Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2015, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015 10:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Actually the ID argument is an argument based on "naturalism".
Is his argument based on "other" miracles that have been proven ? No.
He based his entire argument on other "natural" things which exist and are known in the "natural" macro world.
He claimed that no complex system come into existence without intelligence. He was proven to be incorrect about that,(and of course did not respond to the point, as is his usual). From there he *jumped* to an unnatural conclusion, which did not necessarily follow.
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:02 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Why is it better to say : we will permit only naturalistic explanations, rather than : let us lead the evidence wherever it is ?
Fallow the evidence is what we have been doing for decades and in every single other case it's lead us to a natural explanation. Oh but no I'm sure this one time in this one GAP in our current knowledge.....it's tots god right?

They did follow the evidence, you just don't like that it didn't lead them to your personal delusion.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
21-07-2015, 10:34 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Ahm, nah. As soon as someone can provide a better explanation of the evidence we observe in nature based on naturalism, i will consider to have been butt kicked. Not before. Fortunately, that has NEVER happened, and hardly will. Thumbsup

You do realize that no supernatural explanation has ever been even remotely adequate for any phenomenon ever recorded ever. For the entire history of human inquiry, there has never been a single incidence where a supernatural explanation held any water whatsoever.

That means that until you come up with some sort of testable theory as to why you believe that it's a better way of explaining shit, your ideas are easily dismissed as crackpot and wishful thinking, as the credibility of the old texts you base your faith upon have already been shown to be.

We await further data, we reject your incredulity as evidence. This is Sparta.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like evenheathen's post
21-07-2015, 10:36 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015 10:41 PM by xieulong.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 08:24 PM)xieulong Wrote:  you still got your ass kicked. It's too funny.Laugh out load

Ahm, nah. As soon as someone can provide a better explanation of the evidence we observe in nature based on naturalism, i will consider to have been butt kicked. Not before. Fortunately, that has NEVER happened, and hardly will. Thumbsup

There you go again, willingly shoving god into a gap. You'll have to prove first, that a god exist, then and only then can you even begin to make a claim that a god did anything at all. With your line of faulty logic; one can just as easily shove Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or the thousands of gods that the human race had cooked up.

It's plain to all members present here and the 11 guests currently viewing this forum, that you lack proper education on the topics at hand. I doubt that anyone here or anywhere else in the world can convince you, that you're wrong. It's also quite clear, what ever evidence presented will conflict with your beliefs and you will surely reject them.

You can have your belief, no problem. People will want their medicine, they will want their automobile, they will want their computer, their smart phones, their internet, their safe drinking water, their television, and just about everything else. Science will provide; your god have not, will not, and cannot.

I do want you to keep posting your ignorance here, though. In this age where information is readily available, all you're really doing is providing people with a laugh and good practice in debunking garbage.

P.S Your ass was already kicked on the first post in this thread. There's actually a name for it, Argument Refuted a Thousand times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like xieulong's post
21-07-2015, 10:59 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
I didn't bother with a reply to that, because it's just silly. The entire paper is about their results, what methods were used, and why they think that set of pathways looks promising as a solution, based on their chemical analysis of the pathways involved. Literally, that is what the paper is about (if you read past the opening paragraph). So there's no point in trying to harp on that element of it. Science is about putting your results out there and seeing how they fare when others test them.

There are dozens of lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, regarding the divergence of species. Genetic, geological, taxonomic, and of course fossil evidence are some of the main ones. If you really want to know, GE, it's easy to find out. I recommend doing as I did and taking some college courses, where you will not only learn it, you will groan under the weight of all the stuff you have to learn because there's so much of it. There are even pretty good websites put up by both universities and government research organizations that will walk you through it, on a layman's level.

But you don't seem to want to know what those truly are, you're only interested in caricatures of it so you can (as said above) "shove your God into the gaps".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-07-2015, 03:51 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:09 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 10:02 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Why is it better to say : we will permit only naturalistic explanations, rather than : let us lead the evidence wherever it is ?
Fallow the evidence is what we have been doing for decades and in every single other case it's lead us to a natural explanation. Oh but no I'm sure this one time in this one GAP in our current knowledge.....it's tots god right?

They did follow the evidence, you just don't like that it didn't lead them to your personal delusion.

Origin of Life Research Has Failed to Generate a Coherent and Persuasive Framework

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.br/


Naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and biodiversity. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems. … Problems are never interpreted as problems with the paradigm. No matter how badly naturalism performs, when explanations do not fit the data very well, they are said to be research problems. They must be, for there is no option for considering that a problem might be better handled by another paradigm.


The problem with evolutionary theory is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that evolutionists would never know any better or admit that creation might be a better explanation.

And so what Harold does not, and cannot, tell his readers is that our problem in figuring out the evolution of life may be more serious than merely “missing some essential insight.” Our problem may be that our methodological naturalism mandate has planted us firmly in the belly of anti realism. Or more simply put, there may be no naturalistic explanation. It may not be that we are missing some essential insight, but rather that there simply is no such insight to be found.

In fact that is what the science has been indicating for a long time. The strictly naturalistic evolution of life, of eukaryotes, of multicellular species, of fish, of reptiles, of amphibia, of mammals, and of a thousand other novelties is unlikely. Period. That is what the science is telling us, like it or not.

But evolutionists cannot say that. They cannot admit to the scientific truth. In fact, quite the opposite and quite unbelievably, they insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

Evolutionists say that their skeptics oppose science, present theories that are driven by presupposition and are unfalsifiable. But all of that precisely describes evolution. Why can't we just tell the truth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 03:54 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:34 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You do realize that no supernatural explanation has ever been even remotely adequate for any phenomenon ever recorded ever. For the entire history of human inquiry, there has never been a single incidence where a supernatural explanation held any water whatsoever.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

no, i don't.

Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : Emergent properties, and physical reactions, are perfectly capable to produce the code stored in DNA.
Theist : There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to encode the information stored in DNA
Atheist: God of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, does not mean, Godidit.

Theist : "The sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"
Atheist: "Emergent properties, and physical reactions are perfectly capable to screen these letters to the monitor"
Theist : "There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to type these letters and they to appear on the screen"
Atheist: "Argument of the gaps. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, that does not mean, a intelligence did it"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 03:55 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:36 PM)xieulong Wrote:  There you go again, willingly shoving god into a gap.

God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Atheists resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed observation , and logical inference and conclusion. Please point out the gap in any of my arguments.



http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/why...68151.html

" In all of our experience of cause and effect, we know that complex and sequence-specific information, when it is traced back to its source, uniformly originates with an intelligent cause. Therefore, when we find complex and sequence-specific digital information encoded in the hereditary molecules of DNA and RNA, the most plausible candidate explanation -- given what we do know about the nature of information -- is that it also originated with a source of intelligent agency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 04:00 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I didn't bother with a reply to that, because it's just silly. The entire paper is about their results, what methods were used, and why they think that set of pathways looks promising as a solution,

So they contradict themself.

The mechanism has been deemed unlikely to be catalyzed by a ribozyme, creating an enigma regarding how the building blocks for DNA were synthesized at the transition from RNA to DNA-encoded genomes.

thats a clear language, dont you think ?

but there is more :

Today, three different RNR classes have been described, with little apparent similarity between them in terms of primary protein sequence (approximately 10–20% similarity). Thus, it could be assumed that each RNR class appeared independently from each other over time.

There we have a problem of convergent evolution. “ As Stephen J.Gould stated :

…No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel. 11

That means, hardly we should find a enzyme evolving the same function. But thats exactly what supposedly happened. Not only did the RNR would have had to arise 3 times independently with different gene sets, but provided the same function. Should we not expect it to evolve just once, if the function is the same ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 04:26 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 03:54 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 10:34 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You do realize that no supernatural explanation has ever been even remotely adequate for any phenomenon ever recorded ever. For the entire history of human inquiry, there has never been a single incidence where a supernatural explanation held any water whatsoever.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

no, i don't.

Really/? This is quite a strong position to seem to hold. Do you by chance know of any supernatural explanation that was newly discovered and replaced a previously standing scientific/natural explanation?

Something along the lines of the many examples of science explaining away supernatural claims such as, supernatural explanations for Lightning/thunder being Gods, Gods living upon mountains, Gods being of origins from the sky/then space, of illness being caused by supernatural means before germ theory... etc. There are many things of that exposure.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: