Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 9, 2022, 6:20 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The code that is DNA
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 30, 2019 at 3:51 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I don't know anything about what fly experiment anyone is talking about. But I do take issue with Mister Agenda's linear approach to generations. If each generation produces x number of offsprings, then the number of trials evolution is being given to produce anything other than flies grows exponentially with each generation.

Nope. That is not how evolution works. Not even what evolution predicts. That is a claim unique to you. Please provide evidence for your claim.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 30, 2019 at 3:21 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I didn't determine anything, I'm just reminding you of what the word "god" usually means.

In my experience, theists often have quite varied, and sometimes mutually exclusive definitions of god, so before we go forward you should probably clarify. What is your definition of god?

(December 30, 2019 at 2:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Who said this world is the product of nothing? Not me. What would convince me of tuning you ask? Evidence of a tuner, and tuning, lol. You have neither. You’re simply looking around at reality and saying, “wow!”. That’s not evidence or an argument. Why am I convinced cars are designed, Klorophyll? Because, there exists evidence of engineers, and engineering; design plans and the folks who wrote them, and evidence of how they wrote them; because I can walk into an automobile manufacturing company and watch manufacturing employees putting cars together using various parts; because when my car breaks, I can bring it to the repair shop and watch the auto repair guy diagnose and replace the broken part. You have no such evidence for tuning, or a tuner; for a designer or design. No mechanism; no nothing.

Quote:Okay. So if there was no way for you to walk into an automobile manufacturing company (let's suppose the latter is in some distant galaxy, casually sending us cars by some mysterious means science didn't discover yet) you would still be certain cars must be designed, right?

No, I wouldn’t. How could I? If I have zero evidence that cars are designed, or how they’re designed, how could I rationally justify reaching that conclusion? Let’s take your example a step further. What if everything in the universe was made of cars? Without any contrast, could you still be confident that the universe was designed?

(December 30, 2019 at 2:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I agree that something can’t come from nothing, but probably not for the same reasons as you.

Quote:So we're left with two options then : infinite regress or a necessary first cause. Disagree?

I disagree. I believe that is a false dichotomy. Nothing in modern cosmology says the universe cannot be an eternal universe.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
RE: The code that is DNA
Quote:You saying that I have not defended my assertions is bogus,

You have not 


Quote: while Sungula keeps saying Tour uttered a strawman and then runs away
Because he did and no i have ot run away i'm right here 


Quote:Oh and 40000 fly generations have produced nothing, thank you lenski
Nope and yes i do thank Lenski for showing what creationist keep asserting he didn't and for making fools of creationists and fighting their lies and ignorance.
“The sun from far gives life. But get close to it and it burns anything down to ashes”

[Image: flag-ukraine_1f1fa-1f1e6.png]  Heart [Image: canada-google.png]        

 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 30, 2019 at 4:14 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Nope. That is not how evolution works. Not even what evolution predicts. That is a claim unique to you. Please provide evidence for your claim.

How evolution works and what evolution predicts are separate things; don't bundle them together. Evolution works through descent with modification. It therefore follows that each descendant, not each generation, provides an opportunity for modification.
RE: The code that is DNA
Quote:Okay. So if there was no way for you to walk into an automobile manufacturing company (let's suppose the latter is in some distant galaxy, casually sending us cars by some mysterious means science didn't discover yet) you would still be certain cars must be designed, right?
Nope because how would one  


Quote:I didn't determine anything, I'm just reminding you of what the word "god" usually means.
Yes ignorance 


Quote:So we're left with two options then : infinite regress or a necessary first cause. Disagree?
Something cannot come from nothing is an assertion and their is no reason to accept a regress or a first cause in relation to existence
“The sun from far gives life. But get close to it and it burns anything down to ashes”

[Image: flag-ukraine_1f1fa-1f1e6.png]  Heart [Image: canada-google.png]        

 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In my experience, theists often have quite varied, and sometimes mutually exclusive definitions of god, so before we go forward you should probably clarify. What is your definition of god?

My definition would be : an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being,[/quote].

Okay.

Quote:which is probably a definition most theists can agree on.

You’d be surprised, lol.

(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No, I wouldn’t. How could I? If I have zero evidence that cars are designed, or how they’re designed, how could I rationally justify reaching that conclusion?

Quote:Oh, so basically, if we erase factories from the picture, you would think cars were just assembled by some evolutionary sleight of hand process?

If all we’re doing is erasing factories from the picture, then I still have mountains of evidence that cars are designed, as pointed out in my previous response to you.

Quote:Their very existence in an orderly fashion fully justifies the conclusion.

No, that’s wrong. We have all kinds of examples of things in nature that appear ordered and designed, but are not. Is every individual snowflake designed by god? We know how snowflakes form, don’t we? So, if we have things in the world that appear designed and are designed (like cars), and we also have things in the world that appear designed, but are not (like snowflakes), then is appearance of design a reliable way to determine whether something is or isn’t designed? How good is reasoning that leads you to mutually exclusive conclusions?


(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Let’s take your example a step further. What if everything in the universe was made of cars? Without any contrast, could you still be confident that the universe was designed?

Yes, I can be confident of that. I am certain no car made itself into existence, it has no reason in itself, nor the whole observable universe, and the fact that it contains complex objects such as cars naturally warrants a designer.

(December 30, 2019 at 4:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: A mechanical device is obviously designed, a biological one, especially one as flawed as humans, not so much.

Why is it obvious in the first case but not in the second? What does mechanical entail that biological doesn't?[/quote]

Because we have evidence that people make things, or in other words, we have evidence of a designer, lol.
Qur'anic revelation is the sole path to ultimate reality. All argumentation and philosophy is an expression of arrogance and an overestimation of human cognitive ability. 

"But believe me, Cleanthes, the most natural feeling that a well-disposed mind will have on this occasion is a longing desire and expectation that God will be pleased to remove or at least to lessen this profound ignorance, by giving mankind some particular revelation, revealing the nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our faith." (Hume's Dialogues)


RE: The code that is DNA
Quote:Do you really see in nature and the lab something that supposedly happened through billions of years? And during your finite lifetime?
We see everything we need to to accept it happened 


Quote:Why is it obvious in the first case but not in the second? What does mechanical entail that biological doesn't?
Because we know one is designed and have no reason to think the other is . No matte how much you falsely assert there the same
“The sun from far gives life. But get close to it and it burns anything down to ashes”

[Image: flag-ukraine_1f1fa-1f1e6.png]  Heart [Image: canada-google.png]        

 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
RE: The code that is DNA
John 6IX Breezy Wrote:How evolution works and what evolution predicts are separate things; don't bundle them together.

What constitutes a scientific theory from a hypothesis is its ability to make predictions, which evolution does.

Creationists make predictions too, but they’re always wrong. For example, creationists used to make predictions that scientists would never find a fossil fish with feet. This is one that evolution predicted, and actually required.

(December 30, 2019 at 2:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'm also scientifically trained;

Ken Ham was also scientifically trained and he still lapsed into cluelessness.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 30, 2019 at 5:04 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In my experience, theists often have quite varied, and sometimes mutually exclusive definitions of god, so before we go forward you should probably clarify. What is your definition of god?

My definition would be : an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being, which is probably a definition most theists can agree on.

(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No, I wouldn’t. How could I? If I have zero evidence that cars are designed, or how they’re designed, how could I rationally justify reaching that conclusion?

Oh, so basically, if we erase factories from the picture, you would think cars were just assembled by some evolutionary sleight of hand process?

Their very existence in an orderly fashion fully justifies the conclusion, a car seat perfectly fit to the human body strongly implies the car seat is specifically for me. In any case I don't need to meet all the staff in the assembly line and ask them what every piece does to know my car was consciously assembled.
And also, how they're designed is completely irrelevant, the minute details are useful for the designer alone, not the user.
Similarly I don't need to know the exact process of why my body is the way it is to invoke a designer. Evolution or not, I can see an extremely complex final product before my eyes, and I don't need more than that.



(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Let’s take your example a step further. What if everything in the universe was made of cars? Without any contrast, could you still be confident that the universe was designed?

Yes, I can be confident of that. I am certain no car made itself into existence, it has no reason in itself, nor the whole observable universe, and the fact that it contains complex objects such as cars naturally warrants a designer.

(December 30, 2019 at 4:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: A mechanical device is obviously designed, a biological one, especially one as flawed as humans, not so much.

Why is it obvious in the first case but not in the second? What does mechanical entail that biological doesn't?


(December 30, 2019 at 4:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Even if there was a first cause, it doesn’t mean it was a god or your god.  It doesn’t even necessarily denote an intelligence.

Yeah well, we didn't get there yet.

(December 30, 2019 at 4:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Everything we see in nature and the lab indicates a natural order to things that came about over billions of years, despite what books of myth say.

Do you really see in nature and the lab something that supposedly happened through billions of years? And during your finite lifetime?


Because one is alive and one is not. Simple, huh?

Yes, we can see something that occurred over billions of years. We can trace history back through fossils. For instance we have almost a complete fossil history of whales.

I’ll ignore the “finite lifetime” quip as it sounds so close to “were you there?” Which is another creationist strawman.
Dying to live, living to die.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 30, 2019 at 4:35 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(December 30, 2019 at 4:14 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Nope. That is not how evolution works. Not even what evolution predicts. That is a claim unique to you. Please provide evidence for your claim.

How evolution works and what evolution predicts are separate things; don't bundle them together. Evolution works through descent with modification. It therefore follows that each descendant, not each generation, provides an opportunity for modification.

Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Are humans half aliens? Human DNA question Signa92 14 1063 December 30, 2018 at 12:34 am
Last Post: Rahn127
Brick Atheist moral code Void 45 13604 March 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Last Post: I Am Not A Human Being



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)