On Intelligent Design...

[DogmaHunter]

There is nothing inherent in natural laws that make them work together.
If they were random, gravity might not be strong enough, or molecular
bonds too strong, or any number of combinations that would make
life impossible anywhere.

If the forces were formed randomly, then this universe (with the forces it has) would be just as likely as any other universe with other forces.

Yes, if the forces were different then things would be different.
Point?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If the forces were formed randomly, then this universe (with the forces it has) would be just as likely as any other universe with other forces.

Yes, if the forces were different then things would be different.
Point?

That's always seemed a strange way to think...

Statement-"If this thing were different...things would be different..."

Reply-"Can those things actually be different?"

Statement-"Well I don't know...but if it was things would be different..."

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fact that there is information in DNA that guides processes. This information existed before human intelligence.

The use of the word "guides" here, is misleading and is actually a loaded statement.
You are implying "intentions" and "purpose", aren't you?

The most common sense understanding is that information can only come from intelligence

Please support that claim. Especially in context of our extensive knowledge of genetics and evolution.

, therefore, the fact that information existeded before human intelligence clearly suggests a higher intelligence as the source for the information found in DNA.

Perhaps if you ignore everything we know about genetics, evolution and bio-chemistry in general.

This higher intelligence designed the DNA and encoded it with information to perform functions.

Please support that claim.

This is a powerful explanation

It doesn't explain anything at all, as it is just an assertion which remains completely unsupported.

However, those who do not believe in God will go to great lengths to complicate this simple explanation

1. Again, that's not an "explanation".
2. Plenty of theists have no problems with our knowledge of how bio-chemistry and evolution shaped the DNA molecule into what it is today. Wich is a direct refutation of that statement.

and try to contrive some other explanation that removes the need for a higher intelligence for reasons unknown(most likely personal reasons)

Objective evidence of biology and genetics is quite the opposite of "personal reasons".

It's also quite hysterical to see a theist arguing for intelligent design to cite "personal reasons" for why some people would oppose it.
Talk about irony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, are you saying that nature is undesigned, or God was designed?

This is why I like the first cause argument better anyway.

He is saying that you are using special pleading when you say things like "everything needs a creator, and that creator is god" and in the next breath deny your very own premise that "everything needs a creator" when stating that your god doesn't.

If god doesn't need a creator, then why would anything else require a creator by default?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really. Have you ever solved cryptograms? DNA is far more complex than any code
devised by man.

Also known as "the argument from incredulity". A variation on the argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy.

For anyone to study how it works and deny it is proof of an intelligent
creator is not science, it is foolishness based only on the need to deny God in any form.

You just ignored the many, many, MANY theists who have no problems with evolution theory.

There are way more theists that accept evolution then there are theists that don't. But hey, don't let facts get in your way.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not sure what "information" you're referring to...but if you're speaking about DNA in general it's true that we organize it into information.

The fact that we are able to look at genes or DNA and figure out what those genes or DNA do in the process of a life's development doesn't mean that something "wrote" that information. In fact, there are lots of aspects to dna that would suggest it isn't "written" by some intelligence.

What aspects?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What aspects?

Well depending on which geneticist you ask...anywhere between 20-98% of our DNA is "useless" junk DNA. Is that what you would expect to see if we were created by an "intelligence" of some kind?

I think not.

 

[Chriliman]

Well depending on which geneticist you ask...anywhere between 20-98% of our DNA is "useless" junk DNA. Is that what you would expect to see if we were created by an "intelligence" of some kind?

I think not.

I still think that the fact that we observe apparent design in DNA points to a designer more significantly than it points to nondesign.

If DNA were not designed, I'd expect to not see apparent coding of information within it, yet this is exactly what we see. I'm left with the only obvious conclusion, until it's proven that DNA has developed from meaningless processes.

 

[Chriliman]

Well depending on which geneticist you ask...anywhere between 20-98% of our DNA is "useless" junk DNA. Is that what you would expect to see if we were created by an "intelligence" of some kind?

I think not.

Also, I find it interesting that some of the DNA appears useless. I don't view it as useless, but rather as potential. If we assume a designer then possibly this "useless" DNA we perceive is simply just not being used yet because the designer has future plans for that "useless" DNA.

This is far more interesting to me that simply saying there is no point or reason for why our DNA is the way it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Also, I find it interesting that some of the DNA appears useless. I don't view it as useless, but rather as potential. If we assume a designer then possibly this "useless" DNA we perceive is simply just not being used yet because the designer has future plans for that "useless" DNA.

This is far more interesting to me that simply saying there is no point or reason for why our DNA is the way it is.

Well there is a reason...evolution...you don't have to accept it, but it's a rather good reason for why our DNA is the way it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I still think that the fact that we observe apparent design in DNA points to a designer more significantly than it points to nondesign.

If DNA were not designed, I'd expect to not see apparent coding of information within it, yet this is exactly what we see. I'm left with the only obvious conclusion, until it's proven that DNA has developed from meaningless processes.

Lol that it points to non-design at all refutes this argument. Can you think of anything designed by man that is 20-98% useless?

Or do you think that perhaps god is less capable of a creator than man?

 

[Chriliman]

Well there is a reason...evolution...you don't have to accept it, but it's a rather good reason for why our DNA is the way it is.

No, because the theory of evolution cannot explain why or how life came to exist on this planet. It only explains the apparent progression that life has apparently taken. Evolution is not fact, it's a theory that interprets evidence in a particular way. This particular way of interpreting the evidence could be wrong because any interpretation of evidence is fallible.

The truth is what counts, to me at least.

 

[bhsmte]

No, because the theory of evolution cannot explain why or how life came to exist on this planet. It only explains the apparent progression that life has apparently taken. Evolution is not fact, it's a theory that interprets evidence in a particular way. This particular way of interpreting the evidence could be wrong because any interpretation of evidence is fallible.

The truth is what counts, to me at least.

Do you like evidence with your truth?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So, are you saying that nature is undesigned, or God was designed?

What I am saying if someone argues that everything is designed but then has to say that God isn't designed and always was, the argument completely falls apart because that is special pleading.

This is why I like the first cause argument better anyway.

Which is PRATT. It resorts to special pleading.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, because the theory of evolution cannot explain why or how life came to exist on this planet. It only explains the apparent progression that life has apparently taken. Evolution is not fact, it's a theory that interprets evidence in a particular way. This particular way of interpreting the evidence could be wrong because any interpretation of evidence is fallible.

The truth is what counts, to me at least.

Gotcha.

You prefer explanatory power with no evidence to evidence with little explanatory power.

Suppose we have both one day for "how life began"...and it wasn't a god. Would that change your view?

 

[Chriliman]

Lol that it points to non-design at all refutes this argument. Can you think of anything designed by man that is 20-98% useless?

I'm not sure about that. Would you say we have 100% understanding of our own DNA and how it functions? If not then there's a possibility that what we percieve as "useless" is not actually useless because we don't yet fully understand it.

I'll leave it to the experts to study and understand it. Then I'll interpret their findings and figure out what to believe is true from there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure about that. Would you say we have 100% understanding of our own DNA and how it functions? If not then there's a possibility that what we percieve as "useless" is not actually useless because we don't yet fully understand it.

I'll leave it to the experts to study and understand it. Then I'll interpret their findings and figure out what to believe is true from there.

No...we don't have 100% understanding of DNA. You're right to think that it's better to wait until all the evidence is in before drawing a conclusion.

That's not what you did though. You decided god did it.

 

[Chriliman]

Gotcha.

You prefer explanatory power with no evidence to evidence with little explanatory power.

No, it's impossible(at least irrational) to believe something without some form of evidence. I have a higher tolerance for evidence than you do. For instance I consider sound reasoning as evidence of truth.

Suppose we have both one day for "how life began"...and it wasn't a god. Would that change your view?

I don't understand this question.

If abiogenesis is true, it doesn't prove God is false.

 

[Chriliman]

No...we don't have 100% understanding of DNA. You're right to think that it's better to wait until all the evidence is in before drawing a conclusion.

That's not what you did though. You decided god did it.

That is my belief, yes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's impossible(at least irrational) to believe something without some form of evidence. I have a higher tolerance for evidence than you do. For instance I consider sound reasoning as evidence of truth.



I don't understand this question.

If abiogenesis is true, it doesn't prove God is false.

Lol I wouldn't agree that you have a higher "tolerance" for evidence...

I would say that you have less understanding of what it is and what it shows.

No...abiogenesis doesn't disprove the existence of god...but you are using the lack of evidence for how life began to make an argument for god creating life.

So, supposing that we had both a full understanding of how abiogenesis creates life and an abundance of evidence that it happens...would you change your belief about god or a "higher intelligence" being necessary to create life?