 |
| |
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Maybe we should end this debate. |
Lincoln has apparently ended it several hundred posts ago.
quote:
All we do is go around and around in circules covering the same stuff over and over again, |
All the Creationists do is post the same non-answers. They're repeatedly told that these answers are insufficient, they're repeatedly told why these answers are insufficient, and they are asked to provide sufficient answers. The Creationists then do what any "good" Creationist ever does--they provide the exact same insufficient answers. Eventually, the Creationists then get upset, saying something asinine like "Why are you asking me that, I already answered you!"
quote:
also it seems that many are getting a little tick off too because of this. |
Lincoln is upset because we're asking him questions that he is apparently incapable of answering. I'm upset because Lincoln has resorted to ad hominem attacks.
quote:
loinburger the major objection you have is that genic code does not have intelligent receiver. |
Yup, using Lincoln's definition of a "code," a code MUST have an intelligent intended receiver.
quote:
Well other parts of the cell do recieve the code and use it to make protiens in the cell, but it is not intelligent. Codes computer use to talk to each other so to speak are something that might come close to this. |
That is an insufficient answer. I asked for an intelligent intended receiver, not a part of a cell. Computers have an intended intelligent receiver--their human users. That is why a computer's output counts as a "code" under Lincoln's definition. Who or what is the intelligent intended receiver for life? Until you (or Lincoln, but I've pretty much given up on him) can tell me who or what the intelligent intended receiver for life is, you have no agument for calling DNA a "code" under your own definition.
Either tell me who or what the intended intelligent receiver for life is, or else give me a valid example of a "code" (again, using Lincoln's definition) that does not have an intended intelligent receiver. (Note: Lincoln's example of an alien language from an extinct species is invalid, because the alien language had the intended receiver of the alien species.)
quote:
It was good while it lasted, I know that we will never see eye to eye any time soon, oh well. |
Don't fall prey to that line of thinking. If you adhere to an irrational line of reasoning for too long then eventually you'll become convinced that it is Gospel, and if anybody challenges you on your irrationality you'll attack them with insults and idiocy. You managed to keep your head about you in this debate, but who knows how you'll react to a similar debate in five years' time if you close your eyes to the truth now. My guess is that you'll turn into some sort of Lincoln-like robot that spits out the same answers to a set list of questions--deviate from the list of questions, and Creationist-bot will either insult you or obfuscate. Don't be Creationist-bot, Jack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I must say that the atheists here on this thread are really grasping for straws in order to escape the obvious. |
If such is the case, why does this obvious thing remains so elusive for you to prove? 
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Urban Ranger wants me to post here the entire 6,000 year history of codes and languages before he will believe any evidence regarding the mental process that is involved in all codes with a known origin. |
First of all, this "known origin" quantification is a new one. You are not allowed to make any changes to the topics and/or issues of a discussion in the middle of it by the rules of any debate, at least not without the agreement of the other side. So, for the rest of this reply this modification will be ignored.
Secondly, Lincoln, you made the assertion that you have 5000 years of facts to back you up on the issue of "all codes known to humans require intelligence." For such an extraordinary assertion, you must deliver extraordinary evidence. This has always been the case that the proponents of an assertion are the ones with the burden of proof. If you cannot make the proof - or at least show the evidence, it simply means your assertion falls apart.
Thirdly, I have not made any categorial statement in believing (or not) that a mental process is involved in all codes. This seems to be yet another ugly underhanded trick.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
All of the atheists (except perhaps the ones who have not posted recently) here do not even believe what all of biology and the entire scientific world believes (except for a few fanatic atheists) that there really is a genetic code. |
Blatant misrepresentation, given that genetic code is defined similarly to what I gave in a previous post. Since Lincoln continues to use the Fallacy of Equivocation, he has admitted defeat.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
There are some computer programmers on this thread who design codes (in their mind) for the specific purpose of entering them into a machine to accomplish a goal. Yet they deny that the DNA code could do likewise without an "intended intelligent receiver". They are the only ones on earth evidently who would question the existence of a coded language found on another planet as to its intelligent source. |
Again, Fallacy of Equivocation. Twice, in fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
They have tried every type of diversion from tangents to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to huge irrelevant posts that parse complete trains of thought into one line sections with cute or irrelevant comments after each one. |
You raised the point of the Second Law of Theromodynamics, Lincoln. Everybody saw that. If you are unable to answer questions, say so. It is better to be honest then be shown a liar.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
They go round and round pretending that they have forgotten previous answers. |
That aptly decribes you.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
They refuse to consider any evidence whatsoever that even hints at the possibility that an intelligent designer is behind any portion of life regardless of evidence. |
The operative word here is "evidence." Where is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
They concentrate their efforts on trifles and semantics, e.g., "DNA is a known code� therefore when I say that all known codes require intelligent intervention I am supposed to pretend that I cannot make any analogy because DNA is now in existence so that settles it! |
You are the one who are using all kinds of dirty foul smelly underhanded tricks. You are shameless, Lincoln.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Like I said, I rest my case. You can all argue over the gnats and swallow a camel if you have a mind to. You have proved yourselves to be fanatics in spite of your assertions otherwise. You are welcome to your faith. |
Trifles and semantics indeed. You have shown yourself time and time again to be a dishonest person who will stoop to any level in futile efforts to defend an untenable position. Thus far you have not shown one iota of evidence that remotely support your assertion. So far you have used fallacies in all your posts in this thread. You have evaded direct challenges. It is clear to everybody who is blindly holding onto his own faith.
I was hoping you would become more sensible, in reality you are still sticking to the diatribe you have been sprouting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Jack_www,
What are codes to you? Codes are generally accepted as (indirect) ways to represent data and/or information.
How do you represent a rock? If you use a rock, it is not a code. If you draw a picture, use the word "rock," show a photo, etc. These are all codes.
"You could call it a fallacious argument, but it is not circular. Not all bad argument are circular. But I still think it is a valid argument."
This caught my eye.
It seems that you are agreeing that Lincoln's argument is fallacious, yes? Well then, a fallacious argument cannot be valid. A valid argument must not contain any fallacies.
More food for thought: if Lincoln's argument were valid, it would have been quite revolutionary. Why, then, wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal? No, a "worldwide evolutionist coverup" doesn't cut it.
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 01-05-2002 at 10:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
That there really is no such thing as an intelligent, well-informed Creationist? That there's no reasoning with a Creationist-bot? |
Actually there IS such a thing. I had a number of inteligent discusions with a guy called 68nate on the Maximum PC forum. A couple others where one or two at least tried a bit. Lincoln tried a bit but he doesn't a know a fallacy when he uses one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I am sorry everyone that I do not have time to try and restate the obvious in another form. The case is laid out clearly and the baseless objections are also on record here for all to see so I am afraid I will have to leave you all with a general outline of the problems that are encountred when one tries to debate with a fanatic who cannot even see (for example) that there is decay in a graveyard. So here it is and now I will have to bid you all a good day.
The Evangelical Atheist
Ever searching, never finding, he never tires. In his endless quest for the ungod his ultimate goal is nothing. He sees the trees but not the forest. He is satisfied in his knowledge. He studies endlessly, searches books and ancient artifacts, in search of nothing. The hummingbird flies by and hovers for a moment, but he does not see. He is too busy with his microscope to bother. Perturbed he finally notices a blue one, then a red. It must be DNA he muses. Poor creature, thinks he has a God.
The deer play in the woods. The kittens roll around the floor. Silly things. Don't they know that there is no reason for that? Grow up you little imps. Be like me. I subject such folly to pure logic. Get up from there and find some food. You must survive. He peers into the heavens hoping to find emptiness. He searches for black holes. When he finds one, he is ecstatic. He is now fulfilled, almost. What is in the hole he asks? Nothing I hope, he answers to himself. Uh oh, I found something. Well at least I am gainfully employed.
He blows things up trying to create something to prove that there is nothing. He plans and dreams and designs. He never rests until he succeeds in creating something . . . from nothing. Life is all around him yet he must create it himself. I suppose he thinks there isn't enough of it. He worships the ungod. He rises early to find him. His life is dedicated to do his will. He seeks converts to his faith. He is an evangelist of sorts. A fanatic if you please. All praise, all honor, and all power is due his mythical deity, the ungod. He is a man of faith.
His children sit on his lap. His infant daughter giggles. Stop that you fool! What do you want? What is the logic in that, has your mother fed you? His little son plays in the sand. He loves his daddy. He hugs him. Isn’t the ungod wonderful? He has planned this show of seeming affection for the purpose of procreation. Such wisdom. He is so intelligent. He plants his crops and puts his seeds under the microscope to make sure that the ungod has done everything right. Otherwise, they might not grow. Ah yes, the rain. Perfect. The ungod has planned everything well without a plan. Amazing that the water is just what this seed needs. He puts the water under the microscope. Yes it’s wet! Now I see how the seed grows without a God.
The sun comes up, then sets, all by the grace of the ungod. The moon and stars light the sky at night, accidently I am sure. It is not too hot or cold (by some accident). The green things feed the air and the air feeds the lungs of every breathing creature. Then that breath feeds the plants. Where is my textbook? Let's see here, I know that there is an answer somewhere. Oh yea, here it is: The ungod did it!
Weeping at a funeral? DNA I am sure, or perhaps an unconscious desire for procreation. Sacrificial acts of human kindness? It was in the genes no doubt. Heroes are just animals after all. He blinks his eyes. He hears. He smells. He talks. But he cannot see. He hears nothing that is not approved by the ungod. He is a true disciple. The Peacock struts by with his proud plumage; Come here you protoplasmic glob of DNA, give me one of your feathers so I can put it in my test tube. There you see, it was not colorful at all. It was all an illusion. It was simply light reflecting from blackness. I told you so! Now go about your business you proud bird before I analyze your brain and find the reason for your arrogance.
He builds a giant telescope. He plans it. He designs it and he builds it. He designs a computer so that he can prove that there is no designer. He designs the program to prove that there is no design. He gazes into the universe from a building he designed, sitting on a chair that he designed, and he looks for an un-design. He is frustrated because he cannot design without a designer. Each new invention contradicts his efforts so he closes his eyes and pretends the impossible. He is a miracle worker! Behold the ungod!
Bow before him you ignorant peasants. He will give you wisdom and knowledge. He knows all and is in all things. He is omnipotent! Sit here under my feet all you unlearned masses and I will convert you. Leave your petty God at the door and enter into my world of reason. Church begins promptly at ten A.M.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Well Lincoln that is one of the most obvious surrenders I have ever seen.
Lots of good evidence in there for evolution. Good evidence for biochemistry too. None for Jehovah.
Of course there are also a few lies.
quote:
Bow before him you ignorant peasants. He will give you wisdom and knowledge. He knows all and is in all things. He is omnipotent! Sit here under my feet all you unlearned masses and I will convert you. Leave your petty God at the door and enter into my world of reason. Church begins promptly at ten A.M. |
There are few if any actual full blown Madelyn Murry O'Hare style Atheists on this thread. Yet you post this bit of mindless nonsense pretending that it is the case.
None but you think they know all the answers. You have one answer for everything. 'God did it, the Bible says so and evidence will not change it'. No one else on this thread thinks they have all the answers. We only think they can be found and not even all of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
This is the way I see things. When I look at the different forms of life that live here on the earth, the Universe with its countless stars and galaxys the phyiscal laws that govern ever peice of matter in it, and see how organized it is, I logically I reason someone had to behind it all. When I look at the house I live in the the computer I use and the car I ride in, knowing that they were all designed and made by someone, and then look that the human brain, or just a single cell and how complex they are I again reason someone had to have designed these thigs too. I know that many will object and think that this agrument has no merit. To me it seems perfectly sound. I have learned alot about science in the years I have gone to school, and still learning today. Even if we supposed evolution is true just for the shake of argument, how could life could form non living matter on its own? The logical conculsion when look at the things around me and alll the things I have learned over the years tells me that someone had to be behind it, life could not come about on its own.
This is how I view things. I respect your view, and you guys have lots of good points. I dont think everything you say is wrong or do I dissagree with. I can see how you have reached your conclusions about how life got here and about God. I hope that we can have no hard feelings between us. Right now I dont have the time I would like to debate this suject right now, finals are coming very soon. The most I could hope for is that we better understand were we each stand and our beliefs. Maybe we can continue this at anther time, and maybe even have judges, or something to close to what you would have in a real debate. I know that I will not change any of your minds, but this has informed me about were you stand, if anything else I now better understand your posstion, and have a better understanding of the objections people have to idea life was created.
Bye for now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Quote:
"There are few if any actual full blown Madelyn Murry O'Hare style Atheists on this thread. Yet you post this bit of mindless nonsense pretending that it is the case."
Actually if is indended to be hyperbole. I am surprised that you took it seriously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
You posted it seriously. You seemed quite upset.
However I was pointing out the errors in the post and that was one. There is no vast Atheist conspiracy to destroy your beliefs. Only an effort to not have to pay to support them with public money.
O'Hare was a radical. Not at all representitive of most non-believers. However she did help get religion out the US government which is the way the US is supposed to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Anyway it looks like I will have some more time to continue this debate at least today being as though we were rained out of work today. I suppose I should begin with Urban Ranger.
Quote:
“The remnants of a robotic car factory does show that it was built by an intelligence, due to our prior knowledge of robotics, cars, and factories. We know not of the same knowledge with regards to DNA.”
And how is that relevant to your case (if you indeed have one)? Of course we have prior knowledge of the intelligent design of information based machines. Our knowledge teaches us that they arise from intelligence. And DNA is the subject under discussion – that is the problem. You or I do not know how the code came into existence so of course we do not have the same knowledge in that regard. But that is true of most problems or they would not be problems. Why are you stating the obvious? And if we cannot use prior knowledge then science is useless. There is no need to reinvent the wheel before using them.
Quote:
“What are you muttering about? Mental source of what?”
The mental source that you are using to read this thread. Is it real or not? Does it really exist? If you do not believe that it does then I cannot prove anything to you because you cannot recognize the obvious.
Quote:
“"code" is in the strict definition given by Lincoln.”
I spelled out exactly what the code is and does on the other thread. I listed all of the 5 elements and that is the definition that I use throughout. The definition I use describes what it actually is. It is a coded language with statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics just like languages that are used by human beings and computers. Languages come about as the result of intelligent input unless you can prove an exception to the established rule.
Quote:
“First of all, this "known origin" quantification is a new one. You are not allowed to make any changes to the topics and/or issues of a discussion in the middle of it by the rules of any debate, at least not without the agreement of the other side.”
What are we pretending here or trying to find real evidence? I used the term to clarify a misunderstanding because someone twisted the meaning that I obviously intended.
“Thus far you have not shown one iota of evidence that remotely support your assertion. So far you have used fallacies in all your posts in this thread. You have evaded direct challenges.”
You are using the evidence now, i.e., an intelligent mental source that you yourself use to produce coded meaningful information for use both in human communication and in information based machines. Or do you simply plug a computer in and fill it with random static and hope that meaningful information comes into existence? That existing mental source is evidence of how codes come into existence regardless of the weight that you give that evidence. Also there is an entire history of codes and languages that provides evidence to support my assertion. Did you use the word “iota” simply for effect? And the only things I have evaded is questions that are irrelevant to the topic. I am not going to spam this thread with 6,000 years of the history of codes for example. Do your own research and use it to make your own case if you have one.
The debate as it now stands includes evidence to support my hypothesis and you do not even have a speculative credible argument yet to show that evolution made the code. So I am still waiting for your case to be presented? Where is it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So THIS is where you hid the Creationism-Evolution debate!!! YAY!
Jack_www: Intelligent Design: Saying "things are just too complex and orderly for it to be chance" is a crock. Things aren't all that orderly, and there are so many "flaws" of nature that one would have to call it "Not-so-Intelligent Design"
Read this: http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Originally posted on another thread by Logical Realist. |
I dont claim everything is perfect in nature and the world around me. Things tend to break down over time, it is just how things are in the Universe. But when looking at the cell, and thinking of all the things that go in it to make life possible, fills you with awe when you look at it and everthing else in the Universe. I had only time to skim over the article you posted. Seems that many use the fact of how many bad things that have gone in the world and all the bad things people have done in the name of God, which almost seems as an endless list. But one thing I would like to point out is that science can only answer the question of how things happen, how exactly the Universe came into exitistence. QUestions of why are we here, science cannot answer such questions, and it was never meant too. Religion has tried to answer such questions of why. But just because many claim to follow God and have done great evils in the pages of history, does not mean that all of it is bad or that God is cruel or mean. I can see how one can reason that God does not exist when look at the the evils that have been commited through history.
Last edited by Jack_www on 04-05-2002 at 11:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"A coded language used by an extinct alien race would have an intelligent intended receiver: the extinct alien race."
Not if that language was found in the inner workings of a robot that was determined to work fine as the result of that programmed language. That would still be evidence of intelligent life even if the intended receiver of that language was an information based machine. Would that be the case? Yes__ No__
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
If that is not evidence of intelligent life then I have no idea what it would take to convince you. The evidence exists regardless of any intended intelligent receiver. If the space explorer who found the robot was the intended intelligent receiver would that make it evidence of intelligent life? It seems like even the existence of a nuts and bolts machine is not evidence of intelligent life to you. Would you think such a machine evolved from the natural forces of nature or what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
If that is not evidence of intelligent life then I have no idea what it would take to convince you. |
Well a robot is manufactured not grown. It cannot exist on its own. This doesn't magicaly make DNA a code in YOUR own special definition. You are still assuming that DNA needs a inteligent designer not proving it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The point is not the watchmaker argument but what evidence is proof of intelligent design whatsoever. Loinburger answered the direct question with the word, "No,. .."
This has nothing to do with any analogy of a watchmaker at all. The point is that no evidence whatsoever will lead someone with a preconceived belief system to even admit an obvious inferrence of intelligence by the discovery of a robot. A logical answer to the question would have began with: "Yes", but..."
edit: corrected the name "Etheired" to "Loinburger".
Last edited by Lincoln on 05-05-2002 at 04:18
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2002 21:49
|