Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2012, 12:49 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
You better return, it is my turn for your explanations... I am waiting and I am not a patient man.

Big Grin

Anway, I like what Unbeliever has told you. Also, try to be less philosophical about everything. You talk and talk, but say very little, except your own interpretation of some facts. And that brings us to the words "personal perception" and there you go... Come back quickly...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 01:39 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(30-03-2012 10:51 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
Quote:Your assumptions are unfounded. We have read your case, but found no evidence for ID.
And what assumptions would those be? Please be specific on exactly what assumptions were made, and by being specific, I am asking you to please cut and paste the exact words where the assumptions were made and indicate specifically how those assumptions are “unfounded”. Thanks.
FFS - lets take a look at the sentence that was directly above my comment
"I can only assume it comes from spending too much time refuting caracatures of ID arguments instead of the arguments themselves"

Quote:
Quote:However there is a gap that you have pointed out with regards to some of the sequences involved in the DNA structure. There is an assumption that
you have made with regards to scientists agreeing categorically that it is impossible for any material explanation ever to exist to explain this gap.
Firstly, I haven’t pointed to a gap in knowledge. I have done just the opposite. I have pointed to our exceptional knowledge on how the system functions. This deep understanding of the system isn’t even controversial. And again, you’ve misread the thrust of the issue. I don’t know a single scientist who admits “categorically that it is impossible for any material explanation to explain the gap”. The opposite is true, they willfully equivocate on the term “information”, thereby allowing them to ignore that the information is indeed semiotic, and therefore they can always appeal to some unknown material cause, which the evidence says is virtually impossible (but certainly unsupported). This position, of course, makes their claim of a material cause scientifically unfalsifiable, because it never has to submit itself to any test of evidence.
Point 1. You have stated that you are a generalist
Point 2. You have stated that there is an unknown with regards to sequencing in DNA
Point 3. You have stated that the DNA specialists are suggesting that there could be some unknown material cause. (in other words the specialists have admitted they don't know everything about the material realm of DNA)
Point 4. You (the generalist) are claiming that the DNA specialists are wrong. You are claiming that they are either lying or mistaken when they claim that they don't know everything about the material realm of DNA.
Point 5. You have not shown any proof substantiating your claim that they are wrong and that in fact they do know everything there is to know about the material realm of DNA.
Point 6. You have not shown any proof that there was a designer
Point 7. You have not shown any proof that this designer was intelligent
Point 8. Without proof of an intelligent designer, you have merely asserted an assumption based on your world view theology
Point 9. You have pointed to a gap in material knowledge on DNA sequencing (fine) but where is the science that shows an intelligent designer?
Question: Why am I to take your word in Point 4 above the word of the DNA specialists in Point 3?

Quote:
Quote:So
with regards to your intelligent designer, have you found some fingerprints, any footprints, any evidence that the Intelligent Designer had been there at the scene of the crime?
What are the characteristics of the designer? How tall, how heavy, do they have fingerprints, can you compare any of these characteristics against anything that has been left at the scene?
Is there anything else in the material world that could account for the evidence? Have you surveyed the area? Do you know of all possible ways the situation could have been caused. There is not any possibility that it is something that you have not thought of? Is it possible that scientists don't know everything about the material world?
Are you seriously asking how tall the designer is? Seriously? That’s quite a high standard for evidence
That is the way science works, its standard for evidence is high. They don't simply point to knowledge gaps and then fill it with theology.
Of course I don't specifically need to know how tall the designer is. But you have offered no attributes of your designer other than you assume it exists, assume it is intelligent and assume it is the cause of the missing sequencing.
If you had found some evidence of your intelligent designer then you would be able to tell me more about this designer, based on the evidence that it has left behind.
But as we know, you have nothing to compare. Even if you found fingerprints, you don't have the source to compare them to. You cant say, we found these fingerprints, we took some fingerprints from god and they matched.

If you have nothing to compare your evidence to, then you don't really have evidence of anything do you.

The biggest flaw in all ID scientific explanations thus far, is that they assume humans know everything that is material and thus gaps must point to god. However, as we know, when scientists focus on gaps, time and time again they find material explanation, thus far they have never found the fingerprints of god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 08:16 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
OK, seriously people, why is it that every time I take some time and do my best to explain my views, the person I was writing decides that my post needs no explanation or comment?

Is it because I am stupid as fuck, so people just tend to ignore me and everything related to me, or are my posts that good and hard, so that there is nothing else to write in this thread? WTF?!?

I hope it's this other one...

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 08:24 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Unfortunately I think that by the time you generally respond most of the people are done. Someone who brings an opposing argument here often gets to the point where they need a break pretty fast with the barrage of counter arguments. I do think you'll get your discussion with upright. Just give him some time.

You're very much not dumb Filox, and you put a lot more into this than most of us do. Don't belittle yourself on these matters.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
03-04-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Oh well thank you, now I'm blushing...




Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 04:23 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 09:48 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  This all raises a very important question; how did these very special sequences come to exist?
I didn't read through all of the posts but you asked how. Well first let's settle what you may have missed. You have to prove the ID being exists to posit it as a possible variable/answer. You have begun with the conclusion first without having the initial evidence to support. This isn't science.

Now as far as how these sequences could come to exist you would first need to know how positive ions interact with negative ions. Our body is filled with electrolytes that interact constantly to maintain homeostasis. One well known example is the Sodium/Potassium exchange pump which functions as an active transport mechanism. These 2 ions interact using the "opposites attract" approach.

Sodium is an extracellular ion and potassium is an intercellular ion.

I give you this example because it is one of the easiest to understand.

When you break down the processes of hormones in the body and their reactions to an imbalance in homeostasis you get a slow reaction time on one end or the other. Either it starts up fast or it stops fast not both. It's a dumb system, at the core it detects imbalances and releases hormones to float around randomly until it eventually passes by the corresponding system. Only by playing mismatch games. Meaning if something wrong it takes time for our body to detect it. It uses pressure and a pumping flow to communicate.

The body's immune system labels itself with a "self" antigen(protein), if an invader doesn't have this self antigen then it is attacked in a fairly long process that isn't always successful as we well know. Basically "I'm self, you aren't self, kill."

Do you know what referred pain is? Certain organs or systems move during the time our body is being formed within the womb. Nerves are left in original places the organs formed and are connected to the organ still. Meaning you'll feel a pain somewhere other than the actual location. This is far from a good system, it's sloppy and it leaves a mess.


Now that I've given you some ideas to look up you now have to understand it was a huge process of building up over time. DNA strands didn't form overnight, it took millions and/or billions of years to form. Many positive and negative interactions over time. This includes attractions and repelling properties and eventually formed a cell with what we would call extremely basic functions. This process is at best mediocre, to call it complex is probably over stating it.

You are asking how this happened in a biological way and you are leaving the biology field, what you have delved into is more of a chemistry and/or sub-molecular subject.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2012 09:16 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 11:16 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
Quote:While I believe that I understand your arguments (and the rebuttals), they are technical... and they are also Arguments from Ignorance. If the question is ever "how is this possible?" or "how can this be?" then you're not actually proving them to be impossible, but instead remarking on your lack of an answer... and the person to have an answer would be a biologist.

Firstly, the “technical” information I presented here can be verified within a few minutes on the web (using nothing more than Wikipedia for example). The only requirement for understanding what is being presented here, is rational thought. Secondly, you misunderstand the issue completely. I am not asking a question as if I need the answer to a calculation, where all I need is someone who’s smart enough to know how to calculate it. That is not what is going on. Hardly being an argument from ignorance, the observations I have made here are not even controversial. The system of genetic translation is coherently understood already. What is going on here is a blatant equivocation on the part of materialist’s ideology regarding the information in the genome. Recorded information – in any form whatsoever – has physical entailments which we can observe. Those same physical entailments are demonstrated by the information recorded in DNA as well. The overarching reality is that all forms of recorded information are semiotic in nature (by necessity) – including that which is in the genome. We cannot even conceive of recording and transferring information in any other way. This leads to the very rational conclusion that if the information in the genome is semiotic, then it was logically caused by something that had the capacity to create a semiotic state. The only thing we have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER with the capacity to create a semiotic state is a living thing. In simple terms, inanimate chemistry does not have the capacity to assign representations to other chemicals, nor can it establish rules (protocols) for decoding those representations. And this is where the equivocation lies. Biologist will speak of the information in the genome using all the language of semiotic information. There is the process of “Transcription” and the process of “Translation” and the genetic “Code” itself. On and on it goes. But when it comes to the origin of that encoded information, they suddenly equivocate and pretend to themselves that use of the word “information” is merely analogous to other forms of information – even though the material facts say otherwise. This is pure ideology, parading as science.
Quote:But even if a biologist couldn't answer them, it still doesn't make an Intelligent Designer an answer to the questions (that's simply positing an answer in place of a lacking one, which as I mentioned is an Argument from Ignorance). You can't make a positive argument out of your attempts at negative arguments. You'd still have to prove causation.

The Origin of Life, like the Origin of the Universe, is very likely a one-time event; and it took place several billion years in the unobservable past. It is a historical science as opposed to an operational science, where we might want to know the atomic properties of a specific substance or the cure for bone cancer. To speak of “proof” is more than just a little misleading. But in regard to “positive” versus “negative” evidence; I can produce example after example after example of information being the result of a living thing. Materialist on the other hand, cannot provide even a single example of inanimate chemistry achieving those results. They cannot even provide a conceptual framework for the rise of true semiotic information. Their actual ability to prove their conclusion is so far off the mark, that they are forced to simply equivocate (and ignore)what it actually is they are trying to simulate. And as far a “proving causation”… that is easy. It is as simple as reading this page to show that a living agent can create semiotic information. So, our “universal experience” (meaning the totality of all knowledge on the subject) stands on one side of a line, and pure unsupported speculation stands on the other – and you respond by pointing out that I can’t “prove” you wrong because you can always appeal to that mysterious unknown answer just over the next hill. Great. But proper science doesn’t work that way.



It doesn't matter if you can produce "example after example" of information being the result of a living thing... to assume that it can't come from nonlife is still an Argument from Ignorance. I even cited it so you'd understand the objection, but you still don't. You can't simply assert something as the alternative to an argument that you believe you've debunked... you're creating a false dichotomy. Even if you could prove evolution was false, that doesn't mean your alternative is true by default... it has to have evidence to support it.

Now you claim that you have proven causation, but you apparently don't understand that term, either. I mean that you have to give strong evidence that an intelligent designer created life. You say that you've shown "a living agent can create semiotic information", but that's still not the same thing as proving that a living agent was responsible for all semiotic information. For example, I could have called you an insulting name, but just the fact that I have the ability doesn't mean that I did, nor does it prove that I'm the only one who could.

To prove that an intelligent agent created life, you'd have to have verifiable evidence of where life came from and demonstrate how an intelligent agent was involved in that process. Citing the bible is not a scientific process ("proper science doesn't work that way"). ID proponents have not yet explained the origin of life any more than evolution-believing scientists have, because once they did it could be debunked. That's why this argument always ends up an Argument from Ignorance.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 08:43 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Oh come on now!! Where the hell did he go now? I hate when this happens, I fly in all full of ideas and PUFF, they are all gone...

Yeah, come back anytime, and have a nice discussion again.

I call it WIN. I came, I saw, I won.

1:0 for me and my post.

Now, suck it!

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 08:51 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
How do you get from this to "God did it"? Isn't that just like giving up?
(22-03-2012 09:48 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Protein Synthesis

As most people have come to know, DNA is at the center of all living things; it serves as a sort of "parts list and assembly instructions" for Life. Although the systems by which this happens are incredibly complex, to understand generally how it works is actually fairly simple:

Living things are made up of cells. Different types of cells make up the various parts of any organism (skin, nerves, organs, tissues, etc). The work of these different cells is performed by various proteins inside of each cell. These various proteins are created by attaching together a long series of 20 different kinds of amino acids. Some of these sequences have hundreds of amino acids, others have thousands. After all the amino acids are attached together in a long chain, the chain is then carefully folded up into a 3-dimensional protein. Each protein has a specific job to do, and if you change the order of those 20 different kinds of amino acids, then it changes the type of protein being created.

A living organism “knows how” to arrange these amino acids in the correct order by reading the information from its DNA.

In essence, DNA is like a long computer tape which contains information an organism needs in order to build itself and regulate its internal systems. It is this information contained within DNA which ultimately organizes and animates non-living matter (carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc) into living organisms. Also like a computer tape, the information within DNA is encoded in digital form. Whereas a computer (for instance) uses an iterative (repeating) series of 1’s and 0’s arranged in a specific sequence in order to encode information, DNA uses an iterative series of four chemicals to accomplish the exact same task. These four chemicals are known as nucleic acids (or nucleotides) and are commonly referred to by their initials A, G, T, and C (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine).



In order to decode the information within DNA, these four chemicals are read off (transcribed) in a linear fashion just as the letters on this page are read in a linear fashion. For instance, in English text the arrangement of C-A-T spells the name of a feline animal with the sharp claws. In the genome, the arrangement of C-T-A is a code for an amino acid called Leucine. In other words, if the code C-T-A appears in the sequence when a protein is being created, then Leucine will be added to that protein (like a word being added to a sentence). Likewise, the sequence of A-G-T codes for an amino acid called Serine, T-A-T codes for Tyrosine, G-G-C codes for Glucine, and on and on throughout the twenty different amino acids that make up proteins.

These individual codes are fed into a molecular machine called a ribosome, and when they are read together in full sequences (in a similar way to letters being used to make words, and words being used to make sentences) proteins are constructed within the cell. It is those proteins that do the cellular work within all living organisms.



This all raises a very important question; how did these very special sequences come to exist?

Studies of DNA describe the chemical and physical bonds that form its famous helical structure. Those bonds create a stable backbone to which the individual nucleotides can be attached in the sequences described above. In other words, along this stable backbone are attachment points for each of the nucleotides (A, G, T, and C), and at each of these individual points any of the four nucleotides may be attached in order to form the encoded information.

Although the chemical bonds that actually form the backbone are well known, there is one set of bonds that are completely absent. Those 'missing' bonds are the ones between the nucleotides themselves which could determine their order within the sequence. In other words, there are no physical or chemical bonds between the nucleotides that determine their order along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is). Those sequences are therefore referred to as "physico-dynamically inert" (meaning that the chemical bonds they are associated with do not determine the sequence in which they exist) and it is those sequences that create Life.

This is a scientifically observable fact of DNA which is not even in question. It is not based upon what we don't know, but what we already know, and have demonstrated to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 09:57 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello fellow participants,

I apologize for the extended delay (it's been unavoidable).

I will return in a day or two to respond to all who have piped in. There has been nothing said here that changes the material facts one iota, so I will return to point that out in detail. The remainder of the comments seem to be either uninformed opinons or simply mistaken - so I will point that out as well.

...Cheerz
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: