Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(04-08-2015 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 09:28 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  In the film Contact, a SETI researcher is thrilled to find prime numbers beamed toward her viewpoint on Earth from space--prime number signals being a signal of intelligence acknowledging those numbers... same for a simple five-note "message" in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Using fiction as an argument? Facepalm

Quote:Either a five-note repeating song or prime numbers would be regarded as an extraordinary radio signal.

A repeating sequence of prime numbers would certainly be regarded as significant.
A five-note sequence? Not so much.

Quote:You are saying there is nothing significant in finding million-base-pair long genomes in the simplest celled animals--animals that you would say were with us from the beginning of life,

Hold it right there, Bunky. Today's single-celled animals have not been "with us from the beginning of life". These are creatures with billions of years of evolution behind them.

Quote:and that million-long sequences show no evidence of irreducible complexity or intelligent design?

Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion does not follow.
The complex development and creatures have evolved to be what they are, built up over unimaginably long periods from simple beginnings.

Quote:My friend, your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.

Oh, Mr.Delusion, you are hilarious. And sad.

Using fiction as an analogy, not an argument. Chas, again, you do a good job of convincing yourself against whatever worldview bothers you the most.

Quote:Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion does not follow. The complex development and creatures have evolved to be what they are, built up over unimaginably long periods from simple beginnings.

Please explain the simple beginning(s), since intelligent scientists are unable to design such in a laboratory environment. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(04-08-2015 01:12 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  How many times does it need to be explained to you that the process of building up the patterns you call coded information is an all-natural thing, which no more indicates a Designer than the patterns of six-sided snowflakes. The SETI researchers you speak of find patterns all the time, but they filter for apparent patterns that are actually the result of natural phenomena. If you had actually read Sagan's book before citing it, you'd even know some of the ways they do that, at SETI.

If there was an intelligent designer, it would be child's play to encode actual data in the otherwise random patterns (some of which get shaped by the non-random forces of Natural Selection acting on coding regions) which we could recognize as a Designer Tag in the DNA... but the fact is, even the most strident proponent of ID doesn't claim what you claim, here. Dr. Behe, for instance, would not say that DNA is magically shaped in order to encode at all, only that specific types of code appear (to him, that is, of course...and he has been specifically disproved on a number of his Irreducible Complexity claims) to need guidance to form complex biochemical pathways.

So you're well beyond the claims of Intelligent Design and off the deep end into pure Creationist claptrap. But somehow you're gonna keep convincing yourself that there's a scientific conspiracy against believers, that we only say your views are idiotic because we hate believers, and that it's okay to keep Lying For God. You're gonna believe in utter, provably-false nonsense no matter what we tell you or what scholarly work we link you to... and THAT is the real magic.

DNA folds back on itself in precise patterns as well. How is this process guided? Don't bother to answer me.

Proteins need DNA to form and DNA needs proteins to do its thing. Don't bother answering this issue, either, because it is clearly your preference to call me a liar rather than to address the issues by thinking through them with care.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(05-08-2015 08:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Using fiction as an argument? Facepalm


A repeating sequence of prime numbers would certainly be regarded as significant.
A five-note sequence? Not so much.


Hold it right there, Bunky. Today's single-celled animals have not been "with us from the beginning of life". These are creatures with billions of years of evolution behind them.


Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion does not follow.
The complex development and creatures have evolved to be what they are, built up over unimaginably long periods from simple beginnings.


Oh, Mr.Delusion, you are hilarious. And sad.

Using fiction as an analogy, not an argument. Chas, again, you do a good job of convincing yourself against whatever worldview bothers you the most.

How about addressing the substance of the post instead of sleazily avoiding it? Consider

Quote:
Quote:Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion does not follow. The complex development and creatures have evolved to be what they are, built up over unimaginably long periods from simple beginnings.

Please explain the simple beginning(s), since intelligent scientists are unable to design such in a laboratory environment. Thanks.

The conditions of the early Earth are not precisely known, but could be approximated. What cannot be approximated is hundreds of millions of years.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(16-07-2015 07:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What sort of fool reads the Bible to get their science in 2015 ?
YOU are a hypocrite Q. YOU would make use of every bit of science 's advances today if you were seriously ill. You would not just pray, and you fucking know it. Nothing science knows or uses today came from your Holy Babble.

I think you have an evil twin named PleaseJesus. Consider

You are as per your usual modus operandi misstating who I am and how I think (rather than just asking me, of course).

I don't read the Bible to get my science, but I find that science agrees with in many places the truths of the Bible. Period. Grow up and learn to use facts in a debate and not half-truths and outright lies.


"Q the liar! Q the misanthrope!"
Captain Picard.

Where do you get your "science" Q?

You remind me of those lyrics "Lookin' for "science" in all the wrong places".
(Exchanged the word love for science.)

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
06-08-2015, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 09:31 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(05-08-2015 08:41 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  DNA folds back on itself in precise patterns as well. How is this process guided? Don't bother to answer me.

Proteins need DNA to form and DNA needs proteins to do its thing. Don't bother answering this issue, either, because it is clearly your preference to call me a liar rather than to address the issues by thinking through them with care.

I can't answer Question #1 because it doesn't even make sense, so I don't know how to start answering the strawman. What does "precise patterns" mean? Do you mean "DNA works according to the same laws of chemical bonding physics as every other chemical polymer on the earth"? Yeah I can agree with that, but I still don't get your question's point.

Question #2 seems just as bad. It's the same old canard of pointing to a modern system and assuming it's the only way it could function. Worse, pointing to it and then ignoring the evidence of simpler versions that were likely predecessors to the current system, and asking yet again "well how can this be like it is in modern form?"

This is called a Straw Man Argument. You can tear down strawmen all day, but it will never impress us. If you can't understand why your argument is a strawman (as seems to be the case), then I can't understand a single reason we should take you or your claptrap seriously enough to warrant a reply.

Even your "you won't address my issues" whining is a strawman, because we do address your issues... we just won't fight on the grounds you build as strawmen. If you say "How can you deny the Detroit RedWings are the greatest football team ever?", I'm not going to be able to defend on those grounds, because the RedWings simply aren't a football team. That's the strawman: Build a false argument then demand I fight over the false argument.

No. If you want to talk actual science, then learn what it is and stop feeding us bullshit from Creationist websites that are only there to obfuscate (because they think muddying the waters is a "win" for the Bible, if they can keep people away from science) and give the appearance (only) of a "debate" on the subject.

It's bullshit, and we're not buying it. So commence to whining about that, because it's all you've got.

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-08-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(05-08-2015 05:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 08:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Using fiction as an analogy, not an argument. Chas, again, you do a good job of convincing yourself against whatever worldview bothers you the most.

How about addressing the substance of the post instead of sleazily avoiding it? Consider

Quote:Please explain the simple beginning(s), since intelligent scientists are unable to design such in a laboratory environment. Thanks.

The conditions of the early Earth are not precisely known, but could be approximated. What cannot be approximated is hundreds of millions of years.

Pot and kettle. On another thread, you are ignoring falsifiable evidence of a high design in the scriptures claiming it's okay to skip evidence because you read it several times but I was talking to someone else! Of course, your most frequent posts toward me are replying to my comments to others (likely because your most common theme is "no it's not" and similar other pearls of "evidence".

And when I wrote:

Quote:Please explain the simple beginning(s), since intelligent scientists are unable to design such in a laboratory environment. Thanks.

I was quoting you, so if you thinking quoting you and asking for a citation for your belief is "sleazy avoidance" you might want to restate your objection--or withdraw it altogether.

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(06-08-2015 10:04 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 05:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  How about addressing the substance of the post instead of sleazily avoiding it? Consider

The conditions of the early Earth are not precisely known, but could be approximated. What cannot be approximated is hundreds of millions of years.

Pot and kettle. On another thread, you are ignoring falsifiable evidence of a high design in the scriptures claiming it's okay to skip evidence because you read it several times but I was talking to someone else! Of course, your most frequent posts toward me are replying to my comments to others (likely because your most common theme is "no it's not" and similar other pearls of "evidence".

Oh, horseshit. I am not "ignoring" a discussion I am not part of.

Quote:And when I wrote:

Quote:Please explain the simple beginning(s), since intelligent scientists are unable to design such in a laboratory environment. Thanks.

I was quoting you, so if you thinking quoting you and asking for a citation for your belief is "sleazy avoidance" you might want to restate your objection--or withdraw it altogether.

Thanks.

What you were, and are, ignoring, was:
Chas Wrote:Hold it right there, Bunky. Today's single-celled animals have not been "with us from the beginning of life". These are creatures with billions of years of evolution behind them.


Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion does not follow.
The complex development and creatures have evolved to be what they are, built up over unimaginably long periods from simple beginnings.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-08-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(06-08-2015 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 10:04 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Pot and kettle. On another thread, you are ignoring falsifiable evidence of a high design in the scriptures claiming it's okay to skip evidence because you read it several times but I was talking to someone else! Of course, your most frequent posts toward me are replying to my comments to others (likely because your most common theme is "no it's not" and similar other pearls of "evidence".

Oh, horseshit. I am not "ignoring" a discussion I am not part of.

Quote:And when I wrote:


I was quoting you, so if you thinking quoting you and asking for a citation for your belief is "sleazy avoidance" you might want to restate your objection--or withdraw it altogether.

Thanks.

What you were, and are, ignoring, was:
Chas Wrote:Hold it right there, Bunky. Today's single-celled animals have not been "with us from the beginning of life". These are creatures with billions of years of evolution behind them.


Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion does not follow.
The complex development and creatures have evolved to be what they are, built up over unimaginably long periods from simple beginnings.

I understand, of course, but my point remains:

Please tell us all about these "simple beginnings" that you understand formed prokaryotes, as scientists seem unable to "begin" them "simply" or "complexly" using our best possible intelligent design.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(07-08-2015 12:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, horseshit. I am not "ignoring" a discussion I am not part of.


What you were, and are, ignoring, was:

I understand, of course, but my point remains:

Please tell us all about these "simple beginnings" that you understand formed prokaryotes, as scientists seem unable to "begin" them "simply" or "complexly" using our best possible intelligent design.

Which part of hundreds of millions of years did you not understand? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-08-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Despite the difficulties in figuring out how to "speed up" the processes that led to the early cells (once we narrow down our numerous possible routes that it could have happened to a smaller number of most-likely candidates), I am confident that it will be done within the next few years. Our ability to sequence genes, to look at the composition of interstellar/cometary ice's biochemical formations, and to figure out the folding patterns of proteins is advancing too quickly for it to be far off. Once the Polymerase Chain Reaction, ultra-high-speed computers, and related technologies were invented in the mid-80s, it was a done deal. It makes me especially happy that NASA is still putting money toward this sort of research, and using their results to guide present and future million/billion-dollar missions to deep space. It makes me just as sad to see that Below-Average Joe just can't seem to grasp why it's so difficult to reproduce 500,000,000 years of action across thousands of square miles of thermal vent (or wherever) chemistry-areas in a desktop laboratory, and that people who make lucrative careers off the We Want to Believe™ crowd continue to push the confusion. Really, how hard is it to figure out!?!

My former field team partner Shane has a bumper sticker on his Jeep that says, "Can't count to a billion? Become a Creationist!"

Always liked that one.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: