A Serious Question: Why God made DNA

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Could we stay on topic, please? All of a sudden you are talking about fossil evidence, macro vs. microevolution, and chance.

Let us get back on track. Do you agree with (1) through (4)?

Let us get back on track. Do you agree with (1) through (4)?

Yes.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Whether you agree with (1) through (4) doesn't require any cooperation on my part. If you'd like to assume Genesis is correct in order to figure out how to answer the question, feel free.

Here's for starters:

I don't agree that (4) was a part of the original design.

I believe that (4) came into being because of sin and the fall of man and is thus not a part of the original design.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Let us get back on track. Do you agree with (1) through (4)?

Yes.[/b]

Excellent.

Do you agree with this:

5) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4), such changes depend on an intelligent design, and the resulting sort of animal is a product of intelligent design.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Excellent.

Do you agree with this:

5) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4), such changes depend on an intelligent design, and the resulting sort of animal is a product of intelligent design.

Yes.

With some reservations.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Here's for starters:

I don't agree that (4) was a part of the original design.

I believe that (4) came into being because of sin and the fall of man and is thus not a part of the original design.

Interesting. So, you are saying that genetic mutations would not occur if Adam and Eve had never sinned?

Do you suppose God redesigned their DNA after the fall, so that it was of a different nature, namely, of a nature that allowed mutations? Or do you suppose the nature of our DNA is just like theirs, but that we observe mutations because God allows them to happen while without sin he would have prevented them from happening?

Originally posted by Halitose


With some reservations.

Describe them.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Describe them.

The one I voiced earlier: the observability of (5).

Originally posted by Halitose
The one I voiced earlier: the observability of (5).

You are skeptical about the truth of the antecedant of (5)? Do you understand that if the antecedant is false - that is, if no such changes are exhibited - then (5) must be true, for any implication with a false antecedant is true.

In light of this, I don't understand your reservation in accepting the truth of (5). Either such changes don't occur, and thus (5) is true, or they do occur and in those cases they are the product of intelligent design and not "random chance", and thus (5) is true.

To say that (5) is false is to say that such changes do occur and that they are not the product of intelligent design. If you reject this, then you hold that (5) is true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Interesting. So, you are saying that genetic mutations would not occur if Adam and Eve had never sinned?

Do you suppose God redesigned their DNA after the fall, so that it was of a different nature, namely, of a nature that allowed mutations? Or do you suppose the nature of our DNA is just like theirs, but that we observe mutations because God allows them to happen while without sin he would have prevented them from happening?

Yes. I am not sure, but I would imagine that there were probably alterations made to their original DNA, because of the curse.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes. I am not sure, but I would imagine that there were probably alterations made to their original DNA, because of the curse.

So, you would say that God had an original design, and then he had another design. (I guess man's sin necessitated the corresponding change in all animal DNA since all animals exhibit genetic mutation.) In that case, please consider my question as pertaining to the post-fall, not the pre-fall, designs, and answer accordingly.

Are (1) through (4) true, substituting "redesign" (as a result of the fall) for "design" where you see fit.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are skeptical about the truth of the antecedant of (5)? Do you understand that if the antecedant is false - that is, if no such changes are exhibited - then (5) must be true, for any implication with a false antecedant is true.

In light of this, I don't understand your reservation in accepting the truth of (5). Either such changes don't oc ...[text shortened]... ]not[/i] the product of intelligent design. If you reject this, then you hold that (5) is true.

Fair enough. You get an unreserved, hypothetical, yes for (5).

Originally posted by Halitose
Fair enough. You get an unreserved, hypothetical, yes for (5).

There is nothing hypothetical in play, for nothing is being assumed.

Do you believe (5) is true, or do you require some hypothetical, which we have not discussed, to be true in order to believe that (5) is true?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There is nothing hypothetical in play, for nothing is being assumed.

Do you believe (5) is true, or do you require some hypothetical, which we have not discussed, to be true in order to believe that (5) is true?

I'm assuming that (5) has indeed happened. As stated before, I have found the proof for (5) less than compelling.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'm assuming that (5) has indeed happened. As stated before, I have found the proof for (5) less than compelling.

You are confused between (5), which is an implication - not something that can happen or be observed - and the antecedent of (5) - in this case, something that can happen or be observed. Let me know when you resolve this confusion and we will continue.

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

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There is nothing hypothetical in play, for nothing is being assumed.

Do you believe (5) is true, or do you require some hypothetical, which we have not discussed, to be true in order to believe that (5) is true?

My apologies.

I've reread (5), you get a resounding yes.