thehomer:

No I don't since they've been shaped by millions of years of evolution and have helped my ancestors survive so it isn't surprising. How exactly does this lead to your God?

So you are saying that millions of years of undirected events managed to specifically create objects such that they have purposes. Basically, you are claiming here that purposeful objects have resulted through no purpose. How exactly does that work, Please explain, how exactly does a purposeless process create purposeful objects?

Yes they do.

No they don't.

It would have more computing power and more independent than a GPS device.

I don't understand, what exactly does it mean for the GPS to be more independent? Also, can you tell us exactly what this computing power is in terms of the processing speed and storage capacity? You don't have to be exact. Just give us an estimate to help us understand so that we can know what a mindful GPS is when we see one.

You didn't answer my question. Is the output from a GPS device information?

Yes it is but that is not the same thing as saying that the GPS creates information. My printer outputs information too. Would you say that my printer creates information? To say that the GPS creates information is to say that the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning i.e. the GPS or my printer would have to be a purposeful things in order to actually create information.

You're wrong on that too. There can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with my patterns of thought than yours. Yours doesn't become more probable simply because you've made an empty assertion.

Actually it is you who is wrong here considering what my claim actually is. Which is that minds are the only things that can create information. It is not an empty assertion as you cannot deny that minds create information, you can only dispute it by suggesting that other things that are not minds can create information. Where you are fail to produce something else other than mind that creates information (and you have failed so far), then we have absolutely no reason to believe you but my position remains probable.
Anyway, since you claim that there can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with your position, maybe you should present them to us for consideration.
So what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information?

Because minds arise and develop as the brain develops. What do you mean when you say minds function through a physical brain

How exactly does this show that minds arise from brains? What if it is the case that as a brain develops, that minds have a better tool to work with? (which by the way is what I mean by non-physical minds functioning through a physical brain)
Remember that you said that minds are non-physical so how do you know that the mind (which you cannot physically observe) is developing and not just that the brain brain is developing. Aren't you merely assuming the point you are supposed to prove by claiming that a brain development equals a mind development?

If you weren't confused, you won't have even formed such a ridiculous notion.

Actually, I was never confused about what you were saying. The fact remains that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction which is our way of representing it.

Why aren't the physical laws an acceptable answer? After all, the arrangement of the molecule is determined by those laws and they explain the structures at the molecular level.

This assertion is misleading. While it is true that physical laws act on everything physical, they do not determine information or the sort of specificity and precision we find in DNA. To say that is like saying that it is physical laws that determined this website Nairaland.com. While it is true that physical laws acted on Seun's keyboard as he typed out the code, they were not the determining factor of what the code is judging by it's specificity and precision. So NO, physical laws are not an acceptable answer here.

Wow. Looks like your problem currently lies with the use of language. A definition of an object is about that object. e.g the definition of a ball is about a ball. That is how you're confused.

Looks like your problem is in understanding how language is used. I meant "Information that defines you" in the sense that the information determined what you eventually became i.e. how your body is and how it functions. "information about you" doesn't play this sort of determining/causal role. But then being the dishonest fellow that you are it is understandable that you would try to use that strawman in order to shift away from the actual argument while pretending not to understand what is actually being said.

davidylan? Suffice? You must be joking. Your problem is with the language and the word "literally". Please look it up. Here's one source. Please tell me if you think your usage makes sense.

Except that the phrase I actually used is "quite literally". Uyi has pointed this out but I noticed that you keep trying hard to misrepresent him as well. It is clear to everyone observing that you are being disingenuous.

I am suspecting that all this brouhaha over the meaning of the words is because you hope to avoid dealing with the fact that the information in your DNA defines you. By specifically instructing your cells on how your form and function ought to be.

It has everything to do with it given the topic at hand. e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

Merely asserting that it has everything to do with what I am discussing doesn't make it true. So once again, what exactly does God having a body or not have to do with our discussion on whether or not you are mindfully created?

You've not made a logical argument and I've shown you that you were wrong and explained that you have assertion the wrong way around. You've not shown how the human conception come before the actual physical objects.

Please show where I claimed that the human conception came before the physical objects.

Where you said we should assume he has a body.

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

I see, so today is the day of boldfaced lying.

Here is exactly what I said

MrAnony1:

Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

Please highlight exactly where I said that WE should assume that God has a body.

No. Again what is wrong with you? Do you really have such a poor understanding of simple statements? I asked for your God to reveal himself to me the way my friends have if he wants me to believe he exists. This has no bearing on other human beings since I already know that other human beings exist but not your God. Especially given your acceptance of him having a physical body. Sheesh.

So how do you know that other humans that have not revealed themselves to you exist? You can't claim that you have no reason to believe God exists because he hasn't revealed himself to you and at the same time, you have reason to believe that other human beings who haven't revealed themselves to you exist. What are these reasons for believing in the existence unrevealed human beings that an unrevealed God does not share?

Secondly, please stop lying and show where I said that God has a body.

EDIT: By the way, have you ever sincerely sought God and didn't find him? And if you have, how exactly did you go about seeking him?

AllNaijaBlogger:



I dont have time to waste with you.

Neither do I have time to waste with you.

AllNaijaBlogger:

You are dishonest and very pretentious.

You are very ignorant and proud of it.

AllNaijaBlogger:

When did "literally" mean "exactly"? Please go and read a dictionary

You ignorant joker. Which dictionary have you been using?

Dictionary[dot]com]
2. in a literal manner; word for word
[/quote]

[quote author=AllNaijaBlogger:

How is someone alive when he has no DNA? Removing DNA from a cell wont kill a cell (red blood cells, especially) but removing it from all other cells that have DNA would kill the person. You are assuming that all cells operate like the red blood cells (some of which dont need DNA)

This is a stupid question. Do you know what the hypothetical situation being discussed was?

MrAnony1:


The bolded is the part in Uyi's response that thehomer is just about to conveniently miss in order to help his lie along.

And your response shows the self delusion that you people like.

MrAnony1:

Actually "quite fast" means "fast to an extent". Why are you so dishonest? Why is it so hard for you to accurately represent what your opponent is saying?

Does "fast to an extent" mean slow or something else? Why are you so ignorant? Why is it hard for you to accurately represent facts of the matter? Do you think you are literally your DNA?

MrAnony1:

You didn't answer his question. He wanted to know how fossils explain evolution but all your answer shows is that there were once some animals which are now dead. It doesn't explain in any way how the dead animal progressed to currently living ones. Your claim that these fossils are transitional is a baseless one as you haven't actually shown a transition.

That is how fossils explain evolution. Do you know what a transition is?

MrAnony1:




So you admit that something created the universe. Does this thing have physical properties? If so, what properties what are they? . . . .or are you saying that the universe has always existed?

No I'm saying there's no reason to think that nothingness was ever the case. Do you think nothingness was ever the case? If so, how can something come from nothing?

MrAnony1:


I see, so you admit that living things actually appear designed (which makes it apparent that living things have a designer). But while we hold that they appear designed because they are designed, you argue that they aren't actually designed rather they evolved (an undirected process) to look as if they were designed.

No appearing designed doesn't mean it was actually designed.

MrAnony1:

The burden of proof now lies upon you because you are urging us to reject what is apparent to us (you included) in favour of an explanation that isn't readily obvious. So please explain to us how a purposeless process can create purposeful things.

Your burden of proof is to show that the theory of evolution is actually wrong. The theory of evolution explains that. As I've said before, I'm not going to give free biology lessons online to anonymous strangers. There are books and articles on the theory of evolution available.

MrAnony1:

Please explain to us how a human being and a bacterium for example both evolved. Mind you, your explanation must describe how they evolved (without design) from a non-living thing to a living thing. Showing me a living thing to evolving to another living thing will not count as both already fall within the apparently designed category.

Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. Please explain to me how humans came to exist using your own point of view. You now say even showing you evidence of evolution doesn't count because it is evolution in action. What a joke.

MrAnony1:

Yet you were the one evading him. Pretending to laugh doesn't hide your fear

Sure I was. Go through his comment history and expose my fear by linking to the relevant thread.

MrAnony1:





The bolded most accurately describes thehomer.

We also didn't fail to notice that he had to lace his response with personal insults in a failed attempt to make himself sound knowledgeable.

Dear thehomer, you should know by now that calling someone an idiot does nothing to make your argument valid. Your fear is beginning to show.

This is the sort of dishonesty and moaning I've come to expect from people in your position. Was my response inaccurate? Was davidylan actually correct? The fact that I laced my response with insults when I'm insulted shouldn't be a cause for concern. Since you wish to paint yourself as a neutral third party, why don't you address the substance of my statement? You can drag davidylan back to actually show my errors rather than you continuing down the ignorant path he began.

MrAnony1:

Please educate us, what does DNA actually do in cells?

Is this a serious question or are you actually ignorant?

thehomer:


Neither do I have time to waste with you.



You are very ignorant and proud of it.



You ignorant joker. Which dictionary have you been using?





This is a stupid question. Do you know what the hypothetical situation being discussed was?

You are not deceiving anyone with your false bravado. You made an incorrect statement and now you are trying to bully your way out by calling others "ignorant".


You claimed that someone can still live for a few hours after all his or her DNA is removed. That is blatantly false. You need DNA to be alive in the first place. The moment it is all gone, you are dead.

Secondly, we can all see the inapplicable definition of "literal" you used (word for word). Here is a better definition-

Adj. 1. literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of somethingliteral - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma"


Your DNA is essentially you....hence it is literally you.



Did you and Davidylan go to the same school of science?

MrAnony1:

But it was you who said that hunger is different from appetite yet both are a desire to eat. I want clarity and your contradictions are not helping.

Let me quote you:





So please can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

I will when you tell me what your point is besides the definition of words.

MrAnony1:

Now the evasions have begun. Do I also scare you like davidylan does?

Let me remind you what you said in case you have forgotten:


Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

Again, what exactly is your point beyond word definitions? You've still not said what your point is.

MrAnony1:

Yes I am saying that hunger pangs are not a physical property while you on the other hand, claim that they are a physical property and also have a length. So how aren't you saying that physical properties can have physical properties? Or is it that you don't actually understand what you are saying?

I understand what I'm saying and you've just said length isn't a physical property. Is length then non-physical?

MrAnony1:

The physical effects of water include dissolving, soaking, diluting etc. A physical property of water is it's boiling point. The physical effect of fire include burning and melting, the physical properties of fire include temperature and colour. One describes what matter does while the other describes how matter is. Do you get the distinction now?

Okay. Am I to take this as meaning that there are no physical properties of what we perceive?

MrAnony1:

You seem to be finding it difficult maintaining a consistent strand of thought or maybe you are just trying to shift the goal posts. You never described hunger pangs as the physical properties of the stomach but as the physical properties of hunger. So the question is not whether the stomach is matter but whether hunger is matter. Is hunger matter?

No hunger is not matter but it can have some physical effects as I've said before. Please will you answer my question?

MrAnony1:

I said I know hunger the same way you know your mind (as they are both non-physical). Do you know your mind exists? How do you know that? Your answer to that question is similar to how I know my hunger exists.

I know about my mind because I'm conscious. Can you just answer my own questions?

As usual, I've been answering your questions but you avoid answering mine. I will start enforcing that as part of this exchange.

AllNaijaBlogger:







I thought I was the only one who noticed.

Really now. So when someone else throws insults its all okay but when I do it people start moaning about my tone. Or didn't you notice when you and others flung insults?

UyiIredia:


Examples of such precursors please.

Amino acids, water, salt etc.

UyiIredia:

In other words, you refuse to consider, much less accept, the facts. Suit yourself.

Suiting myself already. Get a better analogy.

UyiIredia:

Abiogenesis may be different but it is linked to evolution since both require that life is a result of natural mechanisms. Since they are different, you can't assert life evolved to do away with the design argument as it applies to life's origin.

There are different design arguments. The theory of evolution works when we have the earliest organisms. However those organisms came about.

UyiIredia:

All hypotheses on abiogenesis are have serious problems which is why several have been discarded, the only popular one which is the RNA world scenario is still a work-in-progress and even at that has flaws and obstacles as stated by both creationists and evolutionists respectively..

What is the evidence of your God doing anything at all? As I've said, we don't know the exact steps that still doesn't make your God more plausible.

UyiIredia:

There's nothing about geothermal energy and carbon fixation showing that they can result in life.

You don't actually know that.

UyiIredia:

Evolution assumes living things so using it to explain life's origin is poor reasoning. Not to mention that evolution is outrightly ridiculous. As I've said before abiogenesis is fraught with problems which make it untenable.

Evolution explains why life appears designed. Sure it is ridiculous to you since you're tied to your creationism. Yes we've not worked out abiogenesis. Now, can we talk about the problems with your God doing anything that makes that idea untenable?

UyiIredia:


It does when such vestigial organs were presumed to have no function whatsoever.

That is not how it is used in biology. Vestigial organs have lost their original function.

UyiIredia:

I'll rephrase the question just to be sure you got it.

You point to so-called vestigial structures, similar structures in embryos and adults and protein conservation across various lifeforms as evidence for evolution. What's the basis on which you infer evolution from such facts ?

Keep in mind that you are inferring that all lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor from the said facts.

They are similar structurally and mutate as the organisms diverge. Then there are certain features that actually intelligent designers simply won't do but are explained by the mindless process of evolution.

UyiIredia:

No, that's not all I said. I also said consciousness is immaterial and I said chemistry is constrained to effecting chemical products while using or releasing energy. I stated consciousness contradicts this principle then I asked if you agreed with me. If you do I will move on, if you don't there's no point moving on since that's the premise.

No I don't agree that consciousness contradicts chemistry. What happens now since your God is still nowhere to be seen?

UyiIredia:

The type of patterns is what's in question. I'll try a step-by-step approach.

information: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

Do you agree with this definition of information ?

Sure. Just as long as you know that based on that definition, you're talking about communication too.

MrAnony1:




Good. (do you recall my first post on this thread?)

A. Since you admit that the universe apparently shows design and hence suggests the existence of a designer but isn't really designed. Then essentially you are saying that design is the obvious observation about the universe though this observation is not accurate.
The burden of proof therefore lies on you as you will now have to give us actual reasons to reject what is so apparent to us.

So what reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you?

B. You hold that this apparent design suggests intelligence in any other sense than in the literal sense. What other senses specifically do you mean? Can you give examples to help us understand?

I will answer both A and B together. Sorry for the long delay, do manage to relate it with the entire thread.

I think the Universe is governed by physical laws which are made known by observation. Our observation could be wrong at times but we understand that there is a systemic regularity in the manner things are run in the Universe. We are so adapted to regularity that we hardly question it. The common regularity and arrangement we find in the Universe is imposed by the physical laws, and all structural complexities and causalities are governed by it. By structural complexities, that includes man-made complexities as well as complexities we see about. And like Uyi and Davidylan who are able to see the commonality between man-made complexities and complexities we see about, I see that structural complexity binding both.

Now, Uyi and Davidlyan both think that we can extrapolate the workings and displays of human intelligence to the Universe, because both seem to have a defined structure. And to them, all structures require a foresight. There must be a guided anticipation to accomplish the function of the structure. So they argue more or less, that we should find the function and then by reverse engineering find the maker.

But humans exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe, and modelling their structures to align with them. For example, when humans decided to travel every fast, we realized that there is a way things work and there are rules which we have to follow. We cannot build block cars in our F1 races, rather the cars must be streamlined just as fishes are. Similarly with houses, they function as shelters but they need foundations, weight bearing standards etc. Maybe that is why magic does not work.

In another way, the Universe is a platform for human designs. So the Universe is actually influencing our designs and not the other way round. So all extrapolations made regarding the Universe with human designs are wrong. So also, to find the Universe designed, you have to seek for another platform upon whose rules the Universe was designed to align with.

The obvious question you will ask, the origin of physical laws, and to be sincere I have thought about it but i can only speculate.

MrAnony1:

So you are saying that millions of years of undirected events managed to specifically create objects such that they have purposes. Basically, you are claiming here that purposeful objects have resulted through no purpose. How exactly does that work, Please explain, how exactly does a purposeless process create purposeful objects?

By the process of evolution. Now how does this fact lead to your God?

MrAnony1:

No they don't.

Please make your argument.

MrAnony1:

I don't understand, what exactly does it mean for the GPS to be more independent? Also, can you tell us exactly what this computing power is in terms of the processing speed and storage capacity? You don't have to be exact. Just give us an estimate to help us understand so that we can know what a mindful GPS is when we see one.

By more independent, it would be less predictable. Enough for it to be less predictable.

MrAnony1:

Yes it is but that is not the same thing as saying that the GPS creates information. My printer outputs information too. Would you say that my printer creates information? To say that the GPS creates information is to say that the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning i.e. the GPS or my printer would have to be a purposeful things in order to actually create information.

The output is information. Well the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning. The GPS purpose is to get you to your destination.

MrAnony1:

Actually it is you who is wrong here considering what my claim actually is. Which is that minds are the only things that can create information. It is not an empty assertion as you cannot deny that minds create information, you can only dispute it by suggesting that other things that are not minds can create information. Where you are fail to produce something else other than mind that creates information (and you have failed so far), then we have absolutely no reason to believe you but my position remains probable.
Anyway, since you claim that there can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with your position, maybe you should present them to us for consideration.
So what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information?

Actually my reason is that minds don't exist without physical structures. So, unless you can show me a mind without a physical structure, you're still wrong.

MrAnony1:

How exactly does this show that minds arise from brains? What if it is the case that as a brain develops, that minds have a better tool to work with? (which by the way is what I mean by non-physical minds functioning through a physical brain)
Remember that you said that minds are non-physical so how do you know that the mind (which you cannot physically observe) is developing and not just that the brain brain is developing. Aren't you merely assuming the point you are supposed to prove by claiming that a brain development equals a mind development?

Experimental psychology shows that minds develop as brains develop. That is one of the focus of the field of the theory of mind. Where are these minds that are functioning through a physical brain? How do they pick a brain to interact with? Can they switch brains? Where do they go when a person dies? Are there multiple minds or just one mind split into multiple bodies? Seriously your proposals raise more questions than it answers.

MrAnony1:

Actually, I was never confused about what you were saying. The fact remains that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction which is our way of representing it.

The fact remains that DNA is an actual molecule that interacts with other molecules.

MrAnony1:

This assertion is misleading. While it is true that physical laws act on everything physical, they do not determine information or the sort of specificity and precision we find in DNA. To say that is like saying that it is physical laws that determined this website Nairaland.com. While it is true that physical laws acted on Seun's keyboard as he typed out the code, they were not the determining factor of what the code is judging by it's specificity and precision. So NO, physical laws are not an acceptable answer here.

A website is very different from a biological organism.

MrAnony1:

Looks like your problem is in understanding how language is used. I meant "Information that defines you" in the sense that the information determined what you eventually became i.e. how your body is and how it functions. "information about you" doesn't play this sort of determining/causal role. But then being the dishonest fellow that you are it is understandable that you would try to use that strawman in order to shift away from the actual argument while pretending not to understand what is actually being said.

Ah yes. The classic distinction without a difference. As I've said before and will say again, you are not your literally DNA.

MrAnony1:

Except that the phrase I actually used is "quite literally". Uyi has pointed this out but I noticed that you keep trying hard to misrepresent him as well. It is clear to everyone observing that you are being disingenuous.

I am suspecting that all this brouhaha over the meaning of the words is because you hope to avoid dealing with the fact that the information in your DNA defines you. By specifically instructing your cells on how your form and function ought to be.

This is more rubbish. Unless "quite literally" means the opposite of literally, then you're still saying rubbish. You are not literally or "quite literally" your DNA. DNA is a physical molecule interacting with other physical molecules. DNA is not some conscious entity "instructing" cells, those terms are shorthand for the entirely mechanistic process by which DNA works.

MrAnony1:

Merely asserting that it has everything to do with what I am discussing doesn't make it true. So once again, what exactly does God having a body or not have to do with our discussion on whether or not you are mindfully created?

It has everything to do with it e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

MrAnony1:

Please show where I claimed that the human conception came before the physical objects.

Each time you say the information defines me.

MrAnony1:

I see, so today is the day of boldfaced lying.

Here is exactly what I said


Please highlight exactly where I said that WE should assume that God has a body.

This is why I said before that you don't know how to have a conversation. When you said I should assume he had a body, that implied you were happy to go along with that premise.

MrAnony1:

So how do you know that other humans that have not revealed themselves to you exist? You can't claim that you have no reason to believe God exists because he hasn't revealed himself to you and at the same time, you have reason to believe that other human beings who haven't revealed themselves to you exist. What are these reasons for believing in the existence unrevealed human beings that an unrevealed God does not share?

So many irrelevant diversions.
You asked for what God revealing himself to me would look like I answered here and followed you down this trail. Now can you answer the question I asked there? Can your God do these things?

MrAnony1:

Secondly, please stop lying and show where I said that God has a body.

Where you accepted it for the sake of argument.

MrAnony1:

EDIT: By the way, have you ever sincerely sought God and didn't find him? And if you have, how exactly did you go about seeking him?

This is irrelevant. Your God has revealed himself to people who didn't seek him so he should have been able to reveal himself to me whether or not I sought him. Just ask him to reveal himself to me.

AllNaijaBlogger:





You are not deceiving anyone with your false bravado. You made an incorrect statement and now you are trying to bully your way out by calling others "ignorant".


You claimed that someone can still live for a few hours after all his or her DNA is removed. That is blatantly false. You need DNA to be alive in the first place. The moment it is all gone, you are dead.

This is ignorant. Trillions of cells function without DNA for months. Saying you need DNA to be alive in the first place ignores the basic premise of the hypothetical. If you still don't understand this then you're just lost.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Secondly, we can all see the inapplicable definition of "literal" you used (word for word). Here is a better definition-

Adj. 1. literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of somethingliteral - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma"


Your DNA is essentially you....hence it is literally you.

So DNA has character? Look, just stop and learn how to use words because you're no longer communicating with meaning here.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Did you and Davidylan go to the same school of science?

I don't know where davidylan got his science from but he's sorely lacking.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

Kay17:



The obvious question you will ask, the origin of physical laws, and to be sincere I have thought about it but i can only speculate.

A Straight/simple question; a simple/sincere response

thehomer:


This is ignorant. Trillions of cells function without DNA for months. Saying you need DNA to be alive in the first place ignores the basic premise of the hypothetical. If you still don't understand this then you're just lost.

You can lie!

Most cells have DNA. The only ones that don't are some red blood cells and cornified cells. You say trillions of cells function without DNA as if 10 times that amount of cells do not need DNA .

thehomer:

So DNA has character? Look, just stop and learn how to use words because you're no longer communicating with meaning here.

Strawman alert! How did you arrive at "DNA having character" from the definition of "literal" that I gave? Are you literate at all


Here is the definition again-
Adj. 1. literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something;


From the definition, I could say that eba is essentially garri, therefore eba is literally garri- does that now mean that I am saying that eba has character?

Stop being obtuse

thehomer:

I don't know where davidylan got his science from but he's sorely lacking.

Irony or should I say hypocrisy?

Freksy:




A Straight/simple question; a simple/sincere response

You should know not all beings are sincere. The insincerity is what made some 'Religious' about their belief (atheism) whilst the sincere ones lean to agnosticism

thehomer:


Amino acids, water, salt etc.

Life uses only L-isomers of amino acids. D-isomers are fatal to it. Water and salt are inorganic, biochemicals are typically organic.

thehomer:

There are different design arguments. The theory of evolution works when we have the earliest organisms. However those organisms came about.

So the earliest organism could have been created ? If it's the case that natural factors couldn't effect relatively simple living things, one can be skeptical of the claim that more complex lifeforms naturally evolved.

thehomer:
What is the evidence of your God doing anything at all? As I've said, we don't know the exact steps that still doesn't make your God more plausible.

It's not just an ignorance of the steps, there is simply no aspect of abiotic nature that in principle can effect life. As I said much earlier, the inference to God rests on 2 key arguments: the inability of natural factors to synthesize and organize life and the crucial role intelligence plays in designing functional systems akin to life.

thehomer:
You don't actually know that.

You can prove me wrong by showing how they can actually result in life. They can't.

thehomer:
Evolution explains why life appears designed. Sure it is ridiculous to you since you're tied to your creationism. Yes we've not worked out abiogenesis. Now, can we talk about the problems with your God doing anything that makes that idea untenable?

Evolution explains nothing, it's a poor theory through and through and I can show that. I've already stated the basis on which we infer God, you failed to refute it.

You failed to show that natural processes can synthesize or organize biochemicals into life. You denied the fact that human designs and inventions are similar to living systems, despite my addition of feats of genetic engineering that were clearly biological in nature.

thehomer:


That is not how it is used in biology. Vestigial organs have lost their original function.

And the basis for that was the assumption that certain organs had little or no function, mostly the latter. Weidersheim's list is still on Wikipedia and over time functions were found for the so-called vestigial organs listed there.

thehomer:
They are similar structurally and mutate as the organisms diverge. Then there are certain features that actually intelligent designers simply won't do but are explained by the mindless process of evolution.

This is a poor answer and a non-starter. We already know of the similarity between embryos and adults and in conserved proteins across species. Why do you infer evolution from such similarity ?

Not to mention that vestigial organs vary wildly from man's appendix to the whale's pelvis. Conserved proteins don't mutate and random mutations is undesirable in embryos, it could result in death or serious illnesses.

As far as we have seen, species diverge within limits. They may vary in some traits but remain
morphologically and genetically identical. What are these so-called features designers won't do that evolution can ?

thehomer:
No I don't agree that consciousness contradicts chemistry. What happens now since your God is still nowhere to be seen?

I see. Is consciousness is a chemical product or a form of energy ? B'cos that's what chemical reactions usually result in.

thehomer:
Sure. Just as long as you know that based on that definition, you're talking about communication too.

Okay. Keep in mind that for this for the purposes of argument, complexity requires that it isn't liable to predictions and specifity requires that it performs a given function. Do you agree ?

AllNaijaBlogger:


You can lie!

Most cells have DNA. The only ones that don't are some red blood cells and cornified cells. You say trillions of cells function without DNA as if 10 times that amount of cells do not need DNA .

Which statement was the lie? Is it not a fact that red blood cells live for months without DNA? What exactly is wrong with you?

AllNaijaBlogger:

Strawman alert! How did you arrive at "DNA having character" from the definition of "literal" that I gave? Are you literate at all


Here is the definition again-
Adj. 1. literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something;


From the definition, I could say that eba is essentially garri, therefore eba is literally garri- does that now mean that I am saying that eba has character?

Stop being obtuse

You stupid ignorant buffoon. The definition you presented was talking about character. Didn't you read it before you posted it as your definition? It's clear that you don't know what literal is because your example demonstrates my point and shows your confusion. Eba is literally garri since whatever applies to Eba applies to garri. I showed you that some things that apply to DNA do not apply to you and vice versa. Your ignorance is what prevents you from understanding this simple point.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Irony or should I say hypocrisy?

Neither. Looks like you don't know what those words mean too.

UyiIredia:


Life uses only L-isomers of amino acids. D-isomers are fatal to it. Water and salt are inorganic, biochemicals are typically organic.

D-isomer aren't fatal, they're not used. Organic chemicals are those that carbon atoms and their precursors can be found all over the place.

UyiIredia:

So the earliest organism could have been created ? If it's the case that natural factors couldn't effect relatively simple living things, one can be skeptical of the claim that more complex lifeforms naturally evolved.

To make the argument that they were created, you need to make an argument for the creator. Be skeptical all you want but the theory of evolution has already been shown to be the case.

UyiIredia:

It's not just an ignorance of the steps, there is simply no aspect of abiotic nature that in principle can effect life. As I said much earlier, the inference to God rests on 2 key arguments: the inability of natural factors to synthesize and organize life and the crucial role intelligence plays in designing functional systems akin to life.

And what is the evidence for your God? So far, your arguments are based on ignorance i.e we don't know how natural factors can synthesize organic life therefore God. And an argument based on a flawed analogy that still says nothing about your God. Thus, both arguments are based on ignorance until you can actually show your God.

UyiIredia:

You can prove me wrong by showing how they can actually result in life. They can't.

An argument from ignorance. Whether or not I prove you wrong doesn't make you right. You still have to show your God.

UyiIredia:

Evolution explains nothing, it's a poor theory through and through and I can show that. I've already stated the basis on which we infer God, you failed to refute it.

I told you it was based on a bad analogy. That is the refutation.

UyiIredia:

You failed to show that natural processes can synthesize or organize biochemicals into life. You denied the fact that human designs and inventions are similar to living systems, despite my addition of feats of genetic engineering that were clearly biological in nature.

Regardless of what you think I failed to do, it is still up to you to show that your God did what you're ascribing to him and for you to do that, you need to show your God. You've not done that so your arguments have no weight. Now, can we talk about the problems with your God doing anything that makes that idea untenable?

UyiIredia:


And the basis for that was the assumption that certain organs had little or no function, mostly the latter. Weidersheim's list is still on Wikipedia and over time functions were found for the so-called vestigial organs listed there.

No, the basis is that they've lost their original function. e.g hind legs in whales that can't walk on land is vestigial. You've simply still not understood how that term is used in biology and that is the source of your current confusion.

UyiIredia:

This is a poor answer and a non-starter. We already know of the similarity between embryos and adults and in conserved proteins across species. Why do you infer evolution from such similarity ?

Common ancestry is the best inference to be made. What would you infer from it?

UyiIredia:

Not to mention that vestigial organs vary wildly from man's appendix to the whale's pelvis. Conserved proteins don't mutate and random mutations is undesirable in embryos, it could result in death or serious illnesses.

As far as we have seen, species diverge within limits. They may vary in some traits but remain
morphologically and genetically identical. What are these so-called features designers won't do that evolution can ?

The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe, hind legs in whales etc. Why would an intelligent designer make such blunders?

UyiIredia:

I see. Is consciousness is a chemical product or a form of energy ? B'cos that's what chemical reactions usually result in.

Consciousness is an effect of the complex brain. Why do you say it contradicts chemistry when it can be changed with chemicals?

UyiIredia:

Okay. Keep in mind that for this for the purposes of argument, complexity requires that it isn't liable to predictions and specifity requires that it performs a given function. Do you agree ?

What does "it" refer to in your talk about complexity and specificity? After you've answered that, please just make your point or a summary of it. Whether or not I agree would depend on that summary rather than these vague ideas.

Kay17:


I will answer both A and B together. Sorry for the long delay, do manage to relate it with the entire thread.

I think the Universe is governed by physical laws which are made known by observation. Our observation could be wrong at times but we understand that there is a systemic regularity in the manner things are run in the Universe. We are so adapted to regularity that we hardly question it. The common regularity and arrangement we find in the Universe is imposed by the physical laws, and all structural complexities and causalities are governed by it. By structural complexities, that includes man-made complexities as well as complexities we see about. And like Uyi and Davidylan who are able to see the commonality between man-made complexities and complexities we see about, I see that structural complexity binding both.

Now, Uyi and Davidlyan both think that we can extrapolate the workings and displays of human intelligence to the Universe, because both seem to have a defined structure. And to them, all structures require a foresight. There must be a guided anticipation to accomplish the function of the structure. So they argue more or less, that we should find the function and then by reverse engineering find the maker.

But humans exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe, and modelling their structures to align with them. For example, when humans decided to travel every fast, we realized that there is a way things work and there are rules which we have to follow. We cannot build block cars in our F1 races, rather the cars must be streamlined just as fishes are. Similarly with houses, they function as shelters but they need foundations, weight bearing standards etc. Maybe that is why magic does not work.

In another way, the Universe is a platform for human designs. So the Universe is actually influencing our designs and not the other way round. So all extrapolations made regarding the Universe with human designs are wrong. So also, to find the Universe designed, you have to seek for another platform upon whose rules the Universe was designed to align with.

The obvious question you will ask, the origin of physical laws, and to be sincere I have thought about it but i can only speculate.

What one has to go through to deny existence of the Almighty Creator. SMDH!

thehomer:


D-isomer aren't fatal, they're not used. Organic chemicals are those that carbon atoms and their precursors can be found all over the place.

My mistake, they aren't fatal. Are these precursors present in living things ?

thehomer:
To make the argument that they were created, you need to make an argument for the creator. Be skeptical all you want but the theory of evolution has already been shown to be the case.

I've made the argument. You denied its premise.

thehomer:
And what is the evidence for your God? So far, your arguments are based on ignorance i.e we don't know how natural factors can synthesize organic life therefore God. And an argument based on a flawed analogy that still says nothing about your God. Thus, both arguments are based on ignorance until you can actually show your God.

You are being deceptive. I clearly stated there was a second argument where God was inferred from the role intelligence plays in humans building functional systems. The analogy wasn't flawed
, you ignored instances where design was biological in nature, you ignored similarities between living systems and human designs.

thehomer:
An argument from ignorance. Whether or not I prove you wrong doesn't make you right. You still have to show your God.

How is it an argument from ignorance ?

thehomer:
I told you it was based on a bad analogy. That is the refutation.

I stated why the refutation was wrong, you continued in your denial.

thehomer:
Regardless of what you think I failed to do, it is still up to you to show that your God did what you're ascribing to him and for you to do that, you need to show your God. You've not done that so your arguments have no weight. Now, can we talk about the problems with your God doing anything that makes that idea untenable?

I don't need to show God, inferring God is sufficient.

@Uyi Iredia,

Rather than say God, deus ex machina is more appropriate. Such fits a mysterious being descending from above to create.

timonski:

What one has to go through to deny existence of the Almighty Creator. SMDH!

Thanks for the objection.

thehomer:


No, the basis is that they've lost their original function. e.g hind legs in whales that can't walk on land is vestigial. You've simply still not understood how that term is used in biology and that is the source of your current confusion.

Losing the original function is vestigiality itself. The reason for that belief is the assumption that the organs have little or no function.

thehomer:
Common ancestry is the best inference to be made. What would you infer from it?


The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe, hind legs in whales etc. Why would an intelligent designer make such blunders?

Similarity doesn't conclude common ancestry moreso if all that is observed is that species vary within limits their genes allow. Common design is a better inference given the level of sophistication of what you've mentioned, we also know that humans can deploy a given technology in multiple ways such as the use of Java in devices ranging from remote controls to laptops.

Even assuming bad design is correct, it doesn't eliminate the fact of design. A poor design or a flawed design still is a design. Furthermore, such 'blunders' are based on an ignorance of design constraints or functions which we are unaware of till they are brought to light.

For example, it is now understood that the backward wiring of the retina helps in focusing light to it while also averting severe irritation to light-sensitive photoreceptors. See here, here and here.
Recurrent laryngeal nerves serve to enneervate other nerves and likely take the circuitous route due to developmental constraints in embryos. See here and here
. And whale hip bones are now though to serve a role in supporting whale sex organs who typically have sex at high pressures in the ocean's depths. See here and here.

Bad design arguments wilfully ignore several instances human inventions were reverse-engineered from living things. The 3-axis control systems that allowed the Wright brothers build the first working airplane was derived from birds.

"On the basis of observation, Wilbur concluded that birds
changed the angle of the ends of their wings to make their
bodies roll right or left." - Wright brothers Wikipedia page


You can always go to Wikipedia's biomimetics page to see other designs scientists copied from living things.

Finally, It is very stupid to assert bad design of systems we don't even come close to designing ourselves and in numerous ways are still ignorant of. The correct disposition_and the prevailing one_ is that living things reveal an exquisite design.

thehomer:
Consciousness is an effect of the complex brain. Why do you say it contradicts chemistry when it can be changed with chemicals?

Answer the question please. Is consciousness a chemical compound or a form of energy ?

thehomer:
What does "it" refer to in your talk about complexity and specificity? After you've answered that, please just make your point or a summary of it. Whether or not I agree would depend on that summary rather than these vague ideas.

It refers to patterns as exhibited by various objects.

Kay17:

Thanks for the objection.

Not at all. Things a guy should do for girl.

Kay17:
@Uyi Iredia,

Rather than say God, deus ex machina is more appropriate. Such fits a mysterious being descending from above to create.

I'll just repeat what timonski said:

"What one has to go through to deny existence of the
Almighty Creator. SMDH!"