Creationists

[newpolitics]

Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.

You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious.

Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.

Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.

The fact that we don't see life forms arise today is irrelevant,

Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.

since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.

Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the information itself digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!

Game, set, match.

I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.

Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break. It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.

1. DNA is a binary code
2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind

Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.

This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap. There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.

ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!

 

[newpolitics]

What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?

I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.

I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. This is really annoying, and is inappropriate, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then stop acting so immature. Get over it, and move on.

Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you. That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious.

Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.

Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.


Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.

since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.

Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the information itself digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!

Game, set, match.

I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.

Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break. It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.

1. DNA is a binary code
2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind

Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.

This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap. There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.

ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!

No, you still haven't grasped the theory. Meyer's theory uses the exact same scientific method Darwin and Lyell used so for you to question its validity is for you to deny you very own theory of evolution. Since in several posts you haven't comprehended the salient points of the theory, I would encourage you to get the book and read it if you want to continue the discussion. Short of you doing that, it is pointless for you to debate something you know nothing about.

To segment posts, add "[QU..TE]" before your comment and then when you are done commenting, add the VERY first bracketed term "

" by copying and pasting it each time. HINT: you could have figured this out on your own every time you quote me by looking to see what I was inserting to segment the post. That is how I figured it out.

 

[UltimateReality]

I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.

I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. This is really annoying, and is inappropriate, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then stop acting so immature. Get over it, and move on.

Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nagel is not afraid to take unpopular positions, and he does not seem to mind the obloquy that goes with that territory. "In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism," he writes, "heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives. Above all, I would like to extend the boundaries of what is not regarded as unthinkable, in light of how little we really understand about the world." Nagel has endorsed the negative conclusions of the much-maligned Intelligent Design movement, and he has defended it from the charge that it is inherently unscientific. In 2009 he even went so far as to recommend Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, a flagship declaration of Intelligent Design, as a book of the year. For that piece of blasphemy Nagel paid the predictable price; he was said to be arrogant, dangerous to children, a disgrace, hypocritical, ignorant, mind-polluting, reprehensible, stupid, unscientific, and in general a less than wholly upstanding citizen of the republic of letters.

His new book will probably call forth similar denunciations: except for atheism, Nagel rejects nearly every contention of materialist naturalism. Mind and Cosmos rejects, first, the claim that life has come to be just by the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry. As Nagel points out, this is extremely improbable, at least given current evidence: no one has suggested any reasonably plausible process whereby this could have happened. As Nagel remarks, "It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis."


In <em>The New Republic</em>, Plantinga on Nagel (and Stephen Meyer) - Evolution News & Views

 

[newpolitics]

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again. Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

-I am not an arbiter here, and I never claimed I was, so I am not sure why you are holding me to this standard. You would have to pay me to do this, and would imply that I can not have a position on either side. I am engaged in this debate, so can not be an arbiter.

-I don't care for your reasons in asking for credentials. You are missing the point. I just care about the fact that I have to look at huge bold pink lettering, which is being used to get some non-related information to the discussion, and that this is a completely self-involved act that has nothing to do with anybody else. That is why it is annoying. Send them a message if you must, but unless someone is stating expertise and using an argument from authority, I don't see how this information is ever pertinent.

 

[newpolitics]

Nagel is not afraid to take unpopular positions, and he does not seem to mind the obloquy that goes with that territory. "In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism," he writes, "heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives. Above all, I would like to extend the boundaries of what is not regarded as unthinkable, in light of how little we really understand about the world." Nagel has endorsed the negative conclusions of the much-maligned Intelligent Design movement, and he has defended it from the charge that it is inherently unscientific. In 2009 he even went so far as to recommend Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, a flagship declaration of Intelligent Design, as a book of the year. For that piece of blasphemy Nagel paid the predictable price; he was said to be arrogant, dangerous to children, a disgrace, hypocritical, ignorant, mind-polluting, reprehensible, stupid, unscientific, and in general a less than wholly upstanding citizen of the republic of letters.

His new book will probably call forth similar denunciations: except for atheism, Nagel rejects nearly every contention of materialist naturalism. Mind and Cosmos rejects, first, the claim that life has come to be just by the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry. As Nagel points out, this is extremely improbable, at least given current evidence: no one has suggested any reasonably plausible process whereby this could have happened. As Nagel remarks, "It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis."


In <em>The New Republic</em>, Plantinga on Nagel (and Stephen Meyer) - Evolution News & Views

Argument from popularity. What's your point here? Just because a smart person agrees with this theory, doesn't give it any more credibility.

 

[newpolitics]

Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.

Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.


Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago. Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the information itself digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!

Game, set, match.

I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.

Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break. It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.

1. DNA is a binary code
2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind

Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.

This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap. There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.

ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!

No, you still haven't grasped the theory. Meyer's theory uses the exact same scientific method Darwin and Lyell used so for you to question its validity is for you to deny you very own theory of evolution. Since in several posts you haven't comprehended the salient points of the theory, I would encourage you to get the book and read it if you want to continue the discussion. Short of you doing that, it is pointless for you to debate something you know nothing about.

To segment posts, add "[QU..TE]" before your comment and then when you are done commenting, add the VERY first bracketed term "

" by copying and pasting it each time. HINT: you could have figured this out on your own every time you quote me by looking to see what I was inserting to segment the post. That is how I figured it out.

Thanks for the tip...


Meyer's theory does not use the scientific method. His methods of assessment may be scientific, in studying cells or in assessing the universe, but where he is drawing his conclusions from, makes his method unscientific. He draws conclusions from incredulity and induction, not deduction. He has no direct evidence for his claims, and simply says "I can't imagine how this could have happened naturally, so, there must be an intelligent designer. Oh, and, we have proof of other binary codes being made by intelligent minds, so this is further proof."

... That's not proof, evidence, or science. This is just personal incredulity and a lack of imagination.

Tell me what I am missing UR. I realize this is a very basic overview, but no amount of detail will change what ID is at its base. It is an argument from argument/personal incredulity, once again. There is no point at which enough information will make this not an argument from ignorance. It always will be, because there is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. If there was, this wouldn't be a debate.

You're telling me I don't understand ID, yet, here it is, in all its glory:

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. (www.intelligentdesign.org)

This is laughable, and coming from the mouth of the intelligent design movement, so don't tell me I don't know understand Intelligent Design. This proves my argument. I don't care that the information is specified or complex. It DOESN'T MATTER. That doesn't give you the right to simply conclude, based on similarities with digital binary code, that they are created in the same way. That's absurd thinking. Also, irreducible complexity is a term made up by creationists and adopted here. It holds no water scientifically. The eye is not irreducibly complex, and shown by Dawkins thirty years ago, and neither is anything else. Besides, even if we perceived things to be irreducibly complex, that doesn't mean you can simply conclude intelligence. This is still an argument from ignorance. None of this is proof of an intelligent designer. It is a subjective incredulity to a naturalistic explanation.

 

[Hollie]

Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.

Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.


Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago. Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the information itself digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!

Game, set, match.

I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.

Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break. It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.

1. DNA is a binary code
2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind

Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.

This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap. There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.

ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!

No, you still haven't grasped the theory. Meyer's theory uses the exact same scientific method Darwin and Lyell used so for you to question its validity is for you to deny you very own theory of evolution. Since in several posts you haven't comprehended the salient points of the theory, I would encourage you to get the book and read it if you want to continue the discussion. Short of you doing that, it is pointless for you to debate something you know nothing about.

To segment posts, add "[QU..TE]" before your comment and then when you are done commenting, add the VERY first bracketed term "

" by copying and pasting it each time. HINT: you could have figured this out on your own every time you quote me by looking to see what I was inserting to segment the post. That is how I figured it out.

What nonsense. Meyer simply and carelessly steals from Behe and supplements that nonsensical drivel with the classic "god of the gods" fallacy.

No one expects you to be honest but let's remember that Meyer represents a Christian creationist ministry: the Disco' tute.

 

[Hollie]

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again. Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings.

Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.

And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

wrong again it's not assuming, simply because your individual tale of woe falls into well worn patterns of behavior.
you're not nearly as seperate as you wish you were.

Sorry to dissappoint you but your assumption is still incorrect.

I have no tales of woe.

if that's the case then you've been lying and have always been a creationist slapdick...

Insults is all you people have.


I pity you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.

I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.

That's strange because you have never refuted the fact of evolution and have only countered science fact with silly claims to supernaturalism.

Hollow you have yet to present an argument pertaining to the theory that has not been refuted,who are you kidding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.

Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies, or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.

Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.

Mutations do produce fitness according to the theory or your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow you are of the crowd that believes that only neutral or beneficial mutations get passed on and we know by the numbers that this is not true. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. How many beneficial mutations can you point out ? I am willing to bet just a few.

The mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism ? I know for a fact in most cases it has an adverse condition on the organism. I worked in a research lab for over 11 years studying mutations and cells. The majority of flies that showed any change at all were deformed and all flies suffered a shorter life span. The only flies that showed any kind of trait changes over a few generations those traits were lost and the flies reverted back to the origional traits.

I suggest you do some research before you call someone else out. Start with the conditions needed for mutation fixation. I pointed out nine conditions needed for mutation fixation to happen then how these conditions are impossible to be met. So let me suggest since you like Google to google mutation fixation and you will find several articles on it and why it is needed for evolution to happen.

There is nothing compelling about the theory unless you care for conjecture and vivid imaginations. Just about anything you can throw out there has been already dealt with within this thread. You can borrow your buddies copy and paste jobs because all you are doing is regurgitatiing what they have already pasted. Not meaning to be short but I don't like attitude from Ideologues.

Did you happen to notice that in your continued attempt to replace science with supermagical gawds, you admitted that mutations do occur, thus confirming a component of evolution.

I'm afraid that your conspiracy theories involving global participants in science and academia have again been destroyed... by you.

You have failed in understanding the true effects come from mutations. Mutations are copying errors,tell me things are not better adapted because copying errors in the DNA ? When you make errors while writing an essay do you leave the mistakes or correct the mistakes ? Will your essay be better if you allow the mistakes to remain ? I would like to know how things get more fit through mistakes that does not defy logic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.

You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?

I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well. You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.

make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.

 

[newpolitics]

You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?

I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well. You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.

make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.

No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well. You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.

make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.

No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

 

[newpolitics]

make my day then i will point out the flaws with your methods.

no, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.

No way!!

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

no, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.

No way!!

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.

Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old.....

 

[newpolitics]

light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.

No way!!

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.

Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old.....

... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No way!!

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.

Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old.....

... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.

I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.