Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[Xeno]

Jireh, stop running away.

You know my posts to which I refer. What do you have?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Inedifix

Jireh, you don't really seem to understand the theory of evolution very well. Before trying to attack it, you really should try to understand it properly first.

thats funny. My dna argument has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has to do with abiogenesis......

[Inedifix]

Originally Posted by jireh

thats funny. My dna argument has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has to do with abiogenesis......

Which does not detract from the fact that you clearly do not understand how evolution works, particularly macro-evolution. I challenge you to read the book I recommended. At the very least you will gain an understanding of this subject that so concerns you.

[loubert]

I would like to hear from Jireh, in his/her own words, in a couple of sentences or paragraphs, what evolution is and the main driving firce behind evolution. With out copy/paste or a link. I would like to know if you ( Jireh), actually understand what you seem to oppose.

[Inedifix]

Originally Posted by jireh

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Let's take this step by step to show you why this challenge is complete nonsense...

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

Agreed.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Not true. There is such a natural process, it's called evolution. DNA almost certainly evolved from RNA, and RNA is not a conscious mind.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

No. Instead read: Therefore DNA was naturally created by unconscious ribose based nucleotides.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

A. One is DNA. You say all we need is one. Result = your proof is toppled. Or do you mean, you want one more?

B. RNA is one more. RNA contains coded genetic information. Result = your proof is toppled.

C. Once is enough anyway. Why do you demand more than one example to prove that it's naturally occurring anyway? Even the existence once, of naturally occurring coded information, is enough to disprove your premise 2 above. DNA or RNA, alone is sufficient. Result = your proof is toppled.

D. Disingenuousness. This riddle is really little more than a cheap parlour trick. Sadly, too few of us see through it quickly enough. The reason I say this is that ultimately - as you well know - we could line up 100 examples of naturally occurring coded information, and you would still reply: "Oh, no, god made them all." Result = your proof is no proof at all. And therefore toppled.

Jireh, you need to do much, much better than this.

Why not start reading here: http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Inedifix

Not true. There is such a natural process, it's called evolution. DNA almost certainly evolved from RNA, and RNA is not a conscious mind.

how do you know ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Inedifix

Which does not detract from the fact that you clearly do not understand how evolution works, particularly macro-evolution. I challenge you to read the book I recommended. At the very least you will gain an understanding of this subject that so concerns you.

how do you know what i do , and what i do not understand about macro evolution ?

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by jireh

how do you know ?

Fallacy One: Your assertion that information/organisation requires an intelligence/creator. There is no information about such an entity, but there is knowledge about how natural systems emerge via processes such as natural selection.

Natural selection, and other processes such as drift have been observed in nature, and manipulated in experiments. (See Garland & Rose, 2009) "Experimental Evolution".

For your "hypothesis" [abusing that term greatly] to be even in contention, you have to demonstrate this creative entity of yours exists, you, and many other people before you, have failed to do this.

Fallacy Two: Even if this entity DID exist, you still could not demonstrate the entity was the cause, or the only cause, because natural processes I have described above can do this on their own without you magic man.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Your responses to a number of topics reveal that your "knowledge" is either quite incomplete, or just plain wrong.

So please tell me what is plain wrong about what i believe in regard of macro evolution.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Fallacy One: Your assertion that information/organisation requires an intelligence/creator. There is no information about such an entity, but there is knowledge about how natural systems emerge via processes such as natural selection.

so please present a example of codified information, that arose by natural selection. It is not enough just to make assertions. Evidence please !!

Natural selection, and other processes such as drift have been observed in nature, and manipulated in experiments. (See Garland & Rose, 2009) "Experimental Evolution".

what does that have to do with rna/dna ?

For your "hypothesis" [abusing that term greatly] to be even in contention, you have to demonstrate this creative entity of yours exists, you, and many other people before you, have failed to do this.

the effect evidences the cause.

Fallacy Two: Even if this entity DID exist, you still could not demonstrate the entity was the cause, or the only cause, because natural processes I have described above can do this on their own without you magic man.

where is the evidence ?