22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[Peter Lambert]

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

What do you mean half-species? Are you really asking for a fish with legs or wings or something?

That is what evolutionists allege happened.  Really it shouldn't be that hard to find ONE fossil, considering they say the transition from fish to amphibians was over 100 million years+.

Then I would also like to see the half reptile half mammal, since evolutionists also allege that reptiles became mammals over 100 million years.  100 million years of "evolution" should produce some fossil evidence, right??

Then I guess these mammals would have had to then move back into the oceans and become whales, since you do know whales are mammals right?

Also how did these reptile/mammals just become warm blooded?

Have you ever heard of the lungfish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

Have you ever heard of monotremes, like the platypus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

Yes, whales are descended from an animal that lived on land and they are related to the hippo. There are fossils of such animals.

Mammals and birds developed warm-bloodedness separately, this is an example of convergent evolution. The amount of temperature regulation an animal has is not binary, there is a scale of various levels. It has to do with the internal biochemistry, and is helped by layers of insulation on the outside of the animal, such as blubber, hair, or feathers. For example, the monotremes were originally thought to be cold-blooded, but later it was found they are warm-blooded, since they regulate their body temperature, they just have a lower body temperature than other mammals.

[1715100351]

1715100351

[1715100351]

1715100351

[1715100351]

1715100351

[jcoin200]

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

[Peter Lambert]

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

False generalization, not all evolutionary scientists accept this as a "law".

There have been plenty of experiments showing that organic materials can be formed from inorganic precursors. Furthermore, organic molecules tend to self-assemble and aggregate, like how if you put a drop of oil into a cup of water the oil will stay together instead of dissolving in the water.

[BitChick]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

As I am thinking about it, the last three points can stand on their own as well:

5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

Information is non-material.  It is kind of like having a computer chip but with no information on it.  Let's say we did evolve.  It would be kind of like a computer evolving with a hard drive, but where would the software come from that runs the computer?  The same could be said about our bodies.  If our bodies evolved, where did the encoding of our DNA come from?  As far as I can see evolution is based solely on mass and energy alone but information does not come out of mass and energy alone.

[btcxyzzz]

that is one of the most stupid things i saw recently.

[Rannasha]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

-There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  There is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16).  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria.  Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Mankind has been studying evolution of these lifeforms (bacteria, fruitflies) in a laboratory setting for less than 100 years. Earth is over 4 billion years old (as shown by radiometric dating) and has had life for most of this period. Simple forms of life such as bacteria were among the first to appear. With bacteria splitting (=reproducing) sometimes more than once per hour the number of generations that bacteria have gone through is mindbogglingly large. Our human minds are very limited when it comes to the perception of large timespans or quantities, we simply can't get a good grasp on just how large some things are. We already have difficulty imagining how our ancestor lived 2000 years ago, but this is a mere 100 generations at most.

It is not surprising that bacteria and fruitflies haven't changed into anything significantly different during the time we've studied them. There simply hasn't been the time. The naive view that some people seem to have of evolution that it is supposed to happen in front of our eyes. It doesn't. It is an exceptionally slow process where substantial changes typically only take place on a timescale of millennia if not longer.

This is what makes it such a difficult subject to study as you can't simply put a few creatures in a lab and watch them evolve wings. Instead, a main source of clues is from fossils we have to dig out of the ground. And fossilization happens to be an incredibly rare process as it needs just the right soil under the right conditions. Many species rarely or never ventured into these areas. It is a minor miracle (not of the mystical kind) that we've found as many fossils as we have. As for the "lack of transitional fossils": Every fossil a transitional fossil. There is no magical missing link between species A and B. The process is extremely gradual and you wouldn't be able to see the difference between 2 specimens where one is a direct descendant of the other 30 generations later.

[BitChick]

that is one of the most stupid things i saw recently.

Amen.

Why?  

(I am assuming you were responding to my post about information)

Please explain why it is "stupid" to see that "information" is non-material.  Everywhere in nature we come across information in codes. Information is beside energy and matter a basic factor in the world, but a non material one.  It is something to consider and I fail to see how you can just nonchalantly say it is "stupid."   It seems your rebuttal is lacking in depth.

[C10H15N]

I have been accused of just posting videos and not discussing the issues here so I went ahead and went into detail then and posted illogical and pseudo-scientific conclusions that are difficult impossible to refute because they have no scientific basis.  The least you could do is show me some respect by trying to have an intelligent discussion about them but instead you resort to name calling (creationist?).  And as for the "same old pseudo science" the laws of nature that intelligence had to have a source (which are not really laws, but more thinly disguised Magical Sky Daddy bullshit with no supported scientific basis) is not something anyone had brought up yet.

Key:  Anytime creationists use words such as "Law", "Source" or "Intelligence" (usually capitalized) to denote an absolute or unwavering fact/knowledge/idea/entity - you can be sure this is just a thinly disguised pseudonym for "Magical Sky Daddy" 

[Rannasha]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

You assume that information, or complexity, can not emerge naturally from a basic set of natural laws without a supreme being (the Sender) artificially inserting it.

As a counterpoint, I present Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life). The Game of Life is a very basic "game" that consists of a 2-dimensional grid of cells that are either dead or alive (white or black, off or on, however you want to phrase it). There are 4 simple rules that specify how the status of a cell changes in the next step of the game. These rules are so simple that an 8 year old kid could take an initial state and evolve (not using the biological notion here) the game to subsequent steps. Of course, doing this manually is a slow process, but the Game of Life can be easily implemented on a computer.

What do we see when we take these very simple rules and some initial state and let things play out? Depending on the initial state, very complex patterns can emerge. From cyclic sequences with a period of thousands of steps to practically stationary structures that continuously produce new elements that are "shot" across the field. It is even possible for Game of Life to simulate itself, that is, many small cells make up much larger structures that operate on the same rules as the small cells, but on a much slower time scale. The system is also Turing-complete, which means that any mathematical function that can be computed with traditional computation methods can also simulated within the Game of Life.

The Game of Life is an impressive example of how from a very restrictive set of rules (2D-grid, discrete timesteps, only 2 possible states for each basic element) incredibly complex structures can emerge. Given what is already possible within Game of Life, it makes one wonder what emergent complexity is possible in universe with (at least) 3 spatial dimensions, continuous time (probably) and many more basic elements and possible states. And all of this doesn't require the complexity to be created. It just needs some initial state, a set of rules and a metaphorical flip of the "on" switch. Complexity will emerge on its own.

[BitChick]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

You assume that information, or complexity, can not emerge naturally from a basic set of natural laws without a supreme being (the Sender) artificially inserting it.

As a counterpoint, I present Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life). The Game of Life is a very basic "game" that consists of a 2-dimensional grid of cells that are either dead or alive (white or black, off or on, however you want to phrase it). There are 4 simple rules that specify how the status of a cell changes in the next step of the game. These rules are so simple that an 8 year old kid could take an initial state and evolve (not using the biological notion here) the game to subsequent steps. Of course, doing this manually is a slow process, but the Game of Life can be easily implemented on a computer.

What do we see when we take these very simple rules and some initial state and let things play out? Depending on the initial state, very complex patterns can emerge. From cyclic sequences with a period of thousands of steps to practically stationary structures that continuously produce new elements that are "shot" across the field. It is even possible for Game of Life to simulate itself, that is, many small cells make up much larger structures that operate on the same rules as the small cells, but on a much slower time scale. The system is also Turing-complete, which means that any mathematical function that can be computed with traditional computation methods can also simulated within the Game of Life.

The Game of Life is an impressive example of how from a very restrictive set of rules (2D-grid, discrete timesteps, only 2 possible states for each basic element) incredibly complex structures can emerge. Given what is already possible within Game of Life, it makes one wonder what emergent complexity is possible in universe with (at least) 3 spatial dimensions, continuous time (probably) and many more basic elements and possible states. And all of this doesn't require the complexity to be created. It just needs some initial state, a set of rules and a metaphorical flip of the "on" switch. Complexity will emerge on its own.

I cannot base my entire belief of life on the idea of a magical "flip on" switch for complexity or "information" to be encoded in the world.  It is much more logical to believe that there was "programmer" that put the DNA code there.

[C10H15N]

I cannot base my entire belief of life on the idea of a magical "flip on" switch for complexity or "information" to be encoded in the world.  It is much more logical to believe that there was "programmer" that put the DNA code there.

You cannot live in a universe with the idea that there are things we may never understand - yet you can accept the fantasy that some supreme entity dreamed up by bronze-aged goat herders just "made" everything by will alone?

Hell, even the scientologists are running a more convincing con.      

[Akka]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

As I am thinking about it, the last three points can stand on their own as well:

5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

Information is non-material.  It is kind of like having a computer chip but with no information on it.  Let's say we did evolve.  It would be kind of like a computer evolving with a hard drive, but where would the software come from that runs the computer?  The same could be said about our bodies.  If our bodies evolved, where did the encoding of our DNA come from?  As far as I can see evolution is based solely on mass and energy alone but information does not come out of mass and energy alone.

7. can't stand on it's own.

5. "and cannot originate from material quantities," assumption out of thin air. + "since information also originates from man" biological information (as you call it) doesn't originate from man --> false

6. Information requires mass and/or energy to exist. Without Mass and Energy there is no Information. This point is simply false.

Also the analogy with Hardware and Software may be nice to simplify organic live. But they can't be ultimately used to describe it. That a robot has a chip with software in order to work that needs to be programmed by a programmer is a useless observation to determine if live is "programmed" The robot analogy reveals no clues about any sender.
This is basically just the "Blind Watchmaker" Argument, which watches only the complete end outcome. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more, therefore everything that doesn't work without all parts has to be constructed.  But constructions simply are not live. But Rannasha has already answered better.

[BitChick]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

As I am thinking about it, the last three points can stand on their own as well:

5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

Information is non-material.  It is kind of like having a computer chip but with no information on it.  Let's say we did evolve.  It would be kind of like a computer evolving with a hard drive, but where would the software come from that runs the computer?  The same could be said about our bodies.  If our bodies evolved, where did the encoding of our DNA come from?  As far as I can see evolution is based solely on mass and energy alone but information does not come out of mass and energy alone.

7. can't stand on it's own.

5. "and cannot originate from material quantities," assumption out of thin air. + "since information also originates from man" biological information (as you call it) doesn't originate from man --> false

6. Information requires mass and/or energy to exist. Without Mass and Energy there is no Information. This point is simply false.

Also the analogy with Hardware and Software may be nice to simplify organic live. But they can't be ultimately used to describe it. That a robot has a chip with software in order to work that needs to be programmed by a programmer is a useless observation to determine if live is "programmed" The robot analogy reveals no clues about any sender.
This is basically just the "Blind Watchmaker" Argument, which watches only the complete end outcome. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more, therefore everything that doesn't work without all parts has to be constructed.  But constructions simply are not live. But Rannasha has already answered better.

The point was that evolution is based solely on mass and energy.  Information is not even factored into the equation.  However, information cannot come from just a big bang.  This is not evident in our world.  So the point is that there is a "non-material" element to information.  The question then is "Where did information come from?"  Our DNA has very complex information encoded in it.  That shows a supremely intelligent entity put the code there.  It would be like having a computer with an highly complex design in the software yet we just all think "Wow. It is great how that software just evolved from nowhere."  Why is that not possible?  Software on a computer is much less complex than our DNA.

[Peter Lambert]

The point was that evolution is based solely on mass and energy.  Information is not even factored into the equation.  However, information cannot come from just a big bang.  This is not evident in our world.  So the point is that there is a "non-material" element to information.  The question then is "Where did information come from?"  Our DNA has very complex information encoded in it.  That shows a supremely intelligent entity put the code there.  It would be like having a computer with an highly complex design in the software yet we just all think "Wow. It is great how that software just evolved from nowhere."  Why is that not possible?  Software on a computer is much less complex than our DNA.

Take a bunch of marbles of four colors, drop them into a half-pipe. They will form a random sequence of the four different colors. Is that sequence information? Yes.

Presumably, there were many instances where RNA molecules formed in random orders. Just one of these was self-replicating, the others formed and broke down and formed and broke down, but the self-replicating sequence copied itself and began the chain of evolution. The genetic material that is successful is passed down to its replicates and expanded upon, the genetic material which is unsuccessful is consumed by the successful lines. This is according to the hypothesis that RNA formed before DNA, since RNA structures can act as enzymes while it is much harder for DNA structures to do anything but hold the genetic code.

[BitChick]

The point was that evolution is based solely on mass and energy.  Information is not even factored into the equation.  However, information cannot come from just a big bang.  This is not evident in our world.  So the point is that there is a "non-material" element to information.  The question then is "Where did information come from?"  Our DNA has very complex information encoded in it.  That shows a supremely intelligent entity put the code there.  It would be like having a computer with an highly complex design in the software yet we just all think "Wow. It is great how that software just evolved from nowhere."  Why is that not possible?  Software on a computer is much less complex than our DNA.

Take a bunch of marbles of four colors, drop them into a half-pipe. They will form a random sequence of the four different colors. Is that sequence information? Yes.

Presumably, there were many instances where RNA molecules formed in random orders. Just one of these was self-replicating, the others formed and broke down and formed and broke down, but the self-replicating sequence copied itself and began the chain of evolution. The genetic material that is successful is passed down to its replicates and expanded upon, the genetic material which is unsuccessful is consumed by the successful lines. This is according to the hypothesis that RNA formed before DNA, since RNA structures can act as enzymes while it is much harder for DNA structures to do anything but hold the genetic code.

But you are still talking about random chance of life forming by mass and energy.  Let's say that life could form with mass and energy randomly causing a sequence of events (this is still highly unlikely using probability but I won't argue with this) even if "life" was formed, you still have not explained where information comes from that operates that life.  Information is like "software".  It takes intelligence to encode that software and cause the computer or robot to perform the task it was designed to do.  In a similar way, our DNA has been encoded.  This is not a function of mass and energy.  It is an entirely different function that needs to be considered.  If our world just randomly happened by chance we should be a world of un-programmed robots without any information (DNA) that gives the physical world the design that tells it how to operate.

[Akka]

The point was that evolution is based solely on mass and energy.  Information is not even factored into the equation.  However, information cannot come from just a big bang.  This is not evident in our world.  So the point is that there is a "non-material" element to information.  The question then is "Where did information come from?"  Our DNA has very complex information encoded in it.  That shows a supremely intelligent entity put the code there.  It would be like having a computer with an highly complex design in the software yet we just all think "Wow. It is great how that software just evolved from nowhere."  Why is that not possible?  Software on a computer is much less complex than our DNA.

Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves...

DNA is a molecule with certain chemical properties that causes it to build proteins. It is no more special or magical than any other molecule.

Simply by natural selection patters that reproduce often are more successful in well, reproducing. Over time this become more complex representing something similar to a "code".

The analogy with the computer does (as said before) not work here as we did not start by having a full build computer with no software and nobody is claiming that.


Edit: To late, but wow! also works on your next argument.

[hilariousandco]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

As I am thinking about it, the last three points can stand on their own as well:

5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

Information is non-material.  It is kind of like having a computer chip but with no information on it.  Let's say we did evolve.  It would be kind of like a computer evolving with a hard drive, but where would the software come from that runs the computer?  The same could be said about our bodies.  If our bodies evolved, where did the encoding of our DNA come from?  As far as I can see evolution is based solely on mass and energy alone but information does not come out of mass and energy alone.

7. can't stand on it's own.

5. "and cannot originate from material quantities," assumption out of thin air. + "since information also originates from man" biological information (as you call it) doesn't originate from man --> false

6. Information requires mass and/or energy to exist. Without Mass and Energy there is no Information. This point is simply false.

Also the analogy with Hardware and Software may be nice to simplify organic live. But they can't be ultimately used to describe it. That a robot has a chip with software in order to work that needs to be programmed by a programmer is a useless observation to determine if live is "programmed" The robot analogy reveals no clues about any sender.
This is basically just the "Blind Watchmaker" Argument, which watches only the complete end outcome. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more, therefore everything that doesn't work without all parts has to be constructed.  But constructions simply are not live. But Rannasha has already answered better.

The point was that evolution is based solely on mass and energy.  Information is not even factored into the equation.  However, information cannot come from just a big bang.  This is not evident in our world.  So the point is that there is a "non-material" element to information.  The question then is "Where did information come from?"  Our DNA has very complex information encoded in it.  That shows a supremely intelligent entity put the code there.  It would be like having a computer with an highly complex design in the software yet we just all think "Wow. It is great how that software just evolved from nowhere."  Why is that not possible?  Software on a computer is much less complex than our DNA.

No, the question is where did god come from? According to your logic god can't exist.

Computers and software aren’t made out of DNA and cells that mutate. If a supremely intelligent designer made us our cells wouldn't become cancerous. We wouldn't have little toes that barely work. We wouldn't have hair growing out of our arses. We wouldn't have such shitty eyesight. God is much more complex than us and a computer, yet surprise surprise, he can exist no problem and no questions asked.

[BitChick]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

As I am thinking about it, the last three points can stand on their own as well:

5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

Information is non-material.  It is kind of like having a computer chip but with no information on it.  Let's say we did evolve.  It would be kind of like a computer evolving with a hard drive, but where would the software come from that runs the computer?  The same could be said about our bodies.  If our bodies evolved, where did the encoding of our DNA come from?  As far as I can see evolution is based solely on mass and energy alone but information does not come out of mass and energy alone.

7. can't stand on it's own.

5. "and cannot originate from material quantities," assumption out of thin air. + "since information also originates from man" biological information (as you call it) doesn't originate from man --> false

6. Information requires mass and/or energy to exist. Without Mass and Energy there is no Information. This point is simply false.

Also the analogy with Hardware and Software may be nice to simplify organic live. But they can't be ultimately used to describe it. That a robot has a chip with software in order to work that needs to be programmed by a programmer is a useless observation to determine if live is "programmed" The robot analogy reveals no clues about any sender.
This is basically just the "Blind Watchmaker" Argument, which watches only the complete end outcome. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more. Take away one part and the construction doesn't work any more, therefore everything that doesn't work without all parts has to be constructed.  But constructions simply are not live. But Rannasha has already answered better.

The point was that evolution is based solely on mass and energy.  Information is not even factored into the equation.  However, information cannot come from just a big bang.  This is not evident in our world.  So the point is that there is a "non-material" element to information.  The question then is "Where did information come from?"  Our DNA has very complex information encoded in it.  That shows a supremely intelligent entity put the code there.  It would be like having a computer with an highly complex design in the software yet we just all think "Wow. It is great how that software just evolved from nowhere."  Why is that not possible?  Software on a computer is much less complex than our DNA.

No, the question is where did god come from? According to your logic god can't exist.

Computers and software aren’t made out of DNA and cells that mutate. If a supremely intelligent designer made us our cells wouldn't become cancerous. We wouldn't have little toes that barely work. We wouldn't have hair growing out of our arses. We wouldn't have such shitty eyesight. God is much more complex than us and a computer, yet surprise surprise, he can exist no problem and no questions asked.

But you are forgetting about Sin entering the world. Sin (and Satan) is who should be blamed for cancer, sickness, pain, abuse, suffering and so on.  Sin is like the world's worst computer bug.  The only way to fix this "bug" is to ask the extreme "programmer" for the fix.  He offers a "fix" but it requires us to accept His fix for it, which is accepting that we cannot fix the bug ourselves and we need Him (Jesus) to come and do it for us.  Until we have a New Heaven and a New Earth we are living with this virus called "Sin."  This is why God's promise of no more dying, sickness and pain is such a great hope to have!

Although God does care about our physical health and well being, He is ultimately much more concerned about our Spiritual well being.  God is eternal.  Our lives are going to end on this earth.  Death was a product of man's choice in the garden of Eden.  It pained Him that we made (and still make) the choices we do.  It is like we keep downloading software with bugs all the time.  God is willing to clean up our computer for us if we ask Him to but it would be better if we worked hard at keeping our software free of those "bugs."  I pray that God will help me live a sinful life.  I don't want to grieve Him, out of love for Him.  Once we truly understand the nature of God our attitude towards Him changes and in response we want to do everything we can to please Him and keep our lives, with His help, as "bug" free as possible.

[Akka]

But you are forgetting about Sin entering the world. Sin (and Satan) is who should be blamed for cancer, sickness, pain, abuse, suffering and so on.  Sin is like the world's worst computer bug.  The only way to fix this "bug" is to ask the extreme "programmer" for the fix.  He offers a "fix" but it requires us to accept His fix for it, which is accepting that we cannot fix the bug ourselves and we need Him (Jesus) to come and do it for us.

Although God does care about our physical health and well being, He is ultimately much more concerned about our Spiritual well being.  God is eternal.  Our lives are going to end on this earth.  Death was a product of man's choice in the garden of Eden.  It pained Him that we made (and still make) the choices we do.  It is like we keep downloading software with bugs all the time.  God is willing to clean up our computer for us if we ask Him too but it would be better if we worked hard at keeping our software free of those "bugs."  I pray that God will help me live a sinful life.  I don't want to grieve Him, out of love for Him.  Once we truly understand the nature of God our attitude towards Him changes and in response we want to do everything we can to please Him and keep our lives, with His help, as "bug" free as possible.

Arg, you violated the unspoken "no preaching" agreement.

This exchange is over.

[BitChick]

But you are forgetting about Sin entering the world. Sin (and Satan) is who should be blamed for cancer, sickness, pain, abuse, suffering and so on.  Sin is like the world's worst computer bug.  The only way to fix this "bug" is to ask the extreme "programmer" for the fix.  He offers a "fix" but it requires us to accept His fix for it, which is accepting that we cannot fix the bug ourselves and we need Him (Jesus) to come and do it for us.

Although God does care about our physical health and well being, He is ultimately much more concerned about our Spiritual well being.  God is eternal.  Our lives are going to end on this earth.  Death was a product of man's choice in the garden of Eden.  It pained Him that we made (and still make) the choices we do.  It is like we keep downloading software with bugs all the time.  God is willing to clean up our computer for us if we ask Him too but it would be better if we worked hard at keeping our software free of those "bugs."  I pray that God will help me live a sinful life.  I don't want to grieve Him, out of love for Him.  Once we truly understand the nature of God our attitude towards Him changes and in response we want to do everything we can to please Him and keep our lives, with His help, as "bug" free as possible.

Arg, you violated the unspoken "no preaching" agreement.

This exchange is over.

Sorry.  Someone asked about why God would create us with cancer, sickness etc.  This is my only explanation.  Do you have a better one?  It seems that those that believe in evolution just think this crappy world is all we have though.  Seems a bit hopeless to me.