Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragon glas says :

In order to posit design, you first have to posit a "designer" - and explain how that designer came into being
......

Wrong.

One does not have to explain how that designer came to being to posit intelligent design.

Dragon glad offered zero evidence in his assertion. Zero evidence therefore needed for mine.

This is simply not the case.

You've made the claim that everything is due to intelligent design, which requires a designer - therefore, you need to explain how this designer exists.

If you claim that the designer has always existed, we can go one better: Nature has always existed in some shape or form.

Our explanation only requres one thing - Nature.

Yours requires two - Nature, and a deity or deities.

Our one thing beats your two.



Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

That was my argument... look over there!


/scampering sound then door slamming

 

[Sparhafoc]

In order to posit design, you first have to posit a "designer" - and explain how that designer came into being

Again... no

I do not have to know how God exists to claim God exists.

Ze bait and ze switch!

Posit a 'designer' - who's talking about God, Bernhard? :lol:

Cdesign proponentsists, that's who!


Again, and try reading this time:

If you claim that complexity infers design, then designed complexity also requires a complex designer. If complexity requires such a designer to exist, then the designer needs to have itself been designed, and so on.

Alternatively, as you were already educated, if you wish to try special pleading, then the special pleading works better just for 'nature' or 'the universe' because those unequivocally exist and don't need to be further evidenced prior to accepting them as working postulates.

 

[MarsCydonia]

In order to posit design, you first have to posit a "designer" - and explain how that designer came into being

Again... no

I do not have to know how God exists to claim God exists.

Do you know what you do have to do in order to infer affirm design? Have a criteria to affirm design.

When we distinguish between a watch and a crystal formation, we do have criterias to distinguished between a man-made design and a naturally occuring formation.

But for creationists of his ilk, there are no criterias to distinguish between a designed and a non-designed object:
Because there are no non-designed objects.

 

[leroy]

Life is eternal. That is the answer.

That's an assertion. An assertion you already made.

That you think stacking the same assertion atop the last iteration of it lends it credence is why you're a Creationist.

well Sparhafoc, given that you don't reject the idea that the universe is eternal, you are granting that there is a possibility that life might also be eternal.


you see, if the universe is eternal (you don't deny this possibility) you are granting that everything in the universe is (or at least could be eternal)......this is one of the absurdities that you have to grant if you don't grant premise 2 the KCA.

 

[MarsCydonia]

well Sparhafoc, given that you don't reject the idea that the universe is eternal, you are granting that there is a possibility that life might also be eternal.

you see, if the universe is eternal (you don't deny this possibility) you are granting that everything in the universe is (or at least could be eternal)......this is one of the absurdities that you have to grant if you don't grant premise 2 the KCA.

:lol:
That is one of the stupidest non-sequitur I have ever seen.

 

[Sparhafoc]

well Sparhafoc, given that you don't reject the idea that the universe is eternal, you are granting that there is a possibility that life might also be eternal.

LEROY, pop it back in your pocket, eh?

You ASK me what I think - you do not tell me what I think.

I am amazed you still don't grasp this simple notion. You must have been raised by foxes in the wild and consequently have the discoursive competence of a wild fox.

you see, if the universe is eternal (you don't deny this possibility) you are granting that everything in the universe is (or at least could be eternal)......this is one of the absurdities that you have to grant if you don't grant premise 2 the KCA.

Utterly idiotic, LEROY - not just because of the terminal incoherence of your supposed logic, but because you are pulling my supposed position right from your rectum, still hot and sticky.

You can't actually debate what people say - you have to keep making up other peoples' positions for them. This is what makes you a mendacious little runt.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The mind of the atheist.... what bible says is absolutely wrong.... everything else is possible.

Bible says Adam and eve....

Bill Nye.. . " maybe it was aliens.."

Whereas, in reality, it's Creationists who don't understand the notion of entertaining a thought without feeling the need to accept it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

:lol:
That is one of the stupidest non-sequitur I have ever seen.

And the Weeble's still trying to pretend it hasn't been knocked over every time it's popped up.

Whack-a-LEROY.

Weebles wibble and they wobble but they don't fall down.

Bad ideas exist to be destroyed, LEROY - you exist to incompetently protect them from their much-earned destruction.

 

[leroy]

I didn't use the word naturalistic. I just said the origin of life. However life originated, it would have to originate somehow, because it can't have always existed.

How do we know this? Because all life we know of is made of cells, which are made of atoms. Cells, nor even atoms, could persist at the planck time. Cells couldn't persist for long in intergalactic space as they would disintegrate due to cosmic radiation. So life would have to have originated on some planet somewhere, probably just here on Earth, and then evolved from then on. This simply follows from what we know about stellar and cosmological evolution.

Someone like you migh think God created the Earth, but to begin with it was devoid of life, and then later He created life on Earth. Then if that is really what happened, then the origin of life would be when God created life.

Problem is, there is no evidence that this is what happened. But in contrast, there IS some evidence that it was a process governed by ordinary physical and chemical laws and processes.


We don't know how the first proteins arose, I'm not claiming to know that. What I'm claiming to know is that there is evidence that it was a process governed by ordinary physical and chemical laws and processes.

Why would I claim this? What is that evidence? That's what the three papers I linked explains.

There is a hypothesis that says that, however the first proteins were biosynthesized, they were biosynthesized by using the amino acids that already existed in the prebiotic environment.

That means those first proteins should have a distribution of amino acids that matches the distribution you would get, if an undirected physical or chemical process were making them.

The oldest known protein folds have been phylogenetically inferred by three independent methods (which implies the result is very robust and doesn't suffer from a methodological bias), and their amino acid composition (the distribution) is found to very strongly match the distribution you get from non-biological physical and chemical processes that make amino acids.

In other words, this is a confirmation that the very first proteins were produced by a basic physical and chemical process. This is textbook observational hypothesis testing.


But it is likely achievable by natural law. That is the whole goddamn point.

1 sure I grant that life came in to existence from none life at some point

2 sure I grant that the ultimate answer is we don't know

3 sure we don't know how the first living things looked like, but all the evidence indicates that reproduction is only possible when multiple independent system and units (amino acids) interact in a very precise way. If you think that reproduction was simple in the past (simple enough to have occurred by chance) the you do have the burden proof.


but given the evidence that we have, I would say that the design hypothesis is better than the naturalistic mechanism hypothesis. My justification is that reproductive systems have complex and specified configurations of units (aminoacyls) that are not achievable by any known natural mechanism


to give an analogy, if you have a container and you mix water rocks and feathers you will end up with an ordered pattern where fathers are at the top, water in the middle and rocks at the bottom, this organized pattern is not surprising because there is a natural mechanism that forces this pattern

but if you would have say all black feathers and all black rocks at the right and all brown feathers and all brow rocks at the left, one would infer design, because there is no know law that would force this pattern. An one would infer design even if we find this pattern in a distant planet where there no one has ever seen an alien nor any other intelligent designer.

sure you can always say that there is an unknown law that forces this pattern, but until then design would be the default answer.


life (reproductive systems) seem to be analogous to the second container, there is no known natural law that forces amino acids to organice in the exact order required to produce self replicating agents,


the fact that we have never observed life coming from none life naturally, is just a bonus argument, that makes naturalistic hypothesis less likely to be true.

 

[leroy]

well Sparhafoc, given that you don't reject the idea that the universe is eternal, you are granting that there is a possibility that life might also be eternal.

LEROY, pop it back in your pocket, eh?

You ASK me what I think - you do not tell me what I think.

I am amazed you still don't grasp this simple notion. You must have been raised by foxes in the wild and consequently have the discoursive competence of a wild fox.

you see, if the universe is eternal (you don't deny this possibility) you are granting that everything in the universe is (or at least could be eternal)......this is one of the absurdities that you have to grant if you don't grant premise 2 the KCA.

Utterly idiotic, LEROY - not just because of the terminal incoherence of your supposed logic, but because you are pulling my supposed position right from your rectum, still hot and sticky.

You can't actually debate what people say - you have to keep making up other peoples' positions for them. This is what makes you a mendacious little runt.

again given that C is you answer,


you are granting that there is a possibility worthy of consideration that the universe is eternal.

and if the universe is eternal it would follow that everything in the universe is (or at least could be) eternal


this is just a natural consequence if you what to answer C


if this doesn't represent your view, then you most drop C and grant premise 2 in the KCA

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No, he doesn't because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Life cannot be eternal because the earliest stages of our space-time continuum - since the Big Bang - was not conducive to life. Life could only occur when the circumstances in our space-time continuum became conducive to life.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

and if the universe is eternal it would follow that everything in the universe is (or at least could be) eternal

this is just a natural consequence if you what to answer C

if this doesn't represent your view, then you most drop C and grant premise 2 in the KCA

 

[Deleted member 619]

again given that C is you answer,


you are granting that there is a possibility worthy of consideration that the universe is eternal.

and if the universe is eternal it would follow that everything in the universe is (or at least could be) eternal


this is just a natural consequence if you what to answer C


if this doesn't represent your view, then you most drop C and grant premise 2 in the KCA

This is truly special, and would be worthy of FSTDT if weren't so mind-numbingly stupid that you'd have to take time to explain what led to it.

Well done, Leroy, you managed to plumb new depths of ignorance with that offering.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Therefore to say life is not eternal = faith

Are you claiming that cells existed at the Big Bang?

If so, kindly provide the scientific evidence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

No, he doesn't because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Life cannot be eternal because the earliest stages of our space-time continuum - since the Big Bang - was not conducive to life. Life could only occur when the circumstances in our space-time continuum became conducive to life.

Kindest regards,

James

if we define eternal as "existing from past infinity" and if the universe is eternal, then everything in the universe necessarily has to be eternal.

the big bang and all other events necessarily have to be eternal, if you start counting time from "infinity past" then any event in time would have ocurre an infinite amount of time ago

No, he doesn't because what you're saying doesn't make sense

exactly, this is why the universe can not be eternal, because that would have implications that doesn't make any sense.



+given this definition, God would not be eternal (just anticipating)

 

[leroy]

Therefore to say life is not eternal = faith

+using the definition that I am using


I'll say that the idea of life (or anything else) being eternal is absurd.



how would you define life an eternal?

 

[leroy]

Thank God I'm not a big banger

don't feel lonely

almost nobody form this forum grants the Big Bang,

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

No, he doesn't because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Life cannot be eternal because the earliest stages of our space-time continuum - since the Big Bang - was not conducive to life. Life could only occur when the circumstances in our space-time continuum became conducive to life.

Kindest regards,

James

if we define eternal as "existing from past infinity" and if the universe is eternal, then everything in the universe necessarily has to be eternal.

the big bang and all other events necessarily have to be eternal, if you start counting time from "infinity past" then any event in time would have ocurre an infinite amount of time ago

No, he doesn't because what you're saying doesn't make sense

exactly, this is why the universe can not be eternal, because that would have implications that doesn't make any sense.



+given this definition, God would not be eternal (just anticipating)

The universe can be eternal - our space-time continuum isn't.

Therefore, life is not eternal as it exists in our space-time continuum.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank God I'm not a big banger

don't feel lonely

almost nobody form this forum grants the Big Bang,

Of course we do - we just don't consider it the beginning of everything.

Kindest regards,

James