TrueEmpiricism (irony alert)

[AronRa]

Here is another weirdo from my personal inbox. I have already brought this guy up on my blog. It's so hard to tell the trolls apart from the genuinely delusional. But I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt; I'll pretend that he's both capable of reason and innocently misinformed, such that it might be possible to reach him, and he might be honest enough to reply accordingly.

I recently received the following message:

I had a question about evolution.

Why is it that you speak so much on the topic and refer to Christians as if evolution disproves god.

Evolution can only deal with change in species AFTER a genome is already available and life is already here.

There are many that believe in God and evolution at the same time.Yet at the same time it seems to me that many atheist have limited understanding on the topic.Now I am not an expert on evolution I would say that I know slightly above the average atheist or Christian that you have dealt with.

But..

It seems to me that the only people that can look at evolution objectively are Christians.

It is frustrating to me because.Many atheist on you-tube are teenagers and are very disrespectful when trying to dialogue.And I understand this element exist on both sides

And I also understand That many of them watch your vids.and when they hear a certain percentage might get the perspective that all theist are closed minded to truth.(and I resent this)

Now I understand that there are serious questions in the bible that a Christian is OBLIGATED to give an answer to.In order for it to be considered reasonably.(and I believe I can give an answer to most of these)

But because I believe in God is this expectable to be down talked and cursed at for my opposing world view?


You appeal to large audience.Read the comment section on some of the vids when a Christian response to an atheist vid.

There is an uncalled for attitude being projected from atheist Who I find to know little to nothing about the topics they try and flaunt.

And this is an issue I ask that you respond to.If I where to make a vid on the topic who cares I am just another creatard.

But if you expose there behaviour and disrespect they might open there ears to what you have to say.

(I am totally open to discussion.And I think that anybody that refuses to be delusional will allow his position to be challenged if he values truth and doesn't want to live a lie.

Well I hope you will at least consider what I said.

I replied:

>Why is it that you speak so much on the
>topic and refer to Christians as if evolution
>disproves god.

I don't.

Evolution only disproves the Bible, but then EVERYTHING disproves the Bible. However disproving the Bible does not disprove God -unless your god *is* the Bible.

If you're unable to distinguish doctrine from deity, if you worship man-made mythologies over your imagined creator of reality itself, then you're into Bibliolatry, and that's what creationism is.

There is no need to disprove God. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence and what is not, and whatever is not supported by evidence does not warrant serious consideration. In fact, Lawrence Krauss told me just yesterday, "if you can't measure it, it isn't real". That is effectively true. Everything that really exists has properties of some sort. Supernatural things do not, and are not coincidentally dream-like and subjectively variable. There is no way to distinguish belief in gods, ghosts, and magic from the illusions of delusion. The invisible and imaginary look very much alike.

Just remember,
"Positive claims require positive evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-Carl Sagan


"That which is asserted without evidence
can be dismissed without evidence".
-Christopher Hitchens

In science, you can't even posit that something MIGHT exist unless you can show some precedent to imply that it is at least possible. And it is wholly dishonest to say that something DOES exist before you have substantial objectively verifiable evidence to indicate that.


I can show a vast list of facts to prove that evolution is really real. You can't show one fact to indicate that anything you believe has any validity whatsoever.

So then I gott this message:

"That which is asserted without evidence
can be dismissed without evidence".

Evidence is constantly given.Whether the atheist REFUSES to acknowledge this isn't our problem

("Lawrence Krauss told me just yesterday,")

Lawrence Krause talks about something coming from nothing.Knowing full well that physicist mean by nothing is not nothing.

Energy is not nothing.

If you say something is coming from nothing when something is being utilized.Then its not nothing its something

(this is what you would call a pathological liar.So quoting from this man has no honest pull.


"I can show a vast list of facts to prove that evolution is really real. You can't show one fact to indicate that anything you believe has any validity whatsoever."


You fight for evolution because you know its got its foot in the door.(But if its true or not.WHO CARES.Its a dead end theory That doesn't deal with whether or not god exist.

And while you spend your time on this distraction.

There is PLENTY of evidence from cosmology to dna to the cell and almost everything in between that deals with the origins of things that ALL are pointing to a creative intelligent creator


2) continued

"Everything that really exists has properties of some sort. Supernatural things do not,"

Everything that I talk about is totally demonstrable WITHIN the natural world.

And all of this data is leading up to a cause outside of this universe.

Here is what its seems to me your failing to understand

What I am talking about its indication is leading up to the conclusion that is following.

If you reject this do you hold to string theory or the multi-verse.Both are indicative of universe outside this one so they are untestable also.

Holding to this while rejecting what the data is obviously indicating is a double standard and a picking and choosing of truth.


This is the reason I sent my vid response to you.You claim to be in it for truth

Yet another stunning display of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Inferno]

Lawrence Krauss told me just yesterday

Ultimate Geek namedrop, you lucky =)!Z§%R°!!!

 

[AronRa]

"That which is asserted without evidence
can be dismissed without evidence".

Evidence is constantly given.Whether the atheist REFUSES to acknowledge this isn't our problem

Evidence is constantly requested, but never provided. Notice how I just asked you for evidence and you didn't give any?

("Lawrence Krauss told me just yesterday,")

Lawrence Krause talks about something coming from nothing.Knowing full well that physicist mean by nothing is not nothing.

Energy is not nothing.

If you say something is coming from nothing when something is being utilized.Then its not nothing its something

(this is what you would call a pathological liar.So quoting from this man has no honest pull.

Krauss never said that energy is nothing. You have already demonstrated several times that you have no idea what you're talking about on any point yet raised. So as Lawrence Krauss is a physicist -and you are not- I will assume that he knows what physicists know, and you don't. I have been in the audience listening to several of Krauss' lectures in person. When he explains what 'nothing' really is, he admits that most people find it confusing. In response, I jokingly told him that I am confused by nothing, and that he understands nothing. You however do NOT understand nothing. What Krauss says about it is obviously beyond your level of comprehension.

"I can show a vast list of facts to prove that evolution is really real. You can't show one fact to indicate that anything you believe has any validity whatsoever."

You fight for evolution because you know its got its foot in the door.

Wrong. I promote evolution because it is observable, testable, and demonstrably true, where your alternative is vacuous nonsense and verifiably false.

(But if its true or not.WHO CARES.Its a dead end theory That doesn't deal with whether or not god exist.

Whether your god -or any god- exists or not is irrelevant. In any case, evolution is still true and all the world's supposedly "holy" books are still man-made mythology with no truth in them. Not even the existence of deities can change that. Neither need I 'deal with' your notions of a god that was never indicated by anything and is apparently only imaginary.

Accuracy and accountability matter in the world of science, though apparently not in your world. Evolution is a 'working' theory, not a dead one. We have all the facts; all the actual knowledge is on our side. Your alternative has no theory at all, nothing you can actually show to be true. I can easily show you how accurate evolution is, and how wrong the Bible is. You can't show me that your belief has any substance to it whatsoever. Nor can you refute any of the facts I have to show. You have no counter argument, no defense in either case.

And while you spend your time on this distraction.

At least you admit when you're only trolling to waste my time.

There is PLENTY of evidence from cosmology to dna to the cell and almost everything in between that deals with the origins of things that ALL are pointing to a creative intelligent creator

Yet there is not one specific thing you can actually point to? Not one fact you can cite?

"Everything that really exists has properties of some sort. Supernatural things do not,"

Everything that I talk about is totally demonstrable WITHIN the natural world.

And all of this data is leading up to a cause outside of this universe.

How would I know that, since you still haven't shown any data at all so far?

Here is what its seems to me your failing to understand

What I am talking about its indication is leading up to the conclusion that is following.

Yes, what you're [deliberately?] failing to understand is that you're talking about assumed conclusions that are unwarranted assumptions, asserted without any basis in fact. You're speculating, and pretending that's the same thing as evidence.

If you reject this do you hold to string theory or the multi-verse.Both are indicative of universe outside this one so they are untestable also.

Holding to this while rejecting what the data is obviously indicating is a double standard and a picking and choosing of truth.

Since you have provided no data to consider, I can only answer the other part of your query. No I do not accept string theory. I do however suspect that cosmic inflation is a dimensional rift of the time-space continuum, and I would further speculate that universes could emerge this way with the comparative frequency of bubbles appearing in the bottom of a saucepan coming to boil. But whatever the catalyst, it will never turn out to indicate any magic anthropomorphic immortal. The mystic djinn-like ghost you believe in is evidently a product of human imagination, and nothing more. It is not real.

This is the reason I sent my vid response to you.You claim to be in it for truth

That is correct. Now what can you present that you can show is actually true?

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

You know aronra it would of been cool if you would sent me a response rather then me having to find out I am being talked about behind my back,

I have been totally respectfull.(this is uncalled for)


(dunning kruger affect?)

I find this astonishing that (ARONRA) out of anybody would accuse me of this.


I am going to finish this in a new thread

 

[Metalgod]

Arguements against the existence of God tend to become philosophical.

 

[AronRa]

You know aronra it would of been cool if you would sent me a response rather then me having to find out I am being talked about behind my back,

Had you not found out about it so quickly, I would have had a chance to send a link. Check the record. That's what I always do.

No need for another thread. This thread will suffice.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

response to aronra's Irony alert

I find it astonishing that out of anybody accusing me of dunning Kruger affect it would be (ARONRA)

"Evidence is constantly requested, but never provided. Notice how I just asked you for evidence and you didn't give any?"

You know full well that I have.But just in case YOUR ONLY HEARING WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR I WILL GIVE A COUPLE AGIAN.


1)

Dna


Dna is a four character code

guanine thymine cytosine and adenine

These for characters make up billions of sequences of genetic INFORMATION.That do different Jobs such as dealing with protiens.Or interacting with these different bio chemical compounds during there folding sequences in order to communicate with the cell in order for the cell to function.


We have full knowledge to where this comes from.An intelligent mind.This attribute is OBJECTIVELY KNOWN to come from a creative mind.


What am I talking about?


Computer programs.


Computer programs is also a four character code

1.0,0.1

And just like when the code in this sugar based molecule in the genome communicates with the individual parts of the cell for its function.These computer codes do the same in car factory in dealing with the instructions of the machins.


This function is only KNOWN to come from an intelligent mind.NOT an assumed idea such as rna world studies ect.

This creative attribute is evidence of a creator behind it.


2)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an overall function.Each component is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give this over all function.

The minimum expectation among most scientist for minimum cell function would be about 250 proteins this coming out to about 5000 amino acids.


(so I ask a question what force besides a mind is capable of arranging all the components of the cell in a stratigic coordinated fashion to give an overall function like that of all the components of a laptop coming together and forming without a mind.


You see we (KNOW) keep that in mind (KNOW) to where this can happen a mind.


SO THIS ISNT A GOD OF THE GAPS SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE OR TO KNOW SO WE HAVE (SCIENCE) OR (KNOWLEDGE) TO WHERE THESE ATTRIBUTES COME.

What we don't know is to how these attributes can come without a mind.

And whether you like it or not aron if you hold to rna world studies or abio Genesis some gradual snow ball effect process you believe this by faith.

While the theist or deist stand by an objectively verified known common sense way for this to happen.



............................................................................................................................................................................................


Now I can go further.But I am not about to type away just yet.

"Krauss never said that energy is nothing. You have already demonstrated several times that you have no idea what you're talking about on any point yet raised"

No Krauss has speculated that something coming from nothing then turns around when confronted O what physicist mean by nothing is different then what normal people mean by nothing.


(((THEN ITS NOT NOTHING IS IT?!IF YOU ADVERTISE IT AS SOMETHING COMING FROM NOTHING AND THIS ISNT THE CASE THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL A LIE...)))


I know full well of what I am talking about.And you accusing me with your Ad hominem dismisal shows your very weak defense on the things I brought up.

Wrong. I promote evolution because it is observable, testable, and demonstrably true, where your alternative is vacuous nonsense and verifiable false.

Whether evolution is true or not I don't care and to be honest I didn't believe in it but now I am in between.Yet just like I told you before EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD this is why on the topic of theism or atheism it is a RED HERRING


(((Not 1 thing that I said is false.AND NOTHING IS VERIFIABLE FALSE.(This is just YOUR assertion.)

Whether your god -or any god- exists or not is irrelevant. In any case, evolution is still true and all the world's supposedly "holy" books are still man-made mythology with no truth in them. Not even the existence of deities can change that. Neither need I 'deal with' your notions of a god that was never indicated by anything and is apparently only imaginary.

Accuracy and accountability matter in the world of science, though apparently not in your world. Evolution is a 'working' theory, not a dead one. We have all the facts; all the actual knowledge is on our side. Your alternative has no theory at all, nothing you can actually show to be true. I can easily show you how accurate evolution is, and how wrong the Bible is. You can't show me that your belief has any substance to it whatsoever. Nor can you refute any of the facts I have to show. You have no counter argument, no defense in either case.

I like how you flaunt science with enforced metaphysical bias assertions.Also everything I have spoken of is straight from the scientific DATA.

YOU HAVE NO DATA backing up reality through some gradual snow ball effect happening without the influence of a creator.And I am talking about DNA the cell cosmology ect.NOT EVOLUTION.you seem to have a 1 mind track.There is plenty of other skeptics of evolution it is completely unnecessary to bring up a theory of science that doesn't even deal with the topic.

Yes, what you're [deliberately?] failing to understand is that you're talking about assumed conclusions that are unwarranted assumptions, asserted without any basis in fact. You're speculating, and pretending that's the same thing as evidence.

Assumed conclusions?There is absolutely NOT 1 assumption on my side of the table everything I have said is a comparison of objectively verifiable knowledge.The evidence leads up to these conclusions just like almost every other investigation of science.

That is correct. Now what can you present that you can show is actually true?

Everything I said about dna and the cell above and I could of gone one with much more.



It seems I am the only one defending my perception of reality.But you are incapable on any level to prove how these attributes can occur without the influence of a creator involved.(you have to assume)

 

[Prolescum]

TrueEmpiricism,

I've merged your thread with this one to keep the conversation from sprawling across the site.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: response to aronra's Irony alert

These for characters make up billions of sequences of genetic INFORMATION.

Define information.

 

[AronRa]

Re: response to aronra's Irony alert

I find it astonishing that out of anybody accusing me of dunning Kruger affect it would be (ARONRA)

Why does this surprise you? I can state the obvious just as well as anyone else.

"Evidence is constantly requested, but never provided. Notice how I just asked you for evidence and you didn't give any?"

You know full well that I have.But just in case YOUR ONLY HEARING WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR I WILL GIVE A COUPLE AGIAN.


1)

Dna


Dna is a four character code

guanine thymine cytosine and adenine

These for characters make up billions of sequences of genetic INFORMATION.That do different Jobs such as dealing with protiens.Or interacting with these different bio chemical compounds during there folding sequences in order to communicate with the cell in order for the cell to function.


We have full knowledge to where this comes from.An intelligent mind.This attribute is OBJECTIVELY KNOWN to come from a creative mind.

Wrong on several counts.
(1) Knowledge is demonstrable with measurable accuracy. We do not know that information comes only from an intelligent mind. In fact, in this instance -as with many others- we know that it does NOT come from any intelligent mind; nor could it, as there is no mind we know of that can exist outside the body or that is not composed of physical components. Neither is there any mechanism by which such events could be guided even if we were to assume that such an enigmatic disembodied mind could somehow exist. Everything we know about reality implies that it cannot. Everything we know about genetics implies that it is constructed incidentally without any apparent direction whatsoever.

What am I talking about?

I don't know, and you don't either.

Computer programs.

Computer programs is also a four character code

1.0,0.1

So the word 'binary' now means 'four' rather than 'two'? Shows what I know about programming, doesn't it.

And just like when the code in this sugar based molecule in the genome communicates with the individual parts of the cell for its function.These computer codes do the same in car factory in dealing with the instructions of the machins.

This function is only KNOWN to come from an intelligent mind.NOT an assumed idea such as rna world studies ect.

Actually RNA has been shown to spontaneously self-assemble when chemical precursors were subjected to a cyclic series of inundation, dehydration, and radiation.

This creative attribute is evidence of a creator behind it.

No. Maybe the problem is that you don't know what 'evidence' is. Let me help you with that.

Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.

Evidence: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, only one available explanation over any other.

Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.

Law </COLOR><COLOR color="#00FF00">[of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That “matter attracts matter” is a law of gravity.

Theory: (1) A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: *How* “matter attracts matter” is the theory of gravity.

Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] Something shown to be at least mostly true according to a preponderance of evidence. [scientific sense] Inapplicable except in the negative: It is only possible to dis-prove a hypothesis or theory. It isn’t possible to prove them positively.

Nothing you've described is both factual and positively indicative of any disembodied consciousness with magic powers. You need to show something that is consistent only with that conclusion and not already better explained by more reasonable processes which don't have to resort to unsupported absurdities.

2)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an overall function.Each component is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give this over all function.

The minimum expectation among most scientist for minimum cell function would be about 250 proteins this coming out to about 5000 amino acids.

(so I ask a question what force besides a mind is capable of arranging all the components of the cell in a stratigic coordinated fashion to give an overall function like that of all the components of a laptop coming together and forming without a mind.

There are a number of chemical combinants already recognized which appear to be involved at various points in the process of abiogenesis. But since it seems that you want to propose telekinesis instead, then I would be delighted if you would show precedence that such psionics are even possible. Whatcha got?

You see we (KNOW) keep that in mind (KNOW) to where this can happen a mind.

NO, keep in mind that we know NO such thing. We know otherwise. We know of NO means by which a mind could do any of these things.

SO THIS ISNT A GOD OF THE GAPS SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE OR TO KNOW SO WE HAVE (SCIENCE) OR (KNOWLEDGE) TO WHERE THESE ATTRIBUTES COME.

Citations please.

What we don't know is to how these attributes can come without a mind.

No, that's the part we DO know. You're getting this all backwards. Not surprising. Religion reverses everything.

And whether you like it or not aron if you hold to rna world studies or abio Genesis some gradual snow ball effect process you believe this by faith.[/quot]o sir, I reject faith outright, because it is wholly dishonest an inherently deceptive, and you have just demonstrated that. As I have already shown, I rely on evidence instead.

While the theist or deist stand by an objectively verified known common sense way for this to happen.

"Imagined" does not mean "known".

Now I can go further.But I am not about to type away just yet.

You haven't made any progress so far.

"Krauss never said that energy is nothing. You have already demonstrated several times that you have no idea what you're talking about on any point yet raised"

No Krauss has speculated that something coming from nothing then turns around when confronted O what physicist mean by nothing is different then what normal people mean by nothing.

Apparently physicists are not 'normal' people? Admittedly Krauss -like many other physicists- does have more in-depth understanding of the topic than laity do. Most folks have trouble with the idea of quantum fluctuations and time-dilations of polarized subatomic particle/fields.

(((THEN ITS NOT NOTHING IS IT?!IF YOU ADVERTISE IT AS SOMETHING COMING FROM NOTHING AND THIS ISNT THE CASE THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL A LIE...)))

No sir, a 'lie' is when a false statement is presented as true with the deliberate attempt to deceive. In this case, you have reported indications that areas within a single proton are popping in and out of existence with extreme rapidity. So far as I can tell, there is no attempted deception nor purpose (motive) behind any.

Conversely, we do have a whole lot of definitely deliberate deception coming from religious proponents, being the least credible 'witnesses' in the history of our species.

I know full well of what I am talking about.And you accusing me with your Ad hominem dismisal shows your very weak defense on the things I brought up.

You don't even know what you don't even know.

Whether evolution is true or not I don't care and to be honest I didn't believe in it but now I am in between.Yet just like I told you before EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD this is why on the topic of theism or atheism it is a RED HERRING

Then at last we agree on what I already told you before; evolution does not disprove God; evolution only disproves the Bible, and disproving the Bible does not disprove God. Disproving the Bhagavad-Gita doesn't disprove God either.

But then -I repeat- we don't need to disprove what was never indicated in the first place, nor even shown to be possible.

(((Not 1 thing that I said is false.AND NOTHING IS VERIFIABLE FALSE.(This is just YOUR assertion.)

Almost everything you've said so far is false. At least everything you claim to 'know' is false.

Accuracy and accountability matter in the world of science, though apparently not in your world. Evolution is a 'working' theory, not a dead one. We have all the facts; all the actual knowledge is on our side. Your alternative has no theory at all, nothing you can actually show to be true. I can easily show you how accurate evolution is, and how wrong the Bible is. You can't show me that your belief has any substance to it whatsoever. Nor can you refute any of the facts I have to show. You have no counter argument, no defense in either case.

I like how you flaunt science with enforced metaphysical bias assertions.

1. Show me anything I said in support of any metaphysical.
2. Show me anything I said implying a bias.
3. Show me anything I said that was merely an assertion not already explained elsewhere.

Also everything I have spoken of is straight from the scientific DATA.

No, what you've shown looks more like functional illiteracy coupled with some cognitive issues.

YOU HAVE NO DATA backing up reality through some gradual snow ball effect happening without the influence of a creator.

You have no data implying a creator. I on the other hand have the discoveries and evidence-based inferences of the greatest minds of history evaluating tangible realities which all imply natural causes and do not in any way support any of the things you assume instead.

And I am talking about DNA the cell cosmology ect.NOT EVOLUTION.you seem to have a 1 mind track.There is plenty of other skeptics of evolution it is completely unnecessary to bring up a theory of science that doesn't even deal with the topic.

What topic do you think you're talking about?

Yes, what you're [deliberately?] failing to understand is that you're talking about assumed conclusions that are unwarranted assumptions, asserted without any basis in fact. You're speculating, and pretending that's the same thing as evidence.

Assumed conclusions?There is absolutely NOT 1 assumption on my side of the table everything I have said is a comparison of objectively verifiable knowledge.The evidence leads up to these conclusions just like almost every other investigation of science. [/quote][/quote]No sir. You assume that magic exists. You assume that a 'mind' can be both metaphysical and disembodied, and immortal, and telekinetic, as well as uber-galactic and human-obsessed, and who knows what else you've assumed. But while you have many erroneous and unsupported assumptions, you still haven't shown one fact that is verifiably factual and positively indicative of any of your collective delusions. It's not that hard to do. Show me the peer-reviewed experimental observations supporting your conslusion and I'll show mine. It's that easy. Or I'll show you mine, and you make up excuses for why you can't show me anything, and then lie to yourself about why you've got nothing to show. Play it however you like.

That is correct. Now what can you present that you can show is actually true?

Everything I said about dna and the cell above and I could of gone one with much more. [/quote]As we have already seen, you can't show me that one word you've said can be backed by fact at all. It seems like you're not even able to understand that. So it's gonna hard getting through to you!

It seems I am the only one defending my perception of reality.But you are incapable on any level to prove how these attributes can occur without the influence of a creator involved.(you have to assume)

Natural processes we know. SUPERnatural processes are UNknown. They are not supported, not indicated. That's why most scientists are atheists. They know better than you do.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Wrong on several counts.
(1) Knowledge is demonstrable with measurable accuracy. We do not know that information comes only from an intelligent mind. In fact, in this instance -as with many others- we know that it does NOT come from any intelligent mind; nor could it, as there is no mind we know of that can exist outside the body or that is not composed of physical components. Neither is there any mechanism by which such events could be guided even if we were to assume that such an enigmatic disembodied mind could somehow exist. Everything we know about reality implies that it cannot. Everything we know about genetics implies that it is constructed incidentally without any apparent direction whatsoever.

No one has made the assumption that this mind existed outside the body.Whether this is possible would be an indicater for the causation of the universe NOT necessarily what I am talking about.If or if not this mind had a physical nature this knowledge is unavailable.


((BUT))

The facts still indicate that this is ONLY KNOWN to come from minds therefore this is the only KNOWN explanation to how this can occur.Come on now your gonna be that resistant to say that information is not known to come from minds?This an objective facts


(This is the bottom line there is no way around this for you.)

I don't know, and you don't either.

I know and so do you.Your just refusing to acknowledge it.

Actually RNA has been shown to spontaneously self-assemble when chemical precursors were subjected to a cyclic series of inundation, dehydration, and radiation

Rna world studies has failed because after a few sequences it has been shown to not work.This is why a pre Rna world has been suggested.

ON top of that trying to use Rna is terrible for several reason just to name to:


1)Rna consist of uricel NOT thymine like dna

2)It is extremely fragile

No. Maybe the problem is that you don't know what 'evidence' is. Let me help you with that.

Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.

Evidence: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, only one available explanation over any other.

Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.

:lol:

(EXACTLY)


fact:It is an objectively verifiable FACT that every-time you find coded info or a strategic amount of components working together in a coordinated fashion like that of laptops ect.This is ONLY KNOWN to come from a mind right?



When you find letter like that of this post you are reading each character is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give an overall meaning .Is it not a fact that EVERY SINGLE time you find this this has come from a mind.So every single human that is capable of reading KNOWS this to be the case.


It is an objectivity known fact.



This is exactly what these 4 characters of dna is.



evidence:The fact that info or strategic order in a coordinated fashion is only known to come from a mind and that there is ABSOLUTELY not 1 other alternative to where these attributes can come.Shows that it is a superior explanation over the others.BECAUSE THE OTHERS ARE JUST UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS





Hypothesis:If I was going to predict if an intelligence was behind the universe I would predict that I would find attributes that can only come from minds.And we do.


I would find technology that might mirror our own and we do.Micro processes in the cell the bacterium flagellum or (motor ect


I could keep going but this is sufficient

Conversely, we do have a whole lot of definitely deliberate deception coming from religious proponents, being the least credible 'witnesses' in the history of our species.

Maybe but Id say that this exist on the atheist side DEFINITELY.But I am not about to bring in a 2 quo fallacy

Almost everything you've said so far is false. At least everything you claim to 'know' is false.

No not 1 thing that I mentioned is false.Buddy every single thing you have said is just opinionated.I don't think I am right I know I am.The best you can do is be a critic and point the figure at me.But the real irony is that for every figure you point at me there is at least 5 back at you.(Science isn't a hidden wisdom for atheist bud.)

You have no data implying a creator. I on the other hand have the discoveries and evidence-based inferences of the greatest minds of history evaluating tangible realities which all imply natural causes and do not in any way support any of the things you assume instead.

Yes I do have ALL the data in science backing up a creator the best you got is an active dismissal of them.No you confuse assumptions abio genesis for example.No data what soever is in your favor

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: response to aronra's Irony alert

Dna is a four character code

DNA is not a code, nor does it have characters. It is a chemical chain withe very distinguishable chemical patterns. That's it. We humans with our necessity at describing those chemicals chains we establish patterns and make analogies, in this case that of a code. DNA is not a code.

These for characters make up billions of sequences of genetic INFORMATION.

It isn't information. It doesn't "inform" of anything.

That do different Jobs such as dealing with protiens.Or interacting with these different bio chemical compounds during there folding sequences in order to communicate with the cell in order for the cell to function.

And certainly does not communicate. DNA is not a cognoscente being.

We have full knowledge to where this comes from.

We do, but you don't.

An intelligent mind.

WRONG!

This attribute is OBJECTIVELY KNOWN to come from a creative mind.

It is objectively known? By what objective criteria? How exactly do you objectively know?
How is this not just pure asinine crap?

What am I talking about?
Computer programs.

No, you were talking about DNA, you said right there at the top.

Computer programs is also a four character code

WRONG!
If we are talking at the transistor level, it has just 2 base states, it has tension or it doesn't have tension.
There are some computers that have 3 states. But I have never heard of any with 4.

If we are talking about a higher level, like memory, then it has been a standard for a while that the smallest grouping is 8 bits.
7 segment displays uses 4 bits, and for the basic hexadecimal code you can also have 4 bits but then again most hexadecimal groupings comes with 2 digits to make a byte. But of course you are not even talking that far, suffice to say that you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about.
You couldn't show a better display of abject ignorance.

And just like when the code in this sugar based molecule in the genome communicates with the individual parts of the cell for its function.

It's not sugar, it has nothing to do with sugar. Sugar is a different kind of molecule.

These computer codes do the same in car factory in dealing with the instructions of the machins.

Actually no, because the code doesn't intervene chemically in the assembly line.

This function is only KNOWN to come from an intelligent mind.

Known? Known by what? Known by who? If there is one thing we do know is that it doesn't come from a human mind.
Since we talk about computers, we have been using genetic algorithms for while to construct code that does functions that are very complicated for a human to program, and one of the downside of the thing is, when its done and you look at the code it is almost impossible to figure out what the hell it is doing.

NOT an assumed idea such as rna world studies ect.

I don't know what the hell are you talking about, and I am sure you don't know either.

This creative attribute is evidence of a creator behind it.

I don't see any creative attribute.

2)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an overall function.Each component is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give this over all function.

Define "coordinated".

The minimum expectation among most scientist for minimum cell function would be about 250 proteins this coming out to about 5000 amino acids.

Scientists who exactly? I would like to see how they get to such an arbitrary number.

(so I ask a question what force besides a mind is capable of arranging all the components of the cell in a stratigic coordinated fashion to give an overall function like that of all the components of a laptop coming together and forming without a mind.

1. Work nothing like a laptop.
2. Perhaps you are interested in QED.

You see we (KNOW)...

No you don't. you think you do, but you really don't.

SO THIS ISNT A GOD OF THE GAPS SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE OR TO KNOW SO WE HAVE (SCIENCE) OR (KNOWLEDGE) TO WHERE THESE ATTRIBUTES COME.

That is exactly what it is, it is God of the Gaps! It is the same hold "I don't know of any process by witch something as complex as a cell can come about" so God! Why God? Who knows.

What we don't know is to how these attributes can come without a mind.

We do know. You don't know. And you see, God of the Gaps.

While the theist or deist stand by an objectively verified known common sense way for this to happen.

1. it's not objective.
2. It's not verified.
3. Common sense isn't knowing.

No Krauss has speculated that something coming from nothing then turns around when confronted O what physicist mean by nothing is different then what normal people mean by nothing.

Well because surprise surprise, the real world is absolutely not like anything people think it is, because common sense is as useful as a bicycle in the middle of the jungle.

Whether evolution is true or not I don't care and to be honest I didn't believe in it but now I am in between.

That at least is progress.

Yet just like I told you before EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD this is why on the topic of theism or atheism it is a RED HERRING

No it doesn't. It just disproves you flavor of God, it doesn't not disprove the idea of God.

I like how you flaunt science with enforced metaphysical bias assertions.

God is by definition metaphysical.

Also everything I have spoken of is straight from the scientific DATA.

1. You have no data.
2. you have no scientific knowledge.

And I am talking about DNA the cell cosmology ect.

Which are completely different fields of study.

NOT EVOLUTION.

Except of course you did explicitly mentioned evolution and followed up on it.

quote="TrueEmpiricism"]you seem to have a 1 mind track.[/quote]
It seams to me that he knows exactly and precisely what he wants and what is he talking about.
As opposed to you that doesn't even know if you are talking about Biology or Cosmology.

Assumed conclusions?There is absolutely NOT 1 assumption on my side of the table

Except of course everything. That other people don't know things, that you know things, that there is a minimal 250 proteins to a living life form, that we don't know of any natural process that is capable of producing complex organisms, you assumed God as a conclusion for pretty much everything, you assumed that there is even a God to begin with... and the list goes on and on.

everything I have said is a comparison

it is not a comparison, it is an assertion. A comparison is when you have to things and you judge one against the other.

of objectively verifiable knowledge.

not objective, not verifiable, not knowledge.

The evidence leads up to these conclusions just like almost every other investigation of science.

you have no evidence, it doesn't lead to those conclusions in any way, it is not an investigation and it is not science.

But you are incapable on any level to prove how these attributes can occur without the influence of a creator involved.(you have to assume)

Can you even show that they could occur with the influence of a supernatural creator?

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Master knight I can show why your wrong in detail.(and trust me reading your post you kinda left open a lot of space for criticism.But I am not trying to get into another dialouge that.after I am done then another wants to come challange me.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: response to aronra's Irony alert

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, TrueEmpiricism!

I find it astonishing that out of anybody accusing me of dunning Kruger affect it would be (ARONRA)

"Evidence is constantly requested, but never provided. Notice how I just asked you for evidence and you didn't give any?"

You know full well that I have.But just in case YOUR ONLY HEARING WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR I WILL GIVE A COUPLE AGIAN.

1)

Dna

Dna is a four character code

guanine thymine cytosine and adenine

These for characters make up billions of sequences of genetic INFORMATION.That do different Jobs such as dealing with protiens.Or interacting with these different bio chemical compounds during there folding sequences in order to communicate with the cell in order for the cell to function.


We have full knowledge to where this comes from.An intelligent mind.This attribute is OBJECTIVELY KNOWN to come from a creative mind.

I suggest that you watch this video to see why this "DNA is information, therefore God" argument is wrong:

What am I talking about?

Computer programs.

Computer programs is also a four character code

1.0,0.1

This is completely wrong.

Binary arithmetic is based on ones and zeros (1,0).

In any number base, the digits used are always those less than the number base - binary ("base two") only uses 1 and 0. The decimal system ("base ten") uses digits 0-9 inclusive.

"Ten" is the term used for "one zero" in the decimal system - in all other base systems, it's simply referred to as "one zero, base N", where N is the number base.

And just like when the code in this sugar based molecule in the genome communicates with the individual parts of the cell for its function.These computer codes do the same in car factory in dealing with the instructions of the machins.

This function is only KNOWN to come from an intelligent mind.NOT an assumed idea such as rna world studies ect.

This creative attribute is evidence of a creator behind it.

There are, at least, a couple of problems with the above.

Firstly, though DNA has a sugar-based framework, it is not itself a sugar-based "molecule":



Secondly, as I've already pointed out with the earlier linked video, you're conflating "code" in molecules with those in computers.

2)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an overall function.Each component is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give this over all function.

The minimum expectation among most scientist for minimum cell function would be about 250 proteins this coming out to about 5000 amino acids.

(so I ask a question what force besides a mind is capable of arranging all the components of the cell in a stratigic coordinated fashion to give an overall function like that of all the components of a laptop coming together and forming without a mind.

Evolution.

You see we (KNOW) keep that in mind (KNOW) to where this can happen a mind.

SO THIS ISNT A GOD OF THE GAPS SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE OR TO KNOW SO WE HAVE (SCIENCE) OR (KNOWLEDGE) TO WHERE THESE ATTRIBUTES COME.

What we don't know is to how these attributes can come without a mind.

You're conflating two types of "know": relative (faith/belief/opinion) and absolute (fact).

You're also confusing two meanings for "science": as knowledge of something and as a body of knowledge.

In inferring intent (design) from order, you've now alluded to the argument from design and fine-tuning:

YAnd whether you like it or not aron if you hold to rna world studies or abio Genesis some gradual snow ball effect process you believe this by faith.

While the theist or deist stand by an objectively verified known common sense way for this to happen.

Again, in claiming that Aron's putative support for abiogenesis (and evolution) is to "believe this by faith" is yet another example of your conflating two meanings of "know" - as I've already explained above.

Again, conflating biological order and mechanical order (design) is a fallacy.

Now I can go further.But I am not about to type away just yet.

"Krauss never said that energy is nothing. You have already demonstrated several times that you have no idea what you're talking about on any point yet raised"

No Krauss has speculated that something coming from nothing then turns around when confronted O what physicist mean by nothing is different then what normal people mean by nothing.

(((THEN ITS NOT NOTHING IS IT?!IF YOU ADVERTISE IT AS SOMETHING COMING FROM NOTHING AND THIS ISNT THE CASE THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL A LIE...)))

I know full well of what I am talking about.And you accusing me with your Ad hominem dismisal shows your very weak defense on the things I brought up.

I'd have to disagree with you on this as well.

What a physicist calls "nothing" and what a layperson calls "nothing" is similar to the difference between their use of the word "theory".

At the risk of oversimplifying too much, the key here is that the particles coming in and out of existence are virtual: their time spans are so short that they might as well not exist ("nothing").

Wrong. I promote evolution because it is observable, testable, and demonstrably true, where your alternative is vacuous nonsense and verifiable false.

Whether evolution is true or not I don't care and to be honest I didn't believe in it but now I am in between.Yet just like I told you before EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD this is why on the topic of theism or atheism it is a RED HERRING

Agreed - evolution does not disprove God - however, it does show that God is not necessary.

(((Not 1 thing that I said is false.AND NOTHING IS VERIFIABLE FALSE.(This is just YOUR assertion.)

You've made a number of false statements - as I and others have pointed out.

Whether your god -or any god- exists or not is irrelevant. In any case, evolution is still true and all the world's supposedly "holy" books are still man-made mythology with no truth in them. Not even the existence of deities can change that. Neither need I 'deal with' your notions of a god that was never indicated by anything and is apparently only imaginary.

Accuracy and accountability matter in the world of science, though apparently not in your world. Evolution is a 'working' theory, not a dead one. We have all the facts; all the actual knowledge is on our side. Your alternative has no theory at all, nothing you can actually show to be true. I can easily show you how accurate evolution is, and how wrong the Bible is. You can't show me that your belief has any substance to it whatsoever. Nor can you refute any of the facts I have to show. You have no counter argument, no defense in either case.

I like how you flaunt science with enforced metaphysical bias assertions.Also everything I have spoken of is straight from the scientific DATA.

YOU HAVE NO DATA backing up reality through some gradual snow ball effect happening without the influence of a creator.And I am talking about DNA the cell cosmology ect.NOT EVOLUTION.you seem to have a 1 mind track.There is plenty of other skeptics of evolution it is completely unnecessary to bring up a theory of science that doesn't even deal with the topic.

I trust the above videos will go some way to showing that your statements above are not correct.

You believe you have "scientific DATA", but you do not. On the contrary, AronRa's correct.

Yes, what you're [deliberately?] failing to understand is that you're talking about assumed conclusions that are unwarranted assumptions, asserted without any basis in fact. You're speculating, and pretending that's the same thing as evidence.

Assumed conclusions?There is absolutely NOT 1 assumption on my side of the table everything I have said is a comparison of objectively verifiable knowledge.The evidence leads up to these conclusions just like almost every other investigation of science.

Relative knowing.

That is correct. Now what can you present that you can show is actually true?

Everything I said about dna and the cell above and I could of gone one with much more.

It seems I am the only one defending my perception of reality.But you are incapable on any level to prove how these attributes can occur without the influence of a creator involved.(you have to assume)

Watch the earlier videos.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Re: response to aronra's Irony alert

I find it astonishing that out of anybody accusing me of dunning Kruger affect it would be (ARONRA)

"Evidence is constantly requested, but never provided. Notice how I just asked you for evidence and you didn't give any?"

1)

Dna


Dna is a four character code

No. DNA is a polymer of four different molecules linked together, those molecules we call

guanine thymine cytosine and adenine

These for characters

They're not characters, they're molecules. We have LABELED them by referring to them with characters and names.

make up billions of sequences of genetic INFORMATION.

Why do you put information in caps? There's nothing unusual about information. Information exists everywhere in everything. It is simply the state of a physical system.

That do different Jobs such as dealing with protiens.Or interacting with these different bio chemical compounds during there folding sequences in order to communicate with the cell in order for the cell to function.

By now it is clear to me that you have no formal education in these matters, and you seem to just sort of vaguely throw terms and expressions around you don't really know how relate together.

Most probably, you have some vague idea that terms like "code" and "information" are related to computer science and engineering. It does not, however, follow logically from this that because the terms "code" and "information" are used in engineering and computer science, that when we use the same terms to describe the biochemistry of inheritance and cellular activity - therefore DNA and cells were "designed" and "engineered".

That is an invalid argument deductive argument. It commits the fallacy of a non-sequitur, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

We have full knowledge to where this comes from.An intelligent mind.This attribute is OBJECTIVELY KNOWN to come from a creative mind.

No, now you're begging the question. This is another fallacy, it means you assume your conclusion before it has been demonstrated to be true.

I would agree with you that intelligent minds, human intelligent minds, using human intelligent design and engineering have been observed to create codes and information processing systems (computers). It does not mean, when we observe systems in nature that function ANALOGOUSLY to human inventions, that therefore these observed natural system were also designed. (That's the non-sequitur fallacy).

At best you can only argue that it is possible that an intelligence made them. But their mere functions and the labels we use to describe them does not logically entail intelligent design.

What am I talking about?

Computer programs.

Computer programs is also a four character code

1.0,0.1

What? No, computer programs isn't "also a four character code".


Computers operate fundamentally in binary, 1 or 0. Current is either ON or OFF, On we call 1, OFF we call 0. But binary can be translated into any imaginable number system you want, not just base4 or whatever you meant with "four character code". The example you gave "1.0,0.1" was meaningless gibberish.

And just like when the code in this sugar based molecule in the genome communicates with the individual parts of the cell for its function.

The "sugar based molecule" IS the genome(and I'm courteusly assuming you're referring to the phosphate-(deoxy)ribose backbone of DNA and RNA).

These computer codes do the same in car factory in dealing with the instructions of the machins.

This function is only KNOWN to come from an intelligent mind.

That is directly empirically false. We have directly observed the evolution of various forms of genetic instructions.

See this study for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201865/
Evolution of a Regulated Operon in the Laboratory
Barry G. Hall

Abstract
The evolution of new metabolic functions is being studied in the laboratory using the EBG system of E. coli as a model system. It is demonstrated that the evolution of lactose utilization by lacZ deletion strains requires a series of structural and regulatory gene mutations. Two structural gene mutations act to increase the activity of ebg enzyme toward lactose, and to permit ebg enzyme to convert lactose into allolactose, an inducer of the lac operon. A regulatory mutation increases the sensitivity of the ebg repressor to lactose, and permits sufficient ebg enzyme activity for growth. The resulting fully evolved ebg operon regulates its own expression, and also regulates the synthesis of the lactose permease.

NOT an assumed idea such as rna world studies ect.

The RNA world is not "an assumed idea". We know there was an RNA world at some early stage in life, we know this because we have convincing empirical evidence. What we don't know is how this RNA world itself came about. That is, whether it was that which emerged at the origin of life, or wheter an even more primitive "living system" of some sort came before it. Regardless, there most certainly was an RNA world.

This creative attribute is evidence of a creator behind it.

At best you can make a weak inductive argument similar to "the majority of the codes we know about have been designed by human beings, we now observe a system that functions analogously to a "code", therefore it could have been designed". That's however a very weak argument, both because we have no independent evidence of the supposed designer, while on the contrary we have good evidence of evolution.

I repeat myself, but here goes: You can at best argue for mere logical possibility or concievability.

2)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an overall function. Each component is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give this over all function.

That's begging the question. You can't say the components have been "placed" "to give" some kind of function, because there's no evidence of this. You can only observe what the function is, you cannot extract from this that the components were therefore somehow intended to "give" this function.

For the same reason you can't say that melting snow on top of a mountain was "placed" there to "give" the function of carving a river into the landscape below it. You can only observe that it has "that effect", but to therefore declare that it was "placed" for that "function" is question-begging. You're not evidentially justified in drawing that conclusion from the mere observation of the effect.

The minimum expectation among most scientist for minimum cell function would be about 250 proteins this coming out to about 5000 amino acids.

Yes, a free-living extant cell with a DNA-based genome, a genetic code and enzymatically catalyzed protein biosynthesis that has to do all it's own work of living, finding and extracting nutrients and energy from it's surroundings.

It does not follow from this, however, that there cannot be a simpler organism that can live off a number of environmentally driven cycles.

(so I ask a question what force besides a mind is capable of arranging all the components of the cell in a stratigic coordinated fashion to give an overall function like that of all the components of a laptop coming together and forming without a mind.

Evolution baby.

Evolution by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization.

You see we (KNOW) keep that in mind (KNOW) to where this can happen a mind.

Yes, designers can design complex systems. It does not follow from this mere conceivable possibility that therefore life was designed.

SO THIS ISNT A GOD OF THE GAPS SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE OR TO KNOW SO WE HAVE (SCIENCE) OR (KNOWLEDGE) TO WHERE THESE ATTRIBUTES COME.

The only intelligence we know of is human intelligence, but we know life is billions of years old. Human beings weren't around billions of years ago, so humans can't have designed life. However, what we DO know is that life evolved, because we have evidence that life evolved.

We don't know how life originated, but since there's no evidence it was designed, and that most of the features we see in extant life show evidence of having evolved, it would make the most sense to postulate life originated in a natural process of some sort.

What we don't know is to how these attributes can come without a mind.

All minds we know of are contingent on physical material brains. A mind existing in the absense of a physical brain has never been observed, and a bodyless mind, should such a thing even be possible, has no means by which it can manipulate physical matter and shape and make and create living physical organsisms. Consequently, if life was designed, it was designed by a natural, physical material designer. Maybe an intelligent alien. But this leaves us with a conondrum, how did the alien coma about? Sooner or later, one had to somehow emerge. So life must have originated through a natural process at some point.

And whether you like it or not aron if you hold to rna world studies or abio Genesis some gradual snow ball effect process you believe this by faith.

It's not faith, it's a strong inductive argument. In some places we have important clues and there is evidence in genetics.

While the theist or deist stand by an objectively verified known common sense way for this to happen.

The deist and theist are postulating an absurdity that runs contrary to observed fact: That minds can only exist through a physical substrate - material brains. Furthermore, for minds to possess the ability to manipulate matter, it must itself be made of matter. Brains a physical objects in physical connection with a material body. So brain-contingent minds in physical bodies are absolutely required to do "design" and "engineering" of material objects, like living cells made of molecules and so on and so forth.

There is no evidence of minds existing in the absense of physical brains, consequently it would be irrational to believe it is possible.

There is no evidence of minds having the ability to manipulate matter through the "will" of the mind alone, they absolutely need a physical body to do this. Consequently, it would be irrational to believe that a mind can do such a thing, even in the case it can exist without a brain. If there is such a thing as a spirit or a soul, there is no evidence it can interact with the material world and create living organisms or anything at all.

 

[AronRa]

Master knight I can show why your wrong in detail.(and trust me reading your post you kinda left open a lot of space for criticism.But I am not trying to get into another dialouge that.after I am done then another wants to come challange me.

Welcome to the peer review process. If your comments are correct, if what you're saying really is objectively verifiably accurate, you will be able to demonstrate that -not just to one critic- but to all of us at the same time. If any one of us proves you wrong, it's not like all of us need to repeat that process. If you're wrong, you're wrong, and any one of us could show that. If you're right you're right, and all of us would have to admit that possibility when we each fail to find any error in your argument. Science works exactly opposite to the way faith does; it doesn't suffer fools and bullshit won't fly in our forums like it does throughout religion.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Dragan Glas

.............................................................................................................................................................................

No I am sorry the first video was terrible.For the most part the vid was just O creationist say this and that about dna (He really didn't say anything for the most part.

When he finally got to The characters of language he deceptively says look these 5 characters of random letters take up the same amount of (BITS) as the 5 characters of Jesus
So its info to.Umm know its not?


And earlier he was correct Information (Speaking of coded or dna being compared to the English alphabet 1 to 1)Being a sequence or arrangement of characters placed to give an over all meaning.(so one kinda has to wonder why he would contradict himself as to say

"what the sequence of the 5 symbols means to the reader is completely Irrelevant

How can info be something that has meaning.Yet if there is no meaning it is irrelevant.

Evolution.

No evolution deals with life after it is ALREADy here.Irreducible complexity deals whether or not a certain component can be useful in a particular life for with limited parts .

I am talking about the base expectation for (cell) function and the arranging of them.This would deal with abio genesis and coded methodological assumptions such as rna world study or genetic algorithms ect.


But since these assumptions have I would say no demonstrable evidence backing up if there true.These assumptions are not equal to where is KNOWN for these attributes to come

(And I don't buy because there clothed under the scientific methodological system Its not faith it is.)


Now as for what ken miller is talking about (dealing with the bacterium flagellum)My opinion is that your not proving a point by using a structure that have similar material but both are for different uses.


The bubonic plague uses a needle like instrument built for INJECTION.And the bacterium flagellum is a wipe like structure for movement.

Saying these different subject is similar then pre supposing (a gradual development doesn't show that the FLAGELLUM motor can stil have mobility.(There is a lot to say on this topic but as ken miller said you just have to compare the both and see which one makes the most sense.


I am seeing 2 distinct functions necessary for separate subjects functions.(so I am not convinced Irreducible complexity has been dis proven.

You're conflating two types of "know": relative (faith/belief/opinion) and absolute (fact).

You're also confusing two meanings for "science": as knowledge of something and as a body of knowledge.

No

There are 2 definitions of faith found in almost every dictionary

1) confidence in something

2)Belief without any evidence


My type of faith is the evidence that leads up to this conclusion.Its that facts that built up my confidence.


Belief?I am guessing a genetic fallacy here.


when I speak of science.Science means knowledge.So what do we have that best explain these causes of reality?We have objective knowledge of where these attributes come therefore this knowledge is superior to methodological assumptions.


Now you I disagree 100% with a lot of what you said but I appreciate your respectful impute

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

ARONRA wrote:


Welcome to the peer review process. If your comments are correct, if what you're saying really is objectively verifiably accurate, you will be able to demonstrate that -not just to one critic- but to all of us at the same time. If any one of us proves you wrong, it's not like all of us need to repeat that process. If you're wrong, you're wrong, and any one of us could show that. If you're right you're right, and all of us would have to admit that possibility when we each fail to find any error in your argument. Science works exactly opposite to the way faith does; it doesn't suffer fools and bullshit won't fly in our forums like it does throughout religion.

.

Aronra wrote:

Science works exactly opposite to the way faith does[/quote

Yea..

You seem to have plenty of faith that these scientific methodological hypothesis will find alternative explanations to where these attributes can come.


In a matter a fact you still hold to what people thought over 150 years ago that the cell is just a piece of jelly that can be produced through a chemical reaction.


Its a FACT this isn't the case.The cell is the most complex thing on the planet.In which its components mirror our own technology.On top of this there miniterized and everybody knows the smaller you try and make something the more difficult it is to make.

So not only would you have to have 100s of individual chemical productions of the material.You have to ASSUME that maybe enough of them can be produced and be protected so that this fragile material wont be dissolved.And the precise arrangement of this material from the forces of nature and blind chemical reactions can produce this.

Or that MAYBE it was a virus stuck in a lipid vacuole or some other crap.

Failed assumptions built on other assumptions built on others..

Aronra wrote:

Science works exactly opposite to the way faith does; it doesn't suffer fools and bullshit won't fly in our forums like it does throughout religion

Your whole perception of science is FAITH based Bull.

 

[Rumraket]

You seem to have plenty of faith that these scientific methodological hypothesis will find alternative explanations to where these attributes can come.

We don't need faith for that, we have the entire history of science as a basis. Science is the single best methdology for finding explanations for observed natural phenomena. Countless phenomena once believed the remit of the supernatural has been turned out to be just nature, and there has never been a single scientific study that concluded that the supernatural was somehow responsible for an observed phenomenon. Consequently it would be irrational to still believe that the supernatural exists after thousands of years of the success of methodological naturalism and complete and utter failures of supernaturalism.

Countless diseases and ailments: The supernatural postulated evil spirits, curses, witchcraft, demons and devils, black magic, voodoo, devil worship and punishment and testing by the gods.

ALL WRONG.
Methodological naturalism found the explanations for all of them. Infectous micro. oganisms, deleterious somatic mutations, toxic compounds in our food and water which we understand how work and how they disrupt normal cellular and organismal function etc. etc. etc.

The day and night cycle, the weather, storms, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and floods, thunder and lightning, rain, clouds, what the stars are, where they come from, how far away they are, how big the world is, what the planet is made of and how old it is and how it came to be.

ALL EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE. ALL of it. NONE of it explained by the supernatural or by magic. Nothing but complete and utter failure by the supernaturalists.

THAT, dear mr. TrueEmpiricsm, is why we have discarded the supernatural and stick with science. It's not faith when there's a >1000 year rational empirical basis for it.

In a matter a fact you still hold to what people thought over 150 years ago that the cell is just a piece of jelly that can be produced through a chemical reaction.

How can you claim this as a matter of fact when it is demonstrably false? No, noone believes, as a matter of fact, that the cell is "just a piece of jelly that can be produced through a chemical reaction".

Quick hint - If you're going to claim something as a matter of fact, FACT-CHECK FIRST.

Its a FACT this isn't the case.

I agree, the cell is not "just a piece of jelly that can be produced through a chemical reaction". Nobody here believes that. Not you, not me, not AronRa. Noone.

The cell is the most complex thing on the planet.

Well no, the brain is. But that's because it's a collection of cells, not just a single one of course.

In which its components mirror our own technology.

By analogy yes, they can be said to be similar in some respects.

It does not follow from this limited similarity alone(the degree of similarity is essentially irrelevant) that therefore the cell is the product of design. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

On top of this there miniterized and everybody knows the smaller you try and make something the more difficult it is to make.

All the more reason to think they weren't "made".

So not only would you have to have 100s of individual chemical productions of the material.

Not really. The thing about the origin of life is that once there is a basis for decent with modification, evolution does the rest. All we need is the basis for self-replication. Life doesn't have to emerge fully formed the way it is now, nobody believes that, it is a creationist strawman.

You have to ASSUME that maybe enough of them can be produced and be protected so that this fragile material wont be dissolved. And the precise arrangement of this material from the forces of nature and blind chemical reactions can produce this.

What "fragile material" are we talking about here? Be specific.

And what "precise arrangement" is it that it needs to be in? Be specific.

Or that MAYBE it was a virus stuck in a lipid vacuole or some other crap.

Maybe it was, we don't know. Scientists are working on it.

I take it you want them to stop, to give up, to declare that it can't be solved? You want to stop science and just take it on faith that a supernatural mind that can exist in the absense of a physical brain (never observed, probably not even possible in principle) can somehow manipulate physical matter through the will alone and make it all stick together in the right fashion and make it work like a living cell.

This needs to be demonstrated empirically before it can be believed. Please demonstrate:

1. That there can exist a mind in the absense of a physical brain.
2. That this mind has the ability to bring matter and energy into existence from nothing through the power of it's will.
3. That this mind has the ability to manipulate matter and energy through the will alone.

Failed assumptions built on other assumptions built on others..

What assumptions? When did they fail?

Science works exactly opposite to the way faith does; it doesn't suffer fools and bullshit won't fly in our forums like it does throughout religion

Your whole perception of science is FAITH based Bull.

No, it's based on evidence as I explained above to begin with. Thousands of years of evidence.

YOUR perception is based on faith, blind, unsupported faith. Prove me wrong, empirically demonstrate:
1. That there can exist a mind in the absense of a physical brain.
2. That this mind has the ability to bring matter and energy into existence from nothing through the power of it's will.
3. That this mind has the ability to manipulate matter and energy through the will alone.

 

[AronRa]

I like how you flaunt science with enforced metaphysical bias assertions.

1. Show me anything I said in support of any metaphysical.
2. Show me anything I said implying a bias.
3. Show me anything I said that was merely an assertion not already explained elsewhere.

Don't ignore me. If you make false accusations like this, expect to be called out for it, and expect to be accountable for it. If you can't show that your accusation was correct, you should retract it, and apologize for it.

No one has made the assumption that this mind existed outside the body.Whether this is possible would be an indicater for the causation of the universe NOT necessarily what I am talking about.If or if not this mind had a physical nature this knowledge is unavailable.

So what are you? A Mormon? Do you believe God has a body? That he created the universe by hand? Because the Bible has him using a collection of magic spells, usually incantations. By what method do you propose your god actually does anything? What precedent or parallel can you present to show that your proposed mechanism is even possible? And how could we possibly verify or falsify that idea?

The facts still indicate that this is ONLY KNOWN to come from minds therefore this is the only KNOWN explanation to how this can occur.Come on now your gonna be that resistant to say that information is not known to come from minds?This an objective facts

(This is the bottom line there is no way around this for you.)

We know that "the mind" is NOT the only source for such things; natural processes and phenomenon also prompt the incidental emergence of apparent design.

I don't know, [what you're talking about] and you don't either.

I know and so do you.Your just refusing to acknowledge it.

No sir, I at least am being sincere. You obviously don't know what you're talking about -as I and others have already shown. If you did, I would acknowledge it, because I am NOT a 'defender of the faith' as you are. Thus I have no want or need to lie in defense of my position the way you have to.

Actually RNA has been shown to spontaneously self-assemble when chemical precursors were subjected to a cyclic series of inundation, dehydration, and radiation

Rna world studies has failed because after a few sequences it has been shown to not work.This is why a pre Rna world has been suggested.

Sorry, but as I have already shown, you're wrong again, because after several sequences it was shown that it DOES work.
Wired: Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

ON top of that trying to use Rna is terrible for several reason just to name to:

1)Rna consist of uricel NOT thymine like dna

2)It is extremely fragile

Regardless, RNA builds DNA, and protobionts would have been exclusive RNA based, just like viruses are now.

No. Maybe the problem is that you don't know what 'evidence' is. Let me help you with that.

Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.

Evidence: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, only one available explanation over any other.

Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.

:lol:

(EXACTLY)

fact:It is an objectively verifiable FACT that every-time you find coded info or a strategic amount of components working together in a coordinated fashion like that of laptops ect.This is ONLY KNOWN to come from a mind right?

Wrong.

Now since you seem to think this is laughable, answer the challenge I presented to you when we first started this: Show me any factual evidence in support of your position and a testable hypothesis to verify or falsify your claims.

When you find letter like that of this post you are reading each character is placed in a coordinated fashion in order to give an overall meaning .Is it not a fact that EVERY SINGLE time you find this this has come from a mind.So every single human that is capable of reading KNOWS this to be the case.

It is an objectivity known fact.

This is exactly what these 4 characters of dna is.

It is true that written character languages have so far only been developed by calculating and purposeful minds, but this is not happens with regard to DNA. For example, in a speech I gave just last week, I mentioned that a particular heterozygous transversion mutation in the PAX9 homeobox gene substitutes alanine for proline, resulting in agenesis of the 3rd human molar, meaning that wisdom teeth will never develop. This by the way is usually a beneficial mutation in humans. This is the way genetics really works. No part of that bares the slightest hint of code or language, and it certainly shows no similarity to anything that would be concocted by a 'mind'. This is chemical, not mental.

evidence:The fact that info or strategic order in a coordinated fashion is only known to come from a mind and that there is ABSOLUTELY not 1 other alternative to where these attributes can come.Shows that it is a superior explanation over the others.BECAUSE THE OTHERS ARE JUST UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS

You yourself are arguing from a point of unverified assumptions, having neither facts nor evidence in your favor.

Hypothesis:If I was going to predict if an intelligence was behind the universe I would predict that I would find attributes that can only come from minds.And we do.

....find emergent design attributes that do NOT come from 'minds'. Hypothesis falsified.

I would find technology that might mirror our own and we do.Micro processes in the cell the bacterium flagellum or (motor ect

I could keep going but this is sufficient

The bacterial flagellum, along with several other examples, (immune system, blood-clotting cascade, etc.) were insufficient to make the case for intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, because they had already failed to make the case in any scientific application prior to that.

But -and this is important- even if we pretend for a moment that your completely wrong assumption was somehow correct, even if we still thought that information of every kind seen so far only came from a 'mind', that still would not indicate that no exceptions could ever exist. And even if we gave you that assumption too, that still would not qualify as evidence of a god. You still haven't shown that such a thing could actually exist, nor how, nor what mechanisms such a thing would use to do any of the things which you foolishly assume that it does.

Conversely, we do have a whole lot of definitely deliberate deception coming from religious proponents, being the least credible 'witnesses' in the history of our species.

Maybe but Id say that this exist on the atheist side DEFINITELY.But I am not about to bring in a 2 quo fallacy

No, you're wrong here too. To prove it, I have another challenge for you. (1) Name one scientist who ever lied in the promotion of evolution over creationism. (2) Name one professional creationist who did NOT lie in defense of creation over legitimate science. You will not satisfy either part of this challenge. Many before you have tried.

Hint: Ernst Haeckel was trying to promote his own brand of embryology over the laws established by another evolutionary scientist, Ernst von Baer.

Almost everything you've said so far is false. At least everything you claim to 'know' is false.

No not 1 thing that I mentioned is false.Buddy every single thing you have said is just opinionated.I don't think I am right I know I am.The best you can do is be a critic and point the figure at me.But the real irony is that for every figure you point at me there is at least 5 back at you.(Science isn't a hidden wisdom for atheist bud.)

As I and others have already shown, almost everything you've said so far has been shown to be false, and you have clearly demonstrated that you don't even know what you don't know.

You have no data implying a creator. I on the other hand have the discoveries and evidence-based inferences of the greatest minds of history evaluating tangible realities which all imply natural causes and do not in any way support any of the things you assume instead.

Yes I do have ALL the data in science backing up a creator the best you got is an active dismissal of them.No you confuse assumptions abio genesis for example.No data what soever is in your favor

One of the many elements of scientific data which I have to support me is that every time we have ever evoked supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon, those explanations have always been unsupported nonsense or were simply proven wrong. They have always only ever impeded all progress in whatever fields of study where that explanation had previously been accepted. There is nothing in the whole of our perceived reality, past or present, which is better explained by a this enigmatic creator than it is by our theoretical models, whether well established or still being worked out. Even incomplete hypotheses have done a better job so far than any appeal to apologetics. I’ll go even further and say that speculations presented on behalf of this alleged magical conjuror have yet to explain anything.

We once believed that epilepsy was the result of demonic possession. The father of Protestant Christianity argued that diseases were some sort of spiritual curse, and that doctors were fools for treating illnesses as they come from some natural cause. Many eastern and near-eastern religions believed in the firmament, which was a giant dome over the earth with windows in it, and water above it; that’s where the rain came from. Comets were an omen, and the stars and planets were anthropomorphized even in the Bible. Lightning was blamed on Zeus or Thor, depending on where you lived, and the part of the Abrahamic god was played by a volcano in the book of Exodus, which was obviously written before anyone knew about plate tectonics. Even if a supernatural belief were actually correct, there is no way to know that because it can’t be tested, and it would be of no benefit because it still wouldn’t explain anything. Only accurate information has practical application, and supernatural explanations have always been literally useless, if not counterproductive and detrimental too. Every time we have ever tried to evoke the supernatural to explain anything we did not yet understand, all progress stopped until we became dissatisfied with those excuses. And in every case, once we discovered the real explanation, it revealed a whole new field of study with benefits previously unimagined. The natural explanation always turns out to be more complex and fascinating and far more valuable than our earlier notions of gods and magic. So I think it will be if we ever discover the true origin of the universe. That too will cause gods to appear useless, senseless, and silly assertions by comparison.