Tools are complex and are originated by previous intelligence. the very definition of a tool means to an instrument of use. If intelligence does not precede it it is not a tool! This tool analogy is not applicable however and is an example of question begging and circular reasoning.
Not quite, Theo. The point is that there are tools which are simple, but highly suited for particular purposes which, if one found them in a context where their purpose was unclear, would be difficuly to identify as tools.
If one sees a 'tool' such as an arrow head on the ground one knows that intelligence preceded the order imposed on the arrowhead. No one just thinks look what random chance produced!
As one who has spent many happy hours on archaeological field walks, systematically looking for arrowheads and knapped flints, I can tell you that it is often very difficult to decide whether a particular object is naturally shaped or has been knapped.
There are a number of rules of thumb - no more than that - which can help you. One of these is to establish whether the find is in a context of known human activity. If it is, the chances that it is of human, designed, origin are thought to be considerably greater. This is extremely important for your SETI example. Seti is looking for ordered information in a context (radio waves) where we know that intelligences (human) have already created ordered information.
One does not look at an encyclopedia set and say "look what random chance produced." We know that intelligence precedes order and ordered information.
Well who's question begging now? We don't exclaim at the order of an encyclopedia because we know how it was produced! We know that intelligence precedes the order and ordered information
of an encyclopedia. We do not know that intelligence precedes
all ordered information. We can make some inferences, and one of the parameters guiding our inferences must be the context of the ordered information. The point of the tool analogy, and the weakness of Paley's first "technological" argument of design, and of every intelligent design argument since is that the context of the ordered information we see around us in the natural world is significantly unlike anyof the things we know to have intelligent origin.
DNA is infinitely more complex than an encyclopedia set so logically a superior source of intelligence preceded DNA.
Logically? Later in your post you say you are aiming to "correct foundational and logical errors first." If this is your standard of logic, Theo, I am disappointed. It's like arguing that a termite mound must be made by a bigger animal than a molehill - without considering whether there are other mechanisms that could work to the same effect. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong here. I happen to think it is, but more importantly, it does not follow logically from your premises. You made a "foundational logical error."
Secular scientists have set the standard of impossibility at 10 to the 78th, the number of atoms in the universe. The odds and probability of DNA forming by chance has been calculated by secular scientists at 10 to the 20,000.
I presume you use the word secular here to mean atheist, though I wonder how you know? No matter. On to your foundational logical error, or rather the error of those you quote, secular or religious though they may be: a probability cannot be calculated for a singular occurence after it has happened.
I can calculate the probability of a coin falling on heads or tails because I can identify the potential outcomes before they occur. If there only ever existed one such object (not even a flat stone for comparison) and all I knew was the result of one flip of the object - how could I know that it would not always fall that way? This is the problem with DNA and the "specified" nature of the world. It has only happened once that we know of - and though we played with statistics for ever, we could not logically deduce the probablity.
No DNA by chance no macro-evolution.
Well, knock me down with a feather - another logical error! Surely you can see that a supernatural creator
could
design DNA with the possibility of macro-evolution designed in? I don't believe He did, but he could. The two are not logically incompatible.
Now then, it has been illogically stated that natural mechanisms exist therefore unknown natural mechanisms exist and that supernatural mechanisms don't exist.
Well I guess that is getting close to a logical statement. Close, but no coconut. I think your attempt to narrow the definition of supernatural fails because one could stay within the bounds of good english and good language by saying "anything that exists is part of nature, therefore even a so-called supernatural cause, is actually natural, though possibly interacting with known parameters of nature through means unknown." The tautology works both ways here and one side of this is no better than the other.
Oh, by the way, I love the idea of a creationist quoting Bertrand Russell to make a point about the nature of God. But then don't they say that the Devil may quote scripture to his own ends?
Life has only been observed to come from life.
You're not saying God is alive are you? Alive as in feeds, reproduces, and dies? Or perhaps you mean "alive" in yet another special creationist meaning of the word - well, we're used to those.
Furthermore, Bishop Ussher's time table is binding on no christian. ... Christians usually believe the earth to be about 10,000 years old so quite building straw men based on Bishop Ussher and find out what creationists really believe and why.
I had to laugh at this one. Personally, the common emphasis on Ussher annoys me too - he had his critics in his own time and it may only have been his former closeness to King James VI that give his work the Credibility necessary to get it included
as annotations in some printings of the Authorised Version. But really - the world is actually 10K years old rather than 6k - and Christians "usually" believe that? Very few of the Christians I know believe anything of the sort. And do you really think an extra 4k years makes a big difference to this argument?
Evidence of a young earth is abundant but this is too long already I will go through the young earth evidence later.
Looking forward to it.
It was more important to correct foundational and logical errors first.
Really? Given your standard so far, I am looking forward to your encore! Go for it, Theo.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-23-2002]
™ Version 4.2