Genetic Code is INFORMATION: Proof of Intelligent Design

[McBell]

The observable evidence shows that every cause is always greater than the effect it generates so essentially whatever first set the ball rolling would be a god to any subsequent effects.... the only question is whether you believe the original cause had intent or whether you BELIEVE it did not. A belief is still a belief in the absence of scientific evidence... religion vs. religion

The problem here is that you are tossing the very "reason" you cling to for god existing out the window the second it gets you to god.
thus we are right back to the question that irks you so much: what caused god?

 

[LuisDantas]

Information can and does get formed by accident. With a whole planet of random floating mollecules, it is a matter of how long it takes until self-replicating ones arise - and once they do, of course they will become more common.

The whole claim that DNA "needs" someone to have "put information" in it is very much nonsense.

 

[KBC1963]

The problem here is that you are tossing the very "reason" you cling to for god existing out the window the second it gets you to god. thus we are right back to the question that irks you so much: what caused god?

ummm, exactly what god are you proposing that I cling to? have you checked my profile?

As I pointed out your jab at other peoples beliefs might just as well be a jab at your own beliefs because in the end you have no greater evidence for yours than they do for theirs and just as you can pose an unanswerable question regarding their world view conclusion the same question applies equally to yours.

What caused anything? why isn't nothing the norm?

in the end you will either have to admit that an uncaused cause which must be greater than everything that it caused exists or you will have to take the old popular answer.... it always existed.

your position is no less vulnerable to that attack than the people you pose it to since your ability to answer it is restricted by the fact that you have no more logical scientific foundation to base it on than they do. No matter how you answer it will require faith in a belief.

 

[McBell]

ummm, exactly what god are you proposing that I cling to? have you checked my profile?

making god an exception to the reasoning used to get to god invalidates the reasoning that got you to god.

As I pointed out your jab at other peoples beliefs might just as well be a jab at your own beliefs because in the end you have no greater evidence for yours than they do for theirs and just as you can pose an unanswerable question regarding their world view conclusion the same question applies equally to yours.

What, pray tell, do you think my beliefs are?

What caused anything? why isn't nothing the norm?

in the end you will either have to admit that an uncaused cause which must be greater than everything that it caused exists or you will have to take the old popular answer.... it always existed.

your position is no less vulnerable to that attack than the people you pose it to since your ability to answer it is restricted by the fact that you have no more logical scientific foundation to base it on than they do. No matter how you answer it will require faith in a belief.

My position is that I do not know.
thus your beating up on strawmen, not my position.

 

[KBC1963]

Information can and does get formed by accident. With a whole planet of random floating mollecules, it is a matter of how long it takes until self-replicating ones arise - and once they do, of course they will become more common. The whole claim that DNA "needs" someone to have "put information" in it is very much nonsense.

I think the correct form of information that most people infer on this subject would be called "functional information". The existence of something may be considered a form of information but to make a definable functioning system such as a self-replicator you need to posit how functional information can form. positing chance as a creator is not scientific unless you can put real numbers to it that can be repeated tested by everyone else.

I want to share a bit of scientific backed information with you;

Spiegelman's Monster
Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple bacteriophage Qβ (Qβ) into a solution which contained Qβ's RNA replicase, some free nucleotides, and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to be replicated. After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated.

Shorter RNA chains were able to be replicated faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to be replicated very quickly in these unnatural circumstances.

In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman's_Monster

Tell me how can functional information form if an empirically tested self-replicator showed only that it "naturally tends to lose functional information"? natural selection favors speed.

 

[KBC1963]

What, pray tell, do you think my beliefs are?

I have no need to know what your positive belief is because your display of what you consider to be an incorrect belief. By asserting that a specified belief is incorrect you show that it cannot be within what you consider to be an acceptably correct belief.

My position is that I do not know. thus your beating up on strawmen, not my position.

if you wish to assert that you don't know then by what power can you know that anyone else's belief on the subject is wrong?
You can't logically posit opposition to something when you "don't know" what can possibly be correct.

 

[McBell]

I have no need to know what your positive belief is because your display of what you consider to be an incorrect belief. By asserting that a specified belief is incorrect you show that it cannot be within what you consider to be an acceptably correct belief.

What belief have I asserted is incorrect?
Post numbers please.

if you wish to assert that you don't know then by what power can you know that anyone else's belief on the subject is wrong?
You can't logically posit opposition to something when you "don't know" what can possibly be correct.

I can logically show that your "logic" is not as logical as you seem to think it is.

You cannot use cause/effect to get you to god and then toss out cause/effect.
Making god an except to the rule you use to get to god undermines the rule.

Thus, I have done the exact thing you claim cannot be done.

Nice try though.

 

[KBC1963]

What belief have I asserted is incorrect?
Post numbers please.

Pretty easy to see in your post to another person "Did your god..."
even more easy to see when you accused me of positing a god when I have not posited a god in any post since i'm agnostic. here's your 2 replies to me;
"The problem here is that you are tossing the very "reason" you cling to for god existing..."
"making god an exception to the reasoning used to get to god invalidates the reasoning that got you to god."

you have gone out of your way to attack anyone who talks about or mentions the term "god" so it is quite clear you hold an opposing position to the point of accusing others of implying god exists when there is no evidence to back such an action.
now lets see if you can show where I asserted god as the answer to anything.

I can logically show that your "logic" is not as logical as you seem to think it is.
You cannot use cause/effect to get you to god and then toss out cause/effect.
Making god an except to the rule you use to get to god undermines the rule.
Thus, I have done the exact thing you claim cannot be done. Nice try though.

no one said you can get to god by cause and effect. What has been shown by me is that you can't rule it out. There has also been no attempt to "toss out" cause and effect in any of my posts since I have only posited 2 things an uncaused cause and an infinite regression.
There are no exceptions to any rules since as you have already admitted you "don't know" so obviously you can't invoke rules for something you have no knowledge of.
and yes you are attempting to do exactly what I'm saying you can't possibly do.... rule out the possibility for anything where you have zero knowledge either way for an uncaused cause or an infinite regression.

 

[McBell]

Pretty easy to see in your post to another person "Did your god..."

Post number please.

even more easy to see when you accused me of positing a god when I have not posited a god in any post since i'm agnostic. here's your 2 replies to me;
"The problem here is that you are tossing the very "reason" you cling to for god existing..."
"making god an exception to the reasoning used to get to god invalidates the reasoning that got you to god."

You attempted the cause and effect argument.
I pointed out why it is a failure.

you have gone out of your way to attack anyone who talks about or mentions the term "god" so it is quite clear you hold an opposing position to the point of accusing others of implying god exists when there is no evidence to back such an action.
now lets see if you can show where I asserted god as the answer to anything.

Post numbers please

no one said you can get to god by cause and effect. What has been shown by me is that you can't rule it out. There has also been no attempt to "toss out" cause and effect in any of my posts since I have only posited 2 things an uncaused cause and an infinite regression.
There are no exceptions to any rules since as you have already admitted you "don't know" so obviously you can't invoke rules for something you have no knowledge of.
and yes you are attempting to do exactly what I'm saying you can't possibly do.... rule out the possibility for anything where you have zero knowledge either way for an uncaused cause or an infinite regression.

What I have shown is that you can use cause and effect to get to god.
But then you have to keep going.
So cause and effect is an epic failure in getting to god for those outside the choir because you have to toss it out the window once you get to god.

You seem to think that my pointing out holes in your "argument" is somehow me arguing something.
It is not.

I do not have to know the answer in order to see the holes in your "argument".

 

[KBC1963]

You attempted the cause and effect argument.
I pointed out why it is a failure.
What I have shown is that you "CAN USE" cause and effect to get to god...

lol

Apparently you didn't comprehend the 2 terms I used nor your own wording in your attempt to counter. Both terms I used refer to causes only not cause and effect. The first term is the uncaused cause and the second is infinite regression both of which refer to the intellectual concept of causal origination. Any effect that anyone wished to attach to either conceptual cause is essentially irrelevant. The fact is that we only know that there is existence and how any of it could have gotten to that point is beyond the ability of science to investigate.

So to conclude our discussion you have no scientific knowledge for either an uncaused cause or for infinite regression therefore you cannot rationally argue against anyone who may believe or assert either as a causal beginning. The only reasons you could attempt to form a counter argument to either position is if you have a belief in the opposing view which in the absence of scientific evidence either way shows that your belief is faith based or you simply desire to be argumentative both of which are a waste of time.

 

[McBell]

lol

Apparently you didn't comprehend the 2 terms I used nor your own wording in your attempt to counter. Both terms I used refer to causes only not cause and effect. The first term is the uncaused cause and the second is infinite regression both of which refer to the intellectual concept of causal origination. Any effect that anyone wished to attach to either conceptual cause is essentially irrelevant. The fact is that we only know that there is existence and how any of it could have gotten to that point is beyond the ability of science to investigate.

So to conclude our discussion you have no scientific knowledge for either an uncaused cause or for infinite regression therefore you cannot rationally argue against anyone who may believe or assert either as a causal beginning. The only reasons you could attempt to form a counter argument to either position is if you have a belief in the opposing view which in the absence of scientific evidence either way shows that your belief is faith based or you simply desire to be argumentative both of which are a waste of time.

Apparently you are unable to stay focused enough to understand I am not countering any argument from you other than your failed cause/effect.

But you keep preaching the sermon brother.
I'm sure the choir approves.

 

[gnostic]

if you wish to assert that you don't know then by what power can you know that anyone else's belief on the subject is wrong?

Agnosticism with stance of "I don't know" only referred to the question of any deity's existence (or non-existence)...it only deal with one's own position to the matter of theism and atheism. Agnostic only say the nature of any deity is essentially "unknowable".

Agnosticism doesn't mean that agnostics have no understanding of religion. Agnosticism doesn't mean that cannot view where religion or atheism went wrong about certain matters.

Agnosticism doesn't mean EVERYTHING is unknowable. Agnosticism is not the only knowledge that a person can have.

Don't confuse the agnostic "I don't know" with agnostics being completely clueless.

I am an agnostic, and I find there are plenty wrongs in the position of intelligent design.

 

[KBC1963]

Agnosticism with stance of "I don't know" only referred to the question of any deity's existence (or non-existence)...it only deal with one's own position to the matter of theism and atheism. Agnostic only say the nature of any deity is essentially "unknowable".
Agnosticism doesn't mean that agnostics have no understanding of religion. Agnosticism doesn't mean that cannot view where religion or atheism went wrong about certain matters.
Agnosticism doesn't mean EVERYTHING is unknowable. Agnosticism is not the only knowledge that a person can have.
Don't confuse the agnostic "I don't know" with agnostics being completely clueless.
I am an agnostic, and I find there are plenty wrongs in the position of intelligent design.

Being agnostic my position is that I will tend to agree with what the evidence shows.
No evidence = no belief however, being agnostic also prevents me from premature elimination of anything. We may not be able to know anything about a god from the perspective of how one is described according to religions but, and here is the BIG BUT, how do we know that what ancient peoples perceived of as a god were really just beings alien to this planet?
I would ask you a fellow agnostic what would be acceptable evidence for us that life may have likely been seeded on earth?
Even now we as intelligent beings are considering the terraforming of other planets and are even considering using methods that involve the introduction of manufactured living organisms to help the process along. So why could that have not been how life began here.
The fossil record shows complex life beginning with no precursors and then 2 different periods where a wide range of different varied forms simply show up. Would this not carry the indicative evidence for positing the possible action of intelligence acting historically?
From my perspective as an agnostic this evidence alone is enough to not prematurely eliminate intelligence from historical action especially since there was a huge gap of time from the original planetary formations and the beginning of our little corner of existence.

 

[ArtieE]

Just imagine that you took all the atoms and molecules in your body and started tracing them back through time to their origins. You'll inevitably end up at the Big Bang. And since the Big Bang itself originated time and space that's where it stops.

 

[gnostic]

Being agnostic my position is that I will tend to agree with what the evidence shows.

I am an empirical or weak agnostic too. I like to see the evidences, before I would accept anything.

BUT, this...

No evidence = no belief however, being agnostic also prevents me from premature elimination of anything. We may not be able to know anything about a god from the perspective of how one is described according to religions but, and here is the BIG BUT, how do we know that what ancient peoples perceived of as a god were really just beings alien to this planet?
I would ask you a fellow agnostic what would be acceptable evidence for us that life may have likely been seeded on earth?
Even now we as intelligent beings are considering the terraforming of other planets and are even considering using methods that involve the introduction of manufactured living organisms to help the process along. So why could that have not been how life began here.
The fossil record shows complex life beginning with no precursors and then 2 different periods where a wide range of different varied forms simply show up. Would this not carry the indicative evidence for positing the possible action of intelligence acting historically?
From my perspective as an agnostic this evidence alone is enough to not prematurely eliminate intelligence from historical action especially since there was a huge gap of time from the original planetary formations and the beginning of our little corner of existence.

All of the above, is just pure speculation, not evidences for Intelligent Design...

...whether that Designer be a deity (deities), as advocated by those delusional nuts at Discovery Institute (with the tendencies of bringing up the faulty Watchmaker analogy), or in the case of your example, above, some advanced alien civilisations terraforming this planet.

Both scenarios are speculative, requiring mammoth-size of circular thinking and other fallacies, and zero evidences to support these what-if.

This gap you talking about, requiring some intelligent alien interventions, to kickstart life, is not evidence...it just your unsupported hypothetical what-if.

 

[ftacky]

Nature International Weekly Journal of Science, vol.421, 23 January 2003
Leroy Hood, David Galas
Title: The Digital Code of DNA
"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."

Psalm 139: I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Ephesians 2: For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things He planned for us long ago.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The genetic sciences in our 21st Century has left no reasonable doubt as to the question of God's existence. God does indeed exist, and the evidence is overwhelming for those with an open mind.

INFORMATION is different from other things in that although it is stored by a physical entity, such as a brain, a USB drive, a piece of paper, or a DNA molecule, INFORMATION itself it is not a physical entity. Because our genetic code is a highly complex form of INFORMATION stored in the cell, and since all information requires an intelligent source, this provides solid evidence for an intelligent designer.

1) NASA and SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) use this same scientific principle to search for intelligent life, that INFORMATION implies an intelligent source.

In the following SETI article, they discuss how a signal from space directs them toward the conclusion that intelligent life has been discovered or not, based on whether the signal actually represents information (as opposed to background noise). SETI scientists discuss how they would use the same principles to try and return their communication:

"A continuous narrowband beacon carries only one bit of information (that
the alien civilization exists) and carry zero symbol rate after the beacon is discovered. In
contrast, modest to wide bandwidth signals can support modest to large symbol rates
(information rates)."

"Once the beacon is discovered, the focus turns to information extraction."

"When designing a signal for interstellar transmission to an unknown but technologically
competent species, we must consider how that species (e.g. humans) might discover the signal as
distinct from the galactic background radiation."

"At the same time, most SETI researchers suspect that an extra-solar civilization will wish
to communicate nontrivial information to humans. Until now, the primary focus of radio SETI
observations has been narrowband signals or strong broadband pulses. These signals can be used
only for “beacons,” since they convey no “message” beyond a single symbol of information. It is
usually suggested that the message information will be communicated in an entirely different
signal mode (or with extremely low symbol rate consistent with the narrowband criterion)."

(Ref: Harp, Gerald R., et al. 'A new class of SETI beacons that contain information. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence'. 2011)

2) Our genetic code qualifies as a language:

"Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements (of a language). The coding regions of DNA have precisely the same relevant properties as a computer code or language."

"The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they recognize danger, bees tap dance to point other bees to a source and whales release sounds, just to name a few examples of other species' communication, none fo these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals."

"The only types of communication considered high level are, (1) human languages and (2) artificial languages, namely computer and morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language."

(Ref: L.D. Virgilio, 'The Little Code that Confirms the End of Evolution')

3) Even skeptics have abandoned their atheism for this reason. Sir Antony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher who had been the leading atheist in England, renounced his atheism a few years back and accepted the existence of God.

Regarding whether recent research on DNA had influenced his change of mind, he said: “Yes, I now think it does … almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together” ( There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind , 2007, p. 75).

“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature” (pp. 88-89).

4) So what form of information is our genetic code? It is a DIGITAL language.

a) "All present life is based on digitally encoded information.” - National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Whereas our computing devices are programmed using a binary digital coding system, our human genetic code is considered by some analysts to be a quaternary digital coding system, due to the four DNA bases A,C,T, and G.

b) “The genome functions in a hierarchical fashion. The DNA molecule is only the first level; chromatin [cell nucleus contents of DNA with accompanying proteins] organization is a second level; and the position of chromosomes within the nucleus is a third level … There is evidence at all three levels that non-protein-coding DNA performs functions that are independent of its exact sequence”

"(DNA is) bidirectional, multilayered, and interleaved, rather than simply linear … The organization of DNA strings along the genome is optimized for the establishment of multidimensional codes at all scales.” - Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells

c) “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” - Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft

5) How much information is contained in our cells?

a) "The information content of a simple cell had been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica."
— Carl Sagan

b) “There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.”
— Richard Dawkins

Conclusion:

a) “In ALL cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.”

"No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Yet the coding regions of DNA exhibit very unlikely sequential arrangements of bases that match the precise pattern necessary to produce functional proteins. Experiments have found that the sequence of nucleotide bases in our DNA must be extremely precise in order to generate a functional protein. The odds of a random sequence of amino acids generating a functional protein is less than 1 in 10 to the 70th power. In other words, our DNA contains high CSI (complex and specified information)." - Stephen C. Meyer

b) "Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours” (Denton, p. 329).
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?"

"Evolutionists don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: “The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made … No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means” (Strobel, p. 282).

"Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] … The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]” (Gitt, p. 124).

"In addition, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters. This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: “The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance” (Gitt, p. 95).

"Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell."

“It was once expected,” writes Professor Behe, “that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins” (Behe).

"Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: “Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working … I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories” (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

(Ref: UCG.org<http://www.ucg.org/> / The Good News<404 Search / DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution)

Psalm 139: I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Thanks for posting! I wholeheartedly agree.

But detractors will employ "special pleading" to downplay the significance, and assert otherwise.

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks for posting! I wholeheartedly agree.

But detractors will employ "special pleading" to downplay the significance, and assert otherwise.

No I'll just refer to the argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy. Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

 

[KBC1963]

I am an empirical or weak agnostic too. I like to see the evidences, before I would accept anything. All of the above, is just pure speculation, not evidences for Intelligent Design...

Speculation based on what? We speculate possibilities based on something right?

...whether that Designer be a deity (deities), as advocated by those delusional nuts at Discovery Institute (with the tendencies of bringing up the faulty Watchmaker analogy), or in the case of your example, above, some advanced alien civilisations terraforming this planet
Both scenarios are speculative, requiring mammoth-size of circular thinking and other fallacies, and zero evidences to support these what-if.

DI does not advocate a deity. They advocate intelligent agency, who or what could have possibly been the agency is entirely beyond scientific investigation. Again I ask you what is either my or their speculations based on?

This gap you talking about, requiring some intelligent alien interventions, to kickstart life, is not evidence...it just your unsupported hypothetical what-if.

The gap in the fossil record is not an illusion or simply in the mind of a single observer. We as scientists have tirelessly searched the fossil record since Darwin's time to fill in the missing evidences that he speculated had to exist IF his speculation was in fact true and the evidences still have not shown up. So tell me why is it beyond speculation that life could have been seeded here?
If you were a scientist what would be indicative evidence that life was seeded here? What would the fossil record look like? what would the fossil record of mars look like we succeed in seeding life there? as with all scientific endeavors we must first make a base line set of assertions for what would be expected if a theory were to be backed by observable evidences, so take a moment and make a list of what you would accept as evidences that a seeding event could have occurred.

 

[KBC1963]

Just imagine that you took all the atoms and molecules in your body and started tracing them back through time to their origins. You'll inevitably end up at the Big Bang. And since the Big Bang itself originated time and space that's where it stops.

You might end up at the big bang if that theory is true. Of course it is an untestable concept which makes it beyond scientific inquiry... what else do we know is beyond scientific inquiry?