In all sincere honesty, Beretta, I do not understand this statement. Does this mean that organization cannot happen at all without an organizer? For instance, when sodium and chloride ions become arranged into cubes, are you saying that there must be an intelligent, organizing agent causing them to line up in the nice order? Or, are you saying that there had to have been an organizer to design them in such a way that they would line up spontaneously into their nice order under the right conditions?
Beretta writes:
. where does the genetic code's information come from? It's not just a chemical composition you know.It requires sending a message and receiving it and then acting upon it -code....you know.
This is another thing that I just don’t understand. Chemical reactions are just chemical reactions: you set up a specific set of conditions, you get a specific result. The genetic coding is just a massive complex of chemical reactions. The “information” is just the description of how the reaction will pan out, it has nothing to do with controlling or directing the reaction.
Could you please provide me a way to understand how I am wrong in this. All you have done so far is repeat it over and over again, and I just don’t understand it.
In any case the 747 analogy can just as easily used by someone arguing for evolution. No one "designer" directed aircraft from the the time of the Wright brothers to that of the Boeing 747.
No that's true but 'outside intelligence' was nonetheless required to put the many non-flying parts into a functioning whole that could fly.The same with biology - the arrangement of the parts is not merely following physical laws - something from outside has to have designed what exists.To imagine that minature machines in every living cell just got together with no direction and just managed to integrate and coordinate with one another, is ludicrous to me. Perhaps there is another explanation apart from the only one that evolutionists are prepared to allow? (according to their philisophical restraints) Perhaps there is one that fits the evidence rather than being forced to fit.
Analogies don't equate to facts, however. It is a fact, for example, that you have thus far presented no positive evidence for ID
Except to suggest that you look carefully at what exists. Remove the blinkers and think how many machines come about with no plan and no intelligence. What if you're just so used to thinking that there is no plan that you are utterly blinded to the obvious. The created things in all their complexity are the positive evidence for intelligent design.
Except to suggest that you look carefully at what exists. Remove the blinkers and think how many machines come about with no plan and no intelligence.
The entire point of science is to look at what exists! You, on the other hand are proposing an outside designer for whom you have no evidence beyond your own faith.
Beretta writes:
What if you're just so used to thinking that there is no plan that you are utterly blinded to the obvious.
But what am I meant to be looking at? What am I "blind" to? In short, how do I spot the designer and how do I spot design?
Beretta writes:
The created things in all their complexity are the positive evidence for intelligent design.
Except that they aren't! Physical processes explain everything we see around us, so why on earth should the fact that the universe exists provide positive evidence for ID when all observations indicate the opposite?
Does this mean that organization cannot happen at all without an organizer?
No, a certain level of organization can come about without an organizer -that's where physical law comes in -simple equations. However when you're talking about a biological organism, the organization is not that simple -in fact if you had to organize it into an equation, the equation would not be simplifiable. Like a book that just says -"To be or not to be" over and over again, you could reduce it to a repeating formula, but one of Shakespeare's plays would not be reducible in that way. In fact the formula would be as long as the play. That's how you would know that intelligence not physical law had come into the picture.
The genetic coding is just a massive complex of chemical reactions.
No it isn't, the chemical laws of the medium of DNA are purely chemical, but the organization of the parts is information superimposed on the system just like you can carry an intelligent message on a piece of paper using pen and ink,; the same message can be carried on a CD or on a hard drive. The chemical properties of the medium of transfer exist but the chemical properties of pen and ink have no effect on the intelligent information superimposed on the medium. The information content of DNA has nothing to do with the chemical arrangement of the medium of transfer of the information. It's an old university tale that DNA is a purely chemical arrangement. Dean Kenyon wrote a book hypothesizing purely chemical law to explain DNA -it was used in Universities for 20 years. It's those sorts of books that get stuck in as urban legend. He withdrew from that position later on when he realized that 'chemical predestination' could not explain the information content of DNA. A good book to read on information is Werner Gitt's "In the Beginning of Information" -of course evolutionists have 'refuted' his arguments but you should read it for yourself to decide whether they actually did or not. It's like going to a trial without reading the brief if you believe every 'refutation' tale of evolution.
The entire point of science is to look at what exists! You, on the other hand are proposing an outside designer for whom you have no evidence beyond your own faith.
No, I see the evidence of design and so I propose a designer. You on the other hand, see design and, constrained by an evolutionary philisophical predisposition, imagine that only material processes could possibly have caused these designs to come into being. You have no other options! Evolutionists wrote the designer out of the equation and then defined science accordingly -no God allowed, only what we can see under a microscope could possibly exist, no designer, no way. They think that reality relies on their definitions and constraints. They are the ones with faith. Faith that denies what is obvious to so many and substitutes whatever they can tolerate in the designer's place. "The Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom..."
What am I "blind" to? In short, how do I spot the designer and how do I spot design?
You're not going to spot the designer, he won't be wandering in the shopping mall -but if you really want to, you can spot the design, it's really not that difficult. Try the bacterial flagellar motor for a start, with all its proteins and all its interrelated parts -they have to fit together, they have to work together, they have to be coded for in the DNA before the proteins get made and there has to be a message that gets those proteins put together in the correct working sequence.You have to really spin an elaborate evolutionary story to get all those perfectly shaped (for their job) proteins to write their own directions in the genome and throw themselves together by an accumulation of the best mutations or accidents that could have possibly happened.It's called 'the matrix' -you're living in the matrix if you can carry on believing all that stuff despite everything that points away from it with big red blinking signs saying "helloooooo".
Physical processes explain everything we see around us
Physical processes are said to explain everything around us -according to main stream science and we all get indoctrinated into that belief from childhood on until we really can't see any possibility of design.You don't have to believe in the creator as a prerequisite for seeing the design. There is no physical law that can account for the complexity of life - mutations and natural selection don't even begin to get to the question of how life arrived and began to reproduce in order for mutations and natural selection to start working. A lot of things need to be there for reproduction to happen in the first place, you need to be able to convert energy somehow -without some kind of complex machinary, you can't do that, but you need it for reproduction. You need a plan and only then can mutation and natural selection begin to enter the equation but even they can't write the increase in organized information -they can just make mistakes and select the best mistakes, hardly a recipe for organized information. Especially the information required to go from our hypothetical single-celled ancestor to the human being no matter how much time you have. Apart from that, in order for the information to get to the next generation, the mutation has to be specifically and fortuitously in the sex cell otherwise it isn't going anywhere much less to the next generation.
, so why on earth should the fact that the universe exists provide positive evidence for ID when all observations indicate the opposite?
All observations with philisophical assumptions attached, but not all observations. If you look at the fossil record, you won't see evolution unless the interpretation is forced on you.There's no gradual increase in complexity in the fossil record -that's an evolutionary fable.
No, a certain level of organization can come about without an organizer -that's where physical law comes in -simple equations. However when you're talking about a biological organism, the organization is not that simple -in fact if you had to organize it into an equation, the equation would not be simplifiable.
Ok, check out this video (you can start it at 2mins 40 secs - the intro is not that relevant) - so you're happy with this level of organisation occuring naturally? At what point does a designer have to step in?
No, I see the evidence of design and so I propose a designer. You on the other hand, see design and, constrained by an evolutionary philisophical predisposition, imagine that only material processes could possibly have caused these designs to come into being.
I have no "evolutionary philisophical predisposition" - the facts are what the facts are. Evolution has evidence, ID has none. Could it be that your own "philisophical predisposition" demands that you ignore evidence in order to protect your own particular belief system?
Beretta writes:
"The Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom..."
This is new info! So what do I learn if I'm scared of your God/designer?
I have no "evolutionary philisophical predisposition" - the facts are what the facts are.
No, you do have a philisophical predisposition -you consider that since you can't see the designer directly therefore there isn't one.Therefore the cause of everything has to do with physical law. If you see a painting, you know there's a painter -you don't have to see him.If you believed that you had to see the painter before you would believe that he painted the painting, then according to your reasoning, you'd need to come up with a materialistic explanation for the painting's existance until such time as the painter presented himself to you. You don't have to see the painter to know that there is one.
This is new info! So what do I learn if I'm scared of your God/designer?
Just realize that if the creator is out of the picture, but he exists, then your wisdom is based on a faulty premise and your conclusions are irrational. In another way of putting it, if God exists then my conclusions are rational; if God doesn't exist, then your conclusions are rational.The thing is which one is true and can you afford to come to the debating table having excluded the one a priori. It's not that you can't believe that there might be a creator, usually it's because you don't want to.
If you see a painting, you know there's a painter -you don't have to see him.If you believed that you had to see the painter before you would believe that he painted the painting, then according to your reasoning, you'd need to come up with a materialistic explanation for the painting's existance until such time as the painter presented himself to you. You don't have to see the painter to know that there is one.
But this is a bogus analogy. I have seen people painting paintings. I have many examples of how a person can get some paints and create a painting, therefore it is not much of a leap of logic to assume that other paintings were painted by human artists.I have never seen a God creating a universe. Arguing by analogy in this way is a doomed effort, since by definition we can only ever use, as an analogy for the universe, a tiny part thereof. No analogy is ever going to provide a good enough fit to give us a useful insight.
Regarding the Realplayer business, did you restart your computer? You might need to do that before it lets you download videos.
™ Version 4.2