How would atheists respond to this?

by Knowsnothing 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Knowsnothing

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html

  British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, "Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." 1 Prominent in his conclusion were the discoveries of DNA. Here's why.

  computer programming:

  DNA code:

  DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program. In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.

  In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.

  What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!! 2

  To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night." 3 Wait, there's more.

  It has been determined that 99.9% of your DNA is similar to everyone's genetic makeup. 4 What is uniquely you comes in the fractional difference in how those three billion letters are sequenced in your cells.

  The U.S. government is able to identify everyone in our country by the arrangement of a nine-digit social security number. Yet, inside every cell in you is a three-billion-lettered DNA structure that belongs only to you. This code identifies you and continually instructs your cells' behavior.

  You Can See Why DNA Is Important

  Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell." 5

  Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it." 6

  Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
• 

  NOLAW

  Nobody wrote the script.

  An intelligent God doesn't need to write script. The script autogenerates.

  NOLAW
• 

  Night Owl

  Since atheists today were present at the very beginning of the existence of the universe, and all life as we presently know it, I'm sure they will have plenty to say.

  NightOwl
• 

  NewChapter

  So this doctor is a philospher---not a scientist. I just thought I would point that out---not that he can't have an opinion on a scientific matter.

  DNA may have similarities to computer code, but it is not a computer program. So the comparison is irrelevant beyond an interesting analogy. So saying that no computer program ever existed without a programmer is not actually an argument that DNA cannot exist without a designer.

  These things that seem so mysterious are becoming better understood every day. I am not eloquent enough to state all that I have learned on DNA, but nothing I have learned makes me believe that a creator was necessary.

  DNA sequences are also not social security numbers.

  Perhaps it is amazing that every cell contains a DNA sequence that is 3 billion letters long, but that makes perfect sense too. DNA gives the code for those cells to function. That's why we are here. Events set in motion billions of years ago, began a process that has brought us here---marvelling at DNA.

  Something being awesome does not prove the existence of a designer. Such a designer would have to be billions of times more complex than their design---yet where did the designer come from? In nature, if something doesn't work, it doesn't develop. Only the things that work survive. DNA survived. Looking at it at this end, it seems miraculous, but we have to understand that we wouldn't be here to wonder if it hadn't worked. So many options out there would have failed. Events found one that worked. This is not design, just common sense. There is a lot of junk DNA that does nothing. It's neutral, neither a hindrance or a help. If this was by design--why? If there was a designer that was so savvy as to have created DNA, why so much junk? The more clear narrative is simply that events spun this DNA, it did not hinder survival, so it could be passed on without damage. Had it caused damage, it would have prevented successful reproduction.
• 

  Greybeard

  @ Knowsnothing,

  The truth is Athiests don't really exist. Thier comments on this thread will evolve from nothing

  Just messing with you Athiests don't go getting bent on me
• 

  still thinking

  • I have read Flews last book ...and as someone kindly pointed out to me...(which at the time I didn't appreciate...lol)...Anthony Flew was never a former atheist...he was still an atheist when he died. Like most atheist he was open to the possibility that there could be something out there...if there is evidence. The only thing he admitted to, was the fact that there was nothing to prove there wasn't a god. And there was a possiblity that there was. That does not make him a believer. Just someone who is aware that things are not black and white.

  .
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Something being awesome does not prove the existence of a designer. Such a designer would have to be billions of times more complex than their design---yet where did the designer come from?

  Not necessarily. Natural history shows an evolution from simplicity to complexity, so the origin of it all may be "infinitely simple."

  This fits quite well with the theological concept of divine simplicity.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

  Dawkins needs to go back to the drawing board and work on his Ultimate 747. He's no philosopher.

  There is a lot of junk DNA that does nothing.

  "Junk DNA" is a bad argument. The more time goes by, the more evidence emerges that noncoding DNA isn't junk. Organisms move towards greater energy efficiency when possible--that is why we see cave fish, otherwise the same as their above ground cousins, lose their eyes. It improves survival fitness. Why maintain a system you don't need?

  It's neutral, neither a hindrance or a help.

  There is a high evolutionary price in terms of energy to pay for data storage and calculation, and these noncoding regions contain libraries' worth of information that must be maintained and replicated.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle

  If it is truly junk, it isn't neutral, it is a hindrance. Evolution would presumably select against it.

  The more clear narrative is simply that events spun this DNA, it did not hinder survival, so it could be passed on without damage. Had it caused damage, it would have prevented successful reproduction.

  That so much noncoding DNA exists in the human genome would argue that it improves evolutionary fitness in some way. Some "junk" regions perform regulatory functions on the coding regions. Others might act as warehoused data that becomes useful in the future if activated.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#Functions_of_noncoding_DNA

  Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. It ain't junk.

  BTS
• 

  Greybeard

  An atheist buys an ancient lamp at an auction, takes it home, and begins to polish it. Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, “I’ll grant you three wishes, Master.” The atheist says, “I wish I could believe in you.” The genie snaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him. The atheist says, “Wow. I wish all atheists would believe this.” The genie snaps his fingers again, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies. “What about your third wish?” asks the genie. “Well,” says the atheist, “I wish for a billion dollars.” The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, but nothing happens. “What’s wrong?” asks the atheist. The genie shrugs and says, “Just because you believe in me, doesn’t necessarily mean that I really exist.”
• 

  ziddina

  It has always amazed me that humans think that their need to build things, means that the universe and everything in it had to be "built"...

  Not only that, but most humans visualize a deity in some form of human shape - even the multi-creature-deities of the Egyptians, Hindus, and Sumerians, to name but a few - had human characteristics...

  And the so-called 'spiritual' deities of the Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern males - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all have thoroughly human male personalities and egos.

  Yet theists and deists cannot see where their original ideas came from. They often claim some form of "spiritual" guidance or inspiration - from those self-same deities derived completely from human emotions and experiences.

  How bizarre...
• 

  NewChapter

  Hmmm. Well the usual argument is that such complexity could not come from such simple beginnings, therefore a complex creator is needed. Now an argument I have never heard has been presented----complex things do come from simple beginnings (proven), and that's fine because God is simple. The argument for that seems to be that God is as simple as his attributes and IS his attributes. I think I'm too tired to even grasp that right now. But I still think we have better explanations than guided intelligence behind it all, and choosing to believe that some force was responsible for setting it in motion, or not, at least the science is not denied.

  Still Thinking---are you saying that Flew was an atheist? Has his comment been taking out of context?

  "Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

  Because that will really be irritating. Every atheist I know concedes that if there is evidence, they would believe. They simply have not found evidence. My point was that DNA was not evidence either. I think it was Richard Dawkins who said he intends to have his death recorded so that nobody could come along later and claim that he had accepted the existence of a god on his deathbed.