natural origin believers

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by TheBigPayback, Dec 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    now were gettin somewhere. An this would be a good conclusion IF say all humans had the SAME dna or all trees had the SAME dna. But they dont, everyones dna makes them uniquely different from the next. Similar to every living organism. So in a way ur right, but our differences obstruct that idea of the patterns within our similarities.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  2. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    but see the premise of your question is faulty


    "given what we know of where these types of communication originate it DOES have to be intelligent"

    first i want to address the use of the word communication. dna has functions as an internal communication, so in that case the 'messenger' would be the organism itself, along with the recipient. it's like closed circuit tv. other than that, if you are suggesting the very structure of DNA is a form of communication to said organism from an outside source, that's unfounded.

    as for the source of anything complex 'having' to be intelligent in the traditional sense of cognitive ability, this simply isn't true. it hasn't been demonstrated. now you may ask, "when have you ever heard of anything intelligent come about with no deliberate creation?" then i would say that the 'intelligence' we are speaking of right now has no apparent creator. and a trend you might notice is, a lot of the most complicated 'codes' are products of nature.

    now to you, that's god. if i was convinced that god existed i'd say the same thing. yet we have no evidence of this, and contrary to what you are arguing the mere complicated structure of DNA or the universe itself is not proof that something with a mind deliberately made it. fact is the very concept of an 'omnipotent, eternal' being goes against everything we have ever observed. so it holds no place in science. you can use it as a suggestive argument for your religion, but when it comes to obtaining real, concrete answers it's a dead end.
    test
  3. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    that's because of evolution through procreation. slow changes over time. i don't really see what difference it makes for the question at hand though.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)