(December 29, 2018 at 4:55 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

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

 Uhm no.

What I meant was that other apes simply can't do martial arts as humans 'Do' it.

Their bodies don't quite work the same way as ours do.

Same as a human simply can't crush a cinder block witht their bare hands. Out musculature etc deosn't work the way theirs do.

Then I added that, could a type of physical force aplication be developed for their physiology? Sure...

But your comment of them learning is... wrong... because they physically can't perform the motions.

Not at work.

Is all.

(December 29, 2018 at 4:46 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

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

 
I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with either of your assertions.  You tried to validate something that is inconclusive by stating it was conclusive and that nobody has invalidated this man's findings.  Okay, well maybe nobody tried?  Regardless, and even if someone has tried, you're discussing how something may (or may not) have arisen.  Just because the chemist has an idea that was a possibility doesn't make it conclusive as to how that subject had arisen.  His studies could be 100% valid in how he performed him and the results he found, but that doesn't make the results conclusive as an explanation for the past.

IMO (subjective), you're both "jumping the gun" with your assertions.  (My bad assertion is better than your bad assertion, so mine must be right)

What does that have to do with my understanding of chemistry?  Nothing!

Next.

Yeah... low rent.

(December 28, 2018 at 7:16 pm)CDF47 Wrote: And which scammers are these?

Tim "Cap'n" LaHaye & Jerry "Buck" Jenkins.

Quote: 
I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with either of your assertions.  You tried to validate something that is inconclusive by stating it was conclusive and that nobody has invalidated this man's findings.  Okay, well maybe nobody tried?  Regardless, and even if someone has tried, you're discussing how something may (or may not) have arisen.  Just because the chemist has an idea that was a possibility doesn't make it conclusive as to how that subject had arisen.  His studies could be 100% valid in how he performed him and the results he found, but that doesn't make the results conclusive as an explanation for the past.

IMO (subjective), you're both "jumping the gun" with your assertions.  (My bad assertion is better than your bad assertion, so mine must be right)

What does that have to do with my understanding of chemistry?  Nothing!

Next.

Ah, a weasel at work.
CDF47 claimed his position was that his code could not arise naturally and that this was conclusive. 
Other than pointing out what he said, and that your position was NOT the same as his, I (personally) claimed nothing was conclusive, or otherwise.
Thus you are a liar.  

The chemist does NOT say ANYTHING is conclusive, (only "possible") and YOU HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT. No one claimed the chemist claims "conclusive". 
CDF47 is the one claiming "conclusive" ... and that position is WRONG as the "possible" chemistry has been demonstrated. You can't refute it.

I do get you *need* the page turned, ("next") as you cannot address the CHEMISTRY, (neither can CDF47). Nice try.

If either of you can refute Szostak's chemistry/biochemistry ... go ahead... otherwise, guess what ? 
You get to STFU. You are BOTH incompetent to say anything further about the subject.

You would do better to go back to your prayers, and talk to your imaginary friends.
You have spend at least two hours in prayer today have you not ?
Have you ?

(December 29, 2018 at 7:25 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote: 
I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with either of your assertions.  You tried to validate something that is inconclusive by stating it was conclusive and that nobody has invalidated this man's findings.  Okay, well maybe nobody tried?  Regardless, and even if someone has tried, you're discussing how something may (or may not) have arisen.  Just because the chemist has an idea that was a possibility doesn't make it conclusive as to how that subject had arisen.  His studies could be 100% valid in how he performed him and the results he found, but that doesn't make the results conclusive as an explanation for the past.

IMO (subjective), you're both "jumping the gun" with your assertions.  (My bad assertion is better than your bad assertion, so mine must be right)

What does that have to do with my understanding of chemistry?  Nothing!

Next.

Ah, a weasel at work.
CDF47 claimed his position that his code could not arise naturally was conclusive. 
Other than pointing out what he said, and that your position was NOT the same as his, I (personally) claimed nothing was conclusive. 
Thus you are a liar.  

The chemist does NOT say ANYTHING is conclusive, (only "possible) and YOU HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT. No one claimed the chemist claims "conclusive". 
CDF47 is the one claiming "conclusive" ... that position is WRONG as the "possible" chemistry has been demonstrated. 

I do get you *need* the page turned, ("next") as you cannot address the CHEMISTRY, (neither can CDF47). 

If either of you can refute Szostak's chemistry/biochemistry ... go ahead... otherwise, guess what ? 
You get to STFU. You are BOTH incompetent to say anything about the subject.

I agree with the chemist.  Not you, but only in part. You had one statement that was spot on. If you would stop running off on nonsensical tangents about things that people didn't say, then you might start to sound smart.  I have 0 problem with the chemists work or his observations.

(December 28, 2018 at 7:31 pm)sdelsolray Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 4:29 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Too bad for you, if what is presented as "evidence" is not accepted as evidence, it's worthless. 
Your evidence is worthless. It's why there are specific "rules of evidence" for specific situations, and peer-review.

In light of your lightning bolt nonsense, it's now less than worthless. 

You do realize that if your deity did something to change the course of the lightning bolt, it would have had to change the values of the quantum structure of the entire universe ?
You really think YOU are that important ? (Look up the Pauli Exclusion Principle). 
LOL

Keep in mind that CDF47 does not think for himself about the DNA/information claims he makes.  He merely parrots the mere assertions, lies, misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty of his Discovery Institute heroes.  Oh course, he invents his own lies too, like the one immediately above.  He is an empty vessel, at least on this topic.

Much truth comes out of the Discovery Institute but it is not everything I state.

---

(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?

Why can't you realize the proof is in the information?

---

(December 28, 2018 at 9:30 pm)Gae Bolga 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.  A super-intelligence was involved.  Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually.  I think that is totally false.  An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved.  From there turn to theology.  I will pray for you.

It's almost as if we've reset, and the last 1k pages never happened.  No, CDF...just No.  This shit has all been covered already.

Put up or shut up.  You got a one thousand page mulligan...time to fucking produce.

End...of.

Your in denial possibly.

(December 30, 2018 at 1:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 7:31 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: Keep in mind that CDF47 does not think for himself about the DNA/information claims he makes.  He merely parrots the mere assertions, lies, misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty of his Discovery Institute heroes.  Oh course, he invents his own lies too, like the one immediately above.  He is an empty vessel, at least on this topic.

Much truth comes out of the Discovery Institute but it is not everything I state.

Discovery institute is a house of charlatans. It is no surprise that what it says should be pleasing to your Christian ears because Christianity itself is a cult manufactured by charlatans.

(December 29, 2018 at 12:05 pm)Jörmungandr 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.  A super-intelligence was involved.  Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually.  I think that is totally false.  An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved.  From there turn to theology.  I will pray for you.

There is functional information.  True.  However, your second statement, that this code could not have arisen from natural processes is a claim, and that claim isn't directly supported by the first fact.  There being functional information does not necessarily imply that this functional information could not have arisen from natural processes.  You've done an admirable job of supporting the first statement.  However you've done basically nothing to support the second statement.  And that is where the issue lies, because without the second statement, there is no reason to conclude that a god or designer was necessary for this functional information to exist.  Simply providing evidence that there is functional information doesn't do that.  Additionally, it has been pointed out that functional information, though not DNA, can arise through natural processes.  So like any creationist defending a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, you need to defend that while functional information can arise in other contexts, it supposedly cannot arise in this context.  You need to demonstrate some fact which limits the latter case, but not the former.  Again, you have not done so.  And that is why I labeled you a slacker, because you have demonstrated something about which there is only limited dispute, namely that there exists functional information in DNA, and what that means.  However, that fact alone does not get you to the conclusion that a god or designer is necessary, because if there is a natural path to such information, then no god or designer is necessary.  Your belief that this functional information could not have arisen through natural means is nothing more than incredulity at the possibility that it could, and an appeal to incredulity is a fallacious and invalid argument.  You cannot secure your conclusion that way.  You need to provide some actual reason, beyond mere incredulity or an argument from ignorance, as to why that functional information could not have arisen naturally.  This you have not done.  That is why I keep pointing out that you have not provided evidence for your claim.  The claim that there is functional information in DNA is little disputed.  What that means for your second claim, that it could not arise naturally, is in great dispute, and it is that second claim which you need to provide evidence for, and for which you have not provided said evidence.  Failure to secure and support that second claim means your overall argument, that a god or designer was necessary, would fail.  Since it is that overall argument, and not your claim that there is functional information in DNA that is at issue, your securing that fact, and not the second, is of no use to you.

I see natural processes as blind processes since there is no intelligence involved.  I do not believe the functional DNA process and molecular machines could have come about by blind processes.

-and yet you believe that a wizard played in the mud.  

Your personal credulity or incredulity is completely uninformative. "I can't believe that man will ever go to the moon". "I can't believe that man will ever fly" "I cant believe that the heart can be operated on". All of these things we're beyond the scope of what people far more educated than yourself believed, at different points in time, as well. They were all wrong. They, at least, could articulate a valid reason for why them found themselves so incredulous. You haven't managed to do so in 1k pages...even though everyone here knows why, as do you, lol.