Darwin vs DNA

[sakinago]

Believers can assert the "omni's" of gods and not the anthropomorphic ones. Believers will assert that “he” (note the paternalistic attribute of the Abrahamic god) is perfection and then assign to him emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes by definition assumes some lack or [/i]need[/i] that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in the Theistic argument, because it immediately defuses any claim that “he” is in some way eternally perfect. Now Idon't force anyone into this paradox, theists step into it wholeheartedly.

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all existence (according to whatever version of god(s) you may believe in) is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god(s) that cobbled it together. If cancer is a “natural consequence” unknown to the gods then you have removed an attribute: omniscience, that is assigned to them. That requires an imperfect god(s), one or more of them losing the attribute of “all knowing”. It’s a vicious circle that is utterly contradictory.

Things are the way they are because the gods want them precisely the way they are. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and cancer etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God(s). He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

That Leukemia thing was a masterstroke of "design".

This is a terrible argument hollie, you are just going to run around in circles with them. That was my initial point. I understand the logic behind the argument just fine. But this argument winds up no where and holds no weight, and its usually the first thing that people point out against ID. If life was perfect, there would be no death. Everyone knows that this is not the case. Think about your arguments before you make them. Another problem with saying that Leukemia is the masterstroke of design, using that logic you would have to say that if it is not the masterstroke of design it is the masterstroke of evolution... which is not the case either, and it shows no understanding of cancer.

I will point out to loki though, that even though this is a bad argument, it is another example of turning around logic against someone.

I agree the argument is terrible but I think it defines the “god” paradigm. Either the gods are omni-everything or they’re not. If they’re not, someone will need to define which attributes of the gods are limited, and in what ways.

I actually did think about the argument before posting it. Does this mean that you will define for us the contradiction between omniscience and partial-omniscience?

Yea but then they just say that we are not a perfect creation, otherwise we would be gods too which is where you would start to run in circles with them. The problem with this argument is, is that you have to assume that creation will be perfect, this is where the argument breaks down. Eventually they would in a sense win, because they would put omniscience only with god, and partial-omniscience with everything else. I dont blame you for using the argument, because like I said before its what is used first almost everytime. But the argument uses faulty logic, and its not going to work. My buddy I work with is a smart dude, knows his stuff, but believes in ID (or use too, I dont know anymore we stopped talking about it). We get plenty of down time at my job, so we use to argue about it. And (if they know their genetics) all you have to do is bring up the function of genetics, and they cannot argue with it.

 

[paravani]

... the first being that I assume anything...

It is more philosophy than it is science. But your problem is, is what you assume to be meant by the word god, you assume it to be referring to the fatherly figure that half of america talks about; ...

... the second being that I'm hostile to anyone. Good grief, do you think that life is so long I can afford to waste any of it making nasty remarks about people I don't even know????

... I don't know, maybe you've been spending too much time posting on debate threads. How 'bout spending a little time on the less-contentious social threads for a while?

and you show automatic hostility to that thought. Your making assumptions about what people believe without thinking.

Really... check my profile. I'm a totally green newbie who's just having fun here, and I thought the lion-lamb parallel amusing -- that's all, total sum, please don't read anything more into it than humor.

How long has it been since you've enjoyed humor, anyway?

Get out and dance, man!










Get out and have a good time, and leave the string theory and entangled quanta alone for now... It will all be here when you get back from having fun!

Love,

Paravani

... and the scientist shall agree with the "Intelligent Design" creationist.



-- Paravani

What dont you understand about my statement. I am stating that something has to be boundless relative to our universe. Unless you believe that time or causality is an illusion (which is not an unpopular argument), you would have to come to the same conclusion. Unless you want to just say that spacetime is there and it just does what it does. Which if newton didnt look up at the moon and think "the moon is falling around the earth like the apple falling and hitting my head," then this conversation would still be hand written and mailed. I only used the word deity for lack of a better term. Something thats boundless, something outside of our reality. Not really a good way to describe it conceptually, its like trying to describe string theory or higgs-boson, not really a good metaphor out there for it. It is more philosophy than it is science. But your problem is, is what you assume to be meant by the word god, you assume it to be referring to the fatherly figure that half of america talks about; and you show automatic hostility to that thought. Your making assumptions about what people believe without thinking.

 

[The Irish Ram]

That Leukemia thing was a masterstroke of "design".

At the time of creation, with the canopy, (firmament) the atmospheric pressure would have been about 28 lb per sq inch compared to the existing 14.7 lb per sq inch now. We now understand that hyperbaric chambers are so beneficial for health and healing!
The atmosphere contained approx eight times the amount of carbon dioxide and a higher level of oxygen.
This has been verified by:
pockets of ‘ancient’ air trapped in amber.
a ‘magenta’ healthy glow from the canopy – some of which can still be seen today in a cloudless sky just before sunrise and just after sunset.

The ‘canopy’ filtered out harmful rays and used others to help maintain earth’s equilibrium. There are some 60 diseases that are adversely effected by the incoming rays and some of them are:
Arterial sclerosis
high blood pressure
cancers
Arthritis
cataracts
downs syndrome
Parkinson’s disease
Alzheimer’s
Schizophrenia

God's plan for this earth is entirely different than Satan + man's plan.
When we have had enough of Satan's way, God will be compassionate enough to restore us to His level again. Until then Satan will reign and rule earth. He is not a visitor here.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I agree the argument is terrible but I think it defines the “god” paradigm. Either the gods are omni-everything or they’re not. If they’re not, someone will need to define which attributes of the gods are limited, and in what ways.

sakinago, who set that criteria? Was the sun omni everything? Could it be everywhere at once? Could Zeus?
Omni - everything is unique to one God. The God of Abraham. That realization actually came to Abraham while he was fashioning false idols in his father's shop.
Satan can't even pull omnipotence off, and he is very well endowed.

God's attributes are clearly defined in the Bible, and easy for us to comprehend, since we share many of them.

 

[LOki]

First off, yea you did hide part of the conversation, a reference in the conversation that is important to the point I was making, that is what taking out of context is.

First off, you make a valid point ... IF you resolutely ignore the fact of reality that I linked to your post, so anyone who is interested could go right to your very own words--and view them in their original and unadulterated context--to see if I was misrepresenting you in any way what-so-ever. It is just unfortunate for your point that you are INDEED resolute in ignoring this fact of reality.

Secondly, your accusation--that I posted a contextomy--is demonstrably false, as we will all see.

What logic? It is plain that you were only reasserting your creationist convictions ... which shall be demonstrated shortly.

I was offering the possibility that you were being sarcastic as a gift to you. You have been rather insistent that throughout our interactions, you just have not said what you mean. As it is no responsibility of mine to bridge the gap between what you mean to say and what you actually say, you'll just have to accept that I'm going to take what you actually say to be what you actually mean to say.

Please do. (This promises to be entertaining.)

This is correct. If they only believed in the validity of evolution as well, they would be in complete agreement with your version of creationism.

This is true. And it is entirely consistent with with your explicit assertion that a Diety created the universe and consequently life.

I am just assuming now that you are capable of following the logic that leads to the necessary conclusion that you also believe that in the course of creating the universe and life, this Deity you posit also created all the processes and mechanisms and functions that we observe in this "created" universe.

This would include all the processes and mechanisms and functions of physiology, ... and ... evolution.

This conclusion (that "... God made evolution"), as it turns out, is fully consitent with your explicit assertion that a Diety created the universe and consequently life.

What this means sakinago, is that I did not--in any way what-so-ever--take anything you posted out of context to misrepresent you in any way.

The reality that you are so resolutely ignoring includes the fact that I am not missing any point you are actually making.

The reality that you are so resolutely ignoring includes the fact that I have accurately identified the obvious creationist arguments you have actually been making.

I don't think there is any doubt at all that all of your arguments are being made from creationist premises. I have done rather well at demonstrating that you could not possibly be clearer on this point. I have no idea why you think you need to be any clearer.

Nope.

... and I assumed I was having a conversation with the same person this whole time. I admit that I am wrong in this case...and I apologize.

Well, perhaps then you are not irretrievably resolute in ignoring the facts of reality. I hold some small measure of hope for you. Apology accepted.

Thanks for accepting my apology, again I thought that I have been talking with the same person this whole time...my bad.

No more need for you to dwell there.

Now, you are still asserting that the "god made evoloution" line is meant for what it says, as opposed to a use of turning ones logic against them. The tactic you could say is similar to sarcasm, but it is absolutely different.

This "turning ones logic against them" thing you think you're doing, is not what you are actually doing. Stop saying you're doing it, because you're not--you're just applying your own non-sequiturs and calling it "their logic."

As far as bridging the gap, I have done it many times, in probably at least 80% of my posts.

You make a point ... only IF the point you're making is that your intended effect was to continue to reinforce your obviously creationist points.

And you cannot say that there is no logic in the statement I made ...

I didn't even suggest there was no logic in the statement you made.

... (and it is still a stretch to say that I was not turning someones elses logic around on them), but that I meant it literally.

I clearly demonstrated otherwise.

It's time to stop denying, and just get over it.

The problem with your whole argument is that you also assert that I believe in god so I must also believe that a fatherly figure god is in direct control, or has an influence in everything (like evolution).

This "fatherly figure" thing is just your imagination ... I didn't make this suggestion. However, "direct control" and "has an influence in everything (like evolution)" is a direct and necessary consequence of the existence of this creative Deity you posit.

So i guess I am just going to have to tell you my thoughts on a god (didnt want to do this).

In a nutshell, I dont know what the god is out there, but basically whatever it is, is the catalyst for there being something rather than nothing.

Affirming the Consequent.

But whatever it is, put the boundries (laws of physics, and etc.) in our universe, and sent it on its way. Conceptually if we have our boundaries, then something out there has to be boundless.

Special Pleading.

And then here I would go into the physics problem of fine tuning, ...

Begging the Question.

... but that would get into a much much deeper conversation, with a lot of different concepts that I am sure you are not familiar with, that I would have to explain. I dont feel like writing a novel right now.

Whatever.

 

[LOki]

That being said, hollie there is no blueprint for a cancer cell. The body just doesnt say, "hey we have instructions to make cancer in this part of the body, lets get on it." It is a BREAKDOWN IN THE BLUEPRINT OF THE GENETIC CODE, that tells cells to stay in the s-phase for a period of time. In cancer there is pretty much no s-phase, just a continuous m-phase. Its not in a blueprint, it is the breakdown of the blueprint, kind of like aging.

Believers can assert the "omni's" of gods and not the anthropomorphic ones. Believers will assert that “he” (note the paternalistic attribute of the Abrahamic god) is perfection and then assign to him emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes by definition assumes some lack or [/i]need[/i] that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in the Theistic argument, because it immediately defuses any claim that “he” is in some way eternally perfect. Now Idon't force anyone into this paradox, theists step into it wholeheartedly.

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all existence (according to whatever version of god(s) you may believe in) is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god(s) that cobbled it together. If cancer is a “natural consequence” unknown to the gods then you have removed an attribute: omniscience, that is assigned to them. That requires an imperfect god(s), one or more of them losing the attribute of “all knowing”. It’s a vicious circle that is utterly contradictory.

Things are the way they are because the gods want them precisely the way they are. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and cancer etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God(s). He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

That Leukemia thing was a masterstroke of "design".

This is a terrible argument hollie, you are just going to run around in circles with them. That was my initial point. I understand the logic behind the argument just fine. But this argument winds up no where and holds no weight, and its usually the first thing that people point out against ID. If life was perfect, there would be no death. Everyone knows that this is not the case. Think about your arguments before you make them. Another problem with saying that Leukemia is the masterstroke of design, using that logic you would have to say that if it is not the masterstroke of design it is the masterstroke of evolution... which is not the case either, and it shows no understanding of cancer.

I will point out to loki though, that even though this is a bad argument, it is another example of turning around logic against someone.

It's just another example of you applying your own non-sequitur and calling it some else's logic.

 

[LOki]

... and the scientist shall agree with the "Intelligent Design" creationist.



-- Paravani

Thanks for accepting my apology, again I thought that I have been talking with the same person this whole time...my bad. Now, you are still asserting that the "god made evoloution" line is meant for what it says, as opposed to a use of turning ones logic against them.

...

In a nutshell, I dont know what the god is out there, but basically whatever it is, is the catalyst for there being something rather than nothing. But whatever it is, put the boundries (laws of physics, and etc.) in our universe, and sent it on its way. Conceptually if we have our boundaries, then something out there has to be boundless. And then here I would go into the physics problem of fine tuning, but that would get into a much much deeper conversation, with a lot of different concepts that I am sure you are not familiar with, that I would have to explain. I dont feel like writing a novel right now.

What dont you understand about my statement. I am stating that something has to be boundless relative to our universe.

Vacuous Truth.

Unless you believe that time or causality is an illusion (which is not an unpopular argument), you would have to come to the same conclusion.

Appeal to Consequences

Unless you want to just say that spacetime is there and it just does what it does.

Well, it IS there, and it DOES do what it does ...

Which if newton didnt look up at the moon and think "the moon is falling around the earth like the apple falling and hitting my head," then this conversation would still be hand written and mailed.

Non-Sequitur.

I only used the word deity for lack of a better term. Something thats boundless, something outside of our reality. Not really a good way to describe it conceptually, ...

How about ... IMAGINARY?

... its like trying to describe string theory or higgs-boson, not really a good metaphor out there for it.

Ok. How about ... SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS, then?

It is more philosophy than it is science. But your problem is, is what you assume to be meant by the word god, you assume it to be referring to the fatherly figure that half of america talks about; and you show automatic hostility to that thought. Your making assumptions about what people believe without thinking.

No the problem here is that what you are saying is not terribly different than what these guys are saying:

 

[The Irish Ram]

Can you produce a digital code without thinking? Nothing complex like a 30 billion letter code, just a simple digital code, without using your intellect.

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

That's ok, the OP agrees with your logic. Soup does not think, primordial or otherwise. That 30 billion letter genetic code came from a thinker!

 

[percysunshine]

Sometimes I think Darwin was on to something;

Fargo woman complains about deer-crossing signs

 

[konradv]

Sometimes I think Darwin was on to something;

Fargo woman complains about deer-crossing signs

I blame the "SLOW Children at Play" signs for not culling the herd of the Donnas.

 

[ima]

... and the scientist shall agree with the "Intelligent Design" creationist.



-- Paravani

Thanks for accepting my apology, again I thought that I have been talking with the same person this whole time...my bad. Now, you are still asserting that the "god made evoloution" line is meant for what it says, as opposed to a use of turning ones logic against them.

...

In a nutshell, I dont know what the god is out there, but basically whatever it is, is the catalyst for there being something rather than nothing. But whatever it is, put the boundries (laws of physics, and etc.) in our universe, and sent it on its way. Conceptually if we have our boundaries, then something out there has to be boundless. And then here I would go into the physics problem of fine tuning, but that would get into a much much deeper conversation, with a lot of different concepts that I am sure you are not familiar with, that I would have to explain. I dont feel like writing a novel right now.

I have a question para: are you really as old and ugly as your avatar, or is that not a recent picture?

 

[konradv]

Can you produce a digital code without thinking? Nothing complex like a 30 billion letter code, just a simple digital code, without using your intellect.

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

That's ok, the OP agrees with your logic. Soup does not think, primordial or otherwise. That 30 billion letter genetic code came from a thinker!

If it came from a thinker, why are some amino acids coded for by just one combination of bases, while some as many as six? Sounds kind of random to me.

 

[ima]

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

That's ok, the OP agrees with your logic. Soup does not think, primordial or otherwise. That 30 billion letter genetic code came from a thinker!

If it came from a thinker, why are some amino acids coded for by just one combination of bases, while some as many as six? Sounds kind of random to me.

Also, if it came from a thinker, who made the thinker so smart?

 

[LOki]

Can you produce a digital code without thinking? Nothing complex like a 30 billion letter code, just a simple digital code, without using your intellect.

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

That's ok, the OP agrees with your logic. Soup does not think, primordial or otherwise. That 30 billion letter genetic code came from a thinker!

What code? What letters? What thinker?

 

[sakinago]

... and the scientist shall agree with the "Intelligent Design" creationist.



-- Paravani

What dont you understand about my statement. I am stating that something has to be boundless relative to our universe.

Vacuous Truth.

Appeal to Consequences

Well, it IS there, and it DOES do what it does ...

Non-Sequitur.

How about ... IMAGINARY?

... its like trying to describe string theory or higgs-boson, not really a good metaphor out there for it.

Ok. How about ... SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS, then?

It is more philosophy than it is science. But your problem is, is what you assume to be meant by the word god, you assume it to be referring to the fatherly figure that half of america talks about; and you show automatic hostility to that thought. Your making assumptions about what people believe without thinking.

No the problem here is that what you are saying is not terribly different than what these guys are saying:

Okay loki, if you want to call my arguments vacuous, then disprove them. Where does the logic break down in my vacuous statements. Like I said before there are two schools of thought concerning physics (you can make an argument for 3 with multi-verse theories, but whatever multi-verse theory will wind up in one of those 2 classes. So the question goes back to what you believe then.

Oh and lookey here, someone making their own broad, lumping, generalizating statements. "No the problem here is that what you are saying is not terribly different than what these guys are saying." The only thing I have in common with these people is some sort of diety. That is it, what I believe about the diety is so fundamentally diffferent from them, that even the diety denominator isnt that strong of a connection (for starters I dont claim to know or understand anything about the diety). But since I believe in a diety, I then must only be on their side, and against everyone else.

And another no duh statement. Really speculate hypothesis??? How does that even come close describing string or higgs theories. Labeling is not the same thing as describing, and you missed the point.

You completely missed the point on spacetime there (whether on purpose or accidental). The point is, you can sit back and watch the sun go up and down and accept it, or you can ask the most important question in science which is why. Without those key people in our history asking the question why, we would still be riding horses into town.

 

[paravani]

The logical fallacy is as plain as the nose on your face.

Just because "thinking" cannot be performed without ordered electrical impulses does NOT imply that every occurrence of random electrical impulses is "thinking",

One might as well argue that a lightbulb thinks. (Sure, and that's why we use it as the symbol for ideas, right? /sarcasm)

You're also headed into the fallacy of declaring that any ordered process governed by mathematics implies life or personality behind it. If that were true, then you must consider your computer as a living being endowed with personality.

The genetic code isn't random, but neither is it "thought". It's mathematics, and chemistry (which is the mathematics of matter -- ask any chemist).

If you truly wish to understand the why and how of mathematics, chemistry, and the genetic code, I am afraid you will have to take a some science and math classes at your local college. There really isn't room here to explain in depth the concepts of which I speak.

-- Paravani

Can you produce a digital code without thinking? Nothing complex like a 30 billion letter code, just a simple digital code, without using your intellect.

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

That's ok, the OP agrees with your logic. Soup does not think, primordial or otherwise. That 30 billion letter genetic code came from a thinker!

 

[LOki]

What dont you understand about my statement. I am stating that something has to be boundless relative to our universe.

Vacuous Truth.

Appeal to Consequences

Well, it IS there, and it DOES do what it does ...

Non-Sequitur.

How about ... IMAGINARY?

Ok. How about ... SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS, then?

It is more philosophy than it is science. But your problem is, is what you assume to be meant by the word god, you assume it to be referring to the fatherly figure that half of america talks about; and you show automatic hostility to that thought. Your making assumptions about what people believe without thinking.

No the problem here is that what you are saying is not terribly different than what these guys are saying:

Okay loki, if you want to call my arguments vacuous, then disprove them. Where does the logic break down in my vacuous statements.

For explanations, CLICK ON THE LINKS I provide in the responses, you fucking retard.

Like I said before there are two schools of thought concerning physics (you can make an argument for 3 with multi-verse theories, but whatever multi-verse theory will wind up in one of those 2 classes. So the question goes back to what you believe then.

Oh and lookey here, someone making their own broad, lumping, generalizating statements. "No the problem here is that what you are saying is not terribly different than what these guys are saying." The only thing I have in common with these people is some sort of diety. That is it, what I believe about the diety is so fundamentally diffferent from them, that even the diety denominator isnt that strong of a connection (for starters I dont claim to know or understand anything about the diety). But since I believe in a diety, I then must only be on their side, and against everyone else.

Don't forget that that your "Deity" is entirely a construct of your dereistic imagination.

And another no duh statement. Really speculate hypothesis??? How does that even come close describing string or higgs theories. Labeling is not the same thing as describing, and you missed the point.

I will allow that I may miss the points you think you're making, but I have proven throughout our interactions that I don't miss any of the points you actually make.

The following is a case in point:

You completely missed the point on spacetime there (whether on purpose or accidental). The point is, you can sit back and watch the sun go up and down and accept it, or you can ask the most important question in science which is why. Without those key people in our history asking the question why, we would still be riding horses into town.

Asking the questions is not nearly enough. Every culture asked the questions reference; the difference between the ones who throw stones at each other and who use stones to build schools; the difference between those who launch rockets at each other and who launch rockets to explore Mars, is the difference between applying a "Deity" as an explanation as opposed to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence for an explanation.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How does that even come close describing string or higgs theories.

And how do theories masquerade as law? Prove that we used to be monkeys. Prove that strings exist.......
God said if we don't understand physics by reading Genesis, then we have failed the test of understanding. Nachmanides read Genesis, and passed the test with an A+. (in the year 1263)
Einstein relied on his own understanding and got a "C+".
Hawking is just sitting down at his desk...............

 

[LOki]

How does that even come close describing string or higgs theories.

And how do theories masquerade as law? Prove that we used to be monkeys. Prove that strings exist.......
God said if we don't understand physics by reading Genesis, then we have failed the test of understanding. Nachmanides read Genesis, and passed the test with an A+. (in the year 1263)
Einstein relied on his own understanding and got a "C+".
Hawking is just sitting down at his desk...............

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Because you don't listen.

You keep referencing this Darwinian thing. i don't know what your talking about.