Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 07:37 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Stevil,

Quote:I like the title of this thread, it is very befitting of the case that has been presented.

We can test the veracity of this claim when you refute any of the material observations, or demonstrate that the rationale is flawed. Until that point, its mere opportunism.

Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 07:47 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 07:37 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Stevil,

Quote:I like the title of this thread, it is very befitting of the case that has been presented.

We can test the veracity of this claim when you refute any of the material observations, or demonstrate that the rationale is flawed. Until that point, its mere opportunism.

Undecided
I'm sorry, but have you presented a case for ID, or have you presented a case for lack of scientific knowledge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:27 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Stevil,

Quote:I'm sorry, but have you presented a case for ID, or have you presented a case for lack of scientific knowledge?

lol, I have been asked that several times on this forum. I can only assume it comes from spending too much time refuting caracatures of ID arguments instead of the arguments themselves.

Yes, it is an ID argument through and through. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with gaps in knowledge. We know very well how the translation system works, and the entire enterprise of molecular biology is based upon that knowledge. These are discoveries of the operation of DNA, mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, aminoacyl synthetase, etc that have been in textbooks for decades. The observations themselves are not even controversial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:52 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 08:27 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  lol, I have been asked that several times on this forum. I can only assume it comes from spending too much time refuting caracatures of ID arguments instead of the arguments themselves.
I'm glad I am not the only one not seeing the evidence that you have presented.
Your assumptions are unfounded. We have read your case, but found no evidence for ID.
Quote:Yes, it is an ID
argument through and through. And no, it doesn't have anything to do
with gaps in knowledge. We know very well how the translation system
works, and the entire enterprise of molecular biology is based upon that
knowledge. These are discoveries of the operation of DNA, mRNA, tRNA,
ribosomes, aminoacyl synthetase, etc that have been in textbooks for
decades. The observations themselves are not even controversial.
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.

From this gap you are assuming a non material explanation and thus avoiding the tedium of having to prove that non material systems exist. Have you shown how this non material system is intelligent, and how the sequencing is designed necessarily by intelligence?


It would be like finding a dead body and lying beside the body is a bloody rock. You jump to the conclusion that a human had intentionally bashed the person over the head with the rock, a clear cut absolute proof of murder.
But then someone does some tests, they check the rock for fingerprints, but don't find any, they check the ground for footprints but don't find any, they check the body for signs of a struggle but don't find any. They check the scene for known Modus Operandi but don't find any.
Then someone points out that the dead body is at the foot of a cliff.
Had the person fallen? Had they been pushed?
Hmmmm, seems like some more investigation is required.


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?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 12:52 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 05:20 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.
I agree that it's interesting, but here there are only amateurs. You have several times mentioned that these scientists can't answer you. I don't know what their individual motivations are for participating in debate such as you describe, but scientific paradigms are not changed by debate but by published papers. Those forums are for scientists to explain cool stuff to amateurs - as such debunking someone intelligent is not high on their list of things to do. If the guy really has something, it will eventually be published in the literature. Do you see?

These guys have their own work to do, none of them is going to get involved in intricate research that would need to be conducted to investigate something like this unless they know for certain that they're not chasing a chimaera. You wouldn't expect a top scientist to carefully investigate a volcano for traces of the DC9s left behing when Xenu blew up the human race (refer Church of scientology on wikipedia if you have no idea what I'm talking about), *unless* there was some reason to do so, like a published paper claiming that this was true and here's some evidence.

Talking to amateurs may be fun for them, as I said, but especially debunking a tenacious and more intelligent guy - if he's *really* got something, *really really* gt something, then he has to publish to get taken seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 07:51 AM
 
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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”.



The bigger question is this: DO YOU know the forums are 'recorded conversations'. EVEN when you quote me, you pull a Fox news and quote me wrong. You actually use my quote and in the same post TWIST the words i said. I never said "Fuck YOUR evidence". You failed 1000000% in the simple act of quoting. In essence i was stating you were using a bunch of scientific lingo to arrive at the exact same place that Kirk Cameron & Pals arrive at.
Your dodging answers and claiming "Ideologue' foul.
SO with ALL your scientific research, where have you arrived? You've babbled on and on, so whats your conclusion?
Right now Evolution is the only scientific theory on the table. Creation/ID is religious dogma pretending to be scientific.
I came from years of Creation World View and even when making the arguments, it felt hallow and shifty.
Evolution may not be perfect but its the only game in town. If you are arguing against evolution then as others said go shock the scientific community with your findings. Rumor has it you get a nifty medal and a million bux for such studies and findings...golly gee, what do they call that prize?
If at anytime your argument includes the addition of the supernatural, then you are adding fairy dust to science.
I still notice my really simple questions seem to vex you. My simple questions are "Impossible" to answer? Really?
You have an answer, you simply refuse to put your money where your mouth is.
D
Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 09:25 AM by Filox.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Fear not fellow heathens, because Filox has finally read through all these post and came to your aid! Now, tremble and fear my superior logic and intelligence, but without design, I hate designing...

Smile

A few things were on my mind since I have started to read, that was a few hours ago, so I expect not to be ignored, no matter where this leads me. Us.

Thanks to this new best friend I just got on this crappy forum, I now know more than ever about DNA, RNA, mRNA, UUU, ABDC.. Anyway, I accept ALL you have said as truth. I agree with you completely. Yes, there should have been a mechanism to trigger the first DNA and all that. You are 100% right. Soooooo... What now?

What is the next step in your debate? Yes,you are right, you make excellent point, but what is your point? Yes, there had to be some sort of mechanism...
Quote:It merely suggests the logical conclusion: that to explain a semiotic state will require a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state.
QUESTION1: What do you think is the key here, what, or who is the mechanism?

Quote: 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.
QUESTION2: So what exactly is your argument here? You have said a lot of thing and what is your main conclusion and /or question after all your biological evidence is out here? Is it this:
Quote: Do you agree, or do you have evidence that attaching adenine to thymine to guanine is mapped to “start a new protein” in any physical context?

... as I have said, YES, I agree with you, and no I do not have the evidence that you can start a new protein in that way.

Quote: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.

Aha, so that's it! Is this your grand finale? "A living thing" would be the conclusion to all this reading and writing?

QUESTION3: So do you suggest that some kind of aliens came here and "helped" us evolve? Or that there was some ancient "man" here who created us? What is that "living thing", how would you describe/explain that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my two cent of all this. Lets presume that he is telling the truth and that this all is true, because he is just some random guy with some fact no one here understands enough to verify it all... So I trust you. You hae given us some facts, but no evidence on nothing. You have provided evidence on those facts, which we also must trust you on, but I said I do. But the question remains, WHY? What was your purpose? A few people have asked you this and connected you to religion, yet you have diplomatically evaded the answer. Now, as a psychiatrist (not) I would say that is because you are a good debater and you do not want to derail the thread, nor do you want to completely discredit yourself and your facts by admitting you came here with only one reason. Unfortunately for you, I have learned from the best, and lucky for you, Hamata K hasn't seen this. Yet. Smile

Now, after my quick psychoanalysis of you, I can proceed to the theory. It is very well written, no doubt you had professional help and I don't mean mental, but biological, or genetically. That is very commendable, no other theist has ever came here armed as well, although many have tried. Oh, I'm sorry did I call you theist and put you on religious side, while you tried to stay neutral. Sorry, must be because of this:
Quote:I am a theist
and this as well:
Quote:I have noticed several posts and threads about ID notions, which are (quite frankly) little more than caricatures of the actual disputes over evidence, without much to follow in the way of argument.
Oh, look, let me call you an ID theorist as well, because you have said:
Quote: If anyone is interested, I will provide an actual ID argument here on this forum, and members would have an ample chance to attack its veracity directly.

So, by reviewing your beginning here, we can all assume you ARE ID theorist and this whole argument was to prove ID theory. This whole thing is "an actual ID argument". Now I ask you again, why do you avoid that answer when people have openly asked you what is your point and where is your proof/argument for ID? Then I will ask again, where is your proof for ID?

I'm sorry, you are a theist, you came here all biased, although extremely polite and calm, then you started to turn everything strictly scientific and you would turn away from any mentioning of God, theism, ID or the Creator. I repeat, I believe in everything you say to be true, but what does all that prove to you and how do we continue the debate one step beyond this? Do you ever include ID here?

And anytime you include God or anything similar, I will have something else that can explain that same thing with even logic and evidence.
EXAMPLE1:
Quote:inanimate chemistry does not have the capacity to assign representations to other chemicals, nor can it establish rules (protocols) for decoding those representations.

That is your and our PERCEPTION talking. The problem with this is that at the time when DNA didn't exist, the atmosphere on Earth was non to slim, as there were no plans to produce the right atmosphere and to terraform the Earth. Therefor, the ground was completely different and so was the sea, rivers and everything else. So, the first DNA evolved in a completely different environment from completely different conditions we have today. Also, the cosmic radiation was huge, due to the lack of atmosphere the preassure was way off and the sun was burning down on Earth much stronger.

So, there you go, I have just given you the cosmic radiation, lack of oxygen and atmosphere, sun radiation and heat, different pressure (or the lack of it) as the ways to influence something like inanimate chemistry to transform into first DNA.

Also, the aliens or some ancient civilization can be the key.

Or God.

Or there is no semiotic state, you just made that up?

Or was this OK, but this is not an ID argument?

Big Grin

Peace brother.

Good try, better luck next time.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
30-03-2012, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 09:36 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
How many eons of random chemical reactions, and other such experiments were there before this momentous occasion of life? You can talk about how complex something is, but talking living versus nonliving the universe was around much longer than the point when animate beings existed on this planet. Don't think that the amount of time it took for humans to evolve from amoeba amounts to anything compared to the amount of time the universe has existed. That something can succeed no matter how complex is not always simply a given that it needed help. Think how difficult it was for humans to understand mathematical principles that the inanimate world follows with certainty. There are many very complex systems that exist out of necessity.

Anywhere in the cosmos? Some of your bullets are quite preposterous, We cn suggest we have a probable understanding of the size of the entire universe, but that does not mean that we've exhaustively examined very piece. We still know very little about this universe and have plenty to still explore within the milky way. That it hasn't been found yet does not mean that it won't be. Second, repeating symbols and rules? Many forms of life have communication patterns which suggest specific things. You yourself discussed bees in this way. That humans see a more expansive form of symbol representation than they can observe in other life fails to suggest to me that it's something unique to humans. If peeing on a tree suggests a territorial marking, then communication is already being used. I would like a further explanation of what makes you feel that human communication is a completely different feat.

It's best explained at this time by looking at the world and seeing what is most likely. Which in fact would be the understanding we currently have. It may not sound so definite to you, but we've yet to experience any sort of evidence to suggest something beyond. Yes it can be very convincing to suggest an alien came to the planet, and rearranged the information in order to spark life, but that isn't saying anything. If you're going to suggest this alien has done things for you, then as many members have mentioned you must describe this being. If we can in no way describe this being, then we are not getting anywhere in our understanding. Whatever the cause it must be properly explained.

That the sun revolved around the earth was a perfectly logical claim. After being proven false the logic has started slipping from the claim, but without this advanced knowledge it would still hold true. That the earth is flat is also a perfectly rational conclusion from observation. Science has developed the rigorous systems that exist now, because rationality is not always enough to find definitive truths. That we can agree and see where someone is coming from does not mean that we'll learn from it. In what way does your assertion expand the understanding of biology? What can be learned and gained about life by this feeling that there was a presence? The only step from here to take is in determining the parameters of this entity which you've given no hints towards. We need there to be actual evidence not the supposition that something must have existed before all of this. There is no more validity in your claim than the supposition that life started on it's own, and the supposition that life started on it's own allows us to study it further. If we accept your claim then we are invariably saying that there is an extent to where humans cannot reach. The idea of life having started on its own is the unbiased guess because either is a guess. One is verifiable and the other is not. A being which is beyond us is not verifiable, a chemical reaction is. If science leads to the existence of an entity that started everything it will be accepted, but there is no evidence for it.

A god must be proven because it is an extreme claim. Accepting this existence without proof limits our understanding. I am not saying that religious people cannot properly conduct experiments, what I am saying is that everyone who conducts experiments must find an answer which is more true than their culture. Many things in science defy rationality, they are things that seem so impossible yet after learning them make perfect sense. Our rationality came from our predecessors, we are highly capable in rationalizing, but when we started recording our own information we created things beyond our physical limitations. Humans have learned a lot about the limitations of their own senses. We've learned very well that understanding some things requires more than simple human understanding. How many ideas are there that can't properly be expressed yet your brain can understand? Our language is much more advanced than our physical selves.

Yes you can make your assertion, but where is the meat to it? Right now your supposition is simply saying this makes sense. Expand and better understand your asserton find a way to allow others to test your assertion without you there. You've proven to me that there is a process called semiosis, but after discussing this process you've moved completely into speculation. The reason scientists accept it and move on is because it is definitely happening, but there are other things to examine and study. In learning geometry the average mathemetician does not spend his time thinking on why math exists but what it does and how. We've accepted the existence of mathematics, the way we learn from it is to observe how it is performed not by deeming where it came from. Talk to people who specialize in researching the origin of life. Your average biologist is studying completely different subjects. If you will not take Moron's suggestion and prove that people should study your claim, then at least look to people who are more actively working on you specific field of interest. You've suggested that you have asked a few but the people in this field you've asked do not respond to you. If this continues to be the case then the only way you can truly get a decent response is by presented a hypothesis to an academic journal and demanding attention.

Nothin stops a layman from presenting evidence in an academic journal, if it makes sense your credentials are not what matters. Many innovations come from people outside of the fields they happen in. Learn how to properly frame your hypothesis and submit it if you feel so strongly about it, but I'm telling you right now that you must present something of evidence that this thing exists. That this process doesn't make sense without something having lived beforehand is not proper evidence. t is just begging the question. Life is so complicated that only life could create it is not the sort of answer science generally accepts. Remember that many of the most complicated sequences that exist spawn from the simplest.

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
30-03-2012, 09:47 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.

Well, no. Life exists from chemical reactions. "Information" is not something that exists in and of itself. It's our interpretation of things.

(29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
  • Recorded information is what organizes inanimate matter into living systems.

  • Well, no. The laws of chemistry do that. It just happens to be a very complex chemical reaction that involves specific sets of chemicals interacting in very precise ways.

    (29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
  • Recording and transferring information requires semiosis; the onset of representations (symbols) and protocols (rules) in order to capture and transfer an abstraction.

  • This part is correct. However, again, information does not exist objectively. It is our interpretation of stimuli, nothing more.

    (29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
  • Semiosis is only known to exist in operation within the living kingdom, never in the inanimate world.

  • Also correct, but see above.

    (29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
  • 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.

  • I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss other information systems as being incapable of representing other types of information, but this is largely irrelevant and just a side note, as the core of my objection has been given above.

    (29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
  • The second example is the Genetic Code (repeating symbols and rules) driving all living systems.

  • These same symbols and rules are found in non-living systems as well. And they are only, you might note, symbols when interpreted by us. You are confusing the model with the thing being modeled.

    (29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  
  • 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?

  • It didn't.

    Your entire argument is based on the assumption that "information" exists objectively, when it is, by definition, just our interpretation of stimuli given to us. There is nothing mysterious about life. It's just chemistry.

    So your argument, ignoring the flaw about confusing the model with the thing being modeled, comes down to the assertion that the laws governing chemical interactions must have come from something. I really don't see why they need to have had someone to write them out. They simply are, in the same way that the rest of the universe is. They don't require a creator.

    (29-03-2012 04:12 PM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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?

    Well, actually, there is plenty of evidence that life can come from inanimate chemistry. There is no fundamental difference, chemically speaking, between life and non-life. "Living" chemical reactions just tend to be more complex and more active. There isn't anything mysterious going on.

    For more information, you might read up on the Miller-Urey experiment and its counterparts. It's entirely possible that life can come from non-life with absolutely no requirement for semiosis.

    "Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
    - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
    Find all posts by this user
    Like Post Quote this message in a reply
    [+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
    30-03-2012, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 11:19 AM by Upright BiPed.)
    RE: Where's the Evidence??
    Quote:I'm glad I am not the only one not seeing the evidence that you have presented.


    More opportunism, but I see you don’t actually engage anything that was said in the argument. Instead you make a blanket pronouncement. Very convincing.

    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.

    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.

    Look at it this way; imagine some future alien geologist millions of years in the future, pointing to the worn faces still sculpted on the side of Mt Rushmore, and suggesting to another geologist that those shapes are the result of wind and erosion. The second geologist would immediately remind him that wind and rain do not have the capacities required to form some of those more intricate shapes, and besides, we can find drill marks in the rubble below from where explosives were used to clear away the rock. But the geologist making the claim doesn’t believe in some mythical human race who populated the area, so he is adamant in his beliefs. He ignores that contrary evidence and suggests instead that the second geologist is simply filling the gaps in our knowledge (of how wind and rain can create those shapes) with some unknown agent - one which is unnecessary to the explanation. Now imagine that the first geologist’s views become the accepted explanation, and each time someone brings up the evidence to the contrary, the conventional wisdom simply closes ranks and repeats “gaps, gaps, gaps” while positing yet another entirely insufficient theory of how wind and erosion can form such shapes.

    Forgive me for the analogy, but what I am trying to illustrate is the futility of constantly appealing to gaps in our knowledge. We already know how the system works, and we know it coherently. The gap is not in our knowledge; the gap is in the explanatory power of the presumed explanation. And that is the gap being protected. And that protection is nonscientific, because it makes the presumed explanation unfalsifiable by shielding it from ever having to submit itself to the evidence. Yet, on the other hand, the second geologist’s theory is entirely falsifiable – all that is required is to show how wind and rain can form those shapes, and it’s falsified. And if that cannot be done, then the first geologist must do the scientifically appropriate thing. He must acknowledge the evidence as it actually exists; he must accept that drill marks have been found in the rubble below, even as he continues to disbelieve in the mythical human race.

    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; perhaps we should test it out on both our positions. So, what we have is semiotic system of protein synthesis which requires symbolic representations and the establishment of arbitrary rules (not laws) in order to operate. (And here we’ll just ignore the massive integrated content of the information itself, and just focus on HOW that information is recorded). These capacities (of abstraction and rule-making) have only been observed (throughout all human experience) anywhere, at any time, to be the direct result of a volitional agent. They have never been demonstrated to be the result of inanimate chemistry in any way, shape, or form – ever, under any circumstance whatsoever. Now that we know the basis of my conclusion that a volitional agent is the most causally adequate explanation of the material evidence, let us now apply your standards for evidence. Please tell us what your evidence is for believing that inanimate chemistry can create the abstractions and establish the arbitrary rules required in order to record information.


    - - - - - - -

    May I offer a suggestion? You came into this conversation very late. And you came in blathering about some nonsense having to do with angry gods and blah blah blah. Apparently, that kind of response gets you something in the kinds of discussions you’ve had. As you might have picked up already, that kind of nonsense will not suffice here. In your comments above, you tried repeatedly to demonstrate that I was making unsupported assumptions. You bolded the words “assumptions” and “gaps” in your text over and over again. I then asked you to post the exact wording of my unsupported assumptions so that we can examine it. You are not going to be able to do so. You are also not going to be able to show a material flaw in the biology described. You will also not be able to show a fallacy in the logic, nor an internal contradiction in the rationale. The question becomes whether or not you can accept that evidence exists which can rationally be viewed as an artifact of a volitional agent (even if you continue to disagree). Or, can you not? Perhaps instead of rushing around with half-baked mockery and canned fallacy objections, you should consider doing a little investigating of your own in order to answer that question. And give it some time. In any case, the semiotic argument I presented makes only a single claim. It claims that the transfer of information in the genome is semiotic, and it supports that single conclusion based upon the material evidence. To argue against that conclusion is to argue directly against observable evidence to the contrary.



    Hi morondog.

    Thank you again for the conversation.

    The websites where these topics are debated do not exist for the purposes of “community involvement” or “in the public interest”. They are straight up debates with materialist and theist defending their positions to the extent that the evidence will allow (and often beyond). The distinction between a specialists and a generalists is often acknowledged, but it is the argument itself that is the priority, not the person presenting it. Appeals to authority won’t cut it.

    There is also an underlying theme to your comments that is somewhat incorrect. The argument I presented is not a case where someone has actually discovered something new and only needs to have it published and debated upon. These material observations have been known for quite some time, and they are resisted at every turn. That resistance is based upon pure ideology, not material facts.Cheers…

    TO ALL:

    Ahhhhh...more participants. And great questions as well!


    Problem ... I am helping a friend move this afternoon, and will not return until Sunday.

    Do not despair, I shall return.

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