A Serious Question: Why God made DNA

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very good. We're almost there.

Do you agree that from (6) and (8), this follows:

(9) The changes postulated in (8) depend on an intelligent design, and the postulated new species is a product of intelligent design.

Okay.

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay.

Is that a yes, you actually believe that (9) follows from (6) and (8), or are you just taking my word for it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is that a yes, you actually believe that (9) follows from (6) and (8), or are you just taking my word for it?

Yes. It follows logically.

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes. It follows logically.

Great.

Here is where we have arrived. This claims follows directly from (9).

10) The theory of evolution's claims of speciation entail the necessity of intelligent design.

So, what's the big deal? The point is, you hold (1) to be axiomatic, your standard of truth. From (1) we have derived (2) through (6). In steps the theory of evolution at (8), about which you must logically conclude that it supports rather than contradicts your belief in intelligent design, expressed by (10). That is, if the claims of evolution are correct, then under your axioms, their correctness implies the existence of an underlying intelligent design. And if they are incorrect, then evolution is simply wrong.

You win both ways; your belief in intelligent design is never in jeopardy, regardless of how correct the theory of evolution is. With regard to protecting your belief in intelligent design, you have absolutely nothing to fear from evolutionary theory; its correctness will only serve to support your faith in intelligent design.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Great.

Here is where we have arrived:

10) The theory of evolution's claims of speciation entail the necessity of intelligent design.

So, what the big deal? The point is, you hold (1) to be axiomatic, your standard of truth. From (1) we have derived (2) through (7). In steps the theory of evolution at (8), about which you logically conclu ...[text shortened]... volutionary theory; its correctness will only serve to support your faith in intelligent design.

True. Very good.

I have no problem with the TOE's scientifically observable (and sound) speciation.

My antagonism arises when evolution is extrapolated into the past (without conclusive evidence) to derive conclusions which contradict some of my theological axioms.

A very thought provoking exercise nonetheless doctor.

Originally posted by Halitose

My antagonism arises when evolution is extrapolated into the past (without conclusive evidence) to derive conclusions which contradict some of my theological axioms.

Then you missed the point of the exercise. Regardless of whether the evolutionists' claims about speciation refer to the past or future, and regardless of the amount or lack of evidence behind them, they can only defend and not contradict your belief in intelligent design, given your axioms. The more correct they are, the more support you have to believe in intelligent design.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage

Bosse, I think you meant to say:

11) Therefore, Scribbles is a verbose windbag. 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
Here's for starters:

I don't agree that (4) was a part of the original design.

I believe that (4) came into being because of sin and the fall of man and is thus not a part of the original design.

So the fall of man caused DNA to be born?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very good.

Do you agree with this:

6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.

The problem I see here, as I have stated before, is why do you limit
your perception of the true omnipotence of a real god?
A real god could make the universe so fine tuned it doesn't NEED
to constantly tinker with DNA or whatever to make a new species
happen. Why can't you just be content with a god like that?

Originally posted by David C
Bosse, I think you meant to say:

11) Therefore, Scribbles is a verbose windbag. 😉

62 words ALL IN A ROW is verbose? Wow, I don't think you want to
read Chekov or Tolstoy or Ulysses.

Originally posted by sonhouse
62 words ALL IN A ROW is verbose? Wow, I don't think you want to
read Chekov or Tolstoy or Ulysses.

Actually, I was thinking '4 pages to arrive at the conclusion', but I get your point.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the fall of man caused DNA to be born?

(4) The possibility for imperfection during (3) is part of that design.

The fall of man allowed for mutations to occur.

bump

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Interesting. So, you are saying that genetic mutations would not occur if Adam and Eve had never sinned?

Do you suppose God redesigned their DNA after the fall, so that it was of a different nature, namely, of a nature that allowed mutations? Or do you suppose the nature of our DNA is just like theirs, but that we observe mutations because God allows them to happen while without sin he would have prevented them from happening?

If I may add my 2 cents, genetic mutations would not have occurred if not for the fall of man.

On the 2nd part to your question you assume that God "redesigned". No I don't agree with this. I would propose that another god(satan) corrupted God's original DNA after the fall. That is, indirectly. The bible calls this a "sin nature", which is not in God's original design. Which is what separates man from God, and thus the need for a redeemer.