Human beings can now, in essence, create DNA molecules. You're argument is that anything is too complex for you, or the public in general, right now doesn't understand fully points to an intelligent source ("God"). Same argument that was used hundreds of years ago to point to the fact the the Earth must be flat.
I don't know if anyone caught the ABC special on many of these subjects last night. It looked at Paul's role in spreading and (re)defining Jesus' teachings as a religion. Despite the corny musical transitions, the special did a pretty good job of presenting takes from various scholars on who Jesus was, what he did, what his words meant (like "Son of Man"--among other phrases Jesus used to describe himself--being one of the many titles used by the Roman emperor, so when Jesus used it to refer to himself, he was being extremely subversive, not necessarily saying he was the son of God) and who Paul was, what he did, and what he beleived (that the world was ending at any minute). Anyway, here are some links to some belief.net discourses on much of what is being discussed here: Did Paul Distort Christianity? A Discussion with Elaine Pagels and Ben Witherington III Critical examinations of ABC's Peter Jennings special "Jesus and Paul: The Word and the Witness"
KB, My apologies for my comments on Christianity and "believing" in it. I believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, tried to spread God's word, and people of Jewish religion tried to crucify him because they believed that he was lying in oneway or another. Yes I do believe that Jesus ascended into heaven, and yes believe that his body was crucified. As for the 0.5%, it troubles me, it really does. That .5% is the difference between my belief and your belief. If Jesus said "I am God" then yes, it would make a difference, because no one could make a mistake writing that down. But I could see why "Master" changed to "teacher". As for the Trinity, I'm wondering if any non-Christians see its crystal clear doctrines in the Bible? Everything in the Bible is verified. The teachings of Jesus are 100% and from God, but the word Trinity is nowhere in the Bible, nor is there a section that explanis this theory. There are places that imply the existence of the Trinity, but why wouldn't Jesus just put this in the Bible? Surely, God knew when the end of Jesus was coming. Oh, and No Worries is absolutely correct. There are many Christians that don't believe Jesus is God. I have spoken to these people face-to-face. As for the Qura'an, it is word for word. A translation is not considered the equivalent of the Holy Qura'an. When you say Holy Qura'an, you are reffering to the Arabic version which is identical all over the world. The Bible is different in that different people wrote it down, but the Qura'an was dictated word for word to MOh'd, and he copied it down as it was being said. The mediator was not a human, but an angel (Gabriel). Rocket104, I'm not Shia and don't believe in Shia teachings. So I'm not going to defend what they do. As for Sunni's, we don't have Imams. We have Sheikhs, but you go them for advice and as a refference. They absolutely cannot grant you forgiveness for anything whatsoever. They can just tell you what the best course of action is to take. The interpretations you refer to are not in the Qura'an itself. I'll give you an example about a popular debate right now - Is it ok to watch The Passion of the Christ? The Qura'an states that anything that snaps a vision in the past is forbidden - statues, pictures, etc.... That point is set in stone, right out of the Qura'an. The debate is about whether video should be considered in the same context, especially when it's used in a useful/educational way. In this case, you ask around, you see what people say. Nothing will convince you like Holy script, so it's your right to follow your heart, and God will forgive you if you truly thought you were right. So what's in the Qura'an is solid, it's just what didn't exist back then that seems to cause debate.
"I and my Father are one." I don't see how this is translated other than claiming to be equal to God - and by the Jew's finding rocks for His stoning and their response "You, being a man, make yourself God." - I think those that heard Him 1st hand interpreted it the same way I do. John 10:25-39 Of course, the whole book of John makes the claim for who Jesus is.
Or maybe it's the truth, and it's difficult to package God nicely and neatly in human words. Would it really be all that surprising for an explanation of God to be somewhat confusing, in the sense of really grasping the concept? ( I have a hard time wrapping my mind around eternity as well.) I would be surprised if an infinite God weren't hard to explain to finite people.
Here are a couple of links to other responses to Peter Jennings' special from June 26, 2000. http://www.equip.org/free/DJ920.pdf http://www.equip.org/free/DJ925.pdf
Sane, I am not an adherent to any religion and believe all religions have an equal claim to the "truth." Whatever that may be. All religions have multiple interpretations. At their core, I believe all religions benefit the practitioner by sheer virtue of offering acceptable guidelines for living a moral, ethical life that is it's own everlasting reward. The ten commandments still offer some pretty sound guidelines. Of course, the key with any religion is living by the rules and not twisting the tenets to one's own benefit or subjugation and murder of others. It's probably already been posted but try: Luke 22:70 Matthew 22:67 and 27:11 Speaking to my original post: Quran 5:72
Apology accepted. I appreciate that. Thanks for understanding that I was just defending the Christian faith and not attacking you. I still have a specific question about what you believe about Jesus, though. Do you think that he never intended for his disciples to believe that he was God? John 1:1 states that Jesus—the Word—was/is God. Do you think that was that an intentional or unintentional misrepresentation? Anyone can claim to be a Christian. Anyone can claim to be a Muslim. Anyone can claim to be a Christian and a Muslim. Do you think anyone that claims to be a Muslim is a true Muslim? There are people who call themselves Christians who don't believe that Jesus is God. According to Christianity, Jesus is God. The Bible states that Jesus is God.
JayZ750, You've changed the basis for your objection, but you continue to show that you don't understand my argument at all. I hope these excerpts help. DNA and Other Designs by Stephen C. Meyer In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule. Soon thereafter, molecular biologists discovered how DNA stores the information necessary to direct protein synthesis. As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of "sequence specificity" or "specified complexity" that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell. The nucleotide bases in DNA function in precisely the same way as symbols in a machine code. In each case, the arrangement of the characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. In the case of a computer code, the specific arrangement of just two symbols (0 and 1) suffices to carry information. In the case of DNA, the complex but precise sequencing of the four nucleotide bases (A, T, G, and C) stores and transmits the information necessary to build proteins. Thus, the sequence specificity of proteins derives from a prior sequence specificity—from the information—encoded in DNA. To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence "ABABABABAB ABAB" to the sequence "Time and tide wait for no man." The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call "specified complexity") have "information content." Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content—that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software. Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium. Because chemical bonds do not determine the arrangement of nucleotide bases, the nucleotides can assume a vast array of possible sequences and thereby express many different biochemical messages. Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume a mind produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that the presence of information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. The sculptures of Michelangelo, the software of the Microsoft corporation, the inscribed steles of Assyrian kings—each bespeaks the prior action of an intelligent agent. Indeed, everywhere in our high-tech environment we observe complex events, artifacts, and systems that impel our minds to recognize the activity of other minds—minds that communicate, plan, and design. But to detect the presence of mind, to detect the activity of intelligence in the echo of its effects, requires a mode of reasoning—indeed, a form of knowledge—the existence of which science, or at least official biology, has long excluded. Yet recent developments in the information sciences and within biology itself now imply the need to rehabilitate this lost way of knowing. As we do so, we may find that we have also restored some of the intellectual underpinning of traditional Western metaphysics and theistic belief. http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm
You've changed the basis for your objection No I haven't. My basis for objection continues to be that your argument for the existence of God, much less Jesus as God, is illogical. but you continue to show that you don't understand my argument at all. Clearly, as you have failed to explain how the existence of DNA points to the existence of God. I hope these excerpts help. they help show that indeed, the existence of DNA is much more science than religion...which was my point in the first place.
I think the point is that the complexity of DNA points to an intelligent creator rather than to blind chance, just as a radio and the internet and all the other "creations" you mentioned in your post above are only explanable by an intelligent creator. No one would look at a radio and assume that it came together by blind chance. How people can believe that about DNA is beyond me.
The origins of radios and the internet is as factual as the results of last night's baseball games... Looking at things and saying there is no other answer but belief would lead to a world where new discoveries were never ever ever made - we'd still be stuck believing the Earth was flat cause, gosh darnit, the church wants us to think so. Accepting the potential that DNA may actual have actually come together by blind chance is what keeps scientists looking for the TRUTH.
If it is intelligent design then is it often times shoddy workmanship. people are born with missing or extra chromosomes, usually to the detrement of their health (Down syndrome for example). Does god make mistakes? If not, then what possible reason could he have for making people this way?
JayZ750, Your first objection was based on your "radio" line of reasoning. I pointed out that I don't need to point to God as the direct maker of things that could have been made by human beings. You abandoned the "radio" line of reasoning. Then you charged me with pointing to God when I see anything "too complex" or beyond my understanding, which showed that you still didn't understand my argument at all. There is a difference between complexity and specified complexity. The specified complexity of DNA points to an intelligent source. Anyone can see that. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:20
outlaw, Are you willing to believe in God without knowing the answers to all your questions? Because no one knows all the answers. I can answer your first question easily. God doesn't make mistakes. I can answer your second question to a very limited extent, but you have to realize first that sickness, suffering, and death exist in this world because of human sinfulness. No one is without sin. If God prevented us from committing sin, we would essentially be robots. Let's broaden your second question to why God allows suffering, which includes why God allows people to be born with diseases and other imperfections. How God determines who is born healthy and who is not I don't know. I know God can use suffering for good purposes, though. COMPASSION n. Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. Without suffering in this world, we would have no opportunity to demonstrate compassion. Our own suffering can make us more compassionate. Seeing loved ones suffer can make us more compassionate. Suffering can make us stronger. "[W]e also rejoice in our sufferings, for we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" (Romans 5:3). Experiencing suffering can make us appreciate things we might otherwise take for granted. Suffering can bring people closer together. Suffering can bring an entire nation closer together. Those are some reasons why God might allow suffering in certain situations. There will be no suffering in heaven. "If human life is in fact ordered by a beneficent being whose knowledge of our real needs and of the way in which they can be satisfied infinitely exceeds our own, we must expect a priori that his operations will often appear to us far from beneficent and far from wise, and that it will be our highest prudence to give him our confidence in spite of this." — C. S. Lewis
Your first objection was based on your "radio" line of reasoning. I pointed out that I don't need to point to God as the direct maker of things that could have been made by human beings. You abandoned the "radio" line of reasoning. My first objection was: "Based on your train of thought, other things likely to be creations directly of God include radios, the internet (sorry Al Gore), outer space travel, the theory of relativity, microchips....well, the list really goes on and on. There could easily be a list of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of "creations" on this planet that both you (without even knowing you but assuming you took basic science classes in high school) and I would have a more difficult time explaining than DNA." Then you charged me with pointing to God when I see anything "too complex" or beyond my understanding, which showed that you still didn't understand my argument at all. Which is what my first, "radio" line of reasoning was...exactly the same. There is a difference between complexity and specified complexity. The specified complexity of DNA points to an intelligent source. Anyone can see that. Now you're just making stuff up based on your opinion...which, interestingly, is one that further supports my argument that you are pointing to an "intelligent source" whenever you see anythign too complex for you. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:20 Now, conveniently, you've added a quote from the Bible...as if that's suppossed to clear up the matter. Look...100 years ago you would have believed we would never have found DNA, that it just didn't exist and people were people because of God. 500 years ago you would have believed the Earth is flat, because clearly we're not falling off, so it must be. 1000 years ago you would have believed that we (humans, earth, etc.) were the center of existence, everything rotated and circled around us, and that there were no other places on the planet (i.e. - no North America)....heck, something like a cigarette lighter would blow your mind. If you want to think just because an answer hasn't been found, one doesn't exist, that's fine. Personally, I enjoy the journey of trying to discover something new.
I don't believe he's responsible for these things. The fact that things are "falling apart" is not because God made them that way. (I don't think he fashioned each individual's DNA. My point is that the very concept of DNA points to a creator.) The Bible says that all the problems are a result of sin being introduced into the world. Genesis says that everything God made was "good." It was only after sin was introduced into the world that the wheels started coming off (so to speak).
JayZ750, Did you even look at the information I posted? "To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence "ABABABABAB ABAB" to the sequence "Time and tide wait for no man." The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call "specified complexity") have "information content." Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order." "Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content—that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software." "Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume a mind produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that the presence of information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source." Do you see the difference between complexity and specified complexity? I can't believe you can't see the problem with your "radio" line of reasoning. I don't need to point to God as the direct maker of things that could have been made by human beings. DNA exhibits specified complexity, which indicates an intelligent source. DNA could not have been created by human beings, because DNA makes life possible in the first place. A radio is something that could have been made by a human being. Do you see the difference? Your "radio" line of reasoning makes no sense. Things that exhibit specified complexity indicate an intelligent source. Compare the things above to a fragment of DNA. ctgcaggaaa ctttatttcc tacttctgca taccaagttt ctacctctag atctgtttgg ttcagttgct gagaagcctg acataccagg actgcctgag acaagccaca agctggtgag ttgtaggcat tttttccatt actttctgat tcataggctc aacgcacctc aaagctggaa atgccgggtc tgggtacacc ctggggaact gcaaagcctg cacacttggg gggaatgatc aagatgagag gcaggggtgg ggatggcatg tgcaccagga gatgttagag aaacctgagg aagagcagag tgcagcaggt gatgggggag agtgggcagc aagcgaggcc aggacagcca ctctgctcag tcaccagtcc acacacccag gggctcactc tgcccctctg agcacccaag gacgttaaag agctggaact gttagtctaa atataggacc atccaagctc tgaaccaaaa tgtgtccctt gcctcaactc aggagatcca cagaggcaga agtaaggaat ttattttctg aaagatagat ttctatcagt tctgggtgac atgttctgac act The coding regions of DNA have the same property of specified complexity that characterizes written codes. Furthermore, the information in DNA transcends the properties of its material medium. The specified complexity of DNA points to an intelligent source. You should be able to follow the logic of my argument.
I understand your point and you are simply wrong. The complexity in DNA does not imply an "intelligent architect". The truth is that 100 years from now we will proabably no longer consider DNA to be complex. And then where would your argument be? I am actually finding great humor in your attempt to label complexity from God's perspective. Carry on.
