Okay, so this is going to be a continuation off of the Abiogenesis thread. And, it's one I get to start! (yes, there's some humor there--there are already like 3 or so threads that got started thanks to the Abiogenesis thread, one I started. Not sure if a single one made it out of here [the PNT])
Anywho, in the previous thread, unless I'm grossly misrepresenting Hoot Mon's argument, he argues that:
DNA/RNA is a "digital" code. And, while this code is an intrinsic property of DNA, it is not the result of any chemical properties that we know of today. This, he argues, is an argument against any hypothesis of abiogenesis, because he just can't see how this "code" arose. Nevermind the argument of incredulity present.
I argue, as do many others: DNA/RNA are just chemicals. Not something more thanks to this "digital code". This is not a hinderance to any hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Keep in mind, these two arguments are just rough approximations of what is like the last 50ish posts in the linked thread (Abiogenesis). That thread has hit the 300 mark, and the discussion still continues. Let it continue here.
"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
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!
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 "Î¸ÎµÏ‰ÏÎ¯Î±".
quote:That of â€œan explanation based on observation and reasoningâ€ 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 â€˜to theionâ€™ (the divine) or â€˜to theiaâ€™ (divine things) â€˜oraoâ€™ (I see), ie â€˜contemplate the divineâ€™.
However, look at how "divine" was understood.
quote:â€˜Divineâ€™ 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).
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.
And I'm so glad you found the merriam webster etymology. Try the online etymology dictionary.
theory 1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. The verb theorize is recorded from 1638.
If you'll notice, theorien comes from theoros which comes from thea + horan. "thea + horan" is quite different from "theo + logos".
theology 1362, from O.Fr. theologie "philosophical treatment of Christian doctrine" (14c.), 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 yes, you are quite wrong on "theo" being the root of theory and theology. As they say, spelling counts.
What do do "thea" and "theo" mean? Depending on the dictionary, "thea" is the feminine of "theo". However, in the etymologies I find, "thea" is always connected to the idea of seeing.
Then you can see 'right in front of you' the problem with our current convention of science, not being ultimately concerned with philosophical coherence
This is a problem how? By the way, Susan Kruglinski is not confessing to any problem. In fact, it's not Susan writing this. This is the opinion given by the judge of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. So you should be saying the judge is admitting to this problem. Trouble is, he's not. He's stating what science is.
And I still fail to see how this focus on testability (i would rather use empirical evidence + testability) instead of philosophical coherence is a problem. Why? It might be philosophically coherent that A = B, but if reality shows that A actually = C, then the truth is that A = C.
So your lashing out...
If I'm lashing out, it's not your past history here toward me per se, it's your continual repitition of refuted and/or irrelevant points. It's your continual preaching. At least this time (yet) you haven't started playing the martyr card.