believeingod Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 WTF thermodynamics has to do with the evolution of the eye? the very own website explains your question. What exactly do you not understand ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 The fact that we don't fully understand doesn't eliminate natural explainations. True. What we DO understand, does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 cientific consensus is ad populum? please show your assertion is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I think BIG has one of those magic 8-balls, but it's loaded with catchphrases like 'moving the goalposts' and 'argument ad populum' and 'baseless assertion' and when he comes here to post he just tips the eight ball and writes whatever comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The fact that we don't fully understand doesn't eliminate natural explainations. True. What we DO understand, does. Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 Just not in any way you can demonstrate. The fact that codified information cannot be created by chance , is enough to deduce rationally a intelligent mind as origin for DNA. That argument alone makes atheism unexcusable and irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 atheism unexcusable and irrational. Bullshit. I don't need to be excused by you or anyone else, thank you very much. And I'm a fucking lot more rational than you - a rational person could SEE how bad they're losing this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 cientific consensus is ad populum? please show your assertion is true. I believe I did. Are you being purposely obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I think BIG has one of those magic 8-balls, but it's loaded with catchphrases like 'moving the goalposts' and 'argument ad populum' and 'baseless assertion' and when he comes here to post he just tips the eight ball and writes whatever comes up. Ah, that would explain his "please show your assertion is true." response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The fact that codified information cannot be created by chance... Key word here is "codified." You must demonstrate that the so-called "information" was deliberately placed in DNA in advance by a being capable of doing so, and is not merely an illusion of information as interpreted post hoc by geneticists. That argument alone makes atheism unexcusable and irrational. On the contrary, it's inexcusable and irrational to believe that the god of the Bible -- An idiot who couldn't even deal with a Talking Snake™ -- is capable of creating and maintaining a single hydrogen atom, let alone a planet full of DNA. BIG, it seems to Me that you have a very shallow, petulant and biased perception of science, and that your faith is considerably more important to you than genuine scientific inquiry. If you had to choose between a scientific fact or your beliefs, and they were mutually exclusive, which would you choose? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Just not in any way you can demonstrate. The fact that codified information cannot be created by chance , is enough to deduce rationally a intelligent mind as origin for DNA. That argument alone makes atheism unexcusable and irrational. Creationist lies. Your mere assertions demonstrate nothing except that you are addicted to creationist lies, misrepresentations and disingenuousness. Again, define "information". Again, define "codified information". Again, define "specific codified information". No one knows what these terms mean, including your creationist whore Stephen Meyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornnormal Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 BIG, your problem is that you fail to understand the meaning and purpose of scientific models. (such as DNA and thermodynamics) They are MODELs established to represent reality. I don't even begin to get into DNA because I admit that I do not fully understand that stuff. (there's something to chew on, please reply something like: "you admittedly don't know shit, resistance is futile, all your base belongs to us!") Correct me if I'm wrong, but the laws of thermodynamics are for representing heat and energy transfer between and inside of !idealized! systems. Please show me one perfectly isolated thermodynamic system in nature (or in a lab)! ...you can't, because the whole concept is based on just IDEALIZED MODELS, not reality. That is why meteorologists have so much problem with getting stuff right, because reality is waaay more complicated and unpredictable than their best models. ...Jeesus, why am I getting into this? All I want to say is, don't strain your brain with physics when trying to understand evolution. (they are not even taught in the same class in elementary school) Just look at the variety of people (even the chinese are people, you know), try to understand how a mule comes from a donkey and a horse and why mules are infertile, look at the social roles in primate communities and think for yourself! (maybe some basic explanatory books could be helpful too) Educate yourself please! Get the basics first. You should pick up Dawkins's The Magic of Reality! It is written with the intent of being understandable for children as well, so it should not be much of a challenge to get the basics out of it for a science lover such as your holyness. (feel free to be amused by my wrestling with the english language) The question is still on. How do you think that thermodynamics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornnormal Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Justi ignore the last line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Just not in any way you can demonstrate. The fact that codified information cannot be created by chance , is enough to deduce rationally a intelligent mind as origin for DNA. That argument alone makes atheism unexcusable and irrational. I agree, the information in DNA doesn't come from chance. The real question here is why you think evolution states that it does. It doesn't. Information comes from selection. If a gene mutates and the result is detremental to the organism it dies before reaching reproductive age or is out competed. If the gene is benifitial then that gene is passed to its offsping. The majority of mutation however are neutral and increase diversity in the population. Thus, genes that qualify as information accumulate and genes that don't represent information are weeded out. Its a bit of a "brute force" process to borrow a computer analogy, but it is information without design. This argument you have made is false in another respect in that it draws a false dichotomy. You are attempting to portray things as either random chance or intelligently designed. In reality NOTHING is either of those two extremes. All of reality ocupies the space in between. Some things are more random than others, but nothing is perfectly random. So your "one or the other" argument fails in that respect as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Excellent post skepticalme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 It is written with the intent of being understandable for children as well, so it should not be much of a challenge to get the basics out of it for a science lover such as your holyness. He's a stubborn, obstinate, unteachable little fellow. (feel free to be amused by my wrestling with the english language) Your English is superior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Just not in any way you can demonstrate. The fact that codified information cannot be created by chance , is enough to deduce rationally a intelligent mind as origin for DNA. That argument alone makes atheism unexcusable and irrational. I agree, the information in DNA doesn't come from chance. The real question here is why you think evolution states that it does. It doesn't. Information comes from selection. If a gene mutates and the result is detremental to the organism it dies before reaching reproductive age or is out competed. If the gene is benifitial then that gene is passed to its offsping. The majority of mutation however are neutral and increase diversity in the population. Thus, genes that qualify as information accumulate and genes that don't represent information are weeded out. Its a bit of a "brute force" process to borrow a computer analogy, but it is information without design. This argument you have made is false in another respect in that it draws a false dichotomy. You are attempting to portray things as either random chance or intelligently designed. In reality NOTHING is either of those two extremes. All of reality ocupies the space in between. Some things are more random than others, but nothing is perfectly random. So your "one or the other" argument fails in that respect as well. It seems you are mixing up things. Either you talk about evolution natural selection, mutation, or about abiogenesis. The arise of DNA clearly belongs to the quest of abiogenesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 The arise of DNA clearly belongs to the quest of abiogenesis. Not necessarily. All that was needed for natural selection to get started was a self-replicating molecule. You assume the first replicating molecule was DNA. That is very likely a false premise, at least according to current abiogenesis hypotheses. Care to admit there is no requirement that DNA was the first self-replecating molecule upon which natural section could act? Let's see if you are intellectually honest. Ten to one odds that you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Just not in any way you can demonstrate. The fact that codified information cannot be created by chance , is enough to deduce rationally a intelligent mind as origin for DNA. That argument alone makes atheism unexcusable and irrational. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBXDIY3X2h4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 The arise of DNA clearly belongs to the quest of abiogenesis. Not necessarily. All that was needed for natural selection to get started was a self-replicating molecule. You assume the first replicating molecule was DNA. That is very likely a false premise, at least according to current abiogenesis hypotheses. Care to admit there is no requirement that DNA was the first self-replecating molecule upon which natural section could act? Let's see if you are intellectually honest. Ten to one odds that you are not. the RNA world is not a alternative, viable option to DNA. http://www.icr.org/article/77/ The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by evolutionary scientists, themselves. The simplest form of life imaginable would require hundreds of different kinds of molecules, perhaps thousands, most of them large and very complex. With respect to this point, Van Rensselaer Potter states, "It is possible to hazard a guess that the number is not less than 1,000, but whether it is 3,000 or 10,000 or greater is anyone's guess."2 This statement not only acknowledges the immensity of the problem, but also is a tacit admission of how little is really known or knowable about the problem. In addition to these many molecules, which would include the large and complex protein, DNA and RNA molecules, each with up to several hundred subunits arranged in a precise sequence, the origin of life would require many complex and dynamically functional structures, such as membranes, ribosomes, mitochondria (or energy-producing complexes of some kind), etc. Furthermore, life requires marvelous coordination in time and space, with many regulatory mechanisms. To believe that all of this came about by mere chemical and physical processes, does indeed constitute an immense exercise of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Let the ICR write a paper and get it peer reviewed, otherwise, it's not a viable source; especially in a debate amongst laypeople. As it stands, you might as well just start posting bible verses as they have about as much authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
believeingod Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Let the ICR write a paper and get it peer reviewed, otherwise, it's not a viable source; especially in a debate amongst laypeople. As it stands, you might as well just start posting bible verses as they have about as much authority. You don't seem interested to find out the truth yourself. That is your choice. What ICR is saying, is based on findings of main stream science. But you have shown previously, that you don't know much about these issues. You prefere to stick tosuperficial popular opinions, mix abiogenesis with ET, and are happy with it. Its not my business to try to change your attitudes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 You don't seem interested to find out the truth yourself. Its not my business to try to change your attitudes . LOL!!!! Spoken as a true christard! You do not seem interested in finding the truth out for yourself either: .... you have small mindedness, tunnel vision, ignorance, self importance, are extremely condescending and full of hypocrisy. That's what I do so miss about being around your types! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Its not my business to try to change your attitudes . Then what the FUCK are you doing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Its not my business to try to change your attitudes . The what the FUCK are you doing here? ... exactly what I was thinking too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts