TrueEmpiricism (irony alert)

[Prolescum]

TrueEmpiricism, I don't wish to offend you, but it must be said: your post is barely legible. If you're going to make the effort to tell people your views (particularly in a topic such as this), it should be readable. Either draft your work (my preferred method) or use a spell checker (at least we'll get the gist).

It does your position no favours to just whack out a stream of consciousness and hope for the best.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

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

1. It is not presupposed. This is what the evidence demonstrates.
2. The odds are not against it. If you think they are, then tell me, how exactly did you calculated those odds?

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,

Why 300? Why not 500? Why not 10? And who is to say that all nucleotides are uncorrelated?
How can you say that such makes it an unlikely event given a large number of tries. Winning the lottery is very unlikely, yet people win lotteries almost everyday all over the world.

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

Why 32?, and still 1 in 1040 is extremely good odds. That makes it an almost certain event.

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.

Math? Ok then, show me the math were you calculate this unfathomable odds.
While you are at it, show me the observational data you used to calibrate any of the factors you use.

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

1. We don't have to assume.
2. Dissolved? Why?

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.

Projection. What is enforcing your perception of reality is the bible, not reality itself. Because no matter what pseudo-philosophical factors you think you have, you missed the most important 2. Are there conditions in witch self replicating molecules can form, and have those conditions been present in the past. And the answer is Yes and Yes. So much so that we don't have only a single candidate for how that could have happened.
Your assessment of improbability comes only from the lack of information you posses.

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

There is just one tiny problem with your view. It's ass backwards. It's trying to access probability after you know the outcome.
Let's say I have a deck of 52 cards and fling them in the air. (dumb ass) Now I have to pick them up one by one, and as I pick them up I record the sequence in which the cards are picked. Now, what are the odds that it would have been in that specific order? The odds are astronomical right? So does that mean that it didn't happen? So by your logic, it is extremely unlikely for events with low probability to exists (including this one).

You can spin it the way you like it. This is a clear display of lack of education. And I would even go so far as to say that you haven't reached the age of 16 yet. How far of am I?

All of the evidence is leading up to deliberate intent.

and what evidence is that?

And the only KNOWN thing that can intend to do something is a mind.

You know? How exactly do you know this?

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.

1. Living things do not work anything like computers.
2. Why do you think it would take several independent random "components" to be "assembled" in order to interact? (notice the quotes, we are talking analogy here)

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

Here is that word again "Know". How the fuck do you know exactly?
Because you think its unlikely? because you don't know any other way? because you can't fathom any other way? because you ca't wrap your head around it any other way?
That is not knowing, that is exactly the opposite. That is NOT knowing.

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.

What evidence? How can you have "evidence" without having information available?
And if there is something that we do know, is that minds can not exist on a vacuum, because minds are an emergent property that have to be based on very strict rules and operations.

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.

It is not a double standard, because contrary to your vacuous crap it has:
1. A working model
2. Predictability
3. Observability
4. Testability and successful tests
5. Conformity to an high degree of accuracy with observation.
And that my friend is a major fuck you! compliments of the Universe and science.

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 rather you just closed your eyes to 150 years worth of science in order to keep intact bronze age myths.
And by the way, where is God exactly? Yes, null evidence since ever. It seems that the only evidence that you take is none, quite literally if it has none it is evidence for you and if it has evidence it is not evidence for you.

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.

And has I have explained before, and you seem to keen to ignore me:
1. It is not assumed
2. it is not presupposed
3. It is not unrealistic
4. It is not a belief system.
5. And most importantly. You have absolutely any form of data of any kind what so ever. You would think this detail would have been important.

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

Sorry, it is an analogy either you like it or not. Genetics isn't the alphabet. If you disagree, you are just plain wrong, you might just as well argue that 1+1 is 5.

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.

Actually with our current understanding of physics, if the magnitude of gravity was different we would still have a universe, it may look a bit different but it is business as usual. But this of course is irrelevant because it assumes that they could be any different from what they actually are, as if you could possibly thinker with this constants (which by the way are indistinguishable from scale factors due to the arbitrary measuring system we have happened to chose), why don't you just trow all of physics in the bin while you are at it?

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.

I know that your English isn't your strong point. But I couldn't make sense of that. What the hell are you talking about?

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.

Firstly the environments can be determined.
And in other words, "I will distort to mean whatever I want it to mean in order for me to have my cake and eat it to".

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.

Was that English?

No I said that rna world studies is unrealistic

Why?

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.

Dissolved? Why? And on what grounds do you make that claim? On what experiments have you based that?
And most importantly, if the conditions in the lab were to be reproduce, how would that make the conditions different from that of the lab?

All I have to do as state the facts that we all KNOW how these attributes can come if a mind is involved.

My cat is black. My neighbor has a cat. My neighbors cat is black.

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.

It's Occam's Razor! And what you have is pure unjustified, question begging, nonsense! Do you want to see me explain it with less assumptions then yours? I made it! Are you going to thank me for making you and the universe?

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

1. What do you know?
2. How do you know?
3. What data?
We seem to be stuck on this theme here.

No I am not assuming that this only is KNOWN to come from a mind

1. How the fuck do you know?
2. I know of ways on how it could have come otherwise.

I am stating a fact that on a case to case basis these arrangement of characters in coded information like that in computer programs

1. It is not a fact.
2. They are not characters
3. They are not like computers.

the only knowledge we have to what can cause this attribute is a mind

Correction. The only knowledge YOU have.

when we find this same what of sequencing we have KNOWLEDGE to how this can occur.

I.e. You don't know how else it could have happened, therefore God!

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

1. You haven't demonstrated anything.
2. What factors are you talking about.
3. What type of sensor did you use to objectively measure this factors?

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

1. The data shows no such thing.
2. The Universe is by definition the collection of everything that exists. If the universe was caused by something outside the universe that would mean that such a thing would be outside of it. Meaning that such a thing is outside of the collection of things that exists, therefore it does not exist.
3. What we generally mean by multi-verse, does not translate to more than one universe, but to either causally or spatially disconnected sections of the universe which as a collection is bigger than our causally connected section of the universe. If our spatially connected section of the universe was caused by another spatially disconnected section of the universe, then what caused that other spatially disconnected section of the universe? And where does God fit in the midst of this "universes"?

.I wouldn't call my self religious but I have shown plenty of times justifications.

Justifications? Where are they?

I'm not going to address the rest, because I have repeated myself quite enough as it is.
And Mr. "TrueEmpiricism" (without any regard for careful and practical empiricism of any kind), please address the points raised. I'm not going to repeat them add infinitum. At some point my patience gets exhausted.

 

[Vivre]

the only knowledge we have to what can cause this attribute is a mind

Correction. The only knowledge YOU have.

may I specify to: The only assumed knowledge YOU have.

and thx for your to me helpful working-over

~ ~ ~

hence a (super natural) and all attempts to explain reality multi verse ect are outside explanation

Do I understand that correct?
Did you just say that super natural / God is not explainable?

Well then - so belief without evidence is the only possible base of argumentation
- so why make a fuzz about it and mingle it with pseudo science?

 

[Prolescum]

It's Occam's Razor you dumb fuck!

Come on, chap. This isn't on.

 

[Laurens]

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

You seem to misunderstand at least 2 fundamental points:

Natural selection is non-random and evolution is cumulative.

Genetic mutations are random, that is for sure. At this point it must be emphasised that contrary to what many creationists claim, most mutations are not harmful. Most mutations do not have any effect, because much of an organisms DNA does not code for any proteins, thus it can be altered by mutation without any effect to the overall fitness of the individual. This being understood, it is true that of the mutations that do affect an organism's fitness, a higher percentage are harmful. That is because there are more ways to get something wrong than to get it right, if that makes sense.

So you might be thinking; "if more mutations are harmful, then how could something complex arise via this process, let alone sustain itself?"---This is the fallacy most creationists tend to make---the assumption that evolution is simply chance operating via random mutation. However, the reason that evolution can produce complexity is because the harmful mutations that do arise affect the fitness of that organism, thus greatly decreasing its chances of survivng and reproducing. What happens when an organism doesn't get the chance to reproduce? It's genes are lost. Thus the harmful mutation is lost. Conversely if a mutation increases an organism's fitness, it in turn increases the organism's chances of reproducing---thus ensuring that the beneficial mutation remains through the generations. This process of natural selection is non-random, which is why it is fallacious to assume that evolution relies upon chance.

You still might think, "in spite of this, its still unlikely that a random mutation could generate a fully operational organ from nowhere". This is another mistake. You see, evolution is cumulative, meaning it doesn't do everything all at once. The eye for example is the result of incremental steps, all of which would have provided an advantage to the organism. Of course it didn't suddenly pop into existence fully formed, it began as simple light-sensitive spots such as those found in some very simple organisms. It is also worth noting, as others have, that functionality changes during this process too. The bacterial flagellum began as an organelle that served a very different purpose. This is essential to bear in mind.

I think when you try to assign probability to things arising via evolution, you are ignoring these important truths, and therefore your conclusions drawn from them are mistaken.

Edit: Just to clarify, when I said 'functionality changes during the process' I didn't mean that it always does so. However it does in many instances, such as how feathers developed from insulation, into something to aid aerodynamics later on.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It's Occam's Razor you d*mb f*ck!

Come on, chap. This isn't on.

Sorry. I should then retroactively censure myself.

 

[AronRa]

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

The odds are not against it.
It is not presupposed; it is evident.

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,

Don't try to evoke probabilities you don't understand. You certainly shouldn't do that in defense of the idea that a bronze age genie conjured the entire universe with an incantation spell.

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

The probability against everything that happened to me so far today is greater than that. Your misunderstanding probabilities does not impress me. Your lack of substantive data does.

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.

And what are the odds against a pan-galactic djinn who sells female slaves for half price and curses humanity for mixing cotton and polyester?

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

These are not assumptions. These are indicated by all available data -unlike anything YOU believe.

According to every ounce of paleontological evidence anyone has ever dug up, there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells, and prior to that, there is no evident life of any kind at all.

There were no primates 100 million years ago, and no mammals 200 million years ago, and no land animals at all 400 million years ago. 600 million years ago, there weren’t any fish or even bugs yet. We’ve never found any trace fossils for macroscopic life forms prior to 700 million years ago, but we have oodles of bacterial microfossils covering another 2.8 billion years prior to the first multicellular anythings we’ve ever found a trace of. The only possible conclusion we can draw from all that is that life was only microscopic & microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet.

Add to this the fact that organic molecules form naturally in all sorts of environments, and we know from the Urey/Miller experiment and other discoveries, that even the nucleotides required for genetic structure also form naturally even in the hostile environments we should expect of the pre-biotic earth. We also know through repeatable experiments how these can combine in the right common medium into polynucleotides and so on. Even Christian biologists admit that at its most basic, life is simply chemistry, and living tissues conform completely to those guidelines. The elements which form basic cell structures for example create a phospholipid bilayer automatically upon contact with water, due to their combined polarity. Even the function of enzymes and transport vesicles and other miniscule but critical elements within a cell all conform to the functions of chemistry. Consequently, there are a number of competing concepts to explain exactly how the first replicative polymers lead to the next stage, known as hypercycles, and then on to still more advanced stages before they qualify as life.

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.

Once again, no. No matter how many times you repeat this lie, you will not make it become truth. I'm glad you acknowledge how dishonest a faith-based perspective is, but that only reflects on you.

Teams of biochemists around the world are still working out the long, complicated string of chemical combinations which began with simple and already self-replicating polymers and eventually lead to the first metabolic cells capable of maintaining some level of homeostasis, a balanced internal environment, the definition of life. None of these people are pursuing their faith; they're following the evidence. You are not. You're defending your faith, and you're trying desperate to project that fault onto those who will not share that flaw with you.

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

1. The odds are against everything that has ever happened.
2. The odds render your alternative utterly impossible.

this is the bottom line.

How many bottom lines does your argument have? And are they all as wrong as this one?

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

I already have on more then one occasion.I

Yes, you've called others out when you were wrong several times already.

ARONRA WROTE: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?

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, given

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.

1. We already KNOW that apparent design attributes do NOT only come from a 'mind'. Emergence has been demonstrated to do the same thing multiple ways, evolution being one of them.
2. Evolution has been, and is still being continuously demonstrated. It is NOT some "maybe gradual happening".
3. There is NO evidence leading to 'deliberate intent'. This is a lie. If there were such evidence, you would have provided it by now. But then, if such evidence existed, the whole world would already know about it, and you wouldn't have to believe what you do on faith.

Now since you still have not answered my question, I will repeat it.
By what method do you propose your god actually does anything?

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.

I should think the experiments I already linked you to would suffice, especially since one of those links also refers back to a recent discovery confirming that the 1950s experiment turned out to be more successful than previously thought.

Aronra wroteI 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.

You don't have any idea what the data even is, much less what it is indicating. For example, look back at one of the references I gave you before, when I mentioned a heterozygous transversion mutation of the PAX9 homeobox gene.

Take a look at Molecular Evolution of the Primate Developmental Genes MSX1 and PAX9. This is 'the data'. This is one of many thousands of juried and peer-reviewed experimental analyses all indicating the same thing through many different independent fields of study. Look at this data, and tell me, what does it imply?

Now she me any data that you think implies the alternative you're arguing for.

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.

It was an analogous description, not a literal one. And we have already exdplained and illustrated how your interpretation of that is wrong.

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.

Yes, Crick knew that minds could also come up with this, as well as natural processes. That's the thing you will not concede, apparently because this one misperception is all you can cling to.

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.

That's why I don't believe in 'fine-tuning'. Clearly the universe is NOT 'fine tuned'. It's a boiling mass of undirected chaos. Everything we now know about the cosmos confirms that all our once-sacred scriptures were wrong, and that nothing matching the definition of a deity could have or would have conjured anything anything like what the universe turned out to be.

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.

I don't know what assumption you're talking about. You are again assuming my assumptions for me. I study phylogeny, not cosmology.

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.

Not pre-supposed; post-determined, indicated by evidence. YOUR position is pre-supposed; mine is not.

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.

Wrong again, as always. In the expected environment of the pre-biotic earth, it was shown that these replicative chemicals became increasingly complex, and did not dissolve.

You;ve never been right about anything, have you? How sad for you.

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.

Now that the experiments have been done, we don't have to imagine anymore. Now that you know that these chemicals did NOT dissolve as you said they would, and now that you know that they DID spontaneously self-assemble (after you said they couldn't) can you tell me what about this experiment remains 'unrealistic"?

And let's not forget that you're arguing a magic invisible ghost using an incantation spell, and you're criticizing me for being unrealistic?!

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.

Once again, your position is based entirely on assumptions with no data ever yet cited, while my position requires no assumptions and no faith, being as it is entirely based on indicative evidence which I have already pointed out to you.

Aronra wrote:A fact is objectively verifiable.

right and I already explained why it is.

No you didn't; you only repeated your assertion, and others here have explained precisely why it is wrong. So have I, but you keep ignoring that.

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.

It has been repeatedly explained to you multiple reasons how and why you're wrong about this. You simply ignore all refutations and reassert your assumption always without any supportive data. That seems to be all presuppositionalists can do:
Assume your conclusion
Assert your conviction
(repeat)

It's entirely circular, baseless, and completely empty.

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

Then cite the peer-reviewed literature like I have, and show me that data.

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

Are you suggesting that the universe is 43 years old? Is this a form of Last-Thursdayism?

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

If we could calculate beyond the rift of the inflation, then it would be a 'new' natural, not a supernatural.

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.

How about them? You were supposed to name a scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. You gave me a name, but that is not enough to satisfy the challenge. You also have to show how that person was wrong, show how they knew they were wrong, and how they misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception. You didn't do that.

Let me show you what I mean. You mentioned Jonathan Wells, author of 'Icons of Evolution'. You said he was agnostic, but that's not true. Wells is a Mooney. His education was financed by the cult leader, Rev Sun Myung Moon. Their agenda was spelled out in advance; so that Wells could use his acquired credentials as a "weapon against Darwinism". So he was paid to get an education which he was already predisposed to deny, so that he could further undermine science from the position of a 'scientist'. That is already about as dishonest as one can get, but it gets worse.
Wells book was used to generate the 'strengths and weaknesses' campagn employed by my state's Board of Education. The members of that board were positioned in the same way as Wells was. Their elections were entirely financed by Ted Leininger, a multimillionaire creationist determined to undermine science education. In a formal debate against two evangelical ministers courting the chairman of the board, I took on Well's list of 'icons' and disproved every single one of them. For an example of one of these, look where Wells lied about the 'tree of life' and how I showed otherwise.

[Youtube]5MXTBGcyNuc‎[/Youtube]

That's how you show when someone is lying. If you want other examples already posted on ChristianForums, you can look at how Wells also lied about Kettlewell's moth photographs and I refuted that too.

Once agan, EVERY professional creationist has lied in defense of your position. That's why you will never be able to show any exception. Neither will you be able to show where ANY evolutionary scientist has lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism.
(1) There is no reason for scientists to lie about this the way religious zealots all have to.
(2) If a scientist did lie, (some have for other reasons) the peer review process roots them out and exposes them.

Your position is a lie. That is the only possible conclusion these circumstances. Sorry.

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

Meyer wasn't asked to specify which kind of creationism ID is; he was asked whether it was creationism at all, and he said no. That was a lie, and that was beautifully illustrated by the macro typo, "cdesign proponentsists".

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.</COLOR>

You're projecting your own faults again. I CAN and WILL and already HAVE rejected beliefs previously held which turned out not to be supported by evidence. You have not and (I'm betting) will not and cannot provide any evidence against the position I now hold. You keep saying you've already done so, but all you have done is repeat your own error and ignore how many times and how many ways others have already corrected your mistake.

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.

You're right about faith being a confidence that is not based on evidence, but you're wrong about me relying on faith or mythologies of men. If you'll name one thing you think I believe on faith, I'll show you the evidence leading exclusively to that conclusion. Every time I ask for the evidence you claim to base your belief on, you reaffirm your faith, thus proving my point again and again.

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.

<COLOR color="#FFFF00">No sir, you still have not. Despite my oft-repeated repeated requests, you still have not even tried to provide the data you keep pretending to have.

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.

You haven't -and can't- predict where this is going. You are utterly clueless and out of your element.

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.

Already done.

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

I need not refute that which has never even been presented.

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.

You're rambling non-sequitors now.

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.

I don't have to assume that. That is what all the relevant evidence indicates.

And all I got to do is state the fact that when we see this attribute it comes from a mind.

You keep re-stating this erroneous assertion no matter how many times it has been shown that it is not a fact. I guess I was right about you: Were it not for this one wrong assumption on your part, you have absolutely nothing to bring to the table. You're done.

(it is extremely unrealistic wishful thinking)

Looking into a mirror, are you?

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.

No sir. The only one of my questions you have ever answered was "are you a Mormon?". You have ducked and dodged every other question I have put to you.

I don't have to ignore anything because I have no reason to be intimidated of the data

You DID ignore these questions, and you WOULD be intimidated by the data -if you knew what the data was.

Aron 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.

Well played. Until this moment, I couldn't be sure you were just trolling.

 

[Vivre]

I took on Well's list of 'icons' and disproved every single one of them. For an example of one of these, look where Wells lied about the 'tree of life' and how I showed otherwise.

ot: only quoting to make the above mentioned video appear. [there's a hidden blank as 12th character behind the vid ID]<i></i>

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

ARonra wrote:


You certainly shouldn't do that in defence of the idea that a bronze age genie conjured the entire universe with an incantation spell.

Your trivial bronze age genie would be a theological interpretation of this mind ?The magical has nothing to do with being able to recognize the creative attributes of other minds.The only one brining in my theological beliefs is YOU aronra.I what I am telling you is what the science indicates,that is the attributes found in that is essential for life function is always KNOWN to come from minds.


1)DNA being a sequenced 4 character alphabet .And every time we find this type of coded info it is known to come from minds.

2)the (cell at basic function expected is about 250 proteins)there are about 20 amino acids per protein.So for basic CELL function the required expectation for cell function would be about 5000 amino acids.We know whenever we see multiple components working together to give an over all function this attribute comes from ma mind,therefore we have knowledge to where this can occur.



and you say...

Aronra said:


Don't try to evoke probabilities you don't understand.

What these?

1 in 10 ^ 40

4^300,

Or like

1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


and you say....</COLOR>

Aronra wrote

The probability against everything that happened to me so far today is greater than that.

.....The odds are not against it.
It is not presupposed; it is evident.

[Youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA[/Youtube]






since your so arrogant to assume because you don't know something no one else can understand it...And disregard what I say why dont you look at penrose math?




Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60),


You can ignore what I say all day the data is still against everything your saying regardless.Not just in biology but in cosmology also.And I could keep going with these facts


Like 10 500 of a life permitting universe appearing by chance.



Combine all these factors with all the many others......what data is in your favour again?

Aronra wrote:



These are not assumptions. These are indicated by all available data -unlike anything YOU believe.

According to every ounce of palaeontological evidence anyone has ever dug up, there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells, and prior to that, there is no evident life of any kind at all.......

First of all Relatively little is known about the Precambrian, despite its making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth's history, The CAMBRIAN being the start of the Paleozoic Era.Many of the features of these hard shell /sea creatures are very complex.So no complexity and simplicity are at the bottom also.


>((and I do understand the period lasted for nearly 53 million years, from about 543 million years ago until 490 million years ago.))<

(Better mention that before someone straw mans me assuming)







Either way you are constantly bringing in red herrings that don't have anything to do with the topic.change in a species can only happen after a system of life and the conditions for that life are available.It doesn't matter if life at first was primitive to complex

Or if at the start species where available through the accumulative affect of micro evolution leading up to macro or (speciation). You have to have life to begin with.


Saying that well species change is not saying anything.Of course species change BECAUSE THERE IS A SYSTEM AVAILABLE that allows change over time to whatever extent that might be.So either way you said nothing

Aronra ra wrote:


1. The odds are against everything that has ever happened.
2. The odds render your alternative utterly impossible.

No buddy I already showed why this is wrong.Look up what roger penrose someone who believes in a random happening also.You don't have to acknowledge me just know that what I am saying is backed up by these well known scientist.LOOK IT UP.The odds against everything an ATHEIST would perceive happened.


(where not grouped together in lack of substance.

Aronra wrote:


Now since you still have not answered my question, I will repeat it.
By what method do you propose your god actually does anything?

Well I believe this is the first time you asked me but..Ok...


I would have to correct the question tho.Identifying MY god would be a matter for philosophy.To try and determine the characteristics of this mind that the data is indicating


The fact that all these attributes that we find info strategic order and complexity are known to come from minds objectively.And all of the mathematical data and factors of cosmology are pointing straight away from random accidental happening(therefore indicating deliberate intent )And only minds are known to intend to do something.

Is an obvious indicator of an intelligent thinking course of action as a purpose/objective.

Aronra wrote:


That's why I don't believe in 'fine-tuning'. Clearly the universe is NOT 'fine tuned'. It's a boiling mass of undirected chaos. Everything we now know about the cosmos confirms that all our once-sacred scriptures were wrong, and that nothing matching the definition of a deity could have or would have conjured anything anything like what the universe turned out to be.

Sir you don't have a clue what your talking about.

You alter the mass ratio of a proton neutron,strength of the weak force or the expansion rate of the universe ect JUST A LITTLE and this universe would not be life permitting.

Aronra wrote:


It has been repeatedly explained to you multiple reasons how and why you're wrong about this. You simply ignore all refutations and reassert your assumption always without any supportive data. That seems to be all presuppositionalists can do....

.........................It's entirely circular, baseless, and completely empty.

The reason I have to keep repeating is because (((YOU))) have been incapable of progressing any further And you said.....

Once again, your position is based entirely on assumptions with no data ever yet cited, while my position requires no assumptions and no faith, being as it is entirely based on indicative evidence which I have already pointed out to you.

<COLOR color="#FFFF00">




I am the ONLY person that has justified what I said with the data and matter of fact I have already won this little discussion....How have I



What was it I have been saying







1)dna is coded info (the) type of info that it is is sequenced info.And this info is known to come from minds objectively ((((and I will deal why its objectively know in a little bit)).

You said........

.It is true that written character languages have so far only been developed by calculating and purposeful minds,

2)I said that every single time you find multiple components working together to give an over all function like that of all the components of laptops and of that of the cell we see more sophisticatedly.That this attribute is known objectively to come from a mind........(((and I will deal why its objectively known in a little bit.)))


I also said that this ONLY exist in your mind as to how these attributes can come without a mind.And that Biological material can be MANUFACTURED in the lab but it is built on assumptions and there is no evidence indicating any of these sceneries to be the case.(theu have to be assumed and what was your response as you fought me on this?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

From YOUR OWN SOURCE NOT MINE says and I quot.........


.........." 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".




((**YOUR OWN SOURCE**))


In which you try and prove me wrong PROVED EXACTLY what I have said this whole entire time.You have to IMAGINE this to of been the case.There is no indication that it happen this way you have to presuppose that it happened this way.(these happenings only exist in your mind.

You have to use your imagination to pretend some maybe could be scenario in which like I said before all mathematical analyst is against.NOTHING IS INDICATING any manufacturing of biological MATERIAL (not life) to of been produced in to ANY early earth environment


AGAIN


From YOUR own source you have given me the argument.




Now you said

Aronra:No you didn't;

...Speaking of how I proved if what I am saying is objectively verified...


You are a human.And being a human you know just like everybody else the creative attributes of other minds because you have been exposed to them since your birth.

So what I am stating is objectively verifiable

When you find info or strategic components placed together in a strategic coordinated fashion such as a laptop or any thing that you know is developed.You know this attribute always comes from a mind right?


Now what are we seeing in the cell.Multiple components working together to give an over all function.

You know and I know and so does every living human being knows where this attribute comes from a mind.These attributes are objectively observed objectively known to com from minds on a case to case basis.


So these attributes that we see are evidence of a creative intelligent mind behind them.You position from YOUR own source tells us to use our imagination to ASSUME a scenario in which this material is ONLY MANUFACTURED in the lab


I have explained this to you in detail.


So what are we looking at here?


1)Objective knowledge to where these coded info or coordinate order cam is known to come from minds(The available KNOWN way for this to occur



2)Biological material produced under assumed circumstances.In which all mathematical analyst from any side of the table is against(Yet at the same time being told you have to IMAGINATION


Another words you don't know any way it can happen.And have to pre assume every single step by step scenario



I stand by knowledge known

You assume everything.


In every way you have lost bud

Aronra said:



If we could calculate beyond the rift of the inflation, then it would be a 'new' natural, not a supernatural.

definition of supernatural Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature..If it is a supernatural reality it is something beyond this reality.Therefore any reality you try and posit outside this reality is a super natural.

And as we know all evidence is leading to a start of this universe.So at the start of reality regardless of any position.Explaining reality must start with a super natural explanation

Aronra said:



How about them? You were supposed to name a scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. You gave me a name, but that is not enough to satisfy the challenge. You also have to show how that person was wrong, show how they knew they were wrong, and how they misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception. You didn't do that.

I already gave you more then 1 name The second Dawkins statement I withdraw I am not in total agreement with.But even the first was sufficient.



Eugene scott lied right through her teeth knowing full well that Stephen c Meryes Peer reviewed article spoke of Intelligent design


Here is the artical: http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Aronra wrote:


Let me show you what I mean. You mentioned Jonathan Wells, author of 'Icons of Evolution'. You said he was agnostic, but that's not true. Wells is a Mooney. His education was financed by the cult leader, Rev Sun Myung Moon.....

O come on with this conspiracy theorist crap.You remind me of a rocker version of Alex Jons.Do you really think it matters if you accuse every single person that believes the universe was created of lying.It in any way justifies your position?

I don't have to get my information from any theist and still come to the same conclusion.Are Roger penrose and Crick Involved in this conspiracy to?Its the dat of science that proves my point.

Aronra wrote:



Meyer wasn't asked to specify which kind of creationism ID is; he was asked whether it was creationism at all, and he said no. That was a lie.

its called INTELLIGENT DESIGN what do you think this means?He has stated many times that id cannot detect the interpretation this creator.The interpretation of this creator is a matter for philosophy.


So its not like young earth creationism because in many ways.


The Koran the Bible ect are all theological or at best philosophical interpretations of this mind.But all ID can do is detect intelligent causation.This is just a straw man of his words


Give it up dude your challenge has been debunked.

Aronra wrote:



You keep saying you've already done so, but all you have done is repeat your own error and ignore how many times and how many ways others have already corrected your mistake.

How many times others have refuted?Like who


MASTER GHOST NIGHT: who says


and still 1 in 10^40 is extremely good odds...And Winning the lottery is very unlikely,Umm yea I think you can win the lottery quite a bit in a role in just this probability?And 1 in 10^40 is good odds?(this is all I can say about this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA


Or how about why would it de-solve or What the hell are you talking about?Speaking of inflaton.

So here I have someone swearing at me trying to call me names as if I am stupid.Yet at the same time demonstrates he doesn't even know what he is saying I don't know about.

What I have to teach physics to someone or the fragility of this material such as rna to a person who acts as if I am ignorant while at the same time showing a truck load of ad hominin attacks and questions.((there is a reason I ignored them I don't have to deal with being disrespected by someone who out of his own questions demonstrate ignorance on the topic they are insulting me over.


As you can see the crap I have to deal with


If you think anything said by any atheist here was correct lets hear it because I cant find 1.

Aronra wrote:


You're right about faith being a confidence that is not based on evidence

No faith is not confidence based with no evidence.


It is EITHER


1) confidence in something

2)belief without any evidence.



And everybody uses 1 or both of these definitions in 1 way or another.

Aronra wrote:


No sir, you still have not. Despite my oft-repeated repeated requests, you still have not even tried to provide the data you keep pretending to have.

So now your gonna lie?

Your gonna say I haven't mentioned any data such as.


genetic information the multiple components working together in the cell.



1 in 10 ^ 40

4^300,

Or like


Your often repeated request have been answered over and over again.I have also anserd you on multiple other things such as your little test of lies ect.


1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


???

All which indicate a mind or are against what you propose.

Aronra wrote:


I need not refute that which has never even been presented.

Lying again?

Aronra wrote:



I don't have to assume that. That is what all the relevant evidence indicates.

Like what?You still haven't showed ANY evidence beneficial for your position.In a matter of fact the only thing that you brought to the table dealing with a ribo nucleotide just reinforced what I have been saying this whole time.I have already won this discussion aronra.

Aronra:


No sir. The only one of my questions you have ever answered was "are you a Mormon?". You have ducked and dodged every other question I have put to you.

Really?I haven't answered you on anything at all are you in denial aronra?

Aronra wrote:



You DID ignore these questions, and you WOULD be intimidated by the data -if you knew what the data was.

Umm I didn't ignore ANYTHING as far as I know most of everything you have brought to the table either proved my point I answered or at least was a red herring such as evolution or the bringing in of the theology.


I know what the data is and I mentioned it several times.No matter how much you obnoxiously disregard this aronra is in no way helping you.








So in conclusion


I have showed


the mathematical improbability of a random chaotic happening


1) 1 in 10 ^ 40

4^300,


10^500 power of a universe forming by chance.(and by the way these are just a few of many)


All showing an unlikeness of your random happening.


2)the dna is sequenced info and that the type of info that it is,is known objectively to come from intelligent minds.( you agreed that thus far it is known to come)And showed how even strong materialist such as Crick who delt with Dna came to the same conclusion I have that maybe intelligence else where seeded life.




3)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an over all function and that every time we see this attribute it is known to come from a mind.Such as laptops ect.

I also said that biological material can be manufactured in a lab but only to an extent and you have to assume every step by step scenario and the arranging of this material without a mind.Plus the environment in which they are produced all of this only exist in your mind.



Your response to this was

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/



In which from YOUR OWN SOURCE confirmed exactly what I said and quot:


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.”


The material was produced in the lab but the ONLY indication that it happened this way is in the mind.You have to IMAGINE that this happen this way.Therefore YOUR OWN SOURCE has given me the argument you have to presuppose and there is NO evidence that any life was produced from not life.Biological material isn't life.Neither is a brick a house.


NEITHER is there any evidence that this biological material produced in the lab was produced IN ANY of these IMAGINARY circumstances.



By your own source I am proven right by probability its shown that you position is highly unlikely.And from the statements of materialist scientist they agree in the case of genetic info likely having a source of intelligence behind it.

In every way you have lost this discussion and proven me right.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Instead of repeating myself I will just ask you to directly address my points.

And don't think that this:

MASTER GHOST NIGHT: who says


and still 1 in 10^40 is extremely good odds...And Winning the lottery is very unlikely,Umm yea I think you can win the lottery quite a bit in a role in just this probability?And 1 in 10^40 is good odds?(this is all I can say about this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA


Or how about why would it de-solve or What the hell are you talking about?Speaking of inflaton.

So here I have someone swearing at me trying to call me names as if I am stupid.Yet at the same time demonstrates he doesn't even know what he is saying I don't know about.

What I have to teach physics to someone or the fragility of this material such as rna to a person who acts as if I am ignorant while at the same time showing a truck load of ad hominin attacks and questions.((there is a reason I ignored them I don't have to deal with being disrespected by someone who out of his own questions demonstrate ignorance on the topic they are insulting me over.

Is a valid justification to dismiss it.

I know what I am talking about, however you do not. The questions I posed, it is not because I don't know the answer, I do know the answer. I post them because you do not know the answer, and forcing you to answer them can only lead the 2 places.
1. Plunge into a spiral of foolery.
2. Make you realize you are wrong.
And Incidentally you are ignorant.

I have forgotten more things then what you will ever know in your entire life, if you think you can get away that easily you are surely mistaken.

 

[Vivre]

You alter the mass ratio of a proton neutron,strength of the weak force or the expansion rate of the universe ect JUST A LITTLE and this universe would not be life permitting.

False, because it's an insular conclusion.
The life as we know it to be and evolved, bases on certain preconditions. A variation of those conditions doesn't automatically exclude life as such.
Only therefore those current conditions seem to be 'fine-tuned' to work for us, but that's simply a seductive conclusion. To imply an intentional causation is a trap and becomes a malicious lie if promoted against/without better reasoning, knowledge or compelling evidences.

3)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an over all function ....

A cells conglomerate has approved to be sufficient to support needfull functions and therefore survived its extinction

... and that every time we see this attribute it is known to come from a mind....

Every time we determine such an allocation the knowledge about interdependences has encreased. It doesn't allow the conclusion of a deliberately planned causation.

... from a mind.Such as laptops ect.

Well - in all my life my mind has never produced anything but 'ideas'. And none of them has ever produced any manifestation.
I doubt that laptops are created by mind-force and agree that the increadible-design-theory is a fixed idea without showing outcome either.

I'm sorry you're trapped and need to be impolite to enforce your point of view.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Your trivial bronze age genie would be a theological interpretation of this mind ?The magical has nothing to do with being able to recognize the creative attributes of other minds.The only one brining in my theological beliefs is YOU aronra.I what I am telling you is what the science indicates,that is the attributes found in that is essential for life function is always KNOWN to come from minds.

1)DNA being a sequenced 4 character alphabet .And every time we find this type of coded info it is known to come from minds.

2)the (cell at basic function expected is about 250 proteins)there are about 20 amino acids per protein.So for basic CELL function the required expectation for cell function would be about 5000 amino acids.We know whenever we see multiple components working together to give an over all function this attribute comes from ma mind,therefore we have knowledge to where this can occur.

and you say...

You continue to compare apples and oranges - natural and man-made (biological systems and technology).

There is no evidence that biological systems are the result of "components" being "put together by a mind".

You are continuing to promulgate Paley's Watch analogy.

What these?

1 in 10 ^ 40

4^300,

Or like

1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000



since your so arrogant to assume because you don't know something no one else can understand it...And disregard what I say why dont you look at penrose math?

Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60),

You can ignore what I say all day the data is still against everything your saying regardless.Not just in biology but in cosmology also.And I could keep going with these facts

Like 10 500 of a life permitting universe appearing by chance.

Combine all these factors with all the many others......what data is in your favour again?

I would urge you to read Stenger's Talk Origins article.

If you have access to a reasonably well-sourced library, you might also read Rees' Before The Beginning: Our Universe And Others and/or Stenger's Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes.

First of all Relatively little is known about the Precambrian, despite its making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth's history, The CAMBRIAN being the start of the Paleozoic Era.Many of the features of these hard shell /sea creatures are very complex.So no complexity and simplicity are at the bottom also.

>((and I do understand the period lasted for nearly 53 million years, from about 543 million years ago until 490 million years ago.))<

(Better mention that before someone straw mans me assuming)

Either way you are constantly bringing in red herrings that don't have anything to do with the topic.change in a species can only happen after a system of life and the conditions for that life are available.It doesn't matter if life at first was primitive to complex

Or if at the start species where available through the accumulative affect of micro evolution leading up to macro or (speciation). You have to have life to begin with.

Saying that well species change is not saying anything.Of course species change BECAUSE THERE IS A SYSTEM AVAILABLE that allows change over time to whatever extent that might be.So either way you said nothing

Life is the result of the laws of Nature and, specifically, of chemistry.

There appears to be a misunderstanding in Creationists'/IDers' minds that there are two completely separate categories: non-life and life - and never the twain shall meet.

This is a fallacy.

If you did mathematics at school, you'll have covered Set Theory. Think of chemistry as a set - biochemistry is a sub-set of the set called chemistry.

It's as simple as that.

At some point during (inorganic) chemical reactions, an atom of carbon and an atom of hydrogen form a bond - and, thus, we have organic chemistry: the bottom of the ladder which leads to life proper because the carbon-hydrogen bond is the sine qua non of life.

No buddy I already showed why this is wrong.Look up what roger penrose someone who believes in a random happening also.You don't have to acknowledge me just know that what I am saying is backed up by these well known scientist.LOOK IT UP.The odds against everything an ATHEIST would perceive happened.

(where not grouped together in lack of substance.

Stenger's article answers this.

Well I believe this is the first time you asked me but..Ok...

I would have to correct the question tho.Identifying MY god would be a matter for philosophy.To try and determine the characteristics of this mind that the data is indicating

The fact that all these attributes that we find info strategic order and complexity are known to come from minds objectively.And all of the mathematical data and factors of cosmology are pointing straight away from random accidental happening(therefore indicating deliberate intent )And only minds are known to intend to do something.

Is an obvious indicator of an intelligent thinking course of action as a purpose/objective.

Again, read Stenger's article and the two books I've recommended to you.

Also, you haven't actually answered Aron's question.

Sir you don't have a clue what your talking about.

You alter the mass ratio of a proton neutron,strength of the weak force or the expansion rate of the universe ect JUST A LITTLE and this universe would not be life permitting.

That is not the case - as you should realize if you read the above suggested sources: including Rees' Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe.

These parameters are related - it is not a case that changing the value of one parameter slightly renders all unstable: when you shift one up or down, the others shift up or down according to a complex relationship - and can result in a vast number of possible universes, including those with life: they are not limited to narrow ranges as you seem to think.

The reason I have to keep repeating is because (((YOU))) have been incapable of progressing any further ...

I am the ONLY person that has justified what I said with the data and matter of fact I have already won this little discussion....How have I

What was it I have been saying

1)dna is coded info (the) type of info that it is is sequenced info.And this info is known to come from minds objectively ((((and I will deal why its objectively know in a little bit)).

Again, mistakenly comparing natural and man-made systems: this time, DNA with languages developed by humans.

Please re-watch the video I posted in my earlier post.

]2)I said that every single time you find multiple components working together to give an over all function like that of all the components of laptops and of that of the cell we see more sophisticatedly.That this attribute is known objectively to come from a mind........(((and I will deal why its objectively known in a little bit.)))

As before, mistakenly comparing natural and man-made systems.

I also said that this ONLY exist in your mind as to how these attributes can come without a mind.And that Biological material can be MANUFACTURED in the lab but it is built on assumptions and there is no evidence indicating any of these sceneries to be the case.(theu have to be assumed and what was your response as you fought me on this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

From YOUR OWN SOURCE NOT MINE says and I quot........

.........." 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"

((**YOUR OWN SOURCE**))

In which you try and prove me wrong PROVED EXACTLY what I have said this whole entire time.You have to IMAGINE this to of been the case.There is no indication that it happen this way you have to presuppose that it happened this way.(these happenings only exist in your mind.

You have to use your imagination to pretend some maybe could be scenario in which like I said before all mathematical analyst is against.NOTHING IS INDICATING any manufacturing of biological MATERIAL (not life) to of been produced in to ANY early earth environment

AGAIN

From YOUR own source you have given me the argument.

This is, at best, quite a naive answer on your part - at worst, it's disingenuous.

It is only necessary to experimentally prove a single viable path to abiogenetic life for science's claims to be proven.

Let me quote the salient points from the article:

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, 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.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

Szostak didn't just "imagine" this scenario - it's been reproduced in an observable experiment.

On the contrary, it's you who's imagining that the "components" have been put together to form life.

Now you said

...

...Speaking of how I proved if what I am saying is objectively verified...

You are a human.And being a human you know just like everybody else the creative attributes of other minds because you have been exposed to them since your birth.

So what I am stating is objectively verifiable

When you find info or strategic components placed together in a strategic coordinated fashion such as a laptop or any thing that you know is developed.You know this attribute always comes from a mind right?

Only in man-made systems.

Now what are we seeing in the cell.Multiple components working together to give an over all function.

You know and I know and so does every living human being knows where this attribute comes from a mind.These attributes are objectively observed objectively known to com from minds on a case to case basis.

Not in naturally-occurring systems.

All causes in Nature of which we are cognisant are naturalistic in nature - there has never been an observed super-naturalistic cause.

So these attributes that we see are evidence of a creative intelligent mind behind them.

No, they are not.

This is an assumption on your part: you are inferring intent (design) from patterns (order).

You position from YOUR own source tells us to use our imagination to ASSUME a scenario in which this material is ONLY MANUFACTURED in the lab

This experiment empirically and objectively proves a viable path to abiogenetic life through chemically-formed RNA from the simplest molecules - which have already been observed in interstellar dust clouds and meteorites.

I have explained this to you in detail.

So what are we looking at here?

1)Objective knowledge to where these coded info or coordinate order cam is known to come from minds(The available KNOWN way for this to occur

2)Biological material produced under assumed circumstances.In which all mathematical analyst from any side of the table is against(Yet at the same time being told you have to IMAGINATION

Another words you don't know any way it can happen.And have to pre assume every single step by step scenario

I stand by knowledge known

You assume everything.

In every way you have lost bud

Wrong on all counts, as I've tried to explain to you above.

definition of supernatural Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature..If it is a supernatural reality it is something beyond this reality.Therefore any reality you try and posit outside this reality is a super natural.

And as we know all evidence is leading to a start of this universe.So at the start of reality regardless of any position.Explaining reality must start with a super natural explanation

Your dictionary definition gives two possible interpretations of the term.

As all causes observed have been naturalistic, the cause of our particular universe is most likely naturalistic - we are, thus, still dealing with causes within the laws of Nature.

Science's problem is that it may be impossible to test/falsify/verify which naturalistic cause of the "Big Bang" is the correct one.

I already gave you more then 1 name The second Dawkins statement I withdraw I am not in total agreement with.But even the first was sufficient.

Eugene scott lied right through her teeth knowing full well that Stephen c Meryes Peer reviewed article spoke of Intelligent design

Here is the artical: http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Again, in claiming that Scott lied, you are either being naive or disingenuous.

When someone makes a false statement, there are only two possible explanations: either the person doesn't know what they're talking about, which raises questions about their competence; or, the person is bearing false witness, which raises questions about their integrity.

Meyer, in speaking about the "Cambrian Explosion", raises the possibility of a "intelligent agent" to explain the sudden appearace of the various "forms".

What type of "intelligent agent" do you think he is proposing?

ET or a super-naturalistic one?

If you suppose ET, then we're back to the problem I raised earlier: if you travel back in time to the earliest possible point that a ET life-form capable of faster-than-light (FTL) travel could come to Earth and "cause" the "Cambrian Explosion", you're left with the question of how that ET life-form came into existence.

To which the only possible answer is either abiogenesis or a super-natural one.

Which is why Scott said Meyer's paper wasn't proposing ID but - ultimately - God.

Ergo, it's Creationism.

O come on with this conspiracy theorist crap.You remind me of a rocker version of Alex Jons.Do you really think it matters if you accuse every single person that believes the universe was created of lying.It in any way justifies your position?

I don't have to get my information from any theist and still come to the same conclusion.Are Roger penrose and Crick Involved in this conspiracy to?Its the dat of science that proves my point.

No - it's your misperception and misinterpretation of science that leads you to believe that it proves your point.

its called INTELLIGENT DESIGN what do you think this means?He has stated many times that id cannot detect the interpretation this creator.The interpretation of this creator is a matter for philosophy.

So its not like young earth creationism because in many ways.

The Koran the Bible ect are all theological or at best philosophical interpretations of this mind.But all ID can do is detect intelligent causation.This is just a straw man of his words

Give it up dude your challenge has been debunked.

Sophistry.

If various ("holy/sacred") texts are "all theological or at best philosophical interpretations of this mind", then they are Creationist.

Intelligent Design is Creationism - as was proved conclusively at the Dover Trial.

How many times others have refuted?Like who

MASTER GHOST NIGHT: who says

and still 1 in 10^40 is extremely good odds...And Winning the lottery is very unlikely,Umm yea I think you can win the lottery quite a bit in a role in just this probability?And 1 in 10^40 is good odds?(this is all I can say about this)


Or how about why would it de-solve or What the hell are you talking about?Speaking of inflaton.

So here I have someone swearing at me trying to call me names as if I am stupid.Yet at the same time demonstrates he doesn't even know what he is saying I don't know about.

What I have to teach physics to someone or the fragility of this material such as rna to a person who acts as if I am ignorant while at the same time showing a truck load of ad hominin attacks and questions.((there is a reason I ignored them I don't have to deal with being disrespected by someone who out of his own questions demonstrate ignorance on the topic they are insulting me over.

As you can see the crap I have to deal with

Although ad hominems and other forms of derogatory epithets are to be discouraged, it is indicative of the level of frustration that some feel that you do not appear to accept the thinking errors you are making - particularly conflating natural with man-made systems, and drawing erroneous conclusions about DNA, in particular, and Nature as being caused by an "agent" - which allegedly is not super-natural per se, but ultimately necessitates a super-natural one.

If you think anything said by any atheist here was correct lets hear it because I cant find 1.

As I'm an Agnostic, perhaps you're not including me in that remark?

I certainly have pointed out a number of times the errors you're making - with examples, evidence, etc, to back them up - in previous and in this post.

No faith is not confidence based with no evidence.

It is EITHER

1) confidence in something

2)belief without any evidence.

And everybody uses 1 or both of these definitions in 1 way or another.

I draw your attention to my earlier post of Stenger's quote regarding faith.

So now your gonna lie?

Your gonna say I haven't mentioned any data such as.

genetic information the multiple components working together in the cell.

1 in 10 ^ 40

4^300,

Or like

Your often repeated request have been answered over and over again.I have also anserd you on multiple other things such as your little test of lies ect.


1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

???

All which indicate a mind or are against what you propose.

None of this necessitates a "mind" - nor does it prove such.

This is the point Aron is making.

Again, read Stenger's True Origins' article. And the books I suggested.

Lying again?

You're now guilty of an ad hominem on Aron yourself - twice.

Like what?You still haven't showed ANY evidence beneficial for your position.In a matter of fact the only thing that you brought to the table dealing with a ribo nucleotide just reinforced what I have been saying this whole time.I have already won this discussion aronra.

On the contrary, I believe I - and others - have shown that not to be the case, TrueEmpiricism.

Really?I haven't answered you on anything at all are you in denial aronra?

You haven't properly answered any of his questions - you believe you have - but you haven't.

Your misperception/misinterpretation of the scientific data and its implications means that you're not answering his questions.

Umm I didn't ignore ANYTHING as far as I know most of everything you have brought to the table either proved my point I answered or at least was a red herring such as evolution or the bringing in of the theology.

I know what the data is and I mentioned it several times.No matter how much you obnoxiously disregard this aronra is in no way helping you.

So in conclusion

I have showed

the mathematical improbability of a random chaotic happening

1) 1 in 10 ^ 40

4^300,

10^500 power of a universe forming by chance.(and by the way these are just a few of many)

All showing an unlikeness of your random happening.

Again, Stenger's article disproves this claim.

2)the dna is sequenced info and that the type of info that it is,is known objectively to come from intelligent minds.( you agreed that thus far it is known to come)And showed how even strong materialist such as Crick who delt with Dna came to the same conclusion I have that maybe intelligence else where seeded life.

Again, watch the earlier video on "information theory".

3)The cell is made of multiple components working together to give an over all function and that every time we see this attribute it is known to come from a mind.Such as laptops ect.

IC has been disproved.

I also said that biological material can be manufactured in a lab but only to an extent and you have to assume every step by step scenario and the arranging of this material without a mind.Plus the environment in which they are produced all of this only exist in your mind.

Not in the mind - in a actual observable repeatable experiment.

Your response to this was

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

In which from YOUR OWN SOURCE confirmed exactly what I said and quot:

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.”

The material was produced in the lab but the ONLY indication that it happened this way is in the mind.You have to IMAGINE that this happen this way.Therefore YOUR OWN SOURCE has given me the argument you have to presuppose and there is NO evidence that any life was produced from not life.Biological material isn't life.Neither is a brick a house.

NEITHER is there any evidence that this biological material produced in the lab was produced IN ANY of these IMAGINARY circumstances.

By your own source I am proven right by probability its shown that you position is highly unlikely.And from the statements of materialist scientist they agree in the case of genetic info likely having a source of intelligence behind it.

In every way you have lost this discussion and proven me right.

As I already pointed out, in quoting from the article, the experiment proves a viable path to the abiogenetic creation of RNA through chemical processes using simple molecules which have been observed/detected in interstellar dust clouds and meteorites.

You have yet to prove your mistaken claims to the contrary.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[AronRa]

It seems that others have torn most all of the meat off TrueEmpiricism's post. So I'll just clean up this little bit.

1. Taken in concensus, the words 'miracle' and 'magic' share the same essential meaning.

2. Your god was originally envisioned as bronze-age djinn.

3. We know that the attributes of design do NOT only come from a 'mind'. We have shown other process which do the same thing.

4. You have shown NO indication that the'mind' you're pleading for even exists. You've repeatedly lied about having done so, but that's all you've done, lie about it. You have not produced the data. Nor can you.

5. As has already been repeatedly explained to you, DNA is NOT an 'alphabet'. Neither is it a 'code' in the context you mean to imply. If you still can't understand that, even after all the explanations that have been provided, then there is no point in trying to discuss cell biology. You're not ready for that level of discussion yet.

6. You're the one making arrogant assumptions about things you have not studied and obviously don't understand, or know anything at all about. For example, no one ever proposed that the solar system formed instantly. A coalescing concretion takes quite a while in fact.

First of all Relatively little is known about the Precambrian, despite its making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth's history, The CAMBRIAN being the start of the Paleozoic Era.Many of the features of these hard shell /sea creatures are very complex.So no complexity and simplicity are at the bottom also.

>((and I do understand the period lasted for nearly 53 million years, from about 543 million years ago until 490 million years ago.))<

(Better mention that before someone straw mans me assuming)

What you do not understand is that the Vendian period predates the Cambrian. Although it is technically part of the Proterozoic era, it already shows relatively simple multicellular organisms, including apparent precursors of Cambrian fauna. There are also plenty of trace fossils indicating even simpler organisms like burrowing worms predating all of these. Evolution follows the hierarchies indicated by taxonomy, and the most basal multicellular organisms are conglomerations of cooperative cells. I know you're not interested in actually learning anything, but I wrote an introductory primer on taxonomic phylogeny that any honest person in your position would want to see.
http://www.locolobo.org/Taxonomy.html

Either way you are constantly bringing in red herrings that don't have anything to do with the topic.change in a species can only happen after a system of life and the conditions for that life are available.It doesn't matter if life at first was primitive to complex

Or if at the start species where available through the accumulative affect of micro evolution leading up to macro or (speciation). You have to have life to begin with.

Saying that well species change is not saying anything.Of course species change BECAUSE THERE IS A SYSTEM AVAILABLE that allows change over time to whatever extent that might be.So either way you said nothing

If you're able to distinquish abiogenesis from evolution, congratulations; most creationists are unable to do that. However that is thier 'red herring', not mine.

When arguing for evolution, I understand that I am still arguing against Biblical literalism. if you have abandoned doctrinal Bibliolatry, then I have to wonder why you still hold the position that you do, but no matter. You're still trying to deny methodological naturalism in favor of supernatural magic. One of the many flaws with that is that it requires you to project your faults onto others, and to shift the burden of proof. I'm not going to let you do that. You think that 'goddidit' let's you off the hook so that you don't have to understand or explain how anything really works. Wrong again.

Now since you still have not answered my question, I will repeat it.
By what method do you propose your god actually does anything?

Well I believe this is the first time you asked me but..Ok...

I would have to correct the question tho.Identifying MY god would be a matter for philosophy.To try and determine the characteristics of this mind that the data is indicating

The fact that all these attributes that we find info strategic order and complexity are known to come from minds objectively.And all of the mathematical data and factors of cosmology are pointing straight away from random accidental happening(therefore indicating deliberate intent )And only minds are known to intend to do something.

Is an obvious indicator of an intelligent thinking course of action as a purpose/objective.

Now you're obfuscating with a meaningless word salad. As you still have not answered my question, I will repeat it again:
By what method do you propose your god actually does anything?

When I asked you this before, it was a two-part question, and you didn't answer the second part either. So I will repeat it now too.

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?

That's why I don't believe in 'fine-tuning'. Clearly the universe is NOT 'fine tuned'. It's a boiling mass of undirected chaos. Everything we now know about the cosmos confirms that all our once-sacred scriptures were wrong, and that nothing matching the definition of a deity could have or would have conjured anything anything like what the universe turned out to be.

Sir you don't have a clue what your talking about.

You alter the mass ratio of a proton neutron,strength of the weak force or the expansion rate of the universe ect JUST A LITTLE and this universe would not be life permitting.

Irrelevant. That doesn't even address what I said -which is still accurate and obviously correct according to leading experts in cosmology. YOU don't know what YOU'RE talking about, and that's been the case since before this conversation began.

You still have provided no data whatsoever to justify any of the things you've asserted or assumed. You just keep repeating the same errors, ignoring every explanation/refutation. You cannot 'win' this discussion until you begin to learn from it.

You have presented NOTHING to indicate a 'mind' capable of the attributes you're pleading for, nor any mechanism, precedent, or parallel to imply that such an assumption is even plausible/possible.

You've demonstrated no understanding of scientific methodology whatsoever. For example, science works like a game of Twenty Questions, where every new piece of information narrows down the options and helps zero in on the truth, often by process of elimination. This is done by "imagining" possible explanations and then testing them by composing potentially falsifiable hypotheses. That's how Szostak's team figured out how to prove that RNA molecules could spontaneously assemble themselves. He "imagined" a possible answer and then PROVED that it was correct!

That also DIS-proves your assertions pretending to cite "all mathematical analysts from any side of the table". Obviously you have NOT sourced every mathematic analyst, but even if you had, and even if they all agreed with you, this experiment would still have proven all of you wrong. They DO know how this can happen and they've even shown how it DOES happen. That's what it means to objectively verify something.

When you can only claim to have verified something according to your own subjective impressions and incredulity -while refusing to listen to corrections from everyone who knows better than you, then you have NOT "objectively verified" anything other than your own errors and inability to learn or be reasoned with.

You keep assuming that if science can't explain something, then religion can. No, if science can't explain something, then no one can. Being 'unexplained' doesn't mean "goddidit"; it means it is unexplained ...so far.

Science has been wrong before, but religion has never been right -about anything ...ever. You will realize that once you see that whatever you challenge me to explain you must also explain yourself. Very quickly we will see that (for me) "I don't know" = "I don't know ...yet", but (for you) "I don't know" = "I DO know, and it was God using his magick".

You're the one making all the assumptions; not me. You have not shown that organisms were ever "assembled" rather than developed according to their own chemistry, which is something we can actually see and understand to some degree.

If we could calculate beyond the rift of the inflation, then it would be a 'new' natural, not a supernatural.

definition of supernatural Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature..If it is a supernatural reality it is something beyond this reality.Therefore any reality you try and posit outside this reality is a super natural.

That's why I don't posit the limits of reality or what lies beyond them. Nor do I pretend to know what no one even can know.

And as we know all evidence is leading to a start of this universe.So at the start of reality regardless of any position.Explaining reality must start with a super natural explanation

Wrong again, since we don't know the limits of this reality, nor that the orgin of it necessary exceeds them. Our current physics can't even account for quantum fluctuations, electron/positron orbits, or even the existence of gravity, yet these don't count as 'supernatural' either.

You were supposed to name a scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. You gave me a name, but that is not enough to satisfy the challenge. You also have to show how that person was wrong, show how they knew they were wrong, and how they misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception. You didn't do that.

I already gave you more then 1 name The second Dawkins statement I withdraw I am not in total agreement with.But even the first was sufficient.

Eugene scott lied right through her teeth knowing full well that Stephen c Meryes Peer reviewed article spoke of Intelligent design

Here is the artical: http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

I doubt if Eugene Scott has ever lied to anyone in the entire time I've known her. If she is unaware of any peer-reviewed articles promoting intelligent design, I'm not surprised; I'm not aware of any either, nor do I think any exist. But if somehow that were possible, then her (or I) being wrong about that is not enough to call her a liar. Have you shown how she knew she was wrong, and how she misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception? Because I HAVE shown each of these things where Meyer's own lies are concerned.

Let me show you what I mean. You mentioned Jonathan Wells, author of 'Icons of Evolution'. You said he was agnostic, but that's not true. Wells is a Mooney. His education was financed by the cult leader, Rev Sun Myung Moon.....

O come on with this conspiracy theorist crap.

It's not a conspiracy theory; it's admitted as a matter of public record. They're not even ashamed of it.

You remind me of a rocker version of Alex Jons.Do you really think it matters if you accuse every single person that believes the universe was created of lying.It in any way justifies your position?

If they are all actuall lying (and every professional creationist does) then yes, it justifies my position, especially since "evolutionist" scientists are NOT lying the way all creationists must.

Since Crick didn't agree with you, and your arguments citing Penrose are irrelevant, then there's no 'conspiracy theory' there either.

Meyer wasn't asked to specify which kind of creationism ID is; he was asked whether it was creationism at all, and he said no. That was a lie.

its called INTELLIGENT DESIGN what do you think this means?He has stated many times that id cannot detect the interpretation this creator.The interpretation of this creator is a matter for philosophy.

Philip Johnson also said that the 'designer' in question was necessarily supernatural, and could only fit the definition of a god.

So its not like young earth creationism because in many ways.

The Koran the Bible ect are all theological or at best philosophical interpretations of this mind.But all ID can do is detect intelligent causation.This is just a straw man of his words

Give it up dude your challenge has been debunked.

So says the man who has obviously never been right about anything in his life. You also obviously don't know the significance of "cdesign proponentsists". I posted that clue for you twice, and you still didn't look it up! The publisher of Pandas & People kept an archive of earlier editions of that book. In 1987, court case of Edwards v. Aguillard made it illegal to teach creationism in public schools.

Prior to that ruling, Pandas and People defined creationism thus:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

After that ruling, the entire book was changed by simple macro commands to read:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

Once they knew that it was no longer legal to teach creationism, they deliberately changed the NAME of ‘creation’ to ‘Intelligent Design’. It was a lie, and they did it not only with deliberate intent to deceive, but also in order to break the law.

The most amusing aspect of that was the point where an undetected spelling error resulted in a most telling of obvious lies. The word 'creationists' was imperfectly replaced with 'design proponents' resulting in "cdesign proponentsists". This proves that 'Intelligent Design' is EXACTLY creationism. They have the same definition because they are the same thing. Intelligent Design = Creationism. You know it. I know it, and the Discovery Institute knew it, because they paid for the changes to the new addition.

That's how to show that someone has lied. YOU sir have been debunked.

there is NO evidence that any life was produced from not life.Biological material isn't life.Neither is a brick a house.

All the available evidence -which I already mentioned- indicates that life emerged as microbes billions of years ago, and did not make the jump to multicellular organisms until around 600 million years ago. Now how do you explain that?

NEITHER is there any evidence that this biological material produced in the lab was produced IN ANY of these IMAGINARY circumstances.

Once again, you're the one arguing for imaginary beings. I'm only pointing to factual information. For example, on one of the links on the same citation I already gave you, you'll see the associated article, Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life. In that article, a grad student stumbled across a box of stored samples from the original Urey-Miller experiment.

"Inside it were samples taken by Miller from a device that spewed a concentrated stream of primordial gases over an electrical spark. It was a high-powered variation on the steady-steam apparatus that earned him fame — but unlike that device, it appeared to have produced few amino acids, and was unmentioned in his landmark 1953 Science study, "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions."
....But Miller didn’t have access to high-performance liquid chromatography, which lets chemists break down and classify samples with once-unthinkable levels of precision. And when Bada’s team reanalyzed the disregarded samples, they found no fewer than 22 amino acids, several of which were never seen by Miller in a lifetime of primordial modeling.
.....The findings suggest that amino acids could have formed when lightning struck pools of gas on the flanks of volcanoes, and are a fitting coda for the late father of prebiotic chemistry."
..."Instead of having global synthesis of organic molecules, you had a lot of little localized factories in the form of these volcanic islands," he said."
...."The amino acid precursors formed in a plume and concentrated along tidal shores. They settled in the water, underwent further reactions there, and as they washed along the shore, became concentrated and underwent further polymerization events," explained Indiana University biochemist Adam Johnson, a co-author of the study. "And lightning" — the final catalyst in the equation — "tends to be extremely common with volcanic eruptions."

So you've been proven wrong again ...and again. You've never yet gotten anything right, have you.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I see that the 'information' canard has reared its ugly head above the parapet again...

The codification of DNA is our treatment of it, not the DNA itself, which is merely chemicals. It is information in the sense that we are informed by it, not by it containing some sort of message. The genetic 'code' is not the entities under consideration, but the linguistic constructs we apply to them in order to better understand them.

Here's the place to start:

A question was "Where does information in the DNA come from? Doesn't there have to be someone who put the information there? He is our God."

Here, we require a definition of information that is robust. Now, there are two robust formulations of information theory, and both of them need to be considered. The first is that of Claude Shannon and, while this is the formulation that most of them will cite, largely due to apologist screeds erecting various claims about information having to contain some sort of message and therefore requiring somebody to formulate the message, it doesn't robustly apply to DNA, because it's the wrong treatment of information. Indeed, when dealing with complexity in information, you MUST use Kolmogorov, because that's the one that deals with complexity.

So just what is information? Well, in Shannon theory, information can be defined as 'reduction in uncertainty'. Shannon theory deals with fidelity in signal transmission and reception, since Shannon worked in communications. Now, given this, we have a maximum information content, defined as the lowest possible uncertainty. Now, if we have a signal, say a TV station, and your TV is perfectly tuned, and there is no noise added between transmission and reception of the TV signal, then you receive the channel cleanly and the information content is maximal. If, however, the TV is tuned slightly off the channel, or your reception is in some other respect less than brilliant, you get noise in the channel. The older ones of you will remember pre-digital television in which this was manifest in the form of 'bees' in the picture, and crackling and noise in the audio. Nowadays, you tend to get breaks in the audio, and pixelated blocks in the picture. They amount to the same thing, namely noise, or 'an increase in uncertainty'. It tells us that any deviation from the maximal information content, which is a fixed quantity, constitutes degradation of the information source, or 'Shannon entropy' (Shannon actually chose this term because the equation describing his 'information entropy' is almost identical to the Boltzmann equation for statistical entropy, as used in statistical mechanics. (AW did a cracking good post covering some of this material.)

This seems to gel well with the creationist claims, and is the source of all their nonsense about 'no new information in DNA'. Of course, there are several major failings in this treatment.

The first comes from Shannon himself, from the book that he wrote with Warren Weaver on the topic:

The semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects

And

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information
must not be confused with meaning. In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information.

So we see that Shannon himself doesn't actually agree with this treatment of information relied on so heavily by the creationists.

The second is that Shannon's is not the only rigorous formulation of information theory. The other comes from Andrey Kolmogorov, whose theory deals with information storage. The information content in Kolmogorov theory is a feature of complexity or, better still, can be defined as the amount of compression that can be applied to it. This latter can be formulated in terms of the shortest algorithm that can be written to represent the information.

Returning to our TV channel, we see a certain incongruence between the two formulations, because in Kolmogorov theory, the noise that you encounter when the TV is slightly off-station actually represents an increase in information, where in Shannon theory, it represents a decrease! How is this so? Well, it can be quite easily summed up, and the summation highlights the distinction between the two theories, both of which are perfectly robust and valid.

Let's take an example of a message, say a string of 100 1s. In it's basic form, that would look like this:

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Now, there are many ways we could compress this. The first has already been given above, namely 'a string of 100 1s'.

Now, if we make a change in that string,

1111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110

We now have a string of 9 1s followed by a zero, repeated 9 times. We now clearly have an increase in information content, even though the number of digits is exactly the same. However, there is a periodicity to it, so a simple compression algorithm can still be applied.

Let's try a different one:

1110011110001111110111110001111111111100110011001111000111111111110111110000111111000111111110011101

Now, clearly, we have something that approaches an entirely random pattern. The more random a pattern is, the longer the algorithm required to describe it, and the higher the information content.

Returning once again to our TV station, the further you get away from the station, the more random the pattern becomes, and the longer the algorithm required to reproduce it, until you reach a point in which the shortest representation of the signal is the thing itself. In other words, no compression can be applied.

This is actually how compression works when you compress images for storage in your computer using the algorithms that pertain to Jpeg, etc. The uncompressed bitmap is the uncompressed file, while the Jpeg compression algorithm, roughly, stores it as '100 pixels of x shade of blue followed by 300 pixels of black', etc. Thus, the more complicated an image is in terms of periodicity and pattern, the less it can be compressed and the larger the output file will be.

What the above does is comprehensively demolish any and all creationist claims concerning information.

So, just what is information? It is that which informs us, nothing more.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Dragon glas wrote:



You continue to compare apples and oranges - natural and man-made (biological systems and technology).

There is no evidence that biological systems are the result of "components" being "put together by a mind".

Well there are many problems with this statement.

To speak of nature as if it cant be compared to man made things because it is nature is a presuppositional subjective perception of reality.No life in nature JUST natural occurs.It occurs continuously because there is a system in place that allows theses things to naturally occur.


How you would confirm to see if this system is the product of intelligence is to analyse this system and see if any of the attributes found in it can be objectively verified to of come from an intelligence.

And its is.


We objectively know when multiple components are placed in a coordinated fashion to give over all function.Or sequenced info is always known to come from a mind.


What does science mean?Knowledge or to know.We have knowledge to where the attributes can come from But the steady process of how this attribute can come about is not fully known

Therefore the belief that an intelligence played a role behind this system of life is scientific.


But back to your point the system or (cell) the multiple components working together in a coordinated fashion this knowledge to how this attribute can occur is evidence of an intelligence behind it.It all comes down to a choice you either choose the knowledge available to how this attribute can come a mind
'

Or put your confidence in an alternative down up steady process that I can say with confidants is extremely questionable and lacking substance.

Dragon glas wrote:





I would urge you to read Stenger's Talk Origins article.

Stegger has said basically what I said and quote:




Every shuffle of a deck of cards leads to a 52-card sequence that has low a priori probability, but has unit probability once the cards are all on the table. Similarly, the "fine-tuning" of the constants of physics, said to be so unlikely, could very well have been random; we just happen to be in the universe that turned up in that particular deal of the cards.





This is still dealing with probability .He doesn't deal with the multi verse ect but either the evidence is leading to a beginning therefore strenger saying one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Plank time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.


He is stating that scientificly speaking one cannot know what happened in this plank time. dealing with this is indicative of a place where time space matter and energy came into existence (shown by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in 1970)And I agree to this.Because scientificly we cannot test an existence outside space and time.The irony being that the science is indicating a start of reality being an off shoot of a super natural happening.


So the naturalist cannot be consistent in his view with totally naturalistic perceptions because the start of reality regardless of any position is a reality beyond this reality.Hence a super natural.Multi verse string theroy ect

Dragon gras wrote:



Life is the result of the laws of Nature and, specifically, of chemistry.

There appears to be a misunderstanding in Creationists'/IDers' minds that there are two completely separate categories: non-life and life - and never the twain shall meet.

This is a fallacy.

If you did mathematics at school, you'll have covered Set Theory. Think of chemistry as a set - biochemistry is a sub-set of the set called chemistry.

It's as simple as that.

At some point during (inorganic) chemical reactions, an atom of carbon and an atom of hydrogen form a bond - and, thus, we have organic chemistry: the bottom of the ladder which leads to life proper because the carbon-hydorogen bond is the sine qua non of life.

Life is the result of the laws of nature and chemistry?Well the chemistry is a produce of life of course.((BUT)) There is no evidence that LIFE was produce from simple chemical reactions produced in these convenient circumstances.(manufactured in the lab yes)


Speaking of organic chemistry carbon is basically the main centre point of organic chemistry because it can form with an endless variety of atoms.Yes hydrogen is the most abundant chemical and is essential but the focus is on carbon.


Nitrogen sulphur the halogens to name a few being more common atoms of connection But life I said believing that the cell can be produced even at basic function is already known not to be the case because you would not need 1 chemical reaction but 100s of individual for independent function.



These productions of aromatic or aliphatic compounds are not evidence of a volcanic gas like filled atmosphere being the cause of early life.Neither is any manufacturing of this biological material sufficient for life.Like I said a brick is not a house.


So they take it back and assume a simpler life form to of been produced.And the suggestions range from a large variety such as a virus.The obvious problem here is that virus's need host cells because they cannot reproduce on there own(so this would be circular reasoning.

Or one stuck in a lipid vacual ect.Ultimately the base problems are the same you need instructions (dna) for function and reproduction.You need the necessary equipment for energy intake or an environment for basic survival to begin with.And you would not only need 1 chemical because life doest function on only 1 component.So what even is a simple life simpler then the basic function of cell.Being that of about 250 proteins making up to about 5000 amino acids.(there are 20 amino acids per protein so this is what it would come out to be.


(there seems to be no real reason to consider this alternate possibility.

Dragon gras wrote:





Again, mistakenly comparing natural and man-made systems: this time, DNA with languages developed by humans.

No there the comparison is fitting.It is only unfitting for someone who pre supposes nature is just nature and cannot be compared to man made systems.Because there pre supposed perception is that an no intelligence was not involved in nature.


It is a subjective standard that cant be justified.


But It can be justified by observing what is in nature to what is man made.Because we objectively know that the products of man made things came from an intelligence.And that these same exact attributes strategic order in an coordinated fashion

And that of dna.Why dna?it is sequences characters each segment place in précis fashion.This is no different then the arrangement of these words each segment or sequencing of these letters are place in a coordinated fashion to give over all meaning.


The info in the cell each segment interacts with the multiple bio chemical in the compounds in the cell to communicate with the the individual components in the cell.There is a reason it is called instructions.When it interacts during rna replication or on multiple separate places such as interacting with proteins during there folding sequences each sequence is necessary before hand to communicate for each component to do do what it must for cell function.

Hackenslash wrote:



The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information
must not be confused with meaning. In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information.

Information must not be convinced with meaning?Well I am sorry this does not apply to genetics or sequenced info like the text like you are reading know....what else was said...

largely due to apologist screeds erecting various claims about information having to contain some sort of message and therefore requiring somebody to formulate the message, it doesn't robustly apply to DNA, because it's the wrong treatment of information. Indeed, when dealing with complexity in information, you MUST

No this has nothing to do with (apologist)This has to do with how dna operates.They are called instructions for a reason.Each sequence literally has some sort of meaning these instructions must have meaning for each of the individual bio chemical compounds to have the guidance to operate.Otherwise if the instructions are not correct the cell wouldn't function .

Aronra wrote:


1. Taken in concensus, the words 'miracle' and 'magic' share the same essential meaning.

2. Your god was originally envisioned as bronze-age djinn.

3. We know that the attributes of design do NOT only come from a 'mind'. We have shown other process which do the same thing.

4. You have shown NO indication that the'mind' you're pleading for even exists. You've repeatedly lied about having done so, but that's all you've done, lie about it. You have not produced the data. Nor can you.

1)Like I said the magical has nothing to do with being able to recognise the creative attributes of other minds.Neither does the miraculous.


without any involvement of the magical you can totally observe nature and see the product of intelligence. We see the products of intellagence all the time being human beings.When we look at the cells function we see the exact same attributes there to.Therefore these creative attributes are evidence of this mind So this would deal with number (4).......



3) No you haven't.If so don't think I am obnoxious and wont listen to what you have to say I will and am open minded to what anybody says.Its just If I am in disagreement with something I am gonna call it out.If your talking about change that occurs after this system is developed to allow change well no.

Aronra wrote:





You're still trying to deny methodological naturalism in favour of supernatural magic.

No sir


I am not against methodological naturalism.I just think that with naturalist sometimes they tale these methodological ideas pre set them as an assumed conclusion.Almost like a religious belief system.If this is backed up by sufficient facts then I have no choice to except this.But when its presupposed from the start of the universe all the way to life that these happenings for happened from the bottom up not the top down.This is a personal perception of reality and is NOT scientific.

When we ignore what they IMAGINED happened and pay attention to the mathematical improbability of what they assert.Or to how the facters involved are against it.There assumptions seem to be more so of faithful projections of the personal views.


So is one justified by a scientist personal view.Or the actual data that counter these views?

Aronra wrote:



By what method do you propose your god actually does anything?

I just answered you in the quote you posted of me. but I will answer more directly.My god is a philosophical interpretation of this mind.There is no way to ((scientificly)) verify my personal perception of this mind but the science is indicating a mind in general.This intelligent mind is a neutral position.But the attributes behind the mind that the data is indicating are an obvious indicator that this mind does something because he did it.

aronra wrote:



When you can only claim to have verified something according to your own subjective impressions and incredulity -while refusing to listen to corrections from everyone who knows better than you, then you have NOT "objectively verified"

No this is measured by objective comparison.I reference you to what I wrote to dragon gras and more earlier post to you why.There is nothing subjective about what I said.No I have read what others have wrote in these post (Knows better then me)id this because there views are similar to yours and not mine?


I am not saying this to be arrogant but BESIDES dragon gras I question whether or not most of these others on this blog even under stand the science there accusing me of not understanding.Its difficult to respond to everybody all the time and to go through reading all the opposition I am getting on this ATHEIST WEBSITE.So if you have seen a particular critique that caught your I lets see it.

Aronra wrote:



Wrong again, since we don't know the limits of this reality, nor that the orgin of it necessary exceeds them. Our current physics can't even account for quantum fluctuations, electron/positron orbits, or even the existence of gravity, yet these don't count as 'supernatural' either.

Well the best evidence is leading from Stephen hawking and penrose that the universe began to exist and have calculated a certain plank time before the this start meaning that the cause was outside space time matter and energy because they hadn't begun yet.

Aronra wrote:




I doubt if Eugene Scott has ever lied to anyone in the entire time I've known her. If she is unaware of any peer-reviewed articles promoting intelligent design, I'm not surprised; I'm not aware of any either, nor do I think any exist. But if somehow that were possible, then her (or I) being wrong about that is not enough to call her a liar. Have you shown how she knew she was wrong, and how she misrepresented the facts with deliberate intent of deception? Because I HAVE shown each of these things where Meyer's own lies are concerned.

In the exact same quot that you copied I gave you a reference to this artical.And your gonna say right after words that your unaware?Aronra....What is so hard about confessing that there are articals out there for intelligent design and that Eugene Scott lied.(all you have to do is move your mouse click on it then read it)Its right in front of your face....I guess where going to ignore this hu mister open minded?

Aronra wrote:




If they are all actual lying (and every professional creationist does) then yes, it justifies my position, especially since "evolutionist" scientists are NOT lying the way all creationists must.

Since Crick didn't agree with you, and your arguments citing Penrose are irrelevant, then there's no 'conspiracy theory' there either.

No not all creationist lie just like not all evolutionist lie.The element exist in both and from your own post OBVIOUSLY your gonna over look this.This only looks this way to you because YOU make it look like so.


Crick and penrose PERSONAL views don't agree with mine.But there science does.

Aronra wrote:
\


Philip Johnson also said that the 'designer' in question was necessarily supernatural, and could only fit the definition of a god.

And Stephen c Meyer who we where talking about.Said that Id cannot identify the designer it is a neutral question.

Aronra wrote:




So says the man who has obviously never been right about anything in his life. You also obviously don't know the significance of "cdesign proponentsists". I posted that clue for you twice, and you still didn't look it up! The publisher of Pandas & People kept an archive of earlier editions of that book. In 1987, court case of Edwards v. Aguillard made it illegal to teach creationism in public schools.

As far as I understand you are correct in this case.Dealing with the dover trial.( If you have a source where I can read the actual reference in detail I would apreciate it)But what I said still stands.Id is of course creation.But not young earth creationism because this is also a philosophical interpretation of the science.And I d is a neutral position.




But dealing whether or not creationism is unconstitutional I disagree with this 100% and I will explain....




First of all this is not a secular nation it is 100% a christian nation and has always been




1)1st amendment


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Notice where the restriction is.The government.The government is not allowed to make laws forcing us to practice a certain way.Neither can they PROHIBIT the free exercise ect.


Congress has no say on the matter neither can it enforce anything either way.This was put in place because of the oppression that was put up with.



2)The bible played a strong influence of the building of this country read artical 3 section 3 then read paragraph 1 then read Deuteronomy 17 6 its the exact same wording.


3)Many atheist like to quot from the treaty of Tripoli but stop this is what it says...


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; Sounds like thats what it says but instead of dropping the period in the middle why dont we read the rest in context?......
.
........................................................as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen


(It is not saying we are not a Christian nation.It is saying that we are not a Christian nation that has enmity against Islam.)



Being that alot of people dont know that we where paying the Muslims from fighting us because we had just been through war with the British and where incapable of fighting.This lasted a few presidencies.You ought to look up the first Koran published in America.And see why it was produced to understand the hostility of Islam for warning the American public.

(I know this is getting a little off topic just some interesting material I am betting you haven't heard)





4)Look up Jefferson treaty with the Indians 1803: Jefferson used (FEDERAL) money to evangelise the Indians on top of that use (FEDERAL) money to BUILD CHURCHES so that these Indians would have a place to go and worship.Hmm?? this kinda contradicts every single thing the secular movement has been clamming the government cant do




There is nothing unconstitutional about creationism.The word of 1 judge in some small town is irrelevant to truth.Do you hold to that what the law views as truth is truth?I believe there has been numerous schools opening the door for equal time for creation science thou there are a few things I disagree with .


I think Id must go through the proper channels.its the community that should be more involved and attempt to try and understand the material.Weigh the evidence and see what is considerable.Or maybe open the door to both topics at a certain grade level offer the pros and cons of each no one should be able to indoctrinate on either side.


The law has no right to be involved in this.This is a matter for the people to discuss.NO ONE's children should be forced to be taught what some judge thinks they should be tought.

Its YOUR choice what YOU think is the true.All available material should be given for consideration

This isn't the middle east so creationism shouldn't be enforced.But neither should its counter .So let the community's weigh the facts

 

[Prolescum]

This thread is analogous to trying to get an emotion out of a sex doll post-deed; even after you've filled it up, its reaction is always the same blank, empty stare.

TrueEmpiricism, for the record, this isn't an atheist website, it is a place to find the strength or weakness of your argument by discussion. Your religion (or otherwise) has no relevance except where your argument relies on it. Which, unfortunately for you, yours does.

Edit:
The more you know: Many people try to use the "atheist website" argument as an excuse to bow out when their views are challenged, but an excuse isn't a reason, so to fall back on it when cornered by reasoned discussion exposes your position for what it probably is; flawed.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Prolescum wrote:



This thread is analogous to trying to get an emotion out of a sex doll post-deed; even after you've filled it up, its reaction is always the same blank, empty stare.

TrueEmpiricism, for the record, this isn't an atheist website, it is a place to find the strength or weakness of your argument by discussion. Your religion (or otherwise) has no relevance except where your argument relies on it. Which, unfortunately for you, yours does

Not an atheist website?Well it appears to be so.My religion had nothing to do with the topic in a matter of fact I did not bring it up once besides to show why creationism is not unconstitutional in regards to aronras response.The only one talking about My personal beliefs was aronra.


What I was trying to do was to compare a down up perception of reality and one in regards of a mind.To see where the evidence best fits.(So where are you getting at my religion?)

 

[Prolescum]

Not an atheist website?Well it appears to be so.

Given that I've read this thread, I'm not surprised that your perception is tainted. Go here.

My religion had nothing to do with the topic

You posit ID, a form or creationism, ergo...

in a matter of fact I did not bring it up once

It is inherent in the position you're taking. While you don't mention your particular god by name, your position relies on its existence.

besides to show why creationism is not unconstitutional in regards to aronras response.

Are you being serious? This is a serious question.

The only one talking about My personal beliefs was aronra.

Also, you. From the beginning.

What I was trying to do was to compare a down up perception of reality and one in regards of a mind.To see where the evidence best fits.(So where are you getting at my religion?)

What you are doing is trying to convince the teachers and engineers here, (yes, several of the participants in this discussion are qualified) that your position is based upon evidence; it is not.
As far as I can see, it is really only pattern recognition applied universally, an hermetically sealed religious bias, and a gust of Dunning-Kruger dust blown in your eyes.

If you want to discuss the constitutionality of creationism, we have a politics sub-forum, and you are welcome to start a thread.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

Prolescum wrote:



You posit ID, a form or creationism, ergo...

Right?I posit ID as in being able to recognise the attributes of design in nature.I Havant posited Jesus Christ have I?There is a difference between believing in intelligent influence being indicated by the science.And saying Jesus did it.

Saying more then likely things where created is a neutral position.One could hold to what crick said An outside influence like aliens.

Also, you. From the beginning.

Show me where I have used the bible to back up Id other then clarifying aronras post on creationism being unconstitutional.

As far as I can see, it is really only pattern recognition applied universally, an hermetically sealed religious bias,

Yea this is what is known as the genetic fallacy.

 

[TrueEmpiricism]

well Prolescum I will say this I do enjoy your website there are some interesting topics on these forums.More then likely I will make a blog.Probably bringing up old testament evil atheist morality and Islamic history