Shred my argument?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2015, 06:34 AM
Shred my argument?
Unusual one here. I've requested help tackling theists on YT before (waits for snickering about arguing on YT to stop) by shredding their arguments. I just put in a big one... and I want to find MY errors, where I can do better, or where I'm out to lunch entirely. I won't present the whole argument (we're on comment 100+ at this point), just his last and mine (in full, with our mutual insults included).

Him
Quote:WHY MUST YOU ALWAYS LIE?
When you look at the table of chemical elements or the male sperm or female egg, do you see baby teeth? Baby teeth falsify evolutionism. You see the semantic instruction to make Baby teeth are in the genome of the human that God specified. The baby teeth start to erupt after about 4 to 7 months after birth. The timing, the materials, and the shape of the teeth are specified in the genome and the biological machines in the cells make the teeth as God specified. Then these teeth are replaced by adult teeth, and include wisdom teeth that appear roughly after 14 years of age. Do you see how long the specified semantic instructions are suppressed until the timing is achieved to trigger the expression of teeth in babies and adults?
Now bite on that evil lying atheist.
This is true for all the organs that must develop for adulthood.

How honest can you be if not intellectual?
Do you see computers, transportation vehicles, building, instruments etc. do you see these contrivances by human intelligence/ability in the table of chemical elements?

My response:
Quote:Yay! You said something slightly new! Did you actually type any of that HTBK? I wasn't sure you knew how to type, or present an argument that someone else hadn't written for you. Maybe there's a functioning brain cell (or even two!!) in that hard head of yours.

Now, to your arguement. Please point out where in the chemical nature of flour, yeast, salt, and water it specifies gas bubbles, a hard shell, and internal structure. Humans didn't build that. They noticed chemistry reacted that way, and that's a rather simple chemical process. As I noted to you before, humans doing X has no bearing on whether human-like (ie, intelligent) beings are required for X. In most cases everything we do we learn or copy from nature or build from things we've learned about nature.
You call not being able to see the end product parts in the initial chemistry "semantic instructions". It's a good analogy, makes it explicable by humans to humans and allows us to usefully talk about genetics at certain levels, the level where certain genes chemically lead to certain results. But it's very easy to see why these aren't actually instructions in any sense by simply noting that there is no way in which genetic "information" is tied to the complexity or function of the living being. There are amoeba with vastly more DNA in every cell than ours, yet their single cell is not "more complex" than all our cells combined, and there are animals with more chromosomes than us but which are arguably simpler. You talk about computers, highways, etc, but in all cases where semantic information from humans comes in, it is always the case that the more complex the outcome the more instructions you need to make it happen. That's simply not what we observe in biology. Complexity and the chemistry that leads to it are not linked. This kills your entire semantic argument right from the start.

Biologists talk about information in genetics because we as humans do not have minds that can handle the reality of things. Look at Langton's Ant. No human on Earth can tell you why or even how that road is formed. At its most basic level, we don't understand Langton's Ant, and we made it! Fractals, genetic algorithms, all sorts of things we use because they lead to a coherent and useful result, but if you press hard enough you always reach the magic event horizon, the point beyond which all humans can say is "we don't know" about how something functions. Genetic algorithms are a good one here. Much of the systems running the net these days, as well as graphics and other bits, was created using genetic computing. Ask anyone in computing to explain to you how the final product works, why basically random code mixed together in various combinations near randomly over and over works to make the system run so much faster and more efficient than anything ever to directly come from the mind of a human, and they'll get to "we don't know". Want a biology example? Ask the natural philosophers 2000 years ago why selective breeding leads to more of a desired trait in a population. Answer? "We don't know". The human mind is capable of a lot (or, at least, we like to think so), but there are many things that work in purely mechanistic, determined, unthinking ways that we can't comprehend at their unit level and may never be able to comprehend that way. So we use analogy, similarity, different levels to reach useful end points based on what mindless matter does to make our lives better and have what limited understanding we can. Biology is so complex, so many different bits interacting, that we can't handle it at the lowest levels. If you want a low-level description of why DNA leads to teeth, be prepared to sit around reading "molecule A reacts to atom B" trillions of times only to conclude with "and that's how baby teeth are formed". Would that help you to understand anything? No. But nowhere in there will you find a single point at which any part of it is symbolic, standing in place for something, or having meaning. It'll just be a massive list of chemical reactions, each one mindlessly doing what it does for as long as there are appropriate materials around, until there aren't and the entire process stops (creature dies).

That's it. That's all there is. Sorry you don't like the answer we've discovered, but your comfort with the answer has never been a criteria for science. There are many truths about ourselves and our world that we've discovered and don't like, this is just another one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 06:48 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
Quote:When you look at the table of chemical elements or the male sperm or female egg, do you see baby teeth? Baby teeth falsify evolutionism.
A short answer would have been: No, they don't. You just don't understand evolution.

Why would things growing with delay contradict evolution? As long as there is merely an assertion without argument, a long rebuttal gives waaaay too much credit to the first poster.

Quantum Physics: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
Is there such a thing as evolutionism? I know of evolution, but not evolutionism.

I don't know why you are arguing with this idiot. The whole paragraph is nonsense. Baby teeth coming in falsifies evolution? Does puberty also falsify evolution? What about turning gray?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Iñigo's post
23-04-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
(23-04-2015 06:48 AM)Alex K Wrote:  
Quote:When you look at the table of chemical elements or the male sperm or female egg, do you see baby teeth? Baby teeth falsify evolutionism.
A short answer would have been: No, they don't. You just don't understand evolution.

Why would things growing with delay contradict evolution? As long as there is merely an assertion without argument, a long rebuttal gives waaaay too much credit to the first poster.

First, he'd say yes, all that contradicts evolution (because you need "semantic instructions" and "information", and those only come from a mind), as well as posting things where some have said there are problems with the 2nd Law of Therm (not that increasing order in one place violates it, but that increasing order without instructions... yada-yada, but apparently from sciencey people, and neither of _us_ are experts).
As you might have noticed from my insult at the beginning, he's mostly a copy/paste arguer (he has huge files and brings them out when someone says something, almost never typing and certainly never updating, I've explained the Josephus interpolation to him before but he still uses it in the same, unedited file!).

(23-04-2015 07:23 AM)Iñigo Wrote:  Is there such a thing as evolutionism? I know of evolution, but not evolutionism.

I don't know why you are arguing with this idiot. The whole paragraph is nonsense. Baby teeth coming in falsifies evolution? Does puberty also falsify evolution? What about turning gray?

As above, yep, anything he can't explain through simple chemicals is a contradiction because it needs instructions/mind to accomplish, hence god.

As for evolutionism, he and others like him (like the idiot who sent me the post that started all this) think of it as "those who think the universe evolved from the big bang". They include the "evolution of matter", the "evolution of stars and planets", the "evolution of first life", and finally "the evolution of living forms". Which _could_ all be classed as forms of evolution (change over time), but certainly not covered by the formal theory by that name (save for a few places where some sciencey people talk about things like "the general theory of evolution" as opposed to the special one).

I mostly argue with this idiot because... uhm... Blush I'm not very bright, and he's easy to handle. I do this usually during dead time when I'm tired or just waking up and have nothing better to do. Plus I find it somewhat fun to watch him run in circles and trash his BS repeatedly. Big Grin When I first encountered him, his insults were upsetting, and I finally got all Censored about it, but now I can easily return (he sent a whole message in all caps and I called him an toddler having a tantrum for that), which is also fun. I don't take him seriously most of the time. Low hanging fruit, right? Basically most of YT. To paraphrase Mark Twain, go to YouTube for the easy things, The Thinking Atheist Forum for real thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
Wow.

Just show him pictures of you as a baby, as a toddler, as a child, as a teen, and as an adult. Then say - "See? Evolution!". Then he'll say "that doesn't prove evolution". Then you say "that's right! Evolution doesn't occur on an individual basis, rather it occurs in populations". Then he'll be even more confused. Then just laugh. Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
So in his mind god personally makes the teeth come in on every single baby on the planet? He is really arguing that all these changes in every single individual alive arise from a supernatural intervention of god? Really??? God supernaturally intervenes to bring in our pubic hairs? What about animals? Does he supernaturally intervene to give dogs and chimps gray hair as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
(23-04-2015 09:12 AM)Iñigo Wrote:  So in his mind god personally makes the teeth come in on every single baby on the planet? He is really arguing that all these changes in every single individual alive arise from a supernatural intervention of god? Really??? God supernaturally intervenes to bring in our pubic hairs? What about animals? Does he supernaturally intervene to give dogs and chimps gray hair as well?

Nah. His thing is that god sends semantic instructions through chemical code (DNA). ... wait... lemme find his bit on this:

Quote:Any evil lying atheist can say anything. Lies are not evidence.
WHY MUST YOU LIE TO YOURSELF AND THE PUBLIC?

The source of all Language, communication, and semantic instructions/commands in the Genome Program of Life:
The information/instructions/commands in view in biological systems are the SEMANTIC COMMANDS between the Sender and Receiver of the instructions which both must understand. In the Genome Program of Life for every Kind of organism, the Sender is God who used a chemical based medium i.e. A,G,C,T in DNA and inc. U for RNA. The Genome Program of life has this code specified by the billions of base pairs that the RECEIVERS which are nano-scaled biological machines that translate and obey the commands that God specified. This highly ordered system can’t tolerate noise pollution; it has systems [“blue prints”] to compare to remove errors. Mutations are 100% deleterious or neutral and can’t produce semantic commands or specify a program.

Gene duplication, transposons and polyploidy are methods by which existing semantic commands are utilized and are not the source of Semantic Instructions. Information can’t exist without intelligence. Language is not material; it is immaterial. Einstein's Gulf says materialism cannot cross over to ideas, instruction, emotion, opinion, language. These things can only come from GOD who is the intelligence/being that made humans in his likeness to have these abilities.

Chemical reactions are by design as God purposed. What behaves predictably, and purposefully is by design.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded." Gitt, p.124. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000)"

SEMANTIC INFORMATION/COMMANDS IN THE GENOME PROGRAM OF LIFE COULD ONLY COME FROM THE MIND OF GOD

“Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 148.

“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 150.

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 141.

“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.

“All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.

“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.” Gisela Storz, “An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,” Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

“The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.” Gretchen Vogel, “Why Sequence the Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

“... non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called ‘junk DNA’] have regulatory roles.” John M. Greally, “Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,” Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.

Source of Semantic Instructions/Commands in the Genome Program of Life and its corruption since creation.

Semantic instruction/commands are between a sender [God or humans that specify the commands by a communication code utilizing a medium] and the receiver/s [biological machines or electro-mechanical machines such as a PC, PLC etc as an analogy using machines contrived by humans]. Semantic commands/instructions inside every cell is not a prediction of the patently absurd and ridiculous atheistic pseudoscience/notion of materialism/naturalism/evolutionism i.e. the atheistic dogma/philosophy of mindless and lifeless chemical explanations only without a superior intelligence/being we call God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s Programming of Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiWTFEqV804 Genetic Instructions: Science in the Bible that modern Science has confirmed

The semantic commands/instructions in the genome program of life written for every kind of organism were only once specified during the creation week by God. Since man's rebellion, corruption of the genome/DNA [mutational load of approximately 4600 cataloged mutations] has occurred. The defects, disease, syndromes, deformities, and deaths that occur due to these "mutations" are post creation and possibly mostly attributable to human foolishness either ignorant or deliberate .i.e. aberrant sexuality, abject hygiene, forbidden diets and abuses of drugs, exposure to man-made compounds/drugs and industrial environmental exposure to carcinogens, mutagens, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
(23-04-2015 08:03 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 06:48 AM)Alex K Wrote:  A short answer would have been: No, they don't. You just don't understand evolution.

Why would things growing with delay contradict evolution? As long as there is merely an assertion without argument, a long rebuttal gives waaaay too much credit to the first poster.

First, he'd say yes, all that contradicts evolution (because you need "semantic instructions" and "information", and those only come from a mind),
Don't do his work for him, so let him bring them and then let him explain why they contradict evolution (saying "information" is not enough).
Quote: as well as posting things where some have said there are problems with the 2nd Law of Therm
Point him to the big ball of plasma in the sky which acts as an energy source. Problem solved.
Quote: As you might have noticed from my insult at the beginning, he's mostly a copy/paste arguer (he has huge files and brings them out when someone says something, almost never typing and certainly never updating, I've explained the Josephus interpolation to him before but he still uses it in the same, unedited file!).
Well, he's a liar for Jesus...

Quantum Physics: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
One of the reasons that I no longer have questions on exams that ask students to explain something is that invariably you are guaranteed to get a fair share of answers that are absolute nonsense, and yet the students will argue with you that they explained what they were asked to explain when they did not. This guy reminds me of this scenario. OK, so DNA contains information about when, where and what proteins to express. This leads to a myriad of different physiological responses, including babies getting their teeth. That the information is there in the DNA does not prove that only god could have put it there and it does not disprove evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Shred my argument?
(23-04-2015 06:34 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  Unusual one here. I've requested help tackling theists on YT before (waits for snickering about arguing on YT to stop) by shredding their arguments. I just put in a big one... and I want to find MY errors, where I can do better, or where I'm out to lunch entirely. I won't present the whole argument (we're on comment 100+ at this point), just his last and mine (in full, with our mutual insults included).

Him
Quote:WHY MUST YOU ALWAYS LIE?
When you look at the table of chemical elements or the male sperm or female egg, do you see baby teeth? Baby teeth falsify evolutionism. You see the semantic instruction to make Baby teeth are in the genome of the human that God specified. The baby teeth start to erupt after about 4 to 7 months after birth. The timing, the materials, and the shape of the teeth are specified in the genome and the biological machines in the cells make the teeth as God specified. Then these teeth are replaced by adult teeth, and include wisdom teeth that appear roughly after 14 years of age. Do you see how long the specified semantic instructions are suppressed until the timing is achieved to trigger the expression of teeth in babies and adults?
Now bite on that evil lying atheist.
This is true for all the organs that must develop for adulthood.

How honest can you be if not intellectual?
Do you see computers, transportation vehicles, building, instruments etc. do you see these contrivances by human intelligence/ability in the table of chemical elements?

My response:
Quote:Yay! You said something slightly new! Did you actually type any of that HTBK? I wasn't sure you knew how to type, or present an argument that someone else hadn't written for you. Maybe there's a functioning brain cell (or even two!!) in that hard head of yours.

Now, to your arguement. Please point out where in the chemical nature of flour, yeast, salt, and water it specifies gas bubbles, a hard shell, and internal structure. Humans didn't build that. They noticed chemistry reacted that way, and that's a rather simple chemical process. As I noted to you before, humans doing X has no bearing on whether human-like (ie, intelligent) beings are required for X. In most cases everything we do we learn or copy from nature or build from things we've learned about nature.
You call not being able to see the end product parts in the initial chemistry "semantic instructions". It's a good analogy, makes it explicable by humans to humans and allows us to usefully talk about genetics at certain levels, the level where certain genes chemically lead to certain results. But it's very easy to see why these aren't actually instructions in any sense by simply noting that there is no way in which genetic "information" is tied to the complexity or function of the living being. There are amoeba with vastly more DNA in every cell than ours, yet their single cell is not "more complex" than all our cells combined, and there are animals with more chromosomes than us but which are arguably simpler. You talk about computers, highways, etc, but in all cases where semantic information from humans comes in, it is always the case that the more complex the outcome the more instructions you need to make it happen. That's simply not what we observe in biology. Complexity and the chemistry that leads to it are not linked. This kills your entire semantic argument right from the start.

Biologists talk about information in genetics because we as humans do not have minds that can handle the reality of things. Look at Langton's Ant. No human on Earth can tell you why or even how that road is formed. At its most basic level, we don't understand Langton's Ant, and we made it! Fractals, genetic algorithms, all sorts of things we use because they lead to a coherent and useful result, but if you press hard enough you always reach the magic event horizon, the point beyond which all humans can say is "we don't know" about how something functions. Genetic algorithms are a good one here. Much of the systems running the net these days, as well as graphics and other bits, was created using genetic computing. Ask anyone in computing to explain to you how the final product works, why basically random code mixed together in various combinations near randomly over and over works to make the system run so much faster and more efficient than anything ever to directly come from the mind of a human, and they'll get to "we don't know". Want a biology example? Ask the natural philosophers 2000 years ago why selective breeding leads to more of a desired trait in a population. Answer? "We don't know". The human mind is capable of a lot (or, at least, we like to think so), but there are many things that work in purely mechanistic, determined, unthinking ways that we can't comprehend at their unit level and may never be able to comprehend that way. So we use analogy, similarity, different levels to reach useful end points based on what mindless matter does to make our lives better and have what limited understanding we can. Biology is so complex, so many different bits interacting, that we can't handle it at the lowest levels. If you want a low-level description of why DNA leads to teeth, be prepared to sit around reading "molecule A reacts to atom B" trillions of times only to conclude with "and that's how baby teeth are formed". Would that help you to understand anything? No. But nowhere in there will you find a single point at which any part of it is symbolic, standing in place for something, or having meaning. It'll just be a massive list of chemical reactions, each one mindlessly doing what it does for as long as there are appropriate materials around, until there aren't and the entire process stops (creature dies).

That's it. That's all there is. Sorry you don't like the answer we've discovered, but your comfort with the answer has never been a criteria for science. There are many truths about ourselves and our world that we've discovered and don't like, this is just another one.

Ugh! Why do I think this guy still puts his teeth under his pillow and waits for the tooth fairy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: