(December 30, 2010 at 8:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think we are kind missing each other on this one. I am not saying that DNA is not replicated and used in biological organisms. However, replicating DNA doesn’t increase the total amount of information present, just like photocopying a book doesn’t double the amount of information present. The original information that is encoded in DNA had to come from a mental source because there has never been an observed natural process that can produce information. Is that a bit more clear?But Dna isn't replicated, the more basic cells maybe do this but they are not immune to mutation, mutation is the thing that increases the number of information in the DNA, more advanced cells made the method of breeding which is just splicing DNA, besides we already have proof of macroevolution.
Quote: First you said you knew the art was man-made because it was artificial, now you say you know it’s artificial because it’s man-made? Still too circular. Rather you could say, “I know this art is man made because I have observed man creating art but I have never observed a natural mechanism painting art, therefore I make an inference to design and say the art is man-made and artificial.”
Yes that would be more accurate description, notice that the point is not that art came from a mental source but that are wasn't painted by nature
Quote:Well only if DNA didn’t originate from a mental source, which is the very heart of the debate. I believe it did.Explain how that theory fits with the genesis rock, also doesn't explain all the other proof that earth is older than 6000 years
A)you have no proof that
B)There is proof that in certain parts the universe are naturally biased, due to that i often tend to think that the universe maybe naturally biased towards life
C)You accented your point Belief not science
[quote]Nah, based on the fact that this model best explains all the evidence and provides us with the very pre-conditions of intelligibility, unlike any other model proposed.
