Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2012, 10:25 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
I still don't see how this is relevant to the ID hypothesis, would you please connect the dots for me?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 11:05 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 09:56 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.


Umm biped, ... wait... why would you say "I am NOT the ONE who doesn't give a shit about the material evidence" ? That makes no sense , (to me). He never suggested YOU didn't. Obviously THAT'S ALL you care about. He said HE didn't care about material evidence, unless (I would assume), it fits into a bigger picture. The bigger picture has not been addressed here, AT ALL, (except by Bucky). Which is fine, as you started your thread, apparently with no interest in any big picture. I think he was not clear enough. He did not suggest YOUR evidience was refutable by Physics, (it seems very sound to me). I think he meant Physics can refute Creationism, in general, in 10 seconds. I've watched that happen. I find it curious that a creationist supporter has no interest in the most important part of the argument..the creator. I think we DO care about a discussion of the material evidence. But without the rest of the picture, (and as he was trying to point out, the material evidence is only a small part of the picture), why go on about the small part ? We would care about physical evidence, IF the rest of the picture made any sense. (It doesn't).

I must sincerly compliment you. You are trying to keep this on point, and civil, and so far makes far more sense than the nonsense we heard last weekend from last week's drop in creationist.

I was watching the Krauss/Lane debate yesterday, and kept thinking that Lane was talking about god this, and god that. The "evidence" that Lane used for HIS god being THE god was the resurrection. He seemed to be totally unaware that the gospels ALL differ in their recounting of that, and it is known by scholars, that the gospel of Mark, (the first one), never said anything about it, (it originally ended with the empty tomb), with the resurrection being added in later versions. I think the Buckminster was trying to move the debate up to the big picture level. I'll ask him to come back, and see if he can clarify his thought. Great thread, (for a change). Rolleyes

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
25-03-2012, 06:56 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 09:36 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello NotSoVacuous,







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.


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.
Sorry, it must have been how you used Intelligent Design to accompany your posts. So you are merely suggesting that if the evidence suggest that these proteins were created, it doesn't necessarily have to be a god? That it could be as something as simple as another chemical reaction? Help me here, because begun to confuse me, because I am not really sure as to what you are suggesting.

Simply put, if the evidence suggest that the proteins were created, without knowledge of what created them, then what would be in your pool of idea's or theories that did create these proteins?

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 10:22 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 09:36 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.
There is no semiotic state, no symbolic meaning, just the results of billions of years of natural selection. The ones we see are the ones that survived. That's it. That's all of it. There is no more meaning than that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 08:14 AM
 
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(24-03-2012 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.
This is my point exactly and the poor lad seems unwilling or unable to answer.
If all this fancy talk still leads him to the SAME conclusion...then its Creation 101.
All the scientific mumbo jumbo can be used to substantiate his claim...but if at the end of the argument he ends up with GOD...then its a very old and tired argument with new cloths on.
Like SOOO many folks wanting to argue AROUND the white elephant in the room. Its insanity.
If DNA Goobly Gop combined with Barometric Pressure of Splicing of blah blah blah...still leads you to conclude GOD/Designer, then its the same BASIC argument from the same tired book from the same group of sheeple.
WHO are YOU claiming is the designer?
D
Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 09:36 AM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello San Onofre,

Thank you for your thoughts. The semiotic argument is a purely material (unrefuted) observation of molecular reality. Not only is the biology factually correct, but the rationale assumes no conclusions, and has no internal contradictions. If I was to look at the big picture (and wanted that big picture to be consistent with what is actually known) that’s where I’d start. It’s the proper method of building knowledge, but even then (as has been demonstrated on this thread) it is no guarantee against someone who is determined to believe whatever they want - regardless of those pesky details.

For the person who is open to letting the evidence guide the conversation, the potential implications of a semiotic state during genetic translation is devastating to materialism. Trying to move the argument away from facts you can’t argue with, is then rather obvious, isn’t it?


Hello again NotSoVacuous,

Quote:So you are merely suggesting that if the evidence suggest that these proteins were created…

If you have the chance to read this thread (at least the first page of it) you’ll see that there is no argument being made about how proteins were first created.



Chas,

Quote:There is no semiotic state, no symbolic meaning, just the results of billions of years of natural selection. The ones we see are the ones that survived. That's it. That's all of it. There is no more meaning than that.

Yes, you’ve already made your assertions, but you have yet to utter a single word about the evidence to the contrary. You steadfastly refuse to engage. 'Fact finding by assertion' is obviously unscientific. It would be hard to imagine a method of discourse that is less scientific.

Allow me to repost the question you ignored:

Quote:If in one system we have a genuine representation, and in another system we have something that just acts like a representation, then surely you can look at the material evidence and point out the distinction.



Denicio,

A person who says “to hell with the evidence, let’s look at the big picture” is an ideologue who doesn’t care what the evidence says. They might as well be wearing a big sign on their heads. He/she is impervious to reason, and flaunts it in order to bolster themselves against the sheer cowardice of taking such a position. He knows what he knows - and that’s all there is to it. Might as well be loud about it, that'll make it sound convincing.





Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 09:42 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
If you want a serious answer to these challenges, it would be best to pose them to actual biologists. 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.

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.

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
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
26-03-2012, 09:58 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(26-03-2012 09:10 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  If I was to look at the big picture (and wanted that big picture to be consistent with what is actually known) that’s where I’d start. (...) A person who says “to hell with the evidence, let’s look at the big picture” is an ideologue who doesn’t care what the evidence says.

Hmmn... Evil_monster

The evidence indicates information is god; yet such conflicts all known perceptions of god as in order for information to inform, entropy is required.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 07:39 AM
 
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Still SOOO many words spoken by the OP and still no answers to simple and direct questions.
Hell, my questions dont even have fancy Biology Class lingo in them.
Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 11:21 AM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
STARCRASH,
Quote:If you want a serious answer to these challenges, it would be best to pose them to actual biologists.

I do. In fact, in the past week I put the argument back in front of Nick Matzke at UC Berkley (of NCSE fame) as well as molecular biologist (and “RNA World” theorist) Art Hunt at the University of Kentucky. In typical fashion, Nick couldn’t refute the evidence, and Art wouldn’t engage it.
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.
HOUSE OF CANTOR,
Quote:The evidence indicates information is god; yet such conflicts all known perceptions of god as in order for information to inform, entropy is required.

The evidence does not indicate that “information is god”. And the remainder of your comment is incoherent to the argument raised.
DENICIO,
Quote:Still SOOO many words spoken by the OP and still no answers to simple and direct questions.
Hell, my questions dont even have fancy Biology Class lingo in them.

Your demands to know the designer’s hair color and favorite boy band before you’ll even consider the material evidence (actually available to us) is patently irrational. You make those impossible demands because you have no intent of being confronted by any evidence against your beliefs. As a materialist, you isolate yourself from material facts, and then condescend to those who don’t do the same.


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