Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
I'm waiting......
"Why" do I think that some intelligent entity predates Man's existence?
Base 4 math.
You've got your A, C, G, and T bases paired up to comprise the instruction sets in the genes that reside inside DNA strands. To me, that's 0,1,2,3 = Base 4 math.
That's an order of magnitude of greater complexity than Binary math (something for which we don't see forming except with Intelligent Intervention). This math is how programming instructions are stored, replicated, and activated. In fact, not only does DNA store and replicate data, but it also interacts with a processing mechanism that handles programming instructions in a manner that is remarkably similar to how we currently have CPU's processing our instruction sets.
Moreover, we see evidence of code re-use in various other species.
If I saw Binary math representing programming subroutines in a piece of computer software, and knew nothing else about it, I would presume that it was an intelligent entity such as Man that created said program, rather than presuming that natural forces managed to eak out the program by pure chance.
Likewise, I make the same presumption about the Life that we see on our planet.
Evidence of God or at least an intelligence that pre-dates Man? Base 4 math in DNA.
Is this conclusive evidence? No.
Is it persuasive evidence? Perhaps to some, maybe even most.
Sadly for you, Isaac, your mind has already concluded that such evidence has no place in science. Your mind was already made up, and heaven help anyone who dares let such tangible facts get in your way...
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (from Scientific American).
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].
The necessity of an uncaused Creator is shown not by the design of the universe, but by the existence of the universe. The design of the universe is proof of a designer. But the existence of a universe filled with things which are of their nature contingent is proof enough of an uncaused, noncontingent Creator.
The Creationists make religion ridiculous, with the absurd notion that the STORY of Creation is the same as the FACT of Creation ex nihilo, which is all that Scripture teaches. God made the world by SAYING So, by a creative act. There is no indication in the OT or the NT that one of God's purposes in revelation was the teach us any scientific facts.
Are we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.
We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.
I'll second that motion....
Agreed. But taking on the teacher unions is at least as difficult as debating with the creationists.
Not any more.
The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts...It starts right here, becoming a Liar for the Lord. It's so obviously about what church you attend, but creationists can't admit that. Oh, no! It's about the science, really!The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists.
Like hell!
Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.