Jollybear
Hey
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes I see exactly what you’re getting at and I see the purpose behind you building these points from my analogy. And I think it’s quite clever, BUT…..there is one vitally important problem your missing in the equation. Here it is. Those differences in the blueprint are NOT LIKE mutations. To compare the blueprint with having a different location for the kitchen with a mutation in the DNA does NOT compare correctly for the sake of the analogy. Here is why: a mutation is HARMFUL, not beneficial. All those examples you gave about the house, those things are beneficial. So let me compare the analogy better. Suppose on the blueprint it was written or shown that the pluming had to be OUTSIDE the walls, to where they could be seen. Would that be good? No. Suppose it was on the blueprint that pieces of the plumbing had to be missing, that would be disastrous. Suppose you have the windows for the floor and the floor for the windows, how would that go over? Not too well. Suppose you had the wires OUTSIDE the walls, all of them showing, and some of them not hooked up correctly ACCORDING TO the blueprint, how would that turn out? That would NOT be good. How about the shingles on the sides of the house instead of on the roof of it, how would that be? Again, not good at all. The list can go on I’m sure, but you get the idea, THIS kind of house you cannot live in and this kind of house will NOT survive much time.
It’s THIS kind of house that I described RIGHTFULLY COMPARES to MUTATIONS in DNA and IN the human body. They do HARM, UNLIKE your comparisons.
To further compare the analogy, could you imagine technology (in the case of the house) getting BETTER through these TONS of mistakes being done by the writer of the blueprint? It’s UNIMAGINABLE to even THINK such a thing could happen. Likewise, it’s unimaginable that a human body full of mutations could evolve into something BETTER.
This is just a bald assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up.
How is it an assertion? ALL language is expressed by an alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent, is it not? Even if one wants to use SIMPLE let’s call it PRIMITIVE language, which would be PICTURES instead of letters, even THAT is a form of alphabet and has meaning and intent. The DNA HAS THIS. Does it not? Does the DNA copying machine not READ a MESSAGE from the DNA and COPY it and then bring it out of the nucleus and then a protein making machine attaches to the MESSAGE and then the protein making machine attaches to a protein packaging machine and then the protein making machine READS the MESSAGE and MAKES a protein and then the collagen protein is taken outside of the cell and then several collagen proteins join together to form a collagen fiber and many of these get made and join together to form a protein matrix and the protein matrix forms a tendon or muscles. Do you deny or do you agree that this happens?
What you’re doing makes me think of someone that would see two other people speaking a foreign language, and then conclude that they were speaking gibberish (none intelligent speech, it’s not language, it’s not information, it’s just noise). Would that be a reasonable assumption though? No, it’s an assumption based on ignorance. Just because he does not understand the foreign language does not make it gibberish. It just means he don’t understand that language he is hearing. However observing the two people talk, clearly has the hall marks of an intelligent language of information content.
Fine - can you describe for me an apparatus I can use that will let me create a letter written by a person from nothing but basic elements and energy?
I don’t think I understand what you’re asking, could you rephrase?
Baloney. And now that you gave us the actual quote, we can see that not only did you pull the first part of it out of context, you also misrepresented what the first part said:
You got to be kidding me? I most certainly did NOT take him out of context and misrepresent what he said. He believes THIS universe is highly unlikely and that is why he believes in the multiverse view. Why is that so hard to agree on? To me it’s clear as day. And yes I did not quote the other part which was that he believed a God creating this universe is even MORE unlikely, but I did not do that to DECIEVE at all! I did it because I thought and STILL THINK that it is irrelevant to my point. And when he says God is more unlikely that is his assertion.
In this quote, he doesn't say he agrees with the "fine tuning" argument; he only acknowledges that some people use it in their arguments for God.
Your wrong, he does acknowledge there is an illusion of design and that to give more credibility to his arguments that say it IS an illusion of design, he actually made an attempt to ACCOUNT for this illusion of design by saying and I quote the later part of his sentence “Thus, by the same reasoning, and the anthropic principle, it’s reasonable to invoke the possibility of multiple universes to account for that apparent improbability”
Thus by him saying “thus, by the SAME reasoning, and the anthropic principle, it’s REASONABLE to INVOKE the POSSIBILITY of multiple universes to ACCOUNT for that APPARENT IMPROBABILITY” this SHOWS that he AGREED that there is what LOOKS LIKE design, so to account for it NOT being TRUE design, he INVOKES multiple universes.