@kellyjay saidSo you think that because something is really really complicated then a mind must have been involved in it's creation? Fair enough, I guess we'll agree to disagree again then.
I believe it takes a mind to realize a mind was doing something, which is why you can get movies like "Contact" makes sense; we see things that are not naturally occurring occur, then there is a reason beyond a natural occurrence at work. We recognize works when written, the meaning behind them, when we see things like a watch, we know it wasn't a naturally occurring piece o ...[text shortened]... use it would change worldviews. We are talking about something far more advanced than cave drawings.
@avalanchethecat saidWhen we see things like language written on a wall or pictographs, we can tell there is more to it than just scribbles, things of that nature. When you look at instructions even to put together something even if you cannot understand the language, you know what it is; when looking at code, we see how it is written out and what it accomplishes; these are not random keystrokes at play that took something over time to become more and more sophisticated. If we see errors checking built-in, we know the odds of random keystrokes doing this nil. What we see in DNA is the longest word we know that spells out specific life; the informational instructions, error checking, functionality are beyond our ability to grasp, and nothing is given credit for the complicated properties in it, instead of a mind?
So you think that because something is really really complicated then a mind must have been involved in it's creation? Fair enough, I guess we'll agree to disagree again then.
@kellyjay said"What we see in DNA is the longest word we know that spells out specific life; the informational instructions, error checking, functionality are beyond our ability to grasp, and nothing is given credit for the complicated properties in it, instead of a mind?"
When we see things like language written on a wall or pictographs, we can tell there is more to it than just scribbles, things of that nature. When you look at instructions even to put together something even if you cannot understand the language, you know what it is; when looking at code, we see how it is written out and what it accomplishes; these are not random keystrokes ...[text shortened]... ility to grasp, and nothing is given credit for the complicated properties in it, instead of a mind?
I disagree. I don't think it's beyond our ability to grasp, and I don't see any reason to think it must be the result of a conscious design. The error checking and 'informational instructions' are essential parts of the system. Without some form of error checking and transfer of information, living things wouldn't be able to procreate. That said, transcription errors do happen; we call them mutations. They're an intrinsic part of the process of evolution. And it's messy. Huge parts of the genome of most if not all living things are inactive; inheritied 'junk'.
@avalanchethecat saidYea I agree that error checking is essential and because of that I don’t believe it is there by happenstance. The fact that a second grade child can make errors on a paper they turn in doesn’t mean what was written was not done with intelligence, or if a process is working while also seeing it degrade mean that the process could not have been intellectually created in the first place.
"What we see in DNA is the longest word we know that spells out specific life; the informational instructions, error checking, functionality are beyond our ability to grasp, and nothing is given credit for the complicated properties in it, instead of a mind?"
I disagree. I don't think it's beyond our ability to grasp, and I don't see any reason to think it must be ...[text shortened]... 's messy. Huge parts of the genome of most if not all living things are inactive; inheritied 'junk'.
@kellyjay saidThis is very much like the "fine-tuning" argument, and to me is negated in the same way; without the error-checking, we couldn't have evolved. We did evolve, ipso facto.
Yea I agree that error checking is essential and because of that I don’t believe it is there by happenstance. The fact that a second grade child can make errors on a paper they turn in doesn’t mean what was written was not done with intelligence, or if a process is working while also seeing it degrade mean that the process could not have been intellectually created in the first place.
@avalanchethecat saidWithout words that have meaning you would never understand what was written. Its there is not a reason to dismiss it as having a cause of intent alone.
This is very much like the "fine-tuning" argument, and to me is negated in the same way; without the error-checking, we couldn't have evolved. We did evolve, ipso facto.
@kellyjay saidIt seems to me to make no sense at all to point to surprising or unlikely things around us and call it evidence for a god. There's nothing more surprising or unlikely than to be conscious and self-aware, is there?
Without words that have meaning you would never understand what was written. Its there is not a reason to dismiss it as having a cause of intent alone.
@avalanchethecat said<<Huge parts of the genome of most if not all living things are inactive; inheritied 'junk'.>>
"What we see in DNA is the longest word we know that spells out specific life; the informational instructions, error checking, functionality are beyond our ability to grasp, and nothing is given credit for the complicated properties in it, instead of a mind?"
I disagree. I don't think it's beyond our ability to grasp, and I don't see any reason to think it must be ...[text shortened]... 's messy. Huge parts of the genome of most if not all living things are inactive; inheritied 'junk'.
You should look into this claim because I don’t think it’s true. The so-called “junk” (non-coding) DNA is not junk at all; it has a vital role in the genome.
@pb1022 saidWhat you've done there winky is you've read the headline of an article and not read the background.
<<Huge parts of the genome of most if not all living things are inactive; inheritied 'junk'.>>
You should look into this claim because I don’t think it’s true. The so-called “junk” (non-coding) DNA is not junk at all; it has a vital role in the genome.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidI’ve known that junk DNA is a misnomer for a long time. Seems odd you haven’t, especially since you “extensively” looked into the theory of evolution in between reading the Gospels (which you don’t believe and can only tolerate small portions of at a time 😉 )
What you've done there winky is you've read the headline of an article and not read the background.
@avalanchethecat saidAcknowledging its here is not a reason for it being here just because.
It seems to me to make no sense at all to point to surprising or unlikely things around us and call it evidence for a god. There's nothing more surprising or unlikely than to be conscious and self-aware, is there?
@pb1022 saidWhat you think you know and what you actually know are two different things, winky.
I’ve known that junk DNA is a misnomer for a long time. Seems odd you haven’t, especially since you “extensively” looked into the theory of evolution in between reading the Gospels (which you don’t believe and can only tolerate small portions of at a time 😉 )
@avalanchethecat saidLike I said, just look into why junk DNA is a misnomer (after you’re done reading the Gospels.)
What you think you know and what you actually know are two different things, winky.
@pb1022 saidYou are surely not so astonishingly stupid as to think I'm not aware of the few experiments that have identified a handful of active transposons in the sea of non-coding mammalian DNA? No, of course you are.
Like I said, just look into why junk DNA is a misnomer (after you’re done reading the Gospels.)
@avalanchethecat saidA handful? Even evolutionists acknowledge “junk DNA” is a misnomer. You’re behind the times, champ.
You are surely not so astonishingly stupid as to think I'm not aware of the few experiments that have identified a handful of active transposons in the sea of non-coding mammalian DNA? No, of course you are.
And instead of desperately trying to justify your false assertion with some obscure, outdated source, may I suggest you read current literature on the subject?
After you’re done reading the Gospels, of course 😉