1 2 3
would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God?
It certainly isn't evidence for God of the Bible. At best, it might be an "argument from personal incredulity" for something supernatural having happened in the distant past.
Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life?
I don't have 100% objective proof that Elvis isn't still alive or that Pluto isn't a gigantic meatball. That doesn't mean I should believe them.
6/27/2011 8:22:38 AM
Beyond the fallacies, there's also the issue that human DNA holds a lot of "junk" DNA. A lot of material that isn't even used or does meaningless things. If it were created by god to have a purpose, would not all of it have a purpose? Wouldn't it be more resistant to change and mutation? And no, sin does not cause mutation of the DNA. If you try to say so, you need to provide proof.
6/27/2011 8:39:08 AM
Just another textbook watchmaker argument. Throw it into the nearest dump of "persistent bullshit".
6/27/2011 9:04:57 AM
Q1) No. You can't use product as proof of the existence of an agency even if that agency did create it. To use an extreme example, a Coca-Cola bottle that says "Coca-Cola" on it is not proof that the Coca-Cola company exists and made that bottle. Anyone can make a bottle that says "Coca-Cola" on it, hell, I made one just for fun in graphics class (which is why I used it as an example). The point is that even if it had all the markings of being made by Yahweh (it doesn't) it could have been made by a different god or a different process.
Q2) Can you provide 100% proof that Obama isn't a shape shifting alien from the Andromeda galaxy? There's no such thing as 100% objective proof as everything is subject to doubt, including the existence of gravity. Also, the inability to disprove something doesn't mean belief in it is justified. I can come up with any number of claims that are impossible to disprove, doesn't make them true.
Q3) Yes, and I'll use an example that even a creationist can't deny is entirely natural: shit. It contains meaningful information about the animal's diet, species, size of the anus, how long the turd has been laying on the ground, etc. And unless you're going to argue that god individually creates each turd I do believe your argument falls apart. Not that it was ever cohesive in the first place as you can't infer a divine source when every other example you provided has a human source. That's a complete non-sequitur.
6/27/2011 9:26:35 AM
"Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc."
Interestingly, DNA does not strictly meet goldliger's definition of a code. RNA does not meaningfully decode DNA anymore than replacing every letter in this post with it's Cyrillic counterpart would translate it into Russian. But if we count the expression of DNA sequences as proteins as 'decoding' DNA, then there is no equivalent reverse step, nothing 'encodes' information from proteins in DNA, the process is strictly one way. Proteins may replicate DNA (imperfectly) but they do not change the sequence in specific ways. This is what Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) called the "Central Dogma", information flows from nucleic acids to proteins, not the other way round.
Commiserations, goldliger, you just lost the fight to your own strawman argument.
6/27/2011 9:37:03 AM
I'm not sure shit contains that much meaningful information to be honest. Creationists produce vast amounts of the stuff and I've never found anything meaningful in any of it. ;-)
6/27/2011 9:41:58 AM
EVERY SINGLE TIME! To "the atheist", "the atheist" this, "the atheist" that. There are more than one of us!
6/27/2011 9:45:50 AM
Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?
The burden of proof is on you, so you have to prove it. But you have no proof, so I have no reason to believe you. Why should DNA be exempt from the same laws of chemistry that govern the formation of every single other chemical component? Until you have some credible evidence to this claim, I have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe the biochemists who say otherwise.
Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.
I don't need 100% proof that God didn't create DNA because you don't have 100% proof he did. You're the one making these claims, so the burden of proof is on you. Besides, you can't prove or disprove something 100% in science because you always need room for something to be falsified in science. That's how it grows.
Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?
Yeah I can, all of them. There is no reason nor evidence to believe that these codes weren't formed through chemistry and natural selection. You have no evidence, so I have no reason to believe anything you say. Science doesn't work by making ridiculous claims and then demanding the opposing side prove you 100% wrong. You know how in law everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty. While in science every idea is assumed wrong until it can pass the rigors of peer-review. And frankly, you wouldn't make it through the front door with statements like these.
6/27/2011 9:52:29 AM
TO Question 1: Basically you're right unless you're wrong, because then the evidence would have been falsified... what? So you win no matter what?
This is nonsensical dribble. Did you really believe someone was going to buy this?
6/27/2011 10:02:14 AM
"If it's not proven false, then it's necessarily true."
Sorry goldliger, but it doesn't work that way.
Your entire argumentation can be mirrored, substituting evolution for creation, and by your special brand of logic, evolution wins.
6/27/2011 11:44:38 AM
Fundies Make Me Sick
#1: Your first question commits what is called the "begging the question" fallacy, because you are assuming that God first of all exists, and second that He created the genetic code. You can't say the genetic code is evidence for God when you are setting up a scenario in which God is already assumed to exist.
#2: Your second question is begging the question again, because you assume that God exists. Plus, the burden of proof is not on the person denying a claim, but on the person asserting a claim so your question is irrelevant.
#3: Again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you have to prove that God exists before asking someone to prove that He did or didn't do anything. Plus, you're asking to falsify what can't be verified in the first place, so again, this question is irrelevant.
6/27/2011 11:48:52 AM
And we return to proving a negative. How do I prove that there is no dog? Would you like a photo of my backyard with no dog in it? The foot of my bed with no dog on it? The place where I would put a water and food dish if there was a dog? My floor absent of muddy paw prints? My clothes un-furry?
6/27/2011 11:54:52 AM
Assumes the existence of God, then staggers merrily on from there.
6/27/2011 12:17:21 PM
None of us have souls, therefore the existence of any gods is irrelevant.
6/27/2011 12:22:59 PM
"Please provide your proof with zero speculative language."
Right, because your first question had no speculative language at all...
6/27/2011 1:53:45 PM
> Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?
That is an irrelevant question. Four reasons:
1) Subjects, codes and the users of the codes exist independent of each other.
Scientists have developed a way to describe the DNA structures and how they "encode" chemicals, but the fact that this description exists says nothing of the DNA itself and how it was came to be.
2) Codes exist independent of each other. The fact that DNA encodes information has nothing to do with animal communication or human communication.
3) Define "intelligence". If you are just thinking of what codes are in semiotic sense, there are many examples where animals communicate with each other about variety of different things; a monkey sees danger, it cries, other monkeys interpret that as a warning. It's probably not as nuanced and creative as human communication, but a lot of animals are capable of transmitting and receiving information from each other.
4) Most coding systems humans have developed are subject to evolutionary revisions. New characters have been added to the Morse code since its inception. What people think of as "binary" code is actually thousands of different character encodings - and the Unicode standard, for example, is in continuous development. Coding systems that won't be adapted to face the demands of the day (say, EBCDIC) fall into disuse. And so on and so forth. (Didn't even mention the file formats yet...)
6/27/2011 2:42:02 PM
Please have a read of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies. And then re-write that whole thing.
6/27/2011 2:42:28 PM
Among other things there is an Equivocation fallacy: The description of DNA as a code does not imply that it works exactly the same as all other codes.
You don't have a "mountain" of evidence for the existence of god, you have a "mountain" of fallacies proving that you don't know the first thing about logic.
6/27/2011 2:51:26 PM
1 - Holy circular reasoning, Batman!
2 - Great galloping false dichotomies, Twilight!
3 - Fantastically faulty premise, Watson!
If this is the best you can do for logic, I'm not impressed.
6/27/2011 2:52:14 PM
Don't ya just love it when fundies try to go all scientific on you?
Answer #1 - If you can show that God created the genetic code then, by definition, you have shown that God exists. However that is a big "if" and you cannot simply assume his existence because that is begging the question.
Answer #2 - It's not up to me to prove that God didn't do something. It's up to you to prove that he did. The burden of proof is yours.
Answer #3 - No. But so what? English, Binary and Morse Code do not biologically reproduce so the genetic code is unique as the only code that is biologically reproduced. Therefore there is no reason its origin can't be unique as well.
The argument accomplishes nothing other than demonstrating that I can't demonstrate with 100% certainty that some intelligent being didn't generate the genetic code but I could have told you that right off the bat.
6/27/2011 5:26:52 PM
Let me answer your question with a question; How would you like to make 60 dollars?! Cash...
6/27/2011 5:56:30 PM
Question to christian # 1: If the statement is true, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for The Flying Spaghetti Monster? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (while noting that if The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the genetic code, nothing else did)?
(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is/was its author.)
Question to christian # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that The Flying Spaghetti Monster *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.
(Hint: No such proof exists.)
Question to christian # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?
...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.
Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.
...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for The Flying Spaghetti Monster and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
6/27/2011 8:26:56 PM
"Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)? "
For the same reason a missing cookie isn't evidence I ate a cookie. Even if I *did* eat it, you'd need more to prove it.
"Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language."
There's no proof either way, but there is a possible scenario for it happening. Proof of a god, or the creation of a god(which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms), not so much...
"Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?
...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc."
Tree rings contain sequential, meaningful data on environmental conditions over time. Each ring represents one year, and the thickness, color, density, and chemical composition can represent conditions. Ice core samples can do the same thing. Not to mention geological columns that can be dated through various radioisotopes and indicate meteor strikes, species diversity, etc.
6/28/2011 2:52:04 AM
"And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in. "
No. It's not. See the missing cookie example above. It doesn't prove *I* ate the cookie unless there's evidence of me specifically eating it. And if the scenario is anything like the ID scenario, there isn't even any evidence I exist* at all!
*as in locating the human being that typed this, if it even is a human being and not a super kickass AI programmed to smack down fundies OTI.
6/28/2011 2:53:39 AM
Question to religionist: If the statement is true: There is no gawd that created anything.....then would the evidence of stars, planets, matter, chemicals, etc, be evidence that something other than a gawd is responsible for its existence?
Question for religionist #2: Do you have 100% objective proof that a gawd created anything?
Question for religionist#3: Aside from your beliefs in ideas of faith, can you name a single code that is NOT designed by a human, or interpreted by a human as a "code"?
6/28/2011 5:10:55 PM
1 2 3