What do Religious people say to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moonstruck888 said:
You’re trying to trick me into either saying the nucleic acids are a naturally occurring code or else denying that they are naturally occurring code. No matter which way I go, you’re going to tie me up in semantic knots and claim evidence of design by a third party…

I’m not playing that game with you. It’s childish and stupid…
Click to expand...
It is simple - show me a code, language, map or symbol produced by nature.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Spoken like a true philosopher.

I don’t doubt that you can trick me into making semantical errors and I don’t doubt that you can out argue me. I don’t doubt that you are more logical than I am.

What I can do, and do well, is understand and employ the scientific method. I would rather have that capability than yours.

You can play dumb all you want. We both know why I’m calling you a liar and a fraud, and we both know why I am taking satisfaction from you at the moment.
Click to expand...
You are not taking any satisfaction away from me. I thank you for calling me a philosopher, even if the last time I went through a formal class in philosophy was during my high school education more than 30 years ago.

My formal training is in condensed matter physics and quantum optics. Some of my university ex-students and colleagues would laugh their … off just at the idea of someone calling me a philosopher.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Why is it that philosophers have to turn interesting conversations into verbal chess games?
Click to expand...
Why is it that materialistic scientists paint themselves into a corner by a priori not allowing for anything outside of their 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time?
 
Cristiano said:
You are not taking any satisfaction away from me. I thank you for calling me a philosopher, even if the last time I went through a formal class in philosophy was during my high school education more than 30 years ago.

My formal training is in condensed matter physics and quantum optics. Some of my university ex-students and colleagues would laugh their … off just at the idea of someone calling me a philosopher.
Click to expand...
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

I don’t believe you. I think you’re a philosopher and I think you want me to beleive that you’re a physicist.

You don’t even understand the value of genomics as evidence that supports the Evolution model. Any scientist, even one in an unrelated field, should be able to grasp the significance of genomic data instantaneously.

I think you’re lying. I just wonder why, that’s all? Do you think you’ll impress me and lend yourself more credence? All you have to do to impress me is talk some sense.
 
buffalo said:
Why is it that materialistic scientists paint themselves into a corner by a priori not allowing for anything outside of their 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time?
Click to expand...
Because a scientist must portion his judgement to the evidence. We don’t have the luxury of being able to fire any old **** through a truth table and bragg about the gibberish we found at the other end.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Because a scientist must portion his judgement to the evidence. We don’t have the luxury of being able to fire any old **** through a truth table and bragg about the gibberish we found at the other end.
Click to expand...
You have ventured far from empirical science. Evolutionism is philosophy.
 
buffalo said:
That is a really important point to the entire conversation.

Do you need a primer? If we continue I would like to do so in a more professional manner.
Click to expand...
Okay, agreed.

To start off with, you’ll need to define what you mean when you say a code, because communications theory is not something I know anything about.
 
buffalo said:
You have ventured far from empirical science. Evolutionism is philosophy.
Click to expand...
Evolutionism is philosophy, that I agree.

The Theory of Evolution is science though. Evolutionism I know little about.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Okay, agreed.

To start off with, you’ll need to define what you mean when you say a code, because communications theory is not something I know anything about.
Click to expand...
Codes and language

Need a sender
Need a receiver
Need a key
 
I hope that anyone getting this far in the thread has already realized that the scientists did not create life out of nothing, they plagiarized it.

I think it is great that we are learning how to synthesize life. God did give us dominion over the earth. He did make us in His image. Well one of the things he did was create life so why can’t we imitate him?

There are plenty of really useful things we can create using bio-engineered life forms.
How about bacteria that synthesize medicines? Bacteria that make diesel fuel? Bacteria that make a really good steak?

One thing I don’t think we will be able to do is create an intelligent life form. I believe that in the future a proof of the existence of God will be based on the fact that we can synthesize all other life forms but not self aware humans. No replecants in our future.
 
buffalo said:
A mind - so yes.
Click to expand...
Then I would say under that definition DNA is not a code. DNA does contain and transceive information in a sense, but the process is not driven by consciousness. You don’t have to think about how to produce insulin or have blue eyes or heal a cut. It happens purely as an autonomic response.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Then I would say under that definition DNA is not a code. DNA does contain and transceive information in a sense, but the process is not driven by consciousness. You don’t have to think about how to produce insulin or have blue eyes or heal a cut. It happens purely as an autonomic response.
Click to expand...
The DNA code came from a mind. A computer code comes from a mind, although there is a hardware component that is used.
 
buffalo said:
The DNA code came from a mind. A computer code comes from a mind, although there is a hardware component that is used.
Click to expand...
The difference is that computer code can’t grow it’s own hardware to run on, nor can computers replicate. Every single human being alive is a transitional phase in evolution. You are a transitional phase between your mother and father and your children. That is not true of computers.

Computers are also not individuals. Human beings are. By exchanging DNA with your partner, you create novel combinations that have never existed before. Again, there is no thought or mind behind this. You and your wife simply initiate a process. You do not need to design your children or engineer them in any conscious way, it simply happens all by itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top