What is Random? has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

*promote a great explanation of quantum mechanics.

If you are interested in this, I recommend "In Search of Schrödinger's Cat" and "Schrödinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality" by John Gribbin. Great books that go into a bit more depth on this topic.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, July 16th, 2014 4:00pm PDT - promote requested by ChaosEngine.

The information in DNA is conclusive proof of a designer, and a design means that nothing in the Universe is random. It means this Universe is on purpose for a purpose

*science

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by Zawash.

you mean the information that was subject to natural selection

hahaaaa, NO!
If DNA was made by a "Designer", then he was the worst designer ever.
DNA can be so broken and flawed, carry latent patterns, defective genes and so on. DNA may seem complicated to those who don't study and know it (Me). But it's being studied and we are gaining a huge understanding of DNA. What it's capable of, and what it's not, and where all the flaws and broken parts are.

Sorry Shinyblurry, if your God was the designer, then that would be conclusive proof that your God is far from perfect and in fact not very good at his job of creation..

Sounds a lot like Novelty Theory.

Guy on couch on left side of the screen = slightly annoying
Guy on couch on right side of the screen = intolerably annoying

There is no theory which can explain how natural selection gets you from non-life to life, to a cell with genetic information. Natural selection is therefore not adequate to explain the information in DNA. What we have observed is that information only comes from minds; therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, and that is understating the case. It has a language, grammatical syntax, error correction, vocabulary and meaning. If you read the article you will see that scientists were stunned to find a hidden code operating within the code. Even a superficial understanding of DNA is enough to see that it is not by any means "primitive" but actually it is advanced beyond our capability to understand it.

That isn't the argument though, that DNA is sophisticated, which it is. The argument is that the information in DNA is proof of design. What that design is intended to do is another question. You may look at certain features and say, here is a terrible design, simply because you don't understand the intentions of the designer. Only a super-intellect could have designed DNA, and I don't think that is going out on a limb by any means.

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

A good definition is that something is alive when it is embedded with genetic information, and you can only apply the idea of natural selection to living systems. Non-living systems follow the laws of physics, not natural selection.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

I think that definition covers the sense in which I am using it. The information in DNA is stored as a genetic code with language, grammatical syntax, meaning, vocabulary, error correction and many other features.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

I say that the presence of design features in living systems is proof of a designer, and that is a logical conclusion. Further, ether life is designed or it isn't; how would you tell whether it was or wasn't? And why would you rule it out and on what basis you would do so? "Because science" is not a meaningful answer to the question. There are good reasons to believe it was designed, and it isn't just flipping a coin.

which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

What we have observed is that information only comes from minds, and when we find a genetic code inside of our own cells, it is logical to postulate a designer from that discovery; that isn't much of a leap. To say otherwise is simply your own bias speaking. It is not inference without a scientific basis; the basis is our observation and lack of any credible theory to explain the presence of genetic information in our cells. There is no mechanism found in nature which has ever been observed to create it.

"There is no matter as such. The mind is the matrix of all matter."

It's all about the observer. But who is observing the observers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds4q-Qmaj5s

I was on board right up until the end. Who could think that random quantum events are equivalent to, or even add up to free will? Which part of randomness is either willed or free?

It's like we're so used to the false dichotomy of free will VS determinism that we just place anything that isn't deterministic in the free will column, without really giving it any thought.

A person of faith argues with semantics and rhetoric. and without any proof or substance.

I have no issues agreeing to disagree, as I won't strip someone of their faith or beliefs in what ever they believe. Just, please keep it out of my backyard where we deal in realities, and tangent proof.

I agree to a person's right to their belief, but never presume I'll stand aside when your fairy tales get in the way with reality.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean mean it was designed by an intelligent being.

Brian Cox explains Entropy has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.