The Atheist's Riddle

[DannyM]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/perryspeaks/

Is anyone familiar with Perry Marshall's challenge to atheists/atheistic scientists to prove him wrong on his assertion that DNA is coded and intelligent and therefore must be accountable to an ultimate intelligence? This has been ongoing since 2005 and if you follow the link you can watch a presentation by Perry and subsequently view his debates on the “Infidels” website and on his own blog. I've been fascinated for the last two days reading through all of this; and I'm still not through!

Can anyone tell me they're feelings on this…?

Dan

[ezer]

I know when I was a atheist ten years ago a website such as this would not interest me in the least.As a true believer the topic is somewhat boring,however I thought I would make this post to let you know someone is paying attention.

[DannyM]

I know when I was a atheist ten years ago a website such as this would not interest me in the least.As a true believer the topic is somewhat boring,however I thought I would make this post to let you know someone is paying attention.

Ezer,

It is telling that as an atheist this topic wouldn't have interested you as it is in line with many atheists I experience, who act utterly ignorant of an argument which diminishes their weakening philosophy ever further. That you still find this topic "boring" suggests to me that you are not completely out of that rut. I sincerely hope this indifference gives way some time soon.

Dan

[robyn hill]

I just finished watching Perry Marshall. i absolutely loved this site. Thank you for posting it. When he said you cannot change a sentence one letter at a time, there are rules, it really clicked for me how random evolution is impossible. I also loved his analogy about how adding more noise to any signal will never make a signal clearer or stronger. Very cool stuff!!!!

[Gman]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/perryspeaks/

Is anyone familiar with Perry Marshall's challenge to atheists/atheistic scientists to prove him wrong on his assertion that DNA is coded and intelligent and therefore must be accountable to an ultimate intelligence? This has been ongoing since 2005 and if you follow the link you can watch a presentation by Perry and subsequently view his debates on the “Infidels” website and on his own blog. I've been fascinated for the last two days reading through all of this; and I'm still not through!

Can anyone tell me they're feelings on this…?

Dan

Nicely done... Well put!

[DannyM]

Nicely done... Well put!

Gman, you seen this rebuttal to Darwinian ortyhodoxy?...

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... alf-right/

Now to me this is very powerful stuff, but I'd like your thoughts on it before I get carried away Gman...

Dan

[DannyM]

I just finished watching Perry Marshall. i absolutely loved this site. Thank you for posting it. When he said you cannot change a sentence one letter at a time, there are rules, it really clicked for me how random evolution is impossible. I also loved his analogy about how adding more noise to any signal will never make a signal clearer or stronger. Very cool stuff!!!!

Hi Robyn. Please see the link I just gave in a post to Gman exploding Darwinian orthodoxy. I think you'll like it!

[Gman]

Nicely done... Well put!

Gman, you seen this rebuttal to Darwinian ortyhodoxy?...

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... alf-right/

Yes, thanks for that. Makes perfect sense to me.. Essentially chance can explain nothing because chance itself is nothing. Many Darwinian evolutionist realize this fact so how do they deal with it? Easy... They pontificate that evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

[robyn hill]

I agree with that post Danny!
nature is random.
Intelligence makes choices.
nature has no control
intelligence has control.
nature has no reason
intelligence reasons.
intelligence can evolve
intelligence can grow more efficiently
nature does not.
collective intelligence can spread
nature is spiratic.
Wouldn't one admit intelligence is more capable than nature?
Yet many give way more credit to nature instead of accepting a more powerful intelligence (God).
Some think nature created intelligence-
I believe intelligence created nature.
Reason would teach us that these attributes prove inteligence more capable of creation rather than random nature.
Yet so many scientists give so much credit to nature. Even to the point of attributing there own intelligence to random nature which makes it all a bit absurdly ironic.

[DannyM]

I agree with that post Danny!
nature is random.
Intelligence makes choices.
nature has no control
intelligence has control.
nature has no reason
intelligence reasons.
intelligence can evolve
intelligence can grow more efficiently
nature does not.
collective intelligence can spread
nature is spiratic.
Wouldn't one admit intelligence is more capable than nature?
Yet many give way more credit to nature instead of accepting a more powerful intelligence (God).
Some think nature created intelligence-
I believe intelligence created nature.
Reason would teach us that these attributes prove inteligence more capable of creation rather than random nature.
Yet so many scientists give so much credit to nature. Even to the point of attributing there own intelligence to random nature which makes it all a bit absurdly ironic.

Yep. That's how I see I Robyn. As Perry says, scientists and the scientific method assume laws, assumes order. Without this order science would be all over the place.

Random mutations, if it were true, would decrease the DNA code, not *increase* it. I agree with you on the bogus explanation for intelligence we hear from many scientists. Rather give a bogus explanation than admit an outer intelligence. Oh, that just cannot be conceded!

[DannyM]

Thought I'd stick this on here instead of stating a new thread as it's just for your (hopwfully) viewing pleasure. Now I was always led to believe that ID was for wackos, but if this is so then can someone please tell me what's wacko about this...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075? ... &out=44:01

[cslewislover]

Thought I'd stick this on here instead of stating a new thread as it's just for your (hopwfully) viewing pleasure. Now I was always led to believe that ID was for wackos, but if this is so then can someone please tell me what's wacko about this...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075? ... &out=44:01

I didn't watch that whole thing, but I had read the book. He makes some really strong points, in my view, and I wanted to list them . . . but that will have to wait till tomorrow or so because I can't look them up at the moment.

[DannyM]

Thought I'd stick this on here instead of stating a new thread as it's just for your (hopwfully) viewing pleasure. Now I was always led to believe that ID was for wackos, but if this is so then can someone please tell me what's wacko about this...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075? ... &out=44:01

I didn't watch that whole thing, but I had read the book. He makes some really strong points, in my view, and I wanted to list them . . . but that will have to wait till tomorrow or so because I can't look them up at the moment.

Yeah that would be appreciated CS L. This Behe fella seems to be a nice, articulate scientist who makes some good, scientifically-grounded arguments. Yet he is demonised as a crack-pot...! In the 45minute video he is actually given the opportunity by the interviewer to rebut some rebuttals to the book. He clearly enjoyed pointing out that the so-called critiques were wrong in their very misunderstandings of what Behe had written. Yet, when you scroll down to the comments below the video you see the anti-free speech atheists in full swing, giving links to the very source of which Behe had already dispensed with!! If you (anyone) watches this link then do not fail to scroll down and read all the comments; you will see, if you persevere, the tide turn with articulate support of Behe verses the profanity-ridden ranting of the so-called side of “good science”. And again, there is precious little scientific argument and a heck of a lot of diatribes towards Behe.

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to believe that ID in fact *is not* a “God-of-the-gaps” and appears to me to be quite credible. Behe admits that he is a “run-of-the-mill Christian” but is adamant that, as a scientist, his professionalism is not being compromised and he merely follows the science to where it leads. He also clearly states that the research *does not* stop just because so much of evolution actually points to design; on the contrary, he strongly advocates and believes in the scientific process.

It seems to me to be clearer than ever that most of the objectors to Behe and the ID argument are not so vociferous on scientific grounds but rather because they despise God, despise ID and actually despise free speech. The vitriol smacks of a very nervous bunch of people…

Someone tell me: have I missed something?

[cslewislover]

Well, it sounds like I should watch the whole video! Yes, I believe your observations are correct regarding the atheists and their reactions. Behe is a scientist and presents scientific data in the book. If someone has further scientific data that changes what he said, then just say it in a professional matter and everyone can move on. It's obvious that the "battle" is not a scientific one. And I will try and summarize his main points for you soon.

[DannyM]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... esis-id-3/

Thought I'd drop in Perry Marshall's 3rd installment of his testable hypothesis for ID for anyone who has not seen this yet. You'll see the fourth installment linked at the top of the article.

Enjoy!