Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote: Again, this would be a leap of faith on your part as every known code to have arisen has come from an intelligent mind. I'm entirely within my rights to say this based on 100% inference. If you say "we don't know", then you are right, and I applaud your position of agnosticism, but, based on 100% inference it is perfectly logical for me to say that the DNA code requires an intelligent mind.

It isn't perfectly logical at all. We know where, for example, the C computer language came from because we have the creators still alive and the original specification archived someplace. To say that we don't know whether or not the code in earthly creatures came from an intelligence or not isn't agnosticism, it's honesty.

touchingcloth wrote:And for Nth time "Remembering that we know of no code to ever have arisen naturally, without an intelligence behind it." holds no water when we are aware of at least 2 codes of unkown origins.

TC, you're not grasping the fact that I have 100% inference on my side; you have nought% inference if you wish to take this stance you're taking. Since there is no code known to man that *did not* come from an intelligent mind, it is perfectly logical to infer from the code DNA that it came from an intelligent mind. You *don't know* that the DNA code did not come from an intelligent mind; you have *no* previous naturally occuring code to back up a position pending evidence of any such thing. I have the entire history of *every known code* coming from an intelligent mind to support my position that the code DNA came from an intelligent mind. It is 100% inference; no more, no less.

touchingcloth wrote:I was speaking about natural selection not being a process. Sexual and asexual reproduction and the act of existing in an environment are processes.

Sexual and asexual reproduction have nothing to do with natural selection?

touchingcloth wrote:Bingo! Natural selection by itself can do nothing at all! By itself it doesn't exist. It's the phenomenon of an environment acting upon the phenotype of an organism. No one is claiming that natural selection acts "by itself".

Bingo yourself.. Natural selection is nothing because it does nothing and creates nothing... It's a phenomenon or a miracle. I get it now.

So you are basing your life on miracles? Again, you've got more faith than I..

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:And for Nth time "Remembering that we know of no code to ever have arisen naturally, without an intelligence behind it." holds no water when we are aware of at least 2 codes of unkown origins.

TC, you're not grasping the fact that I have 100% inference on my side; you have nought% inference if you wish to take this stance you're taking. Since there is no code known to man that *did not* come from an intelligent mind

Except for DNA and RNA, which are of unknown origins.

zoegirl wrote:Slection is non=random in that not every member of a population has an equal shot at reproducing or surviving. In that sense, it is not random. Those that have sickle cell alleles in malaria ridden areas will live longer than those without. It is not random.

mutations are random, selection isn't

That 's the question I have for TC.. How does it learn what to select?

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote: Again, this would be a leap of faith on your part as every known code to have arisen has come from an intelligent mind. I'm entirely within my rights to say this based on 100% inference. If you say "we don't know", then you are right, and I applaud your position of agnosticism, but, based on 100% inference it is perfectly logical for me to say that the DNA code requires an intelligent mind.

It isn't perfectly logical at all. We know where, for example, the C computer language came from because we have the creators still alive and the original specification archived someplace. To say that we don't know whether or not the code in earthly creatures came from an intelligence or not isn't agnosticism, it's honesty.

Yes, it is honesty. It is honest agnosticism. My logic is based on all previous known codes to mankind coming from an intelligent mind. Your logic is fine as you are saying you don't know; I also "don't know," but I have 100% inference for my position. The logic is easy, TC.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:I was speaking about natural selection not being a process. Sexual and asexual reproduction and the act of existing in an environment are processes.

Sexual and asexual reproduction have nothing to do with natural selection?

They have everything to do with natural selection.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Bingo! Natural selection by itself can do nothing at all! By itself it doesn't exist. It's the phenomenon of an environment acting upon the phenotype of an organism. No one is claiming that natural selection acts "by itself".

Bingo yourself.. Natural selection is nothing because it does nothing and creates nothing... It's a phenomenon or a miracle. I get it now.

So you are basing your life on miracles? Again, you've got more faith than I..

Phenomenon=something observed to be true...don't confuse it with the colloquial "phenomenal"="incredible". In this sense natural selection is the phenomena that better genotypes propagate. There's no need for natural selection to create anything, when the creation is done by mutations. 2 separate phenomena. I'm sure zoegirl could explain to you that natural selection is a real phenomenon regardless of whether you're a creationist, an evolutionist, or a mormon.

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote: Again, this would be a leap of faith on your part as every known code to have arisen has come from an intelligent mind. I'm entirely within my rights to say this based on 100% inference. If you say "we don't know", then you are right, and I applaud your position of agnosticism, but, based on 100% inference it is perfectly logical for me to say that the DNA code requires an intelligent mind.

It isn't perfectly logical at all. We know where, for example, the C computer language came from because we have the creators still alive and the original specification archived someplace. To say that we don't know whether or not the code in earthly creatures came from an intelligence or not isn't agnosticism, it's honesty.

Yes, it is honesty. It is honest agnosticism. My logic is based on all previous known codes to mankind coming from an intelligent mind. Your logic is fine as you are saying you don't know; I also "don't know," but I have 100% inference for my position. The logic is easy, TC.

All previous known codes bar at least 2.

Gman wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Slection is non=random in that not every member of a population has an equal shot at reproducing or surviving. In that sense, it is not random. Those that have sickle cell alleles in malaria ridden areas will live longer than those without. It is not random.

mutations are random, selection isn't

That 's the question I have for TC.. How does it learn what to select?

Gman, why do you think selection learns?

what works, what fits will reproduce more and survive more....

what doesn't work, what doesn't fit, will not....

no learning here.

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:And for Nth time "Remembering that we know of no code to ever have arisen naturally, without an intelligence behind it." holds no water when we are aware of at least 2 codes of unkown origins.

TC, you're not grasping the fact that I have 100% inference on my side; you have nought% inference if you wish to take this stance you're taking. Since there is no code known to man that *did not* come from an intelligent mind

Except for DNA and RNA, which are of unknown origins.

Again, you are bang wrong. I said there is no known code to man that "did not" come from an intelligent mind. You said "except for DNA and RNA, which are of unknown origins." But you do not know that they *did not* come from an intelligent mind. I have 100% inference to support my stance; you have 0% inference that DNA and RNA have *not* come from an intelligent mind. Now I know you are not making a positive statement to that effect, but you must logically recognise that my position holds 100% inference. Going on all previous known codes, I am logically fine in my position. Why can't you just admit this, TC? I'm not saying "I know"; I'm saying I can infer that DNA and RNA com e from an intelligent mind, based on all known codes to man. The logic is as sound as you can get.

DannyM - Sorry to be ignorant, but what do you mean by "100% inference"? I don't know of any situation where your logic here would hold.

EDIT:
The logic here is about as sound as saying that "I, nor nobody else, know of no time that after the sun goes down it doesn't come up. Therefore the sun will always come up after going down."
I really hope you can see that this logic is unsound.

touchingcloth wrote: They have everything to do with natural selection.

Oh, so now it does.... I see. But it's not a process.. Got it.

Great.

touchingcloth wrote:Phenomenon=something observed to be true...don't confuse it with the colloquial "phenomenal"="incredible".

Oh no you don't. The fact that we can breath is a miracle...

According to evolutionist Wald all we need is time for evolution to do it's creating. As he stated, "What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probably virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."

Even Darin admitted this, as he stated, “To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”

touchingcloth wrote:In this sense natural selection is the phenomena that better genotypes propagate. There's no need for natural selection to create anything, when the creation is done by mutations. 2 separate phenomena. I'm sure zoegirl could explain to you that natural selection is a real phenomenon regardless of whether you're a creationist, an evolutionist, or a mormon.

I disagree...

There is no need for natural selection to do anything because as you stated earlier it is nothing. It's a miracle.

zoegirl wrote: Gman, why do you think selection learns?

what works, what fits will reproduce more and survive more....

what doesn't work, what doesn't fit, will not....

no learning here.

Sounds like learning to me...........

Gman wrote: There is no need for natural selection to do anything because as you stated earlier it is nothing. It's a miracle.

I didn't say that it's nothing. I said that it does nothing...it's the name given to the fact that better organisms survive. Believe in micro or macro evolution and you give a tacit nod to the fact that the phenomenon exists. To deny that it exists you'd also have to deny that different organisms have differential survival rates.

Gman wrote:

zoegirl wrote: Gman, why do you think selection learns?

what works, what fits will reproduce more and survive more....

what doesn't work, what doesn't fit, will not....

no learning here.

Sounds like learning to me...........

What is it you think that's learning though? Where do you envision the entity that learns?