DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

Yes, but if they are truly bad objections, one needn’t feel obliged to do so.  Substantive or interesting objections are one thing, but nonsense rhetorical objections are something entirely different.
... 
It can be a fruitful exercise, but that’s up the individual’s judgement, as it is more often a waste of time.  Responding to every silly objection thrown out, largely by those not genuinely interested in answers, will simply get one bogged down in tangential issues that don’t ultimately matter.  The main and plain points should remain the focus, at least as much as is possible.

Nobody said anything about responding to every silly objection. Surely you realize that that there are plenty of good objections to design theory. Even William Paley (the philosopher responsible for articulating most of the theory at its inception) realized that. He spent a great deal of time anticipating and treating those objections, too. Given the science available to him at the time, I actually think Paley drew some reasonable conclusions. But reasonable does not always equal true, and most of his ideas have since been thoroughly refuted.
 
 

I agree.  Misconceptions in atheist circles and in culture in general are pretty rampant when it comes to Christianity.  Most people are responding to things they picked up at a particular church or some charicature that doesn’t really correspond to Christianity in the historic sense.  Having said that, one has to wisely pick his/her battles.

I'm not here to stereotype you, man. Share your thinking with me and I'll respond to the ideas themselves. Don't assume that I'm some ranting YouTube atheist, and I won't assume you're a card-carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church. As long as we can agree to stick to logic, we can have a reasoned debate. Period. We can admit to one another that ranting Youtubers and Westboro hatemongers exist in large numbers, and influence even larger numbers of people... but that only has bearing on socio-political discussions.  Concerning this particular issue, we can forget the socio-political atmosphere because what we are discussing is a matter of truth.

vulcanlogician wrote:
 
It’s just a case of abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation.  In addition, we simply have no examples of information that we know originated from non-mind(s).  There are areas, like Neo-Darwinian Evolution, where this is thought and often assumed to be the case, but it’s never been able to be demonstrated as such.  Absent some significant proof or demonstration that information does or even can be produced from non-mind(s), we are entirely justified in believing that the best explanation is the one that provides a cause which is actually known to produce the thing in question (i.e. information).  And of course, we know on the basis of our everyday uinform and repeated experience, that information routinely arises from mind(s).  The question really is, why would anyone need additional proof that such a thing is the case when our everyday common-sense experience screams out that such a thing is a clear and evident reality, onstensibly recognizeable to all?

I think that the question that must be addressed first is: "What is information?"

As I see it, you can saw a tree down, look at the inside of its trunk, and gain information. So the tree contains the information. If I inspect the inside of the trunk, I can gain that information, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE INFORMATION ORIGINATED IN MY MIND. To the contrary...

Since wikipedia is a good starting point, let's see what it has to say:

Information is the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "what an entity is" and is thus that which specifies the nature of that entity, as well as the essentiality of its properties. Information is associated with data and knowledge, as data is meaningful information and represents the values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of an abstract or concrete concept.

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

If you accept this definition (and you by no means have to...) then you will have to abandon the notion that information necessarily originates inside a mind. If anything, it must originate outside a mind. As the article says: "[Information] is that which answers the question of "what an entity is..." 

If you just DECIDE in your own mind, without observing an object, what an object is, one can (rightly) say that you haven't really gained any information. In fact, deciding beforehand without observing characterizes a LACK of information, doesn't it? So information, by this particular definition, originates outside a mind. The only thing a mind can do is understand it.

If we're going to answer the original question, we must first determine what information is (or how we are going to define it for the purposes of our conversation). After we've done that, THEN we can determine if it must necessarily originate inside of a mind. So first, let's agree on how we'll define the subject matter.

This may help you see my problem with your colloquial definition, if you can spare 5 minutes:

---

---

 

 
And no, I won’t be reading 1,300+ pages of comments and responses in order to make sure that we are …on the same page.  I responded to the original post, which was my intention from the start.  You may certainly choose not to respond to me any further, if that’s a problem.

Either you need to loosen up and get a sense of humor, or you just didn't catch my joke. I don't expect any sane person to read the entire thread, dude. I was just poking fun at what a monstrosity this thread has become!

Three interesting points 

1. So he doesn't feel obligated to answer "silly objections " silly being decided solely by him but somehow I'm to sit through  hours of silly apologist videos and one video on science that doesn't conclude his point 

2. His logic doesn't follow because minds create artificial(man made) information does imply minds create all information

3. The lack of a good current natural explanation for non man made information does not imply a non human intelligence