That's a slightly different way to posit a 'God of the Gaps'...but not really much different.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Shortest Proof for Creationism?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
That's a slightly different way to posit a 'God of the Gaps'...but not really much different.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You are truly horrible at using logic.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Unsupported premises.
And hilariously, even if I would grant your premises, your conclusion doesn't follow. At all.
Learn2logic
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If you come to a contradiction in the evolutionary narrative (which you didn't, btw, but let's pretend), then all you can conclude from that is that evolution theory is incorrect.
Not that your preferred unsupported fantasy is accurate.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Your picture is fantasy artwork.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Where in the world did you get that idea?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Aside from there being no actual contradiction, how would contradiction equal God? It could just as easily equal aliens, and that at least have a grounding in the physical rather than metaphysical.
all souls loved
Member
Let famous scientists give us the answer:
Albert Einstein said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe; a Spirit vastly superior to man."
Isaac Newton: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from thee counsel and dominion of an Intelligent and Powerful Being."
Louis Pasteur: "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku: “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence...To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
Albert Einstein said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe; a Spirit vastly superior to man."
Isaac Newton: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from thee counsel and dominion of an Intelligent and Powerful Being."
Louis Pasteur: "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku: “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence...To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
all souls loved
Member
DNA proves God's existence and that He is our Creator ("We are His masterpiece." Apostle Paul)
1) Our DNA contains a massive set of instructions to build our body - putting each molecule in its proper location to build each cell and putting each cell in its proper location to build the body. Do instructions write themselves? Never.
("The information content of a single cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." - Carl Sagan)
2) While manmade software is written as an electronic binary digital code, our DNA is written as a molecular quaternary digital code. Do digital codes write themselves? Never.
("DNA is like a computer program, but far far more advanced than any software we've ever created" - Bill Gates)
3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are found elsewhere except INSIDE a LIVING cell - hence no natural explanation for their existence.
4) Who can write a massive, very complex set of instructions and then place them into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day, and He will expose all of our secret sins: "....the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secrets..."
1) Our DNA contains a massive set of instructions to build our body - putting each molecule in its proper location to build each cell and putting each cell in its proper location to build the body. Do instructions write themselves? Never.
("The information content of a single cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." - Carl Sagan)
2) While manmade software is written as an electronic binary digital code, our DNA is written as a molecular quaternary digital code. Do digital codes write themselves? Never.
("DNA is like a computer program, but far far more advanced than any software we've ever created" - Bill Gates)
3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are found elsewhere except INSIDE a LIVING cell - hence no natural explanation for their existence.
4) Who can write a massive, very complex set of instructions and then place them into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day, and He will expose all of our secret sins: "....the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secrets..."
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Is that the same Albert Einstein who called judaism and christianity a collection of primitive childish superstitions?
And some centuries later that was proven in correct.
This is also a guy, btw, who wrote loads more about Alchemy then he did about physics.
So are you going to quote his alchemy beliefs also?
Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God - Big Think
Not that it matters though what any of these people's personal beliefs and opinions are.
Do you have peer review to show these opinions are actually worth anything other than opinion?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No it doesn't.
Along with a bunch of inactive evolutionary relics. Like a broken GULO gene (which is broken in the exact same way in the other great apes).
Or like chickens who have inactive DNA to build teeth (from their long lost dino ancestors who did have teeth)
Well, they aren't so much "instructions" as they are chemical reactions though. We call them "instructions" as to make it more understandable, but it is ultimately a metaphor.
Yes. So? Is it the big number that impresses you and strikes you with such awe which leads you to engage in this fallacious argument from incredulity?
DNA and software are nothing alike. Software doesn't reproduce with variation and thus isn't subject to biological processes like evolution, for starters. Secondly, software is abstract logic which is superimposed on hardware. DNA is again nothing like that. It is only conceptually analogous, just like the metaphor of calling it "instructions" while what it really is, at bottom, is an extreme expression of complex chemistry.
Operative word here: LIKE.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the observation.
Another argument from ignorance / incredulity.
DNA is a molecule. It isn't "written".
Yes, we are aware of your judgemental religious beliefs.
At least once in the last 3+ billion years, to say never shows particular bias and dismissal of evolution, which incidentally is the best theory of how life has evolved ;-)
Yes, it is known quite often in modern computing and AI so again never is a false term to add to your paragraph
As far as we know
Abiogenesis and evolution are natural explanations that as yet have never been shown to be incorrect. Or you can say "doh! I don't understand so god must have dun it". Although to be honest, abiogenesis is not as rigorously evidenced as evolution.
I reckon given 3+ billion years any competent programmer could and not have so many mistakes and meandering offshoots as evolution. But hey, I've worked with competent programmers. I don't know but it seems from your post that you haven't.
If Al actually said this, he'd be wrong.
Some well known heathens....
Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Stephen Hawking,
Francis Crick, Erwin Schrodinger, Revoltingest
This quote shows realization that such
beliefs are personal feelings.
BTW.....
Einstein Calls Bible 'Childish' In Letter Expected To Fetch $1 Million At Auction
Last edited:
Simply declaring that you have proved something doesn't make it proof. What makes evidence or an argument proof is that it convinced others that its conclusions are sound (correct). Who do you think you proved God to?
I'm reminded of the comedian who tells his friends that he killed (was very funny) last night doing stand-up at the comedy club. He reports that his set was hilarious, but he was booed off anyway. Nobody laughed except him, yet he still claims that his material was funny, forgetting that one cannot simply declare jokes funny. They have to make people laugh to be called funny, just as alleged proofs have to change minds to be called that.
Note that what is proved to somebody who is convinced need not be a sound conclusion, and therefore need not be correct, just convincing. Your argument could be called proof of God to somebody who was convinced that a God exists because of it. But that's nobody here so far.
These probably did.
Logically, there are two possibilities: DNA was intelligently designed, or it evolved naturalistically. Since neither of these can be ruled in or out at this time, we cannot go further in our analysis of candidate hypotheses to account for the existence of DNA, except perhaps to order them in terms of likelihood according to Occam's Razor, where naturalistic processes get the nod.
But you have anyway. You've dropped the naturalistic possibility off your list without justification. And you done it using a credulity fallacy, which in this case is that DNA seems too complex to you to have arisen naturalistically, and therefore it didn't. If you want to prove something to an experienced critical thinker, you need to do so using his standard for belief, which is compelling argument connecting relevant evidence to sound conclusions via valid reasoning - not fallacious arguments.
Another specious argument. There is a difference between a manmade code and DNA that is relevant to why one requires intelligence to exist and be effective, and the other doesn't. Manmade languages including computer languages need intelligence to be created and to be used effectively to communicate. From a material point of view, there is just electrons moving passively according to physical law. There needs to be a mind capable of using symbolic language or interpreting graphic images for this to be considered a code or to consider it written.
DNA is analog in the sense that the pieces are moved into place when it is assembled by electromechanical forces. It is read and transcribed the same way. No intelligence is needed to do either. Bacteria do it.
Perhaps I can better make the distinction by noting that if all life on earth vanished tomorrow except bacteria, the genetic "code" would continue to be "understood" by the organic molecules dancing to the passive pushing and pulling of matter, whereas any remaining computer code would be become meaningless and have no effect on a reality lacking minds. Thuis is the fundamental difference between the two: one requires mind, the other doesn't.
And that's the verbal sleight-of-hand arguments such as yours rely on, arguments that are always trying to insert agency into the world with linguistic tricks using words that carry the baggage of agency. Thus, we are told that creations need creators, and codes need coders, the implication being that these must be consciously created.
Likewise with those who want to convince other of the existence of gods by calling the laws of physics God, a word that carries with it the image of a conscious agent. It's the first step in inserting agency into a world that appears to lack any prior to the evolution of life and mind in it.
This is incorrect. You're making your incredulity argument again. You don't see how it could happen naturalistically, so to you, it didn't. Others can conceive of these things happening without a plan or intelligent designer. They will reject everything written there beginning with hence.
You might also like to consult resources on the evolution of the single cell before making arguments to others that know this science already. From The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf :
"The hypothesis that eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic association of prokaryotes—endosymbiosis—is particularly well supported by studies of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are thought to have evolved from bacteria living in large cells. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts are similar to bacteria in size, and like bacteria, they reproduce by dividing in two. Most important, both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA, which encodes some of their components. The mitochondrial and chloroplast DNAs are replicated each time the organelle divides, and the genes they encode are transcribed within the organelle and translated on organelle ribosomes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts thus contain their own genetic systems, which are distinct from the nuclear genome of the cell. Furthermore, the ribosomes and ribosomal RNAs of these organelles are more closely related to those of bacteria than to those encoded by the nuclear genomes of eukaryotes."
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Hi, I enjoyed your quotes from some famous scientists.
But about this post on DNA being 'proof' (though we know molecular chemistry seems to have a basic design that leads to a lot of molecular evolution actually, with complex organic molecules detected in gas clouds in space, no less.... Chemistry seems to organize itself quite a lot, actually, and that brings to mind a more general point....
This use of the word 'proof', it reminds me that when we read in the New Testament, we learn that 'faith' which God wants from us is to believe without proof.
Without seeing any conclusive evidence that just proves God exists. With an emphasis on that lack of seeing evidence, actually:
e.g.
John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.
So, that implies that if any evidence or proof was generally convincing, able to be convincing on its own, then apparently that would mean that many things in the New Testament would have to be wrong about what faith is, and what God wants from us regarding faith. Not just the book of Hebrews, but also the gospels, and more.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Also, I'm happy to be able to like your post. It is interesting. I'd not seen all of those before.
One from Einstein I already knew that is fun is:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” -- Einstein
But there is another also I like which I didn't find in the 1 minute I have left right now, but I did find this:
Einstein once said that while Beethoven created his music, Mozart's "was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master." Einstein believed much the same of physics, that beyond observations and theory lay the music of the spheres -- which, he wrote, revealed a "pre-established harmony" exhibiting stunning symmetries. The laws of nature, such as those of relativity theory, were waiting to be plucked out of the cosmos by someone with a sympathetic ear.
Thus it was less laborious calculation, but "pure thought" to which Einstein attributed his theories.
Einstein was fascinated by Mozart and sensed an affinity between their creative processes, as well as their histories.
A Genius Finds Inspiration in the Music of Another (Arthur Miller, 2006, New York Times)
Sounds like he is referring to Soviets, not the current type of popular atheists today. I suspect Einstein would agree with atheists today, and not side with the theists who try to impugn science.
gnostic
The Lost One
or...it could equal to the Easter bunny
, yeti , pixie, fairy godmother, leprechaun, Thor , Klingon, Caspar , the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, Holy Cow! ...
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Ah, that's not an either/or. I think his wording is very direct and clear, and it's more about whether you are willing to consider how he meant it: it's possible to be so much caught up in fighting against some wrong from your past that you don't notice the music of the spheres -- the wonder and enjoyable awesome nature of reality, what is all around us, and above us in the cosmos, and under our microscopes, and inside the often beautifully elegant equations of physics.