(April 25, 2019 at 4:59 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 25, 2019 at 3:44 am)pocaracas Wrote:



You see that point where it says "I know everything"? That's where CDF is.

Listen to the new poster Guardian regarding common sense.  Inferring design from a Mind is clear and obvious in my opinion.

As we have established that there is no God, who in your opinion could be the intelligent designer?

(April 25, 2019 at 4:25 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(April 24, 2019 at 11:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

All of science and I disagree with you.  The genetic code does function as a code as discovered in 1957.  DNA was discovered in 1953 but the code was discovered in 1957.

Citations needed.

Dr. Meyer.  More information below:

https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/the-discovery-of-dna

---

(April 25, 2019 at 4:51 am)Kit Wrote:

(April 25, 2019 at 4:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: There's a finely-tuned creation, there is a Creator.  It's simple.

Incorrect, but persist in your delusion if you must.

It's not a delusion.

---

(April 25, 2019 at 5:02 am)Kit Wrote: A subjective, personal opinion is hardly representation of a realistic truth, especially when there is zero evidence to support it.

I provided plenty of evidence and proof.

---

(April 25, 2019 at 5:02 am)madog Wrote:

(April 25, 2019 at 4:59 am)CDF47 Wrote: Listen to the new poster Guardian regarding common sense.  Inferring design from a Mind is clear and obvious in my opinion.

As we have established that there is no God, who in your opinion could be the intelligent designer?

Nobody established that.  That would be to believe nothing created everything.  I do not have that much faith.

(April 25, 2019 at 4:59 am)CDF47 Wrote: Listen to the new poster Guardian regarding common sense.  Inferring design from a Mind is clear and obvious in my opinion.

I have listened...
And you are going in circles, assuming design which necessitates a mind; or assuming a mind which designs.

(April 25, 2019 at 4:51 am)CDF47 Wrote: There's a finely-tuned creation, there is a Creator.  It's simple.

Then why is so called creation so badly designed? Why do we have testicles that are so vulnerable to outside forces? Why are eyes so poorly designed? So many people must wear glasses and even those that don't have things like blind spots. Why is human throat so badly designed that we easily choke? Why can't we produce vitamin C like cats and get scurvy? Why is human immune system so badly designed that people get attacked by their immune system?  Why are there so many genetic diseases like diabetes or simply deformed organs? Why is human back so badly designed for upright posture that we get back pain? So why are these and other features so poorly designed, even when there are easy ways to make them better? One would think that an intelligent designer could do better.

Might want to fix that quote, @Fake Messiah . CD posted that, not me.

(April 25, 2019 at 5:03 am)CDF47 Wrote: Nobody established that.  

Finally ... now bebunk Dr Nobody  ....

At work.

Uhm.... except that it is simply wrong to claim that a lot of people's beliefs are,

"That would be to believe nothing created everything."

For example. I, for one, do not believe in the above.

I am quite happy with,

"I do not know what happened/sploinn/caused to our reality/existence back beyond a certain point."

Of course, as I think has been pointed out before CDF47 but has probably gotten lost over the posts.

There is already a theory which posits somthing arising from as near 'Nothing' as we've observed and that is Hawking radiation from a black hole's event horizon.

Of course.... in reality we don't see 'Infinity' and nor do wr actual 'Nothing'.

Cheers.

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: It's in the Bible that we descend from Adam and Eve; one man and one woman.

Science says you are wrong.

However, science has evidence and the bible does not.

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Meyer contests macroevolution.

Meyer is a crackpot.

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Main stream in the US on the Science channel, Discovery channel,..., is not Christian. 

Those channels are pop-sci, not mainstream science. Learn the difference. Plus, they really, as channels, have no business addressing religion except tangentially.

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: It is anti-Christ when they put on Dr. Hawkings and the others.

So what? 

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: They are atheist scientists they usually highlight.

The overwhelming majority of scientists ARE atheists.

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Even on "Through the Worm Hole" with Morgan Freeman was portrayed as atheistic. 

Again, so what? Is your faith so fragile that you must suppress any opposing ideas? Do you know what that is called?

(April 24, 2019 at 11:04 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The segment on ID was a joke.

That is because ID is a joke.

(April 25, 2019 at 3:33 am)Guard of Guardians Wrote: How can it rightly be called information without a mind?  They are necessarily linked by the nature of what they are.  The term information only applies to that which can be known or understood, and knowledge and/or understanding require mind.

Knowledge applies to that which can be understood and known, information is a manner of arranging data so that we can use it to gain knowledge. There's information in the safe here at my house.  Tons of it.  Neither of us possess knowledge of that information.  No mind does.

You're only expressing another argument from ignorance, and CDF has already met that quota in thread. You, personally, don't understand how material interaction can create, hold, and process data - but your lack of understanding doesn't prevent your computer from doing exactly this, nor does it constrain the reactions of organic chemistry. At a fundamental level, the very thing you refer to as a "mind" operates on the basis of material interaction in organic chemistry.

One of the more interesting facts of information processing is the existence of universal gates. Simple arrangements of matter that can replicate any boolean function without the use of any other arrangement. NAND and NOR. Here's an illustration



Any set of material interactions that can perform either of those functions could, in principle, perform any function of any digital circuit. Just takes alot of them to achieve what a more complex and specific arrangement could do. As it so happens, DNA is capable of performing the AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR, and XNOR functions. This simple fact of organic chemistry handily allows it to operate as an information processing device, it has more functionality, even, than would be required. That, ultimately, is the answer to your argument from ignorance. "But how can there be information in the absence of a mind?" - the presence of both universal gates with an XNOR cherry on top. This isn't even close to a full description of the functionality of DNA as it pertains to information processing, as organic chemistry acts in ways that can't be expressed by boolean functions at a scale of architecture that absolutely shits on digital circuits.

While a "mind" would be sufficient cause for the existence or apprehension of any information or information processing device, it's not a necessary cause, as any arrangement of matter that fits the description of those gates, however derived, would be just as functional as one intentionally manufactured. Thus, all that can be inferred, by necessity, in reference to these facts is that organic chemistry contains a set of material interactions capable of information processing.

The functionality of DNA (and, frankly, any comparable arrangement of matter) is a damning argument against the necessity of any mind or creator. Were it not for this functionality, it might actually take an intentional and mindful agent arranging all the blocks just so.....but since it does have this functionality, it doesn't. Just as you don't have to intentionally and mindfully arrange all of the blocks in your computer just so in order to post in this thread, and just as all of our mommies and daddies don't have to intentionally and mindfully arrange all of the blocks in our DNA in order to have us. Imagine what a shitshow that would be, lol.

Does any of this, though, dissuade you from your mistaken belief in the necessity of a mind? Were you actually inferring that from the existence of information?

(April 25, 2019 at 4:59 am)CDF47 Wrote: Listen to the new poster Guardian regarding common sense. Inferring design from a Mind is clear and obvious in my opinion.

If there were a real deity, I wish it would save us from engineers who think they know biology better than Nobel Laureate biologists.

---

(April 25, 2019 at 5:03 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 25, 2019 at 4:25 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: Citations needed.

Dr. Meyer. More information below:

Sigh. DNA is analogous to a code. Being analogous to something is not the same thing as actually being that something. You are analogous to a broken record, but you are not actually a broken record, just similar in certain ways. DNA is similar to a code in certain ways, dissimilar in others. Are you an engineer who can't retain information? Because this was covered in the first 10 pages in this monstrosity of a thread.