Atheism

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You debate and argue in ways that undermine discussion
Why thank you, I guess I havent lost it all yet.

You say it like it's a positive thing.

@livinglava,

Quote:

What you'll gradually see is that there is a general potential for intelligence in the universe

Theres where you fall off the truck of "trying to sound convincing". I, for one do NOT gradually see this "general potential" for intelligence in the UNIVERSE. I think its merely an aspiration based upon your religious beliefs. Nowhere can you provide me any evidence that you have seen such "intelligence"

IF you do, why not just present it rather than its "name that cannot be mentioned" and let me discuss it with you. You guys alwayss side step issues with "glitzy bumper stickers" or present teeny scientistic factlets that you suspect will jolt folks off their chairs. If you want to really debate an issue, take it to a conference and see how much respect ideas can get without good strong evidential bases.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You're pulling creationism into this discussion unnecessarily.

You ought to read some of the literature posing as ID (religion free kinds). The major proponents in the literature are guys like Dembski who, with one publication excoriates those of us who try to drag religion into IID "theory" when they all mean that its a universal force separate from deity.

THEN IN ANOTHER PUBLICATION, MORE FOR THE FUNDING SOURCES I SUSPECT he says

"Science, without Christ as its core, is empty , devoid of all meaning and purpose"

Which is it? I dont hve to change hats all the time but you guys do it all the time. so I always wonder which guys Im talking to each different day, Is today your day to deny your core belief?? or is that Tomorrow

As far as paws from fins, what do you have to say about the "repurposing" of a fin to a foot ?? Does the environmental change become your intelligence? What controls all that?

You guys have so much to make up to explain "the way things are", youd give Kipling a run for his money in "Just so Tales by Living lava''

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You say it like it's a positive thing.

Sometime , why not look up "debate" and "argue". Im not in it to "discuss" with people I agree with, thats not the point.

I really dont argue with you, I just try to explain where youre thinking is all screwed up.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
What you'll gradually see is that there is a general potential for intelligence in the universe

Theres where you fall off the truck of "trying to sound convincing". I, for one do NOT gradually see this "general potential" for intelligence in the UNIVERSE. I think its merely an aspiration based upon your religious beliefs. Nowhere can you provide me any evidence that you have seen such "intelligence"

What about the general potential for hands in paws and feet that preceded them? Do you see a general potential for paw and feet in the evolution of limbs? What about the general potential for limbs in the evolution of animal bodies? etc. etc.?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

You're pulling creationism into this discussion unnecessarily.

THEN IN ANOTHER PUBLICATION, MORE FOR THE FUNDING SOURCES I SUSPECT he says

"Science, without Christ as its core, is empty , devoid of all meaning and purpose"

Which is it? I dont hve to change hats all the time but you guys do it all the time. so I always wonder which guys Im talking to each different day, Is today your day to deny your core belief?? or is that Tomorrow

I wasn't discussing any core beliefs with you. I was discussing the evolution of intelligence and you were turning it into a debate about core beliefs. Do you understand that I don't have to become an atheist to discuss evolution?

Quote:

As far as paws from fins, what do you have to say about the "repurposing" of a fin to a foot ?? Does the environmental change become your intelligence? What controls all that?

Obviously if a fin can be repurposed to a foot, there is latent potential for that to happen.

What are you saying about environmental change and intelligence? I'm not understanding your point or what you're asking about from reading your words.

Quote:

You guys have so much to make up to explain "the way things are", youd give Kipling a run for his money in "Just so Tales by Living lava''

You can gather lots and lots of facts and then explain them in the way you understand them, but that doesn't mean your fundamental understanding is right, and so all the interpretations that you interweave into your narrative about the facts you've gathered will make for an insufficient explanation; but you might not be willing to consider that possibility because of all the effort you've put into gathering and presenting those facts.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You say it like it's a positive thing.
Sometime , why not look up "debate" and "argue". Im not in it to "discuss" with people I agree with, thats not the point.

I really dont argue with you, I just try to explain where youre thinking is all screwed up.

Whatever you call it, it undermines discussion and turns it into an exchange of insults.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Do you see a general potential for paw and feet in the evolution of limbs? What about the general potential for limbs in the evolution of animal bodies?

There iis a plethora of scientific literature (too much to hve on my hrd drive even). This literature, mostly in paleontology as well as evolutionary biochemistry how us the evidence of what a structure, like a fish fin, when repurposed into a walking apparatus (lets call it a "FOOT") seems to occur with numbers of intermediate forms in subsequent fossil bones . ALL the re-purposing structures seem to march in time with some sort of environmental changeto mark the point where these fossil "repurposings" take place. (Like the death of dinosaurs and the rise of birds and mammals)

In evolutionary biochem we see the changes in genetic material from related (but derived) species . most of the genoms remain very similar but with minor chnges by addition or deletion of genes and changes to some , (what used to be called) "Junk" genetic material

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I can be wrong I admit. But Im wrong from a much higher plane of understanding than you. Ive only been working in these fields for soon to be 43 years. Some of the comments on wikipedia include a few of which Im the author . So all youre knowledge comes from what youve read lately , not those of which youve made a study .
When you keep changing your position by saying that I didnt answer your question because you dodnt ask that particular one, I kinda laugh bcause I know Im getting you tied up.

Youre entire discussion is based on youre core beliefs . You say that life is ID'e and then try to discuss that point of evolution as if youve no idea about what youre talking. It gets kinda boring chasing your thoughts around.

Ive made my point about the detached" relity you guys try to inject into youre "debates" Ive only asked for one damned thing, That is, where and what are youre points of repeatable experimental, falsifiable evidence??

Be honest and finally admit that its all a worldview that contains only room for your belief, not proof.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

What are you saying about environmental change and intelligence?

Cmon, you know you are being asked about where is your proof on ID (Intelligent Design) , At least try to get your language strait

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Do you see a general potential for paw and feet in the evolution of limbs? What about the general potential for limbs in the evolution of animal bodies?

There iis a plethora of scientific literature (too much to hve on my hrd drive even). This literature, mostly in paleontology as well as evolutionary biochemistry how us the evidence of what a structure, like a fish fin, when repurposed into a walking apparatus (lets call it a "FOOT") seems to occur with numbers of intermediate forms in subsequent fossil bones . ALL the re-purposing structures seem to march in time with some sort of environmental changeto mark the point where these fossil "repurposings" take place. (Like the death of dinosaurs and the rise of birds and mammals)

In evolutionary biochem we see the changes in genetic material from related (but derived) species . most of the genoms remain very similar but with minor chnges by addition or deletion of genes and changes to some , (what used to be called) "Junk" genetic material

It's hard to discuss this topic when you are focused on the details of the 'trees of the forest' and I am trying to talk about a much more general level without getting hung up in the specificities and details.

Can you not see that at a general level, without focusing on the minutiae of specific research on fins etc., that hands are related to fins and paws and feet, etc. and that appendages generally evolved from something antecedent in animals prior to the emergence of appendages?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
What are you saying about environmental change and intelligence?
Cmon, you know you are being asked about where is your proof on ID (Intelligent Design) , At least try to get your language strait

I'm trying to understand what you're asking, but you're not using enough words to make it clear.

0 Replies

Even if the impossible feat of proving biological science wrong could occur, it would make no difference, re being an atheist. Many of us were hardcore atheists before we knew there was science.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Ah, now we’re getting closer to truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

mud, life. When you say it takes an intelligence to jump the phase rule. I ask you HOW did your IDer do it?

I assume you mean assembling the required 'building blocks' into a functioning living cell. I haven’t seen the designers lab or equipment but I assume you know that anyone can now order a DNA sequence made to your specifications from a growing number of labs. If injected into a viable cell, it will function just like 'natural' DNA, assuming the code was 'good'. It probably won’t be long Before we can fabricate all the organelles and make a completely synthetic living cell.

My point is, if we can do it, so could an even greater intelligence.
My argument has never been that it’s complexity proved intelligence. But the engineering behind the design is a feat that does not occur naturally. My reasoning for this was in the explanation I gave in the 'Evolution Doubt' thread. No one has pointed out any errors so far. I’d be happy to entertain any.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

we didnt do anything but replicate the Haden atmosphere, envrionment nd chemicqls of the "purple erth". Inserting a snap of 100 KW and then see what happens. ALL the prebiotics have been formed. What happen after that is something that we see from the chemitry of the Isua Fm of Greenland and Flinders Hills rocks of Oz.

What happen at each Extinction Point?
Was there one of your IDers involved to make the stage setting?

Yoou still begin your whole argument with a conclusion .

PS, why was DNA or any other ribonucleic required in life?

We have evidence that replication and ingestion and application of nutrients came way before "bookkeeping"

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

But the engineering behind the design is a feat that does not occur naturally. My reasoning for this was in the explanation I gave in the 'Evolution Doubt' thread. No one has pointed out any errors so far.

nd you are convinced HOW? .
Youve never ever given me any strong argument that life cannot occur naturally. Ive not seen this thread have I? I dont recall such a name and weve had quite a few of these evo/devo threads.

My side's winning might I say. The NCSE and several orgs(NAS, AAST, AGI, AGU,) have run a series of polls regaridng the teaching of evolution as a science in HS biology has increase at least 67% in time and substance presented ever since the Kansas ecision in 2010. Looks like the "Creation SCiiences" are being played back to their corner of folk tales and mythology.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
mud, life. When you say it takes an intelligence to jump the phase rule. I ask you HOW did your IDer do it?

I assume you mean assembling the required 'building blocks' into a functioning living cell. I haven’t seen the designers lab or equipment but I assume you know that anyone can now order a DNA sequence made to your specifications from a growing number of labs. If injected into a viable cell, it will function just like 'natural' DNA, assuming the code was 'good'. It probably won’t be long Before we can fabricate all the organelles and make a completely synthetic living cell.

My point is, if we can do it, so could an even greater intelligence.
My argument has never been that it’s complexity proved intelligence. But the engineering behind the design is a feat that does not occur naturally. My reasoning for this was in the explanation I gave in the 'Evolution Doubt' thread. No one has pointed out any errors so far. I’d be happy to entertain any.

Why don't you find it even more astounding that God can design a system that automatically evolves DNA without any limited intellect having to sit down at a design station and do it in an artificial way?

When humans first made printing presses, they laid out the typeset by hand and inked and rolled the pages by hand, bound the books by hand, etc. As time went on, more and more automation was invented so that the printing process would happen by itself. If we could also invent AI that automatically writes the books, makes editorial and publishing decisions, does market research, distributes the books, plans out what effect the book will have on public behavior, tweaks it to steer society in a way that is conducive to the greater good and human happiness, etc. etc. then we would be pretty advanced programmers/designers, wouldn't we?

In other words, why wouldn't you think God is intelligent enough to create a system that automatically designs itself through evolutionary processes?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

wow, you hve a brother who is a scientist?? Good for him. Is he also an IDer or a Creationist?

No. He's a far left liberal who thinks Bill Nye is legitimate. He's an atheist. He believes the propaganda that MSNBC tells him. He's crazy smart and I love him, but he also has no common sense and goes along with the sheeple crowd.

2 Replies

@Webb,

So basically, in the realms of science you probably have no clue what he relly understands.
Bill Nye IS a real force in science education. His ability to educate and entertain kids and less eucated adults is a great srvice. His ebates with Mr Ham and other Creationists are an example of how someone, reasonably educated in science, like he is, can make subjects approachable an less sounding like "magic"
Nye knows hes primarily an entertainer . Neil deGrasse Tyson, is a real cosmologist and a museum director of one of the US's greatest Nat SCience an yet he too is able to entertain at a level from which kids and adults can learn.

Sounds like your brother has his work cut out with you.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know