|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total) |
| jar (1 member, 76 visitors)
|
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,408 Year: 1,054/14,102 Month: 46/411 Week: 67/168 Day: 15/12 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
quote:. http://www.evcforum.net/Messages.php That one's a given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
quote:http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153 Another given... So so far we have the INFORMATION and SPECIFIED parts confirmed by the discoverers and researchers of the DNA code. How about COMPLEX?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Well, DNA doesn't have machinery, per se, so that part of the definition doesn't apply. But it DOES have a very "complicated or involved' arrangement of "units" in the nucleotide sequence, so it qualifies as COMPLEX. There you go, gang, all you need to admit that, by the english definitions of the terms, the DNA molecule contains COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION. Now I'll stop using the term, on DA's request.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
Obviously it is not common or make sense. Just because you think it means something does not make it common or mean it makes sense. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2931 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Yea its the same information as a mould has, to make moulded objects.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 5 days) Posts: 16112 Joined: |
That is using a different definition of information. I assumed you wanted us to use yours.
A sentence using the word "specified" and "DNA" in the same sentence does not bear out your point, any more than the sentence "John saw the blue flower" would substantiate a claim that John was blue, or a flower. The "genetic code" does indeed specify which DNA codons cause which amino acids to be added to the chain. This has nothing to do with the question of whether (for example) my DNA is specified according to your definition of "specified" or indeed any other. You are really not good at reading things, are you?
That one's easy. According to your definition, DNA is definitely not complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
Woooo,
Two of the three words were used by the author of the piece. That must mean, must mean...absofuckinglutely nothing. Do you really think Watson and Crick would support CSI? Watson is still alive. Why don't you ask him? Before you embarrass yourself more. quote: Source Oh yeah. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 5 days) Posts: 16112 Joined: |
No it doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1266 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Speaking of the English language, which is semiotic, and which I'm sure you would say contains or expresses plenty of CSI, it's a good example of a semiotic system which, while a tool for intelligent creatures, wasn't actually intelligently designed. Unlike the intelligently designed Morse code, it's an ever evolving accident of history. If you disagree, you might tell me who intelligently designed it, and when. The biosphere is full of communication systems that could be described as semiotic, both intra species and inter species, and involving plants and bacteria as well as animals, but it is extremely rare for the senders and receivers of all these signalling systems to actually intelligently design them from scratch as we do with examples like semaphore and Esperanto. Careful observation wouldn't lead us to associate complex communication systems with intelligent design. The I.D. inference is a subjective human mistake. BTW, has it occurred to you that, if you infer intelligent design for the simplest organism, you would need to propose a designer who contains less "CSI" than that organism, otherwise consistency would require that you infer that the designer was itself designed. Also, if you believe in a designer who designed our world, in arguing against abiogenesis you are implying that the designer designed a sterile physical world, rather than one truly "fine tuned" for life. Many in the I.D. movement make fine tuning arguments while also making non-fine tuning arguments, without seeming to realise it. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Yes, and the information in the mould was put there by an intelligent designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Go back to high school. This is REALLY basic stuff ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 44 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Can you explain why you see something in DNA that James Watson doesn't?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 2118 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Can you explain why you can't see what Watson and Crick saw?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 44 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
That sounds like a no to my question. I assume your cryptic question back to me is meant to imply that Watson and Crick's statement somehow supports your position. Since Watson has explicitly said that only the uneducated could believe in intelligent design, I don't think you can claim any support from that source. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021