DNA Was Designed By A Mind

What I've said regarding some naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang and abiogenesis is this:

When investigating them in the manner suggested by the proponents, (i.e. looking for scientific evidence of their validity) , these theories do not hold up.

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

But there's a lot of grant money out there for those who claim to be hot on the trail of THE answer.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

I could be wrong, but I think that inference based on known facts, is considered valid scientific evidence. But I suppose it depends on how you define "evidence".

0 Replies

None of this tripe the member "real life" is posting has one whit of relevance to the burden of the thread. He's not provided any evidence of even the most remote kind that DNA was "designed" by a mind. He claimed several pages back that he was content to show that "it could not happen by chance." Pressed to show where he had demonstrated that it could not have happened by chance, he changed the subject.

What evidence does anyone reading here have that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

If "real life" is due any credit (and this is a pretty damned paltry accomplishment) it has been in diverting the discussion from the subject of the thread.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What I've said regarding some naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang and abiogenesis is this:

When investigating them in the manner suggested by the proponents, (i.e. looking for scientific evidence of their validity) , these theories do not hold up.

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

But there's a lot of grant money out there for those who claim to be hot on the trail of THE answer.

We know what you have said real life. You have yet to provide anything to dispute string theory. To claim they have "no evidence" when you can't discuss the math is not a problem with their evidence. It is YOUR problem not the problem of the proponents of the theory.

Science proposes a theory to meet the observed evidence. (Yes, I said evidence. It does exist.) The theory is then tested to see if it can predict other things that might be observed or tested. If the theory continues to be supported then it has evidence to support it. If it is disputed by the evidence then it will lose favor.

You can whine and complain and sputter how there is no evidence but award winning scientists will not agree with you. Who should we listen to real life? Scientists that have spent 30 years doing research and testing their theories and writing papers about the evidence that supports their theory or "real life" that can't even argue coherently on a bulletin board system.

So, real life. What "investigation" have you done in the manner of the "proponents"? Investigation in the manner of the proponents would require you to use the same standard of evidence that they do. Investigation in the manner of the proponents would require you to use the same definition of "supernatural" that they do. You stand at the side lines and throw spit balls but you haven't done anything in the manner of the proponents. Conjecture, inference, and assumption may be part of the process used by the proponents but they don't stop at that point. They test their theories using hard evidence. You ignore the evidence and testing to concentrate on the questions raised instead of looking at the evidence and answers found.

0 Replies

Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:

What evidence does anyone reading here have that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

I must admit that I know of no evidence that DNA was designed by a mind.

It could just have poofed itself into existence. I don't rate poofism. It seems so facile. Infantile even. Corny.

In fact, it strikes me that it was a pretty perverted sort of mind, if mind there was, that didn't make the females nymphomaniacs and us chaps having to hide away to avoid being wrung out like wombats drying in the sun.

0 Replies

Nice to know you aren't a poofter Spendi.

Or at least you think you aren't one.

0 Replies

I ws poofed by my father. At Easter time too.

After the egg rolling festival. Preferably in the bushes.

0 Replies

I always thought that you were a hare brain.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What I've said regarding some naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang and abiogenesis is this:

When investigating them in the manner suggested by the proponents, (i.e. looking for scientific evidence of their validity) , these theories do not hold up.

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

But there's a lot of grant money out there for those who claim to be hot on the trail of THE answer.

Your theory doesn't hold up either. There is very little rational reason to believe it. You purport to have an explanation - at least a general one - for the formation of life on Earth. You are either correct or incorrect. In order for it to be reasonable to believe what you believe, there would have to be some indication that it's true, and there's very little. Your complaint that the theory of evolution has not been demonstrated to be plausible, is many times more true of your own rival theory.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:
What evidence does anyone reading here have that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

I must admit that I know of no evidence that DNA was designed by a mind....

Good, me neither.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
What I've said regarding some naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang and abiogenesis is this:

When investigating them in the manner suggested by the proponents, (i.e. looking for scientific evidence of their validity) , these theories do not hold up.

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

But there's a lot of grant money out there for those who claim to be hot on the trail of THE answer.

Your theory doesn't hold up either. There is very little rational reason to believe it. You purport to have an explanation - at least a general one - for the formation of life on Earth. You are either correct or incorrect. In order for it to be reasonable to believe what you believe, there would have to be some indication that it's true, and there's very little. Your complaint that the theory of evolution has not been demonstrated to be plausible, is many times more true of your own rival theory.

I see that you're desperate to discuss evolution (you keep bringing it up) and eager to get away from discussing BB and abiogenesis as we have been.

Typically hyper-naturalists consider evolution to be their 'strong suit'.

That is probably because the lack of evidence for things like a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe and a replicator preceding dna/rna is so glaring.

So the public debate by hyper-naturalists has been steered clear of BB and first life, and instead focused on evolution.

It is easy to set the terms of public debate when you have most of the media on your side (if you doubt that just look at the Obama-McCain race where the media swoons over 'Present' Obama and does it's best to ignore or marginalize McCain. When that can't be done, then painting McCain as a demon will do.)

BB and abiogenesis are crucial, however, to the hyper-naturalists position. They must insist, not only on the lack of 'natural' evidence for the supernatural, but on the impossibility of the supernatural ever existing.

The paradigm must be set so that anything outside the natural realm is seen as being not just beyond the limited scope of science, but also as being impossible, outside of all reality.

In spite of this , at least 40% of scientists do appear to include the supernatural in their worldview.

These no doubt recognize that just because something is not within the limited scope of scientific investigation does not preclude it from reality.

The figure may indeed be higher than 40%. These are the ones that would admit it.

However, the academic world is a dangerous one in which to register dissent from the prevailing view, so a good number may have been dissuaded from registering their contrary opinion thru fear of negative consequences to their job or position.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
What I've said regarding some naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang and abiogenesis is this:

When investigating them in the manner suggested by the proponents, (i.e. looking for scientific evidence of their validity) , these theories do not hold up.

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

But there's a lot of grant money out there for those who claim to be hot on the trail of THE answer.

Your theory doesn't hold up either. There is very little rational reason to believe it. You purport to have an explanation - at least a general one - for the formation of life on Earth. You are either correct or incorrect. In order for it to be reasonable to believe what you believe, there would have to be some indication that it's true, and there's very little. Your complaint that the theory of evolution has not been demonstrated to be plausible, is many times more true of your own rival theory.

I see that you're desperate to discuss evolution (you keep bringing it up) and eager to get away from discussing BB and abiogenesis as we have been.

Typically hyper-naturalists consider evolution to be their 'strong suit'.

That is probably because the lack of evidence for things like a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe and a replicator preceding dna/rna is so glaring.

So the public debate by hyper-naturalists has been steered clear of BB and first life, and instead focused on evolution.

It is easy to set the terms of public debate when you have most of the media on your side (if you doubt that just look at the Obama-McCain race where the media swoons over 'Present' Obama and does it's best to ignore or marginalize McCain. When that can't be done, then painting McCain as a demon will do.)

BB and abiogenesis are crucial, however, to the hyper-naturalists position. They must insist, not only on the lack of 'natural' evidence for the supernatural, but on the impossibility of the supernatural ever existing.

The paradigm must be set so that anything outside the natural realm is seen as being not just beyond the limited scope of science, but also as being impossible, outside of all reality.

In spite of this , at least 40% of scientists do appear to include the supernatural in their worldview.

These no doubt recognize that just because something is not within the limited scope of scientific investigation does not preclude it from reality.

The figure may indeed be higher than 40%. These are the ones that would admit it.

However, the academic world is a dangerous one in which to register dissent from the prevailing view, so a good number may have been dissuaded from registering their contrary opinion thru fear of negative consequences to their job or position.

Arguing by testimonial is pathetic and stupid - "40% of geniuses agree with me."

You persistently ignore my point. Not surprising, since you have no defense against it. Your theory of the origins of life is a thousand times more susceptible to your criticism than ours is. You advocate a specific theory of the origins of life for which there is almost no evidence. It is very foolish to believe in a theory for which there is no evidence. Provide to me the tinitest particle of reason to believe that God created man.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Typically hyper-naturalists consider evolution to be their 'strong suit'.

That's because evolution is probably the number one, most comprehensively well established theories in all of science. Admittedly, the BB is down the list a bit, maybe around number three or four.

Abiogenesis on the other hand is pretty much an unknown. There is no single well established theory of abiogenesis yet. But as long as human ingenuity and achievement isn't throttled by the Creationist style of blind faith and willful ignorance, we'll figure it out.

By the way, that last post of yours was such a nice propaganda piece I could almost hear the choir murmuring AMEN, when you finished.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
What I've said regarding some naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang and abiogenesis is this:

When investigating them in the manner suggested by the proponents, (i.e. looking for scientific evidence of their validity) , these theories do not hold up.

The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

But there's a lot of grant money out there for those who claim to be hot on the trail of THE answer.

Your theory doesn't hold up either. There is very little rational reason to believe it. You purport to have an explanation - at least a general one - for the formation of life on Earth. You are either correct or incorrect. In order for it to be reasonable to believe what you believe, there would have to be some indication that it's true, and there's very little. Your complaint that the theory of evolution has not been demonstrated to be plausible, is many times more true of your own rival theory.

I see that you're desperate to discuss evolution (you keep bringing it up) and eager to get away from discussing BB and abiogenesis as we have been.

Typically hyper-naturalists consider evolution to be their 'strong suit'.

That is probably because the lack of evidence for things like a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe and a replicator preceding dna/rna is so glaring.

So the public debate by hyper-naturalists has been steered clear of BB and first life, and instead focused on evolution.

It is easy to set the terms of public debate when you have most of the media on your side (if you doubt that just look at the Obama-McCain race where the media swoons over 'Present' Obama and does it's best to ignore or marginalize McCain. When that can't be done, then painting McCain as a demon will do.)

BB and abiogenesis are crucial, however, to the hyper-naturalists position. They must insist, not only on the lack of 'natural' evidence for the supernatural, but on the impossibility of the supernatural ever existing.

The paradigm must be set so that anything outside the natural realm is seen as being not just beyond the limited scope of science, but also as being impossible, outside of all reality.

In spite of this , at least 40% of scientists do appear to include the supernatural in their worldview.

These no doubt recognize that just because something is not within the limited scope of scientific investigation does not preclude it from reality.

The figure may indeed be higher than 40%. These are the ones that would admit it.

However, the academic world is a dangerous one in which to register dissent from the prevailing view, so a good number may have been dissuaded from registering their contrary opinion thru fear of negative consequences to their job or position.

Arguing by testimonial is pathetic and stupid - "40% of geniuses agree with me."

You persistently ignore my point. Not surprising, since you have no defense against it. Your theory of the origins of life is a thousand times more susceptible to your criticism than ours is. You advocate a specific theory of the origins of life for which there is almost no evidence. It is very foolish to believe in a theory for which there is no evidence. Provide to me the tinitest particle of reason to believe that God created man.

Far from ignoring your point, I've addressed it again.

You want to evaluate one theory by the claims of a different theory.

Asking for 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is absurd.

But the fact that you cannot conceive of anything else is a confirmation of the point I made regarding the groupthink that is consistently misapplying the scientific method outside of the limited scope that scientific evidence will allow.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Typically hyper-naturalists consider evolution to be their 'strong suit'.

That's because evolution is probably the number one, most comprehensively well established theories in all of science. Admittedly, the BB is down the list a bit, maybe around number three or four.

Abiogenesis on the other hand is pretty much an unknown. There is no single well established theory of abiogenesis yet. But as long as human ingenuity and achievement isn't throttled by the Creationist style of blind faith and willful ignorance, we'll figure it out.

By the way, that last post of yours was such a nice propaganda piece I could almost hear the choir murmuring AMEN, when you finished.

Far from 'throttling' you , I've urged you to provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis.

So far, it's been in vain.

Any evidence yet?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

I could be wrong, but I think that inference based on known facts, is considered valid scientific evidence. But I suppose it depends on how you define "evidence".

The overwhelming lack of desire on the part of your brethren (Set, parados, farmerman, brandon) to correct you on this point is interesting.

No, an inference is not evidence.

The facts in your scenario are the evidence.

An inference is a conclusion that you drew based on your interpretation of those facts.

Quote:

(n) inference, illation (the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=inference

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Typically hyper-naturalists consider evolution to be their 'strong suit'.

I love that made up word you use real life. Is hyper-natural similar to supernatural? Does a hyper-naturalist only believe in hyper-natural laws of the universe? When in doubt just change language to suit your propaganda.

Quote:

That is probably because the lack of evidence for things like a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe and a replicator preceding dna/rna is so glaring.

You keep saying that in spite of evidence being presented to you. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. If you want to judge the theories using the manner suggested by the proponents then you have to use their definition of evidence. You don't get to use your made up definition.

Quote:

So the public debate by hyper-naturalists has been steered clear of BB and first life, and instead focused on evolution.

Does that mean your definition of "hyper-naturalist" is a "biologist"? Astrophysicists don't talk about evolution much but they will probably be happy to discuss the BB.

Your argument is self defeating real life. You claim science can't investigate the supernatural then you use the term "hyper-natural" to describe anyone that only studies the natural universe. If "hyper-natural" laws of the universe exist then that would mean natural laws CAN be applied to the supernatural. Either that, or your use of "hyper-natural" is only an attempt to paint those that disagree with you as a demon.

Quote:

It is easy to set the terms of public debate when you have most of the media on your side (if you doubt that just look at the Obama-McCain race where the media swoons over 'Present' Obama and does it's best to ignore or marginalize McCain. When that can't be done, then painting McCain as a demon will do.)

It's hard to set the terms of debate about science when you don't accept any science as evidence, isn't it real life? Scientific debate uses the rules of science. When you aren't willing to use those rules you aren't going to win any scientific debates.

Maybe if you call people that disagree with you "hyper-naturalist" it would make your argument more valid. Then again, probably not.

Quote:

BB and abiogenesis are crucial, however, to the hyper-naturalists position. They must insist, not only on the lack of 'natural' evidence for the supernatural, but on the impossibility of the supernatural ever existing.

Please provide us some evidence of the "hyper-natural" real life. Something is natural or it isn't natural. Are you saying that the natural includes the supernatural and the hyper-natural doesn't include supernatural? The problem isn't the media real life. The problem is your inability to take a solid position.

Quote:

The paradigm must be set so that anything outside the natural realm is seen as being not just beyond the limited scope of science, but also as being impossible, outside of all reality.

Who set that paradigm? Does that make "hyper-natural" outside the realm of the natural?

Quote:

In spite of this , at least 40% of scientists do appear to include the supernatural in their worldview.

Oh boy.. this attempt again to bastardize a survey to make it mean something that was never asked. Which survey do you think got that answer from 40% of scientists? Now I suppose you are going to tell us all about random samples and statistics and how award winning statisticians don't know what they are talking about.

Quote:

These no doubt recognize that just because something is not within the limited scope of scientific investigation does not preclude it from reality.

The figure may indeed be higher than 40%. These are the ones that would admit it.

?really? Where did they admit it? Let's see your made up statistics that you try to interpolate from surveys that say no such thing. I could find where you trotted out this tripe before but I see no reason to since it was a lie then and is still a lie. I suppose anyone that is interested could search and see how you attempted to change the meanings of questions and make respondents of a survey by readers of a single journal into a random sample of all scientists.

Quote:

However, the academic world is a dangerous one in which to register dissent from the prevailing view, so a good number may have been dissuaded from registering their contrary opinion thru fear of negative consequences to their job or position.

Actually, the academic world is more than happy when people present real evidence that is supported and not skewed. The problem you have real life is you attempt to skew things and then instead of refuting things you disagree with you just claim there is no evidence while ignoring any evidence that supports it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Far from ignoring your point, I've addressed it again.

You want to evaluate one theory by the claims of a different theory.

Asking for 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is absurd.

So you keep saying but you have provided no evidence that the laws of thermodynamics apply to black holes. If the laws of thermodynamics don't apply then a black hole must be supernatural. If we can find evidence of black holes then there is natural evidence of the supernatural.

Your logic is badly flawed real life.

Quote:

But the fact that you cannot conceive of anything else is a confirmation of the point I made regarding the groupthink that is consistently misapplying the scientific method outside of the limited scope that scientific evidence will allow.

Right.. Scientists are misapplying the scientific method. Only you are applying it correctly.

I'm not a psychologist but I suggest you see one about your messianic complex real life.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

That is probably because the lack of evidence for things like a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe and a replicator preceding dna/rna is so glaring.

If you want to judge the theories using the manner suggested by the proponents then you have to use their definition of evidence.

So, I must accept assertions like ros' definition that an inference IS evidence?

No, thanks.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
The 'scientific evidence' often cited by the adherents is little more than conjecture, inference and assumption.

I could be wrong, but I think that inference based on known facts, is considered valid scientific evidence. But I suppose it depends on how you define "evidence".

The overwhelming lack of desire on the part of your brethren (Set, parados, farmerman, brandon) to correct you on this point is interesting.

No, an inference is not evidence.

The facts in your scenario are the evidence.

An inference is a conclusion that you drew based on your interpretation of those facts.

Quote:
(n) inference, illation (the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation)
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=inference

That's funny real life.
So.. an inference isn't evidence but it is based on evidence.
That means that abiogenesis is an inference I guess, which means there must be evidence that it is based on. Yet for some reason, real life, you keep claiming there is no evidence for the inference yet the very definition states it is BASED on evidence.

I guess even you admit you aren't accepting evidence when you claim there is no "evidence".

I guess I inferred you were halfway intelligent real life because you could use a computer but then I have no real "evidence" of any intelligence on your part.

By the way, by presenting this definition you have shown that when you use the word "evidence" you are restricting it to "direct observation." Something we have always suspected but you seemed to deny. Now you can't deny it any longer.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know