Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 359 of 648 (587910)
10-21-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Just being real
10-21-2010 11:34 AM


HI JBR,
Lets for now just look at the possibility for the development of information to take place in the already existing DNA of a genome. What are those odds?
Irrelevant is what they are. If you have DNA, you already have information. There would be no need to "develop" it, it would already be there. Even before the emergence of DNA, there was information. Even a snowflake contains information.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Just being real, posted 10-21-2010 11:34 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:42 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 456 of 648 (588123)
10-22-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by dennis780
10-22-2010 4:42 AM


Hi Dennis,
So now we have gone from chemical origin being irrelevant (earlier in the thread), to DNA origin being irrelevant. Is the origin of anything relevant these days?
Mmm. Your inability to read simple sentences in what is presumably your first language seems to be the problem here. I said that the odds were irrelevant, not the DNA. If you were able to understand a simple English sentence, you would realise this.
And if you don't, you don't. And at one point, we didn't. So by your own admittance, DNA does not exist.
You see, this is the kind of rubbish that convinces me that you are too far out of your depth to be having this conversation. I really feel that you are wasting your time engaging in this discussion. You are never going to understand what is being said. You can't even read what is being said. And as for what you say yourself, it mostly consists of contemptible stupidity and ignorance;
{snowflakes contain} The same information as water
No they don't!
{water} has no logical explanation of origin to this point.
Yes it does!
I think you are missing the point of evolution. It explains lifes natural origins...
No it doesn't!
The really tragic thing here is that you actually seem to think that you are being clever when you say these things. You are not. All you are doing is demonstrating your own dismal lack of understanding and your vast wealth of ignorance.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:42 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 11:56 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 499 of 648 (588236)
10-23-2010 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by dennis780
10-22-2010 11:56 PM


HI Dennis,
First, you can complain about my attitude all you like; you initially responded to my message with your infantile drivel. I was not talking to you in the first place. All you had to offer was highly distilled idiocy and the apparent inability to understand simple English. If you want intelligent responses, you might do better by having something intelligent to say.
You wouldn't be an avid lottery player would you?
Rather than asking stupid questions in an unwarranted tone of superiority, why don't you try and explain to me why you think the odds of DNA "developing information" are so prohibitively low. Of course, you should realise that to work out the odds of an event, you need to know all the variables; do you know every last variable concerning the workings of DNA? No?
GOOD, WTF is it. Can we all stop side stepping and dancing like a friday night cowboy club playing Cadillac Ranch and explain the origin of the matter required for water?!?
Why? What has that got to do with anything? If you want to make an argument for design around water, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I fail to see what it has to do with a designer though. If you are going to insist that water molecules are evidence of divine intervention, then it's hard to imagine how anything might not qualify as evidence.
Evolution explains the origin of many things, including genetic material, and individual and diversity of species, but excludes the origin of the first living organism(s).
Okay, on this, we more or less agree. This differs though from your previous statement that evolution "explains lifes {sic} natural origins".
BTW, you can attack my character all you want,
Thank you very much, I shall hold you to that.
I asked you very specific relevant questions, to which you avoid. I'm moving on it other posts, where at least I have to defend my position, rather than my character.
You asked imbecilic questions that betray your failure to even understand what I said. I was left in the position of defending my point against your nonsense.
Mutate and be less fit.
I love it when you guys pick up on my little signature! You're always so ham-fisted with it and it's always the biggest jackasses who chose to have a go at it. Tell me, is this the first time you've encountered a figure of speech? I'll give you a clue; my sig isn't actually about biology.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 11:56 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by dennis780, posted 10-23-2010 8:10 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 518 of 648 (588264)
10-23-2010 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by dennis780
10-23-2010 8:10 AM


Hi Dennis,
As I have said in many messages before, I'm an oilfield man. But it's precisely for this reason that I am in favour of a designer. I do have some background in molecular biology, a requirement for my current position, though not to the extent that most others have, and I am convinced that I could spend my entire life attempting to understand DNA's inner workings completely.
Right. None of us has a complete understanding of the precise sequence of events that led to the formation of the first DNA, the first proteins, the first life. Given this, we can't meaningfully perform any calculations on the odds. To calculate the odds of a real event, you need to know all the variables. We don't know all the variables, so making arguments for a designer based on such odds is meaningless.
It can at LEAST be considered plausible that an intelligent designer was behind something this complex (complexity being that I could not begin to fully understand it, even with my small schooling on the subject).
Fine, you consider it plausible that life was designed; I do not object to this, you are entitled to your opinion. I am merely trying to point out that odds-based arguments for such a designer fall down on a number of points.
Formation of water, and any other matter by natural process is a requirement if there is no deity, leaving evolution aside.
Yes, I agree. Of course, it is possible to create water from hydrogen and oxygen, with no designer required, only physical and chemical forces, so this does not seem like a problem to me.
I am saying that all the elements on earth are a prime example of a designer, being that water is the source of almost all life, and it is the most abundant fluid on the planet. Random accident?
Not at all. But ask yourself this; if there were no water on Earth, would we be having this conversation? No, of course not. We find life where there is water simply because it cannot arise anywhere else. It's like asking why we only find Birch Bolete mushrooms under birch trees. Coincidence? No, we find that to be the case simply because Birch Boletes cannot grow anywhere else apart from under birch trees. It's not a coincidence, but a requirement.
This argument is fully answered by reference to the Anthropic Principle.
Good, then we can start by asking, again, how did complex structures, DNA to be specific, arise naturally?
I have no idea. That doesn't mean though, that we should simply throw up our hands and give up on trying to find a natural explanation. Once, people had no understanding of the natural mechanisms behind thunder, so they assumed that thunder was the province of a thunder god. They were wrong and I suspect that you are wrong to place your faith in a DNA god. It's only a matter of time before science steals his thunder as well.
You guys? What do you mean, you guys? You saying that cause I'm black?
I hope you're joking. I have no idea who you are and have no way of knowing whether you are black, white or otherwise. For that matter, you don't know that I'm not black, other than me saying I'm not.
By "you guys", I meant creationists. You guys brighten up my days, you really do.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by dennis780, posted 10-23-2010 8:10 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by dennis780, posted 10-28-2010 12:18 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 543 of 648 (588322)
10-23-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Percy
10-23-2010 3:18 PM


APC = SC
Hi Percy,
Your APC stands for Abstruse Particularized Communication, a phrase that appears on only a single webpage on the entire Internet, and that's in one of your messages in this thread.
Moreover, JBR's "APC" appears to be almost indistinguishable from Bill Dembski's "specified complexity". Well, let's be honest, it is Dembski's "specified complexity", just with a different name that JBR made up.
Quite why JBR would wish to do this is beyond me. Is he hoping that a new name will distract us from the fact that his argument is warmed-over, previously refuted nonsense? Maybe he just wants to claim the credit and bask in the reflected glory (that's William Dembski's glory mind you, slim pickings if you ask me).
I don't know, but whatever his reasons, it's not working.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Percy, posted 10-23-2010 3:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024