Design Inference

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Jan 6, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL John Paul
    I don't need to know who designed the computer in order to know it was designed. And before someone says "well computers don't reproduce", ask yourself how that function (reproduction) in living organisms came to be. Did it just evolve or was it designed in?

    Peering into Darwin's Black Box:The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htm

    The first thing to do is to realize that life is the product of some design, has a function and purpose.


    THE BARBARIAN
    First, JP, you'll have to demonstrate a phenomenon actually exists, before you can tell us about its properties.


    JOHN PAUL
    I will assume you are talking about the "design" or the "Common Creator" phenomenon. But as far as design goes, specified complexity puts any doubt to rest. The design inference in living organisms is very clear once the "materialistic naturalism' glasses are removed.


    JOE MEERT
    Actually the design inference is only obvious to those who look for design. The design inference requires a less than perfect God.


    JOHN WELLS
    Joe,
    How so? As I understand things I'm reading, DNA is being compared to the "software" of a living cell, and RNA sorta like "fetch commands" in computer terminology. Here is a quote from an article. I'm sorry I don't have the source:

    DNA represents INFORMATION--ordered, codified, structured, data. Think of it like info on your computer's diskette. That info can take many forms...on your screen as photo blips, on the diskette as magnetic blips, or you can write it down on paper as ink blips, etc. The human genome consists of 3.1 billion base pairs, the rungs that make up the ladder-like double helix of DNA. The code appears to be a repetitive readout of A's, C's, T's and G's, the nucleotides that pair up. Scientists do not know what that code says.

    The point: the information is independent of the medium. It is absurd to say that the medium spawned the information. Rather, the info is coded onto the medium, just like the 'blueprints' of DNA are coded onto the physical structure of DNA.

    Makes me think of I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
    (Psa 139:14 NIV)


    JOHN PAUL
    Actually the design inference is only obvious to those who look for design.

    Not so, unless you include Watson/ Crick and a scientists on the Human Genome Project. It was Watson or Crick that said something like (once the double helix was discovered) "We have to remember what we are looking at is not designed, but evolved." I will get the exact quote if necessary.

    Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/genome021901.htm


    The design inference requires a less than perfect God.

    Why is that Joe? Pat [Barbarian] makes the same implication but like you without any further comment. Maybe our definition of omnipotent needs revising. I would say any being or entity that could bring all of this together, regardless of how that was accomplished, deserves the omnipotent title.


    [b[JOE MEERT[/b]
    No need to repeat my long discussion on here
    you may read it at http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htm


    JOHN PAUL
    Do you think that the notion of all life owing its ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, can be tested objectively? Ya know if you guys would STOP with the double standards biological science may actually advance.


    JOHN WELLS
    Must agree with JP here! The theistic evolutionist has made life a little easier, because they can always throw the trump card of "God is involved" to explain away zero probabilities problems. But athiest evolutionists, although they opt out by saying evolution doesn't deal with biogenesis, have to be concerned about it. How do you get from non-living matter to a human brain with more possible neural pathways than there are atoms in the visible universe, and 20 million billion calculations per second, in 4.6 billion years? In a gazillion years?


    JOE MEERT
    Of course I disagree with both of you.
     

Share This Page

Loading...