Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

Quote:

and youre late for your meds again.

That's tele-phenomenology.

1 Reply

@spendius,

seems this thread has run its full arc.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I presume you mean phenomenologically as far as you are concerned.

I took my meds as you advised. I re-read Chapter 2 of Gibbon. (The whole book is online and easily navigated).

Another "seems" eh?

Are we machines or not? If you can't answer that you have no arc to run full and are merely engaging in a series of disconnected and mutually contradictory emotional blurts which serve to satisfy you that the scientifically derived Christian sexual morality is "nonsense" and, as such, can be safely set aside in the pursuit of you personal interests which take precedence over the interests of the society you depend upon.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I wish you well in your journey ,"dances with drinks".
If you are convinced that you are a machine, Id suggest a tune up and a new set of plugs. Maybe a detail.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If you are convinced that you are a machine,

I don't see how an atheist has any alternative. A half-baked atheist is neither here nor there in a debate whatever it is in the popularity stakes.

Here's a cut from Gibbon for your attention--

Quote:

I. The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.

And there is your lot's other main problem leaving aside the sexual licence justification which you are not prepared to defend as well.

You hate the "enlightened" out of envy for them getting the money and power which you think scientists should have and because of their cynical exploitation of the superstitious masses to feed their greedy avarice and ambition.

And you despise the superstitious masses as well. You're like Huxley's Betas who had been conditioned to not want to be an Alpha because of the responsibility and the kinesis and to not want to be a Gamma for reasons too obvious to elaborate. You're an inverted snob in the one case and a full blown snob in the other.

Surely you are aware that the value of the scientific position is diminished the more people there are who share it. Thus you are anti-Science. A true scientist is mortified to find himself in the same bed as you, ed, ci, and Wilso. Such a prospect is sufficient for such a man to see the light.

Science is a superstition in the sense that the juggling of the old bones and the sparks is fondly believed to be beneficial (implying progress) to the human race/s.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You wrote,

Quote:

A half-baked atheist is neither here nor there in a debate whatever it is in the popularity stakes.

Prove your claim that "atheist is neither here nor there in a debate?"

Be specific.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Prove your claim that "atheist is neither here nor there in a debate?"

I didn't claim that. You can't read.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

seems this thread has run its full arc.

As an atheist you deny God, right - the Christian deity, or Buddha of whoever it might be - but atheism does not exclude ID by another ILF, does it?
FM, by claiming that you are atheist you are denying the subject, not the process, so your world-scientific-view should allow ID as plausible hypothesis for the explanation of life ... unless you prove that intelligence is not able to create genetic code, which is the greatest joke, because by doing GMO performances you actually prove that intelligent design in the lab (by using our own intelligence) is a validly plausible way to produce genetic code.
Where do you have a proof that the process of evolution, as you are teaching it on the net, is able to create brand new genetic code?
Oh no, we need several million years to do that - O.K. no problems, the compression of time can be simulated on a supercomputer. Here comes the greatest gap in your 'objective' knowledge - you don't have formal description of the processes of evolution - definition of the major components and the way they encode and convey encrypted data to control the development of the future generations ... and last but not least what is the difference between dead bio-code and living bio-code? How does the process of activating 'dead' bio-code look like ... and do you know what you are actually doing? (for further details see the performances with the retro virus in the 1980s)
You have beautiful genetic code in the mammoth tissues for example (some of the cells are well preserved entirely) - why can't you 'set it in operation'? What is the missing link ... which actually is the same missing link in the serious explanation of the evolution?
Just don't tell me that the big bang is your father and we are all made of star dust as a result of stochastic processes.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Where do you have a proof that the process of evolution, as you are teaching it on the net, is able to create brand new genetic code?

apparently a small example I presented a few weeks ago regarding anadromous fish and their evolution in dammed up Connecticut Rivers. The fish species (alewives) had been reproductively isolated since the early 1720's when the rivers were dammed up for water power. The fishes of the parent species hve remained the same anadromus species with usual phenotypic structure familiar to the early colonist firshermen. The fish isolated behind the dams have structurally changed by becoming different in size and shapes and by developing gill and mouth strainers specifically adapted to dining on algae. This is , by any definition macro evolution in action (Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution allowed to continue until species level or higher changes are seen in the organism. )

The fossil record is full of examples of intermediate species of fish to amphibians and land animals to whales, reptiles to birds and , armored fish to bony fish.
I understand your religious views don't allow you to consider the fact that is evolution but at least Im confident that scientific advances in evolution and genetics will outlive your Fundamentalist worldview. The GMO argument merely p;ays to what I said early in this "debate", in that Darwin himself used artificial selection to demonstrate the process by which "transmutation" occurs. IT OCCURS in artificial selection so therefore, natural selection, driven only by genetic variability , mutation, adaptation, and successive generations in which to "play the hands" ALSO OCCURS.

Youre a bit obtuse if you fail to recognize it or you deny it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

youre asking me to "revitalize mammoth tissue"?
Cloning, based upon available DNA and cloning is not out of the realm of possibility. Doing it is more a political than a scientific problem.
Why cant you prove that elephants and humans WERE present in the first appearances of life on the planet and why aren't Paleozoic animals present today?

What role does extinction play in your belief system?
You seem to like to avoid anything of substance an only wish to continue babbling about things of which you have no idea.

HERALD GIBBERISH

Quote:

unless you prove that intelligence is not able to create genetic code, which is the greatest joke, because by doing GMO performances you actually prove that intelligent design in the lab (by using our own intelligence) is a validly plausible way to produce genetic code.

Quote:

you don't have formal description of the processes of evolution - definition of the major components and the way they encode and convey encrypted data to control the development of the future generations ... and last but not least what is the difference between dead bio-code and living bio-code?

At least you never fail to entertain. you seem to ask me questions that you ssume have no answers. Surprise!! I already gave you the names of severl books that provide the very information you keep asking me for (s number 2 above). That's a huge prt of "Relics of Eden" by Fairbanks

1 Reply

@spendius,

You have short memory and most of your posts do not make much sense.
You wrote,

Quote:

A half-baked atheist is neither here nor there in a debate whatever it is in the popularity stakes.

A direct quote from you that you fail to remember or understand. There's no sense to "popularity stakes." NONE.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This is , by any definition macro evolution in action (Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution allowed to continue until species level or higher changes are seen in the organism.

Different is size and shape is variety, not brand new species, and you don't have any verifiable evidence that a sequence of micro-changes can cause brand new changes and brand new species with the time. Sequence of micro-evolution can result in new micro-evolution change, only this and nothing else.
Time is the major argument of the evolutionary apologists. Everything in the evolution process (if exists) needs only huge amount of time to just happen. Can you prove that time exists objectively in the physical world, that time is not ordinary metrics (just like the parallels & meridians), invented by the humans for convenience to measure and to arrange in sequence the events in the physical world (which events have nothing to do with the metrics itself), and to classify these events in a history record for the purposes of the representation - our knowledge of the world. Can you prove that time is not existing only in our heads?
If time does not exist in the physical world how can it be 'major physical process', moreover 'causation factor' for whatever?

farmerman wrote:

The fossil record is full of examples of intermediate species of fish to amphibians and land animals to whales, reptiles to birds and, armored fish to bony fish.

How did you come to know that it is exactly the evolution (without any serious justification) that 'has made' all these?
... and further, suppose the evolution exists in the physical world and is possible, how did you come to know that it is exactly time that is causing it ... and not a rapid shift in the magnetic field, for example ... or eruption in the solar flare ... or gamma rays from a distant star.
If you are curious to know, the probability for gamma rays to change the bio-code is greater than the probability for a non-existing factor in the physical world (like time) to make whatever.

farmerman wrote:

Youre a bit obtuse if you fail to recognize it or you deny it.

I have had great teachers - in your face for example.
FM, in order to prove that the genetic code can change as a result of changes in the physical world (not just so, with the time), one has to prove that the genetic code is autonomous and possesses the abilities to learn from experience, in other words the genetic code to have intelligence.
When (and IF) you succeed to prove that the genetic code possesses intelligence this will automatically disprove your own theory of the things that the changes it makes (as a result of exercising its own intelligence) are due to time.

3 Replies

@Herald,

If you have problems understanding the concept of time, nothing else matters - to you! LOL

0 Replies

@Herald,

genetic codes respond. responses to stimuli is one of the compound definitions of life. Youre just stringing word and hoping they make sense (they don't)

Quote:

Different is size and shape is variety, not brand new species,

so , you deny that phylogenetic and genetic differences don't constitute new species? have only to add the fact that the fish are reproductivelymiolated.
Seems to be inline for definition as a "new species" . researchers on the Connecticut River fishes are deciding whether these fish are indeed new species.
You and your Creationist compadres are always trying to mover the definitions of species and genera so you don't have to admit to "macro evolution".

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, in order to prove that the genetic code can change as a result of changes in the physical world (not just so, with the time), one has to prove that the genetic code is autonomous and possesses the abilities to learn from experience, in other words the genetic code to have intelligence.
When (and IF) you succeed to prove that the genetic code possesses intelligence this will automatically disprove your own theory of the things that the changes it makes (as a result of exercising its own intelligence) are due to time.

This is so incoherent, one hardly knows where to start. It is incredibly idiotic, because you seem to be incapable of understanding the random nature of mutation, of variation. Most genes do not actively affect an organism. Many genetic characteristics are produced only when a portion of a gene is "turned on," or when it fails to turn on. Over time, any such vaiation or mutational change which benefits individual organisms by enhancing their reproductive success whill be incorporated in the genome.

It's a random effect . . . get it? Your failure of imagination is derived from your assumption at the outset that there is a purposive factor--in your case, your magic sky daddy. Not everyone thinks that way, nor are they obliged to.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

He totally misses the " phylogenetic notetaking" that extinction allows. He totally ignores genetic variability, extinction, and "bad luck".

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

. Most genes do not actively affect an organism.

That is contrary to evolution. "Actively" is used phenomologically. If Setanta can't see it it isn't happening.

Quote:

Over time, any such vaiation or mutational change which benefits individual organisms by enhancing their reproductive success will be incorporated in the genome.

Does that include inheriting large quantities of dough or taking lessons in specious rhetoric. Lamarck rides again.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Over time, any such variation or mutational change which benefits individual organisms by enhancing their reproductive success will be incorporatedand fixed in the genome[OF THE POPULATION].

minor point , the mutation occurs at the individual level, whereas the evolutionary benefit accrues to the population

1 Reply

@farmerman,

This needs to be repeated for posterity,

Quote:

minor point , the mutation occurs at the individual level, whereas the evolutionary benefit accrues to the population

I only have question on the use of the word "benefit."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

He totally ignores genetic variability, extinction, and "bad luck".

'This is so incoherent, one hardly knows where to start. It is incredibly idiotic, because you seem to be incapable of understanding' that throwing a stone at a window is very different process from the process of making glass.
Your assumption that 'the more stones you throw at a window the better glass will by produced ... from the pieces' is really 'incredibly idiotic'.
Can you give an example of an operation system that as a result of some cyber attacks has become by itself, automatically, much better ... without the interference of external intelligence?
Can you prove that a system exposed to random attacks, aiming its destruction, can become better without having the key properties: autonomous and ability to learn from experience - that is intelligence?

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know