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

miknik5 said:

I?

Did GOD fashion one better than the other?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

You thought I left off the rest of my post and actually I did

But not to say anything about myself
"I" must have been a typo

When you posted I left something off by not completing "I" I thought you were trying to say that all this is simply my personal opinion and I should somehow mention that in my posts

You want to imply that the creation is dong what it naturally was created to do:
Fade away because it is imperfect

But that was not GOD's original design of things

You want to acknowledge that nothing is perfect. That in fact that all things are imperfect

Yet with that, you deny the "remedy".

And so when you said I should say "I" I wanted to know why would that matter in relation to the ONE who is perfect and knows that HIS CREATION is not

Which is why HE provided the "remedy"

Unless of course one species of man wants to somehow profess himself better (I,I,I) than another member of his own species


That's an error already
Opening our mouth before HIM
claiming and professing ourselves as not in need...just as we should be

It's not true

All were in need of healing
It's just that not all acknowledge that need

Sorry for the typos
I fixed them

Man is in a dilemma

You don't want to acknowledge a CREATOR

And on that day, you won't be able to open your mouth and profess yourself in comparison to any of your other imperfect brothers and sisters

As if you somehow are better


HE sent HIS SON for the very purpose of covering over HIS imperfect creation and hiding them in HIS PERFECT IMAGE which is made manifest in HIS SON who did for imperfect flesh what it could not do for itself

miknik5 said:

You want to imply that the creation is dong what it naturally created to do

Click to expand...

Do I really? I think not. You may be confusing me with someone who believes in creation.

You wan to acknowledge that nothing is perfect. That in fact the things are imperfect

Yet with that, you deny the remedy.

Click to expand...

Nope, I haven't expressed any opinion on it.

And do when you said I should say "I"

Click to expand...

I didn't - you made that up.

We're no better than the worst of men

And no worse than the best of men

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Do I really? I think not. You may be confusing me with someone who believes in creation.

Nope, I haven't expressed any opinion on it.

I didn't - you made that up.

Click to expand...

I don't see you sir as a separate stand alone man

I see those in CHRIST through faith in HIM hidden in HIM

And those outside of CHRIST exposed

miknik5 said:

We're no better than the worst of men

And no worse than the best of men

Click to expand...

That implies no difference between the best and the worst. Mangled misquotes, or a too-clever-by-half 'deepity' ?

miknik5 said:

I don't see you sir as a separate stand alone man

I see those in CHRIST through faith in HIM hidden in HIM

And those outside of CHRIST exposed

Click to expand...

Gibberish.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

That implies no difference between the best and the worst. Mangled misquotes, or a too-clever-by-half 'deepity' ?

Click to expand...

It means all have been affected and there are none perfect

But.....,

That's what all will (eventually) acknowledge

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...

“Trustworthy” in the context of epistemology does not mean merely “good enough for survival.” The quote above from Patricia Churchland (post #74) addresses your specific point, though. The issue under discussion is that raised by the question, Would you trust the calculations of a computer that was not intelligently designed? If the answer is no, then your dogmatic-sounding statements and thoughts about design should accordingly be revised in the direction of skepticism, along the lines of what PsychoSarah said, "Science doesn't prove anything."

hengesthorsa said:

I've never seen it, either.

Of course, one could say "you, sir, are a random CFer and not a geneticist, so what you don't understand is your own fault." Okay, but if my understanding doesn't matter, why is it that my positive opinion of such non-definitions would matter if I had one?

Click to expand...

The argument only works when it is vague enough that people who don't understand the idea can grasp onto it.

Any actual definition of information quickly shows the argument has no teeth by providing examples of what the argument says can't happen.

Mediaeval said:

For the same reason mentioned before. 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. Would you trust the calculations of a computer that was not intelligently designed?

Click to expand...

Question begging. We trust conclusions that come from brains because of experience, not from abstract justifications.

If you don't trust your experiences, you can't get to the idea of trustworthiness at all, let alone epistemology.

Also your position is self defeating. If we couldn't trust our brains unless we know there is an intelligent designer, then we can't trust our brains because we could only know such a thing through using our brains. The trust in your brain would have to come before you could know anything, which means that you could just be wrong about knowing there is a designer.

Here's a picture of ouroboros for your troubles:

Mediaeval said:

“Trustworthy” in the context of epistemology does not mean merely “good enough for survival.” The quote above from Patricia Churchland (post #74) addresses your specific point, though. The issue under discussion is that raised by the question, Would you trust the calculations of a computer that was not intelligently designed? If the answer is no, then your dogmatic-sounding statements and thoughts about design should accordingly be revised in the direction of skepticism, along the lines of what PsychoSarah said, "Science doesn't prove anything."

Click to expand...

I don't claim that science proves anything, only that evolution provides 'good enough' solutions.

Using the calculator analogy, it's not a trustworthy calculator because, more often than not, it gives the wrong answer. But the answer doesn't have to be exact, and when millions of entities are using such a calculator, it gives a usable approximation sufficiently often for some of them to make progress with the calculation. As far as brains are concerned, they are analogous to a part of the calculation in progress - results that are 'good enough' to allow continuation.

"Good enough" to get by

The "input" keeps altering so that it will be "good enough" to get by

That's gibberish because anything that has to keep changing in order to survive already implies imperfection

What are we "evolving/changing" to?

A completed perfect end

Or just to remain "good enough to allow continuation?"

miknik5 said:

"Good enough" to get by

The "input" keeps altering so that it will be "good enough" to get by

That's gibberish because anything that has to keep changing in order to survive already implies imperfection

What are we "evolving/changing" to?

A completed perfect end

Or just to remain "good enough to allow continuation?"

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that there is a goal to evolution?

Subduction Zone said:

Why do you assume that there is a goal to evolution?

Click to expand...

There isn't
It's simply a wearing down
A moving farther away from

Not a moving towards a better end

If, that is, we focus only on the outward design which wears away

miknik5 said:

There isn't
It's simply a wearing down
A moving farther away from

Not a moving towards a better end

If, that is, we focus only on the outward design which wears away

Click to expand...

Again, no. If you don't know, don't make things up. You seem to be forgetting the Ninth Commandment.

That's why I said what I said

Some of the "outer garments"(men/flesh) have true treasure hidden within their outward garments...these perishing jars of clay"

Some of the "outer garments" (men/flesh) don't

Those who have the treasure know it

Those who don't, don't even know what they lack as they go about like "outer garments" fading away

Romans 8 says it better

All creation was made subject to vanity/decay

Subduction Zone said:

Again, no. If you don't know, don't make things up. You seem to be forgetting the Ninth Commandment.

Click to expand...

Not making anything up

miknik5 said:

That's why I said what I said

Some of the "outer garments"(men/flesh) have true treasure hidden within their outward garments...these perishing jars of clay"

Some of the "outer garments" (men/flesh) don't

Those who have the treasure know it

Those who don't, don't even know what they lack as they go about like "outer garments" fading away

Romans 8 says it better

All creation was made subject to vanity/decay


Not making anything up

Click to expand...

Let's ignore the Bible for right now and try to concentrate on why we know that you and I are the product of evolution. Do you think that you can do that?

Subduction Zone said:

Let's ignore the Bible for right now and try to concentrate on why we know that you and I are the product of evolution. Do you think that you can do that?

Click to expand...

Original design sir
And original designer of that design

Can't ignore it

He's not going anywhere even if some of the little coats keep running away