DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

It's God's will as stated in Scripture.  The just and the un-just are in this together.

Which answers nothing

[Succubus]

Well that's a nice welcoming message.

Every post by your detractors in this three pronged clusterfuck of a thread is a welcome message. They are standard issue replies to fundie trolls.

I see your presence in the usual fundie haunts is now zero, why is that?
Why do you so much enjoy the relentless battering you receive here. Is it masochism, self flagellation? Or pehaps did you some time ago realize the story of Christianity is utter bollocks and your mind is in turmoil and what you are doing here is a silent cry for help. A painless Celice.

Or are you (in my firsts estimation) a boring fundie cunt troll?

Please reply soonest.

[Amarok]

So G.G's arguments inn a nutshell 

1. Because man made information is intelligently made . Therefore all information in intelligently made . This doesn't follow .

2. Poking holes in others theories instead of supporting his own  

3. Video spam without any actual engagement 

4. Asserting his religious statements and using weak logic

[Bucky Ball]

CDF47
The rain falls on the just and the un-just alike.

---

Love means never having to say you’re sorry

[The Grand Nudger]

---

You wouldn't have the first clue as to what my opinions were , to judge them one way or another.  This is what, the second time you've responded to my question without so much as approaching an answer to my question?

Do you not know when you first heard or saw that statement?  If so, so be it, but stop saying stupid shit..I don't care and I'm not asking.

I think I know enough of your opinions to know I totally and whole-heartedly disagree with them.

I strongly doubt that you know enough about anything to disagree in any other way, but...again, I'm not interested in that silly shit.  

Can you provide attribution for this whole-hearted but empty headed statement, or not?

[Amarok]

Why would that need a defense?  There has to be a good objection first

That's not the way logic works . Your statement is essentially it's right because it hasn't proven wrong .....Dumb .

---

So what did you just prove?

That one shouldn't rely on him to settle the evolution creation debate and that his ignorance of something doesn't help your case .

[vulcanlogician]

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:

I don't accept that information only originates from mind(s)? Can you offer some proof of that?

 
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 it looks like you simply read my post on the first page and replied to my comment there. What's up with that? I insist that you read the entire thread before we continue this conversation… just to make sure we're on the same page.

 
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!

[Foxaèr]

I was just poking fun at what a monstrosity this thread has become!

Indeed.

[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

[The Grand Nudger]

Yabut, "god" made the trees, too.  Ipso facto the information in the trees came from a mind, like all information, just not your mind.  It's the same ridiculous circle as before with design.

Show a person some undesigned thing, they swear it's also godesigned.  Show a person a designed thing that didn't come from any mind, they swear that the thing that did the designing came from a mind, and that that mind in turn came from a god.  All of this is obvious, ofc.  It's pointless to treat these beliefs as some sort of postulate that the holder will rationally adopt or abandon, because they simply aren't.  They have a history as part of a social movement, but beyond that, nada.  

Case in point...from the beginning of this thread (and any other "design" thread) a person can adopt a very accepting stance towards the putative claim.  That there is some design to life.  Sure, okay, we can take that and see that it's compatible, at least in principle, with the facts of biology.  We even understand the set of laws and circumstances that produced it - but this won't be acceptable to a creationist, that's not what they're talking about.  They don't think things were "designed" any more than they think "information" comes from minds.  Natural designs and information have nothing to do with what they're trying to express.  They think the answer to every question, and obviously so, is tinker goddidit.  

That's it, that's all.  The rest is fluff and filler.  LOL, a thousand pages of filler. There's no example of design or information that they haven't already decided somehow ultimately comes from tinkergod, because their belief that all things ultimately come from the tinker god is the only thing informing these assertions - none of which...despite constant protestations to the contrary, are actually informing their belief in the tinkergod.