"In the end there must have been a creator"

quote:

---

It's so elegant, it has to work. It's impossible for it not to work.

---

- and it can roll uphill on it's own!!!!

Acuusing me with mind reading, and then doing some of your own, doesn't really go over well.I wasn't mind reading, he expressed an obvious anger to the system of believing in God, which comes from God. Then get angry at me for making a comment on what he said.

The key phrase is "mankind has generated..."My belief is that God imagined humanity prior to humanity imagining God.By refusing to accept God as a first cause, my belief becomes disagreeable. Life preservers are disagreeable to swimmers who are not drowning. This is my belief, and I cannot prove it to you because how can I provide evidence of an imagination apart from my own? Man has attempted to create God in our own definition. This has always occurred throughout History.
As a Believer, I sometimes find myself doing it, as well.(like my number line theory) I can tell the difference between my vain imagination and Gods perfect imagination because when His Spirit...His imagination works through me, everything happens rationally. There is still the choice to believe or not to believe, however.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-18-2005 07:37 AM

I wasn't mindreading when I posed a question to you. Your answers seems to involve showing the christianity religion as hateful and stupid. It seems pretty logical to conclude that you must be a doubleagent working for the other side.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 18 February 2005 10:03 AM

I hand you a Chinese dictionary, and a similarly-formatted list of randomized Chinese characters of equal length.Can you tell the difference?The meaning of the dictionary doesn't exist in the dictionary. It exists, or doesn't exist, in your head. Similarly, there's no "meaning" in DNA. All it does is put amino acids in a row, based on the laws of physics. We might look at genetic sequence and associate it with its protein product; in doing so we might say that the sequence means that protein, but that is a mistake. The sequence does that protein. It doesn't mean that protein.There's no meaning in DNA, therefore talking about meaning is a non-sequiter. Yet this is impossible, because the only intelligence known to exist in the universe is human, and we weren't around at the time. Once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.But what's even better is that evolution isn't improbable; in fact, it's inevitable. We know it happens because we observe it; but moreover, it's impossible for it not to happen.

quote:

---

Can you tell the difference?

---

I could not, and couldn't even generate maningful dialog with the proper Chinese dictionary if the whole thing was written in Chinese.But give the random dictionary to someone who speaks Chinese and it wouldn't make any sense to them either. Because randomness will not result in intellegence. There has to be an agreed upon context to give meaning to the words.

quote:

---

There's no meaning in DNA, therefore talking about meaning is a non-sequiter.

---

I believe that the DNA code has been likened to instruction code in a computer. The one's and zero's don't display information on the monitor screen, but in the correct syntax they are arranged in causes switches to turn on and off. This results in intellegent computer graphical displays and complex calculations occuring within the CPU. The one's and zero's didn't do the calculating. The intellegence behind the design of the CPU and the machine language did it. The one's and zero's themselves have no meaning, but their arrangement is paramont to proper computer computations.The complexity of the arrangement of the proteins in DNA dwarfs any human machine code. The code in the DNA is what is determinant for the makeup of the organism. Not just the fact that DNA protein is present.You seem to be focusing on the pressence of protein while I am highlighting the arrangement of it. It's in the arrangement that I believe shows evidence for Intellegent Design.

Yes. And its that context, rather than an inherent property that the words possess, that control which sequences are meaningful and which are not.DNA, on the other hand, is the reverse. All DNA sequences are equally meaningful; they generate proteins based on inherent properties of their physical structure, not through being interpreted by thinking beings. A Chinese dictionary only has meaning to a human mind that speaks Chinese. But DNA creates proteins in the absence of thought or context. Huh? You're saying that my CPU isn't doing any math at all; it's all being done by engineers at AMD? That's foolishness. Yes, absolutely. It's so complex, in fact, that it can't possibly be intelligently designed. Only evolution can generate that level of complexity. And its the arrangement that proves that its anything but.

If a bunch of random RNA or DNA sequences are produced, some of them will have (or produce proteins with) specific activity. In fact, laboratories trying to find RNA sequence with specific activity use a random method. If they try to design the sequence, they fail; however, producing a million or so random RNA sequences, then selecting ones with activity, has allowed identification of many RNA sequences with highly specific activity.Thus, no intelligence is needed for "the arrangement" of DNA, since random DNA sequence produces meaningful, specific biological activity.Quite the opposite of evidence for intelligent design.

Well since I never said I was working for Satan, you must be mind reading. I see no question in that.What's good for the goose.........Mike on the other hand displayed a clear objection to the belief system of God. The belief system comes from God's inspired word, so then he must be angry at God.Also blaming me for not believing in God, or anyone else on this forum, is a huge mistake. I have nothing to do with you ultimately believing in God or not. Unless you both are willing to admit that I have that kind of power.