DNA Code Indicates Creator

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, you folks seem to feel that consensus of opinions constitutes evidence so why can't the other side play the same game?

Because there is no such consensus for that side of the table.

btw: not "consensus of opinions". Rather, "scientific consensus" based on evaluations of evidence and peer review.

I agree about the electrical engineer to a limited degree. If indeed the electrical engineer can point out analogous features in biology to his field then his expertise becomes relevant.

No, it doesn't. Because he'ld still be missing the required expertise and qualifications of genetics (or related) in order to make such an assessment.

What he can do, is present his ideas to actual experts of the fields and ask them what they think.

But until those actual experts agree with his assessment, there is no reason to value the opinions of the electric engineer over that of actual geneticists concerning the subject of genetics.

BTW
Why should we heed an atheist biologist's fanatical claims about the non-existence of God or anything else he might happen to cook up about God since religion is not his field of expertise?

Who said we should?
A biologist is an expert in biology. Who cares what things they believe or have opinions about that is not part of their field of expertise?

ps: as far as I know, there are no "experts" (in that sense) concerning religions. An "expert" in religion, is in reality just someone who studied a lot of bronze-age scripture.

These are people called "biblical scholars" and "islamic scholars" and "jewish scholars"... And what they are "experts" in, amounts to nothing more or less then ancient writings and perhaps history of the religions in question. One could be an "expert" in "Star Trek" in the exact same way.

 

[Radrook]

Because there is no such consensus for that side of the table.

btw: not "consensus of opinions". Rather, "scientific consensus" based on evaluations of evidence and peer review.



No, it doesn't. Because he'ld still be missing the required expertise and qualifications of genetics (or related) in order to make such an assessment.

What he can do, is present his ideas to actual experts of the fields and ask them what they think.

But until those actual experts agree with his assessment, there is no reason to value the opinions of the electric engineer over that of actual geneticists concerning the subject of genetics.



Who said we should?
A biologist is an expert in biology. Who cares what things they believe or have opinions about that is not part of their field of expertise?

ps: as far as I know, there are no "experts" (in that sense) concerning religions. An "expert" in religion, is in reality just someone who studied a lot of bronze-age scripture.

These are people called "biblical scholars" and "islamic scholars" and "jewish scholars"... And what they are "experts" in, amounts to nothing more or less then ancient writings and perhaps history of the religions in question. One could be an "expert" in "Star Trek" in the exact same way.

As I explained but to no avail, areas of expertise overlap and become relevant due to that overlapping. So a dismissal of an engineer's view concerning a biological machine simply because he isn't a biologist requires that we ignore that overlap. Which is of course irrational because overlaps are indeed relevant. In fact, that's where analogies come into play. Adopting your viewpoint would require us to turn a blind eye to the value of analogies in discovering meaning and truth. But that would require that we become insensitive to significant similarities and becoming insensitive in that way is part and parcel of selective blindness and selective blindness is anti-scientific..

Bronze Age?
Please note referring to the NT as and all of the OT as Bronze age scripture indicates a profound ignorance of the Bible's historical background. Proper argumentation requires that we get the basics right first before deciding to negatively evaluate any kind of literary work. It isn't just the proper thing to do-it is the honest thing to do and avoids conveying the impression of anti-bioblical fanaticism.

Peer Review?

Well, peer review in the case of atheists is biased toward approval of atheism and immediate disapproval of anything that might smack of intelligent design. In fact, a scientist's whole career is usually ruined if he as much as utters anything even remotely related to intelligent design. So your reference to consensus among those approved peer reviewers elicits a justifiable suspicion and is therefore not compelling.

Religion:

I am referring to the existence of a creator being ridiculed and asserted to be impossible by scientists either in a direct or in a cunningly indirect way via the total omission of its possibility. That area is not the proper domain in which scientists should be claiming either direct or implied certainty.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are placing the cart before the horse.

This and other folksy sayings in place of actual response to a point on the news at 11.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, peer review in the case of atheists is biased toward approval of atheism and immediate disapproval of anything that might smack of intelligent design. In fact, a scientist's whole career is usually ruined if he as much as utters anything even remotely related to intelligent design.

You're pretending Christianity requires that believers adhere to something the Discovery Institute made up to try and sneak their religious beliefs into public school again. That's getting dangerously close to questioning the religious beliefs of several posters in this thread which is a big no-no. You should stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biological machines are dismissed with a “So what?”

Not with a "so what". Please, if you don't understand something you should ask questions politely and properly. What part did you not understand?

Thanks since that provides indisputable proof you are practicing invincible ignorance.

Don't try to pass your sins off on others.

Peer Review?

Your assumption that the peer review process is the epitome of fairness is flawed since the evidence indicates otherwise.


Peer Review Bias

I never said that peer review was perfect. Again, when you don't understand something ask questions politely and properly. Your questions were not polite nor proper. There has been no bias against the nonsense that you believe. If there was you could have shown it. When one makes extreme claims, and you do, then you need to have strong evidence for your claims, instead you have nothing.

In fact creationists would love it if they had a legitimate paper that was rejected because of bias. Instead the few honest scientists that they have no that they can't write a proper paper to support their nonsense and the few that try and fail end up being laughing stocks. Of course one or two will go the vanity press route. That is even more sad and pathetic.

 

[Vaccine]

You have made it abundantly clear that you struggle to understand this subject, and despite several users trying to educate you, you are not learning.

Please stop now. You're just embarrassing yourself.

That doesn't really mean much coming from someone employing doubletalk to make their points. Every post of yours has been an attempt to sneak in analogy, similar, as, like or some other ambiguity. You don't get to impose your own interpretation on what those scientists meant by language when they were so abundantly clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, you folks seem to feel that consensus of opinions constitutes evidence . . .

Then they would be wrong.

I agree about the electrical engineer to a limited degree. If indeed the electrical engineer can point out analogous features in biology to his field then his expertise becomes relevant.

How is it relevant?

BTW
Why should we heed an atheist biologist's fanatical claims about the non-existence of God or anything else he might happen to cook up about God since religion is not his field of expertise?

You shouldn't heed anyone's opinion. You should look at the facts yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I explained but to no avail, areas of expertise overlap and become relevant due to that overlapping.

The person you are citing has no expertise in genetics or molecular biology.

So a dismissal of an engineer's view concerning a biological machine simply because he isn't a biologist requires that we ignore that overlap.

We are asking for facts, not opinions.

Adopting your viewpoint would require us to turn a blind eye to the value of analogies in discovering meaning and truth.

The value of analogies is to help people understand a concept. Analogies are never evidence in and of themselves. You should know this since there is a logical fallacy called "Argument from analogy":

"A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

Peer Review?

Well, peer review in the case of atheists is biased toward approval of atheism and immediate disapproval of anything that might smack of intelligent design.

Name one intelligent design paper containing original research that has been denied publication. Name just one. I bet you can't do it. You know why? ID/creationists have no research to publish.

In fact, a scientist's whole career is usually ruined if he as much as utters anything even remotely related to intelligent design.

Accusation without evidence.

Religion:

I am referring to the existence of a creator being ridiculed and asserted to be impossible by scientists either in a direct or in a cunningly indirect way via the total omission of its possibility. That area is not the proper domain in which scientists should be claiming either direct or implied certainty.

No possibilities are being omitted. The problem is that no ID/creationist can produce a testable hypothesis. Even ID/creationists aren't able to do science based on ID/creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Biological machines are dismissed with a “So what?”

We are waiting for evidence to back your claim that these biological machines are the product of an intelligence. All you can seem to muster is "Because I say so"".

Peer Review?

Your assumption that the peer review process is the epitome of fairness is flawed since the evidence indicates otherwise.

What ID/creationist papers containing original research are being rejected for publication? I bet you can't name one.

 

[Radrook]

The person you are citing has no expertise in genetics or molecular biology.



We are asking for facts, not opinions.



The value of analogies is to help people understand a concept. Analogies are never evidence in and of themselves. You should know this since there is a logical fallacy called "Argument from analogy":

"A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn."
False analogy - RationalWiki



Name one intelligent design paper containing original research that has been denied publication. Name just one. I bet you can't do it. You know why? ID/creationists have no research to publish.



Accusation without evidence.



No possibilities are being omitted. The problem is that no ID/creationist can produce a testable hypothesis. Even ID/creationists aren't able to do science based on ID/creationism.

Anything that any ID scientist does, whether it adheres to the scientific method or not, will be tagged as non-science by the very ones who make mockery of science via their selective blindness.

Here is how the game works

The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
The Catch-22 of Peer-Reviewed Journals

BTW
Instead of criticizing the legitimate use of analogies why not provide evidence that the analogy itself is inapplicable? Up to now I can see nothing that has been presented to dissuade us from concluding intelligent design and adopting your "Ït was chemicals that did it!!" idea.

 

[Loudmouth]

Anything that any ID scientist does, whether it adheres to the scientific method or not, will be tagged as non-science by the very ones who make mockery of science via their selective blindness.

Sorry, but you don't get to invent fantasies about what people would do.

Here is how the game works

You can't complain about discrimination when you no one is submitting ID papers.

BTW
Instead of criticizing the legitimate use of analogies why not provide evidence that the analogy itself is inapplicable?

Again, burden of proof. It is up to you to demonstrate that the analogy is applicable, which you haven't done.

Are you sure you took those logic classes? I'm starting to doubt it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fantasies?

The only one inventing fantasies are those who go about saying that chemicals are smart enough to create a human brain all by mindless salves. 'Now that's the MOTHER of all fantasies right there!


Burden of proof?
Really? You are impermeable to proof as long as that proof is supportive of an intelligent designer. As I said, you are cunninfgly adopting the invincible ignorance modus operandi against which absolutely no proof can make headway.

Doubt?
The illogical tend to doubt the logical so that comes as no particular surprise.

Once again, don't put your sins upon others. What is needed to be done by you or the people that you agree with for us to accept your so called evidence.

First you need a testable hypothesis or by definition you do not have any scientific evidence. Is that too hard for those on your side to do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fantasies?

The only ones feverishly inventing fantasies are those who go about saying that chemicals are smart enough to create a human brain all by their mindless selves. 'Now that's the MOTHER of all fantasies right there!

And yet they do that every day. Biology is merely very complex chemistry and everyday of the year children are conceived when mindless chemicals interact. Didn't your parents ever have "the talk" with you?

Burden of proof?
Really? You are impermeable to proof as long as that proof is supportive of an intelligent designer. As I said, you are cunninfgly adopting the invincible ignorance modus operandi against which absolutely no proof can make headway.

Nope, all we ask for is scientific evidence. Too bad you don't have any.

Doubt?
The illogical tend to doubt the logical so that comes as no particular surprise.

Yes, but enough about you.

Discrimination by citing?

You did not cite any evidence.

Information must be evaluated ion its own merit and not by its source.
In fact, rejection of information merely based on its source, as you are doing, is discrimination. So you are projecting.

That is not totally true. If one refers to the Weekly World News with such a claim he would be laughed out of the debate. What you have supplied is not much better.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fantasies?

The only ones feverishly inventing fantasies are those who go about saying that chemicals are smart enough to create a human brain all by their mindless selves. 'Now that's the MOTHER of all fantasies right there!

Then show me some ID original research that has been tagged as being non-science. If you can't, then you are inventing fantasies.

Burden of proof?
Really? You are impermeable to proof as long as that proof is supportive of an intelligent designer. As I said, you are cunninfgly adopting the invincible ignorance modus operandi against which absolutely no proof can make headway.

What proof are you talking about?

Doubt?
The illogical tend to doubt the logical so that comes as no particular surprise.

Yet another empty assertion. Are you sure that you took those logic classes? Sure doesn't look that way.

Discrimination by citing?

Information must be evaluated on its own merit and not based totally on its source.
In fact, rejection of information merely based totally on its source, as you are doing, is discrimination. So you are projecting.

Then show me some original research done in the field of ID.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That doesn't really mean much coming from someone employing doubletalk to make their points. Every post of yours has been an attempt to sneak in analogy, similar, as, like or some other ambiguity. You don't get to impose your own interpretation on what those scientists meant by language when they were so abundantly clear.

Man, you really don't get it, do you? Those scientists used the label "language" because there is no exact word for what they found. What did they make abundantly clear? That they had found similarities between "cellese" and human languages. How many similarities? 10 out of 13 linguistic features. Not 13 out of 13. Unfortunately, there is no word for something that is similar to, but not the same thing as, a human language - so they use the closest approximation which happens to be the label "language". That does not mean they consider "cellese" to be the same as a human language, and that's the mistake you are making. There has been no "sneaking in" of anything in my posts - they have all been an attempt to demonstrate the error of your understanding. After having it explained a number of times in different ways by different posters why are you still not able to understand such a simple concept?

Really, stop posting until you can understand the basics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Imagined overlap?

Yes. You aren't aware that electrical engineering is not really related with genetics?
How about that....

Anything that smacks of intelligent design is imagined from an atheist point of view.

The theists and world-famous biologists Ken Miller and Francis Collins, disagree.

Assuming insufficient knowledge to make an analogous comparison?

No need to assume. The guy is an electrical engineer. Why would you assume that the guy understands genetics like a geneticist?

The default is that the guy is knowledgeable about electrical engineering. Nothing else.

You need to prove that the specific person making using the analogy lacks the specifics you are demanding first.

No, that's backwards. It's you who needs to prove that he DOES have that required knowledge. As I said, the default of a guy with qualifications X is that he has NO expertise in field Y.

I'm a software engineer.
By default, I can be expected to know quite a bit about software engineering, but not so much about chemistry.

Even more importantly, you definitely need to show exactly how the analogy doesn't apply in order to prove it false regardless of the person who is using it.

No. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the one making the actual claim.
Once again, the default is not that whatever you (or that other guys) say, is correct....

In short, the analogy stands or falls on its own merit and is independent od the qualifications of the person employing it.

Sure.
But when a guy without qualifications in field X, makes an argument that completely flies in the face of the consensus among people WITH qualifications in field X....

It's that same old story again... when 100 oncologists tell you that you have a cancer and your car mechanic tells you it is just a zit and not a tumor.... Why would you take the word of that mechanic over that of the consensus of oncologists?

It smells like confirmation bias again...

Up to this point, atheists on this forum have not provided any compelling reason why we should dismiss intelligent design

It's upto cdesign proponentsists to make their case. You, and along with you all other cdesign proponentsists, have failed to do that.

as totally unfeasible and conclude that mindlessness is involved in reference to nano-biological machines instead.

Biological evolution is one of the most supported, well-evidenced theories in all of science. No matter what electrical engineers have to say.

Peer review can be extremely biased as I explain in my previous post.

I thought you were so into being scientific?
Peer review is a very important part of that process...
I get that you feel the need to argue against it though... As the nonsense of cdesign proponentsists can't stand upto that scrutiny. But you don't get to blame the peer review for that.

Your unquestioning faith

It's not faith and it certainly isn't "unquestioned".
In fact, it's the exact opposite. Peer review is part of the scientific process precisely to prevent ideas to remain "unquestioned". That's what peers do during reviews... They question the ideas, they question the methods used, they question the results, they question everything. They turn it inside out and see if it still holds up.

cdesign proponentsists' nonsense doesn't stay standing during that process.

Again, that's not something you can blame on the peer review process.

in peer review is equally as naïve as your unquestioning faith in your mindless billions of infinitely improbable happy accidents abiogenesis.

Another strawman.

You claim that genetics doesn't allow the conclusion of an intelligent designer? Exactly how does that idea work?

Science doesn't allow untestable conclusions for which there is no valid evidence.

There is no conclusion that science "doesn't allow". What matters is how you reach those conclusions and how testable/verifiable they are.

Again, don't blame science for the failure of the ID model.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything that any ID scientist does, whether it adheres to the scientific method or not, will be tagged as non-science by the very ones who make mockery of science via their selective blindness.

Prove it. As Loudmouth said, name one science paper arguing for ID that was submitted to a science journal and which was denied publication.

And if you find one, mention the reason why it was denied publication.

Instead of criticizing the legitimate use of analogies why not provide evidence that the analogy itself is inapplicable?

Instead of asking us to disprove it, why don't you live upto your own burden of proof?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But when a guy without qualifications in field X, makes an argument that completely flies in the face of the consensus among people WITH qualifications in field X....

It's actually even worse than that. We have an electrical engineer making an argument about genetics based on an assumption drawn from partial knowledge of information theory. And that's the level of expert opinion we are supposed to accept without question.

 

[Radrook]

The use of analogies is a perfectly legitimate way to make a point. The analogy itself has to be shown to be flawed instead of focusing on the person who made it. Focusing on the person who made it instead of the analogy's validity is called ad hominem. Ad hominem might cast doubts. However, if the analogy itself remains justifiably, then the ad hominem is meaningless and totally irrelevant. One need not be an expert in any field in order to notice and make valid comparisons between what one observes in a specific field to something else. Assuming that one must be an expert in another field in order to notice valid similarities between it and one's own is a false premise. For example, I need not be a biologist to notice the similarity between the heart and man-made pumps. Or notice the similarity of DNA to coded information. Or the notice how the brain resembles computer. Insisting that anyone who draws an analogy must be an expert is simply an atheist ply to prevent ay type of comparison from being attempted because of what the similarities strongly imply-a designing mind.

BTW
So far no compelling evidence has been presented in order to convince us that DNA should not be viewed as coded information and that coded information is not evidence of mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The use of analogies is a perfectly legitimate way to make a point.

As others have already pointed out, "argument from analogy" is a logical fallacy.

One need not be an expert in any field in order to notice and make valid comparisons between what one observes in a specific field to something else.

So you don't see how you need a certain level of expertise to know if the point you're making is a valid point?

Assuming that one must be an expert in another field in order to notice valid similarities between it and one's own is a false premise

"analogy". "similarities".

Strange use of words, when the point that is being made goes way beyond mere analogies and mere similarities.

For example, I need not be a biologist to notice the similarity between the heart and man-made pumps

Sure. But noticing such similarities is very very different from then drawing the conclusion "thereof, they ARE like man-made pumps and therefor some designer dun it!!"

Or notice the similarity of DNA to coded information. Or the notice how the brain resembles computer.

Same as above. There's a VERY big difference between noticing such superficial similarities on the one hand, and then other hand concluding from such superficial similarities that therefor: they are the exact same thing.

Insisting that anyone who draws an analogy must be an expert is simply an atheist ply to prevent ay type of comparison from being attempted because of what the similarities strongly imply-a designing mind.

Ow goodie.... debunked lie nr i-lost-count, calling everyone who doesn't agree with your nonsense to be "atheist" and the disagreement being motivated by "atheist agenda's".

Consider a virtual Ken Miller slapping you upside the face for such lies.

So far no compelling evidence has been presented in order to convince us that DNA should not be viewed as coded information and that coded information is not evidence of mind.

Shifting the burden of proof. Again.