Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 29 of 223 (701340)
06-17-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
06-16-2013 1:57 PM


Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE. That's rather a different order of "code" wouldn't you agree?

How is it different?

Why can't we describe all chemical reactions as being guided by a code?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 30 of 223 (701341)
06-17-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
06-16-2013 5:01 AM


Since I am a creationist of course I can't possibly have anything of value to say, and all I can say is it makes sense to me that a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means.

Just as 600 years ago it made sense to a lot of people that the Earth remained stationary as the Sun moved about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 57 of 223 (724866)
04-21-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ed67
04-21-2014 9:34 PM


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:34 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:42 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 59 of 223 (724868)
04-21-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ed67
04-21-2014 9:42 PM


There was no gene pool back then.

The combinations of chemicals that did not result in reproduction were quickly swamped by combinations of chemicals that did. It is simply a feedback loop.

Added by edit: It is no different than feedback through a microphone and speaker system. White noise will result in a single tone being amplified above all the other frequencies because that one frequency happens to be "just the right one".

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:42 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 72 of 223 (724989)
04-23-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Ed67
04-23-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:58 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:27 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 76 of 223 (724994)
04-23-2014 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:27 AM


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

Who here has professed such a faith based belief?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:27 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:35 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 78 of 223 (724996)
04-23-2014 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:29 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
Still, no rational responses. C'mon gang, you can do better than this!

Exactly what do you want a response to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:29 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 82 of 223 (725002)
04-23-2014 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:35 AM


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

No, I am explaining what it would look like if it did happen. That is not faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:35 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:01 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 101 of 223 (725053)
04-23-2014 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:01 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
Oh, boy, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and chose to deny it.

Now you are twisting other peoples' words.

I don't know how life started. That is my position. I think abiogenesis holds the best chance of finding an answer, but it has yet to find one.

That is my position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:01 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 119 of 223 (725108)
04-24-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:45 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
I think it was built as part of the entire organism by an intelligent designer.

Since you have supplied zero evidence that an intelligent designer did what you claim, can I then make the argument that abiogenesis must be true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:45 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(3)
Message 120 of 223 (725110)
04-24-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tanypteryx
04-24-2014 11:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
I have seen creationists use the words "complex specified information" many times, but I have never seen a definition that made me think, "oh, now I get it".

Complex specified information is the measurement of a creationists incredulity as to the production of modern genomes through mutation and selection.

CSI really stands for Creationist Standard Incredulity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2014 11:05 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2014 11:21 AM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 180 of 223 (725292)
04-25-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:12 PM


Re: CS on CSI
I take it you DISAGREE that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs without intelligence?

I take it that you can't evidence your claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:12 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022