Semiotic argument for ID

I agree with this part: That word (I forgot it already lol) is just another name for communicating specified information, which, as ID has always argued, is the POSSIBLE downfall of abiogenesis.Perhaps, though, it is more accurately describing what ID is trying to get across with its argument for the design of the code contained in DNA.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : Just having thoughts

Don't you find that a little prejudiced? I think he's making some EXCELLENT progress in making his case. Bravo!

I must object; that straw man was a non-sequetir.In your characterature, the fact that there was an original coder for the chemical nomenclature system, does not mean that "The code must direct the action of the atoms". In this case, the code must direct the action of the LAB CHEMIST.But what if the lab chemist was replaced by a robot, pre-programmed to read the code of the researcher and cause the specified chemical reactions? This robot, receiving, translating, and executing communicated instructions, is much like the DNA molecule. It's just a mechanistic 'robot' pre-programmed to execute received orders.
The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from?

What kind of an argument is that?
We're not talking about whose idea it is.
you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument.Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.What do you think?

NN, would you please explain your idea a little more? I'm not sure what you mean by loading.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

I wasn't aware that a chemical self-replicator that could exist on prebiotic earth was discovered or synthesized. Would you care to back up your statement with citations?

But that's exactly what this semiosis seems to be - a meaning inherit in the sequence of bases on the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins in the right amount, at the right time, and deliver them to the right place to make life possible.The question is: where did this base sequence get inherited from?Edited by Ed67, : addition

There was no gene pool back then.

Okay, I mean METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does. Perhaps more, but that's a subjective matter Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?

You don't understand. It doesn't require faith to test a hypothesis, it requires faith to BELIEVE a hypothesis is true without confirmation.For further details, consult PaulK Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Assertons, assertions... Still, no rational responses. C'mon gang, you can do better than this!Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Here's a ready example: Your stated belief that this DID happen, rather than 'could have' happened, demonstrates your gullible FAITH in a process that has not been demonstrated.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Try being honest and say "We do not know WHETHER abiogenesis happened", and we have a basis for discussion... Forgive me, your majesty, if I failed to read through ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR POSTS before joining the discussion on another thread. I was just being honest.You know I'm new to this forum. A little common courtesy would be in order...But point taken, I've just tried to lay out my position logically so far, I'll get on to the detailed discussion as soon as someone demonstrates the COMMON SENSE necessary to understand my initial basic point about the origin of the 'recipe' for life contained in the DNA/RNA.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.