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.
For the millionth time-I am proposing an intelligent designer.What on earth are you proposing then? The same rules apply to ID where the designer has to be demonstrated to exist.
First, I don't identify it as coded information-scientists identify it as coded information. So if I apply the same criteria to it as all other coded information, then I am within logical parameters and you are the one being irrational by deviating from those parameters.But that is exactly what you are doing: you are claiming that (sorry if I do not quote your exact words) "coded information must be designed"... and therefore when you see "coded information" (or what you identify as that), you call it designed.
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.
Genetic code - Wikipedia
You are placing the cart before the horse. That's like saying that we are assuming that a bow and arrow are designed and therefore when we see a bow and arrow we call it designed. No one is assuming anything before concluding. We are concluding an intelligent designer after observations which lead us to that justifiable inference.
And as I have pointed out to you in other threads, your modus operandi prohibits that kind of demonstration.The problem is that it is not a JUSTIFIABLE inference. You make the mistake of taking for example the cell and saying "This kinda looks like a machine and we know machines are designed and made by humans therefore cells were also designed". As I already pointed out to you in other threads: Design has to be demonstrated.
It seems you forgot the "second".First, I don't identify it as coded information-scientists identify it as coded information. So if I apply the same criteria to it as all other coded information, then I am within logical parameters and you are the one being irrational by deviating from those parameters.
And as I have pointed out to you in other threads, your modus operandi prohibits that kind of demonstration.
That's like repeatedly attempting to show a person who keeps claiming to be blind the same thing over and over. Doesn't make any logical sense.False. Instead of repeating every time that something prohibits a demonstration: Just DEMONSTRATE it.
Bandwagon!
That's like repeatedly attempting to show a person who keeps claiming to be blind the same thing over and over. Doesn't make any logical sense.
It isn't a 100% agreement.In areas I am no expert in, I tend to agree with the experts who have shown why they are experts in their field of study.
This has nothing to to with "Bandwagon".
Maybe you didn't read what I posted: Instead of repeating every time that something prohibits a demonstration: Just DEMONSTRATE it.
So... we are justified to discard the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis, because "it isn't a 100% agreement"?It isn't a 100% agreement.
It isn't a 100% agreement.
So... we are justified to discard the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis, because "it isn't a 100% agreement"?
Realize that it is you who constantly wants to point out that it is the "modus operandi", the a priori assumptions and the "materialistic worldview" of... atheists... that makes them unable to see the undeniable truth of "Intelligent Design".
But somehow you think your side is immune from such biases.
There is your problem. You don't want to "demonstrate", because you cannot demonstrate, beyond claiming "it is obvious".Yes I did read what you posted. But that is an exercise in futility when those involved claim inability to see what should be obvious, have a modus operandi which prohibits any deviation whatsoever and who prefer to assume the supernatural when no supernatural is necessary in order to reject.
True, there are many opinions, some more reasonable than others. Please note that experts in the field are not infallible and have been known to make very serious mistakes. So a 100% trust based on expertise alone can lead to the entertainment of illogical ideas such as the geocentric model of our universe which experts of those times supported. Or the expert conclusion that the Milky Way contained all the stars in the universe. Or the former expert idea that the universe had always existed in its present form. These were concepts' which the majority of scientists upheld as undeniable truths until they were proven to be bogus. So an appeal to expertise has value only to a certain degree because humans are fallible and make mistakes.There is not 1 thing on this planet where everyone agrees on it. In some cases it is wise to trust the majority.
There isn't even 100% agreement on the shape of our planet. Does that mean we shouldn't trust the majority or the experts in that field?
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?