|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5378 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
RAZD: Curiously Bill Gates (a) is not a biologist and (b) does not understand the genetic code. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
There are many biotech companies out there looking for funding, and to get it they must justify it. You can bet the sales pitch to Bill Gates was very impressive. So much so he was quoted as saying "The gene is by far the most sophisticated program around." Many do get funding for further research just because it is just down his ally. I stand by my quote because I know more then you do about the background of this man and his funding.
RAZD: Here you repeat the same fallacy. Curiously, you also do not show any evidence that "you fully understand depth of what DNA is and does, and can do" (italic for empHAsis), nor do you demonstrate any way that DNA operates that is not done by nature. I do understand for I have been researching this subject for some time now. This is not my first forum. I go back 8 or more years debating and reading much on this subject. It is you that has not read my books and done my research. You judge me by YOUR LOWLY knowledge on the subject. The rules would probably have objections to all those quotes. And since I am not God who-didit what I say in my own word would not qualify as anything in your eyes. Demonstrate what? And risk being bad from the forum too. I knew you had some master plan to get me cut down some how. :-o
RAZD: Great. Now explain how gravity and entropy affect biological life functions. Demonstrate how entropy is a sign of design (what is it - planned obsolescence?) Is the fact that all orbits decay a design feature? Do you know how to distinguish design from the apperance of design caused by natural actions according to natural laws? Is a snow flake designed? Leave that one for another time. It's late and I'm not going there tonight.
RAZD: This is an ad hominem another logical fallacy,
I don't go there any more. It turns into a free for all rip and tare contest. Calling every little thing a fallacy can go both ways and the topic then goes no where.
Curiously this is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, and strangely the fact that you plead for your god to be excluded from design means that -- logically -- anything else can be excluded from design. I'll pass, I don't talk logical fallacies - waste of logic and time. nitpicking.
This is just an assertion. Curiously if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. How does this demonstrate a creator is necessary? If man makes a car - does it then require a supernatural explanation? Is man then supernatural creator? None of the quantum laws were violated in man creating the car, so are we still in need of a supernatural explanation. Without seeing the man create the car, can there ever be evidence it is not natural? Edited by Bio-molecularTony, : grammer correction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Once again: I don't go to Youtube to learn Science.
Why are you bringing up Photosynthesis anyway? You've failed to defend your claim about genetics being "software", so why are you galloping on to a new topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5378 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Mr Jack: Once again: I don't go to Youtube to learn Science.
You’re not interested in LEARNING what INTELLIGET DESIGNERS can do with intelligent DNA software, so go way and stop wasting my time. If you have the mentality that NOTHING SHOULD be GOOD ENOUGH to prove God has creations to see, test, examine, record. Then it is like throwing pearls to swine (bible quote). A waste of time. You just can't make swine happy even if you gave the worlds supple of gold and silver, yes even pearls. If you heart is wicked your eye will be dark. Spirituality does put me at an advantage over you. But that’s another story for another time ... maybe if it were not a waste of my time. Edited by Bio-molecularTony, : spelling corrections
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I see you're trying to avoid the topic again.
You’re not interested in LEARNING what INTELLIGET DESIGNERS can do with intelligent DNA software, so go way and stop wasting my time. Oh, I'm very interested in how biological systems work; that's why I'm currently studying for an Open University degree in Life Sciences. What I don't do is go to Youtube for scientific information.
If you have the mentality that NOTHING SHOULD be GOOD ENOUGH to prove God has creations to see, test, examine, record. Not once in this thread have you provided anything to support your assertion that "God" has anything to do with any of this. All you've done is made the incorrect and unsupported assertion that DNA is software (it isn't), failed to defend your claim when that is pointed out and then dropped that idea altogether and instead pointed to some videos on how photosynthesis works as if this supports your argument. You need to do better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5378 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Percy: If life's processes really involved elements of the supernatural then man couldn't analyze, understand and modify them, could he. Sounds so logical . but it is for the purpose of blinding ones own eyes so as not to eye what can be seen. The spirit realm what would fit into this logic, and yet by this logic you will never really know for sure, because you can never really know anything at all. Intelligent people create simple and basic things more often then highly complex things. Man is simple, too simple. Man is not alive, but a machine designed to think he is. If this is true, I win you lose. For I am debating with a stupid machine that imagines it is a living creature, which exists in an illusion of reality so cleverly disguised as REAL. God has that made a fool out of all of you. The so call great debators lose by default for they are themselves not real persons, but artificial illusions of "LIFE", imagining there is no creator in there darkened minds. The joke is on you... it is you that does not really exist (As living) creations. All so-called life is technology - artificial - machinery.What, you can't see it. That's too bad...... Edited by Bio-molecularTony, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5378 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
At best you’re a creation of a lower life form then God.
And at best your just one of the simple things made by God on the low end of the "FOOD CHAIN".... Hehehe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Bio-molecularTony,
I'm suspending you for 24 hours for not following moderator requests (rule 1), failing to address the topic (rule 2), and directing your criticisms at other participants (rule 10).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
deleted
Edited by RAZD, : double post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, Bio-molecularTony.
RAZD: This is an ad hominem another logical fallacy,
I don't go there any more. It turns into a free for all rip and tare contest. The point was that you DID go there. If you don't want others to weigh in on your own "rip and tare" behavior, then you need to lighten up.
You judge me by YOUR LOWLY knowledge on the subject. Oh look, you went there again. The point is that if you want reasoned debate then you should treat others the way you want to be treated. Golden Rule and all eh? So lose the attitude, quit your complaining, and start presenting information on the issues.
Calling every little thing a fallacy can go both ways and the topic then goes no where. There is a difference between calling "every little thing a fallacy" and demonstrating that your arguments are so full of logical fallacies that they are meaningless. Your logical fallacies are a fact, substantiated by reference to the specific fallacy involved that show they are properly identified. False logic leads to false conclusions, so you do need to know the difference if you are going to make valid conclusions in any field of study.
There are many biotech companies out there looking for funding, and to get it they must justify it. You can bet the sales pitch to Bill Gates was very impressive. So much so he was quoted as saying "The gene is by far the most sophisticated program around." Many do get funding for further research just because it is just down his ally. I stand by my quote because I know more then you do about the background of this man and his funding. Curiously that still does not (a) make him a biologist or (b) show he understands the genetic code. He also supports the Discovery Institute, an act which doesn't improve my confidence in his understanding of science in general and biology in particular, to say nothing of the sub-field of molecular biology. Now you've added an appeal to your own (purported) authority as well. I wonder if we'll ever see evidence instead of bluster.
I do understand for I have been researching this subject for some time now. This is not my first forum. I go back 8 or more years debating and reading much on this subject. It is you that has not read my books and done my research. And we've seen lots of people here who claim authority on topics they are sadly woefully ignorant of. What works a lot better than claiming authority is actually demonstrating it. Show some evidence that you know how DNA does more than operate by natural reactions to chemicals. If you wrote a whole book you must have SOME evidence eh?
Leave that one for another time. It's late and I'm not going there tonight. A simple yes or no on the snowflake question would have been sufficient, sorry to bother your busy day.
Curiously this is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, and strangely the fact that you plead for your god to be excluded from design means that -- logically -- anything else can be excluded from design. I'll pass, I don't talk logical fallacies - waste of logic and time. nitpicking. Especially when they show your logic to be in grossly error. I can understand your reluctance: you'd have to admit you were wrong, if you went with a logical response, or to more ad hominems if you went the emotional denial route. Don't worry: I know your logic was faulty. I also don't need to tell anyone, as the evidence speaks for itself.
This is just an assertion. Curiously if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. How does this demonstrate a creator is necessary? If man makes a car - does it then require a supernatural explanation? Is man then supernatural creator? None of the quantum laws were violated in man creating the car, so are we still in need of a supernatural explanation. Without seeing the man create the car, can there ever be evidence it is not natural? And strangely cars are not biological life systems. Nor do they represent any analogy to your claim of supernatural involvement in DNA systems. Nor does it change the fact that if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. It does not support your claim in any way. Poor analogies are like that. Now, do you suppose, from your vast (claimed) knowledge of molecular biology, that you can present some evidence that shows you know what you are talking about? Something that is evidence for ID (which curiously is the topic of this thread, rather than who you think you are). Maybe even just a reference to a section in your book that details it, so we can look it up ... seeing as you are such a busy guy. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
weigh in on your own "rip and tare" Please, no! Not ... puns!!!! TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well, I thought it might be too heavy at this initial stage, but the other alternative was to mention the ripple effects of tearable spelling ...
(aren't puns a sign that language is intelligently designed ... or was that silly design ... ) and now back to the topic (before my hair gets moosed): is there (any?) evidence for intelligent design? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
b00tleg Junior Member (Idle past 4519 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
To: bluegenes and b00tleg (if not all). TONY: Don't you just hate those religions that walk around so righteous, head so high and yet live by double standards. They have two sets of rules, those for them and those for all others. Well, The theory of Evolution is just that - just another bad smelling religion - two faced, self righteous garbage. With two sets of rules for nature. 1# All the normal rules of science and nature we take for granted.2# Special supernatural mystery phenomenon - where normal rules of every day life do not always apply. Where Abiogenesis can and does occur. Where molecular machinery can be spontaneous happen and where complex Information that is superior intelligent software logic commands just pop out of nowhere without any designer needed. When you bring in your religious dogma into a science forum there is going to be confusion in your head. Fact and fiction are two different worlds man. You need to separate the two. Abiogenesis is dead. Most wise "evolutionists" won't even touch Abiogenesis even with a ten foot pole now a days. If you think abiogenesis is still alive theory then lets clear that one up now. It's time you parted with your trash. What is any of this supposed to mean? Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Science requires no faith on my part or anyone else's to be true. ID is an assertion. Why must scientists consider it when the majority of the evidence points at an old earth, life evolving from simpler forms to more complicated ones. If your going to claim the evidence needs to be reinterperted, then provide rational reasoning as to why. Why must ID keep coming up as an either/or ultimatum if evolution turned out to be false? If evolution is wrong, its quite reasonable science can start reinterpeting current evidence and/or consider new evidence to postulate new hypothesis'. And guess what, ID might be one of those if there's any evidence to support it. So, is there evidence that supports ID....scientific evidence per chance? Edited by b00tleg, : Refining my post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
bOOtleg writes: I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this reply. The post you're replying to is just someone questioning the phrasing of someone else's post. It is not by an IDer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
b00tleg Junior Member (Idle past 4519 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Whoops, I'm still figuring out how to reply and properly quote other people's posts. I quoted the post I meant to reply to. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
b00tleg writes: Whoops, I'm still figuring out how to reply and properly quote other people's posts. I quoted the post I meant to reply to. Ah! Now that guy is definitely an "IDer", and one who needs to learn the difference between assertions and evidence.
Thanks. You're welcome, and welcome to EvC.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024