Re: bad smelling religion - two faced righteous garbage
Hello Bio-molecularTony
TONY: Don't you just hate those religions that walk around so righteous, head so high and yet live by double standards. They have two sets of rules, those for them and those for all others.
Well, The theory of Evolution is just that...
Unfortunately what you are supposed to be discussing is "Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any? " -- see Message 1 for the thesis on this thread.
It's curious that IDologists can't seem to talk about ID being science without talking about how evolution is not science by their definition, and yet ID doesn't meet their definition either.
Yeah two-faced.
Well, The theory of Evolution is just that - just another bad smelling religion - two faced, self righteous garbage. With two sets of rules for nature.
1# All the normal rules of science and nature we take for granted. 2# Special supernatural mystery phenomenon - where normal rules of every day life do not always apply. Where Abiogenesis can and does occur. Where molecular machinery can be spontaneous happen and where complex Information that is superior intelligent software logic commands just pop out of nowhere without any designer needed.
Perhaps you would like to start a new thread where you can show "2# Special supernatural mystery phenomenon" are necessary to the ToE ...
quote:In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 [2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6]
Abiogenesis is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. Several hypotheses have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism first) and the RNA world hypothesis (genetics first).[7]
Your contention that evolutionists avoid the issue of abiogenesis is false: what they DON"T do is confuse it with the evolution of life from existing life, a process that has been ongoing for over 3.5 billion years at last count, and which involves different processes (life processes instead of chemical processes).
The earliest evidence of the formation of the earth is metamorphic rock (which destroys any fossils) cooling from magma at around 150 million years after the earth formed, 4.55 billion years ago, so that would be 4.4 billion years ago for the oldest rocks known.
The earliest evidence we have for life is the oldest sedimentary rock that has been found so far, at 3.5 billion years ago. At the time this rock formed life already existed.
Because we don't have any fossils between 4.4 billion years and 3.5 billion years, we don't know when life first occurred.
One thing we do know though, is that 4.55 billion years ago life did not exist on earth.
So something did happen, what it is, however, we don't know.
Abiogenesis is the scientific investigation of that question.
Now the question is -- if you want to discuss the origin of life from and ID perspective -- whether you can put forward some hypothesis based on ID for how that life developed that can be tested.
Hacking the Mother Code | WIRED Hacking the Mother Code "The gene is by far the most sophisticated program around." - Bill Gates, quoted in Business Week, June 27, 1994
Google you way to better understanding....
Curiously Bill Gates (a) is not a biologist and (b) does not understand the genetic code. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
TONY: When you fully understand depth of what DNA is and does, and can do. Then and only then can you let go of the old and stupid stand-by - nature-didit (non-intelligent evolution)
Here you repeat the same fallacy. Curiously, you also do not show any evidence that "you fully understand depth of what DNA is and does, and can do" (italic for empHAsis), nor do you demonstrate any way that DNA operates that is not done by nature.
TONY: Just as life has fully automated design structures for self-republication. So to the universe have similar abilities, only by design though. I just read an article on different kinds of Entropy. Gravity Entropy where things come together rather then flow apart. There is so much to learn and so like time to live life to learn it all.
Great. Now explain how gravity and entropy affect biological life functions. Demonstrate how entropy is a sign of design (what is it - planned obsolescence?)
Is the fact that all orbits decay a design feature? Do you know how to distinguish design from the apperance of design caused by natural actions according to natural laws? Is a snow flake designed?
Old- TONY: 2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
This is an ad hominem another logical fallacy, and one wonders why you need to employ logical fallacies instead of presenting logical arguments that show why this purported "dogmatic belief system" is false and demonstrating your superior understanding of how things are "so clearly exposed." As I've said before, I await your contribution to science.
TONY: You got a couple of logic loops here. First (1#) God is not intelligently designed. Not physical, not functioning on physical laws to exist. Has an existence out side of his own handy work. He does not living in the fish bowl he himself made for the little fishes.
Curiously this is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, and strangely the fact that you plead for your god to be excluded from design means that -- logically -- anything else can be excluded from design.
If you are going to claim a logical basis, you would do well to learn more about logic.
Duh.
Another ad hominem
Man is a creation. All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics. And so can this computer on my desk.
"If all things are equal, then they are but the same"- TONY
Quantum physics does not have mythical concepts of designs just happen (nature didit -theory)
This is just an assertion. Curiously if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. How does this demonstrate a creator is necessary?
TONY: One forum I was on required it all the time. They even deleted your posts if you forgot. So forgive me - bad habits die hard, the scares still remain from their many beatings.(joke)
Different forums have different rules. I've had posts deleted because the moderator didn't like that I said "Elvis lives" was a false idea. How was I to know he was an Elvis-lives-ist?
As a side note, Percy owns and operates this forum out of his own pocket and he has written the software that it runs on. When he tells you about a design feature for this forum it would do you well to pay attention. One such design feature is that every post is linked directly with an icon of the person who posted it. Another is that the replies are linked so that one can follow conversation subthreads on each thread as well as the major overall thread.
TONY: God is more intelligent then we are so the DNA programming is MORE able they anything we can come close too. It is more then just software - to use a primitive "man made it" analogy is my now mistake. It is what they call an understatement. Not an overextending analogies as you would have it.
This is another appeal to authority, in this case an anonymous authority who is rumored to exist, and it is based on an assumed level of intelligence that has not been demonstrated.
This assumption is also logically false:
Many time parents have had children that are smarter than they are and that can do things the parents cannot do.
Likewise, because of the knowledge that we have accumulated we can do things that our ancestors could not do. My grandfather was born in the era of horse and buggy, yet he saw man land on the moon before he died. The knowledge of how to do that did not exist in his childhood.
Finally programmers have created programs they do not understand, but that solve complex problems that they could not solve, and they did so using evolutionary algorithms.
Bad form to reference another forum: this is like spam. Better to make your argument here in your words.
Note it is also good form to distinguish between quotes of people you are replying to and quotes from other sources. One common practice here is to use the two different quote mechanims to do this.
quote:or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...\ 1 ma·chine 2 a : a living organism or one of its functional systems -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tech·nol·o·gy 1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge 2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge 3 : the specialized
Strangely this does not mean that we are in fact machines. There are other definitions as well.
Now I don't know about you, but those definitions don't apply to me.Nor would I complement a date by saying how machine like they looked. We can argue about which definition is correct, but implicit in that argument would be a comparison of the concepts of machine and organism and what is meant by the terminology.
One difference I would note is that traditionally machines have built-in, pre-programmed responses and people aren't so limited, but that as we make machines that have capabilities to do things we can't (see above), that these machines will be capable of more independent responses to inputs. Eventually we will get to the point of needing to discuss the definition of life, as opposed to machine, and this - curiously - brings us back to abiogenesis and the creation of life by humans, just a different kind of life, one NOT based on DNA. Curiously such an achievement will not demonstrate that DNA life had to be designed.
TONY: If I remember correctly each cell has 100 trillion atoms, and the body has 100 trillion cells. So you'll be long dead before you finish what ever you planned to start. Human DNA has 3.2 billion base pairs, and it's going to be a while just for one person to learn all that to get up to speed. The engineering physics of human structural design is still over our little heads. It is though a new technology - To try a little intelligent designing our selves. Oh but that might be impossible for it does not exist, Hehehehe. :-/
Unfortunately once again your logic is faulty: the numbers of cells and molecules and atoms is irrelevant. All that is needed is to create a simple replicating system and let evolution take care of the rest.
Actually I would expect humans to do a better job of designing a human structure. There have been many complaints down through the years about problems with frequent failures in the structural system that could be easily solved with a little R&D and trial and error testing. Look at the knees and the spine for examples. Talk to a woman about how the design of the birth mechanism is well thought out. Curiously, for human intelligence to advance much further, it seems a redesign of either the mechanism that stores information or this delivery system will be required. The current, human designed, work-around is the C-Section. Incorporation of "machine intelligence" may be the next improvement. Perhaps one that uses bio-mechanical systems for greater compatibility and capacity.
Racing cars are easy to make, untill you have to make one to win the race. Life (cells) look so easy that some would have you think even nature could do it. Till you learn what is being done right now in bio-labs arould the world you will not understand what we have here. Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen. They are stipping it down and coping it, redesigning its functions. Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. A new version of a biomolecular computer
Strangely this doesn't mean that the bio-computer is an organism instead of a machine.
Curiously when you start racing cars, and you want to design winners, you start out with several different kinds, and select the winners to make copies of, with slight variations on systems, which are then tested in races, where you select the winners and repeat.
This just shows how well evolution designed intelligent modern life from billions of years of trial and error. Talk about terraflops of computing time eh?
Life (cells) look so easy that some would have you think even nature could do it.
What makes you think it hasn't? All you need to start with is a simple replicating molecular system, you don't need the latest version of the Daytona 500 winner's circle.
TONY: Rules, rules, rules. You've got it so well planned out, that you have made sure there can not be any valid answer to intelligent design now or ever. Even reading your posts I find there are so much I NOW can't even answer because its off topic, your about to get pissed off for not getting replies on them.
Remember (1) Percy owns the site: don't annoy the people that make the forum work, and (2) this thread topic is for you to present EVIDENCE FOR ID.
You've made evidence no longer valid because your story book says there is OTHER POSSIBLITIES that CAN HAPPEN. This is a lie.
You really just need to post the information that you think is evidence for ID. Otherwise this is just another in a long line of cop-outs from those with empty holsters.
Supernatural (superior then man) information coded that functions as good or better then our crappy software is now not good enough for you because if we understand it then it can't be from God.
As pointed out already, if we understand it then it isn't "superior than man information" ... 62 short biological years ago the first general purpose computer, ENIAC was assembled from tubes and wires, and I would hesitate to assume some limitation to where we will be in the next 62 years (though excited to find out).
So your mind is closed to accepting any and all EVIDENCE. You have a dumb answer for everything, so as to dumb down even the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY man has ever seen. I can your going places, duh. It is you that needs to get in line. If you can't understand what superior technology is and what it means then your not good time spent. If you wish to dumb down everything that comes your way, you become the "dumb critic" with the over size month, but little brains to speak of.
Which is just another ad hominem fallacy rather than any attempt to deal with the issues. Some people say that the first refuge of a failed argument is the personal attack (perhaps why politicians use it so much).
I can see what you’re doing here. Evidence is not your issue. You’re just a political filibuster - your just here to shut down the discussion so it can never be fruitful. Nothing will ever be good enough for a (blind evolution) filibuster.
And the second refuge is the conspiracy theory. Everyone's against the free flow of (your) ideas, it's a massive world wide conspiracy ... yawn, heard it before ...
Now: do you have some evidence or not? As you can see from this review of your several posts you have not provided any substance to support your assertions.
More replies, STILL little information? NO pertinent information ...
Thanks, Bio-molecularTony.
RAZD: This is an ad hominem another logical fallacy,
I don't go there any more. It turns into a free for all rip and tare contest.
The point was that you DID go there. If you don't want others to weigh in on your own "rip and tare" behavior, then you need to lighten up.
You judge me by YOUR LOWLY knowledge on the subject.
Oh look, you went there again. The point is that if you want reasoned debate then you should treat others the way you want to be treated. Golden Rule and all eh? So lose the attitude, quit your complaining, and start presenting information on the issues.
Calling every little thing a fallacy can go both ways and the topic then goes no where.
There is a difference between calling "every little thing a fallacy" and demonstrating that your arguments are so full of logical fallacies that they are meaningless. Your logical fallacies are a fact, substantiated by reference to the specific fallacy involved that show they are properly identified.
False logic leads to false conclusions, so you do need to know the difference if you are going to make valid conclusions in any field of study.
There are many biotech companies out there looking for funding, and to get it they must justify it. You can bet the sales pitch to Bill Gates was very impressive. So much so he was quoted as saying "The gene is by far the most sophisticated program around." Many do get funding for further research just because it is just down his ally. I stand by my quote because I know more then you do about the background of this man and his funding.
Curiously that still does not (a) make him a biologist or (b) show he understands the genetic code. He also supports the Discovery Institute, an act which doesn't improve my confidence in his understanding of science in general and biology in particular, to say nothing of the sub-field of molecular biology.
Now you've added an appeal to your own (purported) authority as well. I wonder if we'll ever see evidence instead of bluster.
I do understand for I have been researching this subject for some time now. This is not my first forum. I go back 8 or more years debating and reading much on this subject. It is you that has not read my books and done my research.
And we've seen lots of people here who claim authority on topics they are sadly woefully ignorant of. What works a lot better than claiming authority is actually demonstrating it. Show some evidence that you know how DNA does more than operate by natural reactions to chemicals.
If you wrote a whole book you must have SOME evidence eh?
Leave that one for another time. It's late and I'm not going there tonight.
A simple yes or no on the snowflake question would have been sufficient, sorry to bother your busy day.
Curiously this is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, and strangely the fact that you plead for your god to be excluded from design means that -- logically -- anything else can be excluded from design.
I'll pass, I don't talk logical fallacies - waste of logic and time. nitpicking.
Especially when they show your logic to be in grossly error. I can understand your reluctance: you'd have to admit you were wrong, if you went with a logical response, or to more ad hominems if you went the emotional denial route. Don't worry: I know your logic was faulty. I also don't need to tell anyone, as the evidence speaks for itself.
This is just an assertion. Curiously if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. How does this demonstrate a creator is necessary?
If man makes a car - does it then require a supernatural explanation? Is man then supernatural creator? None of the quantum laws were violated in man creating the car, so are we still in need of a supernatural explanation. Without seeing the man create the car, can there ever be evidence it is not natural?
And strangely cars are not biological life systems. Nor do they represent any analogy to your claim of supernatural involvement in DNA systems. Nor does it change the fact that if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. It does not support your claim in any way. Poor analogies are like that.
Now, do you suppose, from your vast (claimed) knowledge of molecular biology, that you can present some evidence that shows you know what you are talking about? Something that is evidence for ID (which curiously is the topic of this thread, rather than who you think you are).
Maybe even just a reference to a section in your book that details it, so we can look it up ... seeing as you are such a busy guy.
TONY: I keeping giving you the evidence, peppered with common sense, and your religious background views keep getting in the way of seeing the light.
The cell is(superhuman technology) bio-manufacturing machinery designed at the molecular level.
Except that this is just your assertion and not evidence. Evidence is something we can each observe, and all I see are natural processes without need of any "superhuman" embellishment. These are the same processes evident in all life, the same chemical reactions within cells, year after year.
Nor do I see how religious background enters into the picture: evidence is objective, religion is subjective.
... all you need do is to understand is this is THE GREATEST TECHNOLOGY MAN HAS EVER SEEN.
Curiously it is not technology, it is biology. It is what happens in biological life. It is nature.
Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.
Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.
You forgot to say that these were all analogies to the way the cell operated by purely natural processes. Or do you think quoting someone giving analogies means that the analogies are the true function?
TONY: IQ tests can grade your intelligence. The workmanship of your hand will be judged by others as to your skill level. Your answers to test questions in school examines evaluate your qualifications to move up the next level. All this testing measures Intelligence, Knowledge, and wisdom.
This is nothing new man has been doing this for thousands of years. We even test animal’s skill levels and intelligence. Doctors will evaluate patience in the hospital on there present level of intelligence because of a stroke.
The human race is not as stupid as you might imagine. We can measure intelligence from the handy work of any creature alive or now dead.
Yes, and what we see across a broad band including other animals is that there is a difference in quantifiable levels within each kind of organism, but that overall there is a steady overlapping of what we can measure. There are smart chimps smarter than the dullest human. There is no difference in TYPE of intelligence, it is all one big spectrum.
All that man is (life) - screams INTELLIGENCE GREATER THEN MAN.
Still with the assertions, yet not forthcoming with the evidence. Curiously screaming has no discernible effect on reality.
We need supercomputers just to help crunch the coded information in the DNA programming so as to make sense of it all.
Which is still minuscule in relation to the capacity of trial and error experiments carried out by populations and generations of living organisms for the last 3.5 billion years. It is a very simple binary calculation: pass\fail. Do you have any idea of the numbers of organisms, the diversity of populations and the numbers of generations that such computations have been going on?
™ Version 4.2
