Darwinism is made up

[defendor]

With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

[Tokage]

With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

Oh goodness...are we talking about the "There's a building, implying a builder. There are people, implying a creator." argument now?

[Whitney]

With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

The watchmaker argument (yes, we all know where you got the above from) fails because inorganic matter can't be compared to organic matter when discussing evolution.

[Tokage]

With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

The watchmaker argument (yes, we all know where you got the above from) fails because inorganic matter can't be compared to organic matter when discussing evolution.

I don't understand why Theists continue to use this as if no one's ever heard it before? I mean these kinds of things have to be refuted over and over, and the person posing the argument just kind of pretends like it never happened. I just don't get it.

[defendor]

I've never heard a refutation but if I do, I won't ever use it again.

As for the inorganic matter can't be compared to organic matter, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Davin]

With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

In the case of a hamburger wrapper, we have reasonable evidence to conclude that it was made by a sentient being because we know that we as sentient beings make hamburger wrappers. Perhaps the wrapper came from a plant on the alien world, there would be evidence by finding the plant that produces the wrapper. So I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that it was made by sentient beings, however if a plant was found that grows them as leaves, it would be irrational to continue to assert that it must have been made by a sentient being.

In the case of DNA, we have no evidence that anything created DNA, but we do have evidence that it came about through natural processes. If we just happened upon DNA without any evidence at all about where it came from, asserting that something made it is just a baseless speculation.

[Whitney]

I've never heard a refutation but if I do, I won't ever use it again.

[youtube:2his3iid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdn0UPDjmk[/youtube:2his3iid]
Note that Dawkins confirms that many of his colleges think they can separate their scientific views from their religious views...meaning it is not common for scientists to think science disproves god (as you previously stated it was)

[youtube:2his3iid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-cp_0kcaD4[/youtube:2his3iid]

[youtube:2his3iid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S4F1czs2tk[/youtube:2his3iid]

and since Matt didn't mention it...Snowflakes and crystals are complex yet we don't think they were designed.

My comment about inorganic vs organic related to how complexity can evolve...yet is only a minor refutation of the watchmaker argument.

and if you want to read further wiki is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker ... #Criticism

[hackenslash]

Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

You should really know better than to do this with me by now. I already quoted your personal insults. Don't push it. You got a friendly, unofficial reminder. By saying "the idiotic attempt", the word "idiotic" is referring to the attempt made by the person. The person. Followed by just another insult. Come on, you usually do much better than this.

Sertiously, dude. It was the attempt that was idiotic, not the person. I'm not trying anything. I'm actually holding back a great deal, and all my comments were focused on the content of the posts. The poster is not addressed, and in fact is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with your assessment, and think you should look at it again.

[McQ]

Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

You should really know better than to do this with me by now. I already quoted your personal insults. Don't push it. You got a friendly, unofficial reminder. By saying "the idiotic attempt", the word "idiotic" is referring to the attempt made by the person. The person. Followed by just another insult. Come on, you usually do much better than this.

Sertiously, dude. It was the attempt that was idiotic, not the person. I'm not trying anything. I'm actually holding back a great deal, and all my comments were focused on the content of the posts. The poster is not addressed, and in fact is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with your assessment, and think you should look at it again.

Looked at it already. My assessment is what it is, and you disagreeing with it doesn't change it. As I said, don't push it. I've overlooked a number of your posts already. That was apparently a mistake. It won't happen again.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

Creationist arguments sound like a broken record.

[hackenslash]

I'll leave you to your amusements then. I really can't be bothered.

[defendor]

I had a large dissertation written out and last night the website was down or just my internet but I don't want to fully type it out.

The argument of creationism is not 'from design' but 'to design'.  The 'watchmaker analogy' is not fully applicable. The watchmaker analogy is not associated with a theistic God but rather a Deistic.  I suppose that God has his hand in the order and maintaining of creation as simply just setting it in motion.  This is a fine line, but a difference.

[Whitney]

The argument of creationism is not 'from design' but 'to design'.  The 'watchmaker analogy' is not fully applicable. The watchmaker analogy is not associated with a theistic God but rather a Deistic.  I suppose that God has his hand in the order and maintaining of creation as simply just setting it in motion.  This is a fine line, but a difference.

This still doesn't address that there is no evidence of design; only assumptions based on tunnel vision.

[defendor]

Well the argument "to design" has to do with the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  That essentially, the universe proceeds to disorder.  So at the inception of the universe, our world and life in general did not exist and the universe by its own laws, proceeds to disorder.  But yet somehow, systems were able to develop that traversed the increase in disorder to make the most complex systems that extend beyond the natural laws of physics, i.e. Life.  

In our DNA, we have over 3 billion bases of information that can be decoded.  So when you have information that is complex and continues to develop against the normal laws of thermodynamics, you have to assume a cause beyond the laws of physics, which is supernatural. i.e. God.

 Romans 1:19-21 of the New Testament states:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

In Part II of his famous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume formulates the argument as follows:

Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

[Whitney]

This is a lazy response but please read about why thermodynamics has nothing to do with discrediting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html