Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello House,

If you feel the need to maintain a suspicion of me, then that is okay. I don't think I've conducted myself in a way to warrant it, but it does however lead to a proper realization – I am not the evidence.

So as you question my motives, I in turn have only one question for you. Which of the material observations given do you question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 08:23 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 06:20 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  BUCKY BALL,

Quote:“Stupid design”

That is a theological response to a purely material observation. The issue of suffering and loss among the living is not answered in the actions of aminoacyl synthetases.


The thing I don't get about the all the WASTED time on ALL the biological complexities is that you can talk yourself blue in the face with it, from here to kingdom come, but in the end, when all is said and done, ya have to PICK out a designer, from the many available in the Pantheon. Typically it's that Yahweh Sabaoth guy. THAT is preposterous. Have they cooked up any better ones than THAT ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 08:35 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello again Bucky Ball,

I understand your position. Allow me to amend my last comment:

"These are both theological responses to a purely material observation. The issue of suffering and loss among the living is not answered in the actions of aminoacyl synthetases, and neither is which God to pick at the Pantheon."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 08:40 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 08:04 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello House,

If you feel the need to maintain a suspicion of me, then that is okay. I don't think I've conducted myself in a way to warrant it, but it does however lead to a proper realization – I am not the evidence.

So as you question my motives, I in turn have only one question for you. Which of the material observations given do you question?

The countibly infinite. Big Grin

Yer a theist on an atheist forum. That's suspicious. Tongue

Nah. Semiotics indicate a designer cause we designed 'em. If it ain't pointing at us, it is pointing at the image of man, a.k.a. god.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
24-03-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
I will have to take time later to read all of this because I am very busy at the moment.

I would like to pose a question though. Your arguments were done in the suggestive nature that if they cannot be explain, the there must be a god that did it. Am I correct in this statement?

If that isn't your intention, then this doesn't seem relevant in the creation section, nor does it coincide with how your questions were presented.

If it is your intention, then I would have to ask, if it cannot be explained at the moment--or ever for that matter--then wouldn't that just mean that it cannot be explained? Why would this invoke the idea or even lend support to the conclusion that a god did it.

Simply put, if things cannot be explained, wouldn't suggesting that a god played a role in it cause more of an issue that would require more effort/inability to explain the question previously asked?

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 08:52 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hi House,

Quote:Yer a theist on an atheist forum. That's suspicious. [Image: tongue.gif]

lol. I suppose that is to be expected. I hadn't really thought of it exactly that way until you mentioned it.

cheers

(btw, semiotics indicates the necessity of a mechanism capable of creating it at the point it had to exist)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 09:03 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 08:35 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello again Bucky Ball,

I understand your position. Allow me to amend my last comment:

"These are both theological responses to a purely material observation. The issue of suffering and loss among the living is not answered in the actions of aminoacyl synthetase,s and neither is which God to pick at the Pantheon."


No sir. You don't get it. I'm telling you, you're wasting your time. I don't give a shit about your aminoacyl sythetases, because there IS NO DESIGNER postulated, and it's also refutable by PHYSICS, in about 10 seconds. I'm suggesting to you, you are both hiding behind your wall of bla bla bla, AND refusing to look at the total picture. SO WHAT if you have a "complex" argument ? It's MEANINGLESS without a DESIGNER. You need 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. You may have a questionable part of the first 1. The rest you lack completely.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-03-2012, 09:36 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello NotSoVacuous,


Quote:I will have to take time later to read all of this because I am very busy at the moment.

I appreciate that you would take the time to read through the conversation. I hope you'll do so. The argument being discussed was made on the first page of the thread, and the conversation partners have been well worth the effort.

Quote:I would like to pose a question though. Your arguments were done in the suggestive nature that if they cannot be explain, the there must be a god that did it. Am I correct in this statement?

Not exactly. Firstly, the observations being made are not dealing with 'what cannot be explained'. It deals with the well-understood operation of the translation system, and these observations are not even controversial. Secondly, I am not someone who thinks you can get to the existence of God or God's by the observation of aminoacyl synthetase. The claimed being made by the semiotic argument is more than just more modest than that, it is purely material in nature, and is appropriate to that material evidence.

Quote:If that isn't your intention, then this doesn't seem relevant in the creation section, nor does it coincide with how your questions were presented.

Every living system on this planet is driven by the recorded information in the genome and the translation system that actualizes it. Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't imagine a more pertinent subject to the origins of life. If I asked someone a question that was not focused on that subject, I apologize if it gave you the impression that the topic was something else.

Quote:If it is your intention, then I would have to ask, if it cannot be explained at the moment--or ever for that matter--then wouldn't that just mean that it cannot be explained? Why would this invoke the idea or even lend support to the conclusion that a god did it.

Again, that was not my intention, nor is it reflected in the conversation that followed. The claim being made is only that the translation system is observably semiotic in nature. That is the extent of the claim. If the material observations behind that claim are valid, then the follow-on argument rest upon the rationale that a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state is required to create a semiotic state.

Quote:Simply put, if things cannot be explained, wouldn't suggesting that a god played a role in it cause more of an issue that would require more effort/inability to explain the question previously asked?

Again, that is not the argument being made. Perhaps you can return to this question if you have a chance to read the argument itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 08:52 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hi House,
(btw, semiotics indicates the necessity of a mechanism capable of creating it at the point it had to exist)

Never hear of bootstrapping? Skeptical Cat is skeptical. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
24-03-2012, 09:56 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello again BuckyBall,


Quote:No sir. You don't get it. I'm telling you, you're wasting your time. I don't give a shit about your aminoacyl sythetases, because there IS NO DESIGNER postulated, and it's also refutable by PHYSICS, in about 10 seconds. I'm suggesting to you, you are both hiding behind your wall of bla bla bla, AND refusing to look at the total picture. SO WHAT if you have a "complex" argument ? It's MEANINGLESS without a DESIGNER. You need 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. You may have a questionable part of the first 1. The rest you lack completely.

I think I “get it” very, very well.

You posited two reasons why you don't give a shit about the material evidence. The first is because there is no designer posited. The second is that my observations can be refuted by physics in ten seconds. On the first point: a designer isn't posited because there's not one in the evidence to posit. On the second point: there is not a single observation made that is even the slightest bit in question from a physics standpoint.

You then suggest I am hiding behind a wall and not seeing the total picture. You'll have to forgive me here, but I am not the one who doesn't give a shit about the material evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: