The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Well, it´s you who makes the assertions - so I´m looking forward to your detailed explanation how a mind designed DNA.
If that´s too hard a question for you, maybe you can start with something more simple, say: How do apples know that they have to fall off the tree in autumn?

If indeed I am as ignorant as you claim, and am asking for you to enlighten me-then enlighten me instead of evading. I am waiting.

BTW
Your apple analogy is flawed since the two are not comparable due to vast differences in complexity. So please stop evading and explain exactly how this repair mechanism suddenly emerged and why. Also, what was going on before it existed? Total ruin?

 

[Larniavc]

The ones that seem to be assuming some kind of mysterious ability for chemicals to plan based on foresight are atheists.

No body thinks the molecules of DNA can think, any more than people think the molecules in water can think when they align to build ice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If indeed I am as ignorant as you claim, and am asking for you to enlighten me-then enlighten me instead of evading. I am waiting.

It's actually you who claims to know things (concerning "design" and "designers") that we don't... So perhaps you should be the one doing the explaining.

Your apple analogy is flawed since the two are not comparable due to vast differences in complexity.

ow, I dunno about that.... Gravity, the seasons and the life cycle of an apple tree is pretty complex you know...

So please stop evading and explain exactly how this repair mechanism suddenly emerged and why.

How did you determine that it emerged "suddenly". What do you mean by "suddenly"? "Sudden" in terms of geological time... kind of like the "sudden" thingy during the cambrian explosion? Or rather "sudden" as in: daddy didn't have it, but his children did?

As for why: DNA with such functions is in better shape to compete against DNA without such functions.

It's not rocket science.

Also, what was going on before it existed? Total ruin?

Looking at all the life that exists today, I think it's safe to say that it managed to survive.

 

[Radrook]

No body thinks the molecules of DNA can think, any more than people think the molecules in water can think when they align to build ice.

Then explain exactly how they set up a DNA self repair sequence and what was happening before that sequence was established to deal with damage. I mean having a repair system without nothing to repair doesn't make sense. So the repair system could not have been uselessly waiting around doing NOTHING. Neither could the DNA survive without it while continually suffering irreparable damage. So please explain exactly what happened.

BTW
You are comparing apples with oranges again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then explain exactly how they set up a DNA self repair sequence and what was happening before that sequence was established to deal with damage. I mean having a repair system without nothing to repair doesn't make sense. So the repair system could not have been uselessly waiting around doing NOTHING. Neither could the DNA survive without it while continually suffering irreparable damage. So please explain exactly what happened.

Question.... Is it your opinion/belief that if anyone isn't capable of providing you with that explanation, means that your assertions concerning creationism/design/theistic evolution/what-have-you, must be correct?

If yes: argument from incredulity/ignorance
If no: then why even ask the question? Why then not just provide YOUR explanation in support of YOUR assertions?

 

[Larniavc]

Then explain in detail how it happened that way without a mind.

He you go.

DNA repair - Wikipedia

If you have any questions about the article I would be happy to talk you through it or direct you to someone else who can.

All the best.

 

[Larniavc]

I mean having a repair system without nothing to

I agree!

But having a system that works better when repaired would put what selective pressure on DNA?

Can you answer that?

N.B. See my previous post for an answer to your initial question.

 

[quatona]

If indeed I am as ignorant as you claim,

I made no such claim. Stop lieing about me, please.

and am asking for you to enlighten me-then enlighten me instead of evading. I am waiting.

I can´t teach you how to get from your premise to your conclusion, nor how to support your premise. That´s your problem, not mine - because it´s your premise and your conclusion.

Your apple analogy is flawed since the two are not comparable due to vast differences in complexity.

Yes, as I said, I offered you to start with a simple example. If you wish go right away to explaining how this mind designed complex things like DNA, be my guest.

So please stop evading and explain exactly how this repair mechanism suddenly emerged and why.

Other than you, I haven´t claimed to have an explanation as to "how" this took place.
Either you have an explanation (in which case I ask you to come up with it), or you have none (in which case it is somewhat odd for you to ask for an explanation as though you had met that requirement with your assertion).
In any case, simply postulating some conscious agent behind something unexplained does not an "how"-explanation make.

 

[Freodin]

Postulating some conscious agent behind something doesn't do anything to solve his dilemma... if he only would see that.

Somehow Radrook thinks that DNA would need to "know" how to act... and this "knowledge" needs to come from an outside agent.

But this doesn't solve the basic problem. DNA isn't a conscious entity... created or not. It never "knows".

So how does DNA self-repair work with a creator? This creator alledgely is a conscious entity - it would "know". So does it "act" on the knowledge every time DNA needs to be repaired?

 

[quatona]

"Explain to me how a car works." - "It was designed."

 

[KCfromNC]

It doesn't?

No, it doesn't. DNA isn't conscious or able to plan.

Your response of mutation and recombination and etceteras evades the question.

How?

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm listening.

Stating a whole litany of things you &/or we don't understand, and then claiming, "mygoddidit," is a fallacy. We define the unknown with things we know, not by appealing to a bigger mystery. This is why people who actually work in science don't accept "ID."

Can you hear me know?

 

[Michael]

Okay, I completely understand the source of this confusion.

Please tell me how I can differentiate between living and non-living things.

The presence of "awareness" in some rudimentary form or another, if only awareness of environment?

And then it's tested, isn't it?

Unfortunately it failed to pass any of those so called "tests" over the past decade. Dark matter in particular has been a billion dollar boondoggle.

Either by experiment or observation.

But it doesn't actually pass, or fully pass those tests.

And peer review. Helps to remove the bias, I think?

Maybe, or maybe not. At best case it can help to minimize certain kinds of biases. At worst case it can actually exacerbate the problem by engaging in 'group think', and selective publication.

 

[Michael]

Such as what? Explain in detail how there are things in a coffee mug which make the most sense by saying they arose naturally. You say, for example, that coffee mugs are made of the same elements that exist on Earth. Well of course, we don't mine the moon to make coffee mugs. But are you saying that, through purely naturalistic processes, metal removed the impurities from itself, formed itself into a specific shape, while crude oil refined itself, made plastic to form a lid complete with a little sliding bit to prevent spills? And another piece of crude oil refined itself into plastic to form a handle? Explain to me how you reach this conclusion, because I frankly don't see it.

Try looking at it this way:

Suppose that we landed on a planet with no obvious signs of life, and no obvious way to sustain life. We start digging into the dirt, and the first thing that we find as we start to dig is a jar of some sort, complete with a lid which appears to be made to hold liquids. It appears to be quite old.

Please rank by order in terms of whether you would be more inclined to believe that the jar was:

A) Probably created by a now extinct "natural" form of life that once populated the planet.

B) Likely left behind by a "naturally" evolving, but alien civilization to the planet in question.

C) An example of a supernatural "miracle" where the item in question was created by a supernatural entity with the express intent of being found (by you) one day?

 

[Kylie]

The presence of "awareness" in some rudimentary form or another, if only awareness of environment?

And how do we tell if something is aware? How can I show that a bacterium is aware?

Unfortunately it failed to pass any of those so called "tests" over the past decade. Dark matter in particular has been a billion dollar boondoggle.

Dude, for crying out loud, get over it! Stop trying to turn EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION into a rant about bloody dark matter! How many times do I have to tell you I have no interest in discussing it with you before you finally get it?

 

[Kylie]

Try looking at it this way:

Suppose that we landed on a planet with no obvious signs of life, and no obvious way to sustain life. We start digging into the dirt, and the first thing that we find as we start to dig is a jar of some sort, complete with a lid which appears to be made to hold liquids. It appears to be quite old.

Please rank by order in terms of whether you would be more inclined to believe that the jar was:

A) Probably created by a now extinct "natural" form of life that once populated the planet.

B) Likely left behind by a "naturally" evolving, but alien civilization to the planet in question.

C) An example of a supernatural "miracle" where the item in question was created by a supernatural entity with the express intent of being found (by you) one day?

My first option would be either A or B, depending on whether the planet showed signs that it could have supported life in the past. Of course, I would then have to try to figure out how old the jar is and compare it with what I could figure out about the conditions of the planet at such an age.

I would consider C to be highly unlikely.

 

[Radrook]

I made no such claim. Stop lieing about me, please.

I can´t teach you how to get from your premise to your conclusion, nor how to support your premise. That´s your problem, not mine - because it´s your premise and your conclusion.



Yes, as I said, I offered you to start with a simple example. If you wish go right away to explaining how this mind designed complex things like DNA, be my guest.

Other than you, I haven´t claimed to have an explanation as to "how" this took place.
Either you have an explanation (in which case I ask you to come up with it), or you have none (in which case it is somewhat odd for you to ask for an explanation as though you had met that requirement with your assertion).
In any case, simply postulating some conscious agent behind something unexplained does not an "how"-explanation make.

I'm just simply asking you to explain how your idea works. That's all.

 

[quatona]

I'm just simply asking you to explain how your idea works.

Which idea would that be?

And, no, for all I know about your posts, this isn´t all.
You are the one coming up with an idea (that ID is a necessary assumption), and since being unable to support this assertion and explain how your idea works, you try to make it look like me having no explanation would somehow miraculously give your assertion more credence.
That´s not how it works, though.

 

[Radrook]

Which idea would that be?

And, no, for all I know about your posts, this isn´t all.
You are the one coming up with an idea (that ID is a necessary assumption), and since being unable to support this assertion and explain how your idea works, you try to make it look like me having no explanation would somehow miraculously give your assertion more credence.
That´s not how it works, though.

You know what I am talking about since I ask you on other threads to give me an explanation and you just run away like you are doing now.

 

[Michael]

My first option would be either A or B, depending on whether the planet showed signs that it could have supported life in the past. Of course, I would then have to try to figure out how old the jar is and compare it with what I could figure out about the conditions of the planet at such an age.

I would consider C to be highly unlikely.

In all cases however, you would assume that the jar was "intelligently designed"? Even something that forms 'naturally' (by living organisms) can be "intelligently designed'. That's pretty much how I envision DNA.