Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you believe in GOD?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2,149 replies to this topic
RAS_ZeroZ
  • RAS_ZeroZ

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2013

#1951

Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:06 PM Edited by RAS_ZeroZ, 05 March 2014 - 10:08 PM.

I find the question very uninteresting and spend about zero time thinking about it during my life. Whether there is or isn't a 'god' is irrelevant imho.  What I'll be having for dinner or what color shirt I'll wear tomorrow is more interesting.

  • GTA3Rockstar likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1952

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:25 AM

 

From inanimate matter, piece by piece. Not inserting DNA into another cell or anything dealing with pre-existing life. The very law of biogenesis says life only comes from already existing life.

The building blocks of DNA aren't animate matter. Also, Biogenesis isn't a law but an observation.
 

Yes, they literally are by definition:
 
ma·chine

məˈSHēn/

noun



  • 1.

    an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
     
Cells and even the proteins that make them up are without a doubt by definition machines.

 

The problem is that they don't fit any of the defined categories of machine. Also:

apparatus

ˌapəˈreɪtəs/

noun
  •  


  • 1.

    the technical equipment or machinery needed for a particular activity or purpose.

     
Apparatus are by their very nature the creations of applied intelligence. My point still stands.
 

Explain how anything is evident outside observation. Through observation is how we make sense of basically everything.

Exactly.

Which means this statement:
 

DNA is an objective physical object which encodes information to create 3 dimensional objective machines.

Is clearly false, because we don't even know that DNA exists outside of our perception of the world around us- if such a world exists- as we cannot definitively prove that anything does. And whilst this is, as I've already discussed, vaguely absurd Solipsist logic, it's also entirely irrefutable. It's also no more absurd than making concrete claims about the nature of the universe that aren't actually based on any kind of empiricism, but on assertions drawn from a lack thereof. But I'll get onto that in a minute.
 

There is no opinion, DNA is in fact a code.

Well no, that's clearly not the case. Partially because of the above (that is, the fact that nothing can be assumed to exist apart from our own consciousness, so any concrete statement that assumes that something must be the case without residing inside this is problematic) and partially because, as you've already agreed several times with me, a code cannot exist without an interpreter. It's interesting that you keep referring to language as an analogy because that seems more than anything to support my assertion that conclusions about the wider nature of existence drawn from supposition an speculation are every bit as subjective, nuanced, nonsensical and potentially as devoid of meaning or value as language can be. All about interpretation.
 

DNA is comparable to human language as it has letters, words, sentences, periods and paragraphs.

Great, so DNA is comparable to something entirely subjective in meaning and completely dependent on our ability to perceive it. Glad we agree.
 

It's fallacious to produce an assumption based upon known observed facts? Show me a falling rock or any natural process produce a code and then you can call me out. Until you have any evidence against proven observed fact I feel it is very safe in assuming so.

So what's the proven fact in this case that causes you to conclude that organisms must be a result of intelligent design?
Your previous assertion could be summed up as:

1) Presuming the universe and natural organisms actually exist, they must have originated from somewhere.
2) Organisms are by their nature complex
3) Science has not identified a set of "natural" processes that, by my arbitrary judgement, I consider to be complex, that were instilled by something other than intelligence
4) Therefore organisms must be the product of intelligence.

Which is, logically speaking, no different from a caveman claiming that the big ball of fire in the sky must be magic, because he lacks the capability to explain it's presence or action through any other means. A simple case of falsely assuming that if you can't conclusively prove that A + B = C, then A + B must equal Z

 

 

So basically your entire refutation to DNA being a code is you taking the ground of solipsism claiming that since everything we experience is subjective you can't be sure the world you exist in nor everyone you interact with is actually real, therefore you can't be sure DNA is a real code or cells and proteins are actual real machines. If you want to step back into reality you could probably see how absurd that argument is.   

 

A flagellum tail is by definition a machine. The diagram of the tail is nearly identical to an onboard motor.

flagella-.jpg

 

 

 

Do you believe a boat motor can not only create itself, but also make an entire factory that can create copy after copy solely through natural processes, why or why not?


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1953

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:15 AM

I understand your fascination with the emergent properties of the physical universe, but you must know that there are plenty of theories about how the environment shaped these developments? You can't simply point to schematics of rudimentary propulsion as if they're from God's workbench - they have been crafted by chance, fate, and survival in the harshest and changing environments for millenia upon millenia.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that the simplest cells among us are presumed to be the easiest to recreate. They came into their own over a far longer period than we find ourselves seperated from single celled organisms. Think about that. We are grandchildren to multicellular creatures who are great great great grandchildren to the initial building blocks of life.

So the miracle of life, really, lies within the extrodinary fusion of elements that became a 'cell', long before the flagellum ever helped microbe A to absorb nutrients over microbe B.



Edit - I didn't realize that the flagella flap was such a longstanding debunked ID fantasy. Read an interesting explanation here:
http://www.godlessge...agellaMyths.htm

And found plenty of theories refuting the "irreducible complexity" argument all overt he damned internet.
  • D- Ice and iiGh0STt like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1954

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:23 AM

The 'over long periods of time' argument makes it even that much worse, as said before even the most simplest cells are still machines, meaning numerous parts are needed it to sustain itself and live. You need an apparatus to take in energy and another to utilize it, you need genetic information to create an entire copy of the cell itself, you need mechanisms to decode the DNA, you need mechanisms to create amino acids then machines to turn those into proteins.. these are just things to keep them alive, then they have specified purposes as a whole to perform. All parts need to be in place to function, these things just can't stay in place over millions of years with thermodynamics working against them just waiting to become fully assembled and come alive. 

 

I'll ask you the same thing I asked sivis, do you believe not only a car, but an entire car factory along with the ability to replicate other car factories could engineer and build itself through solely natural processes given enough time, why or why not? 


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1955

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:06 AM

Are we talking Ford or Chevrolet?

My argument was that "the simplest cells" are perhaps far grander in their very improbable existence than you or I are in comparison to them.

They did not appear spontaneously, which you may or may not be trying to say (you make it difficult at times) but bit by bit, mistake by mistake, millions of years before ever becoming a cell.

So yeah, I'll cede that somewhere out there in the infinite expanse of the cosmos, there may be a planet populated by factories that birth cars. Because that's still less ludicrous than Intelligent Design.
  • D- Ice, Tacymist, iiGh0STt and 1 other like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#1956

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:14 AM Edited by Melchior, 06 March 2014 - 08:15 AM.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked sivis, do you believe not only a car, but an entire car factory along with the ability to replicate other car factories could engineer and build itself through solely natural processes given enough time, why or why not? 

Something of equal complexity to a car and a car factory could, yes. There's plenty of natural processes that are just as complex as cars and assembly lines, believe it or not. The systems by which water travels, for instance: river systems are extremely complicated, and clouds and rain are even more complex than a rolling metal box powered by explosions. 

 

A car itself wouldn't, for obvious reasons. That's like saying music must be made by fairies because you and I haven't personally written Ode to Joy.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1957

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:37 AM

So basically your entire refutation to DNA being a code is you taking the ground of solipsism claiming that since everything we experience is subjective you can't be sure the world you exist in nor everyone you interact with is actually real

No, that was merely designed to demonstrate the absurdity of presenting assertions, based on estimation and subjective conclusions derived from a lack of evidence, as if they were factual. My main point was that the rationality of your conclusions was questionable as they do not logically extend from your assertions. Even if we accept your very narrow and subjective interpretation of what constitutes the creation of information (that is, entirely excluding spontaneous replication and evolution for a reason you've not explained, other than claiming that it doesn't match your own, personal interpretation of what "information" constitutes), that still doesn't necessarily lead one to believe that such information must be a creation of intelligent design- especially when you've effectively said that the most intelligent designer we know of isn't capable of such a creation- that can cut both ways.

So, to summarise the basic tenets of my rebuttal:

1) Correlation does not equal causation; similarly an absence of evidence to the contrary does not make a theory valid. Refer to Russell's Teapot and the general principle of arguments from ignorance.
2) Discussion of evidence intelligent design using loaded terminology which itself implies intelligence where not can be directly attributed doesn't make very much sense.
3) Your persistent use of language as an analogy for genetic information harms the validity of your argument because you fail to take into account the subjective nature of linguistics.
4) Codes fundamentally lack meaning without an interpreter.

A flagellum tail is by definition a machine.

Except a) it isn't, for the reasons I've highlighted above, and b) as Otter has already pointed out, the argument surrounding irreducible complexity are logically flawed. Also, by whose definition? Yours? Funny that I've not observed any scientific discourse addressing cellular organisms as such, and yet you seem so insistent on claiming it's the case. Tell me, why is that?

I'll ask you the same thing I asked sivis, do you believe not only a car, but an entire car factory along with the ability to replicate other car factories could engineer and build itself through solely natural processes given enough time, why or why not?

And I'll point out, as I'm fairly certain I did last time, that Paley's Watch is a case of false equivalence; that is, the claim that there's a similarity between inanimate objects incapable of procreation or self-enhancement without external input (and your absurd "car factory" analogy's attempts to defeat this by imagining something hypothetical, impossible and still falsely equivalent don't really make sense), and living organisms that possess all those capabilities, is fundamentally flawed. One can dismiss intelligent design as not supported in evidence and maintain that such a factory as you describe could not exist, and by doing so one would simply assert that there's a fundamental difference between the functions of the animate and inanimate, rendering the entire argument null and void.

Then there's the rebuttal from natural selection- that is, again, a demonstration that your analogy is illogical because it assumes the scientific argument that complexity is a product of selective processes which cannot come to play in your example- because it falsely assumes that such an entity has somehow "formed" into existence in an absurd way contradictory to accepted scientific understanding- there attempting to undermine argument of critics by portraying them as believing in an "absurd" theory which doesn't actually bear any resemblance to the theory they may be supporting.

Plus the argument from design drawing from human experience has another flaw, too. No one thing is entirely and completely designed by a single intelligent entity; therefore the concept of a "designer" applied to human creations is false and by proxy all assertions about a divine designer must be too, because one cannot simply pick and choose the attributes their hypothetical deity must have; using some human attributes that appear ostensibly to support the existence of a designer to strengthen their argument and handily ignoring those that weaken it.

It's worth noting that this very argument has been discussed during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2005, concerning the teaching of intelligent design as if it were scientific. The conclusion reached by the judge in this case was as elegant as it was dismissive. Simply, John E. Jones III dismissed Paley's Watch as being an argument from subjectivity, and completely meaningless in contextual discussion of the accuracy and validity of scientific discussion.
  • Kristian. likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1958

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:45 AM

I just find it funny that a factory is being held up as some form of idyllic creation. As if the production line was Man's first foray into the divine.

I don't understand the reasoning that order and function inherently point to divine design. Quasars send out regular pulses that translate into some fantastic music... Is that more proof?

The self centred, egoistic, naive concept that the entire universe was created for the benefit of our horrible fledgling species is just so mind jarringly silly to me. We are not the most important things, even on this planet, to anything more than ourselves.
  • Rown and sivispacem like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1959

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:09 AM

do you believe not only a car, but an entire car factory along with the ability to replicate other car factories could engineer and build itself through solely natural processes given enough time?

 

you know technically speaking, your question is already answered.

through completely natural processes and the passage of time, the answer to your question is apparently yes.

 

GM-AVTOVAZ-Plant-Togliatti-Russia.jpg

  • Otter and Melchior like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1960

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:13 AM

That's a very good point actually. What's unnatural about the human act of creation? Surely everything we produce could be distilled as the products of natural processes?

Unless of course you believe that humans are also divine beings capable of operating outside of the laws of nature, in which case please explain why.
  • Otter and Melchior like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1961

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:13 AM

I just find it funny that a factory is being held up as some form of idyllic creation. As if the production line was Man's first foray into the divine.

I don't understand the reasoning that order and function inherently point to divine design. Quasars send out regular pulses that translate into some fantastic music... Is that more proof?

The self centred, egoistic, naive concept that the entire universe was created for the benefit of our horrible fledgling species is just so mind jarringly silly to me. We are not the most important things, even on this planet, to anything more than ourselves.

 

It's because cells are factories, multitudes more complex than actual car factories themselves. Something that requires extremely high precision and engineering, something that can't just be tossed into place on accident. 

 

And the point being behind there being a designer is the very fact that humans aren't the most important things in the universe or that it was created just for us.. I believe the universe was created sort of in the same sense why we create paintings, sculptures, architecture ect. out of creativity. The vast size of the universe stares us in the face the fact of how miniscule we are in comparison to whatever made it. 

 

That's a very good point actually. What's unnatural about the human act of creation? Surely everything we produce could be distilled as the products of natural processes?

Unless of course you believe that humans are also divine beings capable of operating outside of the laws of nature, in which case please explain why.

 

Because you're swapping definition of words from what was being used earlier. 

 

Natural processes = tornadoes, hurricanes, whirlpools, rocks falling, mudslides, tsunamis ect., aka mindless processes which follow laws of physics. 

 

The human act of creation requires understanding and information processing, we study gravity then conceptualize and design a machine which defies it. A natural process cannot defy a law it can't even comprehend.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1962

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:49 AM

"Cells are factories"
No they aren't. A cell could be said to be analogous to a factory, but an analogy is not enough criteria to claim that something is something else.

"Engineering"
Again, use of terminology that implies intelligence whilst presenting an argument supposedly supporting such an assertion. I'm certain you're unaware of it, but use of terms like this do nothing more than indicate your argument is based on the pre-existing assumption that design has taken place. Fallacious, circular logic.



So, what aspect of "natural" processes defines them as mindless? It isn't self-evident, especially if you're claiming that some natural processes are products of divine intervention and some aren't. Again, picking and choosing where to apply your divinity.

It's very interesting to note that your list of "natural processes" are all things that have historically been associated with the actions of divine beings. I don't know think you can logically claim that all these processes, which are mathematically and technically complex in their nature but all of which are understood by science, are "natural" by virtue of them bring understood and simultaneously claim that life must be a creation of the same divine being who was not long ago attributed to all these "natural" processes solely because you fail to see any evidence to the contrary that meets your own subjective interpretation of what constitutes the various terms you like to throw around- "code", "information", "existence" without even the common sense to define.
  • Otter and D- Ice like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1963

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:02 PM

Natural processes = tornadoes, hurricanes, whirlpools, rocks falling, mudslides, tsunamis ect., aka mindless processes which follow laws of physics.

 

well now you're going to have to explain to me now how human development doesn't count as a natural process.

who says natural has to = mindless?

  • Melchior likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1964

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 06 March 2014 - 06:53 PM.

So, what aspect of "natural" processes defines them as mindless? It isn't self-evident, especially if you're claiming that some natural processes are products of divine intervention and some aren't. Again, picking and choosing where to apply your divinity.

 

 

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that none of them have minds or can process information? lol of course I don't expect that to be self-evident to someone who doesn't even believe reality is anything more than a figment of their own imaginations.. 

 

And again you're trying to cause confusion by swapping definitions, if something is caused by divine intervention then by their very nature it's not a natural process.. I don't get how you have such a hard time understanding such basic principles and why you must try to twist words to fit what you're saying.

 

 

It's very interesting to note that your list of "natural processes" are all things that have historically been associated with the actions of divine beings. I don't know think you can logically claim that all these processes, which are mathematically and technically complex in their nature but all of which are understood by science, are "natural" by virtue of them bring understood and simultaneously claim that life must be a creation of the same divine being who was not long ago attributed to all these "natural" processes solely because you fail to see any evidence to the contrary that meets your own subjective interpretation of what constitutes the various terms you like to throw around- "code", "information", "existence" without even the common sense to define.

 

 

Natural processes are natural because they occur in nature by simply following the laws of physics. A natural process has no mind therefore can't process information therefore cannot create code.

 

I know you'll deny it till the day you die, but you're only fooling yourself into thinking mindless processes could ever create a code or machines.. to the point where you have to tell yourself nothing exists therefore DNA doesn't really exist and cells aren't actually machines cause they're not actually real.. 

 

I'm not saying what god it is or where it came from I'm simply making the argument that there is strong evidence that there is an intelligent mind behind the existence of reality . The number one reason people willfully deny even just the possibility is solely because Fear. They're scared of even facing the possibility and will deny no matter what logical hoops they have to jump through.. It's a logically sound theory which has stood the test of time for thousands of years, it's intellectual dishonesty at it's finest where ones must fool themselves to convince themselves against it. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1965

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:31 PM

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that none of them have minds or can process information?

And? There are numerous living beings that lack "minds", and the ability to "process information" is entirely subjective. On one level, chemistry is the "processing of information". The amalgamation of atoms and molecules with different properties produces compounds which do not necessarily share the properties of the individual atoms or molecules these compounds are made from, so why not apply the same logic and you have with life itself and claim that these properties are also the products of divine intervention? They aren't self-evident in the building blocks of the compound so where does that "information" that gives them those additional properties come from?

You're still not explaining your arbitrary definition of "code", or "intelligence", or "information". I would presume this is because you can't actually give a definition of any of them that doesn't rely entirely on subjective, personal interpretations of the terms. Similarly, you haven't explained why you've dismissed the perceived production of "information" and "code" from entirely natural processes without proper explanation.

lol of course I don't expect that to be self-evident to someone who doesn't even believe reality is anything more than a figment of their own imaginations.

One, if you're going to paraphrase someone, at least do it accurately.
Two, I never once claimed that nothing existed outside one's own imagination. I said that it was possible that nothing existed outside of one's imagination. But given you don't understand the difference between the literal and metaphorical, I can probably excuse this oversight.
Three, you aren't explaining why this is self-evident? Indeed, I could simply assert that the supposed "self-evidence" is merely a product of your pre-existing, subjective beliefs, and that it therefore represents nothing more than an opinion. The fact that several other people seem to agree with this assertion is quite telling I must say.

And again you're trying to cause confusion by swapping definitions

I'm not "causing confusing", you simply appear entirely incapable of understanding my argument. My point is fairly clear, how about you have another go at reading it and actually comprehending it before you start accusing me of playing word games? If you don't understand, then why don't you ask me for clarification instead of assuming that you're probably-flawed interpretation of what I've said is accurate.

That's your problem when it comes to discussion of this nature. Everything you say; every argument you make as if it were obvious and factual seems to be built on an untested assumption. You assume that patterns and information must exist outside of human perception even though you can't demonstrate it to be true; you argue as if experience is ultimately empirical when it's highly subjective; you make factual assertions about the nature of the world around you even though you're unable to rebut the possibility that none of it even exists.

if something is caused by divine intervention then by their very nature it's not a natural process.

Why? The definition of "natural" refers only to that which is not caused by or attributable to mankind. So are the actions of a divine power natural or unnatural? Well, this supposed "design" is occurring in the natural world, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's external to the natural world, so why conclude that divine intervention- if it were to exist- was unnatural?

Simple- the concept of a divine creator is nonsensical unless it can be boiled down into comparisons with human activity. Human activity isn't, in your view, natural (which is philosophically debatable anyway, but I digress) so you automatically assume that, because you've been forced to categorise the nature of a divine creator in terms comparable to humans, the actions of a divine creator can't be natural either. 
 

Natural processes are natural because they occur in nature by simply following the laws of physics.

A set of laws none of the specific rebuttals I've used at any point in this sixty-page discussion actually break. This statement is entirely meaningless; there is no scientific law that dictates living matter cannot come from inanimate matter. There is no scientific law which dictates that only intelligent beings can create information interpretable by intelligent beings.

A natural process has no mind therefore can't process information therefore cannot create code.

Prove this tenet. This is a claim you are making, so prove that human-interpretable information cannot be derived from natural processes without the direct input of intelligence on the part of any entity. You're making this sweeping statement and expecting people to take it at face value, so if you're so certain that this assertion is categorical fact, then demonstrate it.

I will tell you now to save you the head-scratching: it's unprovable. There is no way of categorically demonstrating that all information must be the production of minds. There's no way of categorically proving that there's even such thing as information. Therefore you must entertain the possibility that the processing of human-interpretable information may be done by entirely natural processes without the intervention of a divine being. Given several people in this thread have given you concrete examples that they believe to be evidence of this, and you've dismissed each one off-hand without a single valid, logical explanation not based on the pre-existing assertion that your belief in God makes their views wrong, I put it to you that the only reason you continue to be intentionally obtuse around your definitions for terms you seem to use arbitrarily is because you're utterly flummoxed by how to respond and instead would rather get tied down in false analogies and misrepresentation than actually tackle the issues you've been called out on.

I know you'll deny it till the day you die, but you're only fooling yourself

Your hypocrisy is utterly astounding.

You accuse me of playing semantic games when you refuse to define terms you use arbitrarily.

You accuse me of near-sightedness and ignorance when you make contradictory statements about the nature of data, and the interpretation thereof.

You claim that I'm being deliberately misleading when you've failed to understand my points.

You pretend I possess beliefs that I don't and then insist on paraphrasing things I've said entirely incorrectly.

You have the audacity to argue as if your points are somehow self-evident, in complete ignorance of the history of science and philosophy. You're really so arrogant as to think that the arguments you're making here haven't been made for centuries? You honestly believe you're bringing something to a discussion that five millennia of philosophy, three hundred years of scientific and technological enlightenment and the combined discussions of the finest minds in human history have not? I've pointed out numerous times, the arguments you're making are historical ones. Paley's Watch. Irreducible and specified complexity. The "fine-tuned" or "perfect" universe myth. They're all theories decades or centuries old.

I find it frankly insulting that you're so ignorant of the history of your own arguments- in fact, the history of the entire discussion topic of intelligent design versus evolutionary biology- as to fail to acknowledge the fallible nature of every assertion you make and yet still continue arguing as if from a point of enlightenment. It's just getting ridiculous now, as is your inability to actually address the overwhelming majority of points that have been made rebutting your assertions or asking you to clarify statements.
  • Tacymist likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1966

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:51 PM

I don't want to believe in a deterministic universe but the science is overwhelming. I'd love it if we were able to detect some trace of creation, some concrete proof that there's a grand design - that would be, literally, awesome. And frightening.

 

Yet it simply hasn't been found yet and you can't just imagine it into existence or ignore all evidence and hypotheses contrary to your own theories.

 

Now, predictably, you're going to say that it is actually us who are ignoring the evidence but you continually fail to provide anything beyond misrepresented theories rooted in nothing more than belief. And while these may be valid in a philosophical nature, they do nothing to refute anything presented by the rest of us.

 

So we can discuss the hypothetical design of the universe for the purposes of a thought experiment, but you're not going to win anyone over here just like we're obviously not going to convince you of the merits of hard science.  Can we all agree to that?

  • sivispacem likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1967

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:28 PM

Sorry I must have missed where you presented your argument backed by hard science that showed natural processes creating encoded languages, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind showing it again. 

 

I personally would love to be one of the first people to witness someone showing information theory and the origin of encoded information to be false. It would revolutionize the studies of archaeology and the search for extraterrestrial life. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1968

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:19 PM

I think it's only fair that you define "encoded language" and "natural processes" before anyone responds, seen as your definitions of both seem seem a little...well, woolly. I'd particularly like to see you define "encoding" in a way that doesn't relate directly to human-attributable creation (language, systemic codes). The very use of the world "encoded" is loaded in my view, as it automatically assumes a creator and the existence of a logical interpreter.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1969

Posted 06 March 2014 - 11:32 PM

Yeah, what the smart guy said. :p I mean, I shared a fantastic paper with you, Granny, about the origins of the flagellum. Please share with me what "code" you want me to refute with the appropriate paper I pick and choose at will from Google.

 

Do try to read between the lines here: you're not going to win a scientific debate without providing some scientific research. You can't sit back on your haunches with a smarmy attitude hiding behind these fictional "codes" and "machines".


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1970

Posted 07 March 2014 - 12:35 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 07 March 2014 - 01:05 AM.

Encoded language:

 

A specified sequence of symbols used to convey instructions and information.

 

 

Natural processes:

 

Events in nature caused by natural laws of physics.

 

 

 

I'm curious in seeing your proof backed by hard science on how natural processes incapable of processing information can create a code as you claimed you have.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1971

Posted 07 March 2014 - 12:43 AM

What "code" are you directly referring to? DNA?


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1972

Posted 07 March 2014 - 12:56 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 07 March 2014 - 12:56 AM.

There are two separate codes stored in DNA.

 

One stores instructions for amino acid/protein production and the other stores the actual directions for for the gene/protein's functions. 

 

 

http://www.scienceda...31212142151.htm

 

http://www.sci-news....-dna-01618.html

 

http://www.examiner....in-gene-control


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1973

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:37 AM

OK, thanks, just trying to get down to brass tacks with you. You must realize, obviously, that DNA is the holy grail of naturally occurring recorded information, but that information is inherent to the very state of everything. The unique nature of DNA, I'd argue, is the replication, rather than the fact that it exists. I mean, we can look at layers of ice in the antarctic that tell very strong tales depending upon how one reads the "codes". We can observe countless chemical reactions that only occur in the precise, correct, order of operations that viewed temporally are very much a "code" or the patterns of sand dunes in a desert which precisely record the gusts of wind impressed upon them. These are all forms of information etched or recorded or grown like a crystal.

 

But back to DNA. Do you know about the concept of Particle Aggregation? It's interesting on a macroscopic scale as well... mindblowing on the cosmic. The idea that disparate elements will find a naturally occurring equilibrium by moving and changing to form complex patterns - codes, if you will, with mathematical similarities and predictable growth patterns - if this process can create 'information' by naturally 'seeking' its default state of harmony, will you allow for the possibility this process or some other perhaps led to series of recurring chemical reactions that bonded into the first elements of life?

 

If you allow for that possibility - and this is one of many ideas out there and I haven't looked up the most recent literature on theories about the origin of life, maybe Sivi can provide some - then what prevents that process from leading to another, and another, and another - eventually forming a repeating pattern of chemical reactions that sustains itself?

 

Why is it such a stretch to believe that these elements, left to their own devices in a world without predators or biological hazards at that points, would begin to grow and replicate in their own right?

 

 

Is that tackling the subject too broadly or are you on board with my argument here?


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1974

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:59 AM

Patterns such as snowflakes and sand dunes found in nature are Not encoded languages.. they do not convey instructions, directions or ideas. 

 

 

DNA is literally a bilingual language which uses letters (nucleotides) to make words(codons/duons) which write sentences(genes) which is interpreted in two different ways by decoding proteins which give two separate sets of instructions. 


Adler
  • Adler

    Hello, Smith. ( -`)ノ

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2009
  • None

#1975

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:29 AM

There are two separate codes stored in DNA.

 

One stores instructions for amino acid/protein production and the other stores the actual directions for for the gene/protein's functions. 

 

 

http://www.scienceda...31212142151.htm

 

http://www.sci-news....-dna-01618.html

 

http://www.examiner....in-gene-control

You are mistaken. None of those sources say that there is a code which stores "directions for gene/protein's functions." Read them again. They are saying that there is code that outlines "gene control," otherwise known as gene expression (on/off state of genes). There is no explicit direction given by genes to proteins. Genes are used make proteins and proteins have function, which are not given to them by genes, but are innate to proteins themselves.

 

Furthermore, there is not actually a second code, but "different use of existing code," as described by this link here:

 

http://www.forbes.co...-duon-dna-hype/


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1976

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:58 AM

Calling it a language wmakes it no less probable.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1977

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:05 AM

whenever someone hits the bullseye, Grandmaster simply moves the target.

  • Tacymist likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#1978

Posted 07 March 2014 - 05:14 AM

The world is full of mindless processes which can't create anything interpretable by an intelligent mind, for some reason. You can't see how that's a maddening non-sequitur?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1979

Posted 07 March 2014 - 07:59 AM

A specified sequence of symbols used to convey instructions and information.

Define "symbol" without reference to interpretation. You're simply repeating yourself without actually giving any consideration to the implications of the terms you're using, nor to how they can be applicable on an objective level. The entire defining characteristic of symbolism is it's representative nature, and something cannot be representative without the processing capacity to understand what it represents- a capacity which isn't intrinsic in the symbol itself. Therefore the entire concept of symbolism and representative sequencing is merely a construct of perception.
 

Events in nature caused by natural laws of physics.

Define "nature" in this context. In the broadest sense, "nature" basically just means everything that exists, including that which is not known. I struggle to see how you can assert that it is logically impossible for natural, unguided processes to produce things interpretable as "encoded information" (and therefore that God must exist) without knowing the unknown.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#1980

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:11 AM

Why do you keep debating this buffoon? His entire argument boils down to "I don't know, therefore god must have done it". You'll never make him see where he's wrong with rational arguments when he's incapable of thinking rationally.

  • Melchior, Adler and sivispacem like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users