At this point... i should be going to have some fun... please let me know when you guys have come up with a coherent scientific answer for why you exist other than the typical "i dont know"... i'm really interested. While you're at it, can you scientifically explain why there is no life on Mars even though most of the same physical laws here are also applicable there? Just curious... i'd like to move there sometime.

and oh... while you're searching wikipedia, please stop saying "i dont know" then post reams of links/youtube videos for us to watch. "I am not intelligent enough to understand any of the science i spout" would be a more honest answer.

thehomer:


So we have both chiralities available in nature what is your point?

Actually, biological systems NEVER generate the right-handed forms. that was a basic problem with the Urey-Miller theory. The amino acids found in nature (outside of biological life) are the simplest forms (like glycine), which are all but useless. The point, i would guess, is that if life simply appeared by chance, why were the left-handed amino acids the only ones that are compatible with biological life? What was the evolutionary driver for this specificity?

davidylan:


In fact the truth is the other way round. I was VERY careful to avoid any discussion of God or religion and i made that clear several times to thehomer who simply wanted to talk about God all day. All i wanted was a discussion centered purely around the science. So, no i see this as an absence of evidence to support the scientific speculation of how the earth and life was formed. The only reason God keeps getting dragged into these topics is because you and your ilk would have zero to say, because you do not understand the science.

I have made absolutely NO christian stance. I have quoted NO bible verse, i have not attributed anything so far to any god whatsoever. If at all there is a "harebrained christian stance", you most likely imagined it... because you would have nothing else to contribute otherwise. For you, its all about science vs. religion... when the truth is we should be digging deeper than the superficial nonsense that populates this threads. Lets get the physics and chemistry textbooks out and discuss... you cant... you'd rather whine about christianity while blaming others for dragging God into the matter.

Boo hoo. The name of the topic is "Three Arguments for God's Existence". It says God right in the title so what are you afraid of? Quote the Bible if you think it will help you but don't pretend to be asking questions while trying and failing to hide the fact that you're trying to make an argument for your God.

All I ask is that you make the argument for your God rather than trying to hint that there are things we don't know.

[quote author=davidylan post=35792905]

Oh please stop with the nonsensical whining. Its like you're not capable of reading past your mental block. I just explained at least 3 times that the idea behind ID is firmly rooted in the science...

1. that the statistical probability of random chance creating life is close to zero...
But isn't zero. So is still possible.

thehomer:


Boo hoo. The name of the topic is "Three Arguments for God's Existence". It says God right in the title so what are you afraid of? Quote the Bible if you think it will help you but don't pretend to be asking questions while trying and failing to hide the fact that you're trying to make an argument for your God.

All I ask is that you make the argument [b]for your God rather than trying to hint that there are things we don't know.[/b]

There are bibles on the web... if you're that interested.

anicheibo:
But isn't zero. So is still possible.

ok well i guess since the statistical probability that a car could materialize out of thin air is not zero, you and i can keep hoping no? Might happen one day... quite possible.

[quote author=davidylan post=35792905]

2. that the degree of biological complexity is far beyond anything science can ever explain to have occurred purely by chance...
Similar statements were made regarding so many scientific explanations

thehomer:


The fact that I don't know exactly how something happened doesn't mean I have to accept a supernatural actor.

even when it begs for it with concrete evidence ? Is there a trophy for one's unbelief in God .Maybe that's what y'all are vying for . Or maybe you feel calling yourself an atheist makes people see you as incredulous

KingEbukasBlog:

even when it begs for it with concrete evidence ? Is there a trophy for one's unbelief in God .Maybe that's what y'all are vying for . Or maybe you feel calling yourself an atheist makes people see you as a incredulous

ID has no concrete evidence... neither does the existence of a god

anicheibo:

ID has no concrete evidence... neither does the existence of a god

Then we are safe to say something came out from nothing , right ?

davidylan:


I think you are being unreasonable here because, as Anony said, you are quite literally your DNA. DNA may not be able to type on your computer but DNA is the reason you have the ability to type on your computer at all! The fact that you cannot comprehend such a simple fact is evidence of the closed nature of your mind.

And you're demonstrating a problem with communicating in English. To say I am literally my DNA means that my DNA should be able to do what I do. Clearly my DNA cannot do everything I do therefore I am not literally my DNA. The fact that you cannot comprehend such a simple statement is evidence of your confusion.

Compare that statement to saying General Buhari is literally the current president of Nigeria. Is there something the president of Nigeria can do but General Buhari cannot do?

davidylan:

Your DNA is what dictates what you look like,

Your environment also contributes because malnutrition can also affect how you look.

davidylan:

whether you are male or female,

Exposure to certain hormones, chemicals and surgery can change that.

davidylan:

whether you will be fertile or not

Certain diseases can affect that

davidylan:

and whether you will develop the intelligence to type on a computer.

This can also be affected by diseases or even accidents.

davidylan:

Your DNA is constantly making proteins that ensure you are alive to type on a computer. If you are in doubt... please try a simple experiment... eliminate all your DNA and see if you can still write anything on a computer.

Actually, you can survive for a couple of hours at least without your DNA but you will eventually die.

davidylan:


There are bibles on the web... if you're that interested.

I know and you're welcome to use them if you think it'll help your argument.

davidylan:


if you've got a better idea then please regale us... we are all ears.

I'd rather try to find out than accept just any explanation...seems the intellectually honest way to go...

davidylan:


Actually, biological systems NEVER generate the right-handed forms. that was a basic problem with the Urey-Miller theory. The amino acids found in nature (outside of biological life) are the simplest forms (like glycine), which are all but useless. The point, i would guess, is that if life simply appeared by chance, why were the left-handed amino acids the only ones that are compatible with biological life? What was the evolutionary driver for this specificity?

The L-isomers are the ones used in biological organisms. The specificity is due to the shape of proteins. But what exactly is your point? If both isomers were used, what would that imply?

KingEbukasBlog:

even when it begs for it with concrete evidence ? Is there a trophy for one's unbelief in God .Maybe that's what y'all are vying for . Or maybe you feel calling yourself an atheist makes people see you as a incredulous

Concrete evidence for a supernatural actor? Please what is this concrete evidence? Just so you know, pointing at stuff we don't know isn't evidence of a supernatural actor.

davien:
I'd rather try to find out than accept just any explanation...seems the intellectually honest way to go...

Thank you. Admitting ignorance is better than taking unverified explanations

timonski:
See as Kay17 and thehomer dey flee from davidylan. Oga david, you too much joorh.

You should compose a song about davidylan's victories.

davien:
He was not speaking on scientific points because ID doesn't have any....i've asked all day for one and all you've told me is that "human DNA can be held in a pin prick- therefore designed

You are a dishonest liar. Please show us where Davidylan made that argument.

wiegraf:

no it hasn't. certainly not always. abi do you want me to dig up posts where you made certain harebrained assertions? eg, where you claim our friends, the taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams as opposed to, you know, their brain size increasing in that area as a result of their using that part of their brains more? similar to muscle mass increase from regular exercise? or have you forgotten?

You are lying. Please show where I made this claim.

actually, this very op has repeatedly asserted 'mind' exists without matter. he makes the claim, and very boldly in the op, that the material 'cannot explain consciousness', something you no doubt support. no?

Yes matter cannot explain consciousness

considering this, how ai would exist without spirit power escapes me. mayhaps you can clarify? if spirit power is not necessary, then what is the point of the soul? why the requirement that mind be responsible for the creation of the material if mind itself requires the material?

AI can only exists if an intelligent mind creates it as shown by your link. It wasn't matter that explained it, it was purposeful minds capable of creating.

or, are you suggesting that these scientists are going to piss all over known natural laws and create a.....spirit?

Have they created a spirit?

or what? are you going to assert there are different types of 'mind'? based on what? an a$$pull? after you're shown working ai you're going to claim there's another sort of intelligence that works using...magic?

Strawman, I never said anything about magic

also, since when where you quoting me again, oh great creator of the merry go round?

Since now, oh little man who can't express a coherent thought.

thehomer:

You'll have to be clearer. Saying something functions according to its purpose is uselessly vague. Crystals are specifically formed and function according to their purpose. Please can you tell me what my purpose is?

While I may not know what your purpose is, I know that the purpose of your eye is sight, the purpose of your brain is to think, the purpose of your legs are for walking e.t.c....all of them are complex and specifically arranged in order to perform those functions. Do you deny this?

Yes computers present information.

Question is do they create information?

What sort of explanation are you looking for when there are numerous examples all around you? A GPS device uses data to create navigation information for you to use. Or isn't the output from GPS devices information?

I see, so according to you, the GPS actually creates information yet you don't think it has a mind. Why do you think this? What would a GPS that has a mind look like?

Your claim doesn't stand even if I'm unable to show you're wrong because that is making an argument from ignorance. But as I've shown above with the example, you're wrong.

Yes it is true, your inability to prove me wrong does not prove right however it gives us no reason to believe your position but leaves mine probable.

Minds are not physical but they arise from the physical brain.

I see. How do you know that they arise from a physical brain as opposed to functioning through a physical brain?

No that isn't what I'm saying and what is wrong with you? How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said? How on earth can a human abstraction be what makes cells function?

It seems your amnesia has set in again. My claim was that the DNA carries information that instructs the cells on how to function, your reply was that the information I was referring to was only a human abstraction of the molecule. Hence the question. If anything is wrong with anyone here, it is you. The question is justified. I am happy that you now realize that the information exists and functions apart from the human abstraction used in describing it.

Neither. It is the physical arrangement of the molecules and the physical laws that all these molecules follow.

Well since the physical laws are a constant and apply to every other physical thing in the universe, latching them onto your answer doesn't help you at all. I'd say it is really the specific arrangement of the molecule that is effective in the form and functioning of all living organisms, wouldn't you agree?

How is what I said a strawman? You really need to learn not to simply name drop fallacies but to actually explain how what I said is a fallacy. Secondly, you say you're not talking about "information about me", but my DNA which you say is information that defines me. Isn't that the height of confusion?

It is not confusion at all. It is a strawman fallacy because while I was talking about "information that defines you", you rephrased it as "information about you" and argued against that instead. Secondly, you will need to explain this "confusion" you keep throwing about. How exactly am I confused?

I am not quite literally my DNA. My DNA cannot type on a computer. This sort of absurd statement really baffles me. Are you confused about what words mean or are you confused about how to use words?

Lol, you are only being disingenuous here. I think davidylan's calling you out on this should suffice.

No it is not besides the point. It is a crucial point. How exactly is the question about God having a body a red-herring? Again, don't just name fallacies, but explain how I've committed them.

What exactly does God having a body or not have to do with whether you were mindfully created or not?

You keep asserting that information defines me despite the fact that I've told you that you have things the wrong way around.

And I have also told you that you are wrong. Now can we go back to actual logical arguments or would you rather we just call each other wrong and call it a day?

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?

So you have started lying again. Please show me where I said that God has a body.

Then I'll tell you. They grew up with me, I saw them, touched them, spoke with them and they knew each other. Can your God do these things with me?

Are you saying then that there are no good reasons to believe that persons who did not grow up with you, you never spoke to, and never touched exist? Is revelation (in the sense that you described) the basis for existence?

thehomer:

Appetite is different from hunger and can sometimes be due to hunger. Looks like you're the one making this confusion in your attempt to be pedantic.

But it was you who defined hunger as the perception of the desire to feed. How then do you define appetite?

Hunger pangs are the physical sensations. That is why they're called hunger pangs.

But it was you who claimed that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs. So please tell us what other physical properties of hunger inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

How is what I said confused? Is anything that I said there actually incorrect? Or are you once again demonstrating your own personal failure of thinking things through?

It was you who claimed that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and length is in-turn a physical property of hunger pangs. Please kindly explain how a physical property can also have a physical property or are you just christening "physical property" on anything you like in order to help your argument along?

I said an effect can also be a property. Unless you're saying an effect can never be a property, then you've not countered what I said.

And I said; Not in the physical sense, it can't. Physical properties and physical effects are two very different things.

How is it not a physical property?

Because it doesn't describe matter

Since hunger has no physical properties according to you, how do you know when you're feeling hungry? How do you explain the hunger pangs that people feel when they're hungry?

I know I am hungry the same way you know your mind even though your mind is not physical (according to you). And yes, hunger pangs are an effect of hunger just like how your non-physical mind can propel your physical body to act.

thehomer:


You should compose a song about davidylan's victories.

But truth be told, you ran from davidylan. Are you afraid of him because he has superior knowledge in the field you are discussing?

MrAnony1:

But truth be told, you ran from davidylan. Are you afraid of him because he has superior knowledge in the field you are discussing?

As in , thank God we have a real scientist in the house . The days of their false portrayal as science intellectuals are over ! Ive never seen them shamefully admitting they are ignorant , instead they parade themselves as know-it-alls . Just look at them ! Oshey davidylan

thehomer:


Concrete evidence for a supernatural actor? Please what is this concrete evidence? Just so you know, pointing at stuff we don't know isn't evidence of a supernatural actor.

You as a person are evident enough that the human body is a design .


Lol .... Wait till science tells you how life originated billions of years ago . It hasn't dealt with present problems facing life and its gona tell you what happened far back . As far as you are not there its a belief , as simple as it is .

anicheibo:

nice intelligent design website with the name evolutionnews.org... I expected to see scientific american or nature or at worst wikipedia.... just another ID site, never an unbiased peer reviewed article. Try again

But the sites you mentioned have an evolutionary bias, neither do they accurately state the case for ID or its predictions. You should deal with the predictions instead of yapping about the source.

anicheibo:

The fact that d theory of evolution cant (yet) answer those questions doesn't mean you should infer that intelligent design is the answer. That is just using the god of the gaps argument, and that isn't good at all. And if the universe was designed then its designer must be a cosmic prankster, cuz he/she gives us so much evidence pointing to evolution and the big bang.

The evidence for evolution and the Big Bang is disputable.

thehomer:


So we have both chiralities available in nature what is your point?

So they couldn't have made living things which use a given type of chirality. That's an example of how abiotic natural factors lack the ability to effect biochemicals.

thehomer:
Okay but their precursors do.

Sure, but they don't exist as they do in the body, which makes them irrelevant to the problem.

thehomer:
Computers function very differently from brains. Hearts also function very differently from water pumps. Well that inference is unjustified since you only have information about humans not about some God.

Brains and computers apply the same principles, processing inputs to get output. Hearts and pumping machines apply the same principle of using differential pressure to transport fluids. Furthermore nanotech and genetic engineering feats are as close to life as it gets.

That said, the inference stands as long as one recognizes that intelligence is absolutely crucial to designing functional systems and life is such a system.

thehomer:
But you don't know that natural processes can't make what we consider as life you can only assert it.

The lack of evidence of natural processes effecting life and the observation that they typically degrade living things and corpses supports that assertion.

thehomer:
No it doesn't fall apart. It simply means that I don't know. The fact that I don't know exactly how something happened doesn't mean I have to accept a supernatural actor.

It falls apart if you have no evidence showing me how naturally began. If you don't want to accept that then it's not surprising you insist life wasn't created.

MrAnony1:

But truth be told, you ran from davidylan. Are you afraid of him because he has superior knowledge in the field you are discussing?

It's not surprising. He couldn't present evidence showing that the DNA or life arose naturally.

KingEbukasBlog:


As in , thank God we have a[b] real scientist[/b] in the house . The days of their false portrayal as science intellectuals are over ! Ive never seen them shamefully admitting they are ignorant , instead they parade themselves as know-it-alls . Just look at them ! Oshey davidylan

A "real scientist" who thinks its valid to ask why monkeys are still around if evolution is true?

jayriginal:


A "real scientist" who thinks its valid to ask why monkeys are still around if evolution is true?

... lemme ask you , have you seen the evidence of the ancestry of monkeys ? I mean like we have for man - homosapien , homoeretucs etc

Please, bringing random body parts of apes and then using computer graphics to project the "fact " for evolution is not science , that should be the BTS of "King Kong" - one of my favorite movies