“Human DNA contains more specified, formulated, coded information than an entire set of Encyclopaedia Britannica. If a full line of text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people, atheists included, would regard this as proof positive of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when we see this in nature x 1,000,000, it is explained away by atheists as the working of random forces.”
George Sim Johnson
Atheists must do this, of course, because to admit the obvious would be to admit that atheism is an empty, absurd system of blind faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Biology; really?
ReplyDeleteIt took you a few months but you had to get back to it of course.
Please go read what happened last summer:
http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/07/hugo-atheist-says.html
*****
To explain why the quote you posted is silly, think about this for 2-3 second:
Does the Encyclopaedia Britannica replicates itself? is it alive? How does it different from other Encyclopaedia Britannica?
*****
p.s. You might make an interesting discovery by reading the comments at the link I posted and paying attention to who commented.
Dear Hugo, you're clinging to a theory that is a couple centuries behind the curve.
ReplyDeletehttp://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2011/01/darwinism-dead-in-water.html
Ah I had missed that one because I was on vacations...
ReplyDeleteIn any case, you do not answer thec ritics I give you. You only show quotes of people that support Intelligent Design. But Intelligent design is NOT science. You quote people who are NOT scientists (Stephen C. Myer and Lee Strobel)
But even if Myer were a biologist; it does not make his reasoning any more rational. The Cambrian explosion has some mystery, but it does not exhibit "magic" events. He even contradicts himself in the quote you used... he talks about 'blink of an eye' but also admits that the "explosion" took millions of year.
So basically, the "Intelligent Designer" took several million years to create most species, the ones that existed at that time, and then let them go?
What is that suppose to explain?
Anyway, I am not really asking you because I know you have no clue... you just quote apologists and reply only if I ask you several times. Isn't that what happened in that post I showed you? Right?
Had to ask you several times if you believe we share a common ancestor with other animals. Your answer: I don't know.
Well sorry but we DO know, and the answer is yes.
And sorry again, but the Cambrain explosion is pointless in that regard, because we share a common ancestor with other primates that appear much AFTER the Cambrian explosion, so that switch of topic is pointless.
If your Inteligent Designer created humans, he certainly did that through evolution, NOT through a supernatural instant creation.
Can I ask you why, on the one hand you consider biology important enough to write blog posts about it, saying that Intelligent Design Theories are proven, but on the other hand, you don't seem to know what you are talking about and do not care trying to discuss it?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, do you simply copy/paste opinions of others that happen to believe the same things as you on other aspects of life, and therefore conclude that they must be right?
Or, in other words again, you labeled me as 'clinging to a theory that is a couple centuries behind the curve' but are not willing to even come close to justify that bare assertion that goes against fundamental biology. Your response was in the form of quotes by non-biologist who happen to be fervent believers just like you. Could it be that who people are matter more to you than what they actually show/say?
that Intelligent Design Theories are proven,”
ReplyDeleteWhoa! If I’ve said that, I’ve overstepped what I meant. I mean, I do think ID is correct but “proven”? No.
What I’ve said is, “What is the origin of the information that allows for life?” What we know is:
. Chance
. Predestination (chemical necessity) and
. RNA replication are not the right answer.
“saying
I’ve shown “multiple competing hypotheses” are present. However, little by little we are getting rid of ones that won’t work and I’m still looking for something that will work. We do know what will work. In fact we know of ONLY one thing that has universally been responsible for this type of information and that is, Intelligent Design. There is only one reason for rejecting Intelligent Design and that is an atheist bias.
Do most atheists understand that encoded information is worthless without a system that can process the information? This is fundamental biology. If you don't know it, why not?
Do most atheists understand that the cell’s information-processing system had to evolve separately from the DNA information system?
This is fundamental biology. If you don't know it, why not?
If, as atheists propose, that all of these systems evolved, they’re also saying that proteins with a decoding ability evolved before the protein with the decoding system itself evolved.
This is fundamental biology. If you don't know it, why not?
=====
I don't feel like going over all this again. If you need a review you can go back to the series I did or just review this:
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-would-you-choose-id.html
=========
I can go with your common ancestor. I just prefer to call it a common designer.
==========
“bare assertion that goes against fundamental biology.”
No it doesn’t! We now know what Darwin did not and that is that information (the kind of information that mutation alone stands no chance of creating) is required for successful changes. Just because Behe or Myer or any Christian says something, it does not make it wrong.
First, just to be clear, this is NOT religion related, and that is my main point. I mentioned apologists as being bad people to refer too specifically because of that, it is NOT religion related so why don't you try to keep it to science topics when you discuss science? I agree that who they are does not make what they say false; but it does not make it right either! It's weird that you twist the point I am making around in order to support your use of their quotes...
ReplyDeleteSecond, you "don't feel like going over all this again" but I do think it is important to interpret the real world we share, live in, and understand, before making claims about more controversial topics that are currently unknown.
In other words, that is why I think it's important to point out to you why you are wrong when you claim that the information found in the DNA is proof of an intelligent design, AND why your interpretation of the Cambrian explosion is also wrong. Only then could we come close to discussing the origin of the first life forms. Unfortunately, you confuse various subjects and often jump to the origin of life without acknowledging the body of knowledge already understood by biology scientists.
So, to make it as simple as possible, here is the main mistake that you make when discussing biology (and yes I went to read your old Makarios post so I do keep that in mind):
You claim (well quoted) that "Human DNA contains more specified, formulated, coded information than an entire set of Encyclopaedia Britannica. If a full line of text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people, atheists included, would regard this as proof positive of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence."
ReplyDeleteThis comparison is flawed: DNA is natural, while books, things written by humans, are not. Because of that reasoning error, you jump to wrong conclusions, as shown in your older Makarios post as well as in the quote shown here.
The wrong conclusion is that since we have only seen complex information produced by humans then the -natural- complex information must be... designed! Don't you see the flaw? Let me rephrase it because obviously you don't, or we would not have these endless discussions...
You basically state that NATURAL complex information cannot be NATURAL because complex information is always DESIGNED, even if it is NATURAL. Or perhaps you don't agree that DNA is natural?
Let me state it yet in another manner. Comparing DNA as complex information with books or programming languages is just an ANALOGY. You (or mainly the apologists you quote) then push this analogy farther and consider the two types of information to be equal. They are not.
Let's prove this last point. If DNA is slightly changed, for example if one of the gene is slightly modified, the consequences are going to be seen at the protein or amino acid level. It can lead for example to having lung cells being slightly more opaque, impairing the breathing of the affected individual. No such thing could happen in a book or a programming language. If you slightly change one variable in programming code for example, either nothing would work at all, because you just messed up the program and it won't even compile, or if you simply did a "find and replace" kind of error then you have the exact same program, except one variable name changed. Of course this is just one simple example, but I believe it proves my point that "DNA = designed information" is an ANALOGY, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteI feel like all the other lines of reasoning related to biology (origin of life for example) depend on this main idea, so that's why it's important to have a good understanding of biology and the implications of the findings. However it's almost impossible that such simple explanations from a random guy on the internet is going to suddenly change your mind; so let me know why you disagree with my explanations...
“you "don't feel like going over all this again" but I do”
ReplyDeleteOk, well, if there is one other person that reads this blog then maybe that person would like to discuss this issue with you. I might even want to get into again at some point, but now is not that time.
=========
“In other words, that is why I think it's important to point out to you why . . .”
So, point away. Just don’t expect me to get deeply involved. Or, I might - who knows?
===========
“DNA is natural, while books, things written by humans, are not.”
If I point out that Dawkins says the DNA code is almost identical to computer code you’ll say, “Well, Dawkins isn’t a biologist,” and if I say Francis Crick says the exact same thing you say, well, what does it matter what you say? Your mind is made up. To hell with the evidence!
=======
“even if it is NATURAL.”
And when we, as Intelligent Designers manipulate and change the genetic code to perform in a different manner then what - it’s natural so what we do doesn’t count?
=======
"so let me know why you disagree with my explanations..."
Like I said, maybe someone else wants to pick this up.
Ok, well, if there is one other person that reads this blog then maybe that person would like to discuss this issue with you. I might even want to get into again at some point, but now is not that time.
ReplyDeleteAs people often mention on blogs; we write both to discuss with the author AND to inform lurkers of the different viewpoints, so no problem here.
If I point out that Dawkins says the DNA code is almost identical to computer code you’ll say, “Well, Dawkins isn’t a biologist,” and if I say Francis Crick says the exact same thing you say, well, what does it matter what you say? Your mind is made up. To hell with the evidence!
Dawkins is a biologist... what he says about biology matters. What he says about religion, not so much.
My mind is made up concerning various things yes, BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE. Provide some that contradict my points here when you have the time.
And when we, as Intelligent Designers manipulate and change the genetic code to perform in a different manner then what - it’s natural so what we do doesn’t count?
WE are natural, but COMPUTERS, or BOOKS are not. It's that simple. Talking about genetic manipulations misses the point... but again, you don't really want to look at it.
Anyway, thanks for showing how dishonest you are. Keep posting about anybody that slightly disagree with you so that you can feel better with your own beliefs... your naive-person beliefs.