RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
December 8, 2010 at 3:34 am
(This post was last modified: December 8, 2010 at 3:35 am by Autumnlicious.)
(December 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.
2. All living organisms have complex specified information (DNA).
3. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender (God).
1. Everything with a beginning has a cause (law of cause and effect)
2. The Universe has a beginning (scientifically established)
3. The Universe has a cause (God) (Proofs from J. Sarfati, “Refuting Evolution”)
1. False. Bacteria "send" information between each other and are devoid of intelligence.
2. Weak. While all known Earth organism use DNA, the possibility of stabilized RNA sequences in the early evolution of life is quite real (RNA World Hypothesis). In addition, your statement presupposes that all life uses DNA, an absolute statement that is not proven correct since we have not seen all life.
3. False. Previous generations could have passed on an increasingly complex sequence derived from basic environmental interactions and natural selection. Ergo, complexity can arise out of simplicity. (A bit like physics.)
1. True.
2. False. The prevailing theory is that the universe we know of was at one point what we now call the Big Bang. While one may call it the "beginning" of the Universe, there is no way to verify such currently or in the foreseeable future.
3. Only if you define "God" as the cause of the Big bang. Yet that reeks of "God of the gaps" as one certainly can see that you make an argument from ignorance - that because we do not know what preceded the Big Bang, it must be X.
Pathetic.
Why don't you man up and simply accept that we don't know a great many things - it'd serve you better than shrieking "GOD!!11!" at everything.