For someone who seems to consider himself an intellectual, you sure seem to be having a hard time understanding a simple point. "Complex" in this instance does not mean "hard to understand," which is what your post suggests. It means that there are too many factors that contribute to the makeup of DNA for it to be random. There won't be fewer factors that must come together in the next 100 years. Our understanding of these things will no doubt increase, but there will not be fewer factors determining the makeup of DNA. Perhaps if you weren't humoring yourself, you might at least grasp the point, rather than criticizing an entirely different point.
Thank you...I thought I was the only one complettely baffled by Kate's ability to quote something and therefore say it must be. Kate, I understand, at least somewhat (though not entirely, despite the fact that yes, you did quote the same paragraph from some not so random Phd who conveniently - from what I can find - is a Phd in History and Philosophy of Science but not Biology) that you are making a textual disctinction between complexity and specified complexity. Now, assuming I both fully understand and agree with that distinction, I still have no idea why (i) complexity = explainable by science, while (ii) specified complexity = intelligent architect / God Look...I believe in God just like you do, though I don't believe in Christianity. I just think looking at God from a scientific standpoint is illogical, pointless,a nd stupid. Even if one was to take the ultimate scientific argument, that at some point, somewhere, somehow there has to be something governing all of these schietific "laws"...that even if the Universe has oscillated between a big bang and contraction back and forth for eternity, someone has to be behind it, I could still argue that you never know. Few people can even conceptual 4 dimensions, much les 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10....etc. What is time? What really is matter, or DNA...what are the questions that we'll be asking millions of years from now? At some point DNA will be so basic and moronic a concept that it will be as clear as 1+1 to you...then what questions can we ask. Which brings me back to my original point. Jeff has been the smartest one so far in this thread, when he said... Trying to draw a line between truth and fiction, right and wrong is impossible without a set of standards upon which to base that assessment and if those standards are based on belief, they are subjective and variable. I'm all for belief. I have beliefs of my own that are very important to me. But, I don't like trying to pin down the idea of truth. It is a concept we don't fully understand. The existence of God is a completely spiritual, about belief.
No Worries, There is a difference between complexity and specified complexity. I've already posted information explaining the difference. The specified complexity of DNA points to an intelligent source. DNA contains encoded information. How many years will it be before DNA does not contain encoded information? 100?
There is a difference between complexity and specified complexity. I've already posted information explaining the difference. yes. The specified complexity of DNA points to an intelligent source. no. says who? stephen c. meyer? please. How many years will it be before DNA does not contain encoded information? 100? Does it matter? Only if you believe that specified complexity points to an intelligent source because Stephen C. Meyer says so.
Science and Design by William A. Dembski When the physics of Galileo and Newton displaced the physics of Aristotle, scientists tried to explain the world by discovering its deterministic natural laws. When the quantum physics of Bohr and Heisenberg in turn displaced the physics of Galileo and Newton, scientists realized they needed to supplement their deterministic natural laws by taking into account chance processes in their explanations of our universe. Chance and necessity, to use a phrase made famous by Jacques Monod, thus set the boundaries of scientific explanation. Today, however, chance and necessity have proven insufficient to account for all scientific phenomena. Without invoking the rightly discarded teleologies, entelechies, and vitalisms of the past, one can still see that a third mode of explanation is required, namely, intelligent design. Chance, necessity, and design—these three modes of explanation—are needed to explain the full range of scientific phenomena. There now exists a rigorous criterion—complexity-specification—for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe’s criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box). What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. Consider how the radio astronomers in the movie Contact detected an extraterrestrial intelligence. This movie, which came out last year and was based on a novel by Carl Sagan, was an enjoyable piece of propaganda for the SETI research program—the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. In the movie, the SETI researchers found extraterrestrial intelligence. (The nonfictional researchers have not been so successful.) How, then, did the SETI researchers in Contact find an extraterrestrial intelligence? SETI researchers monitor millions of radio signals from outer space. Many natural objects in space (e.g., pulsars) produce radio waves. Looking for signs of design among all these naturally produced radio signals is like looking for a needle in a haystack. To sift through the haystack, SETI researchers run the signals they monitor through computers programmed with pattern-matchers. As long as a signal doesn’t match one of the pre-set patterns, it will pass through the pattern-matching sieve (even if it has an intelligent source). If, on the other hand, it does match one of these patterns, then, depending on the pattern matched, the SETI researchers may have cause for celebration. The SETI researchers in Contact found the following signal: 1101110111110111111101111111111101111111111111011111111111111111011111111111111111110111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 In this sequence of 1126 bits, 1’s correspond to beats and 0’s to pauses. This sequence represents the prime numbers from 2 to 101, where a given prime number is represented by the corresponding number of beats (i.e., 1’s), and the individual prime numbers are separated by pauses (i.e., 0’s). The SETI researchers in Contact took this signal as decisive confirmation of an extraterrestrial intelligence. What is it about this signal that decisively indicates design? Whenever we infer design, we must establish two things—complexity and specification. Complexity ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Specification ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html
1) Being a Muslim, the only proof that the Bible and Jesus existed is the Qura'an. Had I not been a Muslim, I'd have trouble (much like the people you're arguing with) about whether the Bible is "accurate". Accurate as in, many versions, 2 testaments, 99.5% textual accuracy, etc... However, since Islam says that these things did in fact happen, and I have faith in Islam, then I will believe that with my eyes closed. It's just like when you'd fall backwards if you trusted your friend to grab you before you hit the floor. I trust the Qura'an. However, my faith also states that Jesus was the prophet before Mohammed PBUH who simply spread a simpler form of the final message. The religions of David, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are all from God, starting with the simplest and ending with the most complete. Jesus had a book, just like the other 4. What makes him more special? The only thing that makes Mohammed more special was that he was able to deliver the final message accurately (that's what Islam states). So by theory, since my source is the Qura'an, then I cannot believe that Jesus intended for people to think that he's God. I hope you understand my reasoning. If the Qura'an was wrong or inaccurate or was just found to be fake or whatever, then I simply wouldn't believe in Jesus as anything more than a great leader, because the Bible doesn't offer me enough to make me trust that it is written the way God and Jesus wanted it to be. Basically, only the Qura'an is convincing enough. The reason I take a liking to Christianity is because there are interestying things to be learned from it and it is, according to my faith, from the same God, so most, if not all, of it is useful to study. If it's still unclear, I'll elaborate further. Let me know. 2) Unintentional. These people were picked by Jesus, so we know their character. Then again, there's always some wiggle room in this argument: Maybe Jesus did say some of these things, but maybe the surroundign text was lost? In that case, who knows what the intention of it was. Maybe he said it to test them? Maybe asked if they believed he's God, only to correctt hem when they said yes? Or maybe he just claimed to be God. I wasn't there. But I trust the information that I have. 3) Point taken, but I think these people actually constitute a sect of Christianity in this case. No Worries knew what they were called, he said it in the first couple of pages. Shi3as and Sunni's are very different, do many things differently, but we all consider each other Muslims. Even though they don't LOVE the Prophet the way we do, and they believe he was wrongfully chosen, but we would never go as far as to say they're not Muslim. If someone doesn't believe in the Trinity, are they less of a Christian? I certainly wouldn't think so. Jesus didn't mention, and the Bible doesn't mention it. As you pointed out, there are signs here and there, but if you stick to the original words, no such claims were made.
True, I believe so too. I don't remember who it was that said any religion is better than no religion (just quoting, no offense to anyone). I agree with everything you said. I couldn't find a place to search the Bible and stuff online, but I've heard tons to convince me that the Bible has many quotes where Jesus claims to be God. That much is clear. As for the Qura'an quote, it doesn't necessarily mean all go to hell. It's an extremely controversial topic. But I'll tell you one thing: Christianity says the exact same thing about anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as God. In fact, the president of the United States believes that all non-Christians are going to hell. I won't take him as the example, but still... If you want to discuss that part, I'm fine with it, but I'm sure many would be uncomfortable reading about it.. Your choice.
Sane, You believe that Jesus' "body was crucified." What do you mean? What about these verses from the Quran? 004.156 And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny; 004.157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger—they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP004.htm
The flesh that formerly embodied Jesus Christ was crucified. Basically, his soul ascended up before he was dead. The will to be crucified for his people was there, but God saved him from it. The next line (with my translation, as best I could): - On the contrary, God raised him(Jesus) up to him(God) and God was merciful and wise. Isn't it ironic that you think he's God and he died, while we think he's a Prophet and he didn't die?
Sane, Do you think God wanted Jesus' disciples and everyone else to believe in a lie? Was Christ really Crucified? by Faris al-Qayrawani God's Treachery Fifth, if we assume, for the sake of argument only, that the story of the Shabih is true, then we would be attributing perfidy and trickery to God. Accordingly the disciples who preached fervently about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection would have been, in fact, preaching about the death and the resurrection of the Shabih. That would mean that the church, which followed the footsteps of the disciples, would have also been deluded for over six centuries—until the inception of Islam. In this case, who would be blamed? Who would have been the source of this perfidy? Why would the almighty God not reveal the truth to the disciples of His prophet and messenger but instead keep them in complete darkness? Why would God allow the church to believe in such a grave lie for six centuries? Who would be responsible for the millions of souls who went astray and believed in a lie? It would seem that God was in the centre of this confusion. He would be the one who created the heresy of the crucifixion and made everyone believe that Jesus was the one who was crucified. In this case God would not be better than the gods of Greek mythology who enjoyed deceiving each other and their own worshippers as well. But we know that we cannot attribute any of these detestable characteristics to God. He is a holy God who will never contradict His holy divine nature and act fraudulently. http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/answer/a4360efm.htm
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12
I guess you missed my point(s). Point #1: Our understanding of what is complex is not static and changes as times goes by. DNA will not be less complex 100 years from now; it will be comparatively less complex (and better understood) than "the next great complex thing". Point #2: God is all knowing. Our projecting what is and is not complex from God's perspective is arrogant, dellusional, and high comedy.
Now to make Point #3. This is complete and total BS, masquerading as "science". The motivation for this "intellectual design" theory is theological, disseminated by non-scientists for a non-scientific audience. KB7, could you using your own words explain this above paragraph? In particular, I am confused by what "chance processes" means.
Sane's interpretation is one I've heard. The other is that another man taken to be Jesus was crucified while the real Jesus survived. Sane may have a good reason why this interpretation is wrong, but I've heard that as an explanation, too (which is another point relating to the fact that even humans can't interpret the Quran in only one way).
Very weak argument. This replacement that was crucified, called the Shabih, is identical to Jesus Christ in terms of appearance. How then would anyone know the difference? God won't fault anyone during that time for being wrong. But since God sent the final word through the final prophet (Mohammed) about how it was a substitute, then everyone who HAS this information WILL be held accounteable. However, again, God won't fault the people who died before the completion of the Qura'an. Rocket104, I consulted a friend of mine, and apparently there's only one story. I can't find the quote right now, but there is in fact a quote in the Qura'an stating that there was a replacement, and not having read that quote, I thought it was just a theory. Rest assured, the "Shabih" story is the only interpretation. I will search it later if you want, or you can search it for yourself at: www.quraan.com
I still have no idea what argument you're trying to make. Are you now saying anything that has intelligence points to the existence of God? Would you group yourself as someone who would have insisted the Earth was flat hundreds of years ago? Just curious.
