Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:16 PM
25 online now:
kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 151 of 187 (605091)
02-17-2011 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by ICANT
02-16-2011 2:31 PM


Re: Tree
Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

But, I don't know what you mean by "could only take place by the information contained in the original cells's DNA."

How does a cell divide?

Not by the information contained in the original cell's DNA.

I'm not a cell biologist, but here is my understanding. In general, there are molecules in the cell (not DNA) that send signals (also not DNA) when the cell has grown large enough to divide into two smaller cells.

The role of DNA in this process is to produce the molecules that send the signals. To say that call division is caused by the information contained in the cell's DNA is like saying that the house is built by the information used to make the construction workers' hammers.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2011 2:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 152 of 187 (605094)
02-17-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
02-16-2011 3:05 PM


There is no blueprint!
Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

DNA produces proteins...

I thought ribosomes produced proteins...

I was simplifying.

The role DNA plays in deciding an organism's body plan is in the production of proteins.
The role DNA plays in deciding an organism's body plan is not in specifying the design of the final product.

DNA is involved in producing the materials, which produce the final product by dint of their properties. There is nothing analogous to a blueprint in this process!

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by Bluejay, : "body plan," not "body play"

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2011 3:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 153 of 187 (605095)
02-17-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICANT
02-16-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Tree
message deleted. Replied to same post twice.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2011 3:46 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 154 of 187 (605130)
02-17-2011 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
02-10-2011 4:14 AM


Re: Tree
Dr Adequate writes:

DNA contains a set of instructions for constructing an organism but nothing remotely like a diagram or description of what the organism should look like when it's finished.

It may already have been mentioned (I haven't read the thread that far yet), but DNA actually contains almost exclusively instructions for constructing chains of amino acids. The rest of the construction process of an organism is regulated by the laws of chemistry and physics.

But what Dr Adequate says stands: there is nothing like a blueprint in DNA.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 4:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
keridel
Junior Member (Idle past 2868 days)
Posts: 1
From: gosport, uk
Joined: 02-17-2011


Message 155 of 187 (605239)
02-17-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by crashfrog
02-16-2011 3:53 PM


Re: Tree
with all due respect to everyone involved Icant has been the only person to use reference material and to accuratly describe what a blueprint looks like. you guys seem to be thinking of an architectural rendition which is not the same.

i dont agree with icant's stance in any way. i believe and have FAITH that life occured with no outside intervention.

the bible cites faith has reasoned thought based on the available facts.

my reasoned thought on the data i have available says there is no creator. it is why i am currently not an athiest. new data brings new facts and therefore the possibilty of a change in my stance.

However..

calling Icant liar is unfair and not true and i am an engineer for the largest construction company in the UK SSC, so i KNOW he's right

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2011 3:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2011 9:44 PM keridel has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 156 of 187 (605243)
02-17-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by keridel
02-17-2011 8:45 PM


Re: Tree
Hi, Keridel.

keridel writes:

you guys seem to be thinking of an architectural rendition which is not the same.

I believe an architectural rendition is a computer model or other recreation of what a building will look like when it's complete?

This is not what anybody on this thread has been referring to. We have all been talking about the schematic drawings that specify lengths, widths and densities of the complete building.

Nobody on this thread is confused about what a blueprint is: some people, however, are confused about whether or not a blueprint is a set of instructions for building a house.

Instructions are step-by-step descriptions of the procedures involved in a building process.
Blueprints are schematics that provide an overview of what the final product should be like.

DNA is like the former; it is not like the latter.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by keridel, posted 02-17-2011 8:45 PM keridel has not yet responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2856 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 157 of 187 (605547)
02-20-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 8:31 PM


I have left this "logic argument" for a while to see how things would develop with it, but it doesn't seem to be producing many posts, so I will stir the pot a little. I see where you all are going, but you seem to have missed the real point of my argument completely. That is: If it is true that our brains, (and our logic) are a product of evolution, how can we trust logic to prove anything? What prevents logic from changing as evolution continues? If (our current) logic can change, what then is the basis of truth or proving anything? Can an absolute (immutable) truths really be discovered with logic under such circumstances? How can we ever be sure we are right (or will ever be right) about anything? On what basis, then, is logic valid?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 8:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-20-2011 7:47 PM goldrush has responded
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 8:23 PM goldrush has responded
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 11:59 AM goldrush has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 158 of 187 (605548)
02-20-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by goldrush
02-20-2011 7:27 PM


immutable truth is always worth a chuckle or three
goldrush writes:

I have left this "logic argument" for a while to see how things would develop with it, but it doesn't seem to be producing many posts, so I will stir the pot a little. I see where you all are going, but you seem to have missed the real point of my argument completely. That is: If it is true that our brains, (and our logic) are a product of evolution, how can we trust logic to prove anything? What prevents logic from changing as evolution continues? If (our current) logic can change, what then is the basis of truth or proving anything? Can an absolute (immutable) truths really be discovered with logic under such circumstances? How can we ever be sure we are right (or will ever be right) about anything? On what basis, then, is logic valid?

Absolute and immutable truths are always good for a laugh.

Sorry but that is simply silly.

Logic is just a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver it is not right or wrong.

We test conclusions against the evidence. The conclusion that most closely matches the evidence is the one we use. Proofs are valid in mathematics and in photography, no where else.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 7:27 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by goldrush, posted 02-27-2011 10:03 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 159 of 187 (605556)
02-20-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by goldrush
02-20-2011 7:27 PM


That is: If it is true that our brains, (and our logic) are a product of evolution, how can we trust logic to prove anything? What prevents logic from changing as evolution continues?

I'd say that logic, in its proper sense, is something that we discover --- we may have got better at it, either collectively over the course of evolution or individually over the course of a lifetime, but that isn't logic changing, it's us.

Can an absolute (immutable) truths really be discovered with logic under such circumstances? How can we ever be sure we are right (or will ever be right) about anything?

You can't --- and the idea of a creator God doesn't help you there.

If god did produce humanity by an act of fiat creation, then for some divine reason of his own he did so in such a way that some people are irrational, stupid, and just plain mad. People can be wrong about almost anything. There's Korsakov's syndrome, where they confabulate memories, for example. There's Anton-Babinski syndrome, in which people are blind but don't know it, because they confabulate visual experiences. And failures of logic, as I have pointed out, are the rule and not the exception.

Given which, you yourself might currently be sitting in a padded cell in an asylum hallucinating this whole conversation. The God hypothesis doesn't rescue you from this doubt. Where then are your "absolute immutable truths" and your ability to be "sure we are right about anything"?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 7:27 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by goldrush, posted 02-27-2011 9:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 160 of 187 (605836)
02-22-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by goldrush
02-20-2011 7:27 PM


If it is true that our brains, (and our logic) are a product of evolution, how can we trust logic to prove anything?

Logic is not a product of evolution any more than geometry is a product of evolution. The sum of the angles in a triangle do add up to 180 degrees whether or not humans exist. There is a very real world out there, and logic is one of the means that we use to model it. We can trust our logic because it works, and we can demonstrate that it works.

We can also demonstrate why logical fallacies do not work, such as the fallacies you have used as an argument in this thread. Reality is not confined to what we consider reasonable or "common sense".

How can we ever be sure we are right (or will ever be right) about anything?

By applying it and testing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 7:27 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by goldrush, posted 02-27-2011 9:50 PM Taq has responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2856 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 161 of 187 (606695)
02-27-2011 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Taq
02-22-2011 11:59 AM


So logic exists outside of our brains and evolution? How would we know this if it weren't for our brains or ability to reason?

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 11:59 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 5:00 PM goldrush has responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2856 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 162 of 187 (606697)
02-27-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2011 8:23 PM


I am well aware of the pitiful fallen condition of mankind. Human disease and death is a result of sin in the Garden of Eden, a rebellion against God's right as sovereign and authority over his human creation. We are suffering because we wanted independence from God, and thought we'd be better off on our own. Romans 8:22 says the whole creation
is groaning together. This is a result of sin and rebellion.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2011 11:28 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2856 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 163 of 187 (606698)
02-27-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
02-20-2011 7:47 PM


Re: immutable truth is always worth a chuckle or three
You may laugh in the face of absolute truth, but if it really did not exist then why isn't everything correct? Why do you rely on science to discover knowledge? Furthermore, why does scientific "truth" change with new discoveries?

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-20-2011 7:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 10:30 PM goldrush has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 164 of 187 (606700)
02-27-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by goldrush
02-27-2011 10:03 PM


Re: immutable truth is always worth a chuckle or three
goldrush writes:

You may laugh in the face of absolute truth, but if it really did not exist then why isn't everything correct?

HUH?

I'm pretty sure that makes no sense and likely you will be able to correct it so folk might understand. I laugh because so far no one has ever presented an example of "Absolute Truth" or even shown why it might be of some value.

Of course there are things that are absolutely true, that 2 + 2 will equal 4 in the conventional counting system but so far I've never come across an Absolute Truth.

goldrush writes:

Why do you rely on science to discover knowledge? Furthermore, why does scientific "truth" change with new discoveries?

Science doesn't discover knowledge and there is no such thing as Scientific truth. Science is a tool we use, nothing more. And our knowledge changes as new information is discovered.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by goldrush, posted 02-27-2011 10:03 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by goldrush, posted 02-28-2011 12:45 AM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 165 of 187 (606707)
02-27-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by goldrush
02-27-2011 9:58 PM


I am well aware of the pitiful fallen condition of mankind. Human disease and death is a result of sin in the Garden of Eden, a rebellion against God's right as sovereign and authority over his human creation. We are suffering because we wanted independence from God, and thought we'd be better off on our own. Romans 8:22 says the whole creation
is groaning together. This is a result of sin and rebellion.

So you believe. But for the purposes of spoiling your argument it doesn't matter what you attribute it to, so long as you admit that it exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by goldrush, posted 02-27-2011 9:58 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019