billion years, it is perfectly possible randomly to produce the extremely complex organisms we see today, even more so if they derive more or less closely from an original ‘kind’ created spontaneously by God. However, the randomness which resulted in these developments is itself a product of the overall structure of the universe, which, it might be said, is inherently capable of achieving the results it did - which may, after all, actually be inevitable… After all, even if a dice were entirely unbiased, and entirely random in its throw, you can still only get a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, never a 7 or 8, and given enough tries, you will eventually get ten sixes in a row. If this is the only published result, the illusion that dice was biased in favour of a six will be very strong.
The distinction between the two is entirely one of scale. On the scale of individual organisms, there is no difference between adaptation and evolution. How many ‘kinds’ do you think God created (from nothing or from earth) - or do you agree with buffalo that every known species was independently created?
T
Techno2000
Guest
What was the first living organism ?Ah. This is what I find in Henry Woods’s Augustine and Evolution.
“III. The creatures that began to exist without seed, each in its own kind, are, according to St.
Augustine, those with which we are familiar, definite in their species unchanged to the present day.
Hence, for him, existing species are the result of immediate creation, not of a long-drawn evolution.”
To me this implies the spontaneous creation of all the millions of different species of living things that have ever existed. Is that what you believe? I understand that many creationists think that God only created a couple of thousand different ‘kinds’, from which the multitudes of different species are descended.
Aloysium:
I think you are getting a bit closer to a sensible definition of “random” here. Within the laws of physics and given a few billion years, it is perfectly possible randomly to produce the extremely complex organisms we see today, even more so if they derive more or less closely from an original ‘kind’ created spontaneously by God. However, the randomness which resulted in these developments is itself a product of the overall structure of the universe, which, it might be said, is inherently capable of achieving the results it did - which may, after all, actually be inevitable… After all, even if a dice were entirely unbiased, and entirely random in its throw, you can still only get a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, never a 7 or 8, and given enough tries, you will eventually get ten sixes in a row. If this is the only published result, the illusion that dice was biased in favour of a six will be very strong.
The distinction between the two is entirely one of scale. On the scale of individual organisms, there is no difference between adaptation and evolution. How many ‘kinds’ do you think God created (from nothing or from earth) - or do you agree with buffalo that every known species was independently created?
B
buffalo
Guest
No, the millions of species are man made definitions that have to do with reproduction. Many lost this ability because of degradation.
In the beginning there was less variety. As time went on programmed adaptation (micro-evolution) gave us the variations within.
Yes there is a huge gap between micro and macro. No one argues against micro.
In the beginning there was less variety. As time went on programmed adaptation (micro-evolution) gave us the variations within.
Yes there is a huge gap between micro and macro. No one argues against micro.
R
rossum
Guest
Agreed, but carrying information does not define just languages. Sunlight carries information, but it is not a language. “Information carrier” is a far larger category than just “language”. What is true of the smaller subset may not be true of the larger set.
Your argument lacks rigour here.
rossum
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
As the Psalm says: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added)
How do you define “organism”?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Light is an information carrier. Fiber optic info carries a ton of it. The info is coded, then decoded. The information was produced by programs. These programs were built by a mind.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What did the first Prokaryotic Cell on earth evolve from ?Techno2000:
As the Psalm says: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added)
How do you define “organism”?
rossum
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You still seem to be having trouble with this. The scientists are very obviously using the term “language” differently than you are. They are using the word “language” only to indicate that studying genetic code will lead to some understanding of the human body. You can’t map all you normally think about “language” onto that special usage, because it doesn’t apply.
Here, let me try an obvious conflation. See if you can spot the logic error:
- Cool people tend to be popular. (social fact)
- My cousin lives in Alaska, which is cool even in summer.
- Therefore, my cousin is popular.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, in fact they now have a text translator program that you can put in genetic instructions and it will output DNA code.
B
buffalo
Guest
Nope, you need to work through the logic I have written compared to your own example.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Go ahead and link it.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Nope. You need to learn what “conflation” and “begging the question” mean. They are pretty fundamental ideas to any debating course, and your case is just about the dictionary definition of them.
Unless you think that the scientific usage of “language” with regard to DNA is actually the same as the normal use of “language” which involves a conscious thinker making sounds to express ideas, then your analogy doesn’t hold.
Unless you think that the scientific usage of “language” with regard to DNA is actually the same as the normal use of “language” which involves a conscious thinker making sounds to express ideas, then your analogy doesn’t hold.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Question. How old do you believe the earth to be? I’ve got an argument to make, but I’d like to base it off of your views on the how long life has existed.
M
mVitus
Guest
And if possible, since I believe you’ve stated a literal world wide Flood as your view, where do you place Noah’s Ark in respect to the Ice Age?
B
buffalo
Guest
That is an open question.
I will give you my take on it.
Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Now, imagine a rolled up tape measure 7 layers thick. God, being outside of time, sees it all at once. Humans live on the tape and have to look back through the graduations.
I will give you my take on it.
Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Now, imagine a rolled up tape measure 7 layers thick. God, being outside of time, sees it all at once. Humans live on the tape and have to look back through the graduations.
B
buffalo
Guest
We have to place the flood some 4000 years ago.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The way I see it:
.
We are engaged in the creation of a dialogue. It may end up going in circles. It may “evolve” in terms of mutual understanding. It may “devolve” into mere self expression, or worse abuse.
We are individually created, both here and now given existence, and as temporal beings our lives have a beginning.
The information physically contained in our bodies now is only a bit more complex than that which was our body at conception. So to create us whole in the moment and at conception requires the same amount of data. Since I am a unity within myself, although having a spiritual soul, I see no reason why animals and plants should not be, especially in light of the fact that atoms and smaller physical events can be part of greater wholes but also particles as themselves. As I was created whole at conception, so too are lesser forms of life. All that goes into making a first creature of its kind is compressed and folded into the DNA of its kind, separated into gametes of different sexes, and later merged, to be opened up in developmental stages following God’s directive to be fruitful and multiply.
So there’s creation as the beginning of a thing, whether an entire species or a member, from nothing in time. In regards to life, it would appear that the creation of an elephant would require the existence of a species elephant and pre-existing matter, cells and an animal psyche representing the instincts. Ontological creation occurs in the now from the nothing which should exist were it not for God. And, there is creation in nature as a building of diversity through built in physical and psychological mechanisms in organisms. This is sort of what we would be doing here in this discussion.
Not randomly. We do get abnormalities through a gene deletion and the offspring may survive. This demonstrates how powerless natural selection would actually be in creating a more highly “evolved” creature from what was previously in existence - a lion from a eukaryote, a human being from a hominid. In terms of adaptation, how peacocks and colourful wrens have come to be requires more than random glitches to the genome, but a creative influence that is both physical and psychological.
That’s how the myth goes.
R
rossum
Guest
Light carries information. Starlight also carries information. Are you telling us that there are humans on stars adding red-shift information to the light from stars? There are many well known processes that can add information to light, none of which involve intelligence.
Your metaphor fails, buffalo.
rossum
- Status