Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 12:10 PM
352 online now:
1.61803, DC85, DrJones*, GDR, jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile, Tangle (13 members, 339 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,852 Year: 25,458/21,208 Month: 1,085/2,338 Week: 206/450 Day: 26/52 Hour: 1/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   The "Digital Code" of DNA
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 121 of 143 (410384)
07-14-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rob
07-14-2007 10:20 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
This smallest autocatalytic strand you talk of, with 30 amino acids... is that a computer generated model?

Nope.

See http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html.

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution

And I think "well supported" means 20+ years of experimental results that support the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 10:20 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 8:31 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2332 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 122 of 143 (410394)
07-14-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rob
07-14-2007 10:20 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob- it's a bit difficult to get your objections when you have so much extraneous material in your post. Some of it seems to be random rants and side commentaries. Also, what do you mean by 'theo'? God? Theorizing? Why the disdain for speculation? As scientists, we research these projects because they are fun, and because along the way impressive results can be produced. Two examples off the top of my head are Victor Hruby, who does some origins of life research and who has helped invent a new class of drugs for fighting cancer and diabetes (http://bmcb.biology.arizona.edu/hruby.html), and Steve Benner, whose research into alternative nucleobases in the origin of life has also led to a potent new class of drugs (http://www.ffame.org/people/sbenner.html). My own research may eventually benefit dentistry and environmental remediation, though it's focused on origins work.

When we do know... then all of this 'theo' may actually be worth something more than the title of science fiction. All of the technical jargon is not useful at all other than for the purpose of intimidation, of which I am not inclined.

You boys speak often of testability (the hallmark of science) yet you are far from it...

Without a doubt, there are gaps in our knowledge. However, in many ways it's because the experiments haven't been done yet. Research in the origin of life is still beginning in some respects, and sticking God in there does a disservice to both God and to research. The amount of extra variables in the experimental setups is huge, and takes time to explore. As a recent example, the Miller-Urey synthesis has been criticized for a lack of production of amino acids under a CO2 atmosphere (as opposed to a CH4 atmosphere). However, the addition of small amounts of ferrous salts increased their production significantly even under these oxidizing conditions. In the case of this experiment, there were untried conditions. All the experiments are testable, and repeatable, so I'm not sure of your objection there.

This smallest autocatalytic strand you talk of, with 30 amino acids... is that a computer generated model? If so, were the computer and the software not designed by intelligent agents for the purpose of creating this cenario? If not, was it found within the confines of an already complete organism?

One might tend to think it was found all alone in some swamp the way you referred to it. As though it were anything more than grand speculation. What do you mean clocked? Do you mean postulated by a computer 'virtual creation' with intelligent agents at the helm who's purpose is to show that we don't need intelligent guidance?

Molbiogirl has directed you to one set of experiments, and there have been more done recently. From Joyce (Science 16 March 2007), citing work done by Robertson and Scott in the same issue:

No known RNA enzyme in biology catalyzes the polymerase-like joining of RNA. However, the powerful methods of in vitro evolution have made it possible to generate such enzymes from scratch, starting from a large population of RNAs with random sequences

These projects weren't done on computer, nor were they based on biology. They were formed by random assembly and selection.

By clocked, I mean the smallest strand. It's a research race to get the smallest molecule amongst RNA workers, and so far its about 30 units long.

Like intelligent agents in a lab coat? You might succeed some day... but don't count your chickens until you first design a fertile egg (and keep it nice and warm in an incubator specifically designed for that egg).
...
Isaac Asimov would be proud of the way you refer to imaginary things as though they are real.

What? You've parsed a single paragraph too much here. I've never presented these as anything beyond speculation.

Speculation may be shown to be correct or incorrect depending on work in the future. Schrodinger speculated on DNA in the 1940s, was DNA imaginary prior to its discover by Watson and Crick? No, DNA is real. Maxwell postulated the existence of an ether, till disproved by Einstein and colleagues. Was the ether imaginary? Yes. But we're not at the proving/disproving point yet with this research, so we can't claim it's imaginary or anything else.

When you say 'immensely well supported' do you mean that it is a very popular 'theo'ry'? Because you almost give the impression that there is actually evidence that self exists out there... like some uncaused, self evident truth (better known as logic).

As molbiogirl says, it's quite well supported by about 25 years of research. We're just starting to use RNA, ribozymes, and such in a variety of medical practices.

The fault with your video is that it suggests only that the following exists:

DNA codes for protein which catalyzes the formation of DNA.

In reality, it's:

DNA codes for RNA which is a potent catalyst itself for many reactions, which can transfer genetic information, bits of which are metabolic coenzymes, and which catalyzes the formation of proteins which catalyze the formation of DNA.

It's no longer a "which came first" problem when an entity can do both things.

Matt, fate takes some strange twists... these arguments they give you are not just exaggerations, but beyond conjecture presented as fact, they are pure deception; clever, pea palming magic. They are miraculous signs and wonders...
...
Gaurd your mind friend. There are wolves who seek to devour you.

The origins field is especially cautious not to let speculation become dogma, like all science should be. In fact, because of the wealth of research opportunities, origins scientists are much more tolerant of unusual ideas. Your accusation of deception is a bit silly too, and I don't understand why you make it. How is speculation deceptive? I for one don't believe the strong RNA world is the answer, but that future work will eventually reveal the answer. If not in my lifetime, then so be it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 10:20 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 1:56 AM Matt P has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 123 of 143 (410398)
07-14-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by molbiogirl
07-14-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob:
This smallest autocatalytic strand you talk of, with 30 amino acids... is that a computer generated model?

molbiogirl:

Nope.

-The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution-

I also asked:

If not, was it found within the confines of an already complete organism?

An oganelle or process that is one part of a whole system is wholly dependant upon the rest of the system. It is not 'self anything'.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by molbiogirl, posted 07-14-2007 4:55 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2007 8:37 PM Rob has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 124 of 143 (410399)
07-14-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rob
07-14-2007 8:31 PM


So what?
An oganelle or process that is one part of a whole system is wholly dependant upon the rest of the system.

So what?

Do you have any idea how research proceeds?

What approach to cracking this difficult problem would you suggest?

Have you ever had to work with a large, complex and therefore difficult problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 8:31 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 8:42 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 125 of 143 (410400)
07-14-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
07-14-2007 8:37 PM


Re: So what?
Nosy:
Have you ever had to work with a large, complex and therefore difficult problem?

As far as I know... you and I share the same existential dilemma.

Who am I?

Where is here?

Why is here?

What is destiny?

All under the sub heading of the big problem : What is reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2007 8:37 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2007 8:51 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 127 by kuresu, posted 07-14-2007 11:14 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 126 of 143 (410401)
07-14-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rob
07-14-2007 8:42 PM


Re: So what?
We have only 300 posts in a thread. You wasted one with that irrelevant nonsense and I have to waste one to point out to you that you aren't answering the questions posed.

If you don't like the area of discussion and want to post silliness then perhaps you should find another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 8:42 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 127 of 143 (410407)
07-14-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rob
07-14-2007 8:42 PM


Re: So what?
The answers to those questions are simple.

1)I am Chris, a musician, college student, and a bunch of other things. I am also a "bag of chemicals" among many other things.

2) Here is where I am (for me at any rate. Here for you is where ever you are). mentally, right now here is dead tired. geographically, here is westminster. physically, here is in my room.

3)Why is here? Oh come on. I'm dead tired because I've been counting inventory all day. Geographically is a more complex answer, first dealing with the birth of the earth and then a whole slew of geologic processes acting on said earth. Also, people settled in westminster, so that explains why there's a city. Why did they settle it? Good question. Probably to move away from denver or maybe they liked the plains. Physically, why? Because that's where my laptop is.

4)destiny, hmm. Isn't that that thing you're destined to do? You know, like Luke was destined to fight his father? Or that you're destined to bring up irrelevant and silly nonsense? In other words, it's some event/choice in the future you have no choice but to do.

5)reality is what I experience. Unfortunately, this reality includes your nonsense.

Did you meant something by those questions? Do you honestly think they are big problems? Too difficult to answer? Are you impressed by those questions? I've got one for you. Why do you always, inevitably, bring up irrelevant and/or silly points in your arguments? Of course, it's nowhere near as impressive as the five you listed. After all, mine is specific, to the point. Your's are copies of questions that are purposefully vague so as to impress the easily amused. Try asking a big boy question next time, but try to at least make it relevant, to the point, and on topic!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 8:42 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 128 of 143 (410420)
07-15-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Matt P
07-14-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Matt P:
How is speculation deceptive?

Excellent question! It's not Matt...

As long as we remember that that is, what it is... speculation, theory; or, as a well known member here has said, 'imagination' (and equating that to intelligence). Charlie Manson has more imagination than all of us.

All of the side benefits of the research is very good. You're doing good work. Just remember that discoveries made durring the search for [Atlantis, for example], do not eqaute to finding Atlantis. Many act as though these findings prove the motive legitimate. It does not folow...

By the way, I brought up the bit about 'theo', because it is the same root for the words 'theory' (ie. theoretical) and 'theology'. All are undeniably in the catagory of faith (assuming they are believed as many do).

As I said to Percy in another thread:

What you guys are saying (about evolution) is that because we can see all of this emperically verified evidence of adaptation over here, we are then able to see (though not emperically) what actually is over there (by applying the same principles. And even though it is not proven, we can proceed with robust confidence.

Since there is no material cause for information or code, we can infer that intelligence created it, because we do know (emperically), that code (systematized and complex information)can be generated by intelligent agents (us).

That is the essence of faith Matt. And there is (as you asked) nothing wrong with that. But it is a theological position. If you will permit me, the Apostle Paul spoke of the same principle in Romans chapter 1:

For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Kind of reminds me of the zealous TOE fundamentalists who say that we numbskull theists have no excuse not to see that evolution is true. They call it stupidity, we call it the supression of aziomatic truth and logic.

In addition, Paul Davies, the theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology (an agnostic), honestly reminds everyone where the roots of our faith in logic itself being valid come from:

“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”

As I suspected, you are a reasonable man. Hang on to that Matt. You'll need it every day. Think for all your worth and question everything. Not that I am in a position to coach or teach. the advice is axiomatic!

Now the admins have given me enormous latitude thus far... it was hard fought for I assure you, but we had better get back to the topic now. If you would like to continue our discussion on this tangent (though within the umbrella topic) let me know and we can proceed elsewhere.

As for digital code. The words I am using here... do the letters contain the information or does your brain receive the concepts shared by recognizing a pattern and translating that pattern into the appropriate concepts?

The answer is obvious. The information itself is non-material. You gained no mass. The physical properties of the letters have nothing to do with the information. The same letters could be combined to say nothing but nonesense. If the owner of this site and a well known member are correct, these words are nothing but letters.

So... playing the devil's advocate I will proceed...

As Ringo eluded to in an earlier question to Hoot Mon, there is nothing above and beyond the letters themselves. Any perception you have is only imposed upon the pattern by you. There is no objective meaning or purpose to the letters. They just exist.

Now, back to 'theo's advocate...

The amazing miracle that is achieved by this, is that we are just chemicals, code is nothing but the components doing what componets do, and by implication everything is meaningless...

Yet, they assume that they have said something meaningful.

That is why i said to Hoot Mon, what cannot be said better than the way C.S. lewis put it:

"... The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether."
(Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)

Muddy waters do not produce life (organized ie organisms), or it's conceptual counterpart of understanding (logic).

Clarity is what we seek. Well, some of us do... The rest will bury you, and insult you for having the audacity to question their intelligence and motive (or as they put it; perception).

It's the theists who are blind don't you know? Every last one of them is a curse to humanity and sophisticated [un]scientific postulating.

Have you ever read G.K. Chesterton's 'suicide of thought'? Look it up...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Matt P, posted 07-14-2007 7:23 PM Matt P has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:20 AM Rob has responded
 Message 131 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 2:33 AM Rob has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 129 of 143 (410422)
07-15-2007 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rob
07-15-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob writes:

Charlie Manson has more imagination than all of us.

Please feel free to speak for yourself, as opposed to "all of us."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 1:56 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 2:25 AM anglagard has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 130 of 143 (410423)
07-15-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by anglagard
07-15-2007 2:20 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob: Charlie Manson has more imagination than all of us.

Anglagard: Please feel free to speak for yourself, as opposed to "all of us

What? You completely missed the point...

Charlie should have closed his imagination to the doors he allowed open. I cetainly hope that I am speaking for myself. And it was a compliment to all of you as well.

There is much we should remain closed minded about. And we do...

It will be interesting to see if your cheap shots are warned as wasting post limits.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:20 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:35 AM Rob has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 131 of 143 (410425)
07-15-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rob
07-15-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
as a well known member here has said, 'imagination' (and equating that to intelligence).

Something tells me that this statement is a veiled refernce to me. I made the statement about "imagination" in response to your positon of "I just can't see how". Your argument there is otherwise known as the argument of incredulity. I can't help it you were the one arguing by a fallacy.

And now for the other bit. I've shown this to you over and over, you still don't get it. Theory and Theology do not have the same root word. Just because they both have "theo" in the word does not mean that's the root.

Here are some explanations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Etymology
The english word "theory" comes from the latin "theoria" and the greek "θεωρία".

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/etymology-of-theory/

quote:
That of “an explanation based on observation and reasoning” is from 1638.

For almost 400 hundred years the word in the realm of science has meant what has been quoted.

In the same source, digging further, we find that the only connection to the spiritual/religious is

quote:
Theorein is built upon ‘to theion’ (the divine) or ‘to theia’ (divine things) ‘orao’ (I see), ie ‘contemplate the divine’.

However, look at how "divine" was understood.
quote:
‘Divine’ was understood as harmony and order (or logos) permeating the real world surrounding us.

How does that relate to being in the category of faith?

Now then, let's see the etymology for "theology".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=theology&searchmode=none

quote:
from L. theologia, from Gk. theologia "an account of the gods," from theologos "one discoursing on the gods," from theos "god" (see Thea) + -logos "treating of."

So the history of this word is entirely rooted in the "account of the gods". Yes, you do see the word "theo" being a root here. However, "theo" is not the same as "theology".
The same source does not have the word "theo" present in its etymology of the word "theory". The closest you get is "thea", which means "a view". And by closest, I mean by spelling, not by definition.

So then, will you drop this false argument already? Or do you have some evidence to back up your position that "theory" and theology" share the root "theo"?

Since there is no material cause for information or code

False on at least one half of your statement. You do know what information is, right? "123456789" is information. There is information literally everywhere you look. What I suspect you are doing is confusing information with the meaning we give it.

As to the code bit, I'll let others handle that. Someone else will be much better at explaining why you're wrong than I can explain.

In addition, Paul Davies, the theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology (an agnostic), honestly reminds everyone where the roots of our faith in logic itself being valid come from

Actually, in the blurb you provided, he does no such thing. He is explaining some of the historical root of science worldview, not logic. Do not confuse the two, even if they use similar (and often the same) methods.

The rest of your post is proselytizing. This is what, the third or fourth time you've come back to do just this?

One last final note:

The amazing miracle that is achieved by this, is that we are just chemicals, code is nothing but the components doing what componets do, and by implication everything is meaningless...

No. No. No. Everything is not meaningless even though we are just chemicals. This is not the thread to discuss this topic, though.

Can you promise us something Rob? Can you actually stay on topic, not bring up irrelevant points, not preach? Can you actually debate?

Oh, and this is the final statement. Jar is a theist. He's not a curse. Yet another inane, false, ignorant statement made by you (even if it was in a joking/sarcastic mood).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 1:56 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 11:19 AM kuresu has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 132 of 143 (410426)
07-15-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rob
07-15-2007 2:25 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Rob writes:

It will be interesting to see if your cheap shots are warned as wasting post limits.

Don't blame me when you screw the pooch.

So now you speak for both God and Charlie.

{abe} IIRC the topic is about how DNA provides a 'code' for life to replicate. Obviously it does as it is four level recursive and there is actually life. So what does Charlie or CS Lewis have to say about that?

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 2:25 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 11:24 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 133 of 143 (410481)
07-15-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by kuresu
07-15-2007 2:33 AM


Getting downright logical...
Keresu, for the sake of reason and observation, put on your thinking cap.

As far as I am concerned and after careful review of your reply... you have confirmed both arguments you attempted to refute. And you did not even address the topic of code.

The missing integer in your analysis of the word 'theo', is that God is conceptually synonymous with reality. Reality is sovereign whatever it's nature actually is.

The only difference is that 'reality' is conscious and living in the one, rather than purely conceptual or abstract in the other. And since an understanding of reality is something we demand to be logical (not meaning that we have imposed), then 'observation and Reasoning' (theo) are assumed to be valid.

Look at what you said of each:

The english word "theory" comes from the latin "theoria" and the greek "θεωρία".

That of “an explanation based on observation and reasoning”

Theorein is built upon ‘to theion’ (the divine) or ‘to theia’ (divine things) ‘orao’ (I see), ie ‘contemplate the divine’.

Divine’ was understood as harmony and order

Reasoning and contemplation [b]is[b/] (and we should demand so...) an attempt to construst an orderly observation that is valid, ie. scientific or logical.

Kuresu:

How does that relate to being in the category of faith?

Because one of your pressuppositions is valid logically...

Kuresu:

What I suspect you are doing is confusing information with the meaning we give it.

And my point, is that you assume your statement to have objective meaning that you have not given it...

And that was Paul Davies point. We all do that! And we assume (by faith) that logic is valid.

We simply have no other tool to be an objective judge of our thought life. Logic must be assumed (by faith) to be objective.

Our presuppositions are subjective. We must use logic, to test ourselves... not the other way around.

If not, when we observe an orderly and intelligeble universe, we are only imposing meaning onto it as you said.

You have to get outside the box to make these things stick kuresu. But you and I share the same ark, floating through a sea (a flood) of tossing ideas. We're sealed inside. If we can't trust logic to lead us safely through the storm, then what can we trust?

So, consider what Susan Kruglinsli (Discover Magazine editor) had to say while refuting design as legitimate scientifically, because the devil is in the details.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science....

...Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

I wonder what the meaning of those groundrules are?

Do you want code?... logic is the answer. Do you want coherence?, then logic is the answer.

Do you want to plunder the passions of wealth and sexual abundance, living life without the burden of the logical traps implying morality, then apply logic only in one place, but exclude it in the other. Then, use your imagination to create loop-holes to accomodate your desires and wrath, and enjoy your relative prison of imagination while nashing your teeth.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 2:33 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by kuresu, posted 07-15-2007 3:54 PM Rob has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 134 of 143 (410484)
07-15-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by anglagard
07-15-2007 2:35 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Anglagard:
IIRC the topic is about how DNA provides a 'code' for life to replicate. Obviously it does as it is four level recursive and there is actually life. So what does Charlie or CS Lewis have to say about that?

Well... we have agreement in at least one area. Lewis has much to say on the issue of intelligence that matches the same logical structure that is needed to create code.

Charlie is much too imaginitive to be reasoned with. Hence his cage...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 07-15-2007 2:35 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 135 of 143 (410524)
07-15-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Rob
07-15-2007 11:19 AM


Re: Getting downright logical...
put on your thinking cap

Mine is on. Your's isn't.

Your argument about theory and theology was that they have the root word "theo" in them. If we look at their etymologies, we see that theory comes from, "thea" + "horan". Theology comes from "theo" + "logos". Thea is not theo. Possibly similar, but not the same. Your argument that the root is "theo" is false.

God is conceptually synonymous with reality

Stating it does not make it so. What is your evidence that reality is synonymous with god? And if there is no god, then what is reality synonymous to?

By the way, theo does not mean "observation and reasoning". Theo in the english language is only used as a prefix. the greek word theo means god.

we assume (by faith) that logic is valid

How silly. You do know what a syllogism is, right? Here's one

All A's are B's.
All B's are C's.
If all A's are B's, and B's are C's, then all A's are C's.
I do not need faith to know that logic is valid. I can see it right in front of me.

Here's another.
Some A's are B's.
Some B's are C's.
Not every A is a C, but some A's could be C's.

Tell me, how do I need faith to see that logic is valid?

And this is just silly:

Do you want to plunder the passions of wealth and sexual abundance, living life without the burden of the logical traps implying morality, then apply logic only in one place, but exclude it in the other. Then, use your imagination to create loop-holes to accomodate your desires and wrath, and enjoy your relative prison of imagination while nashing your teeth.

You're a piss poor preacher, rob. You're a piss poor proselytizer. And you're a piss poor debater.

The largest chunks of your arguments come from other people. I hardly see you use your own mind. And when I do, I see that it brings up points that are either irrelevant or refuted previously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 11:19 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rob, posted 07-15-2007 4:53 PM kuresu has responded

    
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017