..as per the Grand Design. the universe is created in such a way that these things can happen.
You see, a theist can always sidestep this argument by appending whatever evidence you present with '...as was intended'.
The fact that life arose spontaneously does not undermine a symbolic reading of the Bible. It only undermines a literal reading of the bible. But the bible is not supposed to be read literally, and never was given as a scientific account. So unless you're arguing against biblical creationism, nothing you present makes any difference to the theistic view, provided the Bible is interpreted metaphorically.
(Footnote - have you noticed that fundamentalism is almost exclusively Proestant in orientation? Ever wondered why there are hardly any Catholic fundamentalists? I find that an interesting question.. I think it is because Luther encouraged such a 'biblio-centric' view of religion, whereas the Catholics maintained their allegiance to Greek philosophy, which has no problem accommodating evolutionary ideas. In fact I think there was a proto-evolutionary theory in pre-Socratic philosophy.)
In the meantime, the below might be of interest.
Well perhaps even I can be considered a fundamentalist atheist.
Hey that's a great argument.
There is another point I have read about in the biological sciences. It turns out that creatures have a lot of 'junk dna'. The correspondences between a gene and an attribute are not 1:1 also. This means, for example, that the same gene can produce different outcomes in different contexts. This is partially determined by so-called 'master genes' which seem to dictate how particular genes, or even combinations of genes, behave in a particular context.
Now an interesting case is that of the 'eyeless' gene. This is a gene, which, if removed from fruitfly DNA, will result in a fruitfly without eyes. Now you can splice in the corresponding gene from mouse DNA. Note that the composition of mouse and insect eyes are completely different. Insect eyes are compound, while mammal eyes have one lens. Nevertheless when you do this, you get a fruitfly with insect eyes.
So the question is, how does the DNA, or the genotype, read the information encoded in this gene in such a way that the right type of eye is generated?
To my knowledge, this question has not been answered yet.
I watched the video on the beetle, and I have to say, I found it in no way convincing. All it did was prove that the chemicals found in the beetle do not actually explode. That may knock out the beetle example for irreducible complexity, but that's all it does. It does not in any way disprove irreducible complexity itself.
Not only that, but the teacer's conclusion at the end of the video was very surprising. Creating a complex argument "in one fell swoop" is NOT like a tornado blowing together a 747, if the creator is intelligent (which is exactly what creationists propose).
Yes and I find it interesting that it was you who would take the moment to point this out. I understand that no matter what sort of information is provided for a majority of theists they will hold fast to their beliefs even if the information clearly points out that what they believe is actually false. Maybe it is just pride that prevents them from acknowledging they were wrong or maybe they just can not cope with new information that contradicts their theology.
Well perhaps my bias would only get in the way more if I were to say that the bible is completely useless for any sort of origin teaching. If you can't take it literal (which many do anyways) and if it is not scientific then what exactly is it?
As to what religion really means, it is a deeper and more difficult question than reverse-fundamentalism will allow. But one indisputable fact is that most human societies, at most times in history, have had religious beliefs.
hate to break this to you but you are so blinded by your anti-religious feelings, which you indiscriminately vent given any opportunity, that you are completely unable to be objective about whatever meaning might be found in it. If you studied any of the great texts of comparative religion, like Hero with a Thousand Faces, the Varieties of Religious Experience, or The Perennial Philosophy, you would discover there are indeed universal truths, archetypes, and motifs that run through all cultures and throughout history.
But there is not use talking to you about any of it, because your mind is completely closed.
But all we are really talking about is some chemical compounds, there is no code about it. We just call it a code
We just call it a code because it is the best way to understand what is happening.
The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.
None of what you write about religion betokens any insight into it. All I get from it is that you don't like it. The arguments you use against it show no indication that you have the least insight into what it stands for.
If God has free will, yet knows all of his actions through his omniscience, can He freely act against his knowledge?
Religion has something to sell, and this product is never delivered. Show me a person who has gotten the delivery.
That's just not true Krumple and teeters on misinformation. Science doesn't just arbitrarily add the term code to something that has "no code about it".
You will find that Professor Evolutionary Atheism himself, Dawkins, acknowledges that Darwinian theory does not apply to the process of abiogenesis. There is no coherent theory that accounts for how life arose from non-life, only educated guesses. Now the fact that it cannot be accounted for, does not mean that God did it. It means, it cannot be accounted for.
When people hear the word code, the immediately assume a maker behind it.
I made that statement... to remove the aspect that a person would immediately jump to, "Well god did it...
It's a fallacy because it does not work that way. It is the chemical bonds themselves and the culmination of these amino acids which actually build up to become a protein.
They don't magically become some new thing,
...it is only a convenience for language and understanding to say it that way.
In the meantime, the below might be of interest. Ironically, it came from following a number of links from the second link Krumple provided. (All credit for the below goes to the original poster.)
As we should. For no other mechanism, other than sentient authorship, has ever been demonstrated to manifest a genuine code. From our current knowledge about codified information, believing that code can arise by chance is literally believing in miracles. No science supports such an unwarranted assumption.
Why would you immediately remove any possibility from the table? Doing so is designed to serve your predisposed purpose of denying G potential. It does not serve the pursuit of Truth. G did it, if and only if G did it, is a valid truth proposition. We cannot remove that potential.
But which protein? Only Codified Information determines that. You're describing the building blocks, but negate the existence and necessity for Information.
Bricks do not a Building make. The medium is not the message... ever, never ever.
There is nothing magical about Codified Information and required sentient author. It is very natural. It's the only demonstrable mechanism in all of recorded history. Suggesting otherwise is unsupportable. Suggesting otherwise is promoting magic and miracle.
There is nothing convenient about it. It is science, that's all. Please read Hubert Yockey's book, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life.
DNA was DISCOVERED to be a code. It wasn't assigned as being a code. It was discovered to be a genuine code that conforms to Purlwitz, Burks, and Watermans definition of a code. That being probability space A mapped to probability space B. DNA/RNA transcription was DISCOVERED to fulfill Claude Shannon's communications protocols and Yockey mapped the transcription process directly from Shannon.
Yockey states that all of those processes take their meaning from information theory and are not metaphors or analogies. It's not a matter of convenience. Do you want me to show the original Yockey quotes again?
