- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jul 14
2 edits
...do we assume an intelligence is behind it?
I'm always both amused and annoyed whenever someone wants to take the "DNA as code
or blueprint"-analogy to its limits, in order to support their pre-conceived notion of an omni-
creator. I'm amused because there seem to be no reason to believe that DNA could not
form through natural processes, given that it consists entirely of just a few basic
molecules that interact quite naturally to form more complex structures. I'm annoyed that it
is so hard to get that point across.
If molecules of simpler structures can form through natural processes, such as the way
water molecules arrange themselves in crystalline structures to form snowflakes, under
the right conditions, and no snowflake is like another, then at what point of complexity do
we assume intelligence?
Yes, the living cell as a whole consists of many intricate parts that work together to form a
remarkably complex, self-replicating jumble of molecules, but molecules none the less.
And let's not forget, that while the conditions are right snowflakes can build up remarkable
structures of ice and snow, but when it gets warmer, all of that melts away. It's literally the
same with living cells. Remove some or all of the conditions required for the molecules in a
cell to interact properly, and the cell withers away.
The cell is a more complex amalgamate of different molecules than snowflakes, but the
natural conditions for it to form are also more elaborate. While that may have you think that
those conditions must have been put in place by someone, you'd be imagining things. The
conditions themselves are certainly simpler than the cell, and most certainly could have
formed through natural processes.
So, if the information-argument rests only on the fact that the cell is so complex, at what
level of complexity does a jumble of molecules cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon?
Originally posted by C HessIt no different than say, letters typed out to form ideas. It isn't the
...do we assume an intelligence is behind it?
I'm always both amused and annoyed whenever someone wants to take the "DNA as code
or blueprint"-analogy to its limits, in order to support their pre-conceived notion of an omni-
creator. I'm amused because there seem to be no reason to believe that DNA could not
form through natural processes, given that ...[text shortened]... t what
level of complexity does a jumble of molecules cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon?
interaction, its the information within.
Kelly
Originally posted by C HessGod made water molecules in the beginning and designed them to arrange themselves in crystalline structures to form snowflakes so that no two patterns of a snowflake will be the same. Don't you see that that takes superior intelligence.
...do we assume an intelligence is behind it?
I'm always both amused and annoyed whenever someone wants to take the "DNA as code
or blueprint"-analogy to its limits, in order to support their pre-conceived notion of an omni-
creator. I'm amused because there seem to be no reason to believe that DNA could not
form through natural processes, given that ...[text shortened]... t what
level of complexity does a jumble of molecules cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon?
The DNA molecule is a superior computer memory storage device much better than any hard drive we have. Not only that, but God programs it with instruction code to make proteins and all the necessary parts of whatever creature He has chosen to make.
That is why some people refer to the information stored in the DNA molecule as the blueprint for the reproduction of whatever creature God has programmed it to be.
One can not take a live frog and put it in a blender to break it up into all the molecules needed to make a frog and then poor it into a pitcher of water and expect the molecules to come together to make a live tadpole and then into a live frog all on its own. If you don't believe me, try it.
The reason it will not work is that the program information is destroyed and nothing will come together without that instruction information on how to make a living thing.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, in your opinion, it cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon when you can reasonably
It no different than say, letters typed out to form ideas. It isn't the
interaction, its the information within.
Kelly
argue that the complexity holds information of some kind? But biological information is
nothing like the written language though, is it? It's not something that's very useful in
written form alone. Biological information is a set of molecules that react with other
molecules in predictable ways. To compare it with a written language is to essentially
sneak in the idea that there has to be a writer, where none need exist.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHonestly? I'm not suggesting that a mashed frog can be reverted into a living frog.
God made water molecules in the beginning and designed them to arrange themselves in crystalline structures to form snowflakes so that no two patterns of a snowflake will be the same. Don't you see that that takes superior intelligence.
The DNA molecule is a superior computer memory storage device much better than any hard drive we have. Not only that, ...[text shortened]... d nothing will come together without that instruction information on how to make a living thing.
Sometimes you're just silly, RJ.
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessI am not a computer programmer, there are more than a few on this
So, in your opinion, it cease to be "just" a natural phenomenon when you can reasonably
argue that the complexity holds information of some kind? But biological information is
nothing like the written language though, is it? It's not something that's very useful in
written form alone. Biological information is a set of molecules that react with other
...[text shortened]... uage is to essentially
sneak in the idea that there has to be a writer, where none need exist.
site. I have written scripts in Perl, and some in unix, the thing with
all of those if you screw up the code it does nothing, or as bad and
maybe worse not what you want.
Getting information to cause things to occur at the proper times, under
the proper conditions, for only as long as required, isn't something that
you can get by chance. There has to be something directing it, in my
opinion anyway.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen certain molecules collide with certain other molecules predictable things happen. If
I am not a computer programmer, there are more than a few on this
site. I have written scripts in Perl, and some in unix, the thing with
all of those if you screw up the code it does nothing, or as bad and
maybe worse not what you want.
Getting information to cause things to occur at the proper times, under
the proper conditions, for only as long as ...[text shortened]... at
you can get by chance. There has to be something directing it, in my
opinion anyway.
Kelly
those predictable things happen to be that they form proteins, or replicate themselves, how
is that something that cannot happen "by chance". Obviously an entire cell can't form
suddenly by chance, but the conditions required for a cell to form can certainly have
formed incrementally, partially through chance. Certainly the simple initial structures could
be the result of natural law alone, and as these simpler structures combine into stable
structures of their own, complexity grows, and with it, the seeming appearance of
"information" structures.
Originally posted by C HessI know you are not, but you are suggesting that molecules will naturally come together to produce designs, patterns, and living creatures.
Honestly? I'm not suggesting that a mashed frog can be reverted into a living frog.
Sometimes you're just silly, RJ.
So I was suggesting you take apart all those molecules of a frog and see if they come together on their own as you suggested molecules will do. I bet you they will not even come together to produce any kind of pattern like a snowflake.
Why don't you put it to the test? If it works, maybe you will be rewared with a nobel prize in chemistry.
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd if all snowflakes were identical you would say that was evidence of a god!
God made water molecules in the beginning and designed them to arrange themselves in crystalline structures to form snowflakes so that no two patterns of a snowflake will be the same. Don't you see that that takes superior intelligence.
.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm suggesting that complexity (what you call design and patterns) can come about
I know you are not, but you are suggesting that molecules will naturally come together to produce designs, patterns, and living creatures.
incrementally, where once a given molecular structure has stabilised it can bond with
others to form yet more complexity. The appearance of design is an illusion, much like the
face on mars or jesus on toasted bread are illusions.
I would suggest that if you can find an example of a natural cell that never fails to do what
it's supposed to do (unless one or more of its parts are damaged), you could argue that it
must have a creator, but since every cell fails to replicate perfectly, it seems to me more
consistent with a natural, unguided process. I know, I know, fallen creation and all that.
Surprising how well a fallen creation matches one without a creator, is it not?
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI believe that was covered in the poem Humpty Dumpty. Tell me the name of any evolutionist who would say that.
I know you are not, but you are suggesting that molecules will naturally come together to produce designs, patterns, and living creatures.
So I was suggesting you take apart all those molecules of a frog and see if they come together on their own as you suggested molecules will do. I bet you they will not even come together to produce any kind of patter ...[text shortened]... you put it to the test? If it works, maybe you will be rewared with a nobel prize in chemistry.
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessWhat about the cells that do replicate perfectly? Just because every cell does not replicate perfectly does not mean God did not create the different cells and the different kinds of animals in the beginning.
I'm suggesting that complexity (what you call design and patterns) can come about
incrementally, where once a given molecular structure has stabilised it can bond with
others to form yet more complexity. The appearance of design is an illusion, much like the
face on mars or jesus on toasted bread are illusions.
I would suggest that if you can find an ...[text shortened]... all that.
Surprising how well a fallen creation matches one without a creator, is it not?[/i]
A code programmed in a computer sometimes distrorts a bit of program code too. That does not mean it did not need an intelligent programmer and that code could have just originated all by itself.
I don't understand how someone could honestly justify your kind of thinking.
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSo it would be your position that complex molecules that exist anywhere HAD to come from a god and no other way?
What about the cells that do replicate perfectly? Just because every cell does not replicate perfectly does not mean God did not create the different cells and the different kinds of animals in the beginning.
A code programmed in a computer sometimes distrorts a bit of program code too. That does not mean it did not need an intelligent programmer and ...[text shortened]... d all by itself.
I don't understand how someone could honestly justify your kind of thinking.