Actually you are ignoring the argument. You can't say what *can* evolve over time ... your paradigm lacks substance. You have established NO FACTUAL BASIS or range for your statements. In order to say what you do, you NEED a complete picture. You have ALWAYS FAILED to be able to support your argument with facts and details. It's nothing but an argument from ignorant incredulity, (fallacy).

In order to say what you do, you MUST say what CAN evolve over time, and how complex that can or can't be. You are unable to do this. Where are the boundaries, what are the exceptions ? Exactly. Without this information, your assertions are worthless rubbish.

(November 7, 2018 at 1:39 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Argh!

And this post, right here, is why interacting with some people is so frustrating.

It's not a matter of who believes what. Or how many.

It's not a matter of 'Belief' period.

Please stop conflating the word 'Information' and the word 'Belief'.

The things in sciences are not 'Beliefs', okay?

I've posted question in regards to DNA as have others. Could you please give us some posts as to at what level your understanding about the molecule that is Dna works/performs etc?

So far all we're doing is watching you, CFDF47, spin your mental wheels and go no where with your posts. Just endless repeats of 'Nuh-uh! Godidit!"

Not at work.

(November 7, 2018 at 1:39 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 1:35 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Almost 600 pages, and where are we at?  The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Yes and all of those go to universities where they study how to defend that belief, an odd approach to science.

(November 7, 2018 at 2:28 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 1:39 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Vast majority of practicing Scientists do not.   A few genuine scientists, mostly in areas of expertise other than biology, do.   But the vast majority of those who claim to be scientist for creation are demonstrable charlatans  with no credible scientific credentials and no creditable scientific accomplishments.

Engineers,  sorry to say,  don’t count because they are not in the business of finding the Underlying factual basis,but in the business of applying what has been given to them as  rules that have already been constructed by other people based on those underlying facts.

The fact that you think being seen as “technical” In the eyes of such baffoons as would populate your church suffices as qualifications suitable for issuing pronouncements on The methods and the results of basic scientific fact finding shows just how totally lacking you are in the sort of judgments expected of even the minimally scientifically literate In this day and age.

History's most famous scientists believed in a Creator as do many scientists around the world today.

---

(November 7, 2018 at 4:46 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 1:29 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Information is a complex subject in itself.  Wikipedia has it defined below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

The entire reality of the universe is based on information.  See the property of physics in the Wikipedia link.

I am not ignoring the argument.  Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time.  Have you watched the videos in my signature?  The information in DNA acts like machine code.

What happens when you apply a very ill-defined concept to a very specific problem?
Yeah.... nothing good.

The wiki is a good start, yes... but we need to go to something more serious. Try here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/

"The term ‘information’ in colloquial speech is currently predominantly used as an abstract mass-noun used to denote any amount of data, code or text that is stored, sent, received or manipulated in any medium."
"In present colloquial speech the term information is used in various loosely defined and often even conflicting ways."
"There is no consensus about the exact nature of the field of philosophy of information. Some authors like Floridi (2002, 2003, 2011) present ‘Philosophy of Information’ as a completely new development with a capacity to revolutionize philosophy per se. Others (Adriaans and van Benthem 2008a; Lenski 2010) see it more as a technical discipline with deep roots in the history of philosophy and consequences for various disciplines like methodology, epistemology and ethics."




Your wiki entry on the Universe being information is... meh... a hypothesis. Nice try, but it holds no water.

(November 7, 2018 at 1:29 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not ignoring the argument.  Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time.  Have you watched the videos in my signature?  The information in DNA acts like machine code.

"could not"?
Of course they could.
Your lack of capacity to understand how the process happens (and happened) is not an argument against Biology.

And yes, I have probably watched the videos months ago...

It is a theory, I agree, but it is pretty strongly supported.  

OK, thanks for watching the videos at least.

---

(November 7, 2018 at 6:30 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 1:39 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Yes and all of those go to universities where they study how to defend that belief, an odd approach to science.

Defending the belief is easy.  It doesn't take much university to do that.

Quote:History's most famous scientists believed in a Creator as do many scientists around the world today.

Which is irrelevant to wither said belief is scientific or not

---

Quote:It is a theory, I agree, but it is pretty strongly supported.

No it's not and not it isn't

(November 7, 2018 at 8:18 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 6:30 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Yes and all of those go to universities where they study how to defend that belief, an odd approach to science.

Defending the belief is easy.  It doesn't take much university to do that.

Agreed but do you at least acknowledge that these intelligent design degree mills are in the business of defending a preordained position, and not to neutrally search for the truth? That would be honest.

Quote:Defending the belief is easy.  It doesn't take much university to do that.

Clearly it's not because you have failed miserably and yes it takes no university to spew nonsense .

---

(November 7, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 8:18 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Defending the belief is easy.  It doesn't take much university to do that.

Agreed but do you at least acknowledge that these intelligent design degree mills are in the business of defending a preordained position, and not to neutrally search for the truth?  That would be honest.

He won't because that would destroy his whole game

(November 7, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 8:18 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Defending the belief is easy.  It doesn't take much university to do that.

Agreed but do you at least acknowledge that these intelligent design degree mills are in the business of defending a preordained position, and not to neutrally search for the truth?  That would be honest.

Some could be.

CDF, if this grand designer of yours is so grand, why didn't it design your elevator to go to the top?

(November 7, 2018 at 8:54 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Agreed but do you at least acknowledge that these intelligent design degree mills are in the business of defending a preordained position, and not to neutrally search for the truth?  That would be honest.

Some could be.

How do you feel about that?  Do you justify it as being in the service of a higher good?  I personally would have some regret about that.

Have you considered keeping God but upgrading your theology?  I know people who work in real science, are ardent believers and have no problem with evolution.  I think asking kids to deny evolution is just a step or two removed from becoming the next technology avoiding quaker-esque commune.  You shouldn't have to choose between embracing the modern world and being a Christian.  I'm not asking you to do it for me; it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Just seems like a more comfortable option to me.