(December 29, 2018 at 12:53 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 29, 2018 at 11:10 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Totally false. Argument from ignorance, (as well as incredulity ... as stated above)
In this thread, Jack Szostack's  (Harvard) exposition of a possible pathway (one of many) has NEVER even been addressed with respect to SPECIFIC errors in the proposed chemistry. 

"Possible", so inconclusive. Next.

So, not even an attempt to challenge the chemistry. 
That's what I thought. 
"Possible" refutes "could not have", and REQUIRES an answer (a very specific refutation) if one is going to maintain "could not have"... (of course we know it won't/can't come from the likes of you.)

Do try to follow along there, l'il Bozo. 
Back to your prayers. How's your imaginary friend Jebus doing today ?
You have spent at least an hour in prayer today, have you not ?

(December 29, 2018 at 1:12 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 29, 2018 at 12:53 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: "Possible", so inconclusive. Next.

So, not even an attempt to challenge the chemistry. 
That's what I thought. 
"Possible" refutes "could not have", and REQUIRES an answer (a very specific refutation)  if one is going to maintain "could not have"... (of course we know it won't/can't come from the likes of you.)

Do try to follow along there, l'il Bozo. 
Back to your prayers. How's your imaginary friend Jebus doing today ?
You have spent at least an hour in prayer today, have you not ?

Possible, so inconclusive.  Don't need to go beyond that since you already did it for me.

Quote:Possible, so inconclusive.  Don't need to go beyond that since you already did it for me.

Fail again Bozo. 
So you also agree it's "possible". LOL
That means "could not have" is false. 

NOT EVEN ONE WORD of discussion of the chemistry, or what's wrong with it. 
The probability of the chemical reactions (in "possible") could be anything from .99 to "highly unlikely" ... you can't even address the probability. 

You may find it not necessary to "go beyond", but the fact that it IS possible means a few who are actually interested in the facts (which clearly you are not), will look further.
Your failure here is evident to all.
As usual, you're WAY over your head here.
We do get that childish minds need "all or nothing", "black and white" thinking.

(December 28, 2018 at 8:16 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 7:16 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes. 

Again, this is an argument from incredulity and is a known faulty kind of argument, or fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

Were you to read the book I advised you to read, you'd maybe understand better how that complex code could have arisen naturally.
But you choose to remain ignorant of that and to continue producing this fallacy.
Which brings us to the real question here: why?
Why do you persist with a fallacious argument?
Why do you insist on being ignorant?
Why don't you think and reason that maybe what several of us have repeatedly told you is true (that your argument is fallacious) and that maybe you have either been deceived, or managed to deceive yourself on this subject?
Why, CDF, why?

Because he is a half wit?

---

(December 29, 2018 at 12:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 8:16 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Again, this is an argument from incredulity and is a known faulty kind of argument, or fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

Were you to read the book I advised you to read, you'd maybe understand better how that complex code could have arisen naturally.
But you choose to remain ignorant of that and to continue producing this fallacy.
Which brings us to the real question here: why?
Why do you persist with a fallacious argument?
Why do you insist on being ignorant?
Why don't you think and reason that maybe what several of us have repeatedly told you is true (that your argument is fallacious) and that maybe you have either been deceived, or managed to deceive yourself on this subject?
Why, CDF, why?

Maybe, because he’s trolling us? 😛

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Especially when even the malice can only be explained by the stupidity.

(December 29, 2018 at 2:18 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Possible, so inconclusive.  Don't need to go beyond that since you already did it for me.

Fail again Bozo. 
So you also agree it's "possible". LOL
That means "could not have" is false. 

NOT EVEN ONE WORD of discussion of the chemistry, or what's wrong with it. 
The probability of the chemical reactions (in "possible") could be anything from .99 to "highly unlikely" ... you can't even address the probability. 

You may find it not necessary to "go beyond", but the fact that it IS possible means a few who are actually interested in the facts (which clearly you are not), will look further.
Your failure here is evident to all.
As usual, you're WAY over your head here.
We do get that childish minds need "all or nothing", "black and white" thinking.

I didn't agree on anything.  You stated such.  Next.

Quote:I didn't agree on anything.  You stated such.  Next.

Sorry Bozo, you did agree. 

Quote:Possible, so inconclusive.

If you claim it's not possible, you must say why, and what's wrong with the chemistry.

(December 29, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:I didn't agree on anything.  You stated such.  Next.

Sorry Bozo, you did agree. 

Quote:Possible, so inconclusive.

If you claim it's not possible, you must say why, and what's wrong with the chemistry.

I agree that it's inconclusive as per your use of the word "possible."  Beyond that I haven't asserted anything about the said subject.

Possible, probable, maybe, might be, could have, and the like are inconclusive assertions.

It's possible the monkey can learn some kung fu movies (inconclusive)
It's probable that it will rain tomorrow (inconclusive)
Maybe I will get the toy I wanted for Christmas (inconclusive)
He could have eaten the missing piece of chocolate pie (inconclusive)

It doesn't make any of them wrong in and of themselves, but it doesn't guarantee they are correct either.

(December 29, 2018 at 4:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's possible the monkey can learn some kung fu movies

It doesn't make any of them wrong in and of themselves, but it doesn't guarantee they are correct either.

Actually... pretty sure other apes can't mimic or learn 'Kung-fu' or other martial arts.

Their physiology doesn't quite work the same way ours does.

Now... could such a thing be developed for their body/muscle/physiology?

Sure. But the basic statement is wrong simply due to the differentces in anatomical 'Physics' between us and them.

Jus' sayin'.

Not at work.  

(December 29, 2018 at 4:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 29, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Sorry Bozo, you did agree. 


If you claim it's not possible, you must say why, and what's wrong with the chemistry.

I agree that it's inconclusive as per your use of the word "possible."  Beyond that I haven't asserted anything about the said subject.

Possible, probable, maybe, might be, could have, and the like are inconclusive assertions.

It's possible the monkey can learn some kung fu movies (inconclusive)
It's probable that it will rain tomorrow (inconclusive)
Maybe I will get the toy I wanted for Christmas (inconclusive)
He could have eaten the missing piece of chocolate pie (inconclusive)

It doesn't make any of them wrong in and of themselves, but it doesn't guarantee they are correct either.

The POINT went flying over your head. 

He said "could not have" ... THAT was the point I was responding to, and to THAT you agreed. 

Quote:Possible, probable, maybe, might be, could have, and the like are inconclusive assertions.

Exactly. 
His conclusion was conclusive. 
YOU agreed it was inconclusive. You DISAGREED with CDF47, and agreed with me. 


Your attempted EVASION of the question put to you PROVES you are INCOMPETENT to discuss the CHEMISTRY. 
Stop wasting our time. 
Either say what's wrong with the chemistry, OR get back to talking to your invisible friends.

(December 29, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(December 29, 2018 at 4:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's possible the monkey can learn some kung fu movies

It doesn't make any of them wrong in and of themselves, but it doesn't guarantee they are correct either.

Actually... pretty sure other apes can't mimic or learn 'Kung-fu' or other martial arts.

Their physiology doesn't quite work the same way ours does.

Now... could such a thing be developed for their body/muscle/physiology?

Sure. But the basic statement is wrong simply due to the differentces in anatomical 'Physics' between us and them.

Jus' sayin'.

Not at work.  

Agreed.  It's possible.  They wouldn't even necessarily need to mimic and they could understand the "physical cause and effect" involved.  But just because I stated it, doesn't guarantee a specific ape, monkey, or chimpanzee will take to it.