If you accept the “80% useful” figure, then you also accept the “20% junk” figure.
I don’t in this particular case. A designer could make a genome with a lot of junk or a little junk. My objections to a designer are down to a lack of evidence for the existence of a designer and a lack of any evidence of the designer actually moving base pairs around to make specific bits of DNA.
Sorry. I have no idea what point you just made.
A point perhaps unintended, if I may make so bold as to comment. Superficially, it’s the same point that others have advanced in many other threads - that if we can’t invest belief in some ‘higher’ conscious entity who designed the universe; and if none of our experiences last forever in the form of memories in the afterlife (assuming we are even supposed to have these when we lack a brain to store them); then nothing we do, see or make means anything or has any purpose, and any meaning or purpose we may infuse into our experiences is nothing but illusion. Glass-half-full, huh?
A piano has keys that are not used in many melodies, but are available when called upon.
They exclude any discussion of possible design from all theories on origins, and then scream from the mountaintops that they are being “neutral”. In other words, they think we can be intimidated into silence,b/c we are simple rubes. I don’t think so!!!Thank you, Rob, for your support. Those who are determined to regard existence as purposeless reject all evidence for Design on principle because it doesn’t fit into their scheme of things: we are supposedly freaks of nature which have somehow succeeded in realising we are irrational!
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!”
It has worked for a while.They exclude any discussion of possible design from all theories on origins, and then scream from the mountaintops that they are being “neutral”. In other words, they think we can be intimidated into silence,b/c we are simple rubes. I don’t think so!!!
Well, I’ll be darned. All scientists have to do is take out all the “junk”; then their task of creating a more perfect life form should be tremendously simplified!
RobYes, but more and more folks are speaking out and asking the tough questions of naturalists.
I’m not surprised…
The onus is on you to explain how values and purposes are derived from that which is valueless and purposeless. You agree that values are subjective. Why should purposes be any different?The ideas exist in your mind but they don’t correspond to external reality - which is, in your opinion, composed solely of physical objects.
The supreme irony consists in pretending value and purpose have any significance beyond making materialists satisfied with their materialism! You are trying to have the best of both worlds instead of accepting the full implications of rejecting immaterial reality.
Such as?
That’s hilarious. You are making a prediction, not stating a fact.
It’s a shame you don’t apply this truism to your own posts.
False. Science shows design to be present in the origin of many things: flint arrowheads, crime scenes, GM organisms and others. All ID has to do is to attain the same scientific standards as archaeology, forensic science and genetics.They exclude any discussion of possible design from all theories on origins, and then scream from the mountaintops that they are being “neutral”. In other words, they think we can be intimidated into silence,b/c we are simple rubes. I don’t think so!!!
Such as how in the world consciousness could develop from a random mingling of atoms. That it could happen seems preposterous on the surface, and the more one thinks about it, it appears even more ridiculous. To think that a thousand million billion synapses could fire in our brains in a second, and that there is a naturalistic explanation for it strains credulity.
RobIt’s called inductive logic, Rossum. If you can’t see God in the miracle of life, I believe that it’s b/c you refuse to see it. All scientists can do is work with what already exists. If naturalism is true, life should be able to be reduced to mathematical equations. It’s perplexing that scientists don’t seem to be able to reconstruct the life scenario which they can observe right in front of themselves.
Blessings, Rob