Friday, December 4, 2009

"Atheism of the Gaps"

I began this series with a post called - "Nothing Did It"

“Evolutionary biologists have failed to realise that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter. The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it is not the message.”
evolutionary biologist George Williams, “Natural Selection” 11

Do you understand what’s being said here? There is information, a detailed unimaginably immense volume of information (equal to 1,000 sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica) , coded information in each and every cell. The information was put there, but not by people and not by a blind, unguided process of chance mutation.

This information has been called by Francis Collins “a repository of instructions” and “the book of life.”

Francis Crick identifies DNA as “the molecular repository of genetic information.”

Please think about that! It’s important.

Like all information, the information in each and every cell is as real as matter or energy. Where did it come from? Where did the information in the first living cell come from?

Humans of course are used to information.
We create information via our thoughts.
We pass on that information to others, and
We take in information that was created by other people’s thoughts.
We do this all day long.

What we have yet to absorb is the reality that we “find” vast amounts of information, not created by humans but obviously created nevertheless, in every living cell.

Information theorist Hubert Yockey says, “The technology of information theory and coding theory has been in place in biology for at least 3.85 billion years.”
“River out of Eden”, 17

As even Richard Dawkins says, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.

Software developer Bill Gates, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
“The Road Ahead,” 188.

All of human experience confirms that information comes from thoughts and thoughts come from intelligence. If it is not from the thoughts of a supreme intelligence, how did this vastly superior complex coded information get into the first living cell?


Keith said...

You really do not understand the evolutionary process. If you did you would not be pushing this silliness. Have you ever tried to study it in detail?

Leo B. VadalĂ  said...

When all else fails, start to drip with condescension and call them stupid.

Keith said...

There is nothing condescending about my answer, I simply stated a fact.

This person either really believes what they are saying here, in which case they do not understand the evolutionary process and need to educate themselves, or they are lying for some motive (usually cash or control of others.

I don't think they are lying so I guess they need to be educated.

If a person does not understand a car engine but wants to discuss its intricacies then they really need to study car engines before they attempt a conversation of that nature. The same goes for evolutionary theory.

If you take that as me saying some one is stupid then that's your problem, not mine.

Ginx said...

Using people's words to cull out philosophical arguments will never work on a non-religious person. Only religious people take what they read so seriously and literally. You need to address the overall philosophical implications in your own words.

You're saying life as we see it today is too complex to just spring about naturally. I agree, just like looking at an adult person, and looking at a vagina, you would never believe they came out of that. The problem is, you're ignoring the fact that much simpler life existed.

And again... I'm willing to buy that God made everything, but that means He came from somewhere. Where's the vagina God popped out of?

Keith said...

Since you like to think about these things I suggest you read the following page:
Its not as simple as the creation story of the bible and it covers a considerably longer period (Millions of years, but it might help you to understand a little more of the things you wish to argue about. I would pay special attention to the parts about the formation of DNA from simpler structures into the complex double helix we humans have today. When you realise that complexity actually comes from little additions that become permanent due to natural selection over millions of years, then I think you will realise, even if you don't want to admit it, that much of (if not all of) your original hypothesis is in fact mistaken, due to a simple lack of knowledge.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the article in question.

Oh I know that much of the discussion in the article regarding the analysis of life's origins is educated guess work; but please note how the guesswork has been tested in the lab, with varying degrees of success or failure. These people do not claim to be speaking absolute truth when they speculate, they only claim truth when they have actual results to back up the speculation.


Keith said...

Another little gem for you, courtesy of Nature magazine:

Excellent research material and it may help you understand even more exactly what you are tasking about.


Makarios said...

Oh I know that much of the discussion in the article regarding the analysis of life's origins is educated guess work"

That’s the thing about atheists. They said they only accept that which has been validated by empirical evidence but in reality they believe, they truly believe guess work, any guess work that leads away from Creator God.

JD Curtis said...

B-b-b-but we can't have this Creator God going around, telling me how to live! Even though His advice would keep me from harm and make me a better person that's no reason for Him to order ME around! Morons and idiots and imbeciles. They'll believe anything as long as it doesnt lead to accountability and a fixed moral standard.

Keith said...

"They said they only accept that which has been validated by empirical evidence but in reality they believe, they truly believe guess work, any guess work that leads away from Creator God."

That's simply not true at all, you make very bogus assumptions about Atheists who are all different and have different opinions on much stuff.

The stuff in that article may contain a lot of educated guess work but it is informed by knowledge and experience rather than by reading the work of a bronze age group of novelists who knew nothing at all of science and listening to people who's only agenda is to make money out of you.

I feel that the hypothesised events in that article are very likely to be true. However if you actually read it all (which I doubt) you would see that some of the original ideas were tested and found to be wrong while others tested were found to be correct,. Many have not had enough experimental data to decide either way.

You see thats the difference. IF we find evidence to show something we thought was likely turns out to wrong, we don't hold on to the original belief like leach. We look for a different answer. Christians are confronted everyday with evidence that shows their ideas are wrong, but they just hang on and on, no matter how stupid the concept is.

I mean do you honestly believe there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden?

Do you seriously believe there was a tree whose fruit gave "knowledge"?

As a grown man you actually believe that all 2,250,000 species of Animal alive today lived within walking distance of Noah's ark and one of each sex actually fit on it?
Just how big was it, and was it even possible for Noah and his sons to construct something that size in less than one lifetime?

And just how long did the marsupials have to walk for before they got there?

Finally did you really read those articles?

And if you did , did you understand them?

Keith said...

JD Curtis,

"B-b-b-but we can't have this Creator God going around, telling me how to live!"

No it has nothing to do with that, you see we do not accept the premise of God. Its a lack of belief. Try to stop looking at things in your own terms and widen your horizons at least a little.

His advice will keep you from harm?
Assuming that you are right and the god of the bible exists here is some of his advice for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan:
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

In other words steal everything off your enemy and rape their wife's and daughters.

How exactly is this keeping anybody from harm? Even the soldiers will be court marshalled.

Or what about:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Yes that good advice. Your Bible is just full of it. Oh and don't tell me Jesus changed all that, as he said:
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)"

I suspect you never actually read the whole Bible?
If you did and you still think its full of good advice then I believe you may possibly be psychotic.

Anonymous said...

A renowned atheist stated the following:

“What I think the DNA material has done is to show that intelligence must have been involved….It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Antony Flew

If an atheist can take the time to really study DNA and comprehend the astounding and amazing complexity of it in which even he as a nonbeliever recognized the intelligent design behind it all, perhaps it is something worth really examining both microscopically and deep down within the heart and soul of your inner being.

May God bless you always and in all ways!

Keith said...

"A renowned Atheist" ?

You mean a renowned Theist. Saying there is an intelligent designer is saying there is a God.

Oh Did you know that a renowned Christian said after many years of intensive study, he and his 12 collogues stated the Bible points to the conclusion that Jesus was in fact a conglomerate of several earlier Egyptian gods and his traits were mainly drawn from the Egyptian God "Set"

Who exactly was this and what is your source?

Oh and yes.. and I was lying too.

Ginx said...

Set? Jesus seems way more like Horus...

Keith said...

you said:
"Set? Jesus seems way more like Horus..."

I was just making up some old shit like Jessica did about "a renowned Atheist".

It wasn't meant to be factual. If its close to the truth then thats just pure coincidence.


Ginx said...

Still, I'm a stickler for accurate syncretism.