Evidence for God from Science

Forgive my long absence...times are busy


I have heard numerous atheists/Darwinists regarding DNA as a product of "nature" and thus more explicitly meaning "natures code or language". So logically as I see it, natures code (DNA) is nature itself.

I would like to see however, how they justify this assertion when there is in fact no information (which itself is built up from a language, natures language in this case) content in matter itself, and thus cannot follow any logical sequence of instructions specific to determining the output of a living system. How does nature decide what type of code to use as a building block for biological systems (via whatever process, however this is not a discussion about Darwinian evolution). DNA (genetic instructions) is a base 4 system comparable to binary (which is a base 2 system), Nature could have as easily used electrical "on's" and "off's" (1's or 0's) as a building block for biological complexity (could it have? how do you justify that it couldn't have?), yet it uses ACGT instead. Humans "defined" A C G T, I have reason to believe the representations for DNA could of been F L I P for all I know. Nevertheless DNA is what it is, a 4 base system.

Do you believe DNA is what it is because nature is what it is? I am not a geneticist and I know a resident geneticist will hop on this forum pretty quickly and convince me I know nothing about DNA, which is true in a sense because I am not a geneticist.

However, perhaps I am demanding too much "why", I am fascinated in the "how" as much as I am in the "why", but in this case geneticists already have a clue to about the "how", it is the why that demands insight.


Any thoughts or opinions?

A minor change to my OP was made...

godslanguage wrote: Do you believe DNA is what it is because nature is what it is? I am not a geneticist and I know a resident geneticist will hop on this forum pretty quickly and convince me I know nothing about DNA, which is true in a sense because I am not a geneticist.

I don't know why it is what it is. But we do know that each combination of nucleic acids leads to the binding of a specific nucleic acid, and that this is driven chemically, and therefore ultimately phisically.

godslanguage wrote:However, perhaps I am demanding too much "why", I am fascinated in the "how" as much as I am in the "why", but in this case geneticists already have a clue to about the "how", it is the why that demands insight.

Other than what I stated above, I'm afraid science can't go any further into the question of why.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

godslanguage wrote: Do you believe DNA is what it is because nature is what it is? I am not a geneticist and I know a resident geneticist will hop on this forum pretty quickly and convince me I know nothing about DNA, which is true in a sense because I am not a geneticist.

I don't know why it is what it is. But we do know that each combination of nucleic acids leads to the binding of a specific nucleic acid, and that this is driven chemically, and therefore ultimately phisically.

godslanguage wrote:However, perhaps I am demanding too much "why", I am fascinated in the "how" as much as I am in the "why", but in this case geneticists already have a clue to about the "how", it is the why that demands insight.

Other than what I stated above, I'm afraid science can't go any further into the question of why.

Wouldn't be nice if all scientists were as honest as you are BGood? Keep praying brother, keep praying .

In order to avoid the question as to why DNA is the way it is the Darwinist use natural selection. Of course natural selection is a logical argument but it does not address the issue. That issue is random mutations. If natural selection is a method of choosing a mutation then the field is limited by mutations. To consider anything else gives natural selection a guided sense of the future. This of course is impossible on many grounds. Now when you add the complexity and multineuclotide changes to "create" a step in "evolutionary" science the math breaks down into impossible long periods and impossible numbers of host.

The gathering of information over time does not work. If it did then a molecular sciencetist could reverse engineer a cell of any animal on the planet. Since none has even been sequenced we must come to the conclusion that we are just too stupid to figure out these simple step by step Darwinian sequences. I for one know how to reverse engineer many designs and they were created by a knowledgeble designer (man). Since we cannot figure out life then I have to conclude that the sequencing was not done by a random sequence of mutations. It was done outside of chance and outside of man. Now this is a slap in the face of evolution. They keep saying natural selection without the proof of reverse engineering. Man is perfectly capable of finding a sequence if it was done by simple random steps. We can reverse engineer a jet, a computer, and a rocket built to go to Mars, but a simple cell is beyond us. This is no accident.

in regards to frank baginski's quote:

i think you're dismissing the importance of time and technology and the time alottment needed to grasp new concepts in science and biology. 'we can reverse engineer a rocket but not life." that statement implies an intuitive knowledge of such things. but how many hundreds of years did the science of flight have to evolve before we reached this understanding? it's not like we have always, for forever, known how to make a rocket that will get to the moon. it took hundreds of years to get to that point of understanding and ability.

we can make life--sex. duh. i kid, but there's lots of things we cant 'make' because we figure out the science of it. we cant just make water from nothing. we cant make fundamental elements from scraps. we cant make ozone.

genetics is a young field of science. i'm not saying darwin is correct, i'm just saying the fact we FINALLY figured out how to get a rocket to space took a long, long time. and understanding genetics will, too. we've not had as much time to invesigate genetics as we have rockets. resequencing dna is so imfathomably complex. it's not that DNA is a double helix of information--it's only shaped like that once we unravel the complex ball of helix that knots into and over and around itself. and that sequence of knots, folds and balling up of its shape is just as vital to what we are as the genetic data inside.

you also seem to use the word 'mutation' as if it's intrinsically negative. mutations cause immunities to disease, better senses, and more suitable ways to prosper.

i dont know about evolution. evolution exists, plainly stated. you can see cave salamanders that have lost their eyes due to living in total darkness. you can see their relatives who are otherwise the same creature except with eyes.
i dont know how anyone can say every species that IS not has always been. you can look at animals that died out naturally due to mal-adaptive functionality.

that doesnt prove we came from monkeys. i've often argued the believe in evolution (human-ape) requires the same leap of faith as creationism. it can only be proven to a point, at which no more evidence exists, so evolutionary theorists have to just 'believe' in evolution past this point. same as we believe in creation.

by the same token, i dont see that proof of human-ape evolution automatically disproves God or the bible. what does it mean to be made in the image of God? is He the same image as our made-up anglo jesus? i doubt it. i doubt 'to be made in His image' has anything to do with how human we look.

even as a child i was astounded by the fact almost all vertebrates have the same bone structures, modified to suit their environments. even dophins have finger bones! that seems so important, and automatically relates each of us to each other. we are the dominate species, easily. but God could have still inter-connected all living things. well, He DID. but did we evolve? i dont know.
i know we DO evolve. even within the mirco-cosm of our single life we evolve. our bones fuse, we grow. we can work out and get more muscular, learn, become smart. perhaps it's not genetic, but principly it's the same. we do these things to adapt to our environment. is that unholy? unbiblical? not at all.
cancer is rapid evolution. what about that?
clearly God has created lesser beings on this planet. each of which is the key species of their microcosm. just look at ants.
how these things work in the machine of the universe isnt always clear to us, but i know God did it all for a reason, it all makes sense.

the sleep of reason ,

I was talking about reverse engineering a basic cell. With just our current understanding of molecular biology we should in my opinion be able to do this task if the steps are simple as defined by evolution.

If man found a rocket ship we could reverse engineer it in a couple of years. We could bypass the decades of hard work to build one from scratch.

There are many in science who place large times as a barrier to understanding. When scientist say that the process happened over millions and millions of years that just means to me they have no clue as to how the process happened. If they did they would lay out the process step by step. This also applies going forward. They say just trust me that I am telling you the truth and we will find a verification in time. I don't accept this at all. It is not science. It is a smoke screen of the worst kind. It is so simple to say "I don't know". I say it all of the time. You must ask yourself the question: Why don't they say "I don't know"? When I hear something new I ask many questions.

Who is saying this? What do they believe? Who paid for this? Where is the counter argument? Where is the raw data? Is this data or an opinion of the data set? What rules were followed in making the opinion? What assumptions were made in the analysis? Were there any anomalies? Just to start out ask this of everything. In my investigation into the sciences over the last 4 years I have lost my trust for the PEOPLE in science.

Frank,

I think you have a point in terms of the appropriateness of saying, "I don't know" from Science. I agree with you there are times where the scientific community invokes long stretches of time and the underlying thought of probability fueled by those long stretches of time to provide an explanation that lacks specificity as to the means of accomplishment. That is when I think some (not all) in the scientific community moves from Evolution or Geology etc in a scientific sense and cross over into metaphysical philosophy and fail to note the change in venue.

In fairness, we Christians and creationists of any bent, Old Earth or Young Earth (although I think Young Earth can be more guilty of this) make a similar error in drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence of the scientific field and we can also, I believe attempt to draw too much from Scripture by torturing the context to draw scientific conclusions that I don't believe could have been reasonably understood in the day of their deliverance and hearing of the original audience.

There's probably some applicable lessons for many of us to learn in both communities don't you think?

"I don't know" is sometimes a hard thing for Creationists to say too, but I think it means something to say, "But I know who does."

Bart

Canuckster1127 ,

I agree with what you said. What I try and show with my post on a YEC model is that there are other ways to look at the same data. I admit the YEC has some big holes and we will probably never fill them. The same can be said of the OEC models. To question everything and place it in proper context is the most important thing for all of us to do. I get so fed up when I see show after show brainwash the masses into thinking science has all of the answers when I know they do not.

Yes, I attack the models that old universe evolutionist project to society. I think their case is weak and I intend to show that to anyone who will listen. This of course does not mean I have the answers. I just don't like bad science spread around like good science.

Frank,

I agree with the frustration. I don't think that is a basis to swing anti-science however. Science is a wonderful tool and effective means to work within the context of the physical universe.

It does require discernment on our part through to recognize when we're moving out of hard science and into the realm of philisophy and carrying the presuppositions that only that which is material is real. Science in the narrow scope requires that point of view and it is entirely appropriate. Many people are not disciplined enough in their thinking and awareness to recognize when that transition takes place and at times it is very subtle.

Bart

so is all this you saying you dont believe animals have ever evolved? is every animal now as it have always been?

the sleep of reason wrote:so is all this you saying you dont believe animals have ever evolved? is every animal now as it have always been?

No. I didn't say that. Evolution is an established scientific fact. The question is one of scale and I don't profess to have it definitively figured out as to the exact degree and manner it occured beyond what we've been able to observe which is precious little. Beyond that there is reasonable inference but that inference is going to circle back to the underlying assumptions of the person interpretting the evidence.

canuckster i agree.

i guess i was more asking what frank believes...

i still think we are diminishing the complexity of genetics. this reverse engineering point is moot, we cant reverse engineer a microchip and it's only complex 10^6. genes are 10^10. that's going to take some time. and we are making giant leaps.
do you just dismiss the human genome project?

what do you do with evoluion in bacteria? you can actually SEE that happen. just like with animals. i dont understand what the conflict with evolution and God is. God cant create evolution?

Sleep,

Canuckster and I feel the same way about evolution. He stated it well. There is an edge where the processes of evolution won't allow what we see. Now I may have a dfferent point at which I draw the line than with Canuckster. I would draw the line where Michael Behe draws it. In his book "The Edge of Evolution" he makes a good case for drawing the line real close to macroevolution. He uses malaria to make the case since it is well studied and we have a vast amount of data on this parasite.

Now I do believe that God created the animals in the beginning. Have they evolved since then? I think they have but not into new species. The basic genes and the genes which turn on or off due to environmental factors allow for wide changes to occur. The fossil record does not show a slow drift from one species to another. Now I believe that it took a major catastrophe to create fossils. So these snap shots do not give us a clear picture. The evidence we have is lacking to conclude either side of the issue. I have laid out a model on the thread -young earth old universe. Now this is a model and may or may not represent what actually happened in the past. The point I am making is that the same data can be looked at a different way. I look at the data thru the lens of scripture. Others look at the same data thru the lens of naturalism. These worldviews are really the issue not the models.

Your point about 10 to the 10th complexity. I think it is like eating an elephant, one bite at a time. There are many small molecules that can be sequenced if the steps back in time were small and caused by acident. We understand the process of mutation. The problem is once you change a protein or some other molecule you must show it still functions but to a lessor degree. This is not what we see in practice. What we see is it breaks completely. I am waiting for the first molecule to be sequenced. I have read many articles that talk about this issue but none so far have shown any real progress.