(January 2, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Still waiting for the boundaries of complexity (what requires a designer and what doesn't) and a coherent definition of a "god".

BTW, what did you do all day before you discovered AF ?

Have you ever watched paint dry?

(January 2, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Still waiting for the boundaries of complexity (what requires a designer and what doesn't) and a coherent definition of a "god".

BTW, what did you do all day before you discovered AF ?

-It's not about "requiring", which seems to be the source of your confusion.  Either something "is" or it "isn't"  If it exists independently, then nothing else is needed.
- Already provided you a definition from M-W dictionary.  If you don't accept it, then your problem not mine.
-I did the same things I still do.  Adding one thing doesn't mean I change everything else.  Still read, write, publish, spend time with my dogs and cats, video games, help out my neighbors, etc... 

What did yo do?

---

(January 2, 2019 at 6:28 pm)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Still waiting for the boundaries of complexity (what requires a designer and what doesn't) and a coherent definition of a "god".

BTW, what did you do all day before you discovered AF ?

Have you ever watched paint dry?

I have and still do.  That's how you know when to add the next coat.  If the conditions are right, it doesn't take long.

Everything has value and meaning in some form or another, even if it seems silly to certain people.

Good painter = Watches paint dry and even contributes to it drying.  Applies extra coats as needed until the work is complete.
Bad painter = Paints fence in poor conditions right before it's about to rain.  Blames God because it rained, then 5 minutes later, says there is no god.  Still has ugly fence.

(January 2, 2019 at 2:23 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 6:41 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Well, considering them such is your first mistake.  I've already granted that it was either designed or it wasn't.  That takes no effort to come to that conclusion.  The question is what evidence do you have that it couldn't have resulted from similarly natural processes.  Your previous complaint was that because they are undirected -- they're not -- that they couldn't produce the functional information in DNA.  I pointed out that such processes do create functional information, so that reason alone doesn't justify believing that such processes cannot produce DNA or functional information.  So you still haven't provided reasons or evidence that shows that such processes could not produce the functional information in DNA.  Until you provide something that does show this, your belief that it cannot do so rests on nothing, and your belief that it cannot do so is irrational.  If that belief is irrational, and your argument for God rests on that, then your argument for God is irrational.  You have given us no reason to believe God exists and every reason to dismiss your belief that DNA proves that he exists.  You're going to have to do better than that.

This is about the umpteenth time I've asked you and so far you've provided squat.  Do you have evidence or reasons which show that DNA could not have been produced by natural processes?

Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine.  The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function.  This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

This is nothing more than an assertion. Nobody is disputing that DNA and life are amazing. What we dispute is that you have reasons or evidence that it could not have come about by natural means. And for the umpteenth time, saying that it came about by chance alone, and that this is all that natural causes are is a lie and a straw man. Natural selection isn't random. If you can't stop lying about this, then I'm going to simply keep pointing out that it's a lie, and that you're aware it's a lie, which makes you nothing more than crassly dishonest. Regardless, you have provided an assertion, and an assertion is neither evidence nor a reason. I specifically asked you for reasons or evidence. If you can't tell the difference between an assertion and reasons or evidence, then it's obvious why you think you've provided evidence, because you don't know what evidence is. Your assertion cuts no ice.

So I'll ask you again. Do you have any reasons or evidence for your belief that DNA could not have arisen through natural means?

(January 2, 2019 at 2:23 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine.  The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function.  This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

That's exactly correct. 
It did not happen "by chance". 
As was demonstrated in the Szostack video, (which you were unable to even discuss), "chance " was not how it happened. 
Once the evolutionary process has begun, (which wasn't even "chance"), the next step is not "chance. 
You clearly understand nothing about chemistry, physics, or evolution. 
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...is-random/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat...nt-chance/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...ns_faq.php

---

(January 2, 2019 at 7:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Still waiting for the boundaries of complexity (what requires a designer and what doesn't) and a coherent definition of a "god".

BTW, what did you do all day before you discovered AF ?

-It's not about "requiring", which seems to be the source of your confusion.  Either something "is" or it "isn't"  If it exists independently, then nothing else is needed.
- Already provided you a definition from M-W dictionary.  If you don't accept it, then your problem not mine.
-I did the same things I still do.  Adding one thing doesn't mean I change everything else.  Still read, write, publish, spend time with my dogs and cats, video games, help out my neighbors, etc... 

Always the deflection and obfuscation. The definition you provided was inadequate, and did not address the questions asked of you. 
It almost makes one think you don't even understand the questions. *That* couldn't be, no could it ?
LMAO
You're a total fraud. 
I've known it since you first response to my post where you blustered about a "string of logical fallacies" which you couldn't even name.

Quote:Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine.  The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function.  This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

So just more credulity

(January 2, 2019 at 11:32 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 2:23 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine.  The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function.  This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

That's exactly correct. 
It did not happen "by chance". 
As was demonstrated in the Szostack video, (which you were unable to even discuss), "chance " was not how it happened. 
Once the evolutionary process has begun, (which wasn't even "chance"), the next step is not "chance. 
You clearly understand nothing about chemistry, physics, or evolution. 
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...is-random/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat...nt-chance/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...ns_faq.php

---

(January 2, 2019 at 7:38 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: -It's not about "requiring", which seems to be the source of your confusion.  Either something "is" or it "isn't"  If it exists independently, then nothing else is needed.
- Already provided you a definition from M-W dictionary.  If you don't accept it, then your problem not mine.
-I did the same things I still do.  Adding one thing doesn't mean I change everything else.  Still read, write, publish, spend time with my dogs and cats, video games, help out my neighbors, etc... 

Always the deflection and obfuscation. The definition you provided was inadequate, and did not address the questions asked of you. 
It almost makes one think you don't even understand the questions. *That* couldn't be, no could it ?
LMAO
You're a total fraud. 
I've known it since you first response to my post where you blustered about a "string of logical fallacies" which you couldn't even name.

You are inadequate and boring.  You state conclusions based on what real scientists have said, then act like your psuedo-conclusion was based on their observations, when they said something completely different.  Seems to be a trend with you.  I could understand it 1 or 2 times by mistake, but when it's several times a week it gets to be tedious listening to your nonsense.

Now we're back at the dictionary being inadequate to provide definitions.  Of course the real issue at hand has been obvious.  You don't want to accept the definition because you want to assert that something can't be defined.  Well guess what, it has been defined.  Your opinion of inadequacy has more to do with you than it.

If you are in a library and said to a child, "go find me a definition of 'star'", they will likely go to a dictionary and find a definition for it.  They're not wrong, because it's common sense to use a dictionary for definitions.  That is one of its functions.  Now we have someone who is presumably a grown adult, or at least high school level saying "no dictionary."   Nope sorry, that doesn't fly with the sane.

Quote: There is order in this universe that is beyond the random chance it should be.  There is far far too much order.  The universe should be mostly chaotic with just small appearances of order but that is not what is found.  Instead, order in magnitudes beyond comprehension is found everywhere, clearly pointing to a designer.  Please open your eyes.

Personnel credulity

Quote:You are inadequate and boring.  You state conclusions based on what real scientists have said, then act like your psuedo-conclusion was based on their observations, when they said something completely different.  Seems to be a trend with you.  I could understand it 1 or 2 times by mistake, but when it's several times a week it gets to be tedious listening to your nonsense.

Now we're back at the dictionary being inadequate to provide definitions.  Of course the real issue at hand has been obvious.  You don't want to accept the definition because you want to assert that something can't be defined.  Well guess what, it has been defined.  Your opinion of inadequacy has more to do with you than it.

If you are in a library and said to a child, "go find me a definition of 'star'", they will likely go to a dictionary and find a definition for it.  They're not wrong, because it's common sense to use a dictionary for definitions.  That is one of its functions.  Now we have someone who is presumably a grown adult, or at least high school level saying "no dictionary."   Nope sorry, that doesn't fly with the sane.

The definition is inadequate sorry

(January 3, 2019 at 1:39 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:You are inadequate and boring.  You state conclusions based on what real scientists have said, then act like your psuedo-conclusion was based on their observations, when they said something completely different.  Seems to be a trend with you.  I could understand it 1 or 2 times by mistake, but when it's several times a week it gets to be tedious listening to your nonsense.

Now we're back at the dictionary being inadequate to provide definitions.  Of course the real issue at hand has been obvious.  You don't want to accept the definition because you want to assert that something can't be defined.  Well guess what, it has been defined.  Your opinion of inadequacy has more to do with you than it.

If you are in a library and said to a child, "go find me a definition of 'star'", they will likely go to a dictionary and find a definition for it.  They're not wrong, because it's common sense to use a dictionary for definitions.  That is one of its functions.  Now we have someone who is presumably a grown adult, or at least high school level saying "no dictionary."   Nope sorry, that doesn't fly with the sane.

The definition is inadequate sorry

You're not the determining factor.  Sorry, try again.  If you don't like my definition offer up your own.  Less being a part of the problem, and more being a part of the solution.

So here's your chance.  Provide a better definition?  If your definition is better, then please point out why it is better and why it should be accepted instead?

(January 3, 2019 at 1:53 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 3, 2019 at 1:39 am)Amarok Wrote: The definition is inadequate sorry

You're not the determining factor.  Sorry, try again.  If you don't like my definition offer up your own.  Less being a part of the problem, and more being a part of the solution.

So here's your chance.  Provide a better definition?  If your definition is better, then please point out why it is better and why it should be accepted instead?

So again no answer and it's not my job to provide definition