Quote: 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.
Au contraire, it’s obvious that you don’t know a great deal of things by this post, but speak for yourself, not the both of us.
You didn’t know what I meant by “message sender”, yes bacteria “move” information around but this does not make them “message senders”, just like a post man is not the creator of the information he moves from point A to point B. Furthermore, the bacteria only “move” this information around because their DNA tells them too. So the information created by a message sender tells them to move their own information around.
Actually the possibility of RNA sequences in early Earth’s history is not real, and in fact it is a statistical impossibility. RNA is even more instable than DNA and both would break down immediately if Oxygen were present. The only problem is, there would need to be oxygen (in the form of water and/or ozone) present in order for anything to be sequenced. There is also the huge problem of homochirality of biochemicals, which is something that has never been duplicated in the lab. The first cell would also have had to have been self-replicating from the get-go, which is something we humans cannot even build (no self-replicating machine has ever been built). Abiogenists is unobservable and un-testable under even the most controlled circumstances so therefore it is un-scientific. It is just a blind-faith system, why would I want your faith when I already have my own?
As to your third point, complexity is not equivalent to information. A snowflake is complex, but holds no information. An un-intelligent natural mechanism that increases actual information has never been observed. So to believe in one is just a matter of blind-faith, why would I want your faith when I already have my own? By the way, natural selection cannot act on a non-replicating object, so it cannot get you the first self-replicating cell, it can only act upon it once it is already present.
As to your “Big Bang” point, now you are the one arguing from ignorance. The reason we don’t know for sure if the big bang is the beginning is because the big bang never actually happened. It is an un-scientific (not observable or repeatable) theory that violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. So to say it happened by naturalistic means is just a matter of blind-faith, why would I need your faith when I already have my own? However, we can absolutely deduct that the universe did in fact have a beginning due to the laws of thermodynamics. Even Richard Dawkins agrees that the universe had a beginning (see his God Delusion Debate with John Lennox), so to argue otherwise seems contradictory to your own side’s beliefs.
Actually it is not a “God of the Gaps” argument; it’s a very logically valid form of argumentation called disjunctive argumentation (something even Darwin liked to use). It uses the Law of Excluded Middle where two contradictory premises rule out the possibility of anything else between them. So the evidence either having a supernatural cause or a natural cause are the two premises. Using disjunctive argumentation means that evidence against one premise (a natural cause) is evidence for the opposite (a supernatural cause). The fact that all of your naturalistic theories violate the very laws of nature is strong evidence for a supernatural creator (God). So your “well we just don’t know what we don’t know” argument is logically invalid due to the Law of Excluded Middle. Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation. Thanks.
Here, I will even use your guys’ favorite not-so scholarly source Wikipedia haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_syllogism
