:-)

[mrkira]

If you think we cannot form an analogy to form a theory of intelligent design then please show me why I might be wrong.
And by the way if you call it BELIEF or THEORY; it does not matter as long as its based on evidence. Do you believe in the thoery evolution? If you believe in it then thats your BELIEF. And a thoery/belief is not KNOWLEDGE; I know that already. In science we form theories and we try to find the best explination. Any explination found is not necessarily a KNOWLWDGE. It is still a theory that might be wrong or right. Having an analogy of the behavior of human designers to form a general theory of intelligent design is valid since its a theory and I did not claim thats its KNOWLEDGE . So unless you could prove the thoery of intelligent design is wrong then we can have meaningful discussion. But throwing random accusations of agendas and god of gaps argument is a waste of my time.
And please dont mix things up about what people did in the past. That totally different story because right now we are dealing with obvious evidence of design like the instruction code of DNA. Let me ask you this, what if it was really the case that certain feature is explained by design? How would we know this? Of course any athiest/agnostic would come and say "people in the past explained anything as the result of god; therefore any explination that have god/designer in it must be wrong". See how easy it is to just refute any argument of design with this silly excuse.
One more question; what do you think of SETI? Is it scientific or not?

[Charlie1965]

If you think we cannot form an analogy to form a theory of intelligent design then please show me why I might be wrong.
- .You can form any analogy you like. I am not taking that right from you. I just question the validity of doing that.
And I think I discussed that already but let's do it again:

1.
Do you believe in the thoery evolution?
- Do you remember that part in Theory of Evolution when it talks about gnomes and fairies? And unicorns? Or maybe god? No?
Well, compared to the Theory of Evolution which strictly relies on concepts and facts from reality, the major element of yours is actually god - a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being able to design and create anything it wants, a being never proven existing in the first place. If this doesn't make your "theory" incredible and namely ridiculous, then I guess no idea can be ridiculous, and everything makes sense from now on.

Like Ancient Greeks who had Zeus casting thunders, You have intelligent design (GOD) responsible for everything in the universe! After all, how else can you explain the origin of natural objects? And how else can you explain those powerful electric bolts from the sky? Must be god.

Until you prove natural objects result from intelligent design, you are among the guys from Ancient Greece adding an improbable agent to something that doesn't require any.

2.
That totally different story because right now we are dealing with obvious evidence of design like the instruction code of DNA
DNA is not a code, instruction, language or information like religious apologetics like to call it. It doesn't have any of -those things intrinsicly added to it. DNA involves molecules and processes. That's it. We are the ones who have information about DNA, how it is built and how it works, which we obtained through analyzing and understanding it.
Whoever says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.

3.
One more question; what do you think of SETI? Is it scientific or not
Compared to god, which has no evidence, our existence on this planet is evidence that life is a possibility in the universe, and since there are so many planets out there, it is pretty probable there are extraterrestrial creatures out there.


SUMMING UP:
You believe compexity can't arise without intelligent design, so you believe in god. A belief based on a belief. No facts involved, but still very, very scientific, and no agenda there whatsoever.

Cheers!

[mrkira]

Okay let me dismantle your example of thunder and god of the gaps argument because I need to clear this up to avoid repetitive misunderstanding. In the past, people could not produce electricity, so for them to claim a thunder was made by god is false. It was just an argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps argument
So what would be a good analogy of how thunders happens ? Well nowadays, people can produce electricity indirectly. We can see engineers build a system that consist of a compressor, turbine and generator and by using natural laws of nature like Faradays law, they could produce electricity. So what is the source of electricity? It is the fined tuned system built by the engineers
So they just built a fine tuned system that could produce electricity. So when we compare this with the fine tuning of the universe, we can find a designer that produced a system that has fined tuned laws of nature and a material universe. Without the fine tuning of the laws of nature, life would not be there and the formation of natural phenomenon like thunders would not happen. The same thing with electricity generator, if the system was not fine-tuned, it would fail to generate electricity and plant equipment would fail to operate leading to economic losses. So we can see here that a designer is indirectly involved in thunders as engineers indirectly involved in producing electricity. The source of the electricity is not the engineers but the fine-tuned system

Well what about information. What is the source of information? Books for example contains papers, ink and information. The ink and paper are of material origin but the information is not. Because the source of information in any writings is the mind of the author who wrote it down. So we can form a general statement/theory here that the source of information is a mind. This is direct relationship unlike the previous example of electricity

So now you can see here that intelligent design theory is not just some random argument that was put there to explain anything to serve the agenda of religious people and satisfy their preference. The theory has scientific basis and you should try to falsify its arguments. Because if we kept throwing accusation at each other, we would not have any professional discussion in this matter. Yea the theory of intelligent design has implications of god. But the design theorists did not say anything about the identity of the designer because its beyond the scope of the theory. The designer might be the Abrahamic god, the Hindu god, Zeus, unicorn, fairies, aliens or whatever you have in your mind, it is a matter of your preference and has to do nothing with our discussion. And I don’t deny there might be some bias in such topics. But with agreed foundation of logic and science, it is inevitable that we would agree in some points no matter how biased we might be

[mrkira]

DNA is not a code, instruction, language or information like religious apologetics like to call it. It doesn't have any of -those things intrinsicly added to it. DNA involves molecules and processes. That's it. We are the ones who have information about DNA, how it is built and how it works, which we obtained through analyzing and understanding it.
Whoever says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.

Well a simple search in Google about the definition of DNA and you will find many sources saying DNA is instruction, code or information. Here are few examples:

“DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

"Instruction providing all of the information necessary for a living organism to grow and live reside the nucleus of every cell. These instruction tell cell what role it will play in your body."
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/molecules/dna/
“The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases”
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

here are some quotes from some authorities:

Bill gates: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created”

Richard Dawkins : “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

And Generally, any different characters arranged in certain pattern is information. What you are reading right now is information that you knew by the of arrangement of English letters. The output is your understanding of my message. The computer language consist of arrangement of 0s and 1s, these arrangement serves many purposes in a computer software and it’s called a Binary language. In DNA, the arrangement of the four different chemicals ( cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A), or thymine (T) ) can be translated into a protein production and it is Quaternary language.

[mrkira]

Now if you think SETI is scientific. what do you think of methodology used to try to detect extraterrestrial life? Is scientific as well?

[Charlie1965]

Now if you think SETI is scientific. what do you think of methodology used to try to detect extraterrestrial life? Is scientific as well?

I don't know it so I can't really answer.

[Charlie1965]

Well a simple search in Google about the definition of DNA and you will find many sources saying DNA is instruction, code or information.
“DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.”
- That is the major problem, you are looking for wrong simple answers, and this time you TOOK THE WORD INFORMATION OUT OF CONTEXT. You are not playing with evidence, but with semantics. Here’s why:
Information is knowledge acquired from:
a) something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally (a book, article, etc.),
b) understanding how something works and what it consists of, which doesn’t involve knowledge, or code or language or whatever you call it, it is NOT purposely created and added to the thing.
No one says DNA contains intended code in it, that someone designed it. You are saying someone did, and you have to prove it, but instead you are performing this semantic tap dancing, which shows you have nothing.


Okay let me dismantle your example of thunder and god of the gaps argument because I need to clear this up to avoid repetitive misunderstanding. In the past, people could not produce electricity, so for them to claim a thunder was made by god is false. It was just an argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps argument
So what would be a good analogy of how thunders happens ? Well nowadays, people can produce electricity indirectly.
Dismantle this:
Greeks didn’t know the source of thunders (lack of knowledge), they looked them as if they were made by Zeus (a belief, no evidence) so they said it was Zeus (a totally incredible belief).
You don’t know the source of DNA (lack of knowledge), you look at it as If it was made by god (a belief, no evidence), so you say it is god (a totally incredible belief).
So yes, it is ignorant and you really should shake hands with Ancient Greeks when you see them.

By the way, I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate but:
If I was to think the way Ancient religious Greeks could, I would easily say: in the past we didn’t know about electricity and we said it was Zeus who created it, now we know more about it, we can actually produce it, too, but does it mean the non-man made electricity is not from Zeus? Of course not.
And by producing light, we are getting closer to our real true god Zeus. Isn’t it great?!
You can always find arguments for god if you feel like it, just like for anything which is unprovable. But producing arguments is not a big deal, a real big deal is possessing evidence and not misinterpreting what we already know.


Well what about information. What is the source of information? Books for example contains papers, ink and information. The ink and paper are of material origin but the information is not. Because the source of information in any writings is the mind of the author who wrote it down. So we can form a general statement/theory here that the source of information is a mind. This is direct relationship unlike the previous example of electricity
So now you can see here that intelligent design theory is not just some random argument that was put there to explain anything to serve the agenda of religious people and satisfy their preference.
- yes it is and it serves your agenda for the reasons above, if you weren’t religious and your purpose wasn't proving by any means your god is true, you wouldn’t be misinterpreting what other people mean by calling DNA a code, and you wouldn’t use the same reasoning as Ancient Greeks.

[mokraki]

أقترح بأن يضع الإخوة الكرام بعض الكتب بالانجليزية .. التي تتناول موضوع الالحاد ..
أيضاً الكتب التي تتحدث عن الاسلام وأدلة صحته .. وانه دين الحق .

[مسلم أسود]

أقترح بأن يضع الإخوة الكرام بعض الكتب بالانجليزية .. التي تتناول موضوع الالحاد ..
أيضاً الكتب التي تتحدث عن الاسلام وأدلة صحته .. وانه دين الحق .

Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
By : Abu Al-Fida

[muslim.pure]

http://en.islamway.net/
http://www.islam-guide.com/

[mrkira]

You are not playing with evidence, but with semantics. Here’s why:
Information is knowledge acquired from:
a) something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally (a book, article, etc.),
b) understanding how something works and what it consists of, which doesn’t involve knowledge, or code or language or whatever you call it, it is NOT purposely created and added to the thing.

Let’s see definition of information from many known websites so that you get more exposure to its definition and see if I am using it out of context.
From Wikipedia :
Information: is that which informs, i.e. an answer to a question, as well as that from which knowledge and data can be derived (as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts) ...
Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communication.

From merriam-webster dictionary:
General Definition of INFORMATION
Information: : knowledge that you get about someone or something : facts or details about a subject
Full Definition of INFORMATION
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

From Oxford dictionary :
Facts provided or learned about something or someone :a vital piece of information
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

Here we can see that the general definition of information is “knowledge acquired about someone or something from someone or something” . And your definitions of information are the same ones as found from the web. Whether it was placed there intentionally (writing, sound, electrical signals, chemicals) of it was acquired by an observer from understanding some process . Your definition (b) states understanding how something works and what it consist of. If you understand how something works, you acquired knowledge from something. Your first definition states: “something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally “ This definition works perfectly with me. If you see a piece of paper with some information in it, even in a language that you don’t understand, you will conclude that this was made by human being even though you did not see the writer. And in our case, knowledge is acquired from DNA (something) because someone (designer) placed there intentionally 

No one says DNA contains intended code in it, that someone designed it. You are saying someone did, and you have to prove it, but instead you are performing this semantic tap dancing, which shows you have nothing

Dude I know that already. That why we are having this debate in the first place .. otherwise, I would not bother to debate you to prove this point.
This what I am trying to do in this debate, just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right ?
So I am not trying to force you to believe that there is a designer because some authority said so or because many people said so. You can just use your common sense to reach such conclusion without the influence of any authority.

Dismantle this:
Greeks didn’t know the source of thunders (lack of knowledge), they looked them as if they were made by Zeus (a belief, no evidence) so they said it was Zeus (a totally incredible belief).
You don’t know the source of DNA (lack of knowledge), you look at it as If it was made by god (a belief, no evidence), so you say it is god (a totally incredible belief).

Simple, use this simple logic form: : If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If information is produced by designer and DNA contains information, then DNA is produced by designer. So using this simple logic, I look at DNA as evidence of a designer not a blind belief

[Charlie1965]

Let’s see definition of information from many known websites
- there is no need for that.

“something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally “ This definition works perfectly with me.
- I am glad it is convenient for you. And I am sad you pick it on the basis of your religious beliefs and not evidence.

just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right?
- very simple. So Ancient Greeks were correct! We should start believing in Zeus right now. You just need common sense after all.

just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right ?
Your deductive reasoning leads anywhere you want. If you believed in invisible gnomes, you could prove them with it. That is so convenient and so illogical.

Simple, use this simple logic form: : If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If information is produced by designer and DNA contains information, then DNA is produced by designer. So using this simple logic, I look at DNA as evidence of a designer not a blind belief
- seriously it makes so much sense now.
If thunders are produced by Zeus, And they contain intended information like HEY THIS IS ZEUS, REMEMBER, I AM WATCHING YOU GUYS, then thunders are produced by Zeus.
You can look at thunders as evidence of Zeus, and not blind belief.
If we are really a part of a great computer programme, and we are not humans but just numbers, then if this reality resembles the Matrix movies, then we are just a pieces of codes.
If forests are controlled by invisible gnomes, then if you see that forests manage to exist and there is some complexity to it, that is evidence for invisible gnomes.

If complexity requires design, then there must be intelligence, sure - but it doesn’t.
You didn’t show how it is impossible for complexity or just anything to arise without special added agents like god. You just pick what you prefer, on the basis of what you believe. No logic or common sense whatsoever, unless you mean it is common to think this way among you guys.

otherwise, I would not bother to debate you to prove this point
- you are not proving a thing. You are telling about what you prefer as an answer, about your beliefs, no evidence or even logic there. Without evidence, we can form arguments for and against anything.

So yes, continuing this particular thread seems pointless, which I have been trying to explain all that time. Let’s better discuss something else.

[mrkira]

I said that this difinition works perefectly with me because you yourself defined information that way; it is like you just proved my point, thanks. No matter what difinition you have. It is all agreed by people that when you have a pattern of letters/chemicals/signals it means information. If information understood or conveyed by someone; then it can be encoded. Any scientist know that anything coded is information. SETI use the same concept. Thats why you avoided my question of SETI. And I asked you earlier; if something is really designed; how would we know? You did not answer this.

But because of your belief system. You would deny anything related to that. Let me tell you this. You are just religious as any blind religious person out there. You just claimed that genom is invisible as it was not seen by scientists. Dude do some homework before coming to such debate. Read about the discovery of DNA. Read about logic 101. Now who said that thunder has some information on it? Even your analogies fails to do any objections to my argument. How you can compare DNA which contains information with a natural phenomenon like thunders :/
I see how desperate you are

[mrkira]

If complexity requires design, then there must be intelligence, sure - but it doesn’t.
You didn’t show how it is impossible for complexity or just anything to arise without special added agents like god. You just pick what you prefer, on the basis of what you believe. No logic or common sense whatsoever, unless you mean it is common to think this way among you guys.

First of all. I did not use the word complexity. I used the word information. Secondly; the source of information is always a mind. Because to produce a pattern of things and infuse into something; you would need to choose the pattern. And choice defies the meaning of randomness. Any random process cannot produce information.
Take this challenge: just prove to me any natural phenomenon that could produce information.
I dont argue here from lack of knowledge but from our knowledge of what a designer capable of and what a random process capable of.

[Charlie1965]

I said that this definition works perfectly with me because you yourself defined information that way.
- I gave 2 definitions. And one is not equal to another. They are not the same. And you chose the one with intention in it, even though, you have no evidence it is valid. That's my point all the time.

We don't mean it is intended information, because we would have to have evidence for that. This is how honest we are about it, compared to you.
All we mean by information there is that how DNA is built and what it does is understood by us and we create information on the basis of it. It wasn't anywhere before we actually comprehended the nature of DNA, unless you have evidence we are wrong here, which you don't. That's it.

SETI use the same concept. Thats why you avoided my question of SETI.
-Actually I did avoid. I admitted I know nothing about it, this is called honesty. Compared to you I don't pretend I know things I don't know.

You just claimed that genom is invisible as it was not seen by scientists.
You can't be serious. Do you have comprehension problems? I was talking about GNOMES (imaginary beings like your god), not GENOME.