The Language of God

Francis Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence of Belief

YouTube

Jonathan Wells, take on certain claims made by Francis Collins (author of Language of God) on evolution, Darwinism and the existence of God.

YouTube

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/francis-collins-on-science-and-faith/

The video was too long for me to watch it. But his arguments are well known and wrong.

The Big Questions. Is there a God? BBC 12 Jan

YouTube

always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3:7 KJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Big Questions. Is there a God? BBC 12 Jan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb1N9WQd4KU

always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3:7 KJV)

The Big Questions. Is there a God?

No the big question is, so what?
Alternately, what are you trying to achieve in persuading me that there is a God?

After all, God will not have much difficulty communicating directly (or indirectly) with me without relying on your mediation. So it is curious that you have this role and your objectives are worth exploring.

Originally posted by googlefudge
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/francis-collins-on-science-and-faith/

The video was too long for me to watch it. But his arguments are well known and wrong.

Yes we know that some of Collins' arguments are wrong just as we know tha some of your arguments are wrong. That is because you are all still in the process of learning.

always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3:7 KJV)

Originally posted by finnegan
The Big Questions. Is there a God?

No the big question is, so what?
Alternately, what are you trying to achieve in persuading me that there is a God?

After all, God will not have much difficulty communicating directly (or indirectly) with me without relying on your mediation. So it is curious that you have this role and your objectives are worth exploring.

That has always been my problem with hierarchical religions, posed so that the so-called leaders just happen to be the ones who have the ear of 'god'.

When in fact, it would be zero problem for a real god to speak to all of us at once, in our own languages, the true story of spirituality.

Of course, the religious set always goes, SO you think you know the mind of god, as if THEY do, which they do DECIDEDLY do NOT. They wouldn't know a god if it came down and took a whiz on their legs. Wait, maybe that was dog.....

Originally posted by finnegan
Alternately, what are you trying to achieve in persuading me that there is a God?.

I think, on a deeper level, by persuading others he is trying to persuade himself.

A man truly confident in his own beliefs wouldn't feel the overwhelming need to convince others that he holds the truth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That has always been my problem with hierarchical religions, posed so that the so-called leaders just happen to be the ones who have the ear of 'god'.

When in fact, it would be zero problem for a real god to speak to all of us at once, in our own languages, the true story of spirituality.

Of course, the religious set always goes, SO you think you kno ...[text shortened]... ouldn't know a god if it came down and took a whiz on their legs. Wait, maybe that was dog.....

Besides learning and never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth, the following quote from the Holy Bible also seems to apply to people like you and googlefudge:

For this they willingly are ignorant of

(2 Peter 3:5 KJV)

Information - Evidence of God in DNA

In the beginning was the word and God spoke (the language of God) and things came into existence.

How is it that we can see that DNA is an encoded set of information & instructions stored in every cell of every living thing & not see that it must be by design? DNA uses a 4 symbol chemical code (like our alphabet uses 26 symbol codes) and instructs the body how to build our protiens. The storage method for these instructions is so vast no human can ever invent such a large storage method in such a small package. A single DNA strand can store an entire library of books. And we each have trillions of DNA strands within us! Its design is clearly evidence of an intelligence as it could not randomly happen. When we see information we automatically know some form of intelligence is behind it. No scientist will dispute that. So this is no different.

YouTube

Scientists discover second, secret DNA code

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Besides learning and never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth, the following quote from the Holy Bible also seems to apply to people like you and googlefudge:

For this they willingly are ignorant of

(2 Peter 3:5 KJV)

That has nothing to do with the fact that a supposedly infinite god would have zero trouble just talking to every being on the planet in their own language, including Dolphins.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That has nothing to do with the fact that a supposedly infinite god would have zero trouble just talking to every being on the planet in their own language, including Dolphins.

This is true, IF these beings (man) had no sin.

God cannot abide sin of any kind, and so he will not talk to, or be heard by, any of us. It is only through the mediation of Jesus Christ that he can communicate with us at all.

Here's the thing, though. Would you not worship a God who did come down and talk to you (perhaps, I dunno, as George Burns)? If convinced God was talking to them, I'm fairly certain a high percentage of men would throw themselves prostrate and promise to follow God. This is why it will not happen. Man must have free will to CHOOSE God, even though it is not proven. Just like man must have a free will to turn his back on God.

And this isn't even considering if he could stand talking to someone who has embraced sin instead of him.

I've seen you saying this same thing countless times. Why do you even think that you would qualify to have a conversation with God, anyways? What if you were looked at as a possible conversation candidate and rejected? But no, I suppose you can't believe that, either.

Proof of God!

As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss.

Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe according to evolutionists, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created.

Now of course, elementary particles aren"t chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds.

If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse"almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions"they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.

So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it"s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities).

Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed according to evolutionists, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.

YouTube

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is true, IF these beings (man) had no sin.

God cannot abide sin of any kind, and so he will not talk to, or be heard by, any of us. It is only through the mediation of Jesus Christ that he can communicate with us at all.

Here's the thing, though. Would you not worship a God who did come down and talk to you (perhaps, I dunno, as George Burns)? ...[text shortened]... possible conversation candidate and rejected? But no, I suppose you can't believe that, either.

"God cannot abide sin of any kind, and so he will not talk to, or be heard by, any of us. It is only through the mediation of Jesus Christ that he can communicate with us at all."

Blasphemous claptrap. Attributes emotion to an anthropomorphic "god" and asserts limits to His powers, while overlooking the claim that Jesus IS God. Really, in this account, like Paul, you are reverting to paganism.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Proof of God!

As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss.

Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly sp ...[text shortened]... originated by chance that adjectives fail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWFf8G3BKI[/b]

Fail again. Evolution is not a random process. Random events take place by all means, or at least chance events do (the notion of what is random can become a hangup). What survives from those random variations and events is not random. What survives is what fits the environment at any point in time. This is NEVER random. Also evolution does not work on random components. At any time, it works on existing, viable creatures adapted to an existing environment. Evolution is not random. It is a very meaningful, intelligible process by which organic variation permits adaptation in the face of environmental change and it works within constraints. For example adaptation is not possible when a meteorite wrecks Earth's atmosphere for a number of years and the current mass extinctions arise from excessively fast and comprehensive environmental change induced by human activity and capitalist depravity.

So your entire argument is spurious and has no relevance. Evolution does not entail atoms randomly coming together to form RJ Hinds. And sadly, Hinds wil not randomly fly apart anytime soon (enough).