Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2012, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2012 06:57 AM by Filox.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
you are waisting your time, I asked the most simple of all things, for him to tell me what is his own conclusion for these evidence he has presented. His answer was about theist view of things, atheist view of things, whatever view of things...We have a problem with this guy and the problem is that he is a (...must go back to the beginning to c/p...)
Quote: I am a generalist (and no expert)
. What the fuck does this mean? That you can BS in general and no one can ever beat you, except another generalist? Smile

For most of the things he said about himself I had to Google around to see what the hell is he talking about, than I had to Google and translate all sorts of things when I started to read his post. Until he can learn to come down for heavens and talk to us humans the way we humans talk, there can be no common ground in our debates. As simple as that.

Now, Upright BiPed, if you want ANYONE here to have a nice continued discussion, first let go of the philosophy, forget that generalist (whatever) and talk to us like you would talk to people in highschool, better yet, like people from elementary school. No, we are not that stupid, but we do not know a lot about the things you say, so you first need to simplify things for all of us to understand. Use common language and simple explanations. It can be done, I know how o translate all of this to normal level, but it is not my job, you are the one to do it, if you want. Ignoring 90% of my arguments/questions is exactly the thing I knew you were going to do and I am very disappointed that I was right about that. I realize there are a lot of people here to answer, but if you can't answer simple and basic things like my questions, without philosophy and big complicated words, than it is all over here...

Here is the example:
Quote:Good question, but the conclusion of the argument is simply that a causally-adequate mechanism is required to create what is clearly observed during genetic information transfer – a semiotic state.

What the hell is "causally-adequate mechanism"? What the f*** is genetic information transfer?? Do you realize how much googling was involved before I concluded what a semiotic state is and I still do not understand all of this? Do you also realize that there are a lot of people here that are not from English-speaking countries? Can you picture me as a half-retarded weed-damaged idiot first, than start explaining things to me. That is how you do it. Like you are talking to a retard. Now, care to try again?

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
[+] 2 users Like Filox's post
17-04-2012, 11:12 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Too much to read so I only read your original premises.

I already knew where you were going from the very first sentence. You are pulling out the "information" argument about DNA. This has been thoroughly debunked by professionals in biology.

Let me say though, before we go any further...

WHY... that's a big WHY!? does there have to be a "programmer" for this "information"? We are applying human attributes to what we see in DNA. We call it "information" because it resembles the information that we create in technology like computers.


If you want to call that information, what do you think of clouds that resemble say a dog? Must it then be an animal since it resembles a dog? What about a rock shaped like an egg? Was that rock birthed from a bird like a hen?


Theists have a big problem with this. They just can't accept that there is not a special reason for everything. Humans are not special. Earth is not special. This galaxy is not special. We are relatively nothing to the Universe. DNA is just DNA. This "information" you speak of is a characteristic that our human minds have attributed to it.


And really, I highly doubt an omnipotent being would need to code anything. They would simply *poof* everything into existence. What are we? Some science project for your deity? Oh wait, that's right... science projects are a human-specific trait. My bad. I'll leave it alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NoahsFarce's post
17-04-2012, 01:31 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(17-04-2012 06:51 AM)Filox Wrote:  Until he can learn to come down for heavens and talk to us humans the way we humans talk, there can be no common ground in our debates. As simple as that.
It is a common ploy by ID proponents. A dishonest tactic showing that the proponent is a liar for Jesus.
If this guy was honest and believed his theology is science he would be in science focused forums discussing this in a scientific manner. He is here in an atheist forum speaking science terminology because his goal is to confuse his audience. ID arguments are meant to fool non scientific people into believing in Jesus or at least to open the door to the possibility. Make no mistake, his goal is to make fools of us all, because he believes fools will worship Jesus.

This isn't science. They have attempted to dress theology in a science guise before, they have gone to court and attempted to get theology into the science classroom. Needless to say, they lost the case because the theist judge determined that theology isn't science.

Notice how he gets high and mighty about needing material explanations down to the tiniest of details and makes bold assertions that if we can't explain exactly how something works then it must be outside the realm of material existence. At no point does he apply this same methodology to his metaphysical realm. He asks no questions, looks for no positive evidence on how something metaphysical can have be the cause, he thinks it is OK to just assume and assert when it comes his metaphysical realm.

So it is pseudo science, science applied to material existence, theology applied to metaphysical realm.
At no point has anyone ever scientifically proven that there is a non material metaphysical existence. We can't look towards metaphysical solutions until at the very least there is some proof that a thing can have a metaphysical existence and that that thing can interact with material existence.

At this point in time metaphysical is simply unfounded concepts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
17-04-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(14-04-2012 11:34 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Many have chimed in since I last posted, and I have had a chance to read through the responses carefully. There seems into be a common thread that runs through each response, and there’s no point in mincing words about what that thread is – each of you, in your own varied ways, wants to simply dismiss the material evidence. I am not saying that this is all you’ve said, but it represents the underlying theme of most all comments. It makes me wonder; have any of you stopped to consider that it is material evidence being dismissed? If the common stereotypes are to be believed, then you’ve effectively exchanged roles with the very creationists which you decry for dismissing material evidence.
There can quickly come a point when arguing on the Internet where the detail is beyond the grasp of most involved, and half truths or outright falsehoods are difficult to distinguish from fact. The normal way to resolve this kind of problem is to reference the text and conclusion of specific academic papers.

Academic papers have been through peer review by experts in the relevant field, so can be trusted by the average joe to some extent. I suggest that if you have specific material evidence of design that you refer to the specific papers involved and their conclusions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2012, 05:31 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
When you talk of the evidence pointing to a semiotic state required to provide the protocols of interpreting the input and of the input required to provide the symbols expected of the protocols and that these must work in unison and hence show a irreducible complexity, this demonstrably observed process is the current state as of today, as of within the last 100 years or so.

How do you know that this has always been the case?
How do you know that it has always taken a life state to create a life state?

If this were the case then Earth would be baron. You must agree that there once was a time when Earth had no life on it.

So how did life come about?


Is it not possible that replication became the path of least resistance for life and thus the more difficult path of life from non life became obsolete?
It might be the case that the oxygenation of Earth inhibits the process of life coming from non life.

But for whatever reason, the natural path of life from non life might be lost to us, we may not be able to observe how that happens, because the conditions are no longer there and we don't know what those conditions were so we are unable to recreate this.

There are lots of gaps of knowledge in the material realm.

Have you proven that a metaphysical life can produce physical life?
Is there evidence to suggest that metaphysical life consists of a metaphysical DNA, a symbolic code and protocol?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-04-2012, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2012 08:13 AM by Superluminal.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hmm two things:

First, this thread started fairly civil, and seems to have degraded. Look I'm not saying you always have to be peaches and cream but I think some of you need to slightly temper the tone of your reaction to arguments sometimes, even if you are right.

Secondly, to the OP: The thing that you fail to realize, and that people like Michael Behe fail to realize, is that although much of your biological knowledge is sound(rare amongst creationists I will say), you are still committing a logical fallacy in the end. Some of the things you pointed out really are problems that biologists are trying to understand in evolutionary genetics. However, you seem to be under the impression that simply because you present some things that seem like they don't fit with current understanding, that is somehow proof that a God must exist? No. The answer is: we don't know yet. If we understood how everything worked 100% there wouldn't BE a field of biology.

Although your arguments are more competent than many they basically boil down to the tired old God of the gaps argument: we can't figure out how it works right now, so let's throw up our hands and say God did it. That never got anyone anywhere. Yeah biology is complex and has hard problems to solve in it, biologists know it, do not act as if this is surprising to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Superluminal's post
18-04-2012, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2012 11:15 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(18-04-2012 07:52 AM)Superluminal Wrote:  Although your arguments are more competent than many they basically boil down to the tired old God of the gaps argument: we can't figure out how it works right now, so let's throw up our hands and say God did it. That never got anyone anywhere. Yeah biology is complex and has hard problems to solve in it, biologists know it, do not act as if this is surprising to anyone.

That's pretty much the problem in a nutshell. Upright Biped (through a lot of murky techno-babble) is asserting that since examples of data decoding devices, such as a music box playing a song from a coded drum or a computer executing a program from binary data stored on a hard drive, are designed by intelligent beings , biological data decoding devices need an intelligent being to lay out all their data, decoding protocols and protein synthesis. This guy is using the same bullshit stunt as Ian Jouby aka Wazoolooo. "Look at me. I can talk smart. Since science can't answer this question right now, therefore we'll create a straw man called God or some other entity and grant it the power to explain it."

Using this reasoning, the following statement is true.

Bees can fly because they are bewitched to do so by magical little green creatures called avioids. This is because modern science cannot explain why bees can fly.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2012, 12:45 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2012 05:08 AM by Filox.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
By reading your posts (last 5 of them) I can already picture the exact words of defence that Upright will tell us. He didn't openly preach out God of the gaps, or ID, or Creationism, but to us it is obvious that he is doing exactly that. While I already said that he is philosophying too much, and thus hiding a bit behind all that philosophical talk, he will have a different explanation for his story.

That being said, I have to congratulate on the extraordinary big and complex work Upright has done. I see we are all starting to nag him about a lot of things, but the work he has done must not go unnoticed. Upright, you are a rare example of Creationist science that actually has some real basics. But as I have pointed out in my half-ignored post, even if I accept all your facts and logic as 100% true and undisputed, you still haven't told me where does it all lead? What is my conclusion after all these evidence, or to be more simple and precise, what are these evidences of? You answer is suppose to be: "This is the evidence for (one-five words for explanation)." I really want to see can you answer this question that simple. If you can't, that can only mean that you are hiding, because you obviously have knowledge and talking skills to do this simple explanation.

Big Grin

I rule!

Big Grin


EDIT:

So, here is some new info, I am positive that you (Upright) haven't seen this, so here, enjoy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17769529

Quote:Researchers have succeeded in mimicking the chemistry of life in synthetic versions of DNA and RNA molecules.The work shows that DNA and its chemical cousin RNA are not unique in their ability to encode information and to pass it on through heredity.
The work, reported in Science , is promising for future "synthetic biology" and biotechnology efforts.
It also hints at the idea that if life exists elsewhere, it could be bound by evolution but not by similar chemistry.

[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
21-05-2012, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2012 08:56 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Quote:Also in the chain was Dr Elizabeth Liddle, a Neuro-Scientist in the UK.
She debated the topic for a period of several months, only to
eventually retract her original claim (she claimed she could simulate
the rise of recorded information like that in DNA), and ceased
responding to the debate.
This is untrue, Upright BiPed, as you are aware. I did retract my claim to be able to "simulate the rise of recorded information" having failed to get agreement from you on an operational definition.

However, as you well know, so far did I cease from "responding to the debate", that I actually hosted the conversation on my own blog, and invited you to join me there, which you are currently doing.

please do not post untruths about me on the internet.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Elizabeth Liddle's post
21-05-2012, 08:56 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(21-05-2012 08:53 AM)Elizabeth Liddle Wrote:  
Quote:Also in the chain was Dr Elizabeth Liddle, a Neuro-Scientist in the UK.
She debated the topic for a period of several months, only to
eventually retract her original claim (she claimed she could simulate
the rise of recorded information like that in DNA), and ceased
responding to the debate.
This is untrue, Upright BiPed, as you are aware. I did retract my claim to be able to "simulate the rise of recorded information" having failed to get agreement from you on an operational definition.

However, as you well know, so far did I cease from "responding to the debate", that I actually hosted the conversation on my own blog, and invited you to join me there, which you are currently doing.

please do not post untruths about me on the internet.

Thanks.
Fixed Smile .

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: