Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2011, 07:07 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 09:52 AM)Srikar_NBK Wrote:  like science can't explain original of life, therefore it is God who did it.

that is untrue. Actually, science knows enough about the origin of life, to exclude categorically a natural origin. The logical consequence of the scientific data is theism.
That is not confortable for strong atheists, but that is what it is. Its fact.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abio...e-on-earth

Even if the physical impossibility of forming and gathering the necessary physical building blocks of a cell were overcome, it would still require information. And it would still require a ‘language.” And it would need to immediately form a copying mechanism. Looking at it from a different angle, you need a cell to create a DNA molecule. But you need DNA to create a cell. What is required to create DNA and cells is information arising from intelligence. Which brings us back to the Biblical model.
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 07:13 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 06:14 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Do you understand what you are writing ? I don't...... I don't understand the concept, and why this speculation should be compelling.

Sorry for all but ignoring everything else you wrote, but this statement tells me what is at the heart of the matter. The concepts presented alongside with the Big Bang are mind twisting, and I'm not going to lie, and I cannot in any way, shape, or form blame you for not understanding them without many nights of contemplation. Do I understand them? Only in a remedial sense, just enough to understand the basics. What I want from you is for you to learn what exactly the Big Bang claims and it's implications. How it was condensed into a singularity, what makes the space-time continuum and just how applicable it(and most laws of nature) were before the Big Bang. I'll look for papers and videos to explain this stuff, since I'm really not in any place to teach this stuff.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 07:13 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Even if the physical impossibility of forming and gathering the necessary physical building blocks of a cell were overcome, it would still require information. And it would still require a ‘language.” And it would need to immediately form a copying mechanism. Looking at it from a different angle, you need a cell to create a DNA molecule. But you need DNA to create a cell. What is required to create DNA and cells is information arising from intelligence. Which brings us back to the Biblical model.



Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 07:22 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 05:58 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  Because in truth I think they very well could be an atheist. And they front as a Theist, while Trolling atheist sites because they're weird like that. And because no self-respecting Theist would insult what they hold as truth in their heart, when they also hold as truth their god is watching.

Hoo boy, are you ever sheltered. As far as online theists go, ElShadai is actually one of the less amazingly stupid and self-deceiving that I have come across. He simply repeats himself. He doesn't dig himself deeper.

However, I really see no reason to go any further in responding to him. So now I shall fall back on the tried-and-true technique referred to as "Pixying". All false statements in L's posts shall hereby be responded to with "No". What exactly is false about them is left as an exercise for the class.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Actually, science knows enough about the origin of life, to exclude categorically a natural origin.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  The logical consequence of the scientific data is theism.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  That is not confortable for strong atheists, but that is what it is. Its fact.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Even if the physical impossibility of forming and gathering the necessary physical building blocks of a cell were overcome, it would still require information.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  And it would still require a ‘language.”

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  And it would need to immediately form a copying mechanism.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Looking at it from a different angle, you need a cell to create a DNA molecule.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  What is required to create DNA and cells is information arising from intelligence.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:07 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Which brings us back to the Biblical model.

No.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-05-2011, 07:41 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What exactly is false about them is left as an exercise for the class.

I was actually going to play along and "ding" in with the reasons why they are wrong, until I realized that the answer to all of the statements is:

"Well, that's just simply incorrect."



So my responses would've been something like DING! Wrong. DING! Wrong. DING! Wrong again.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 07:42 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 10:50 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 09:01 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties (behavior among the possible properties) not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.

Thank you. Now, can you tell me where in that definition it says that the information must come from intelligent beings?

It does not say it. so what do you deduce out of it ?

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Please explain why.

I already did. Read my post.

Quote:Do you understand what the word "infinite" means? If so, can you explain to me why you think that, given infinite opportunities to succeed, a random process could not generate a single success in a trial wherein it is attempting to generate Shakespeare's works, given that 10143 is less than infinity?

Do you know what infinity actually is ?

if you wish to go this route, you probably would postulate also a multiverse. Infinite number of universes.....

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t20-mult...hypotheses

One of the more common explanations seems to be “There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them.”
The “infinite universes” theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened!
It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities! I might sound like I’m joking, but actually I’m dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

Quote:Tell me, L. You do realize that Karl Popper was a philosopher, right? As in, not a scientist?

Nevertheless, what he wrote, is scientifically accurate, and unquestioned. Its a fact.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abio...e-on-earth

“The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.”

“DNA, RNA and proteins cannot do their jobs without the help of at least one of the other two. DNA is a library of detailed information for the various structures within the cell. It has the information for the manufacture of each protein. RNA is a copy of instructions from the DNA and is sent as a messenger to the ribosomes for making proteins. There are two types of proteins; functional proteins such as enzymes, and structural proteins, which compose the organelles. Living cells need all three molecules at the same time. The chance, simultaneous natural appearance of the three distinct, interdependent complex systems is just not possible.” Not only are these three needed for life, but an organism also needs a cell membrane, usable energy, reproduction and all left-handed amino acids. The cell itself is a tremendous and irrefutable example of irreducible complexity.

Considering the cell as being the ultimate irreducibly complex system, there is no conceivable way that life could arise by natural causes. Darwin’s theory of numerous, successive, slight modifications simply does not work when discussing the origin of life. The problem that irreducibly complexity brings to evolution is clearly daunting for evolutionists. Their way to deal with the problem is to dismiss it as nonscientific, pseudoscience or religion dressed in a tuxedo. However, when one looks at the issue of origin of life through the lens of irreducibly complexity, it simply brings one with a reasonable mind to his or her knees, admitting life cannot begin by natural causes.

Quote:So pretty much everything in there, short of the existence of humans, contradicts scientific fact.

how so ?

Quote:Funny that the only site I can find which talks about this so-called "first law of information" is AnswersInGenesis. You'd think that, this being an actual scientific law and all and totally not something that creationists have made up out of whole cloth, it would receive more press time.

secular science of course ignores these facts, since its based on philosophical naturalism. But simple calculation prove what aig says is true.

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).

Quote:As you haven't given an actual definition of information, no, I can't. Get back to me when you have.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t287-inf...-a-creator

In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI) and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).

Meaning (semantics): Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning.
For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.

Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.

Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies.

These four essential attributes specify the definition domain for information. A definition of information (Universal Definition of Information) was formulated by using these four attributes:
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.

Quote:Then theism is falsified.

Show me proofs for strong atheism. Haven't any ? Then strong atheism is falsified.
Thats the same line of reasoning.

Quote:No, it isn't. It just isn't a question you like.

correct. i don't like the question, because it makes no sense to ask for it. at least not to me. but if you like to loose time with trivial questions, which will never find a answer, go ahead.......

Quote:And the answer is "not with theism", because theism has no supporting evidence. You might as well say that Lucky the Leprechaun is a better explanation for our existence.

thats what you believe. not me.

Quote:Show me one thing that begins to exist. Then claim your Nobel.

You, for example. Unless you live since eternity. Where can i get my nobel ?

Quote:Beyond the equivocation fallacy that I have just exposed (equivocating between coming into existence ex materia and coming into existence ex nihilo),

since when is your soul, and your spirit, material ?


Quote:this line of reasoning fails to take into account that everything we know about the universe only applies within the universe. You cannot make the claim that the universe required a cause, because you have no idea whether or not causality applies outside the universe

of course i can. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and has therefore no potentialities. So i can firmly say, the universe had a cause.

Quote: - and, as I have previously mentioned, time does not exist outside the universe, so any causality that existed would have to be a very strange causality indeed.

Not it cause and effect happened at the same instant, without time interval.

Quote:And the argument from William Lane Craig which you presented following the above quoted statement is, as I have stated before, self-contradictory. Its conclusion violates its premises.

why ?

(26-05-2011 11:15 AM)Celestus87 Wrote:  It's called law and ethics. Take those away, give humanity 20 years and ask that very same question again.

if there is no difference between animals and humans, why humans do have ethics, animals don't ?

Quote:PS. The Japanese eat fetuses. Pickled, not stirred. Just saying...

so why do you not eat them ? do you have any problem with it ? if we are on the same level as animals, you should not......

Quote:All cultures are characterized by egocentricity. All cultures value themselves more than anything else. All cultures invented their own god to promote this idea. All cultures carry prehistoric notions in their collective consiousness.

how can nonliving materia produce by random evolutionary processes create life, and conscience ? Einstein recognized its a uncrossable gulf.

Quote:Birds developed calls before us.
Whales invented the internet before us.
Dolphins formed speech before us.

did one of them go to the moon, build skyscrapers, invent computers, explore the universe ?

Quote:We were simply lucky enough to use our mutated brain to integrate all those stuff.

pretty amazing faith you have......




(26-05-2011 12:27 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  
(26-05-2011 10:58 AM)ElShadai Wrote:   do you eat meat ? [b]yes, just like a large part of the other animals in the world I eat what I was made to eat, omnivores eat meat and vegetation.

If animals and humans have the same value, why do you not eat humans ? animals eat animals, sometimes a certain species eats its own species. Why are you not cannibal ?

El, you would do well to read your Bible before coming to what you give the
impression as thinking is an atheist site full of ignorance regarding such text.

Given you have chosen a SN from old Hebrew, you may find this relevant to your faith system. These passages for the most part relate to the siege of Jerusalem.

Deuteronomy 28:53-57

Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you - so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot - will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.


2 Kings 6:26-29

As the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried to him, "Help me, my lord the king!"The king replied, "If the Lord does not help you, where can I get help for you? From the threshing floor? From the wine press?" Then he asked her, "What's the matter?" She answered, "This woman said to me, 'Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we'll eat my son.' So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."

Jeremiah 19:9 *My note* "I" in this passage is your god speaking.
I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.

This is pretty specific:

Lamentations 4:10

With their own hands compassionate women
have cooked their own children,
who became their food
when my people were destroyed.



Not to forget of course the symbolic cannibalism that takes place in the New Testament when one is asked to consume the flesh and blood of Christ in order to enter into his covenant. John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.



I've never heard of the Japanese eating (human?) Fetus before. However, there is a history of cannibalism in the world. As we all know, at least I would hope such is the case, morality is not universal. As such, what we in the west find immoral and reprehensible, relative to matters of cannibalism, is not necessarily the opinions or practices afforded by example in the rest of the world.

August 2010,
Cannibal Restaurant Has Berliners Disgusted

[Image: image-124404-panoV9free-fdln.jpg]

Big Think - 299 - Niam Niam: the Cannibal Map of the World

the bible just reports historical facts. but nowhere it says cannibalism is ok.
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 07:54 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Which Disney princess do you think is the worst?

[Image: 1663452_snowhite01_29644942.jpg]
Snowhite was a well-known whore. She was in an affair with 7 men (one for each day of the week) until she dropped them to marry a Prince for his money.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTD5FYCwZ1lQcVXXlmiBbu...mp;amp;t=1]
Cinderella chose to abandon her mother and two sisters to suffer and die in poverty and she moved in a golden palace. She also has the recipe for an awesome pumpkin pie.

[Image: 600full-beauty-and-the-beast-artwork.jpg]
The Beauty was a superficial bitch that was too much into appearances and almost broke a guy's... lion's... bear's... monster's heart! Fate slapped her in the face when her breast enhancement surgery failed. She is now hung like an ape.

[Image: Ariel.jpg]
Ariel is the drunken mistake of a witless fisherman and a suffocating cod. She does shellfish-porn (whatever that is) and enjoys been exposed on camera.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSr0PruP3TP-MqcDqfM8TA...mp;amp;t=1]
Jasmine is currently wanted in the United States for participating in the attacks of 9-11. She is thought to be the mastermind behind global terrorism.




VOTE NOW! Cool
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 07:59 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 12:47 PM)SecularStudent Wrote:  Please forgive me for jumping in late, but I want to present a great video on how the universe can come from "nothing":
"A Universe From Nothing" a lecture by Lawrence Krauss (2009)

that is a wellknown video. And a great disservice to a lot of people, which do swallow that BS without thinking.

from the book : a case of a creator

Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20
I closed the magazine and tossed it on Craig's desk. "Maybe Tryon was right when he said, `I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.' “
Craig was listening intently. "Okay, that's a good question," he replied. "These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."

Quote:Oh, and to add to the whole "Human communication is very different from anything observed in animals" mistake: check out this chimp. She successfully learned American Sign Language... a human language. Apes have the same ability as humans to use and understand language, but they did not evolve the ability to speak.
Here's some more reading if you're interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17...-cant.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-mute.html

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t82-chim...ght=chimps

However, the finding does little to narrow the gap between humans and chimpanzees. Consider what chimpanzees are able to achieve with their language skills compared to humans. Humans are able to utilize their linguistic capabilities to build high tech civilizations, produce masterful works of art and music, write books, and teach animals. Chimpanzees don’t build high tech civilizations, produce masterful works of art and music, write books, or teach humans.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t68-is-t...-evolution

Non-human communication systems are based on one of three designs: a finite repertory of calls (one for warnings of predators, one for claims to territory, and so on), a continuous analog signal that registers the magnitude of some state (the livelier the the dance of the bee, the richer the food source that it is telling its hivematcs about), or a series of random variations on a theme (a birdsong repeated with a new twist each time: Charlie Parker with feathers). As we have seen, human language has a very different design. The discrete combinatorial system called "gram mar" makes human language infinite (there is no limit to the number of complex \vords or scntcnces in a language), digital (this infinity is achieved by rearranging discrete elements in particular orders and com binations, not by varying some signal along a continuum like the mercury In a thermometer), and compositional (each of the infiniate combinations has a different meaning predictable from the meanings of its parts and the rules and principles arranging them)."




(26-05-2011 05:05 PM)MikeNH Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 09:53 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  I do not believe in macroevolution. micro evolution however is a unquestionable , proven fact.

[Image: xWpvw.jpg]

your example is evidenced through what, exactly ?
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 08:03 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Which brings me to my next point!



Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 08:04 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2011 08:58 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  It does not say it. so what do you deduce out of it ?

That your statement that information can only arise from the intervention of intelligent beings is entirely unfounded. And it also lacks a coherent definition of "information", but that's neither here nor there.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Do you know what infinity actually is ?

Yes. Do you?

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  if you wish to go this route, you probably would postulate also a multiverse.

No.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Nevertheless, what he wrote, is scientifically accurate, and unquestioned. Its a fact.

No, it isn't. He is not a scientist. He has no scientific background. His commentary on the state of the scientific community is interesting but irrelevant.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Considering the cell as being the ultimate irreducibly complex system

It isn't, so your argument fails at the first hurdle.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  how so ?

Six-day creation, global flood, et cetera.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or have you never read the Bible?

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  secular science of course ignores these facts

So you don't actually have any evidence that this is, in fact, a law, rather than something which AiG simply made up.

I didn't think so.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  But simple calculation prove what aig says is true.

Bet you a dollar.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible

As I have already explained, there is no such thing as "statistically impossible", except when speaking of events with a zero percent chance of occurrence.

This is not something which you get to argue. It is math. High-school level math, at that. I know several middle-schoolers and at least one elementary-schooler who would be able to tell you exactly why your continued spouting of "statistically impossible" is completely moronic.

Tell me, L, have you ever taken an elementary-school math course?

That you didn't flunk?

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt

...who is an engineer and young-Earth creationist, not a biologist or an information scientist...

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  ,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI)

...which is not cited anywhere but on websites like AnswersInGenesis and Around the World With Ken Ham and is never mentioned in the scientific literature...

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).

Meaning (semantics): Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning.
For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.

Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.

Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies.

...none of which exist within DNA.

So, in short, I reject your definition of information, and even if I didn't, it wouldn't help your case in the least.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Show me proofs for strong atheism. Haven't any ? Then strong atheism is falsified.
Thats the same line of reasoning.

No, it isn't.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  correct. i don't like the question, because it makes no sense to ask for it.

It makes perfect sense.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  at least not to me.

Which is not surprising, as you appear to lack even an inkling of understanding regarding the very basics of any of the fields which you are attempting to comment on. Including the burden of proof.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  thats what you believe. not me.

Which is fine. It's just that you are wrong.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  You, for example. Unless you live since eternity. Where can i get my nobel ?

Sorry, no Nobel, but I can offer you a free pass to remedial English.

I said "evidence of things coming into existence", not "evidence of things being arranged into new forms". Again, you are equivocating between ex nihilo and ex materia.

Which - since you appear to not understand the meaning of those terms, either - mean "from nothing" and "from material", respectively.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  since when is your soul, and your spirit, material ?

Since when does the soul exist?

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  of course i can. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and has therefore no potentialities. So i can firmly say, the universe had a cause.

Except that you can't, because you have no supporting evidence for this statement. I have explained this previously.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Not it cause and effect happened at the same instant, without time interval.

Then they are not cause and effect. The effect must follow the cause. That is part of the essential definition of "effect", you see. Two events occurring simultaneously are, by definition, not a cause-and-effect pairing.

(26-05-2011 07:42 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  why ?

I have explained this before. The first premise of Craig's argument is that uncaused or eternal things cannot exist. His conclusion is that at least one must exist. His premise is p. His conclusion is not-p. It is self-contradictory.

Please pay attention to what I say, rather than posing the same question over and over.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: