Sorry to mention religion in this forum section, but I sometimes see articles like the one below around the internet that hint that God can be "seen" in the mathematics of DNA.
I'm a maths dummy myself, so can I ask the AF experts whether there's any logic in the notion, or is it just wishfull thinking by theists?

Some people see God in grilled cheese sandwiches too.

People who seek meaning in patterns will find precisely what they seek rather than reality.

(July 8, 2017 at 8:03 am)Dropship Wrote: Sorry to mention religion in this forum section, but I sometimes see articles like the one below around the internet that hint that God can be "seen" in the mathematics of DNA.
I'm a maths dummy myself, so can I ask the AF experts whether there's any logic in the notion, or is it just wishfull thinking by theists?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bull and might I add SHIT!

Humans have had creator myths worldwide and there are far older creator myths than yours.

Bacteria and viruses and cockroaches are ALSO made up of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine too. 

But if you insist we are a product of a fictional sky wizard you'd still be stuck with "which one?" Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Apollo, Zues, ect ect ect ect ect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion


Humans have made up all sorts of stories of how all this came to be. But the truth is there was never a God, god or gods that did all this. The only reason humans make those things up or sell them to the next generation is because humans have vivid imaginations and get introduced the religions of their parents long before they can develop critical thinking skills.

It's not surprising that one information system is like another, particularly in a universe where both systems are constrained by the same natural laws and work for precisely the same reasons.  People who say "dna is like a computer program" have that comparison entirely backwards. It's not even a very apt comparison, since dna isn't so much a computer program as it is a machine language. Programming happens at a higher level of architecture, and in humans.,....the programming would be our state of mind, our referents and our memories and our concepts. Machine language is just a description of the machines functions, and provides a basis for higher level operations like programming. Just like DNA does.

In my opinion, it's just a fascination with the amazing that leads a person, even a smart person, to conflate two amazing things as somehow the same thing or one being part and parcel of the other. Flew thinks that computers are amazing, and dna is amazing, and god is amazing...ergo, god. Ultimately, any argument from design is an argument from incredulity...but I find arguments referring to computers to be the most ironic form of support for designing gods.....since we know, for a fact, that computers don't actually require designers. That they can be arrived upon by iterative pass/fail testing not at all unlike mechanical evolutionary processes.

If biological computers -did- require a designer...they'd be a special case, and for no apparent reason. Evem then.."superintelligent" isn't exactly the word I'd use for the designer of said biological computers...particularly since we use mechanical computers to overcome the flaws inherent in our own architectures -whatever they are-. Some superintelligence, beaten at the game by a jumped up ape playing with toy clocks.

(July 8, 2017 at 8:22 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 8:03 am)Dropship Wrote: Sorry to mention religion in this forum section, but I sometimes see articles like the one below around the internet that hint that God can be "seen" in the mathematics of DNA.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bull and might I add SHIT!

Thanks, but there are also other scientists who hint they can "see" God in the maths, so the bottom line is shall we believe them or not?
For example-
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203

The reality as we know and experience it is that nature exists. It is not a reality as we know and experience it that there is something bigger behind the creation of nature.

We've gone from natural design to fine tuning?  The question being whether or not these people are to be believed?  Well, obviously, no...since both arguments are fallacious and belief wouldn't be required if there -were- a divine natural design of life -or- divine fine tuning.

(July 8, 2017 at 8:45 am)Dropship Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 8:22 am)Brian37 Wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bull and might I add SHIT!

Thanks, but there are also other scientists who hint they can "see" God in the maths, so the bottom line is shall we believe them or not?
For example-
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203

So? While it is true a scientist can have a science degree and believe in a God, scientific method itself IS NOT a religion. An ethical scientist WILL NOT try to mix religion into their lab. 

I hate to burst your bubble but EVERY RELIGION worldwide has followers who try to pull this crap. When the follower cant flat out debunk science, they pull shit like this, which is not coming from a peer reviewed journal, but an apology website. 

Stephen Hawking, "A God is not required", but what would he know?

https://www.google.com/#q=Buddhist+science

https://www.google.com/#q=Hindu+science

https://www.google.com/#q=Jewish+science

https://www.google.com/#q=Muslim+science

^^^^^^^^^  you will find tons of links form apologist websites WORLDWIDE of morons trying to get science to point to their club.

If you want to understand the OBJECTIVE roots as to why humans try this, the following books will help you understand the reality. Simply put god claims are simply a comic book reflection of our own evolutionary drive to continue. To put it bluntly, it really is no different than a child's desire to want Santa to be real.

1. The God Delusion- Richard Dawkins
2. God The Failed Hypothesis- Victor Stenger
3. The New Atheism- Victor Stenger

EDIT

One last thing, please don't rehash the bullshit dead argument "fine tuning". Black holes are pretty destructive, our sun will die in 5 billion years. Our planet has had five mass extinction events. Our planet is full of volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, deadly bacteria, earthquakes. And our species has only learned to manage surviving those things only recently in the past 200 years to an effective degree and we have been around mostly in scientific ignorance for most of our 200,000 year existence. That's a pretty shitty home to make if you claim to be perfect.

(July 8, 2017 at 8:45 am)Dropship Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 8:22 am)Brian37 Wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bull and might I add SHIT!

Thanks, but there are also other scientists who hint they can "see" God in the maths, so the bottom line is shall we believe them or not?
For example-
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203

They mean a different thing by "God" than what you think.