Genetic Code is INFORMATION: Proof of Intelligent Design

[ftacky]

I can't. That is what theists do and that's why I'm an atheist.

You have a solid, confirmable basis for everything you believe? Not!

Let's start with the origin of the universe.

1) What do you believe?
1a) How has your belief been confirmed - scientifically?

Note: 'Confirm' in my usage means to have no doubt - at all.

2) In whatever you believe about the origin of the universe, please give ALL of the scientific details.
BTW, no theories please.

Romans 1: Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.

 

[ArtieE]

You have a solid, confirmable basis for everything you believe? Not!

Let's start with the origin of the universe.

1) What do you believe?

I don't believe anything about the origin of the universe.

 

[McBell]

I don't believe anything about the origin of the universe.

I believe that I do not know how the universe began.
Or if it even began for that matter.

Furthermore, I will even go so far as to say that even though people make all manner of claims, said claims are nothing more than their beliefs.
They do not "know" any more than i do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have a solid, confirmable basis for everything you believe? Not!

Nor do you -- but perhaps we might consider whether or not some measure of probability -- based on real and available information -- might at least give us reason to at least posit a likely guess.

Let's start with the origin of the universe.

You may, if you'd like, but trust me, at the end, you'll be no further ahead than I will. You will still "believe" in a magic creation with all kinds of intent and design and purposes of all sorts, yet you will have absolutely zero evidence for any of it -- beyond the writings of some ancient people who didn't have enough science to know how to brush their teeth properly, let alone understand the universe. After all, if I recall, they believed such silly things as the stars being little lights in the "firmament of heaven," openings through which the light beyond could shine through. That, at least, we know of a certainty is completely false.

1) What do you believe?
1a) How has your belief been confirmed - scientifically?

Why does it matter what I believe? Isn't it more important to simply ask questions, look at the data we have, and see where that takes you? For present purposes, we can certainly use Hubble's observation that in general, with a few local exceptions that can be ascribed to gravity, the galaxies in the universe appear to be moving away from each other (recently updated to moving away from each other at an accelerating pace). Now, we can also make a simple observation by doing any experiment at home -- if all the objects on a table-top are moving away from each other, and moving away faster, the farther from the centre they are, then it is really most reasonable to assume that they were all closer together a minute ago, and much closer together 10 minutes ago, and all so very much closer together an hour ago -- and so on until we can only conclude that they were all in the same place at some (calculable) time in the past.

And since that's what we can observe, it's not such a stretch to suggest that the theory of the Big Bang has at least some good reason for acceptance.

Now, what was before that? You got me -- I have no idea. And here's where the science-minded and the religion-minded part ways -- I'm quite comfortable saying "I don't know." Others can't live until they've got a definitive answer -- even if they have to make it up and then, as you put it believe it.

Note: 'Confirm' in my usage means to have no doubt - at all.

The science-minded always have doubts. The religious-minded seldom do, even though their evidence is hugely less valuable than ours, which is quite odd, when you think about it. It's one of those things that really should tell you that you don't really know, and you don't really care that you don't know, because you've got your comfortable (if completely fabulous) certainties.

2) In whatever you believe about the origin of the universe, please give ALL of the scientific details.
BTW, no theories please.

Demonstrating beautifully your complete ignorance of how science works. And therefore, completely unanswerable for reasons that I won't be able to help you understand.

Romans 1: Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.

And what on earth did that have to do with anything you've been harping on?

 

[viole]

You have a solid, confirmable basis for everything you believe? Not!

Let's start with the origin of the universe.

If I may ....

1) What do you believe?

That the universe has no origin. Or, to be precise, that the concept of origin is not applicable.

1a) How has your belief been confirmed - scientifically?

Indirectly. Via the ontology of time deriving from relativity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, "Choking is a major cause of respiratory emergencies and cardiac arrest in infants and children

You seem to be arguing against the idea that humans were designed from scratch by an omnipotent/omniscient God by pointing out how humans could have been designed better. I see it as earth life evolved through the efforts of conscious nature entities who are more advanced than us in their knowledge of nature, but are not omnipotent/omniscient either. Things develop from earlier things so humans were not designed from scratch and so they are not designed as perfectly as if they were designed from scratch.

I just want to point out that some intelligent design proponents are not arguing for design by a omniscient/omnipotent God (which seems to be the type of intelligent design the choking example is meant to disprove).

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

(which seems to be the type of intelligent design the choking example is meant to disprove).

For the most part, yes. But the choking example also puts the question of intelligence, or even competence, in question. Not just omnipotence. Hard to believe that something smarter than us, would do such a poor design that we ourselves are so easily able to recognize.

 

[George-ananda]

For the most part, yes. But the choking example also puts the question of intelligence, or even competence, in question. Not just omnipotence. Hard to believe that something smarter than us, would do such a poor design that we ourselves are so easily able to recognize.

Because they are not designing from scratch but rather modifying an existing design. The end was not seen at the beginning. And mankind is certainly not even at its end yet.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Because they are not designing from scratch but rather modifying an existing design. The end was not seen at the beginning. And mankind is certainly not even at its end yet.

If that were the case, we'd see something more akin to the development of cars, or some other man-made technology, over time. But in Evolution, features are laid out at a basic level, and adaptations only ever become a variation of that. We never see fundamental changes or entire parts of a design replaced. Also, lifeforms wouldn't fit into nested hierarchies. This video explains what I mean much better:

 

[George-ananda]

If that were the case, we'd see something more akin to the development of cars, or some other man-made technology, over time. But in Evolution, features are laid out at a basic level, and adaptations only ever become a variation of that. We never see fundamental changes or entire parts of a design replaced.

I am arguing for evolution but fostered by intelligent but not omniscient nature entities/spirits. They proceed by making little genetic changes and observing the results. It is not like designing a new model of car from scratch (just using wisdom gained from previous models). Nature spirits can not say lets try replacing the heart in the next model with some other circulation device in one fell swoop.

Also, lifeforms wouldn't fit into nested hierarchies.

Why not? You may not have understood I support the concepts of evolution too.

This video explains what I mean much better:

I started to watch it and got the point. It seems like it is arguing against anti-evolutionists which I am not.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I am arguing for evolution but fostered by intelligent but not omniscient nature entities/spirits.

I'm well aware of what you're arguing. I'm telling you that evolution with guided intelligence would be different than what is seen.

They proceed by making little genetic changes and observing the results. It is not like designing a new model of car from scratch (just using wisdom gained from previous models). Nature spirits can not say lets try replacing the heart in the next model with some other circulation device in one fell swoop.

Then it's not guided by intelligence. It's just natural selection.

I started to watch it and got the point. It seems like it is arguing against anti-evolutionists which I am not.

It's also arguing against some form of intelligence being involved in the physical make-up of lifeforms.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm telling you that evolution with guided intelligence would be different than what is seen.

How so? Remember the end is not seen from the beginning.

Then it's not guided by intelligence. It's just natural selection.

Why could not genetic manipulation also occur? When humans do it, it is not called 'natural selection' but GMO.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

How so? Remember the end is not seen from the beginning.

The beginning is often seen from the "end" (or some random point in time).

Why could not genetic manipulation also occur? When humans do it, it is not called 'natural selection' but GMO.

When humans do it, we really do see entire parts switched around and/or replaced arbitrarily, as if we were designing an automobile. We have goats that produce spider silk in their milk. You don't see that sort of thing in nature. To argue that some high form of intelligent deity is manipulating genes at such a crude level, yet, we humans do a better job at it with far more precision, is very telling that there isn't any intelligence involved in Evolution.

 

[George-ananda]

When humans do it, we really do see entire parts switched around and/or replaced arbitrarily, as if we were designing an automobile. We have goats that produce spider silk in their milk. You don't see that sort of thing in nature. To argue that some high form of intelligent deity is manipulating genes at such a crude level, yet, we humans do a better job at it with far more precision, is very telling that there isn't any intelligence involved in Evolution.

The design I am talking about goes back to abiogenesis and the formation of DNA (genetic codes). Also, the billion and one processes required for advanced life that developed. As for the goat, nature's goals are not the same as human goals.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The design I am talking about goes back to abiogenesis and the formation of DNA (genetic codes).

Then that would be abiogenesis with a guided intelligence, not evolution with a guided intelligence.

Also, the billion and one processes required for advanced life that developed. As for the goat, nature's goals are not the same as human goals.

It's not about goals. It's about efficiency of certain configurations in lifeforms.

 

[George-ananda]

Then that would be abiogenesis with a guided intelligence, not evolution with a guided intelligence.

They both have guided intelligence at work.

It's not about goals. It's about efficiency of certain configurations in lifeforms.

Why is it about 'efficiency of certain configurations in lifeforms'? Sounds like a human assumption.[/QUOTE]

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Why is it about 'efficiency of certain configurations in lifeforms'? Sounds like a human assumption.

Any intelligent designer would aim to make their inventions as efficient as possible. There's a lot of redundancy seen in life on Earth.

 

[George-ananda]

Any intelligent designer would aim to make their inventions as efficient as possible. There's a lot of redundancy seen in life on Earth.

Redundancy is just bad for the goals you have assumed on nature. Efficiency too.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Redundancy is just bad for the goals you have assumed on nature. .

It's not an assumption that the trachea and esophagus function as pathways for breathable air and food, respectively. Two pathways that redundantly meet and cross, with a coughing reflex evolved to mitigate this major flaw.

 

[George-ananda]

It's not an assumption that the trachea and esophagus function as pathways for breathable air and food, respectively. Two pathways that redundantly meet and cross, with a coughing reflex evolved to mitigate this major flaw.

You're jumping backwards in the argument with that point. Our debate started with that point granted.

I have since mentioned that the designers are not omniscient/omnipotent. Also, that this design may have started without the end being known. I think if God wanted a perfect universe from the start we would have a perfect universe. It might be that gradual development by imperfect beings is the goal. But that part is just my speculation.