Semiotic argument for ID

Not at all, plus belief is not the correct word anyway. Currently the understanding in science is that we do not know how abiogenesis happened. There are some hypotheses that are being worked on, some that have been mentioned in this thread such as the RNA World Hypothesis, but none that can be elevated to the level of theory.Trusting that it should be a naturalistic explanation is not a matter of faith, as you are trying to state, but a reasoned position based upon previous evidence. With individuals consistently looking for evidence of deitistic intervention, we always seem to come back with natural explanations so it makes sense to look for explanations for this phenomenon based in nature as well. This does not mean to close your mind to other possibilities, but simply the existence of a pattern that we "can call a code" is not enough to state intelligence must be behind it. That requires a far more illogical leap in reasoning than "all previous explanations in the natural world have involved natural forces, thus natural forces should be what we search for first." Human beings are known for seeing patterns where none exist, so taking a naturally occuring chemical reaction and referring to it as a code seems to fit neatly in human psychology.Finally, in the two threads I have already read that you have participated in I have noticed that you demand evidence from your opponents in the debate, yet your positions are not based on evidence, but simply on what you have heard. Such as the messages in the "Is There a legitimate argument for Design" thread: Message 135
Where you are presented with the concept that the evidence you are looking for was already discussed earlier in the thread you came late to and this was your response? No need to present evidence when the individual is already stating that they are too lazy to read the evidence that has already been presented. As much fun as lecturing to a brick wall is many of us don't trust the integrity of the individual asking for evidence to actually research the evidence we post. Why is that? Because of previous evidence, so flatly saying you are too lazy to read is the sign of someone who is just going to dig in their heels and not appreciate the opportunity to actually learn.Another example of your Excellent evidence gathering and debate skillz: Message 128
Ahhhhhh......The classic science amount of Lots of information. Yes, DNA has a lot of base pairs, but its basic structure is rather simple, which is why you keep hearing opposing arguments of the intelligence of a NaCl crystal structure. It is very organized! You obviously see the design (albeit, if God is a designer of things, then he is a terrible engineer, see: Argument from poor design), but that does not force us to accept your vision as fact. You should initially outline your position and post relevant links that show why your position deserves credence. Once you have actually taken the time to post evidence, then those of us here are more likely to deal with your claims through evidence. If you continue to simply make bald assertions, than as Theo pointed out in the other thread, Christopher Hitchens said it best, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I have to stop before reading all of your message to fix your mistake here. We both have abiogenesis happening. I am being honest when I say, "We do not know HOW abiogenesis happened"We know at one point there was no life on Earth and at a later point there was life...this is abiogenesis. We know for a fact it happened, we differ on HOW it did so. I take the evidence based approach that everything has had a natural explanation to this point, so we should begin research on a natural explanations to determine HOW this could have happened (Microbial Mats, RNA World, Deep Sea Vents, etc...). Hence we have competing hypotheses at this time. Whereas, you take a leap past all past explanations, find a dark spot in our knowledge and simply plug your God into that ignorance. However, your solution has a very poor track record as evidenced by the past uses of the God of the Gaps argument.Now, the problem we run into is how to test you idea. So, please present a test that if it came out a certain way would disprove your thoughts that God is responsible for life. What could not be explained by your theory?

Wow! I'm royalty now! Bow down Suckas!!!!!In all seriousness, I wasn't commenting on the fact that you had not read the earlier comments yet, but rather about the fact that you explicitly stated that you would not read them, being (and I quote), "Too lazy." This is not words that would be spoken by someone who will check the evidence once they have time, rather this shows a person who has their mind set and will not allow evidence to change it, hence in their mind there is no reason to even read the evidence.By the way:
Welcome to this forum, but if you think that reading through 130 something messages is too much, you may be in the wrong place. We have some threads, such as the Grand Canyon thread with Faith, that have accumulated over 1,000 messages packed with evidence that calls a creator god, and more so the biblical interpretation, in serious doubt. But, you have to open your mind and be willing to read evidence, not deny based upon your preconceived ideas.I'm willing to consider your idea as long as you are able to produce actual evidence, not "lots of information", "I feel that's", or "I can't see how's". Just seeing patterns is a known phenomenon called Pareidolia, so simply seeing something as a "code" is not a guaranteed sign that a code is actually an apt description.

Okay, then as a falsifiability test, you would expect to see no forms of complex specified information within nature that do not require an intelligent cause. However, several times you have been pointed to the complex chemical reactions that cause Sodium and Chlorine to create NaCl, salt crystals. These do not require an intelligence even though it is specified "information" How about snowflake crystals, wouldn't these classify as specified information?The problem I have seen is in defining "information". Many individuals have tried to include only items that would apply to life forms, yet cannot find ways to exclude all the other natural chemical reactions that occur as well. So, how are you defining "complex specified information"? Without this understanding, there will be zero moving forward in this debate.Also, I am not constrained to scientific naturalism, I am constrained by evidence. Until anyone can present credible evidence of some sort of deistic intervention, even a minute aspect, I should give the idea as much credence as that a leprechaun is responsible for my grass dying in my backyard, rather than the extreme heat in Arizona and the fact that I only plant winter grass. Show me evidence and I will give your idea credence, until that is done it is simply wishing on a star for an idea to be true, as useful as a hand grenade against a nuke.

Well, I have gone back and reread through several hundreds of messages to get caught up before arguing my point because my point may have already been refuted (such as the argument you are making in this case). Should I not expect others to be held to the same standards that I hold myself for understanding where the conversation is at and participating in an intellectually honest way by checking the resources when they are presented to me, even if I must search a bit. Nice movement of the goalposts by the way once I pointed out your "lazy" comment.I'm just saying that you must understand that this is a forum that has been going on for a long time. Many of us have dealt with PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) and are amazed to see them brought up once again, such as the argument of "Information" that you are relying upon. If the evidence is in another thread, yes the person who is making the point should direct someone to it, but if it is in the same thread as the current debate, asking someone to read back through the thread is a reasonable request.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Not calling you lazy....you did that yourself. I am requesting that if you would like to have a discussion about a scientific topic that you take a somewhat scientific attitude into the discussion. In other words understanding the current argument, developing ideas based upon evidence (not assertion), and testing your ideas against reality to understand if they are falsified...The problem is that you skipped steps one and two, and haven't even considered step three. You need to deal with the evidence that has already been posted, then post your evidence and what it means, and then defend it through testing. This is how to move the discussion forward. Otherwise, we can just continue to blindly yell at one another down two separate hallways, hoping the other heard I don't find this a serious mistake in my past thirty some odd years. Rather, most people have respected the fact that I ask a lot of them, especially because they see evidence that I am willing to do just as much for them...outside of those people, I find it is easier to remove people from my life than accept that a friend will not live up to the same standards I try to. Doesn't mean they have to be perfect, but actually put forth effort. Enough with the insulting tone, I do not appreciate it and have done my best to not be insulting toward you. If you have sufficient background to be discussing your claims then I am slightly confused on why you are posting claims that have already been refuted a thousand times. You do realize that the appearance of coding that DNA has is one of the few remaining bastions of ignorance in Biology where creationists/Idists can place their God of the Gaps, right? You are accepting an answer before enough research has been done. Not to say you are fully to blame for this, as many (including Isaac Newton) have done this same thing. I cannot figure it out, therefore God! However, this process has a terrible track record in the history of discovery. In fact, the same detailed information you require for life also appears in non-life (crystals) so what is the explanation within your framework for this?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.