When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi CS, And you have reproducible verifiable evidence to support that assertion. If you do please tell me where I can find it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I cannot help your ignorance except by trying to provide you with the information again, and again, and again. Yes. Deoxyribonucleic acid requires no intelligence to begin.It is the result of normal chemical reactions.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you mean information with a useful function, then some examples would be the base sequences of DNA, such as the novel DNA sequences that we can see evolving in the laboratory; RNA species, which we can see arising from non-living chemicals in the laboratory; the products of genetic algorithms; and the "design" of lymphocytes by the immune system.---Can you give some examples of useful information of this type which was neither evolved, nor created by a system which evolved (such as a human), or by a system created by a system (such as a human) which evolved, etc? That is, can you show any example where we get this type of information without evolution being involved in the causal chain that led to its production?Sauce for the goose ...

You asked how it *could* happen and I told you. But I never expected you to learn or accept anything.You've never cared about it before. I guess when you lose the argument you can always fall back on that one.Let talk about the Big Band some more. That's always good for a laugh...

Hi Ringo, I am refering to information that has a message stored on some media that is transported by a messenger to a receptor that can take that message and perform a process.This is what takes place with the information in human DNA.As I see it an intelligent designer/creator is required for those process to take place.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The strongest of all reproducible verifiable results is that things happen by natural causes according to natural laws and not by magic; this can be reproducibly, verifiably confirmed by pretty much any experiment or observation you care to make.In the light of this overwhelming evidence, we must conclude that the first DNA was produced by real causes (chemistry) and not imaginary ones unless and until contrary evidence comes to light.

But how could you get an intelligent designer without evolution? Every intelligent designer we know of evolved.

As every intelligent designer must be alive (how could anything dead be "intelligent" or design anything?) it follows that anything which was intelligently designed could not possibly be the first life. So obviously that conjecture is false.

All molecules and all chemical reactions do that at some level. There is no "message stored on some media". The only information is the shape of the molecule. No it isn't. There is no separate message. The process is fundamentally the same as hydrogen combining with oxygen to form water. As I said, and as everybody else is saying, you see it wrong. Try to see it right.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

The program was designed to simulate a lack of any intelligence being involved.Are you asserting that the programmers failed in this goal? How are you able to say that without even examining the source code?If simulated mindlessness can result in complexity, natural mindlessness must surely be able to as well.

Nobody's disputing that intelligence isn't required to program a computer to simulate mindless evolutionary design. Please don't argue with strawmen.

For heaven's sake learn some basic science please before we all bang our heads into the wall....!Try - please try to understand what Ringo is telling you. Chemistry is all about molecular shape and atomic configuration - guided by atomic shell stability levels (i.e. chemistry comes from even more basic quantum physics principles). There is NO message in the chemical molecules other than the shape of them - and their propensity to bond to some atoms/molecules and not others due to their shapes and ionic charges - that's all the 'messages' you need. No intelligence needed - end of story!Here's a challenge for you: Without rushing to Wiki to find the answer tell me - how do chemists know (bearing they weren't there to witness it 4.5 billion years ago) that the chemistry of the 'air' on the very young earth couldn’t possibly contain more than trace amounts of oxygen (compared to the 21% we have today)?Why do we know this - have you the remotest clue? Why does earth today have the levels of atmospheric oxygen that we have? Any idea?This is BASIC chemistry - known from the electron shell configuration and bond energies of all the known elements - physical constants so fixed that we can make all sorts of statements like the one above - AND KNOW WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.So - why did the early earth have almost no atmospheric oxygen?Think that this question is irrelevant to your comments above? If so then all it shows is that you haven't yet got to a basic understanding of junior/secondary science that is needed to even begin discussing subjects such as double-helix biochemistry.You tried knocking Crashfrog earlier in this thread - you do know he holds a major in biochemistry right? Do you even know what the discipline of biochemistry covers? Its not for simpletons that's for sure. For the record I didn't make the A level grade of chemistry required to do biochemistry at a British University and had to settle for plain biology instead. My room-mate at college did do biochemistry and worked night and day at it - it seriously is not for feeble-minded fools!It basically comes down to this: The guys you have been arguing with in this thread all like to spend their spare time reading a lot - peer reviewed journals figuring heavily....guess what - that's what advances the learning and thought process. I'm guessing you like to spend a lot of your time praying in pews....that's your business - but this I will say - you'll not get intellectual enlightenment that way my friend.Stay with the faith threads is my advice - at least there you can talk within your remit - where science topics are concerned you really do look a jack ass.By the way.....I'm not a scientist, I don't work in any field of science since I left Uni in 1983 (I work in financial services), and you can tell by the date I left Uni that I'm no spring chicken either - so don't try the belittling tone you tried on Crash about being a college kid - you sounded a real jerk on that one!Final thought: What is your purpose in this thread? You are arguing against guys who are either extremely well informed scientifically if not actual professional scientists - whilst you patently have the scientific knowledge of a ten year old (seriously - my 15 year daughter is way past your science knowledge).Do you really think you can convince anyone here you have anything at all of value? You seriously think you can convert anyone? No? Then why look the fool - better to keep quiet and have people wonder about you than open your mouth and remove all doubt!

To be fair, if you saw my organic grades you might think they've made an exception for me.

Hi Crash,There was initially only two degrees I wanted to do - biochemistry or brewing (yes - there was one British Uni that back in 1979 offered a 3-year BSc in brewing - Herrriot Watt Uni in Edingburgh). Unfortunately both courses wanted a 'B' in chemistry - which as you now know - I didn't get. Biology only needed a 'C' in chemistry at the time - ever since my father has wound me up by saying I took a 'soft' science.....I guess he was right....but it could have been much worse....I could have took Theology!

Over here we have a saying that I've done my best to try to live up to: "C's get degrees."