|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 12, 2019 20:17:32 GMT
You mean English? You may have noticed that there is a lot of arbitrariness in a language. Somebody invents a new word, say "boy". In another language they might come up with "ragazzo". Once these arbitrary words are thought up they get passed on from generation to generation, so after many generations the Italians keep using "ragazzo" and the English "boy". It is erroneous to say that each generation having the same word is like tossing a coin and always getting heads. Sugars are much the same way. A sugar evolved that goes one way (right or left), which has a specific DNA representation different from the other way, and once developed the gene gets passed from generation to generation, like a word in a language. Also erroneous to compare to repeated coin tosses. No, I mean the left-hand twist on amino acids, since you're comparing it to a language. It's capable of twisting either way but it always twists left, and "evolution" just doesn't adequately explain it. Sugars and amino acids are capable of being put together either way, but once assembled they are stable in one configuration or the other, and do not change from one to the other. The assembly of these molecules is directed by DNA, RNA, and enzymes (themselves made up of amino acids) in the nucleus of a cell, in such a way that the handedness is explicitly laid out in the gene. Once the gene for the sugar or amino acid has evolved it gets passed on to future generations. Evolution explains the handedness quite nicely if you take the trouble to understand the science. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 12, 2019 20:23:43 GMT
No, I mean the left-hand twist on amino acids, since you're comparing it to a language. It's capable of twisting either way but it always twists left, and "evolution" just doesn't adequately explain it. Sugars and amino acids are capable of being put together either way, but once assembled they are stable in one configuration or the other, and do not change from one to the other. The assembly of these molecules is directed by DNA, RNA, and enzymes (themselves made up of amino acids) in the nucleus of a cell, in such a way that the handedness is explicitly laid out in the gene. Once the gene for the sugar or amino acid has evolved it gets passed on to future generations. Evolution explains the handedness quite nicely if you take the trouble to understand the science. I've seen more than enough to convince me that this universe was deliberately designed. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 12, 2019 20:26:50 GMT
Sugars and amino acids are capable of being put together either way, but once assembled they are stable in one configuration or the other, and do not change from one to the other. The assembly of these molecules is directed by DNA, RNA, and enzymes (themselves made up of amino acids) in the nucleus of a cell, in such a way that the handedness is explicitly laid out in the gene. Once the gene for the sugar or amino acid has evolved it gets passed on to future generations. Evolution explains the handedness quite nicely if you take the trouble to understand the science. I've seen more than enough to convince me that this universe was deliberately designed. Designed for what? |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 12, 2019 20:30:24 GMT
Sugars and amino acids are capable of being put together either way, but once assembled they are stable in one configuration or the other, and do not change from one to the other. The assembly of these molecules is directed by DNA, RNA, and enzymes (themselves made up of amino acids) in the nucleus of a cell, in such a way that the handedness is explicitly laid out in the gene. Once the gene for the sugar or amino acid has evolved it gets passed on to future generations. Evolution explains the handedness quite nicely if you take the trouble to understand the science. I've seen more than enough to convince me that this universe was deliberately designed. You're free to believe whatever you like. I'm just pointing out that it's an erroneous argument to compare the isomer asymmetry in biological chemistry to repeated coin tosses always coming up heads. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 12, 2019 20:31:30 GMT
I've seen more than enough to convince me that this universe was deliberately designed. Designed for what? How should I know? I'm not the designer. I don't know what Gobekli Tepe was designed for either, but obviously someone arranged those rocks. Of course, you knew this already. You're just trying to obfuscate. It's what sociopaths do. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 12, 2019 20:39:46 GMT
How should I know? I'm not the designer So then it could be designed for something other than man? Or to persuade the credulous of the existence of a loving deity which does not really exist? I'm trying to confuse and muddle by ... asking for clarification? Have you thought this through? An insult is not an argument. As I told you before. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 12, 2019 20:41:33 GMT
I've seen more than enough to convince me that this universe was deliberately designed. You're free to believe whatever you like. I'm just pointing out that it's an erroneous argument to compare the isomer asymmetry in biological chemistry to repeated coin tosses always coming up heads. And yet it's not erroneous to compare it to a language.....a language that writes itself......is it? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 12, 2019 20:46:34 GMT
How should I know? I'm not the designer So then it could be designed for something other than man? Or to persuade the credulous of the existence of a loving deity which does not really exist? I'm trying to confuse and muddle by ... asking for clarification? Have you thought this through? An insult is not an argument. As I told you before. One need not know who designed something or why it was designed in order to ascertain that it is a product of design. These questions naturally follow but answering them is not vital to validate the conclusion that an intelligent design exists. But then......you knew that already. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 12, 2019 20:51:13 GMT
So then it could be designed for something other than man? Or to persuade the credulous of the existence of a loving deity which does not really exist? I'm trying to confuse and muddle by ... asking for clarification? Have you thought this through? An insult is not an argument. As I told you before. One need not know who designed something or why it was designed in order to ascertain that it is a product of design. These questions naturally follow but answering them is not vital to validate the conclusion that an intelligent design exists. So then: what would unintelligent design look like? Would it be, perhaps a process which leaves most of everything cold and dark, unable to sustain life? Or the poor attempt at designing the human knee or backbone, say? Or a process which expects appreciation but yet fails to leave evidence compelling enough for many to recognise it? Lack of answers to obvious questions noted. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 12, 2019 21:38:40 GMT
One need not know who designed something or why it was designed in order to ascertain that it is a product of design. These questions naturally follow but answering them is not vital to validate the conclusion that an intelligent design exists. So then: what would unintelligent design look like? Would it be, perhaps a process which leaves most of everything cold and dark, unable to sustain life? Or the poor attempt at designing the human knee or backbone, say? Or a process which expects appreciation but yet fails to leave evidence compelling enough for many to recognise it? Lack of answers to obvious questions noted. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 12, 2019 21:55:43 GMT
There is NO evidence. it is ALL misplaced faith. I think that's an overstatement. Gospels etc are evidence, they are just not compelling evidence. If at all, it is weak evidence due to the uncertain origins, translations and interpretations of the gospels over time, particularly the gap between when Jesus was alleged to have existed and when they were written and then made 'mainstream' over hundreds and thousands (nearly 2) of years, as we assess the evidence today. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 12, 2019 22:33:04 GMT
You're free to believe whatever you like. I'm just pointing out that it's an erroneous argument to compare the isomer asymmetry in biological chemistry to repeated coin tosses always coming up heads. And yet it's not erroneous to compare it to a language.....a language that writes itself......is it? Yep, to the extent that genes and words are created (make their first appearance in this world) and then get passed on to future generations. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 12, 2019 22:53:19 GMT
I think that's an overstatement. Gospels etc are evidence, they are just not compelling evidence. If at all, it is weak evidence due to the uncertain origins, translations and interpretations of the gospels over time, particularly the gap between when Jesus was alleged to have existed and when they were written and then made 'mainstream' over hundreds and thousands (nearly 2) of years, as we assess the evidence today. No arguments there, was just doing a bit of nitpicking  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 13, 2019 10:04:24 GMT
So then: what would unintelligent design look like? Would it be, perhaps a process which leaves most of everything cold and dark, unable to sustain life? Or the poor attempt at designing the human knee or backbone, say? Or a process which expects appreciation but yet fails to leave evidence compelling enough for many to recognise it? Lack of answers to obvious questions noted. By the time you wrote this I was probably driving to work. Do you know what work is? Have you ever been employed? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 16:22:01 GMT
Well, mutation is actually a thing in science. God is not! So is creation. No it isn't. Creation is an idea, with no scientific basis. So is the notion that there are things smarter and more powerful than man. So are multiverses. So are unknown energy forms, time travel, and hyperspace...All of which are things that can easily describe God's abilities. Yes NONE of them are things for which there is any evidence, which is why they are not "scientific". They are nothing more than IDEAS. And while some of them like the unknown forms of energy are possible, most of them have no basis in science. Just like God! Science is simply research and the results of the research. It no more explains the possibility of Wolverine than it does of anything that isn't proven. If it's not proven by experimentation or observation, science cannot concern itself with it beyond guesswork and thus is a horrible method to explain everything. Heck it can't even explain you and your weirdness. I think you're missing the point...I'm not saying that science explains Wolverine!  The argument is that it DOESN'T explain God (in the same way that it doesn't explain other science fiction concepts). I am not advocating trying to use a science fiction concept to explain the origins of the universe. I'm pointing out that it is ridiculous for YOU and other theists to do so. In other words, while it may make sense to trust a science regarding things that are known, there is no reason whatsoever to take the opinion of a scientist as sacred. Yeah, and nobody does that! As an aside, science and God can co-exist quite easily together. No, they absolutely CANNOT! Until God can be explained "scientifically" and demonstrated to be scientifically sound, the two concepts cannot be reconciled. God is considered to be "supernatural" which means it is inherently unscientific. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 16:37:01 GMT
Eucharistic Miraclesthat's some evidence but a lot of people will continue to deny anyways as like I have quoted before it seems to boil down to this for some people... Of course they would (and should) deny claims that cannot be validated. How can anyone take miracle claims seriously when none of them can be validated scientifically? There is a reason why none of these "miracles" are published in peer-reviewed articles and why they people who discovered miracles have not won any Nobel prizes. If something like this could be scientifically confirmed, it would change the world and revolutionize society. But that hasn't happened, which should be a pretty big clue that it's not real. so no matter what some people are shown, they simply refuse to believe, or maybe they don't want to because they are not living right and might be living in sin and don't want to change their ways etc. The quote is absurd and always has been. It doesn't validate faith as a reasonable proposition. It's also completely false! Explanation is ONLY possible for people who are not appealing to faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things without a good reason. If you have a good reason for believing in something, you don't need faith! so basically there is some evidence for those who can see, but there might be a little doubt, so faith is still required on some level. If any faith is required all, then that's essentially an acknowledgement that whatever "evidence" exists is insufficient evidence. And if the evidence is insufficient to warrant belief, then the belief is unjustified. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 16:42:17 GMT
So then: what would unintelligent design look like? Would it be, perhaps a process which leaves most of everything cold and dark, unable to sustain life? Or the poor attempt at designing the human knee or backbone, say? Or a process which expects appreciation but yet fails to leave evidence compelling enough for many to recognise it? Lack of answers to obvious questions noted. It's not just Erjen, no theist who believes in intelligent design has a valid argument for this. It is impossible for any theist who believes in intelligent design to describe what an undesigned thing would look like since they claim to see design everywhere. They have no frame of reference, so distinguishing a designed thing from an undesigned thing is futile, reducing their entire argument to nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 19:46:25 GMT
It looks like Erjen is unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between intelligent and unintelligent design. In which case how could he see any distinction between what is 'unintelligent' and something which, although the result of random processes, just works? By the time you wrote this I was probably driving to work. Do you know what work is? Have you ever been employed? And so, now having seen the question, you say that one can distinguish between intelligent and unintelligent design through.... |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 13, 2019 21:42:39 GMT
Eucharistic Miraclesthat's some evidence but a lot of people will continue to deny anyways as like I have quoted before it seems to boil down to this for some people... so no matter what some people are shown, they simply refuse to believe, or maybe they don't want to because they are not living right and might be living in sin and don't want to change their ways etc. so basically there is some evidence for those who can see, but there might be a little doubt, so faith is still required on some level. There is NO evidence. it is ALL misplaced faith.
There is NO evidence. It is ALL faith.
Fixed it for you, not everyones faith is misplaced.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 21:58:48 GMT
There is NO evidence. it is ALL misplaced faith.
There is NO evidence. It is ALL faith.
Fixed it for you, not everyones faith is misplaced.
Can you give an example of justified faith? |
|
