(January 15, 2019 at 3:12 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 9:49 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I didn't just write off functional information.  I even granted it ex hypothesi in one instance.  What you have done, however, is simply write off my objections without providing any reasons for doing so.  That doesn't work.  So you still face the obstacles I mentioned and you still haven't provided reasons or evidence for your position that functional information, if there is such a thing, cannot arise through natural processes.  As we've seen, clearly it can.  So your objection is that certain functional information can arise through natural processes, but not other functional information.  You haven't given the slightest evidence or reasons for this being true.  And I could care less what you infer when you look at a manufacturing plant unless your inference is based upon sound reasoning about objective properties.  Your belief that the machinery in the cell is a manufacturing plant is wrong in multiple respects.  First, it's not literally a manufacturing plant, but rather, to some people, it is analogous to a manufacturing plant.  In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't.  In the sense that both rely on natural processes to achieve their ends, it is.  In the sense that it is designed, that's the question at issue, and you can't simply rely upon certain similarities between it and a manufacturing plant to necessarily imply other properties that an actual manufacturing plant possesses.  That doesn't work as a matter of logic.  As a matter of persuasion, Hume stated the relevant rule regarding analogies that, inasmuch as the cases are similar, the argument has force, but inasmuch as the case analogized departs from that to which it is analogized, its argumentative force is weakened, to the point that, if the cases are grossly dissimilar, the argument has no force at all.  The similarities between the processes in the cell and those in a manufacturing plant are sufficiently dissimilar that your argument that there is "[something like] a manufacturing plant" in the cell has no force at all, and is dismissed.  Second, we know a manufacturing plant, or ones like it, are designed because of the similarity to other ones of its kind.  We don't have other similar systems to the cell that we know are designed, so we can't make the same inference in the case of the cell because the foundation of that inference, a similarity to things known to be designed, doesn't exist.  Beyond that you would have to demonstrate that we can know objectively that a manufacturing plant is designed if we have no similar cases.  This you haven't done and likely cannot do, so likening it to a manufacturing plant doesn't help you as we have no way of determining that a manufacturing plant is designed which we could then apply to the cell.  So the manufacturing plant analogy fails in multiple ways.

So, I'm still waiting on some reasons or evidence for your belief, and so far, despite patient interrogation over many days, you've provided none.  I would be well justified in concluding that you have no reasons or evidence for your views.  If you do, then provide them.  And I suggest you reread my prior response because what you claim is not true, I didn't in any sense just write off functional information.  First, because I didn't dismiss the concept completely.  Second, because I gave reasons why the idea of functional information is problematic.  You need to confront those reasons instead of simply claiming that I dismissed functional information without justification as you have done.  I did not do any such thing.

The only reason natural processes produce anything is do to the force of the Creator behind them.  Natural processes are part of the implementation of the obvious design we find in living systems.  Without a creative force you have nothing.  Sheer chaos and randomness rather than all the order we find in the universe and in living systems.

The videos in my signature show how this manufacturing like plant works.  There is no doubt it is designed.

Well, in the first place, you simply ignored the problems with your analogy and doubled down on your faulty analogy. But even if it weren't a flawed analogy, analogies are inductive arguments by nature, not deductive, so they can only assert what is possibly or probably true, not what is necessarily true. In order for your claim that functional information cannot arise through natural means to be true, you would need it to be necessarily true. It is not, so your claim fails. The rest is just quibbling over how unlikely natural processes are to produce functional information, which doesn't lead to the conclusion that God exists, only that design may be required to explain functional information, not that design is required to produce functional information. And this is the best evidence you have, namely that the cell and a manufacturing plant are alike in ways X and Y, therefore they are likely also alike in way Z. As noted, in as much as manufacturing plants differ from the known qualities of the cell, the argument's value is worsened. Do cells have cadres of workers that arrive each day and use their intelligence and ability to understand design and function to carry out the necessary tasks? No, the cell does not have any such thing. Which leads to the obvious question of in what way you think the two are actually alike, and are things that are alike a manufacturing plant also all designed? I think once you identify what is similar, we'll find plenty of "analogous" things that are clearly not designed, defeating your analogy. But even if we don't, your argument depends upon all examples of manufacturing plants being designed. Are all manufacturing plants designed? You simply don't know. Perhaps there are analogous manufacturing plants on Alpha Centauri that aren't designed. You don't know. Your argument is that all examples of manufacturing plants that you are familiar with are designed, therefore all manufacturing plants are designed. This is a classic induction and fails because of the black swan problem, namely you don't know what the characteristics of all manufacturing plants are based upon only what you know about some of them. In particular, if we accept that the cell is a manufacturing plant, then there is a large class of manufacturing plants for which we don't know whether they were designed or not, namely cells. There are more such "unknown" manufacturing plants than there are human manufacturing plants by many orders of magnitude. Given your ignorance of manufacturing plants overall, it's nothing more than sheer chutzpah to suggest that you know they are all designed.

So your manufacturing plant argument is a dead end. It doesn't, and indeed can't, prove necessarily what you need to prove. The rest of your crap in the post I am responding to is nothing but useless assertion. Your arguments are getting worse, not better. You're retreating to mere assertions, most of which are manifestly and demonstrably flawed and wrong. Do you have any evidence or reasons for believing that the functional information in DNA cannot arise naturally besides bad analogies and mere assertion?

(January 20, 2019 at 3:32 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


Sooo... Nothing you'd like to look up and offer as an answer, then CDF47?

Regarding what?  DNA definition?

---

(January 20, 2019 at 6:17 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 3:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Great question. ID is working on this next phase of testing hypothesis.  They are making predictions also based on a design hypotheses.

Lie. ID is the hypothesis. As such, ID is not capable of "working" on anything. If you intended ID junkies then also false. They are not working on anything beyond biblical apologism. Unless you count Ken Ham and his borked land boat as research.

ID researchers I intended at the Discovery Institute.

---

(January 20, 2019 at 9:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 3:12 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The only reason natural processes produce anything is do to the force of the Creator behind them.  Natural processes are part of the implementation of the obvious design we find in living systems.  Without a creative force you have nothing.  Sheer chaos and randomness rather than all the order we find in the universe and in living systems.

The videos in my signature show how this manufacturing like plant works.  There is no doubt it is designed.

Well, in the first place, you simply ignored the problems with your analogy and doubled down on your faulty analogy.  But even if it weren't a flawed analogy, analogies are inductive arguments by nature, not deductive, so they can only assert what is possibly or probably true, not what is necessarily true.  In order for your claim that functional information cannot arise through natural means to be true, you would need it to be necessarily true.  It is not, so your claim fails.  The rest is just quibbling over how unlikely natural processes are to produce functional information, which doesn't lead to the conclusion that God exists, only that design may be required to explain functional information, not that design is required to produce functional information.  And this is the best evidence you have, namely that the cell and a manufacturing plant are alike in ways X and Y, therefore they are likely also alike in way Z.  As noted, in as much as manufacturing plants differ from the known qualities of the cell, the argument's value is worsened.  Do cells have cadres of workers that arrive each day and use their intelligence and ability to understand design and function to carry out the necessary tasks?  No, the cell does not have any such thing.  Which leads to the obvious question of in what way you think the two are actually alike, and are things that are alike a manufacturing plant also all designed?  I think once you identify what is similar, we'll find plenty of "analogous" things that are clearly not designed, defeating your analogy.  But even if we don't, your argument depends upon all examples of manufacturing plants being designed.  Are all manufacturing plants designed?  You simply don't know.  Perhaps there are analogous manufacturing plants on Alpha Centauri that aren't designed.  You don't know.  Your argument is that all examples of manufacturing plants that you are familiar with are designed, therefore all manufacturing plants are designed.  This is a classic induction and fails because of the black swan problem, namely you don't know what the characteristics of all manufacturing plants are based upon only what you know about some of them.  In particular, if we accept that the cell is a manufacturing plant, then there is a large class of manufacturing plants for which we don't know whether they were designed or not, namely cells.  There are more such "unknown" manufacturing plants than there are human manufacturing plants by many orders of magnitude.  Given your ignorance of manufacturing plants overall, it's nothing more than sheer chutzpah to suggest that you know they are all designed.  

So your manufacturing plant argument is a dead end.  It doesn't, and indeed can't, prove necessarily what you need to prove.  The rest of your crap in the post I am responding to is nothing but useless assertion.  Your arguments are getting worse, not better.  You're retreating to mere assertions, most of which are manifestly and demonstrably flawed and wrong.  Do you have any evidence or reasons for believing that the functional information in DNA cannot arise naturally besides bad analogies and mere assertion?

I know about manufacturing plants.  I am an ME.  Those were not bad analogies and assertions.  It is so obviously designed it is incredible.

At work.

Well....... anything that might indicate an afferming test.

Or, failing that, something that's been put forward that might falsify said hypothesis/theory?

(January 20, 2019 at 1:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 19, 2019 at 11:24 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Having a different view does not make someone a moron.   Why one holds certainly views could certainly mark out one as a moron.    Not changing the topic, continuing to make same assertions, and not addressing the rebuttals also marks one out as another type of equally lamentable moron.

Of course he's going to assert something different than you because he believes differently than you.  

Dumbest shit I've heard in awhile.  My wife and I believe different things...but she doesn't tell me that 2 and 2 equals 5 on account of that.  

Without our communal basis of fact..our beliefs, separate from facts..themselves..become mutually unintelligible. Try again.

duplicate

(January 20, 2019 at 3:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(January 20, 2019 at 1:38 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You've had over a thousand pages to demonstrate as much.  If you could have..you would have.

I have but atheists still want to dispute the facts which I don't mind doing

You have not.  The above is an expression of your pride, not fact....and we all know what christer god thinks of human pride...don't we?

(January 20, 2019 at 3:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I have but atheists still want to dispute the facts which I don't mind doing

Quote:You have not.  The above is an expression of your pride, not fact....and we all know what christer god thinks of human pride...don't we?

Actually that is false. 
You false assertions about a "code" is not accepted by believers either. 
Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Christian, ("Finding Darwin's God") debunked ID in his own book. 
Christian geneticists do not buy your nonsense in many cases. 
So you're wrong on your false dichotomy, as well as wrong on the facts. 
Atheism has nothing to do with it. 

If you cannot produce a scale (with examples on both ends) of complexity, with examples that do NOT need a designer, then your central thesis is meaningless. 
It's nothing but a pile of poo. You have not convinced even ONE person here of anything.

(January 20, 2019 at 10:07 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 1:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Of course he's going to assert something different than you because he believes differently than you.  

Dumbest shit I've heard in awhile.  My wife and I believe different things...but she doesn't tell me that 2 and 2 equals 5 on account of that.  

Without our communal basis of fact..our beliefs, separate from facts..themselves..become mutually unintelligible.  Try again.

If your marriage is dependent on what 2 and 2 equals, then you have issues well beyond what I'm saying.

If you disagree with her on anything, or she disagrees with you, would you accuse each other of being a "moron."  Of course not, as I'm sure you love each other.  It's simply a disagreement between two people because the other person sees things differently based on their life experience.  I'm willing to bet it those things that you do agree on that make that relationship all the more special, and those things you don't see eye-to-eye on keep it all the more interesting because you can appreciate each other's unique differences.  If you both had to conform to everything, then it would be dysfunctional.

We don't have moronic disagreements, because I wouldn't marry a moron.  See, I got to choose my wife, I don't get to choose what morons join af, huh?

(January 20, 2019 at 9:53 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

Well....... anything that might indicate an afferming test.

Or, failing that, something that's been put forward that might falsify said hypothesis/theory?

The test was when the functionality of DNA was discovered in 1957.

---

(January 20, 2019 at 10:34 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 3:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

I have but atheists still want to dispute the facts which I don't mind doing

You have not.  The above is an expression of your pride, not fact....and we all know what christer god thinks of human pride...don't we?

Not a matter of pride at all.  Just like to discuss this ever important topic.

---

(January 20, 2019 at 11:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 3:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I have but atheists still want to dispute the facts which I don't mind doing

Quote:You have not.  The above is an expression of your pride, not fact....and we all know what christer god thinks of human pride...don't we?

Actually that is false. 
You false assertions about a "code" is not accepted by believers either. 
Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Christian, ("Finding Darwin's God") debunked ID in his own book. 
Christian geneticists do not buy your nonsense in many cases. 
So you're wrong on your false dichotomy, as well as wrong on the facts. 
Atheism has nothing to do with it. 

If you cannot produce a scale (with examples on both ends) of complexity, with examples that do NOT need a designer, then your central thesis is meaningless. 
It's nothing but a pile of poo. You have not convinced even ONE person here of anything.

DNA does contain a code man.  

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/genetic_code.htm