TrueEmpiricism (irony alert)

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

Actually, he said a great deal.

Firstly, he pointed out Creationists' tendency to confuse information science with information theory.

He also pointed out that this is symptomatic of Creationists' suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

He explained that information is not dependent on a sequence of symbols having meaning, before pointing out the error that the Creationist made in the video that changing symbols "loses information", due to his confusing this with "meaning".

And, with all due respect, TrueEmpiricism, I have to point out that this is the same error you're making in this reply.

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?

This is not correct.

Information is defined as "a sequence of symbols".

No more, no less.

It does not have to have meaning - for you, someone else or, indeed, anyone.

"Tá an madra marbh" is a sequence of symbols and, as such, is information.

The fact that it has no meaning for you is irrelevant. To someone who understands Irish, however, it does have meaning.

Regardless, it is still information - and not because it has meaning to someone; it is information simply because it is a sequence of symbols.

A random sequence of symbols is just as much information as a meaningful sequence of symbols.

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.

You have misheard what he said - he did not contradict himself.

The sequence of symbols does not have to have meaning in order for it to be information - meaning is irrelevant.

I would strongly suggest that you watch it again.

Evolution.

No evolution deals with life after it is ALREADy here.

That is correct.

Irreducible complexity deals whether or not a certain component can be useful in a particular life for with limited parts.

That's not correct - to use Behe's definition:

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

Behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity has been disproven.

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

You are completely incorrect here.

You're looking for a "God of the gaps".

Think of it in terms of life on Earth - how did it begin? Abiogenesis or a "Intelligent Designer" (Extra-Terrestrial, for example)?

If one favours ET, then that begs the question as to how ET arose on its planet? If one continues back through time to the earliest possible star system where ET could occur, one is left with the fact that life could not have been started by another ET as there was no existing ET anywhere else. The only explanation then is that life on that planet started through abiogenesis.

But if that's the case, why couldn't that be the explanation for life on Earth?

In other words, abiogenesis is the simpler explanation than the added order of complexity of it being due to ET.

This is essentially the same argument which Carl Sagan uses at the start of this clip regarding the First Cause (FC):



All causes of which we are cognisant are naturalistic: by definition, there is - and can be - no definitive empiric evidence for super-naturalistic causes.

Claims of such - without such evidence - do not make them true.

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

That is also not correct.

As Victor Stenger puts it in New Atheism:

Theists also try to argue that science operates on faith no less than does religion by assuming science and reason apply to reality. This betrays an ignorance of science that is pervasive among theists and theologians. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Science is belief in the presence of evidence. When the evidence disagrees with a scientific proposition, the proposition is discarded. When the evidence disagrees with a religious proposition, the evidence is discarded.

Theists similarly misunderstand the use of reason. They say you can’t prove the universe is reasonable without making a circular argument, assuming what it is you are trying to prove. If so, their argument is circular too, because they are using reason. But this is not how it works. It is not the universe that is reasonable or not. It is people who are reasonable or not. Reason and logic are just ways of thinking and speaking that are designed to ensure that a concept is consistent with itself and with the data. How can you expect to learn anything from inconsistent, irrational thinking and speaking?

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.

Nevertheless, it has.

You really need to read up on this subject if you wish to argue against Miller and the rest of the scientific community.

Here's an oldish article from New Scientist on it.

And Miller's The Flagellum Unspun article.

Here's a comparison of the flagellum's "whip" and the bacterium's "(hypodermic) needle":

There are arguments about which came first - the flagellum ("whip") or the Type III Secretion System (T3SS) - or whether they evolved from a common ancestor.

Here's an image of the evolution of the flagellum from the T3SS:

And a video (you may want to mute the music):



And, in contrast, here's a recent paper explaining the evolution of the T3SS from the flagellum:

The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems

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.

With all due respect, TrueEmpiricism, drawing the wrong conclusions from evidence does not make one right: "Chicken Little" was guilty of this.

You speak of "science" (empiricism) and "objective knowledge" - which necessitates a naturalistic cause - and yet conclude a super-naturalistic one: for which - by definition - there can be no "scientific" or "objective knowledge", ie, empiric evidence. :!:

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

We do disagree, though I trust you'll realise that you've completely got the wrong end of the stick about information, the science and empiric evidence for evolution of the flagellum rather than irreducible complexity's disproved claims to the contrary, etc.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well damn. I wrote this up and was about to post it, but while editing it I saw that Dragan Glas already made a post (twice as good as mine). Nevertheless, what the hell, I will post it anyways.​

"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.

You seemed to miss the whole point of that video, which is that information has two different definitions and creationists (and you are a perfect example of this) mince both definitions in order to suit their arguments when DNA is only considered information based on one of those definitions. That is why I asked you to define information.

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.

:facepalm:

Are all creationists this ignorant of their own arguments?

Creation Wiki[/url]"]Irreducibly complexity (IC) is a conceptual test for intelligently designed components or system. It is asserted that if a system cannot be reduced to fewer components and retain functionality, then it could not have evolved by the gradual assemblage of components over successive generations.

That is from a source you should trust and is the correct definition for irreducible complexity.

The basic point Dr. Miller is making is that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex by definition. All it would take is to show that the bacterial flagellum can be reduced and still useful. Dr. Miller demonstrates that part of the bacterial flagellum is used in the type-III secretory apparatus, thus proving that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. This is simple stuff.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well damn. I wrote this up and was about to post it, but while editing it I saw that Dragan Glas already made a post (twice as good as mine). Nevertheless, what the hell, I will post it anyways.​

Thank you, He_Who_Is_Nobody, for the vote of confidence.

Don't let me - or anyone else - stop you from posting!

I always enjoy your contributions.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I always enjoy your contributions.

Well, the feeling is mutual. :ugeek:

 

[DutchLiam84]

Get a room you two! :shock:

TE's pompous use of the words "FACT" and "KNOWN" reminds me of a Game of Thrones dialogue:
Joffrey Baratheon: I am the king! I will punish you.
Tywin Lannister: Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.

Hope you catch my drift.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Call me old and jaded if you like, but reading this guy's post just makes me think that there is no known mechanism by which new information can be added to the creationist knowledgebase.

All these "points" have been dealt with hundreds of times before...

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Ok where do even start..
...

Aronra wrote:


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.

Like what?Please give more detail.

Aronra wrote


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?

No I am not a Mormon and I don't belong to any particular denomination.I believe what I believe is convincing.And if a paster or intellectual of any sort is wrong I am gonna call them out on it.


I have a mind of my own that is capable of the same of anybody else. which is why this...[

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.

is a little irritating.


I dont know every single bit of data in the scientific data but what I do know.I try and read in to bio chemistry physics ect and usually try and be as objective as I can and slice up the data in my head and see where it best fits.


I am on a blog filled with atheist.A 100% opposing perception reality then me.Being the fact that you find many disagreeing with me doesn't mean that I am wrong

Einstein


Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from the mediocre mind.

Maybe there is no violent disrespect on this blog but trust me in my email there is.But the opposition here is the same.Also no one here is talking about my beliefs.I was talking about what the science is indicating and where the evidence is leading to.


Just look at the things that the atheist on this blog have demonstrated Ignorance or straight up denial of science.


I would say that every single biologist or geneticist would agree that the kind of information DNA is coded or sequenced information like that of written language.Anyone who says this isn't what it is.Is no different then someone saying that the earth is flat.

Its been compared to the English alphabet 1 to 1.


now you say

This is chemical, not mental.

Yea and pencils are produced from led and wood. but we are not gonna say its just led or wood are we?We can tell when a certain object is being utilized for something.Even crick who dealt with DNA came up with an idea that maybe life seeded us on earth because he realized what type of info that it was.

This info is an indicter of the mind behind it because this is where we know on a case to case bases where this attribute can come.

Aronra wrote:




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

Unverified assumptions?I find it ironic that you would say this.I believe earlier you mentioned Inflation.Well we don't know if the more space the more electrical flow flows through this empty space neither do we know if this is the cause for the vacuum of space.





The difference here is that you pick and choose.You hold to things that are almost entirely built on assumptions.





And then again you sent me something about a ribonucliotide forming in a laboratory.


What did I say before? assumptions built on assumptions.Yes this was formed under controlled circumstances


this is a quote from what you gave:

and Szostak( >imagined <) the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”.

Yes a brick was formed but this is a long way from building a house.So you have to Imagine that maybe this happende this way continuously under some extremity convenient circumstances.


Maybe this slow snow ball effect process lead up to coordinated functions in the cell such in the extreeme and simple such as


signal transduction or information processing ect.


Like I said assumptions built on assumptions.You presuppose and assume by faith that these gradual happenings where the cause.

(Via occums razor.)


When I say coded or written language comes from a mind I dont assume anything I know you know and so does everybody else.This is a fact.

And when I say every time we find multiple components working together to give an overall function this attribute is known to come from minds and we look at minimum cell function and see this same thing.This is not an assumption we KNOW to how this can occur.


Yours is based on assumption after assumption.That one has to imigan and pre suppose the outcome is true before proven so.

Aronra wrote:





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

What a lovely framed question:


1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnj_OtkUK3I


2)Stephen c Meyer

Aron ra wrote


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

If your gonna say something like that please don't state the obvious.O f coarse (IF) I didn't know what I didn't know I wouldn't know it .But I do know exactly what I am talking about.Like I said before I am on an atheist website of coarse I expect atheist to come at me from all sides for showing them that what they think is wrong.

No different then me being on a Muslim website telling them Muhammad didn't exist or attacked the hadith.


or was on a Christian telling them the same.


But I am still right.

Aronra wrote


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.

Your right I shouldn't of used the word meta physical that was an unfitting description.

But I still hold to the fact that you do have a bias.You completely shut out what I am representing and hold to theory's and ideas built on unknown assumptions .


disregarding the mind that the data indicates because maybe it didn't have a physical attribute .Which would only be a question to be pondered dealing with the bringing in of matter.




Yet holding to a step by step gradual happening that we don't know if this steady process is the case or inflation ect.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

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.

Like what?Please give more detail.

I would say that every single biologist or geneticist would agree that the kind of information DNA is coded or sequenced information like that of written language.Anyone who says this isn't what it is.Is no different then someone saying that the earth is flat.

Its been compared to the English alphabet 1 to 1.

:facepalm:

Please cite a source where biologists say that DNA is a 1:1 ratio to the English alphabet. I think I already know what quote you are going to mine for this.

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

What a lovely framed question:


1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnj_OtkUK3I


2)Stephen c Meyer

That is an adorable video. Unfortunately, it glosses over the real issue of the controversy. I will admit that Dr. Scott could have handled herself much better, but that video does not satisfy the question asked, even with the spin onceforgivenowfree puts on it.

Secondly, Dr. Meyer was not honest in that paper, and if it had gone through actual peer-review, it would have been rejected out right.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

To He that is nobody :


A snow flak doesn't consist of multiple components working together to give an over all function like that of laptops computers or more sophisticatedly the cell.It is one solid object formed by a simple happening.Neither is it equivocal to written information.


Its beautiful but in no way shares these same attributes.

He who is nobody wrote


Please cite a source where biologists say that DNA is a 1:1 ratio to the English alphabet. I think I already know what quote you are going to mine for this.

Its not one source its just about every single website or scientist.Its as simple as googling it.


I will give a few references:


1)https://www.orchidcellmark.com/dnatestresources/dna101.html scroll down to (nucleotides)


2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics (speaks on how they act as letters of a page exactly what I have been telling everybody here


3)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_t...es_by_which_the_alphabet_peices_bond_together

He who is nobody wrote:



not satisfy the question asked

According to whos subjective standard?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Just look at the things that the atheist on this blog have demonstrated Ignorance or straight up denial of science.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong on this one.
Unlike you, allot of people here are actual scientists. One thing that you should factor into to your consideration before making such accusation.
I suggest that you start working from the assumption that your objections are a product of your ignorance instead of a piece of brilliance mysteriously overlooked by every one else.
Because as for straight up ignorance of science, I can demonstrate from this post alone (not to mention all the flagrant displays) that you are completely oblivious to what science is.

I would say that every single biologist or geneticist would agree that the kind of information DNA is coded or sequenced information like that of written language.

You would say that because:
1. Every single biologist told you that.
2. You are an excellent biologist and know in depth this academic field and the works of you colleagues and by extent what they are expected to view it has.
3. You just think that it should be the case, because you think it sounds good to you.

Anyone who says this isn't what it is.Is no different then someone saying that the earth is flat. Its been compared to the English alphabet 1 to 1.

Actually I would suggest that anyone who suggest that as an accurate representation of what DNA is, is a complete idiot.
Because:
1. No Englishman is capable of reading it and deduce meaning.
2. It has no vocabulary
3. No verbs, no adjectives, no subjects, no propositional clauses, no punctuation, no words of any kind.
4. And I am sure that you are not able to find any of its content in a Dictionary
5. Its not prose or verse.
6. English does not self replicate, its not acid, does not enter in the process of protein synthesis.
Need I go on?
Analogies could be a great thing to explain to layman some simple principles, but as with any analogy if you try to stretch beyond its intended purposes it starts to get deeply absurd. In the end of the day analogies are just that analogies.
Science doesn't work with analogies, we don't give Nobel prizes to morons who come out with grate analogies for gravity.
And only someone who is completely uneducated about science could think that analogies have any sort of scientific value what so ever.

Yea and pencils are produced from led and wood. but we are not gonna say its just led or wood are we?

No, some pencils have a wax or a plastic cover, others have no cover at all and it is just a blade of graphite. However if you were to say that a pencil is a chunk of graphite arranged for the purpose of being capable of writing. Then that would be perfectly correct. And that is all pencil is. It doesn't matter that you use the description of the thing or a word that substitutes the description of that thing but means exactly the same.
That is the way things are. You don't like? Tough!

This info is an indicter of the mind behind it because this is where we know on a case to case bases where this attribute can come.

1. It's not info.
2. It doesn't indicate anything of that sort.
What exactly is there about the complexity of DNA of modern life forms that makes it something that can only be a product of a mind?

Unverified assumptions?I find it ironic that you would say this.I believe earlier you mentioned Inflation.Well we don't know if the more space the more electrical flow flows through this empty space neither do we know if this is the cause for the vacuum of space.
The difference here is that you pick and choose.You hold to things that are almost entirely built on assumptions.
And then again you sent me something about a ribonucliotide forming in a laboratory.
What did I say before? assumptions built on assumptions.Yes this was formed under controlled circumstances

You have your ass on backwards.
Inflationary models have this thing called predictive power, that if we compute its consequences we know what to expect. And this particular model predicted things that we were only later able to discover. It not only accurately describes what was known at the time, it also was able to tell things that we didn't even knew at the time. Even in the unlikely event that it turns out to be wrong, it is not a just simple guess, it is something that very precisely describes what see within its limits of applicability, and we can be sure that the real answer must coincide with in within those limits.
As for the RNA being reproduce in the lab, it demonstrates that not only it is possible to produce with the right conditions, but also that you should expect it to be produced in those right conditions. Conditions those that can be demonstrated to have existed in the past. So much so that even if RNA wasn't the precursor, that they should still have been produced and meet all the right conditions to form life. Even so this is not evidence that RNA was the precursor, but it is absurd to suggest that life needed divine interventions because natural conditions couldn't produce it, because they obviously could.
Now let's apply Occam's Razor, was it by magic, or was it because the right conditions enabled the events that are expected to take place when those conditions are meet?
You can tout to the end of the world that it is still just a guess, but that doesn't change the fact that it has predictive power, it provides a mechanism and it is even expected to occur while your alternative has none of those qualities, and it is a patently absurd guess in the worst colloquial sense as taken out of your own anus.

Yes a brick was formed but this is a long way from building a house.So you have to Imagine that maybe this happende this way continuously under some extremity convenient circumstances.

Nor would anyone expect to make a case with only just that. But a large collection of bricks does make a house. And if you want to understand how that house is build, go to a fucking university! Take some classes! If you think that 5 minutes in answers in genesis makes you qualified to speak on the subject you are a moron.

When I say coded or written language comes from a mind I dont assume anything I know you know and so does everybody else.This is a fact.

The ironic thing is you just made an extremely unjustified assumption on the same sentence in which you state you make no assumptions.
You have automatically assumed that "coded or written language comes from a mind", and not only that you apply this into the context were this means that "coded or written language can only come from a mind" and apply it to things to which you assume to be "coded or written language", and you have absolutely no justification what so ever to assume any of it.

Continuing on that taught:

And when I say every time we find multiple components working together to give an overall function this attribute is known to come from minds and we look at minimum cell function and see this same thing.This is not an assumption we KNOW to how this can occur.

You assumed that that "every time we find multiple components working together to give an overall function" that this attribute can only "come from minds".
You assume that your analogy is applicable to the cell function (and we already know what happens when you make anal'ogies), and you assume that you know when in fact you patently don't!
If there is anyone here who only bases their reason on "assumption after assumption", and that "has to [imagin] and pre suppose the outcome is true before proven so", is you.

If your gonna say something like that please don't state the obvious.O f coarse (IF) I didn't know what I didn't know I wouldn't know it .But I do know exactly what I am talking about.

Actually it is not obvious at all, and your response could only come out of extreme lack in maturity. I do know of things that I don't know, and I also know that there are things that I don't even know that I don't know.
You are so ignorant that you don't know that you are ignorant. The Dunning-Kruger applies to you perfectly. And no, you haven't got the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

Like I said before I am on an atheist website of coarse I expect atheist to come at me from all sides for showing them that what they think is wrong.
No different then me being on a Muslim website telling them Muhammad didn't exist or attacked the hadith.

Except that we can prove and certify that you are wrong.

disregarding the mind that the data indicates because maybe it didn't have a physical attribute .Which would only be a question to be pondered dealing with the bringing in of matter.

Again:
1. You have no data.
2. There is no indication of such a mind
3. Much less a non physical mind
4. If it does not interact with matter on any level, how could you possibly know that:
a) it exists?
b) how do you possibly tell the difference from not existing?

Yet holding to a step by step gradual happening that we don't know if this steady process is the case or inflation ect.

Because:
1. It has explanatory value.
2. It makes predictions.
3. We can observe.
4. We can test.
As opposed to your:
1. Inexplicable, and without explanatory value.
2. Without predictable power
3. Not observable
4. Not testable.
Arbitrary, magic monkey in the sky.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

A snow flak doesn't consist of multiple components working together to give an over all function like that of laptops computers or more sophisticatedly the cell.

A snow flake does consist of multiple components "working together" to give an over all ice crystal nucleation front. Sure it doesn't function like a laptop, but nor does the cell. Any appearance of purpose exists only in our minds.

Neither is it equivocal to written information.

Nor is DNA.

Its beautiful but in no way shares these same attributes.

Nor does DNA

Its not one source its just about every single website or scientist.Its as simple as googling it.

i.e. You have none. If you think that simply saying "google it" is going to save you, you are barking at the wrong tree.

1)https://www.orchidcellmark.com/dnatestresources/dna101.html scroll down to (nucleotides)
2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics (speaks on how they act as letters of a page exactly what I have been telling everybody here
3)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_t...es_by_which_the_alphabet_peices_bond_together

Oh good, Layman analogies.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

He that is nobody:


A snow flak doesn't consist of multiple components working together to give an over all function like that of laptops computers or more sophisticatedly the cell.It is one solid object formed by a simple happening.Neither is it equivocal to written information.


Its beautiful but in no way shares these same attributes.

Nice goal post shift. Let me quote what was stated, seeing as how I noticed you were unable to do so yourself:

TrueEmpiricism[/url]"]

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.

Like what?Please give more detail.

The incidental emergence of apparent design does not mean having moving parts or having a code. The repeating pattern of a snowflake (or any crystal structure) is an example of design forming spontaneously from nature. No designer was required for its formation. Thus, debunking your claim that all designs come from a designer.

Now I will ask you again to define information, because without this, your whole argument is meaningless. Information has different meanings when it comes to different fields of science and you are conflating two different definitions of it when making your arguments. Again, this was the point of the video Dragan Glas gave you.

He who is nobody wrote


Please cite a source where biologists say that DNA is a 1:1 ratio to the English alphabet. I think I already know what quote you are going to mine for this.

Its not one source its just about every single website or scientist.Its as simple as googling it.


I will give a few references:

Seeing as how English is not your first language, I will explain something to you: the word like and as, does not equal same. When using like/as in a sentence they are creating an analogy. Thus in your examples when they say, “… nucleotides (bases) that are like letters of the alphabet…” or “…they act as letters…” they are making analogies to language because it is similar to what DNA is. They are not saying that DNA is a 1:1 ratio to language. You are simply wrong again, based on your own sources.

He who is nobody wrote:



not satisfy the question asked

According to whos subjective standard?

That is a very nice cherry picking of that section of my comment. For the sake of simplicity, I will simply say mine and ask you to go back and address the meat of my comment.

Actually I would suggest that anyone who suggest that as an accurate representation of what DNA is, is a complete idiot.
Because:
1. No Englishman is capable of reading and deduce meaning.

:lol:

So true.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Actually I would suggest that anyone who suggest that as an accurate representation of what DNA is, is a complete idiot.
Because:
1. No Englishman is capable of reading and deduce meaning.

:lol:
So true.

awkward typo.
Fixed

 

[Vivre]

Hello again ~ wow I simply can't follow up with all these long contribs.

... (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. ...

What a lovely framed question:

1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnj_OtkUK3I
2)Stephen c Meyer

However I had a look at that 'manipulative designed' vid and remembered the original interview wherein Mrs Scott was heavily by-passed: Eugenie Scott vs Stephen Meyer
It doesn't shed light on what paper they're really taking about but I've picked out some quotes I find very telling.

2:20 S.Meyer: "The cell is known to be chuck full of miniature machines, nanotechnology and digital code, ...."
at 5:27 S.Meyer: "There are certain features of living systems that are best explained by an intelligence."
at 5:45
Q: "Is it [ID] religion or not?"
S.Meyer: "No. It's a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. That's why we can't identify the designer. We see signatures of intelligence, that can be analysed with established methods of design detection.
.... There is information encoded in the cell. Digital code. If you found information, softwarecode, in any other realm of experience, you would infer that an intelligence played a role."

Aha - ID has found software code in cells that drive inherent machines to make an organism perform natural features.

That's simply so abstruse and ridiculous that it should not even be taken close to any serious considerations.
I'm stunned how deranged this ID is.

But it's also clear to me that TrueEmpiricism floats over an abyss and can't even dare to face his 'standpoint' - dare to move any fixating foolhardiness.

greets

 

[DutchLiam84]

I would say that every single biologist or geneticist would agree that the kind of information DNA is coded or sequenced information like that of written language.

I am a biologist and I don't agree with this statement. And I think your comparison that if otherwise it is equivalent to believing the earth is flat is a logical fallacy.

I can do it too, I think you would agree that every person on this planet can fly with just their arms, if not, then that's the equivalent of believing that Thor creates thunder and lightning.

 

[AronRa]

Ok where do even start..

Option 1: An apology.
Option 2: Go back to school

Aronra wrote:
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.

Like what?Please give more detail.

Evolution is the obvious first answer here, but for a more detailed explanation of emergent properties, you should probably take a look at the study of 'emergence' itself. While there are several books on the subject, my preference is a computer-generated expression of emergence through evolutionary algorithms. I feature a demonstration of that at 3:41 of the 7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.

There's a nice Nova primer on this too.

Aronra wroteSo what are you? A Mormon?

No I am not a Mormon and I don't belong to any particular denomination.I believe what I believe is convincing.And if a paster or intellectual of any sort is wrong I am gonna call them out on it.

And you'll call them out even when you're wrong too.

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?

"_____________________".

Please don't ignore direct questions.

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?

"______________________"

...But answer came there none.

I dont know every single bit of data in the scientific data but what I do know.I try and read in to bio chemistry physics ect and usually try and be as objective as I can and slice up the data in my head and see where it best fits.

I am on a blog filled with atheist.A 100% opposing perception reality then me.Being the fact that you find many disagreeing with me doesn't mean that I am wrong

The fact that all your assertions have been proven wrong is what proves you wrong.

EinsteinGreat spirits have always encountered violent opposition from the mediocre mind.

Well at least you admit that much. Thank you.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Maybe there is no violent disrespect on this blog but trust me in my email there is.But the opposition here is the same.Also no one here is talking about my beliefs.I was talking about what the science is indicating and where the evidence is leading to.

Just look at the things that the atheist on this blog have demonstrated Ignorance or straight up denial of science.

I haven't seen where 'we' are denying science, only where you are.

I would say that every single biologist or geneticist would agree that the kind of information DNA is coded or sequenced information like that of written language.Anyone who says this isn't what it is.Is no different then someone saying that the earth is flat.

Well that's two more things you're wrong about.

Its been compared to the English alphabet 1 to 1.

There is no comparison.

now you say

This is chemical, not mental.

Yea and pencils are produced from led and wood. but we are not gonna say its just led or wood are we?We can tell when a certain object is being utilized for something.Even crick who dealt with DNA came up with an idea that maybe life seeded us on earth because he realized what type of info that it was.

This info is an indicter of the mind behind it because this is where we know on a case to case bases where this attribute can come.

You mean Dr. Francis Crick, who's 'Astoshing Hypothesis' is that "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.' This is from his most recent work, so it doesn't seem as though Crick really agrees with you.

Aronra wrote:You yourself are arguing from a point of unverified assumptions, having neither facts nor evidence in your favour.

Unverified assumptions?I find it ironic that you would say this.I believe earlier you mentioned Inflation.Well we don't know if the more space the more electrical flow flows through this empty space neither do we know if this is the cause for the vacuum of space.

How do you derive 'unverified assumptions' from this?


Does this look like unverified assumptions to you?

The difference here is that you pick and choose.You hold to things that are almost entirely built on assumptions.

No sir. You're projecting again.

And then again you sent me something about a ribonucliotide forming in a laboratory.

What did I say before? assumptions built on assumptions.Yes this was formed under controlled circumstances

So in your illusory world, demonstrated experiments count as compiled assumptions?

this is a quote from what you gave:

and Szostak( >imagined <) the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”.

Yes a brick was formed but this is a long way from building a house.So you have to Imagine that maybe this happende this way continuously under some extremity convenient circumstances.

Like I said, RNA builds DNA. So you first have to have RNA. You said it couldn't be created this way. I showed that it could, and you have yet to admit that you were wrong about that too. Instead you make the excuse that it somehow doesn't count or doesn't matter. Of course it does.

Maybe this slow snow ball effect process lead up to coordinated functions in the cell such in the extreeme and simple such as

signal transduction or information processing ect.

Like I said assumptions built on assumptions.You presuppose and assume by faith that these gradual happenings where the cause.

(Via occums razor.)

You're projecting again, assuming that I'm assuming things that I'm not assuming, while assuming your own things, and [ironically] NOT employing Occam's razor in that process.

When I say coded or written language comes from a mind I dont assume anything I know you know and so does everybody else.This is a fact.

A fact is objectively verifiable. You cannot verify that I 'know' what neither of us knows. You're making another false assumption.

And when I say every time we find multiple components working together to give an overall function this attribute is known to come from minds and we look at minimum cell function and see this same thing.This is not an assumption we KNOW to how this can occur.

Once again, you're assuming that this can only come from a mind, and you're also assuming that it can happen supernaturally, and then you pile the assumption of a god on top of your other assumptions. I don't need to assume anything the way you do.

Yours is based on assumption after assumption.That one has to imigan and pre suppose the outcome is true before proven so.

You're projecting again, pushing your own faults onto those who will not share them.

Aronra wrote: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.

What a lovely framed question:

1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnj_OtkUK3I

To satisfy my challenge, you have to show where your example was wrong about something, show how they knew it was wrong, and how they misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception. So explain:

(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

2)Stephen c Meyer

Do you mean the same Stephen C. Meyer who lied about Jerry Coyne and Francis Collins in the article, Stephen Meyer Lies Again? The same man who is also the subject of the article discussing Stephen Meyer's Honesty Problem? That's the one where he lied about 'information theorists' (plural) talking about specified complexity.

Remember, he also deliberately misdefined "cdesign proponentsists". This cannot have been an innocent mistake; this was a deliberate lie, as was illustrated here:


There are several more examples.

"In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which is demonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists."
Encyclopedia of American Loons

So Stephen Meyer is a known liar, and you haven't justified your accusation against Scott either. I told you, you wouldn't be able to answer either half of this challenge. Try again, and when you fail again, think about why you can't answer this challenge, and what that means with respect to your own position.

Aron ra wroteyou don't even know what you don't know.

If your gonna say something like that please don't state the obvious.O f coarse (IF) I didn't know what I didn't know I wouldn't know it .But I do know exactly what I am talking about.

Everyone here has shown that you have no idea what you're talking about, on any point, and not just here either. Did you see the comments regarding your video on my blog?

Like I said before I am on an atheist website of coarse I expect atheist to come at me from all sides for showing them that what they think is wrong.

But that's not what you're doing; you're showing us how wrong YOU are.

No different then me being on a Muslim website telling them Muhammad didn't exist or attacked the hadith.

or was on a Christian telling them the same.

The difference is that where religious perspectives are limited to indefensible beliefs, we can show data to show otherwise.

But I am still right.

The one thing I find fascinating about religious conviction is how anyone can be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, 100% of the time, for such a long time, and still believe theirs is the absolute truth.

Aronra wroteDon'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.

Your right I shouldn't of used the word meta physical that was an unfitting description.

Neither should you have accused me of having faith, since I reject faith as the most dishonest position it is possible to have. As you have repeatedly demonstrated, faith is 'pretending to know what you don't know'.

But I still hold to the fact that you do have a bias.You completely shut out what I am representing and hold to theory's and ideas built on unknown assumptions .

I made no assumptions. I've been at this for decades. Religious zealots have NEVER produced a single fact indicative of their position or that could justify their stacks of erroneous assumptions -which I do not make.

disregarding the mind that the data indicates because maybe it didn't have a physical attribute .Which would only be a question to be pondered dealing with the bringing in of matter.

It was not me who ignored the questions relating to these assumptions you make. I suspect we both already know why you had to ignore those questions.

Yet holding to a step by step gradual happening that we don't know if this steady process is the case or inflation ect.

Yes we do know this, because we have objectively verifiable facts to prove it. For example:
It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column.

It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.

It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.

It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.


These are facts which are exclusively consistent with and positively indicative of the evolutionary model, and which all conflict with the contentions of creationists. So they constitute evidence of evolution, an overwhelming preponderance of it in fact. All of these are supported by dozens to thousands of peer-reviewed articles. Now can you show me ANY fact which is exclusively supportive of your collection of erroneous assumptions?

 

[Rumraket]

I would say that every single biologist or geneticist would agree that the kind of information DNA is coded or sequenced information like that of written language.Anyone who says this isn't what it is.Is no different then someone saying that the earth is flat.

Its been compared to the English alphabet 1 to 1.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's demonstrably horseshit.

"In the precise sense in which one may speak of semantic information, genetic information can hardly count as an instance of it. It simply lacks all its typical features, including meaningfulness, intentionality, aboutness, and veridicality. DNA contains the genetic code, precisely in the sense that it physically contains the genes which code for the development of the phenotypes. So DNA does contain genetic information, like a CD may contain some software. But the genetic code or, better, the genes, are the information itself. Genes do not send information, in the sense in which a radio sends a signal. They work more or less successfully and, like a recipe for a cake, may only partly guarantee the end result, since the environment plays a crucial role. Genes do not contain information, like envelopes or emails do, nor do they describe it, like a blueprint; they are more like performatives: 'I promise to come at 8 pm' does not describe or contain a promise, it does something, namely it effects the promise itself through the uttered words. Genes do not carry information, as a pigeon may carry a message, no more than a key carries the information to open a door. They do not encode instructions, as a string of lines and dots may encode a message in Morse alphabet. True, genes are often said to be the bearers of information, or to carry instructions for the development and functioning organisms, and so forth, but this way of speaking says more about us than about genetics. We regularly talk about our current computers as if they were intelligent—when we know they are not—and we tend to attribute semantic features to genetic structures and processes, which of course are biochemical and not intentional at all. The 'code' vocabulary should not be taken too literally, as if genes were information in a semantic-descriptive sense, lest we run the risk of obfuscating our understanding of genetics. Rather, genes are instructions, and instructions are a type of predicative and effective/procedural information, like recipes, algorithms, and commands. So genes are dynamic procedural structures that, together with other indispensable environmental factors, contribute to control and guide the development of organisms. This is a perfectly respectable sense in which biological information is indeed a kind of information. Dynamic procedural structures are a special type of informational entities, those that are in themselves instructions, programs, or imperatives."

(Floridi, Luciano. Information: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. pp. 79-80)

You can also go here and start your education:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

tl/dr: it would be helpful if you would stop talking out of your ass.

 

[Rumraket]

To He that is nobody :


A snow flak doesn't consist of multiple components working together to give an over all function like that of laptops computers or more sophisticatedly the cell.It is one solid object formed by a simple happening.Neither is it equivocal to written information.


Its beautiful but in no way shares these same attributes.

He who is nobody wrote


Please cite a source where biologists say that DNA is a 1:1 ratio to the English alphabet. I think I already know what quote you are going to mine for this.

Its not one source its just about every single website or scientist.Its as simple as googling it.


I will give a few references:


1)https://www.orchidcellmark.com/dnatestresources/dna101.html scroll down to (nucleotides)


2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics (speaks on how they act as letters of a page exactly what I have been telling everybody here


3)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_t...es_by_which_the_alphabet_peices_bond_together

He who is nobody wrote:



not satisfy the question asked

According to whos subjective standard?

It's good to see that the concept of an analogy is completely lost on you.

DNA is literally not an alphabet, nor is it a language, nor does it consist of letters. It is functionally analogous to programmed instructions sets in some respects, but that's about as far as that analogy can be stretched, because once we start analyzing how DNA actually works, the similarities break down pretty fast.

That's because DNA is actually just a long chain of molecules that bind together, and it's function in living organisms is not governed by weird and arbitrary teleosemantic rules, but by hard facts of physics and chemistry.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

This first vid that you sent from me from nova was just a stating of what I have been trying to explain to you already.

Of coarse you have to believe in a down up process. But the problem is that these bottom up processes are presupposed even though the odds are so much against it


for example the probability that a specific ribosome MIGHT assemble by chance 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300,

or maybe we could start with something simpler

like a self-replicating peptide only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10 ^ 40


Or lets just say taken all the factors involved in the in-between process that lead up in sandwich, foam or of amino acids being protected by polymores (that only show up in living organisms).


The odds are in such a high number that is so incomprehensibly against it there is nothing indicating it to be true except for the pre assumed conclusions that it happened this way WHILE completely ignoring all of the math that suggest it didn't happen this way.


All of the ASSUMED happenings to be the case which the environment more then likely would of dissolved any material if it would of not been utilized within a relatively short amount of time


This is a belief system clothed under the guise of a scientific swagger. It is an enforcing of ones perception of reality. While completely ignoring all of the factors against it.It takes faith to believe in such an improbability.


(if the odds are it didnt happen then more then likely it didnt happen.


(this is the bottom line)

Aronra wrote:

And you'll call them out even when you're wrong too.

I already have on more then one occasion.I

ARONRA WROTE:

AronRa wroteo 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?

TrueEmpiricism wrote: "_____________________".

Please don't ignore direct questions.

I already answerd you on this.


All of the evidence is leading up to deliberate intent .And the only KNOWN thing that can intend to do something is a mind. Not to mention forsite the ability to be able to think before hand in order for each component to be place where they must be in order for them to co interact for over all function like that of laptops computers.

Or even in the cell at a basic level. So I stand by the knowledge that is KNOWN for where this attributes come.

You stand by some maybe gradual happening.


Then strait-way completely disregard what I say because the mind might not exist without a brain. And I told you that information is not available but the evidence is still leading up to this conclusion.


To disregard this and hold to Inflaton or many other scientific theorys is a double standard. BECAUSE.


Just like all science of this magnitude of discussion. We apply knowledge to what we are trying to explain in order to get the best explanation available.

Aronra wrote:

...But answer came there none.

There is more then one way to look at this. You can show how info of this level can be produced without a mind in the system of nature that is put in place. Or Demonstrate how these characteristics can develop such as a self replicating organism produced in these assumed early earth environment then it being able to survive. At the same time having nutrition. This is how it can be falsified we have just been waiting for about 150 years for you to show so.


Or at least develop something more realistic then 1950's experiments.

Aronra wrote



I haven't seen where 'we' are denying science, only where you are.

I am not denying anything I am explaining to you these assumptions that you hold to and the unrealistic step by step pre supposed belief system that is actually a defiance of what the DATA is indicating.


Look at what some of the post in this thread..


"Its an analogy" speaking of genetic information being like that of the alphabet.


NO

It is a DESCRIPTION of what it is. And just like the quote that you sent me from Francis crick......

You mean Dr. Francis Crick, who's 'Astoshing Hypothesis' is that "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.' This is from his most recent work, so it doesn't seem as though Crick really agrees with you.

He was someone with this bottom up perception. Yet at the same time when dealing with the dna code he came to think that perhaps an outside thinking influence such aliens developed the genetic code. Because he KNEW that this attribute is known to come from minds.

Aronra write:




Does this look like unverified assumptions to you?

I believe in the big bang. Do to the red shift we do know that all the galaxy's are moving away from a certain spot of the universe.


But I dont believe in that the The precise force of gravity the fine tuning of the universe that if just the slightest of a second after the big bang the universe would of collapsed back into itself or galaxy's would of never been formed can be accounted for by the big bang.


Now dealing with the inflation rate that the universe was smoothed out at once and that everything will stretch out.Yes this is true.


But the unverified assumption is that the more space the more electrical currents flow through this is unknown.

Aronra wrote:


So in your illusory world, demonstrated experiments count as compiled assumptions?

No I wouldn't say that the experiments demonstrated anything. Except for showing that something as fragile as this material can be produced under pre supposed environments. In the lab that would of dissolved before utilized and which all mathematical physical and chemical proposals that are necessary for these step by step happenings all are showing that more then likely it didn't happen this way or are very much against it.

Aronra wrote:

Like I said, RNA builds DNA. So you first have to have RNA. You said it couldn't be created this way. I showed that it could, and you have yet to admit that you were wrong about that too. Instead you make the excuse that it somehow doesn't count or doesn't matter. Of course it does.

No I said that rna world studies is unrealistic and that a pre rna world studies has been suggested. Yes biological material can be produced to an extent in the lab.But if it where produced under these environments it would most likely dissolve before utilized.Or if some how it where to be maintained the odds of convenient means of the other essentials necessary are to unrealistic and no evidence is supporting all of these step by step happenings actually occurring except in the mind of those who pre suppose this to be the case.


Remember you have to IMAGINE.

Aronra wrote:



You're projecting again, assuming that I'm assuming things that I'm not assuming, while assuming your own things, and [ironically] NOT employing Occam's razor in that process.

O yes you are assuming and I have already explained why more then 1 time. And since you have to assume each step by step happening.


All I have to do as state the facts that we all KNOW how these attributes can come if a mind is involved. My argument is filled with fewer assumptions then yours therefore Occums Razor (dealing with the option with the fewest assumptions should be chosen) is pointing straight to mine.


My case is based off of KNOWN knowledge. Yours is based on assumptions that data is against.

Aronra wrote:



A fact is objectively verifiable.

right and I already explained why it is.

Aronra wrote:



Once again, you're assuming that this can only come from a mind, and you're also assuming that it can happen supernaturally, and then you pile the assumption of a god on top of your other assumptions. I don't need to assume anything the way you do.

No I am not assuming that this only is KNOWN to come from a mind I am stating a fact that on a case to case basis these arrangement of characters in coded information like that in computer programs the only knowledge we have to what can cause this attribute is a mind when we find this same what of sequencing we have KNOWLEDGE to how this can occur. Or like that of multiple components working together in a coordinated fashion in order to give an over all function.



No What I am stating is totally demonstrable within the natural world in which all of these factors can be objectively measured.


What is in the natural world is leading all the way to the causation effect of time space matter and energy in 1970.

If you trace it back far enough to the start of the universe the data best indicates something outside this universe.hence a (super natural) and all attempts to explain reality multi verse ect are outside explanation

Aronra wrote:


To satisfy my challenge, you have to show where your example was wrong about something, show how they knew it was wrong, and how they misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception. So explain:

1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYik52Y5rI


2)I was going to say phd in molecular and cellular biology Jonathan wells.Who is for Id and strongly against evolution.But he is an agnostic so I guess he doesn't count.So how about Douge axe or Biologist Rick Gerhardt.


I think you misunderstood what Stephen Meyer was saying.He has stated over and over again why young earth creationism is not the same is Id.Because Young earth creationism is more so of a reading between the lines Id is incapable of attaching any philosophical interpretations of what this mind is indicating


[Youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGFWH6Okgl8[/Youtube]

Aronra wrote:




Neither should you have accused me of having faith, since I reject faith as the most dishonest position it is possible to have. As you have repeatedly demonstrated, faith is 'pretending to know what you don't know'.

Buddy you whole position is faith based.You cant reject something that your whole perception of reality is tapped together with and I have mention over and over again why it is.


and as for the vid faith is pretending to believe something you don't know?NO faith is either confidants in something or belief without evidence.And everybody uses faith in some way shape or form.It doesnt matter if you ignore the word you still partake in it in some way in life.

Aronra wrote:



I made no assumptions. I've been at this for decades. Religious zealots have NEVER produced a single fact indicative of their position or that could justify their stacks of erroneous assumptions -which I do not make.

Yes your position is based on assumptions.I wouldn't call my self religious but I have shown plenty of times justifications.I have dealt with Ishmaleites people from backgrounds Muslims atheism theistic agnostics ect offline on numerous separate occasions and lately online also.I have experience on these topics you might be a little more knowledgeable then most atheist.But your substance is the same and the things you say are very predictable.


At best you can disregard the subset theological interpretations of this mind the data leads to but not the mind Islam Catholicism ect but you cant justify your perception of reality without the influence of a creative mind involved.


Neither can you disprove what the data is indicating that is beneficial to this mind.



all you can do is throw it over your shoulders and say ahh its just chemicals...metals are just metals plastics are just plastics but when utilized Into making I phones or technology the influence behind is not accounted for the material or the forces of nature.


And in the cell or dna when we see smaller and much more fragile material place in a much more coordinated fashion then our technology.You have to assume that this happened piece by piece under extremely convenient circumstances.And all I got to do is state the fact that when we see this attribute it comes from a mind.


(it is extremely unrealistic wishful thinking)

Aronra wrote:

It was not me who ignored the questions relating to these assumptions you make. I suspect we both already know why you had to ignore those questions.

I didn't ignore it I answered you on more then one occasion and show why your position is based on assumptions.I don't have to ignore anything because I have no reason to be intimidated of the data

Aaron wrote:


Yes we do know this, because we have objectively verifiable facts to prove it. For example:
It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. ........

Yes the (system) in nature causes things to naturally occur in nature change happens.Which is why the SYSTEM in place is what the topic is about.

 

[australopithecus]

Wow. I've refrained from commenting thus far, but this is exactly like a group of people shouting at a wall. True story.