DNA/genetic code as evidence for Creation

[Davin]

You are also accelerating at an incredible speed even before the EH, so the passing itself MAY, in fact, be quite uneventful. However, by then you only have like nanoseconds to live...

Yeah but inside such extreme gravitational forces, those nanoseconds could feel like milliseconds.

[Asmodean]

You are also accelerating at an incredible speed even before the EH, so the passing itself MAY, in fact, be quite uneventful. However, by then you only have like nanoseconds to live...

Yeah but inside such extreme gravitational forces, those nanoseconds could feel like milliseconds.

Indeed. All I'm saying is that since you are not resisting that gravity too much and just following where it pulls you, you won't be ripped to pieces too quickly. Now no-one has ever passed even in the same neighbourhood as a black hole, but theoretically, passing through its EH is quite possible while "intact"

[Tank]

(For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Uh... Death?

Although I think upon the crossing itself, everything would feel rather normal

Well, there's a point at which the gravity pulling on one side of your body is many times stronger than the gravity pulling on the other side... to the point that you get ripped apart.
I don't think that such an experience would feel normal at all.

Would you get ripped apart or simple 'stretched' from an external perspective while remaining intact in your own space/time frame?

[angelosergipe]

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

[Whitney]

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

Welcome back...you've been gone almost exactly a year.

Your quotes would make more sense as pro-creation if scientists thought that dna always existed in complex form; but it is a product of evolution just like all other living things.  It's like walking along a long beach where a bunch of scrabble letters have washed ashore and as you progress down the beach you notice that some of them happen to spell out words and in some cases full sentences (and this would still be an over-simplification of the process since evolution isn't totally random).

[angelosergipe]

Your quotes would make more sense as pro-creation if scientists thought that dna always existed in complex form; but it is a product of evolution just like all other living things.

that is a baseless assertion. Pure wishful thinking without evidence.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one

[Whitney]

Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Btw, did next week being Easter remind you that you hadn't preached at the atheists lately?   Oh, and your proof is not a proof...it's a baseless claim disguised in proof format; your conclusion is only as good as your premises.

[Sophus]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  

[angelosergipe]

Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Yes, please, go ahead, and explain it.

your conclusion is only as good as your premises.

You should know better. DNA IS literally a code.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-a ... /dna-code/

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

Francis  Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information,"

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medic ... n/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medic ... e/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

[angelosergipe]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  

Do you think one hundred years ago it would have made sense to talk to people about DNA ?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ ... ific-Proof

What are the scientific proof that man's body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth's crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

[fester30]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  

Do you think one hundred years ago it would have made sense to talk to people about DNA ?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ ... ific-Proof

What are the scientific proof that man's body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth's crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

http://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html
Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen are 95% of the body.  All these other elements you mentioned are trace amounts.  This includes a very small percentage of iron (which is found in the core of the Earth).  Oxygen or sulfur and nickel are also found in both the body and the Earth's core.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html

Science does not talk about a man's body coming from the dust of the ground or the core of the Earth.  All lifeforms are made of elements that exist in the Earth.  If we weren't, then part of us would be extra-terrestrial.  Just think of what would happen if iron was not found on Earth.  Our bodies are only made of about .006% iron.  This iron is critical for the process of transporting oxygen in the blood http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~courses/genchem/Tutorials/Ferritin/IronBody.htm.  If there was no iron to be found on Earth, we would not have a replenishing source for our bodies.  Each time we reproduced, we would pass some of it along to our offspring, diluting it.  Each generation would dilute it more, until it was practically non-existent.  Either the human race would die or adapt (evolution).  These elements in the human body are also found many other places in the universe, as evidenced by astronomy http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l2/composition.html, Mars rover experiments http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4011275/ns/technology_and_science-space/, and even meteorite content http://meteorites.wustl.edu/metcomp/index.htm.

The Bible could have said that God created us from air, water, clay, etc.  Any of these could have led you to conclude that the Bible must be true about God creating man.  According to astronomy, God might have created us out of massive clouds of gas and matter in a nebula.

There is no evidence for intelligent design, or any gods for that matter, and some theists realize this.  Some theists understand that their belief in gods are wholly a matter of faith, not proof.

[Whitney]

Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Yes, please, go ahead, and explain it.

I'm waiting for you to make a claim that has any basis outside of failed philosophical claims...until you demonstrate that you are able to actually think about it (and not regurgitate stuff other people have written or told you) there is no sense in me taking the time to try to explain something that you could have looked up on your own.  If you want to read on your own The Blind Watchmaker gives a pretty good yet brief walk through how abiogenesis could result in DNA.  It's still a hypothesis but that's a lot better than claiming all codes have codemakers.

[angelosergipe]

Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Yes, please, go ahead, and explain it.

I'm waiting for you to make a claim that has any basis outside of failed philosophical claims...until you demonstrate that you are able to actually think about it (and not regurgitate stuff other people have written or told you) there is no sense in me taking the time to try to explain something that you could have looked up on your own.  If you want to read on your own The Blind Watchmaker gives a pretty good yet brief walk through how abiogenesis could result in DNA.  It's still a hypothesis but that's a lot better than claiming all codes have codemakers.

Abiogenesis is a failed hypotheses. There is no way life could have evolved by natural means. you insist in a argument which has no rational base at all. in the contrary, its just based on wishful thinking. i do not want God to exist, therefore every evidence against my pressuposition has to be ignored. That is the only possible modus operandi of a thinking atheist. His will is more determining, than his reason.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abi ... e-on-earth

After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

[Davin]

After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence?

These questions are asked as if physics is sentient, making them loaded questions which are intellectually dishonest. Fix the questions and you'll get better answers.

Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge.

I agree that natural selection is not valid for abiogenesis, natural selection's scope is after life has already started. It helps to understand the concepts before attempting to refute them. And it's more intellectually honest to gain an understanding of the concepts and the evidence supporting them before deciding whether to accept or deny them.

Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way?

Can't stress enough the importance of understanding the concepts before stating that they don't make sense.

Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Neither has the phenomenon of a sun been produced by any scientist in any laboratory... I mean outside of the Spiderman movie.

[Sophus]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.