Anybody who thinks evolution is true......but wont accept the Bible as proof of the Bible, have you read this?

Question

NA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity
The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.

DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.

Answer 1

God bless you brother.I wonder how they like science now.It was told to me that one DNA cell is more intricate than the most advanced computer man has ever been able to design.Sad thing is most people choose to not believe in God.

Answer 2

Your arguement is essentially undone by your preconcieved notion. You argue, rather haphazzardly, that because life is too complex to simply be the random occurence of chance, that a different explanation must therefore account for it.

In so much as this is true, one cannot then extrapolate that the answer must therefore be Genesis. That would be akin to saying "If the person was not at the theatre, then he must have been the murderer." Eliminating a single option (or so you believe) does not mean that only one other option is therefore valid. Obviously, if organisms can evolve, then so can DNA. There is no evidence saying that the human genome is exactly the same as it was several million years ago.

Imagine, if you will, inventing a lock based upon a system of numbers. Would you start off by having a 20 digit combination lock? Probably not. Most likely, you would only use a lock secure enough to the current state of technology/knowledge. A two or three digit lock would be more than sufficient for a primative technological secret, since the knowledge of how to understand, and therefore break, such a code would be of a similar level. As technology and knoweldge advanced, so too would the degree of difficulty be required for the lock to remain effective. Such a lock would be said to 'evolve'.

To say that a 'master designer' must have programmed the universe into being also ignores the fact of how such a 'master designer' came into being. Is God beyond the calculations of 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4, etc etc etc. And just because it is called/considered God does not mean that it is THE God of Genesis. One cannot use scientific reason, and the process of logic, only to then abandon such when it becomes inconvienent to one's faith. One ends up only proving one's own bias.

Answer 3

But won't accept the bible as proof of the bible? Um...

Evolution: Lots of people studying this stuff, piecing together new info over time, lots of minds putting it together. Maybe not all of it completely on target, but much of it is probably pretty close and will help lead to better understanding down the road while people keep on looking for answers.

Bible: I am the bible, one little book, I am right because I say so.

Yeah, that seems a bit sketchy and cult like to me...

Answer 4

Nice biased source for a completely misleading explanation

http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm

If you know anything at all about the development of complex molecules you'd know that the generation of DNA was not instantaneous. Complexity is the result of multiple independent chemical interactions that build over time.

Complexity does not indicate intelligence. Run some of these models which only simulate environments and watch the complexity develop without God's hand.
http://www.scottcamazine.com/personal/selforganization/starlogo/starlogo.htm

Besides that we watch less complex things grow into more complex things by pure chemical processes all the time. How about any form of multicellular life? God doesn't stich it together. Life starts from single cells and goes through known chemical processes to develop into greater complexity over time. So, now God is pushed into the complexity of DNA? Its an information replicating system that is the result of a predecessory less complex set of information replicating system that is from likewise. And we all know that certain amino acids can self-replicate. The better the integrity of the information replicator the more likely it will replicate, the more likely it will make more copies, the more likely it will be seen in the future. Therefore, you will likely find highly effective information carrying systems as the building blocks of biological life, because passing on that information is the fundamental function of biology. Cellular evolution took billions of years, as shown in the fossil records, before mulitcellular organisms popped up.

Answer 5

you have a presupposition and are applying it to the bible. "This, according to the theory of evolution, is basically true! Primordial soup theory states that the very first organism were formed from basic compounds deep in the ocean." evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. that's abiogenesis. and "primordial soup" is slang for a hypothesis, not a theory, on how abiogenesis could have occurred. I see your point, but this interpretation is on about the same ground as the interpretations that say that the bible holds great scientific knowledge.

Answer 6

Three problems with this.
1) It's the argument from design which has shown to be an illogical way of showing "evidence".
2 - A) If something's so complicated you say it must have a creator.
2 - B) Not everything complicated is perfect.
2 - C) The creator is supposed to be complicated AND perfect.
2 - D) If something complicated was created, then the creator, by default, must be complicated in order to have created something complicated... who/what created the creator?

Your answer: God created everything because the universe is too complex... leaves MORE questions and answers nothing.

Quick note: It is a fact (and yes, it's according to Evolution) that complication arises from simplicity. For a god (a complicated being) to have just arisen out of nothing, been there forever, is illogical and has an extremely low probability of being true. To say that God is "outside of science" is why I say Creationism answers nothing. Richard Dawkins goes into more detail about this.

"The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes."

3 - A) Evolution the theory (which explains Evolution the fact) is NOT linked with abiogenesis (life arose from non-life). This is a common misconception by Creationists.
3 - B) Evolution is a NON-RANDOM process. It is purely ignorant to make assumptions on a subject you know NOTHING about. No one can believe you when you try to debunk a fact and give it false characteristics.

Try again.

Answer 7

Each base can be represented by two bits. Four base pairs fit in a byte Therefore 3 billion base pairs of the human genome is about 750 Mb, about the size of a CD-ROM. Not exactly impressive.

The E. coli genome is 4,639,221 base pairs long, about the length of the King James Bible (3,566,480 letters).

Yes, cells are amazing. Why must you sully their beauty with lies that you no doubt cut and paste?

Answer 8

Fascinating and informative. Thank you for typing / scanning all of that in.
One issue if I might, "proof" as you write, is the language of science. A thing is proofed if it can be replicated by someone else at a different time/space.
The Bible has nothing to prove. It is a matter of faith. If the Bible was a matter of proof, then one would not need faith, only ever greater proofs.
Check out the Quantum Mechanics current position as well. Good stuff.

Answer 9

Hah, that's too funny. Creationists cannot have it both ways. If you want to disparage Evolution as being "only a theory", then you shouldn't try to use Information Theory as your basis of disproving it. Especially when the actual claims are in no way support by Information Theory.

If you will study Information Theory, you will find that the quantity of information in a set of bits is maximized when the bits are random. That invalidates the statement that "randomness doesn't create information".

The whole essay is yet another example of creationist propaganda. The only people who believe it are creationists who unwilling to be intellectually honest about their pseudo-scientific claims.

Answer 10

Considering how long it took for bacteria to develop, and how long it takes for bacteria to multiply, thousands of generations of bacteria can come and go in a day, the result is that the bacteria can mutate and evolve much faster than any other life form, resulting in complex genetic patterns to develop quickly. Factor in that life has been on earth for around # to 3.8 billion years, I'd say that's enough time for a good random chance.

Here's something that they discovered that you didn't mention, some of the genes in our own DNA structure do nothing. They're almost parasitic, holding onto us for the sake of its own survival. Don't you think and intelligent and active creator would have been careful not to include that?

Answer 11

Airplanes are complex, they fly thousands of miles, made of millions of tiny parts, some can even fly to the edge of the atmosphere. Airplanes cannot just randomly assemble themselves. Take a hanger full of airplane parts and wait...nothing. What does this prove? Humans assemble airplanes.

Airplane design has evolved. Notice the newer planes look different? Biological life has helped that evolution along.

DNA is complex. Not all cells have it. Great system for coding proteins. Maybe God created it. Maybe not. No way of knowing just by "reasoning."