Paste text into the box and MUTATE it! A useful tool
you can play with that visually demonstrates that random mutation can only
destroy information, not create it

©1994-2007 Cosmic Fingerprints and Willow Creek
Community Church,
South Barrington, Illinois

I followed this debate , Proff ... the sceptics' reasoning had me in stitches ... Worth a read and a good giggle .... tell me what you think ... or rather do not ....


The Atheist's Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It

On
August 30, 2005, a member of the infidels online forum (screen name
“wdog”) posted the following on the Internet Infidels
Discussion Board at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1

I have been emailing back and forth with Perry Marshall, the author of this site
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
and since it quickly expanded in scope I invited him to come here and
present his 'evidence' and proof. You might find the site amusing
anyway. Feel free to critique his statements as i am sure he may at
least read this since i will make him aware of this thread.
please be polite. Thanks

My first post:

Gentlemen:

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

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.

Perry Marshall

The
discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the
end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my
proof or produce any new objections that had not already been
addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous
discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.
There
were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent
design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the
discussion threads:

1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)
5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)
6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)

(Note: for brevity and because of copyright concerns I have edited and
/ or paraphrased most of the questions, being careful not to change the
intent of the message. If you wish to read the full discussion
you can do so here.
Lest anyone accuse me of re-writing history here on my website, I
strongly encourage you to go see the forum for yourself! I was
challenged by dozens of people and responded in detail to all major
objections.) On December 4, 2005 I made my last of 16 posts.
Notice that my language re-stating my syllogism is somewhat tightened
as a result of four months of discussion:

Let's review where we've been in this thread. I have said:

(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.

Much
effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This
statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the
scientific literature since the 1960's.

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

Much
effort has been expended to discredit this statement as well.
Assertions have been attempted that gravity, snowflakes, magma flows
and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon's communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system.

(3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.

The
objection to this statement has been that the conclusion is reached
inductively. Complaints have been lodged that inductive reasoning is
inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of
thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are
determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out
inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific
knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make
fire.

Thus
we have, right here on the Infidels discussion forum, after more than
300 posts, robust evidence that life was intelligently designed.

Quote:

It is not possible for me to persuade people to believe in God if they do not want to; that is not my job. But one can hope that some will follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

Perry Marshall



.... Agreed ....

From and old Std 10 Biology text book




When the earth formed some 4.6 billion years ago, it was a lifeless, inhospitable place. A billion years later it was teeming with organisms resembling blue-green algae. How did they get there? How, in short, did life begin? This long-standing question continues to generate fascinating conjectures and ingenious experiments, many of which center on the possibility that the advent of self-replicating RNA was a critical milestone on the road to life.

Before the mid-17th century, most people believed that God had created humankind and other higher organisms and that insects, frogs and other small creatures could arise spontaneously in mud or decaying matter. For the next two centuries, those ideas were subjected to increasingly severe criticism, and in the mid-19th century two important scientific advances set the stage for modern discussions of the origin of life.

In one advance Louis Pasteur discredited the concept of spontaneous generation. He offered proof that even bacteria and other microorganisms arise from parents resembling themselves. He thereby highlighted an intriguing question: How did the first generation of each species come into existence?

The second advance, the theory of natural selection, suggested an answer. According to this proposal, set forth by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, some of the differences between

STRANDS OF RNA (branch-like lines) are being synthesized on DNA (vertical line). Today genetic information usually flows from DNA to RNA, but many investigators think some form of RNA evolved before DNA. This idea is central to the RNA-world theory of how life began, which holds that RNA made possible the evolution of DNA and life itself.

Individuals in a population are heritable. When the environment changes, individuals bearing traits that provide the best adaptation to the new environment meet with the greatest reproductive success. Consequently, the next generation contains an increased percentage of well-adapted individuals displaying the helpful characteristics. In other words, environmental pressures select adaptive traits for perpetuation.

continue


Repeated generation after generation, natural selection could thus lead to the evolution of complex organisms from simple ones. The theory therefore implied that all current life-forms could have evolved from a single, simple progenitor - an organism now referred to as life's last common ancestor. (This life-form is said to be "last" not "first" because it is the nearest shared ancestor of all contemporary organisms; more distant ancestors must have appeared earlier.)

Darwin, bending somewhat to the religious biases of his time, posited in the final paragraph of The Origin of Species that "the Creator" originally breathed life "into a few forms or into one." Then evolution rook over: "From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." In private correspondence, however, he suggested life could have arisen through chemistry, "in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present." For much of the 20th century, origin-of-life research has aimed to flesh out Darwin's private hypothesis - to elucidate how, without supernatural intervention, spontaneous interaction of the relatively simple molecules dissolved in the lakes or oceans of the prebiotic world could have yielded life's last common ancestor.

Why oh why is the homo sapiens species so mind-boggling vulnerable to charlatans ... ???
============================================================

The challenge of finding peace in Lourdes
By Emma Jane Kirby - BBC News, Lourdes - Saturday, 9 February 2008


Before I left I lit a candle for the sick Austrian woman.

You just never know.
BBC

I then asked who the charlatan is in this posting.....
6 pages later....after much name-calling etc, we are STILL left with no CONCRETE evidence either way!!!
saddest of all, we are now minus another sparklers member and a good friend, my good friend....
sad, very, very sad....
and.....I now see a few new "charlatans" around.......

Simsi wrote:

"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."


DNA at work duplicating -------A computer animation

I am a very, very, very proud child of God....
I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost...
I believe in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for me....
I believe in my Bible....
I believe in the ten commandments....

Hiya , Bennie :

Quote:

Simsi wrote: "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."

Yep, according to my knowledge so far ... :

Quote:

there is NO NATURAL process

known to science

Quote:

that creates

coded information ....

Drew , I think I understand your reasoning PERFECTLY .... and quite interesting ...

Yet, Ware's reasoning amounts to perfect nothing .... ...

However,

Kindly ponder this: NOTHING ... is in fact perfect ... please refer to my exposition as previously set out re the atom somewhere else ... ) ... I still stand by it ...

God (or Ware's god , Mother Nature , if you will ) created the heavens and the earth out of NOTHING ... so, NOTHING is in FACT perfect... (and it's free ) ..

In the Latin language you will find ... the plusquam perfectum ... (meaning : more than perfect )...

I must pause here and add ... That I , with my feeble understanding of your mind , Atticus ... am unable to find where Drew , in fact , equated the Christian God or God ... to imperfection ...

The imperfection mentioned ... has to do with (not the perfect harmonious (more than perfect and abundantly awesome ) working of the universe that God created ) ... But , with the free will ...choice ... which God gave to man ... God, therefore , is NOT the dictator ,the cruel God , a term and accusation which you so often lay at His door , Ware ... But , the cruel god , is man and man alone ...

Remember Feddy's Two Wolves ? .... which one will win? ...

The one you feed .... None other than free will ... choice ..

Man who became spiritually dead when he sinned ... In other words ... the spiritual soul , for he was made unto the likeness and image of God , ( perfection) ... became the fleshly man - Spiritually dead .... and loosened from God's perfect image and likeness ...

If you wish to understand Man , the triune nature of man ... mind soul/spirit and body ... and man's imperfectness after the fall ...his spiritual death ... (losskeuring van God ) ... then , read , I urge you .... Atticus , .... THE SPIRITUAL MAN by Watchman Nee ... then , you will also and at once understand why it is necessary for man to be "born again into the Spirit " ... to become whole ,(pure and perfect ) , again ...

This book in THREE VOLUMES is easy to understand ...written in beautiful and fluent English ... the reasoning flows ... the logic , crisp and clear ....

And oh yes, ... Ware ... whereas "hearsay evidence is concerned " ... do not show your ignorance to the world as you do ... I shall reply to your statement later ...

In the mean time ... study the "parole evidence rule " ... intensively ... and intensely .... this rule , so by the way ... was made famous by none other than my grandma's evidence ... and BTW ... she saved a man his farm ....

toodledoo ... Sims ...