Creationists

[UltimateReality]

This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator.

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.















The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.

Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon. A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.

The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.


A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.

There are some codons in the genetic code that don’t stand for an amino acid. Instead they’re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They’re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.

The genetic code - the language of genetics






DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms

Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.




Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code


The language of life

DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the ‘letters’. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.

DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme

You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.

Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator. Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.

That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.

Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.

ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.

This is in response to what UL wrote. We only have ONE other instance of encrypted digital code, and that is the one we created. When you say "all instances",you make it sound as if there are a lot, and that they are all designed. Further, you're assertion is highly bizarre. You make it sound like there are other binary codes we have "found" that have been designed by other intelligent beings other than us. We have designed the binary code to which you are comparing to DNA, so it is a little bias, based on this comparison alone, to then use inductive reasoning and assume that DNA is also designed. This is fallacious reasoning and doesn't sufficiently follow from your premise, because you can't demonstrate it to be true.

I never said encrypted, but now that you mention it, that makes it even more crazy. So you are saying the statement that the statement, "ALLl functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source" is not true? Even if it is only the binary code? Excuse me but written language could be considered a digital code use 26 letters to convey messages, instructions, etc. If you were walking through the forest and came across 47 rocks arranged in the pattern "Dave was here", would you chalk that up to chance and random variation?

 

[Montrovant]

How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer?

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.

That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.

Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.

ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.

You can write out any statement you wish with huge, multi-color letters. Your making a totally unsupported statement doesn't make the statement true and huge letters certainly don't prove the gods are true.

Here you go. I added some color so your statement would be more accurate.

 

[Hollie]

Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.

ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.

For that argument to be true, you need to append:

Because I say so!

 

[UltimateReality]

Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator. Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!

We didn't create the genetic code just the names of the chemicals and letters that represent the chemicals.

You better get in a genetics class so you don't look so foolish.

Like I said please produce a language that was developed absent of intelligence ?

DNA code is not a language. Complicated language is a function of a sentient beings within a social framework. Language gets less complicated as you move down the ladder of sentient creatures.

Your're introducing language with DNA because you read that on some page at the ICR.

They're making you look foolish. Don't be an accomplice.

You don't need anyone else to make you look foolish. It is machine language.

Wiki-use at your own risk...

Machine code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Montrovant]

Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.

According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle. What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.

Monty be real.

Here's the quote you provided :

"
Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick"

In some sense, appears, at the moment, almost a miracle. He was clearly not willing to simply call it a miracle. For you to say he did is either a lack of comprehension or, at best, disingenuousness. He says we don't know, not that it was a miracle.

 

[UltimateReality]

Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator. Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!

You are missing it completely. Let me describe it. There is no "god" involved in this theory, but only you and I. We can make a scientifically verifiable assumption and use logic to reach the conclusion an intelligent agent is responsible for digital code. The binary code was being used in computers before the huge world of dna began to be discovered. Only intelligent agents are responsible for functional digital code. The agent responsible for dna could be an alien race or the Christian God, but ID theory is science, not religion, so it does not make any claims about the identity of the designer, only that it is the best explanation.

ID is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Christian god(s). Your links are often to fundie Christian creationist / ID promoting websites.

Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to creationism? That's been done already. The ID'ers were exposed at the same wacky fundie creationists just wrapped in a shiny new package.

Evolution is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Darwin priest. Your links are often to evo, sciene loathing websites.

Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to Darwinsm? That's been done already. The Neo-Darwinists were exposed as the same wacky fundie Darwinists just wrapped in a shiny new package.

 

[Hollie]

How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer?

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

More of your 12 year old histrionics.

Your stuck on the "because I say so", argument. You can't seem to get past the dogma that is pushed at the ICR. That's too bad because you become the frothy, biased, religious zealot who has this need to attack people with his religious beliefs. Religion can be dangerous enough but in the hands of the true fundies, it becomes a mind altering hallucinogen.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

(wikipedia.org)

You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.

What is there to learn about ID? The natural world is amazing, absolutely. Beyond comprehension even, but to assert that everything that seems incredible is necessarily produced by a designer,

Strawman. You are strawmanning alot lately. Are you getting desperate? ID doesn't claim everything, just digital code in dna, which happens to drive every LIVING thing on the planet.

 

[newpolitics]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.















The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.

Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon. A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.

The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.


A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.

There are some codons in the genetic code that don’t stand for an amino acid. Instead they’re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They’re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.

The genetic code - the language of genetics






DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms

Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.




Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code


The language of life

DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the ‘letters’. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.

DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme

You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.

Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator. Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

"Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.

 

[Hollie]

You are missing it completely. Let me describe it. There is no "god" involved in this theory, but only you and I. We can make a scientifically verifiable assumption and use logic to reach the conclusion an intelligent agent is responsible for digital code. The binary code was being used in computers before the huge world of dna began to be discovered. Only intelligent agents are responsible for functional digital code. The agent responsible for dna could be an alien race or the Christian God, but ID theory is science, not religion, so it does not make any claims about the identity of the designer, only that it is the best explanation.

ID is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Christian god(s). Your links are often to fundie Christian creationist / ID promoting websites.

Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to creationism? That's been done already. The ID'ers were exposed at the same wacky fundie creationists just wrapped in a shiny new package.

Evolution is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Darwin priest. Your links are often to evo, sciene loathing websites.

Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to Darwinsm? That's been done already. The Neo-Darwinists were exposed as the same wacky fundie Darwinists just wrapped in a shiny new package.

Yet more of your 12 year old histrionics. What you cannot bring yourself to confront is that evolution has science theiry and fact to support it. As you are aware, it is only a few fundie Christian organizations and the Harun Yahya sites that promote creationism.

The scientific community has long ago understood science as the means to best define and describe life on the planet. We have (well, most of us), moved beyond the Dark Ages of the Christian church burning people at the stake for exploring the scientific ideas you find so repulsive.

 

[UltimateReality]

How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer?

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

More of your 12 year old histrionics.

Your stuck on the "because I say so", argument. You can't seem to get past the dogma that is pushed at the ICR. That's too bad because you become the frothy, biased, religious zealot who has this need to attack people with his religious beliefs. Religion can be dangerous enough but in the hands of the true fundies, it becomes a mind altering hallucinogen.

Ad Hollyman, I think you are obsessed with ICR. How much time do you spend there? Why do you keep quoting them to prove your points?

 

[UltimateReality]

Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator. Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

"Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.

See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.

 

[Hollie]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.

The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.

With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

Okay, so how should we proceed. If we say we believe the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo Christian God, you scream we are mixing religion and science.

If we say we will only consider scientific evidence and not make statements about the identity of the designer, you scream cover up.

 

[UltimateReality]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.

The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.

With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.

This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?

 

[Hollie]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

"Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.

See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.

It's easy to tell when the teenage fundies are frustrated; they resort to name-calling.

 

[Hollie]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.

The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.

With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.

This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?

They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.