Post by Radrook Admin on May 29, 2022 15:25:50 GMT -5
Only ONE Acceptable Explanation
I just had someone on the YouTube discussion venue claim that proposing just one explanation any phenomenon is illogical because other explanation must always be taken into account. He made this statement in reference to the conclusion that the coded information found in DNA is the product of a planning mind. The following was my response to his claim:
Your premise is flawed. Some things are not open to all and every whimsical explanation but demand only one. One example is any coded message received by SETI that might transmit certain information involving the construction of a complex machine. That demands the conclusion that a mind is responsible.
To claim that there is no mind involved is considered an idiocy. So the source of such a coded message message would never be in any doubt nor open to other explicatory possibilities because other possibilities are patently nonsensical.
In fact, SETI employee proposing that the message wrote itself would be suspected as having taken leave of his or her senses and would be fired.
The same holds true with the information contained in DNA which involves the assemblage of complex organisms. No other explanation except that it is the product of a planning mind is logically acceptable.
To claim that there is no mind involved is considered an idiocy. So the source of such a coded message message would never be in any doubt nor open to other explicatory possibilities because other possibilities are patently nonsensical.
In fact, SETI employee proposing that the message wrote itself would be suspected as having taken leave of his or her senses and would be fired.
The same holds true with the information contained in DNA which involves the assemblage of complex organisms. No other explanation except that it is the product of a planning mind is logically acceptable.
Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."....
The following is my second response to this person's insistence that DNA coded itself.
That conclusion goes completely contrary to what we have observed in relation to coded information-that it is always traceable to a mind. Now, the attribution of the characteristics of a mind to mindless forces is the epitome of a desperate attempt at denying something that induces emotional distress.
Unfortunately, emotional distress has no legitimate place in the realm of science. You see, the scientific method demands total and stringent objectivity which involves a strict adherence to logical thinking and that the scientist set his personal his or her personal feelings aside for the sake of scientific accuracy, and that they focus only on the evidence at hand.
Why? Simple. Because not doing would remove them out of the realm of the scientific and place them firmly in the realm of quackery where pet peeves interfere with the ability to assess matters in an objective fashion.
I never mentioned God, gods. The one that introduced the god issue is you. Why? Because that is your primary objection motivated by an aversion for the concept..
Unfortunately, emotional distress has no legitimate place in the realm of science. You see, the scientific method demands total and stringent objectivity which involves a strict adherence to logical thinking and that the scientist set his personal his or her personal feelings aside for the sake of scientific accuracy, and that they focus only on the evidence at hand.
Why? Simple. Because not doing would remove them out of the realm of the scientific and place them firmly in the realm of quackery where pet peeves interfere with the ability to assess matters in an objective fashion.
BTW
I never mentioned God, gods. The one that introduced the god issue is you. Why? Because that is your primary objection motivated by an aversion for the concept..
The person is now insisting that if once claims a coder for the DNA code then one is claiming that God is involved. My response to this claim is the following:
The proposition of a coding mind for DNA is absolutely justified. What is not justified is the claim that a code can code itself. Such an irrational unscientific claim removes the idea totally from the scientific to the illogically impossible and seriously calls into question both the sincerity and the sanity of the one proposing it.
A coding mind for DNA suggests God or a god? Well, not according to hypothetical possibilities that your own physicists have suggested concerning alien civilizations and their godlike capabilities.
For example, in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey we have that very popular proposition made into a sci fi film.
So your conclusion is once more based on a flawed premise induced by your need to make this a totally religious issue when it is actually about logic.
In short, there is an anti-religion agenda interfering with your rationality, and as long as that anti religious agenda remains, you will make this ludicrous suggestion that codes code themselves or that all codes need a coder except DNA.
A coding mind for DNA suggests God or a god? Well, not according to hypothetical possibilities that your own physicists have suggested concerning alien civilizations and their godlike capabilities.
For example, in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey we have that very popular proposition made into a sci fi film.
So your conclusion is once more based on a flawed premise induced by your need to make this a totally religious issue when it is actually about logic.
In short, there is an anti-religion agenda interfering with your rationality, and as long as that anti religious agenda remains, you will make this ludicrous suggestion that codes code themselves or that all codes need a coder except DNA.
Addendum: Why?
This fanatical inability to admit the obvious if there is even the very slightest possibility that it provides support for the existence of a creator, whom others might conclude is an almighty God, is very typical as the motive for such an unscientifically stubborn refusal to reason.
I first encountered this rather quaint phenomenon at the Randy discussion forum where they finally revealed that the only reason that they were purposefully being irrational was to sabotage any attempt to use DNA as evidence of a creator. Why? Well, as they said religion does severe damage to human society.
I first encountered this rather quaint phenomenon at the Randy discussion forum where they finally revealed that the only reason that they were purposefully being irrational was to sabotage any attempt to use DNA as evidence of a creator. Why? Well, as they said religion does severe damage to human society.
Most of these persons finally admitted that they had suffered under the strict supervision of religiously fanatic parents who totally ruined their childhood with their inflexible religious demands. This transformed then into haters of religion any ideas related to it such as the existence of a creator. In short, they were willing to ignore everything as long as it sabotaged religion and arguing with them was totally an exercise in futility.