Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 11:33 AM
 
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 11:16 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.
Too fraking funny!
Not once did i even mention hair color or boy band. What a FANTASTIC way to yammer on about nothing and desperately attempt to make a point all the while avoid answering (we all gasp and act suprised!). Instead of answering direct questions ....you sensationalize and make points that have nothing to do with anything. I isolate myself from nothing, but thanks for projecting that on me. I am actually ASKING you to show us the material facts. Go reread my questions and try your hardest to answer the simple questions (it seems to be a monumental task...your Mount Everest!).
Sadly,you are coming across more and more like Ray Comfort (not a compliment).
Why wont you answer the simple questions? You are drawing more attention to the fact that you refuse to answer the questions. No one cares how you use your biology book to demonstrate your slippery ways. All this noise you are making, and avoid answering the questions, what are you hiding?
Say what you want about me. The fact YOU wont answer the simple questions speaks VOLUMES about who you are and your intent.
Enjoy your time here in the forums. I'm done taking you seriously.
D
Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:47 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 11:16 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.


It seems a bit unreasonable to spring up in front of some guy and make a claim then expect him to refute it off the top of his head?

Why no publish in the science journal if evidence is good enough? They reject you? Is long hard path to acceptance but not surprised that top researcher doesn't want to waste time with nutcase Wink You understand? Not calling you nutcase, but to top researcher that is exactly what you look like. If you want acceptance, can't start at the top, must first publish papers - if a good journal won't accept, at least *some* journal, and not a creationist one 'cos everyone knows they're full of drivel. If even bad journal won't accept, indicates your research is up the pole Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 12:22 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 01:07 PM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Moron has really made the case I meant to mention before. if you want your opinion seriously looked at by the main researchers it needs to appear serious and not as a random question from a layman. The field is confusing and takes a lot of work. Not everyone has time for what ifs.

Why do the people you're discussing have to refute you? why not ask them what they feel is possible?

You didn't notice that I answered this whole thing the last time I talked. You're discussing what we know about biology and DNA, but all of that requires something to have already existed which means that the progenitor as I said previously is only visible in small murmurs within it's descendants. We still need the actual first life form to have a specific answer. Yes there is no real answer to what exactly started it, but going "hey this idea of god fits here" isn't answering anything. All youv'e done is equivocated which is not a complex thing to do. you feel this answer fits, but you haven't really given reasons why it must be this answer.

Let's talk science. When you come up with an idea you form it into a hypothesis, and then many others will review your hypothesis and see how definite the results are. After it has been ascertained that your idea must fit the puzzle, then it will be given the title of a theory. Right now you are making a claim, but not even really setting it up as a hypothesis. You explain the process and try to state that it's god, but you don't really give your exact reason that it must be determined as such. If you want to be looked at seriously find a good reason that demands your answer. Science isn't about good answers it's about definite answers. If there are alternatives to your answer that can make just as much sense, then no you do not have the answer that must be right.

Don't sit here and argue over materialism and non-materialism and expect that to help your case. You came here trying to present something that was material proof for your claim, and then when people disagreed you blamed their materialistic ideologies. If you have material proof then that should not be something that keeps them from agreeing with you.

As Sol said quite a while ago, you're talking philosophy rather than science. Philosophy can help people in reaching a lot of answers, but philosophy is a tool that leads to the answer it is not the answer in and of itsself.

You talk about positive evidence but you've yet to bring any of it up. All that you've said is that semiosis is observed in all living things. You haven't explained what reason makes semiosis anything other than an observable property of the world. You have to find a reason for it to be special to claim that it must have existed first. What happened first is still a mystery, because as I said quite a while back we don't have the ability to observe that. And we don't have the ability to recreate this event.

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
[+] 3 users Like Lilith Pride's post
29-03-2012, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 04:21 PM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Denecio,

You do realize these internet forums are recorded conversations, don’t you? After I made my argument, these were your very first words on this thread:

Quote:Fuck the scientific psychobabble and fancy pants words.

Where is your proof of an actual designer?
Where does this designer come from?
Where does your information about this designer come from?

And my response was that you were asking questions that were impossible to answer, and you asked them for the specific reason that they are impossible to answer. “Fuck the fancy pants evidence we actually have, I don’t wanna see or hear shit until you show me the designer hissself” is a game for an ideologue. You’ve moved the standards of evidence so far that you are forever and ever isolated from any evidence that might be contrary to what you simply want to believe – so far in fact, that not even your own ideology can muster that kind of proof. It’s a blanket of protection of your beliefs.

And now, without you ever having to engage the evidence, and without me answering your impossible-to-answer questions, you won’t feel even the slightest tinge of intellectual cowardice by accusing me of not answering the questions.

It’s a perfect racket. The guy who literally started the conversation with “Fuck your evidence” wants to end the conversation with “You never answered my questions”.




Hello again morondog,

Quote:It seems a bit unreasonable to spring up in front of some guy and make a claim then expect him to refute it off the top of his head?

I didn’t spring up at Nick. He (of his own volition) participates on various forums which discuss these issues. That hardly represents an ambush.

Quote:Why no publish in the science journal if evidence is good enough?

Firstly, I completely agree with the honorable intentions of the peer-review process, even as I am aware that it can be (and has been) abused. But I also recognize that knowledge isn’t an owned commodity which must be approved to be what it is. In any case, I don’t publish because I am not an academic, but the evidence I have presented has already been published and understood for decades on end. And there are origins researchers (who are academics) who have published papers highlighting these issues in various ways. For example, the Hungarian-born polymath Michael Polanyi published a paper in the journal Science all the way back in 1968 entitled “Life’s Irreducible Structure” where he said:

“Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.” Polanyi ,Science</ABBR>, Vol. 160 no. 3834

Others have made these points before. Trying to paint my argument as the rattlings of an internet nutjob just doesn’t jive with the evidence. Perhaps a better question is ‘why are researchers allowed to equivocate’ on the factual evidence already in the scientific record?




Hi again Lilith,

As before, I appreciate your thoughtful response. As I read your response, I wondered how closely you have followed my argument.
  • Life results from recorded information, and cannot exist without it.
  • Recorded information is what organizes inanimate matter into living systems.
  • Recording and transferring information requires semiosis; the onset of representations (symbols) and protocols (rules) in order to capture and transfer an abstraction.
  • Semiosis is only known to exist in operation within the living kingdom, never in the inanimate world.
  • There is a type of recorded information that is distinctly different than all others – digital encoding.
  • Digital encoding is an iterative (repeating) representational system, and can record any type of information without limit.
  • There are exactly two examples of iterative representational systems found anywhere in the cosmos.
  • The first example is that of human communication (repeating symbols and rules).
  • The second example is the Genetic Code (repeating symbols and rules) driving all living systems.
  • Mankind is said to have evolved this capacity (of symbol-making and rules) only after eons of evolution.
  • If it requires eons of evolution for the rise of symbol/rule-making, then how did it exist at the very organization of life itself?

Now, (given that this is likely a one-time event that will never be replicated) is this issue best explained by foregoing any actual supportive evidence, and simply asserting that the cause was inanimate chemistry? Or is it best explained by acknowledging the lack of supportive evidence, but still insisting it simply must be inanimate chemistry? Or is it best explained acknowledging the evidence as it is, and positing that something existed which had the capacity of semiosis at the point that semiosis was required to exist? Or is it best explained by acknowledging that we do not know, but logic suggests that the capacity for semiosis existed at the point that Life began. Or, simply ignore the whole thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:13 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?

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.
The essence of what you are presenting is that you have stated there are some sequences within DNA that are important to life. You have stated that science have worked out how some of the sequences occur but this doesn't apply to how some of the other sequences occur, and scientist haven't been able to work that out, thus far.

So I am somewhat wondering if you have made a claim that science knows everything about the material world and thus the cause of these other sequences must be non material, or if you are simply pointing to something that scientists haven't worked out yet and saying see look, this gap is the work of god.

I think to get to the main problem of your argument we need to go into the theological crux of the problem of proving god (I assume you are Christian) you will find the following issue:

Quote:Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not
faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.Jesus
saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed

Quote:You must not test the Lord your God
Quote:Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe
stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one
and only Son

Quote:Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into
this grace in which we stand

Quote:Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test
yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you

Quote:through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of
sins

So god wants people to believe and have faith. Not to have knowledge. Knowledge was the original sin of humankind right?
Quote:you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die

Quote:Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten
of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed
is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days
of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you

So to be frank, the message is loud and clear, you are not to look for evidence, this would be a sin and would make god very angry. You are to base your position on belief and faith alone, this will make god very happy. You will be a good Christian, much better than one that requires proof.

Did you really think god would be so sloppy as to leave behind some clear evidence?
With evidence there will be no more believers, just factual based knowledgeable people. God clearly doesn't want that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 04:28 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hi Upright Smile

If you're gonna go around claiming that because a top researcher doesn't answer you that means something... then say you don't publish because you're not an academic??? I don't get the logic. Anyone who is not an academic, no researcher has an obligation to answer, you could stump anyone or they could stop replying to emails or whatever but this does not mean you have won the debate. *Unless someone* can write it up and get it published it's meaningless.

Even once it's published, it's not "part of the scientific record" and therefore unchallengeable, research from the 60s is virtually worthless today in terms of the advances we've had since then. It gets superceded. If someone has pursued it further that's great, but if not then it was a dead end and got left behind.

Wrangling here is great and all, I must admit I haven't followed the convo - it got way over my head - but this stuff, publishing and journals, I have some experience with so I feel I can comment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 05:39 PM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello Stevil,

Quote:The essence of what you are presenting is that you have stated there are some sequences within DNA that are important to life. You have stated that science have worked out how some of the sequences occur but this doesn't apply to how some of the other sequences occur, and scientist haven't been able to work that out, thus far.


I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion from what I wrote in my argument. Really, I can't.

Now, after reading the remainder of your post, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Whatever it is, it has nothing whatsoever to do the the argument I presented.


Hi morondog,

Quote: If you're gonna go around claiming that because a top researcher doesn't answer you that means something... then say you don't publish because you're not an academic??? I don't get the logic. Anyone who is not an academic, no researcher has an obligation to answer, you could stump anyone or they could stop replying to emails or whatever but this does not mean you have won the debate. *Unless someone* can write it up and get it published it's meaningless.

My thrust of my comments on this forum have been based upon the content of my argument - not on any ability to silence critics. And I stated from the very first page of this thread that I am a generalist, but WHO I AM does not change the content of the argument. It either stands on logic and evidence, or it doesn't.

Having said that, there are places on the internet where you can debate these issues. Those sites are trafficked by scientists WHO ARE THERE TO ARGUE THESE ISSUES. So, I do so. And the argument given here, stands even there.

My purpose here was simple. Participants on this forum constantly denigrate mere caracatures of these arguments. I wanted to give them a chance to try it in earnest. It has been interesting, and I have appreciated the level of civility I have recieved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Maybe I misunderstood your post.
I presume you are offering evidence for ID.

Your question was
(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?
You stated that scientists know the following
Quote: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.
Then you pointed out how this above knowledge does not apply to "bonds between
the nucleotides themselves" and that scientists don't know how bonds between
the nucleotides themselves determine their order within the sequence.
Quote: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.
There was no evidence presented of an intelligent designer, just pointing out of a gap in scientific knowledge, and a presumption that scientists know all there is to know about how materialistic bonds determine order in DNA sequence.

1. I am highlighting that you are simply presenting a gap rather than evidence for ID
2. I am highlighting that gaps do not presuppose an ID
3. I am highlighting that the Christian belief relies on belief and faith and not evidence, so I am not sure why you are looking for evidence, especially in the most obscure places like DNA.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 05:43 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello Stevil,

You are quoting from an essay which merely offered a modest explanation of the issues. I posted it to give participants a chance to warm up to some of the terms being discussed, and for no other reason.

My argument followed that essay. If you have comment about the actual content of my argument (which is entirely material in nature), as oppossed to whatever theological point you were trying to impart to me, then I will happily respond.

I am off for now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 06:12 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 05:43 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello Stevil,

You are quoting from an essay which merely offered a modest explanation of the issues. I posted it to give participants a chance to warm up to some of the terms being discussed, and for no other reason.
OK, there are 8 pages to this thread I haven't read them all.


I like the title of this thread, it is very befitting of the case that has been presented.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: