Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...

miknik5 said:

It would be boring

Click to expand...

Couldn't he just "design" that out of the program?

pitabread said:

... those arguing are completely unable to define what constitutes "information" in that context?

I think in all the examples of this I've ever seen, nobody has ever attempted to actually define what information is as it applies to genetics.

Click to expand...

It gets even better if they're fundamental creationists - Take this table I prepared earlier:

Trees

• Fundamental Creationist = "Miracle!"
• Normal People = "Natural"

Bacterial Flagellum

• Fundamental Creationist = "Miracle!"
• Normal People = "Natural"

Blood clotting cascade

• Fundamental Creationist = "Miracle!"
• Normal People = "Natural"

Homosexuality

• Fundamental Creationist = "ABOMINATION, DESERVING OF DEATH! (unless non-human occurring in nature, then....???)
  
• Normal People = "Natural"

Disclaimer: This is tongue in cheek & not serious - if anyone finds this offensive, let me know & I'll take it down...

PsychoSarah said:

So are you just going to ignore my point that I view a "perfect designer" that willfully produces imperfect designs less trustworthy than an "imperfect designer" that tries their best? You are overlooking a lot of effort I put into my responses, and I don't appreciate it.

Also, who is telling you that science PROVES anything? Science is about evidence, proof is for math. Science doesn't prove anything, it rather just provides support or disproves. So, science can prove something is incorrect, but it can never prove that something is correct. Hence why every scientific theory, no matter how well evidenced, has the potential to be disproven. I just pragmatically utilize what is well-evidenced because it is the most likely to be correct. I also accept when theories are disproven, even after they have been the front runner for years.

Click to expand...

Time is limited, and participation on CF is voluntary, not obligatory. So let’s keep it lite and fun, if possible. Besides, under atheism, obligations are no more justifiable than human knowledge claims are.

So, if neither philosophy nor science by themselves can prove anything, then that would only deprive atheism still further of a foundation for knowledge, confirming that if we are able to know anything, it can be only on a theistic basis. Here’s where your hypothetical comes in:

A perfect designer who was less than perfectly trustworthy would amount to an imperfect perfect designer, which is a logically contradictory notion. A perfect designer would be perfectly trustworthy by definition. Meanwhile, a brain that was not intelligently designed could not be trusted to judge another being’s trustworthiness.

But your hypothetical does show, if obliquely, that to have a foundation for knowledge we need a Designer who is not only perfectly intelligent but one who is morally perfect also. And this is an improvement on any Aristotelian or deistic conceptions where the Deity has no moral character to speak of.

HitchSlap said:

Couldn't he just "design" that out of the program?

Click to expand...

What for?

It would be detached, robotic, insensitivity

Exactly like an outward garment...but nothing to it...dead inside

You your spirit, is what makes that outward garment alive

Flesh is not all the same
Not because its he flesh that is of itself different. Of itself it isn't different

but it's because of what is inside the flesh that makes it different

And that's a man's spirit

miknik5 said:

What for?

It would be detached, robotic, insensitivity

Exactly like an outward garment...but nothing to it...dead inside

You your spirit, is what makes that outward garment alive

Flesh is not all the same
Not because its he flesh that is of itself different. Of itself it isn't different

but it's because of what is inside the flesh that makes it different

And that's a man's spirit

Click to expand...

I don't even know...

HitchSlap said:

I don't even know...

Click to expand...

Do you understand what Christ was saying by washing the outside but not the inside?

Yet a poster is suggesting (by the clothing design) that HE should have made HIS design exact perfect models

We aren't exact
And we aren't perfect

and the outside counts for nothing
It's just the outer package to what should be inside

miknik5 said:

Do you understand what Christ as saying by washing the outside but not the inside?

Yet a poster is suggesting (by the clothing design) that HE should have made HIS design exact perfect models

But then all would be the same

And what is that?

It's nothing
It's an outward garment but nothing really alive inside

All the same inner expression walking around

How is that alive?

Click to expand...

I don't care.

l

HitchSlap said:

I don't care.

Click to expand...

then don't care

HitchSlap said:

Couldn't he just "design" that out of the program?

Click to expand...

By the way, that wasn't THE PROGRAM

Do you care about that?

miknik5 said:

By the way, that wasn't THE PROGRAM

Do you care about that?

Click to expand...

I care about what's real.

Mediaeval said:

.. If our brains were not intelligently designed, we could not reach justifiably trustworthy conclusions about any external fact. This is not a controversial or idiosyncratic claim, but a pretty mainstream epistemological observation.

Click to expand...

It is certainly controversial - because it's wrong. Intelligent design is not necessary for systems that produce trustworthy results, if 'trustworthy' means 'good enough for survival'. Evolution produces such systems . It does so by far less efficient means (trial and error), involving a great deal of waste, but it also explores a far broader landscape than intelligent design, which means that it can come up with designs (I'm happy to use that word here) that no intelligent designer would, for example, the evolved X-band antenna used by NASA on its STS 5 satellites.

How can we distinguish between intelligent design and trial-and-error design? Look for obvious design flaws and the adaptation of existing structures to functions they're not well suited for (e.g. where a novel structure would be preferable); you'll find humans and other animals full of such features, which just reinforces all the other independent lines of evidence that we evolved rather being intelligently designed.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

It is certainly controversial - because it's wrong. Intelligent design is not necessary for systems that produce trustworthy results, if 'trustworthy' means 'good enough for survival'. Evolution produces such systems . It does so by far less efficient means (trial and error), involving a great deal of waste, but it also explores a far broader landscape than intelligent design, which means that it can come up with designs (I'm happy to use that word here) that no intelligent designer would, for example, the evolved X-band antenna used by NASA on its STS 5 satellites.

How can we distinguish between intelligent design and trial-and-error design? Look for obvious design flaws and the adaptation of existing structures to functions they're not well suited for (e.g. where a novel structure would be preferable); you'll find humans and other animals full of such features, which just reinforces all the other independent lines of evidence that we evolved rather being intelligently designed.

Click to expand...

Wear and tear and evidence that nothing is in a perfect state

miknik5 said:

Wear and tear and evidence that nothing is in a perfect state

Click to expand...

You'll have to repost that, the relevant context that would give it meaning got left out.

If you were perfect, there would be no need to "evolve"/"change"

By the world is not static
And neither are any living thing

Both affect and are effected

miknik5 said:

If you were perfect, there would be no need to "evolve"/"change"

By the world is not static
And neither are any living thing

Both affect and are effected

Click to expand...

Possibly, although one could claim that a perfect being could adapt to any circumstance.

But your suggestion would imply that a perfect God wouldn't need to change; so why create a universe?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Possibly, although one could claim that a perfect being could adapt to any circumstance.

But your suggestion would imply that a perfect God wouldn't need to change; so why create a universe?

Click to expand...

HE didn't need to but HE did
HIS GRACE upon HIS creation (even while knowing our imperfection) was there from the beginning

miknik5 said:

HE didn't need to but HE did
HIS GRACE upon HIS creation (even while knowing our imperfection) was there from the beginning

Click to expand...

Which renders your previous post about perfect entities not needing to change rather pointless...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Which renders your previous post about perfect entities not needing to change rather pointless...

Click to expand...

But with that, the truth that no entity can declare themselves perfect except for the one who declares it perfect

miknik5 said:

But with that, the truth that no entity can declare themselves perfect i

Click to expand...

?? Again, your post appears to be missing the crucial part (following the 'i').

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

?? Again, your post appears to be missing the crucial part (following the 'i').

Click to expand...

I?

Did GOD fashion one better than the other?