@sonship saidI thought the workings of the DNA molecule were fairly well understood. That's why we can already clone larger animals, like sheep.
If not an alternative explanation of the workings the phenomenon of the language of a DNA molecule demonstrated in this little program are welcomed.
Origins: Fingerprints of Our Creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7DgQmXrszU&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork
Do you perhaps mean "origin" of the DNA molecule, instead?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@bigdogg saidOrigins is in the title of the talk. Did you notice?
I thought the workings of the DNA molecule were fairly well understood. That's why we can already clone larger animals, like sheep.
Do you perhaps mean "origin" of the DNA molecule, instead?
The belief in intelligence behind DNA is not based there on what we don't know.
It is based on what we DO know. ie. things like this require great intelligence.
Maybe you didn't watch the 26 minute talk all the way through?
Particularly striking was the examples of 7:01 into it - the lego blocks making the two flying machines. This was an example of ready made components being particularly suited for more advanced functionality. Some things are not passed on. Some components are brand new as biological systems grow in functionality.
Also the examples at 9:50 of the letters STAR read in that order also make sense as RATS when read backwards. If I understood right DNA can give one useful directive read in one direction and another important directive when read in another direction.
I don't have enough faith the not recognized intelligence in that design.
Again around 10:08 the letters DELIVER has one meaning read in this order but when reversed as RELIVED means something totally different.
He said entire chapters of DNA do this, having one meaningful directive on protein making when read in one direction and another meaningful directive when read in the reverse direction - entire chapters of lengthy DNA strains!
Go to 10:44 in the video about writing a manual for making cell phones. No human is smart enough to write such a manual that gives one direction when the manual is read frontwards and another directions when it is read backwards.
That we do not understand how to do.
And whoever designed DNA that way was exponentially more intelligent then us.
Ie, " We want to save money on paper. So write a manual so that when read forwards it tells you how to assemble the cell phone. But when read backwards it explains how to use the cell phone."
Then at 11:36 he speaks of overlapping information in DNA design.
Ie. "ILIKECHOCOLATERTHATEVENING" can communicate two different meanings:
I LIKE CHOCOLATE can be derived if you just garb that part.
LATTER THAT EVENING can be derived if you grab only the other part.
If I understood rightly, DNA has this kind of ability to code compactly overlapping meanings. You have compacted two different functional meanings in one arrangement of letters. This occurring in DNA evidences intelligence.
Evidence of an Intelligent Creator is a good post title AND Origins was in the video title.
The major problem with Intelligent Design is when it's presented as an either/or alternative to evolution: either evolution is true or ID is true, but not both.
*IF* ID is true, there's no reason why evolution can't be true as well. There's no contradiction between the two. Evolution can simply be the mechanism used by an intelligent Creator.
The other issue is presenting ID as the work of only one intelligent Designer. If ID is true, it's more likely that there are many designers rather than just one. For example, just like how a skyscraper wasn't built by one all-mighty human, ID (if real) is more likely the result of many, perhaps millions or billions, of intelligent beings.
Also, just like with the Colosseum in Rome or Stonehenge, it could hold the creators may no longer exist.
In short, ID is typically presented as idea meant to support Christian beliefs, just like creationism. That makes ID fundamentally flawed. ID will likely be never accepted as a valid scientific theory, but if it's ever to be taken seriously, it has to abandon the goal of promoting one specific religion. But then again, ID wouldn't exist if not for the goal of promoting Christianity.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@BigDogg
That was a contrived and weak excuse. But suit yourself.
Without the issue of "origins" completely, we know things like the DNA molecule don't happen without intelligent planning.
You go ahead and believe the design of a DNA molecule is accidental or chance developed given enough time, if you want. Go ahead and believe that.
@sonship saidOf course DNA is the result of design. But my belief of this is founded on my faith.
@BigDogg
That was a contrived and weak excuse. But suit yourself.
Without the issue of "origins" completely, we know things like the DNA molecule don't happen without intelligent planning.
You go ahead and believe the design of a DNA molecule is accidental or chance developed given enough time, if you want. Go ahead and believe that.
The DNA molecule could just as easily have been created by the collection of phosphates and sugars in nature. The atoms and the molecules are made that way, again, as per my belief, through design. This is so that human free will can be held intact when we believe that there is a God, or that there is no God. Believing in deity and our salvation is up to us individually. God is very big on free will, and that is why the universe was created through physical properties (and not magic), so as to appear randomly made by nature.
My point is that, no, we do NOT "know things like the DNA molecule don't happen without intelligent planning." Either way has to be possible, or appear possible, so that free will is maintained. And that is 'intelligent design'.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@Suzianne
I appreciate your comment very much.
Notice there is a difference between these two sentences:
1.) We KNOW that God designed the DNA molecule.
2.) We KNOW things like the DNA molecule do not happen without intelligence.
Statement #2 I think is "non-religious" (if you will) and matter of common sense, human experience, and the considerations of probability a mathematical discipline.
As much as some critics hate to admit it, Intelligent Design with some scientists ONLY means that. The identify of the intelligence is the pursue philosophy or faith.
Dr. James Tour a chemical engineer for example, can talk about design for days with anyone and not refer to faith in God. But outside of those kinds of talks he has no reason not so speak of his faith in Christ in other scenarios.
@sonship saidWhat a silly response, sonship.
@BigDogg
That was a contrived and weak excuse. But suit yourself.
Without the issue of "origins" completely, we know things like the DNA molecule don't happen without intelligent planning.
You go ahead and believe the design of a DNA molecule is accidental or chance developed given enough time, if you want. Go ahead and believe that.
I have not said anything about my beliefs on the matter, so you are in no position to comment on them.
You always get so butt-hurt about not getting people to watch your videos, and cover it by accusing people of not seeking truth.
@sonship saidThe DNA molecule and all organic life was not created, nor evolved. It magically existed for all eternity, a fact proven by the world-famous professor Saar Kastik.
If not an alternative explanation of the workings the phenomenon of the language of a DNA molecule demonstrated in this little program are welcomed.
Origins: Fingerprints of Our Creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7DgQmXrszU&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork
@bunnyknight saidYou joke, and yet sonship has absolutely no evidence to eliminate this possibility from consideration.
The DNA molecule and all organic life was not created, nor evolved. It magically existed for all eternity, a fact proven by the world-famous professor Saar Kastik.
His tack, as near as I can tell, seems to be: difficult to obtain via chance = must be intelligence.
@bigdogg saidHis tack, as near as I can tell, seems to be: difficult to obtain via chance = must be intelligence...
You joke, and yet sonship has absolutely no evidence to eliminate this possibility from consideration.
His tack, as near as I can tell, seems to be: difficult to obtain via chance = must be intelligence.
... = Jesus must have risen from the dead and stuff like the Doctrine of the Atonement must be true.
@sonship saidYou know that DELIVER backwards is REVILED, not RELIVED, right?
Origins is in the title of the talk. Did you notice?
The belief in intelligence behind DNA is not based there on what we don't know.
It is based on what we DO know. ie. things like this require great intelligence.
Maybe you didn't watch the 26 minute talk all the way through?
Particularly striking was the examples of 7:01 into it - the le ...[text shortened]... [b]Evidence of an Intelligent Creator is a good post title AND Origins was in the video title.