Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
77 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Theodoric (4 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 46 of 223 (724795)
04-20-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
09-27-2013 2:17 AM


I agree - same old argument, different name
I agree with this part: That word (I forgot it already lol) is just another name for communicating specified information, which, as ID has always argued, is the POSSIBLE downfall of abiogenesis.

Perhaps, though, it is more accurately describing what ID is trying to get across with its argument for the design of the code contained in DNA.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : Just having thoughts


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2013 2:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2014 3:35 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 47 of 223 (724796)
04-20-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Pressie
09-30-2013 7:40 AM


"Pressie" writes:

Not worth looking at.

Don't you find that a little prejudiced? I think he's making some EXCELLENT progress in making his case. Bravo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 09-30-2013 7:40 AM Pressie has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 48 of 223 (724797)
04-20-2014 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
11-02-2013 3:49 PM


Re: Omigosh let's see if I get it ...
RAS writes:

GASP: that is obviously a coded sequence, and that means there was an original coder ... and this means the code must direct the action of the atoms to form first one set of molecules and then another: it must be ... {knees tremble} ...

Otherwise know as the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy

I must object; that straw man was a non-sequetir.

In your characterature, the fact that there was an original coder for the chemical nomenclature system, does not mean that "The code must direct the action of the atoms". In this case, the code must direct the action of the LAB CHEMIST.

But what if the lab chemist was replaced by a robot, pre-programmed to read the code of the researcher and cause the specified chemical reactions? This robot, receiving, translating, and executing communicated instructions, is much like the DNA molecule. It's just a mechanistic 'robot' pre-programmed to execute received orders.
The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2013 3:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2014 12:47 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2014 11:42 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 52 of 223 (724859)
04-21-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
04-21-2014 3:35 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
"PaulK" writes:

The idea that evolution can't explain the first replicators isn't even an ID idea. Creationists are about the only people who even think that evolution should explain the first replicators."

What kind of an argument is that?
We're not talking about whose idea it is.
you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument.

Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.

What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2014 3:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2014 8:38 PM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2014 2:05 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2014 8:48 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 53 of 223 (724860)
04-21-2014 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
04-21-2014 12:47 AM


The Loading Setup Tutorial
"NoNukes" writes:

You haven't come anywhere near setting up the loading in that question. One might just as well ask where the coding in a diamond came from.

NN, would you please explain your idea a little more? I'm not sure what you mean by loading.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2014 12:47 AM NoNukes has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 55 of 223 (724863)
04-21-2014 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bluegenes
09-28-2013 3:36 AM


Re: Do all self-replicating molecules require recorded information.
"blue genes" writes:

...chemical self-replicators (which could exist on prebiotic earth)...

I wasn't aware that a chemical self-replicator that could exist on prebiotic earth was discovered or synthesized. Would you care to back up your statement with citations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2013 3:36 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2014 11:25 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 56 of 223 (724865)
04-21-2014 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
06-17-2013 12:39 PM


"Ringo" writes:

My point was that in both semiosis and numerology the "meaning" is assigned by the believer. It is not necessarily inherent in the system.

But that's exactly what this semiosis seems to be - a meaning inherit in the sequence of bases on the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins in the right amount, at the right time, and deliver them to the right place to make life possible.

The question is: where did this base sequence get inherited from?

Edited by Ed67, : addition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 06-17-2013 12:39 PM ringo has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-21-2014 9:37 PM Ed67 has replied
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2014 8:57 AM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2014 10:22 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 58 of 223 (724867)
04-21-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
04-21-2014 9:37 PM


"Taq" writes:

that's only because the sequences that resulted in life dying were eliminated from the gene pool.

There was no gene pool back then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-21-2014 9:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-21-2014 9:43 PM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 04-22-2014 1:53 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 68 of 223 (724941)
04-22-2014 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
04-22-2014 2:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
PaulK writes:

I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science"


Okay, I mean METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.

PaulK writes:


there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.

That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2014 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 1:05 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:11 PM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 71 of 223 (724986)
04-23-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
04-23-2014 1:05 AM


Articles of Faith
PaulK writes:

quote:

"That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH."-ed67

But not religious "FAITH" since it is neither certain, nor is it lacking a foundation in evidence. To pretend otherwise would be equivocation and dishonesty.

So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does. Perhaps more, but that's a subjective matter

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 1:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:21 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 11:25 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 81 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 11:38 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 73 of 223 (724990)
04-23-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
04-22-2014 8:48 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
RAZD writes:

Can you possibly now see why evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis?

Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2014 8:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2014 8:13 PM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2014 8:31 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 75 of 223 (724993)
04-23-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
04-23-2014 11:21 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
Taq writes:

Can you please explain why it requires faith to test a hypothesis? That doesn't make any sense.

You don't understand. It doesn't require faith to test a hypothesis, it requires faith to BELIEVE a hypothesis is true without confirmation.

For further details, consult PaulK

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:21 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:28 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 77 of 223 (724995)
04-23-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
04-23-2014 11:25 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
PaulK writes:

Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you had to roll out the same old lie anyway. Too bad.

Assertons, assertions...

Still, no rational responses. C'mon gang, you can do better than this!

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 11:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:31 AM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 11:34 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 80 of 223 (724998)
04-23-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
04-23-2014 11:28 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
Taq writes:

Who here has professed such a faith based belief?

Here's a ready example:

Taq writes:

The combinations of chemicals that did not result in reproduction WERE quickly swamped by combinations of chemicals that did...

Your stated belief that this DID happen, rather than 'could have' happened, demonstrates your gullible FAITH in a process that has not been demonstrated.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:28 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:39 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 83 of 223 (725005)
04-23-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 11:38 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
T12C writes:

Currently the understanding in science is that WE DO NOT KNOW how abiogenesis happened.


Try being honest and say "We do not know WHETHER abiogenesis happened", and we have a basis for discussion...

T12C writes:

No need to present evidence when the individual is already stating that they are too lazy to read the evidence that has already been presented.

Forgive me, your majesty, if I failed to read through ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR POSTS before joining the discussion on another thread. I was just being honest.

You know I'm new to this forum. A little common courtesy would be in order...

But point taken, I've just tried to lay out my position logically so far, I'll get on to the detailed discussion as soon as someone demonstrates the COMMON SENSE necessary to understand my initial basic point about the origin of the 'recipe' for life contained in the DNA/RNA.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 11:38 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 04-23-2014 12:07 PM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 87 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 12:09 PM Ed67 has replied
 Message 88 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 12:19 PM Ed67 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022