- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
But this "evidence" of yours seems to be nothing more then "I believe it".
Upvote
0
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.
That is your opinion. I'm claiming to believe what is true based on what the evidence points to.
People employ it's principles every day. Forensic science uses it to find criminals, they rule out accidents in search of intelligent agent at work. SETI uses it in the search for life, they're looking for specified complex information coming from outer space. They found the Titanic because they knew the debris field wasn't the product of chance forces.
"Wt hth Gd wrght" does not comply with the rules of syntax or grammar.
Shannon's theory tells us about the information carrying capacity of a sequence, not whether the sequence is meaningful or functional.
You're confusing "information content" (which, you're right, can be encoded in fewer bits) with "information-carrying capacity", which both sequences were equal.
It's the extrapolation enough new functional information to build entirely new species can happen that way which requires a leap of faith.
What evidence? Have you got an example?
Your evidence is life? And some weird made up definition of "life"The evidence that points to a reason behind why the universe came into existence. The evidence would be life itself. By "life" I mean everything you observe as true and everything I observe as true. There has to be a reason we observe things as true and therefore there has to be a reason we are capable of observing in the first place.
We did not give ourselves the ability to observe, so what is the purpose of our ability to observe? The purpose would be to find what is true.
The evidence that points to a reason behind why the universe came into existence. The evidence would be life itself. By "life" I mean everything you observe as true and everything I observe as true. There has to be a reason we observe things as true and therefore there has to be a reason we are capable of observing in the first place.
We did not give ourselves the ability to observe, so what is the purpose of our ability to observe? The purpose would be to find what is true.
Your evidence is life? And some weird made up definition of "life"
And why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?
No it doesn't. And questions are not for explaining, answers are.If there's not a reason/purpose for our ability to observe, then why observe anything? Maybe, the purpose of why we observe things is to find the truth. At least that reason/purpose does make sense and has more explanatory power than: "why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?" This is just a question with no explanatory power, yet there's still a reason you ask it. So why did you ask? Was it to get to the truth?
Brine shrimp observe things. Is their purpose to find the truth?
Those who do not believe in an intelligent designer who actually has a plan for all the design we see in our universe shouldn't use the word "design" because of the implications it has. Instead, they should use words like shape and form and then realize they have no explanation for why anything is shaped or formed the way they are because if they actually had an explanation then we would know why everything is shaped or formed the way it is. But if there is an explanation as to why things are shaped or formed the way they are then there is a plan or reason for why anything exists.
If there's not a reason/purpose for our ability to observe, then why observe anything? Maybe, the purpose of why we observe things is to find the truth. At least that reason/purpose does make sense and has more explanatory power than: "why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?"
How could I know?
No, no... you are appealing that what you do NOT know. In this case, that ignorance being how a certain complicated thing came about.
Not being able to explain it is not an argument for design.
If "design" is the conclusion, you actually need to be able to explain why that is the case... and your explanation can't be "well, this alternative here can't explain it..."
No, he did not. Darwin appealed to actual positive evidence in support of his hypothesis. He didn't conclude "natural selection" by saying "well, X doesn't explain it, therefor NS..."
EVERY "intelligence" that we have ever observed was the product of a physical brain. A physical brain that is itself the product of biological processes based on genetics - the very thing we are trying to explain.
So unless you can actually show that "intelligence" can exists WITHOUT biology, you have a serious chicken and egg problem.
We also know that natural processes are more then capable of producing such complexity.
We do NOT know that there is "brainless intelligence" out there. In fact, there is no reason at all to assume that there is.
The discovery institute is not a scientific organisation.
Try a real journal.
A language is not an appropriate analogy.
Because DNA is a molecule, not a language.
The "information" in english words is not the same kind of "information" as you find in genes.
There is no "communication" in DNA. There is no "message" going from one party to another.
Rather, it's a molecule involved in a massive chain reaction. The composition/pattern of the molecule determines the direction and effect of that reaction. This composition is what we call the "genetic information". But it's not a message... it's not a letter.... it's not a book....
It's a molecule. A molecule that is subject to change through variation / mutation.
To compare that molecule to an actual language like english, is invalid.
If someone shuffles a deck 100 times and deals it out in the same order everytime, how could you conclude "design" from that? Considering the given that the deck was shuffled.
I say such a thing doesn't happen in the real world. It theoretically could off course, but chances are so improbable that it likely wouldn't.
1 is actually already enough to refute the point that "chance can't produce functional things".
All of this went on long before the doctrine of "intelligent design" was invented. The creationist habit of claiming things discovered by science is a particularly unfortunate one, from the standpoint of reputation. So far, "intelligent design" can't do anything at all. You're just trying to borrow from real science.
Neither does "you ain't fooling nobody." But everyone understands what it means. You see, the huge redundancy in English makes such sentences intelligible, even if they don't fit the rules. This is, as I told you, why there is less information in your sentence than in a random string of symbols.
Notice that Paley had to use a human-made artifact to make his point; if nature had produced it, no rational person would have inferred design:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? -William Paley
And therein lies the failure of ID.
What there isn't, though, is semantics. There is no meaning, no interpreter. Just chemical reactions taking place.True DNA is a molecule, but language is not just an analogy for the genetic code. It has syntax and grammar, there are codons, intron and exons.
It's not invalid to call it a chain reaction: it is, in fact, a complicated chemical reaction.There absolutely is communication going on within the cell, translation, messenger RNA, transcription, feedback loops, signal-transduction circuitry, and gene regulatory networks to name a few. To call it a massive chain reaction is invalid, there are regions of DNA that regulate and control gene expression.
Both of those code for insulin for human readers. Neither codes for insulin in a cell. Only a DNA molecule can do that. That's why it's not really a code: the information is not independent of the substrate. It's the physical string of bases that matters.Regulation and control is the antithesis of a chain reaction. The precise sequence of bases is the code which carries genetic information. The genetic code and binary have a lot in common:
C C A T A G C A C G T T A C A A C G T G A A G G T A A
01101001 01101110 01110011 01110101 01101100 01101001 01101110
They're both code for insulin.
No, humans are known to produce code.Intelligence is known to produce code.
We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence. On the other hand, we never seen intelligence designing genes (except for human scientists).Invoking a known cause to explain the origin of the code within a cell is a positive argument, not one from ignorance. Someone can study the DNA molecule all they want but it won't tell them anything about the origin of the code anymore than studying the chemical properties of ink and paper will reveal anything about the information in a book. Information is expressed through chemicals in the cell the same way information is expressed through the ink of a book. Even if they discover a natural process producing DNA, it will say nothing about the origin of the genetic code. The origin of biological information transcends molecules.
Do you think God designed the first genes?We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence. On the other hand, we never seen intelligence designing genes (except for human scientists).
We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence.
I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.
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?