Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is great you think so. But that doesn't answer my question.Coded information justifies the inference of mind.
No, not that kind of information. The other kind of information - the one we'll never get a concrete definition of.I guess you've never heard of Claude Shannon.
Mindless chemicals code information? There you go again! Got to give you credit though. That's one heck of a fantasy!
They are definitely not magic. Never claimed that process itself involved is. Magic kicks in if we attribute abilities to chemicals which only a mind can arrange in sequences that indicate a purpose.
Claiming that mindlessness codes DNA and creates a brain is clearly an appeal to magic as much as claiming that mindlessness can program a computer via coded information.
Mindless chemicals code information? There you go again! Got to give you credit though. That's one heck of a fantasy!
Coded information justifies the inference of mind.
A brain requires a designer. Chemical reactions are just the sequence of events which the designer established so that the manufacturing of brains runs on automatic. That you wish to attributed the process leading to the formation of brains to mindlessness doesn't make sense to me. Makes sense to you? Fine. But to me it doesn't.How does the divergence of introns and exons justify the inference of a mind? From where I sit, the divergence is completely consistent with the natural processes of evolution. If you can't show otherwise, then your claims are refuted.
A brain requires a designer.
Chemical reactions are just the sequence of events which the designer established
That you wish to attributed the process leading to the formation of brains to mindlessness doesn't make sense to me. Makes sense to you? Fine. But to me it doesn't.
A brain requires a designer.
A brain requires a designer. Chemical reactions are just the sequence of events which the designer established so that the manufacturing of brains runs on automatic.
It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.You have presented zero evidence to back this claim, and it has nothing to do with the topic.
That's nice. How about you get back on topic and show us how ID makes testable predictions about the questions in the OP.It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.
According to ID, it cannot even run by itself, but needs the periodic direct intervention of a "designer" to create "irreducibly complex" structures which variation and selection aren't quite up to. Yet you are entirely unable to describe that intervention nor provide any real evidence of it.It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.
Especially when you get to say what does and what doesn't count as a prediction.When the data matches the predictions of one theory while the other theory doesn't even make predictions, the theory with the accurate predictions is the better explanation. That's how reason, logic, and science work.
It has to do with your claim that the observation that nature runs on automatic proves that the automatic function needed nobody to set it up. That premise is seriously flawed for very obvious reasons of which I am sure you are already aware but are choosing to ignore by claiming not to see.
Especially when you get to say what does and what doesn't count as a prediction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?