(November 21, 2013 at 8:41 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 8:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: no one would want to quote you or misquote you.

And yet you are

get a load of the atheists, pretending not to know the common meaning of - consciousness, information, instruction, living vs nonliving, functionality. but yet they want to portray themselves as intelligent ones. well, bring it on then, where that's science you keep touting? and no we don't want hear about any assertions that appeal to the future - that lamer only has a limited shelf life and it just expired.

(November 23, 2013 at 4:11 am)snowtracks Wrote: get a load of the atheists, pretending not to know the common meaning of - consciousness, information, instruction, living vs nonliving, functionality. but yet they want to portray themselves as intelligent ones. well, bring it on then, where that's science you keep touting? and no we don't want hear about any assertions that appeal to the future - that lamer only has a limited shelf life and it just expired.

So tell us how to scientifically measure and quantify information, Snowy. It should be easy, given how confident you are that it's scientific.

Other than that, I think the fallacies in your post stand out to anyone with a functioning mind.

DNA doesn't instruct. It acts.

It is there, it's chemical properties leads to the formation of proteins in the presence of essential proteins.

Does water instruct NaCl to dissolve? Does heat instruct eggs to boil?

(November 23, 2013 at 4:11 am)snowtracks Wrote: and no we don't want hear about any assertions that appeal to the future - that lamer only has a limited shelf life and it just expired.

Yeah, you know, every time I hear a Christian tell me that I'll get proof of God's existence once I'm burning in hell or start mouthing off about prophecies, I kinda have that sentiment.

Appealing to the future is only wrong when you lack any past demonstrability. Making predictions based upon past occurrences is the polar opposite of that.

(November 23, 2013 at 4:11 am)snowtracks Wrote: get a load of the atheists, pretending not to know the common meaning of - consciousness, information, instruction, living vs nonliving, functionality. but yet they want to portray themselves as intelligent ones. well, bring it on then, where that's science you keep touting? and no we don't want hear about any assertions that appeal to the future - that lamer only has a limited shelf life and it just expired.

I have seen this accusation by a lot by theists that we are somehow being superior by not believing in god and find it rather strange.
Just because I find the concept of your god unconvincing does not mean that I a claim any special mental prowess or super education, I just don't believe what you do.

As it happens all the scientific evidence so far agrees with my stance. But I didn't believe long before I knew the evidence. The idea of your god just feels wrong to me, probably as much as it feels right to you.

(November 23, 2013 at 4:19 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 23, 2013 at 4:11 am)snowtracks Wrote: get a load of the atheists, pretending not to know the common meaning of - consciousness, information, instruction, living vs nonliving, functionality. but yet they want to portray themselves as intelligent ones. well, bring it on then, where that's science you keep touting? and no we don't want hear about any assertions that appeal to the future - that lamer only has a limited shelf life and it just expired.

So tell us how to scientifically measure and quantify information, Snowy. It should be easy, given how confident you are that it's scientific.

Other than that, I think the fallacies in your post stand out to anyone with a functioning mind.

one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go.

(November 24, 2013 at 1:04 am)snowtracks Wrote: one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go.

So, rather than providing evidence for your position, you instead decided to try and poke a hole in mine. I don't even need to refute this; if you actually think that my position being wrong makes yours right by default, you are even stupider than I thought.

And considering that you still haven't even shown us a method by which "information" can be scientifically measured- instead you just demand we assume it's there- I think it's safe to say that you don't know a method, because there isn't one. The only reason you're bringing this up is because you've been conned by this information concept, and I can say that because you can't even define what it is in this context: aside from vague platitudes, you've provided exactly nothing about this.

Oh, and by the way, no matter how much you assert this, there aren't instructions in DNA, that's something you'd need to demonstrate. It's just chemical processes happening; if I put ice in a microwave, is there an informational instruction that causes it to melt, or are we just witnessing a physical reaction?

Shall I assume you have no evidence or definitions for your position, then?

(November 24, 2013 at 1:11 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 24, 2013 at 1:04 am)snowtracks Wrote: one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go.

So, rather than providing evidence for your position, you instead decided to try and poke a hole in mine. I don't even need to refute this; if you actually think that my position being wrong makes yours right by default, you are even stupider than I thought.

And considering that you still haven't even shown us a method by which "information" can be scientifically measured- instead you just demand we assume it's there- I think it's safe to say that you don't know a method, because there isn't one. The only reason you're bringing this up is because you've been conned by this information concept, and I can say that because you can't even define what it is in this context: aside from vague platitudes, you've provided exactly nothing about this.

Oh, and by the way, no matter how much you assert this, there aren't instructions in DNA, that's something you'd need to demonstrate. It's just chemical processes happening; if I put ice in a microwave, is there an informational instruction that causes it to melt, or are we just witnessing a physical reaction?

Shall I assume you have no evidence or definitions for your position, then?

ice melt - 2'nd law of therm. heat outside of the ice disorganizes which is called entropy. not relevant.

(November 24, 2013 at 2:07 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 24, 2013 at 1:11 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, rather than providing evidence for your position, you instead decided to try and poke a hole in mine. I don't even need to refute this; if you actually think that my position being wrong makes yours right by default, you are even stupider than I thought.

And considering that you still haven't even shown us a method by which "information" can be scientifically measured- instead you just demand we assume it's there- I think it's safe to say that you don't know a method, because there isn't one. The only reason you're bringing this up is because you've been conned by this information concept, and I can say that because you can't even define what it is in this context: aside from vague platitudes, you've provided exactly nothing about this.

Oh, and by the way, no matter how much you assert this, there aren't instructions in DNA, that's something you'd need to demonstrate. It's just chemical processes happening; if I put ice in a microwave, is there an informational instruction that causes it to melt, or are we just witnessing a physical reaction?

Shall I assume you have no evidence or definitions for your position, then?

ice melt - 2'nd law of therm. heat outside of the ice disorganizes which is called entropy. not relevant.

So, that'd be a "no," then, that you have no argument, no definition, no evidence for your position, and no understanding of anything under discussion. Thanks. Let's do lunch sometime.

(November 24, 2013 at 2:07 am)snowtracks Wrote: ice melt - 2'nd law of therm. heat outside of the ice disorganizes which is called entropy. not relevant.

Which is rather the point: it's a physical process, not occurring to a set of instructions, just like DNA. No informational content.

And by the way, feel free to just say "I have no argument, and am wrong," next time. It'll save us a lot of time.