Evidence for God from Science

Danny

Explain why you assume this. What understanding of biology must I have here, and why?

I assumed that because from what i can tell you all are very genuine and aren't xtian stereotypes.
While i don't know how much biology you would need to know, the reasons why is so you aren't subjecting yourself to confirmation bias and just looking for what sounds like it is defending your argument. With the knowledge you would be able to tell if it helps your argument or not.

Meyer is adept at communicating the intricacies of information theory and the implications of the information-rich cell.

From what i have, he doesn't really have anything that would make him credible to say anything about biology.

Do what? Just ignore reading material?

yeah

You're not coming off very sincere here, Sailor!

I know, my wife tell me that all the time XD

have shown the biased lens through which you peek.

Well yeah, i though i made that evident from the beginning.


@Pro

I would recommend a high school textbook

Luckily i have a sis in pre AP bio XD

sailornaruto39 wrote:I assumed that because from what i can tell you all are very genuine and aren't xtian stereotypes.
While i don't know how much biology you would need to know, the reasons why is so you aren't subjecting yourself to confirmation bias and just looking for what sounds like it is defending your argument. With the knowledge you would be able to tell if it helps your argument or not.

Sailor, I have read both sides and am convinced that information (or specified information) cannot arise through time and chance. Not poss, old boy. You asked for information about the argument from information and I gave you the information on the argument from information. Do you want me to find you an argument against the argument from information?

I haven't got the first bloody clue about biology, and this affects the information argument how?

Confirmation bias? No. Not that I’m bothered in the least if it were. You wanted some information on the argument from information. I gave you a link and highlighted some points for you. Not to be impious or anything, but I looked that up for you, man. I’d have thought the least a man would do would be to look into the information given. Yet you don’t even read it, and of top of that you pooh-pooh my source!

Meyer is adept at communicating the intricacies of information theory and the implications of the information-rich cell.

From what i have, he doesn't really have anything that would make him credible to say anything about biology.

You mean about information in the cell?

But let me play the evidence game with you. If you are going to criticise something, it is normal practice to read up on and know about what it is you are criticising. What you seem to be doing here is asking for information on the argument for design from complexity and specified information, not bothering to read any of this information, then accusing me of confirmation bias because the information comports with my beliefs. But of course it comports with my belief, since I’m giving you an example of an argument for this belief! This is inverted city. If we carry on like this I’m going to end up in another dimension, a logical abyss.

Do what? Just ignore reading material?

yeah

It doesn’t get any more depressing than this…

have shown the biased lens through which you peek.

Well yeah, i though i made that evident from the beginning.

Then why repeat it back to me?

Byblos wrote:How about reading The Language of God by Francis Collins, former head of the genome project. I would say he qualifies as an expert on the subject, don't you agree?

I'd still opt for a basic textbook, there are plenty experts with wildly varying opinions. Craig Venter, the guy who was Collins' partner in the shotgun approach to mapping the human genome, doesn't agree with Collins at all on these matters. Few of us are ever likely to gain the sort of understanding of genetics that Venter and Collins have, and even at that level there is flat disagreement.

Pro,

Proinsias wrote: Few of us are ever likely to gain the sort of understanding of genetics that Venter and Collins have, and even at that level there is flat disagreement.

Good point. And there is flat disagreement because ...

There is a difference between anthropomorphism and ascribing as in you are doing.

There is an obvious condition of anthropomorphism in the Bible. That is, antrho is used to help God be more understandable to people. That is not what you are doing.

There are many errors regarding this. Example:

Many theologies have arisen out of literally interpreting anthropomorphic verses in the Bible; once such notable theology is Open Theism. This theology takes verses where God seemingly changes His mind (Numbers 16:20–35), and grieves (Genesis 6:5–6) to be literal statements.

It seems you are just taking your ideas about god and applying them wherever it is convenient for you. Imposing your bias as the standard of interpretation. Like I said, I hope you consider yourself open minded. If we are going to conceive the possibilities of a transcendent creator, then we ought to at least acknowledge that our own bias and starting points may be flawed to rightly examine the evidence.

Nature. And by that i mean, a dude walking out and learning about... plants or something. The plants have something to teach him.

But information is usually a man made concept, such as the examples you gave earlier. That is man made information.

No problem. I'm not talking about general abstract thought. In the context of this discussion we are speaking of information code. I could go own about 'plants have something to teach,' but I'll digress.