Calilasseia wrote:You don't get to dictate the flow of posting here. Learn this lesson quickly.
Neither i am here to be dictated by anyone either. And its not about the flow of posting, but about the subject.
Furthermore, since YOU are the one asserting that YOUR choice of magic manis purportedly responsible for the universe and its contents, the question remains pertinent, namely, why is YOUR choice purportedly "right", and that of other supernaturalists with different choices purportedly "wrong"?
The quest here is just to establish a timeline of first life. If you wish to argue with me about what God might be the true one, please open a new thread at the pertinent section, and i will elucidate why i believe in the God of the bible , and not another one.
Because until you can provide something other than blind assertions on this subject, YOUR assertions are discardable.
If you are unable to recognize that i present well thought and pertinent reasons to deduce design, i must have either a serious problem of understanding my posts, or you are willfullingly ignore my arguments, because your fanatical wish your doctine of naturalism even at the cost of healthy reasoning to be true, and no God to exist.
Now, are you going to stop pissing about dodging awkward questions with fake excuses, and deliver some substance here?
Your insistance of hijacking this thread and making unpertinent questions is noted.
Btw. i answered your question already, but since you insist asking :
http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=why+the+bible+is+trueAnd unlike you, I delivered a substantive answer
Poppycock !! Your explanations are unconvincing to the extreme !! Thats not difficult to recognize to the unbiased mind.
, based upon verifiable empirical science.
Again : where is your verifiable empirical scientific evidence , that life can come from non life ?
A good start would be to start presenting a timeline of the transition of the prebiotic to biotic environment.
To which you responded with duplicitous quote mines and worthless creationist apologetics.
your prejudice is noted.
As a result of this, no one here thinks you are in a position to lecture the rest of us on discoursive conduct
Neither i, nor any other creationist , or can you show me one, just ONE creationist you have taken seriously, that has shown up here ? i strongly doubt about that.....
I leave zealotry to mythology fanboys.
naturalism is mythology in my view.... and so natural selection, the superpower that can mimick design and intelligent creation, the miraculous cure and magical explanation of everthing.
Congratulations, you found the smilies. Want a cookie?
Oh sure. Didn't know you can be nice as well.....
Coroama wrote:Ahem, blind assertions aren't "arguments". Learn this.
You don't have to tell me what i have to learn. I choose that by myself.
Coroama wrote:1) The more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design
Even if we ignore the fact that you don't have a definition of "complexity", let alone a measure for it.
Complexity can be described as something with many parts in a intricate arrangement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems_theoryThe equations from which models of complex systems are developed generally derive from statistical physics, information theory and non-linear dynamics, and represent organized but unpredictable behaviors of natural systems that are considered fundamentally complex. and even if we use crude and naive notions of "complexity" in the absence of any rigorous definitions, your assertion is still refuted wholesale by any of a number of natural phenomena. Such as this:
Here's two papers covering the phenomenon:
So even at the start of your apologetics, you have severe problems to overcome.
Thats why the intelligent design movement has coined the term " specified complexity" :
http://www.evidentcreation.com/DE-Spec.htmlA snowflake is a good example of something that is organized and complex. Where does the complexity and organization in a snowflake come from? It comes from the nature of the water molecules. That is, if the correct conditions exist the chemical bonds of the water molecule will automatically take on the crystalline six sided lattice structure that makes a snowflake. No intelligence required.
On the other hand take a look at a honeycomb. It is also complex, and to look at it we might conclude that it is less complex than a snowflake. Surely we can say that the individual molecules are in more of a random state than the ones in the snowflake. When we ask the same question of the honeycomb that we did of the snowflake, where does the complexity and organization in the honeycomb come from? We get a completely different answer. The organization of the honeycomb is not in the molecules of the honeycomb, but in the DNA of the bee. That is what is known as "specified complexity." The design of the honeycomb is based on information that is completely separate from and unrelated to its molecular structure.
Specified complexity is when the structure of the molecules is defined by, not just shaped by, something outside the molecules. Specified complexity is when there is a blueprint so to speak that tells how the structure should be formed. All life has specified complexity. In fact everything that we know that has specified complexity is either life or was made by life.
One thing that is fairly consistently left out of definitions of life is specified complexity or information. All life is built on information. In the case of memory chips, the transistor count is even higher. If you have in your pocket a 16 GB flash drive, that contains 64 billion transistors.
So even this second assertion of yours is debatable, given the available data.
[/quote]
Há !!!
The human brain makes any super computer look like old junk inventions from cave man......
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.htmlA typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.Denton, pp. 330–331.
“The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” How much brain power has been needed to create todays super computer ??
but you think our brain is all result of natural unguided forces......
I would be more than skeptic to believe in such a miracle......
Since your first two assertions have serious question marks attached thereto, so does your conclusion, even if we ignore the vast mountains of evidence from evolutionary biology refuting your apologetics from another direction.
You mean all the just so lala explanations, which are filled with terms like
probably, eventually, its supposed, etc ???
Almost forgot : these papers are religion to you, favourite science fiction lecture , they are the untouchable holy cows, that cannot be touched, they must be true......
Coroama wrote:Oh please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on.
Isnt it tasteful to get a littlebit of the same medicine, you give frequently to others ??
Since when did any of the assertions of your mythology enjoy empirical support?
Since when did abiogenesis enjoy empirical support ??
all those papers from the relevant research field I've presented here, to which your response was to indulge in quote mining and apologetics.
Your problem is, none of your papers provide a shred of empirical support for your favoured taste of scientific mythology .
You know, those papers demonstrating that relevant chemical reactions work?
Sure they do. But it needs a littlebit more than chemical reactions. Information is a essential ingredient as well.
Since coded information cannot arise spontaneously, neither through natural selection, all you have, is a illusionary construct of wishful thinking. But since its like religion, no rational argument makes you move away from your flawed world view.
Bullshit. Only those ideologicallly predisposed
Of which you have none ??
to try and fit everything to a magic man assert this.
Well, no. Its where scientific evidence straightforward leads to.
The evidence, on the other hand, says your magic man is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Thats better than see a humour video on youtube.......
How many of those 231 papers do I need to bring here?
231 papers my arse. Argument ad populum . They aren't much better than toilet paper.....
Oh wait, I've already brought over a dozen of them, and your response consisted of dishonest quote mining and apologetics.
Once you can provide a paper that seriously analyses the problem of coded information in the cell, and its origin, we talk.
So far, what you have, is hot air.
No it isn't. YOU are the one asserting that you can determine if something is "designed", yet when faced with a direct test of your assertion, you run away and erect fake excuses.
Its not fake excuses. I have answered your question. Minds can mimik and produce natural looking stones. Nature however cannot produce codified information.
Oh, wait, that's precisely what evolutionary processes do- mimic "design". Indeed, human beings are using evolutionary processes to "design" a range of artefacts. Some very hard-nosed businesses are spending serious R&D money on this, because scientists have demonstrated that the processes work, despite fatuous creationist assertions to the contrary.
Applying your logic, why are cars, computers, computer codes etc. all result of serious brain power, and not evolutionary processes ?
Stripped out the superfluous creationist bullshit. There is simply information.
Well, no.
I answered this canard already.
You seem to feel that information you gather from your senses is the same type of information stored in the nucleus of a cell. Genetic information , the instructions for building a living thing are encoded within it. Suggesting looking at a mountain and gathering the information you see, smell, touch, etc. is the same as the information found inside a living organism is strange. Can you tell me why this type of information is the same as the information i.e. the instructions found inside living things?
1. Symbols are defined as: something which represents something else.
2. Symbols carry thoughts (or messages) from a personal, intelligent, mind. No exceptions.
3. Scientific inquiry has discovered that DNA carries encoded symbolic instructions.
Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.
Information is simply the data available with respect to the current state of a multi-state system. Every rigorous treatment of information is predicated on this.
I see it a littlebit different.
Information is a sequence of symbols of which its speciall arrangement and sequence can be interpreted as a message.
Poppycock. The biosphere is littered with instances where, if your magic man is real, then your magic man was an incompetent klutz.
The very own fact that you are able to sit in front of your pc, and write this down, tells otherwise.
Indeed, the whole transcription process is a rococo piece of chemical bureacracy that no genuinely intelligent "designer" would cobble together. It wastes much of the energy budget of the cell transcribing stretches of DNA into RNA strands that will never be used, and which are discarded for recycling afterwards. In the case of some transcribed genes, as much as 99% of the RNA generated is wasted. So much for "intelligent design".
As said previously. Supposed bad design is not a argument against design.
Except of course that more than 99% of the observable universe cannot support life as we know it, because that 99%+is a vacuum with an ambient temperature of just 4 kelvins.
That does not change the fact that our earth does host life. Thats quit a achievement.
No "assertions" involved. We leave those to Magic Man fanboys.
Yours isnt much more than a bunch of assertions based on bad interpretation of scientific facts , just to justifiy your wish of naturalistic mythology, where Gods have no space.
Bullshit. Hermann Joseph Müller knew that this was a crock before Behe was born.
He didn't even know what a Flagellum is.
by 
