Garvanitis : (n) A rare medical condition which causes one to complain bitterly about how airplanes and hot air balloons are against his god's plan and kill people*, while simultaneously idolizing war machines and dangerously build and decrepit land rovers.
*: (while also boasting about his multiple international flights per year and how he was going to propose during a hot air balloon flight)
£17,000 - Enough to build clean water wells in numerous villages *or* send a person like Bill there to tell everyone that they should be executing their gay population.
Once again, Garvan, your link just links back to itself (firefox 9, IE8). What's wrong? I take it that others can see this remarkable machine - which I assume is not the flashy child's tractor the description might imply.
But seeing as Bill and his minions are rather handicapped that way it is a bit like the intentionally blind leading the situationally blind over the edge of a rather high cliff then the intentionally blind can blame Satan and not there own stupid and ignorant navigation!
At least the tank can be flogged off for scrap...fairy stories tend to cling like fatuous dingleberries that cling to the hairs of a certain part of the anatomy...but 10 times as irritating!
And they allow the torture and murder of young kids that the truly demented claim as witches.
Yes religion...a wonderful example of toxic poison...you would have thought the missionary zeal would have learnt something from the polynesian exploits a 100 years back...but alas no such integrity...why am I not surprised?
Like it, lump it or bark at it like a dog, the gospel has and continues to bring education, medical help and prosperity to poverty stricken regions all over the world.
This is done by individuals who on many occasions sacrifice excellent careers to help others, and succeed.
Yes we know, religion is faith based and yes like every other human endeavour its often abused but the thousands of people who have full bellies, teeth that arent rotting in their heads and eyes that can now see without cataracts probably understand the issue a lot more than you do.
Your like a broken record.
All you seem to do is throw the baby out with the bath water EVERY TIME.
Its soooooooooooo..... boring.
Yes we know so called "religious people" be they Christian or otherwise have caused immense suffering BUT so have those who hold to atheism, agnosticism and every other "ism" in the world.
Its called human selfishness and stupidity....newsflash YOU suffer from it too.
Get over it.
Snore, snore charac-atore.
The endless pendulum swing of tit-for-tat athiest/ religious= good/bad is so narrow minded its depressing.
I expect better from human beings but then I'm a glass half full kind a guy!!!
I'm sure you're right about the atheists and their rejection of anything to do with religion. However the kind of work Bill would spend £17,000 on in Africa isn't going to be the kind that cures cataracts and provides clean drinking water. Leastways, not to people that haven't accepted the demands of his cult first.
Give Bill £20, and tell him he can *only* either spend it on a box of chocolates for himself or to donate to an Islamic charity where it will be used to save someone's sight in Africa, and he'd be stuffed with chocolates within 30 minutes.
Yeah right get stuck into the ole Bill. One problem though..
Hes right.
17k would do a lot of good but then we all make decisions every day to spend money on things which are surplus to our own survival. Why buy steak when spam will do?
You do it too Bill and I doubt garv was going to spend his hard earned on a tank (cool toy though)
So..... as ever in life its a case of balance. Hard to find and easy to lose but thats life for you.
Balance boys, balance....and that includes your deist/atheist crusades.
What many parts of Africa need are good health care and decent secular education.
Health care is important since many people there are subject to parasite infections, these result in poor health and reduced intelligence.
One of the problems is the hydroelectric systems built to power aluminium smelting. The disruption of river systems produce ideal conditions for biting black flies and mosquitoes to thrive, resulting in the spread of diseases like Malaria and Onchocerciasis.
"Yes we know so called "religious people" be they Christian or otherwise have caused immense suffering BUT so have those who hold to atheism, agnosticism and every other "ism" in the world.
Its called human selfishness and stupidity....newsflash YOU suffer from it too.
Get over it."
You still cant resist citing examples, what is my next move in this childish game...should I post links to incidents where atheists have done bad things?
Boring.
I think chaps, though as extremists, you may be loath to admit it, them Christian types have indeed done loads of good with education, sanitation, medical help etc etc in many poor countries.
Yeah the whole gospel bit may get on your tits but man up and admit it. Christian doctors and surgeons have given up lucrative careers to work for nothing in dangerous places just because they believe their God wants them to help others who have nobody.
Grow a pair, you can commend such people for their practical work without agreeing with their prime motivation for doing so.
Honestly, your like 2D cardboard cut-outs of men sometimes.
" Christian doctors and surgeons have given up lucrative careers to work for nothing in dangerous places just because they believe their God wants them to help others who have nobody."
Indeed they have. But reading Bill's post literally he wasn't talking about spending money sending doctors and surgeons, Christian or otherwise, to Africa. He just seemed interested in sending preachers. And, of course,preachers of his particular, narrow, denomination, that probably regards the one you're part of as a bunch of Hell-bound heretics. Hardly a practical use of £17,000, I'm sure you'd agree.
So, as we say, you're wrong, because Bill is wrong.
"" Christian doctors and surgeons have given up lucrative careers to work for nothing in dangerous places just because they believe their God wants them to help others who have nobody."
Indeed they have. But reading Bill's post literally he wasn't talking about spending money sending doctors and surgeons, Christian or otherwise, to Africa. He just seemed interested in sending preachers. And, of course,preachers of his particular, narrow, denomination, that probably regards the one you're part of as a bunch of Hell-bound heretics. Hardly a practical use of £17,000, I'm sure you'd agree.
So, as we say, you're wrong, because Bill is wrong."
I take your point but its my experience that the doctors and preachers are very often the same person.
I know a missionary bloke who works to help the abandoned kids who live in the sewerage system of Romania, he summarises his work by saying he wraps the Gospel up in a sandwich.
For me thats as good as Christianity gets.
So if its a bloke like that getting the 17k to do his feeding and preaching I'm more than happy.
Feel a bit selfish now :(
As for Bill not playing with me? awk I'm as hardcore fundy as you can get, Im used to rejection :)
"But does a person get the sandwich regardless. Or is acceptance of his interpretation of the gospel a requirement to being allowed to eat?"
Did you REALLY write that?
How far does the pendulum have to swing before your so ingrained in your own opinion that such a statement could actually be thought possible?
Of course he doesnt, he, just like the doctors and teachers and nurses and bricklayers etc etc give up their lives to serve the poorest of the poor because they believe in the God many here seem to take great joy in ridiculing.
Thats not to say that everyone that tries to serve God does a great job or doesnt mess up, everyone messes up to some degree or other BUT for those orphans who go to sleep with a full belly the man who came to their home in the sewer 80ft under the city seems to really believe what he says.
Even an arch enemy of deism must conclude that its better that that kid has food and hears a message than goes to sleep hungry?
Now, unto the usual old political correctness set-up line.
"I'm sure if you tell him you find the idea of two men kissing in public disgusting he'll be your friend."
Personally I find the idea of two blokes kissing disgusting full stop but then thats not my bag baby.
I also think almonds are disgusting, modern arts crap and Chihuahuas are a K9 abomination
OH NO!!!!
He said he hates gays and wants them all burnt to death!!!!!
Actually, no I didnt.
I'm just not into homosexuality, its just not my thing. I do however understand that some blokes do feel that way so I respect them as human beings and acknowledge they've as much right to exist as I do.
"But does a person get the sandwich regardless. Or is acceptance of his interpretation of the gospel a requirement to being allowed to eat?"
Did you REALLY write that?
How far does the pendulum have to swing before your so ingrained in your own opinion that such a statement could actually be thought possible?
Of course he doesnt, he, just like the doctors and teachers and nurses and bricklayers etc etc give up their lives to serve the poorest of the poor because they believe in the God many here seem to take great joy in ridiculing.
Thats not to say that everyone that tries to serve God does a great job or doesnt mess up, everyone messes up to some degree or other BUT for those orphans who go to sleep with a full belly the man who came to their home in the sewer 80ft under the city seems to really believe what he says.
Even an arch enemy of deism must conclude that its better that that kid has food and hears a message than goes to sleep hungry?
Now, unto the usual old political correctness set-up line.
"I'm sure if you tell him you find the idea of two men kissing in public disgusting he'll be your friend."
Personally I find the idea of two blokes kissing disgusting full stop but then thats not my bag baby.
I also think almonds are disgusting, modern arts crap and Chihuahuas are a K9 abomination
OH NO!!!!
He said he hates gays and wants them all burnt to death!!!!!
Actually, no I didnt.
I'm just not into homosexuality, its just not my thing. I do however understand that some blokes do feel that way so I respect them as human beings and acknowledge they've as much right to exist as I do.
I am so sick of these militant atheist, thinking that "science" has all the answers when it clearly does not. It makes me so sad that they cannot recognise the Lord God, their Creator and Sustainer, their friend and their master.
There are a few reasonable atheists around, but the ones on this site are all very rude and angry people. I think Garvan should ban you all.
Thanks Yellowcat, my bad - my bleary eyes hadn't noticed the embedded link and were deceived by the title itself being a link. Having seen the tank, I remember years ago seeing an ex-military vehicle for sale on a forecourt with the sign "one lady owner" - referring, I imagine, the the queen!
"I am so sick of these militant atheist, thinking that "science" has all the answers when it clearly does not"
What about those of us who aren't atheists, but who still think the creationist nonsense you peddle is a load of dog poo? Should we be banned as well, for not fitting into your simple black and white categories?
Remember, every morning you should look in the mirror and say loudly and clearly "THERE IS NO GOD AND I HAVE NO SOUL" "THERE IS NO HEAVEN OR HELL" "RELIGION IS A FICTION FOR THE DELUDED AND I DO NOT NEED IT IN MY LIFE" Keep doing that every morning and evening and you will soon find yourself free from faith.
Good luck with this. I only have your best interests in mind.
"I am so sick of these militant atheist, thinking that "science" has all the answers when it clearly does not."
Of course if your mind was not being clouded by your religious infection you would be able to see that while science may not have all the answers is actually does have some of them. Unlike the scrabbling superstitions and wilful ignorance so ardently pushed by your religionist mob.
"There is always the possibility that Bill is a militant atheist POE"
I've often wondered that about some of the more vocal, and anonymous, creationists that appear from time to time.
(I managed to infiltrate a closed creationist forum once by pretending to be one. It's very easy. What was harder was trying to maintain a certain level of integrity. I got banned for being honest.)
"The fact that you had to lie to gain entry would seem to call your pious decorations of being honest into question somewhat kapt?"
I don't claim to be scrupulously honest. But I thought that it was funny that in a group that claimed a moral high-ground honesty was regarded as grounds for a ban.
I questioned the ethics of using out-of-context quotes, amongst other things. Apparently on creationist forums that's a big no-no.
For the record I used to maintain two IDs on the BBC boards many, many years ago. Both non-creationist, but with different approaches. I learned some interesting things about the psychology of creationists doing it, but I shan't be revealing the information, because it's still useful.
And, of course, that's the nice thing about being an 'evolutionist'. Creationists are always telling us we have no morals, so perhaps we should live up to their expectations from time to time to save them being disappointed.
I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills whilst waiting for creationists to come up with rational and scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Are you saying Jesus believed in something for which there is not only no evidence but for which there is evidence showing it didn't happen?
Actually you can probably point to creation as being fairly difficult to disprove. But, sadly, your false doctrine of Bible Worship requires you to believe every last bit of it. Including a global flood that apparently not only shaped teh world's landscape as we see it now, but explains the distribution of animals, plants and humans upon it. Sadly there is no evidence for this flood, and a lot of evidence that shows it couldn't have happened. leastways, not as described in Genesis - you could, of course, speculate any number of extra-biblical miracles, but there's zero evidence for them.
The flood shows Genesis isn't accurate history, and your false doctrine collapses with it.
"I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills"
I replied...
"Btw much as it pains me to point out the obvious ...the fact that it took intelligence to perfect the system is lost on u isn't it."
I was right, it was lost on you.
The letters, punctuation and grammar you refer to now as "refined" is a language/ communication system for storing and passing on information.
You argue in jest but my point is accurate, that the system has been created and improved using applied intelligence.
The letters and the order they appear in is in itself an expression of intelligence. Thats cannot and would not be argued with.
Neither would you argue for one minute that this information communication system is simply random shapes and marks that have just happened by nature to form into words with meaning over time. You would ridicule the very notion, of course intelligence was required.
Yet by comparison that is exactly what you do when arguing that the genetic code, a far more complex information storage and communication system, formed simply by nature without any intelligence involved either in its original state or in the corrupted state we now see it.
Now I know we can get into all sorts of depth about natural selection but in effect all natural selection does is test the various variations in that DNA code for success using environmental conditions. It does not create or add anything to the code itself, it simply weeds it.
This has been argued a gazillion times and why bother getting into it again?
Bottom line is I logically conclude that just as the information storage and communication system we are using now to silently speak to each other was created using intelligence so must have the far more complex dna code system we utilise to exist.
If your refereeing to the design inherent in language it either began with a complete grammatical system which has been adapted (and in my view degraded over the centuries) or it evolved from grunts and squeaks.
Either way it was intelligence that made it into the ordered, structured system we use today.
In fact the latter would be more likely when we consider the example in observed reality of intelligent parents teaching the children they have created in their intelligent image to speak.
A bit "religious" there but a good example of intelligence coming from intelligence.
If your referring to the origin of the infinitely more complex DNA code then similar is true.
Remember natural selection does not "create" anything. Evolution does not "create" anything, it is in effect code copy errors bouncing off environmental conditions. Thats it.
The logical conclusion is then how did the code (which obviously does very occasionally produce copy errors)originate?
Now I am well aware that following the logic of evolution we have to decent further and further back in time to envisage a point where a simple dna code could have originated by natural processes but just how much of a stretch are we willing to allow simply to rule out intelligence in the codes origin?
Firstly, how on Earth can and "original" dna code be described as "simple"? I think that's a massive red herring. There is nothing simple about DNA and any explanation of its origin is completely theoretical.
Secondly, Just how fantastical will we allow the imagined conditions required for its natural origin to be? We have had everything from deep Earth volcanoes to alien intervention? I believe I'm right in saying there are NO testable and verifiable theoretical conditions whereby life could have spontaneously self generated. Now I know its far more complicated than that but this is just a comments box after all but the question remains, we cannot envisage the conditions or environment where a so called "simple" DNA code could form, and neither can we observe this happening today.
Explanations of a cosmic "one-off" event which brought "life" into being are as much faith based as any religion.
If only due to these two very simple concepts I believe the logic that intelligence was involved in the formation of life, DNA code and the universe itself to be a logical one.
Its my conclusion, you don't have to share it and I respect your right to hold an opposing view.
"And who is the designer? Tell us who you personally think the designer is."
" I believe the logic that intelligence was involved in the formation of life, DNA code and the universe itself to be a logical one."
So you don't believe in a designer competent enough to bring into being a universe with natural processes capable of producing DNA? Your designer has limits?
I know some people believe the designer is some kind of omnipotent being. You obviously don't, so it does make your views as to who or what the designer is more intriguing.
You also don't state how you think the design was implemented - you just argued why design had to have taken place.
So you expended many words in not answering either question.
Almost as if you were evading answering them for some reason.
At least Bill and Garvan are honest in their views - they believe their designer popped the universe, the earth and life into existence over six days, about 6000 years ago. They also believe their designer then destroyed most of the life on earth in a great big flood.
Is that what you believe? If not, in what aspects do you differ?
I didnt avoid the question, I merely questioned the relevance of what personal views on who or what characteristics of this possible creator may be?
After all, one may conclude something was created without having any idea who the individual was that created it.
Perhaps you cannot see past the logic of my conclusion and instead try to detract from the integrity of that logical conclusion by attempting to point out flaws in what you perceive my views on that possible creator to be?
"So you don't believe in a designer competent enough to bring into being a universe with natural processes capable of producing DNA? Your designer has limits?"
Not at all, for all I know if a designer exists they could well have created natural processes capable of bringing DNA into existence or they could have done it instantly.
As to your further point, if such a being exists the truth of whether they are limited or not is due to their own nature and ability and not my perception of it. My "belief" in them or their limits is irrelevant to the truth of the reality of their existence or their limitations.
It does seem you are arguing against a perceived opinion here.
"I know some people believe the designer is some kind of omnipotent being. You obviously don't, so it does make your views as to who or what the designer is more intriguing."
Are you sure I dont believe that such a being would be omnipotent? Regardless, such perceptions are "faith" based after the fact matters.
My conclusion that intelligence was used and the examples discussed are not faith based but logical conclusions.
I reality these are in a way two separate matters.
"You also don't state how you think the design was implemented - you just argued why design had to have taken place."
An argument the logic of which you have yet to refute in any way BTW.
Are you agreeing that my conclusion is a fair one or that I am at least at liberty to draw this conclusion intellectually?
That would be quite something and at the very least a step forward from the simple mantra hurling that takes place in such discussions.
Its almost as if you cannot argue with the logic of the conclusion and seek to either refute or ignore it by seeking to attack what you perceive to be my view on the being who may or may not have created the system? or by my perceived lack of explanation of how the intelligence of the system itself was implemented?
Neither reason detracts from the original conclusion.
Must it always be a dance of mutual contempt? I dont think so.
I can understand and respect your view and your right to hold it, can that be mutual?
"At least Bill and Garvan are honest in their views"
In what way does questioning my honesty help your argument?
Have I lied?
Have I acted dishonestly?
Have I sought to say such of you?
Why then call my character into question?
If I have told you the truth and only sought to explain my position logically why stoop to such levels?
Man A looks at the universe and concludes it was brought into existence using intelligence.
Man B looks at the universe and concludes it and nature itself were brought into existence by nature itself.
Both men draw their conclusions logically. There should be no reason why both cannot communicate the reasons for their conclusions in a mutually respectful manner.
"attempting to point out flaws in what you perceive my views on that possible creator to be?"
Why? Are their flaws in your creator?
"ts almost as if you cannot argue with the logic of the conclusion and seek to either refute or ignore it by seeking to attack what you perceive to be my view on the being who may or may not have created the system?"
Not at all - I'm sure that to you your logic is sound. I skipped over it because it didn't answer the questions I asked.
Bill and Garvan are not ashamed to state their views as to who or what the designer is. They don't hide behind 'logic'. They are so sure in their faith that they shout it through megaphones on the street. They don't write paragraph after paragraph claiming that their faith isn't important enough to share with other people.
I'm sorry your faith is so weak that you are ashamed to share it with people.
Does logic tell you that there was a global flood that wiped out all land-based life bar the inhabitants of a large boat?
(Note you don't have to state the logic - just give a time period for the first question and a 'yes' or 'no' for the second. Retrain your verbosity. You can outline the logic in a later post if you wish.)
You skipped over it because it didn't answer the question you asked?
That's convenient.
And now you want me to declare some religious faith so you at least have the veneer of an excuse to dismiss the fair reasoning in my conclusion.
Sorry old chap, can't let you away with it so easy.
I can't believe your argument is so weak you have to resort to luring me into an argument over Noahs ark lol
If you wish to ridicule Garv and Bill for their street preaching and religious faith, feel free, but don't pretend that it's because your somehow able to logically refute their belief in a creator. Your clearly can't and your motivation isn't some scientific crusade for truth and reason.
Anyway, there's no logical arguments that show that Noah's Ark and the global flood are real events. So your evasion of that subject was probably for the best in your case.
Still trying to fit me into the only box you're well practiced at arguing?
Why waste your time hurling predictable rocks from your trench, what is gained?
Forget the religious stuff, if you believe my conclusion to be wrong then explain why it's unreasonable or accept it as an potentially valid position and move on from there.
This pathetic attempt to box people in so you can act your role is intellectually shameful and a dead end.
Learn from and teach someone who holds a different view from you or continue to act out the role you've become accustomed too.
I also note that you have never stated how you think the designer you logically posit implemented the design. What good is a Designer without a Manufacturer?
Warm comforting glows are nice and all but no, thats not my intention.
What it would do is give us a basis to work from.
You have not refuted or argued against the reason and logic I have used to draw my conclusion that I believe intelligence is apparent in the universe and its creation.
I therefore would like you to clarify whether you then accept the intellectual integrity of my conclusion(even if you don't agree with it) before addressing your other questions.
My reasons for requesting this acceptance or your reasons for not doing so first are quite clearly displayed in your own responses so far.
On many occasions now you have attacked my conclusion based on your views about an ark, a flood and a 6000 year old universe.....yet I did not mention ANY of those things.
You are boxing shadows.
I am quite happy to explain how I believe the design (which I assert is apparent, was implemented) but I do not intend to let you off the hook by giving you reasons to dismiss the logic of my original conclusion because we disagree with the design implementation.
With respect you've been itching for that excuse from the start.
I do not wish a victory, I do not want to get one over on you. What I do want is meaningful, respectful intelligent discussion on the issue NOT the very usual mantra based arguments. C'mon we both could write the other parties next twenty responses should the discussion go that way but why should it? it doesnt have to.
So, if you accept the legitimacy of my original conclusion, even if you dont agree with it just say so, but if not please tell me why.
Once thats done we can move on and address all your questions.
I respect your view and intelligence, please respect mine and I will tell you what I believe and why.
So, accepting that the conclusion based on the examples given is logical and intellectually valid ie they would seem to indicate intelligence and therefore design, You're question is...Was the design implimented instantly or did it occur over time?
Its a fair question.
The obvious consideration to bear in mind here is that even if special "complete" creation did occur how would we know it?
If man came into being fully formed and perfect as the Bible would state and that trees and life forms were instantly brought into being and later affected detrimentally by "the fall" how could you prove that? How could we be sure that we weren't just created five minutes ago with fully formed memories?
Ludicrous but true so we have to realise that such a thing cannot be proved even if completely true we therefore have to examine the reality around us and determine for our own selves which explanation is more likely to have occurred.
So, how then could we establish if such an even were true?
Well, remembering that our original conclusion that the universe does appear to be designed and there is nothing intellectually wrong with that view we can examine the example given previously for instance (DNA)to see if it concurs with we we can see, observe and test today.
Even if the Biblical account does concur with what we observe that still does not prove that ex-nilo creation occurred, it simply means (like any theory) that the explanation stands until further facts would seem to indicate otherwise.
Facts are facts, interpretations may differ but facts are facts.
So, what exactly does the Bible state happened?
Well, simply put it states that.
A, The ultimate being (God) created the universe ordered and structured.
B, He created man, animals and plants.
C, This original creation was perfect.
D, Subsequently this perfect creation became corrupt.
Thats a very general description but pretty accurate I think.
Ok, put in simple terms...
An intelligent being brought (by unknown extra or super-natural means)the universe into being including man and that man was created perfect with perfectly functioning physical systems including obviously perfect DNA.
This perfect creation was corrupted and that included the physical make up of man.
Again a pretty simple summary so the question is....
What is more likely?
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
b, The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over eons.
If we examine the two options the first if demonstrated to be the most likely would indicate support for the creation hyotheseis and the existence of a creator.
The second if demonstrated to be correct would not necessarily disprove the existence of a creator but only show that if He did exist that He must have used a slow gradual system in the creation of man. I would also accept that if purely natural process could be demonstrated to produce the universe then such a being is not as necessary in any explanation of existence.
Big post but fair enough?
If your generally happy to proceed we can examine those two options?
The Bible entered the equation about 50 posts ago and it wasn't I that introduced. I do of course understand that even if a Creator exists they may or may not be the one described in the Bible. They could be the God described in any number of religions or perhaps in no way similar to any of them.
This blog however is primarily focused on the standard Judeo/Christian understanding of God and the creation account and lets face it creation evolution haggling features heavily in the Fantastic Adventures of Dr Garvin Ellison so its a decent place to start, no?
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
b, The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over aeons."
So given that the theory of a designer extrapolated from my previous conclusions is fair enough in principal and that we are interpreting this designer in the context of the Judeo?Christian model which of the two above explanations best fit the reality we observe around us.
Ok lets consider option A.
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
Well, any scientific testable/ repeatable experiment will demonstrate that DNA is the most complex information storage and retrieval/communication system currently known to man.
DNA is incredibly complex and I doubt we fully understand it, in fact despite the fortunes spent and thousands of hours of research the greatest minds on the planet are still perhaps only scratching the surface of what could be known about this amazing system.
There is no doubt whatsoever that it is perhaps the most highly ordered system in the universe. It exhibits a level of order and functional complexity previously unimagined. The self replicating and checking functions are incredible.
However it isnt perfect.
We know and do observe in our reality that this awesome information system does on the very, very, very odd occasion throw up copy errors. Sadly these copy errors account for numerous diseases that plague man every day.
Just google how many diseases are caused by these copy errors, its a massive list and very common diseases are all there.
So there are problems with the system but lets not overstate it, the percentage of actual DNA copy errors per replication is a minuscule percentage of the overall number but thats cold comfort to sufferers.
Now, considering the Biblical model that Man was perfect, this means that his eyesight was perfect, his hearing perfect, motor functions and mental capacity, memory etc was perfect. In fact his DNA was perfect. No copy errors occurred in that perfect DNA and therefore no sickness causing genetic mutations either.
That is a fair extrapolation from the word "Perfect" in a modern day DNA context.
Now the Biblical account does state that a corruption occurred which affected man detrimentally. It is obvious from the Biblical account that this corruption led to diseases and suffering, ie what we call today "Genetic disorders".
Obviously the Bible is not a scientific textbook and does not mention DNA but the events described can clearly be demonstrated to concur with my summary here.
So does the Bibles account of a corrupted perfection concur with our modern day examination of DNA?
I believe yes.
Its very very clear that DNA is an unbelievably ordered information storage and retrieval system and that although highly structured and functionally complex it does occasionally generate corruptions, ie copy errors.
So broadly speaking corrupted perfection COULD be used to describe DNA. Certainly the DNA molecule is as close to a perfectly structured system as we could imagine, especially since we are still just scratching the surface as far as understanding its order goes.
Now, we have observed that these copy errors accumulate in the population over generations and new copy errors are passed on but lets take the corrupted perfection model and go backward in time.
Very simply put if our generation had 1000 copy errors in its dna and we traced our linage backwards to our great grandparents we may find that they had 998 copy errors, going back further the number of copy errors would reduce until the point where none existed at all and the system was...perfect.
This is a logical conclusion when we accept that copy errors increase with subsequent generations.
IE. if more copy errors occur with each generation and are passed on then going back in time through the generations there should obviously be less copy errors in the code, going further back we end up with a perfect, uncorrupted dna code.
This again is in line with the Biblical narrative of corrupted, original perfection. It also concurs with the observable law of decay.
I think its fair to say that very generally speaking there is an observable decay in the structured functional complexity of DNA and the results are ever with is in the form of deformity and disease.
So... a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
I feel it does, granted you may not but I think corrupted perfection is a workable interpretation of what we observe in DNA today.
Interestingly the theory of evolution too depends heavily on these observable copy errors and we will no doubt come to that soon.
(Sorry I had to split all that up, Garvs comment box finds it difficult to cope if we're not just cracking one liners at each other lol)
You have posited assumption after assumption and twisted it to fit...cannot even be bothered in explaining your clumsy and backward take on perfect to corrupt and trying to tie that in with the 2nd law and a rather vague claim involving Entropy...which goes in the opposite direction anyway.
Try to contain yourself Brew, I know its difficult for you but please let the discussion take its course.
BTW I know that you are well aware that all proposed theories on a naturalistic origin model for the universe also depend on assumption after assumption (including extra dimensions and unobserved natural phenomena for instance).
So lets not get bogged down it another useless, unproductive slanging match.
If your interested in hearing what my views are and why I believe them correct then sit back and listen, if not just dont read them.
If you want to so badly delude yourself that your utter bilge is a way of explaining life's little mysteries, go ahead knock yourself out...be mu guest, just be aware that your nonsense does not fly, it is fallacious crud from the get go.
Mind you it is only to be expected from a theist of very little actual knowledge.
PS.....Learn what DNA and Copy errors actually are before pontificating made up nonsense on the subject.
As usual brew you embarrass yourself with your vitriol and bile.
It seems you are incapable of simply allowing another person to explain their view if it disagrees with yours.
Bad show old bean, the irony is your claims of seeking only truth are exposed by the predjudice you display when attacking those who disagree with you.
Brew old chap, I may be wrong. My reasoning and logic may be flawed. So what?
It's clear I'm not lieing, trying to defraud anyone or insulting people for the sake of it so why not simply listen to the explanation of someone who holds a view different to yours.
Anon.
That's a quick summary of my thuggee on 'A' give me a shout when you get a chance and I will explain my view on 'B'
'It seems you are incapable of simply allowing another person to explain their view if it disagrees with yours.'
Well that is a the main problem you have...it is not 'just' my view.
It is the view of Evolutionary biologists the world over...and it is no conspiracy...it is a fact that you have misunderstood the science and invented your own to twist sciency sounding words to suit your view...
As I say...go ahead if it makes you feel all clever and pink and fluffy for jeebus...
Just do not expect to be patted on the head for it!
It started here and then we developed it further, must we go back over this again?
Try to remember, I am not trying to convert you to being a rampant creationist, I just said I was willing to logically explain why I consider intelligence was used in the creating of the universe, if your willing to hear it.
You can hear without agreeing, its OK I dont mind.
We can always go back to lippy one liners ans Strangebrews self assured blind arrogance if you prefer but thats been done to death.
We can go back to the start of the exchange or move onto point B, let me know.
Anyway heres where it started.....
You said...
"I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills"
I replied...
"Btw much as it pains me to point out the obvious ...the fact that it took intelligence to perfect the system is lost on u isn't it."
I was right, it was lost on you.
The letters, punctuation and grammar you refer to now as "refined" is a language/ communication system for storing and passing on information.
You argue in jest but my point is accurate, that the system has been created and improved using applied intelligence.
The letters and the order they appear in is in itself an expression of intelligence. Thats cannot and would not be argued with.
Neither would you argue for one minute that this information communication system is simply random shapes and marks that have just happened by nature to form into words with meaning over time. You would ridicule the very notion, of course intelligence was required.
Yet by comparison that is exactly what you do when arguing that the genetic code, a far more complex information storage and communication system, formed simply by nature without any intelligence involved either in its original state or in the corrupted state we now see it.
Now I know we can get into all sorts of depth about natural selection but in effect all natural selection does is test the various variations in that DNA code for success using environmental conditions. It does not create or add anything to the code itself, it simply weeds it.
This has been argued a gazillion times and why bother getting into it again?
Bottom line is I logically conclude that just as the information storage and communication system we are using now to silently speak to each other was created using intelligence so must have the far more complex dna code system we utilise to exist.
Despite the worship of your fans who consider you their genius leader I'm afraid I must point out the obvious truth that you seem unable to meet any view other than your own with anything other than mockery and ridicule, regardless of how logical it is, even before its been fully explained.
Is this the "smarter" that Dr Bob refers too? Surely even one such as yourself must be forced to conclude that there have been dozens of famous scientists who believed in God as the creator of the universe. You of course may not agree with such, this is your prerogative.
It would appear that quite contrary to scientific method, you have already learnt the "truth" and any discussion which would in any way conflict with your belief must be ridiculed and lambasted?
You will of course say that thus far no point raised has measured up to your standard but how can such a discussion take place in the circumstances you create with your childish goadings?
Prove me wrong and see if you can demonstrate a cordial manner in further exchanges?
Human language developed as a product of intelligence.
DNA is more complex than human language.
Therefore DNA must be the product of intelligence.
Yes?"
As you will note, this exchange only occurred after yet another silly jibe about grammar and punctuation and that it was suggested....
""I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills""
I made the obvious and very simple observation that the information storage and communication system you were referring to came into being via intelligence and that any argument otherwise was so foolish none would argue against it.
My remark was an off the cuff response to a silly jibe but it was entirely correct.
Such simple observations have often been the genesis of great discoveries and the better understanding of our universe.
We then began a discussion were the same logic in concluding the English language required intelligence to form was expounded to explain the origin of an immensely more complex information storage and communication ie. DNA.
Was it wrong to apply one reasoned explanation to another area?
I would say no, its done all the time. One may find it personally "wrong" or offensive because if demonstrated as logical it may lead one to consider that the existence of a creator may be an accurate conclusion but this view has more to do with a personal view than a logical conclusion.
The fact that some would find such a consideration (God exists) offensive clearly demonstrates the bias in such discussions. This blog is a prime example.
Anyway, if we return to the logic of my observation and its application to an even more complex information system, is it right to apply the logic of an observable fact and apply it to another question?
Yes of course.
Do you not consider the old tale of how when approaching a car engine appears to emit a high pitch noise but on passing the sound seems to become low pitched?
A very simple and obvious truth you will agree, is it not also true that the same effect was explored as an explanation in other fields including cosmology?
I seem to remember there's a big telescope somewhere named after some bloke who came up with a theory based on the above.
So me exploring or expounding the theory that DNA, as an information storage and communication system may have originated using intelligence just as we've already agreed the English language did is an entirely fair and reasonable stance.
That is not to say its accurate, but it is a fair and reasonable point from which to explore the possibility. Objecting to such a reasonable approach on the grounds that one doesnt like to consider that God may exist is neither rational nor fair. Its not event scientific.
I have since given a short summary of my thoughts on if the DNA code was created using intelligence then I think corrupted perfection is a more likely explanation for its current condition.
As we have now had to return to the beginning of the discussion I have yet to have the opportunity of expling why I think this explanation is more in keeping with observational facts than the..
(B) The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over eons.
Perhaps we can move onto this sometime?
PS Anon, out of interest, can you without qualification tell me your current position on the question of whether you as an individual believe in the existence of God?
"PS Anon, out of interest, can you without qualification tell me your current position on the question of whether you as an individual believe in the existence of God?"
"So me exploring or expounding the theory that DNA, as an information storage and communication system may have originated using intelligence just as we've already agreed the English language did is an entirely fair and reasonable stance."
Of course, the English language wasn't actually designed as such, was it? It has developed from other languages in a way that couldn't actually be described as directed or controlled. Indeed over time it has changed, adapted and even given rise to variants, some of which could almost be considered languages of their own.
So whilst language may be a product of design at the start, the development and complexity of it has come about by an uncontrolled and undirected process.
So we are back to the idea that intelligence might create a particular thing directly, but may also create processes which give rise to that thing. The English you and I speak and write now is not the product of a single, intelligent act of creation; it's the result of an undirected process spanning 2,000 years.
Not sure I agree anon, at each stage and with each change language in both it's written and audible form is directed with intelligence.
Even when we incorporate a word used in a foreign language or slang term this is done for a reason and communicates meaningful information. So I think calling it's development an uncontrolled and undirected process is the complete opposite of the reality, how on earth can random letters, shapes or audible sounds randomly communicate meaningful information?
Indeed, it should be noted that not only must the letters and sounds be ordered in their function but the language within which they are received and interpreted must also be already in place. In other words it requires two factors to be in place, one is the word or sound and the other is the system within which thy are interpreted.
Intelligence in this context is unavoidable in inception and development.
This is a defendable and logical cinclusion and I'm sure deep down you acknowledge that.
Now apply the same logic to the far more complex information storage and communication system that is DNA.
Read again why I conclude (A) to be correct, when your ready I will explain my thoughts on (B).
There is of course no evidence that genomes did not arise by evolution and plenty of evidence genetic mutations give rise to new features in organisms.
Some things such as eyes appear to be relatively easy to evolve.
MOT would be a pain methinks.
ReplyDeleteParking would be a doddle though!
I certainly think Jesus could use that money to spread the Gospel in Africa.
ReplyDeleteJust what Africa needs - Bill on a mission from God.
ReplyDeleteWell, Bill on a mission from his god. Which is not necessarily the same thing.
Garvanitis : (n) A rare medical condition which causes one to complain bitterly about how airplanes and hot air balloons are against his god's plan and kill people*, while simultaneously idolizing war machines and dangerously build and decrepit land rovers.
ReplyDelete*: (while also boasting about his multiple international flights per year and how he was going to propose during a hot air balloon flight)
>> spread the Gospel in Africa
ReplyDeleteCongrats Bill. You've found just about the only legal way that money could be more effectively wasted.
How about spreading some actual education and/or vitally needed medical supplies and water cleaning systems?
You know, real things.
£17,000 - Enough to build clean water wells in numerous villages *or* send a person like Bill there to tell everyone that they should be executing their gay population.
ReplyDeleteI know how I'd rather my money was spent.
Once again, Garvan, your link just links back to itself (firefox 9, IE8). What's wrong? I take it that others can see this remarkable machine - which I assume is not the flashy child's tractor the description might imply.
ReplyDeleteTry this link.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/110743784676#ht_1178wt_1270
Were you clicking on the title of the post or the hypertext link within the post?
Bill said...
ReplyDelete" I certainly think Jesus could use that money to spread the Gospel in Africa."
So you want to spread more lies and confusion rather than doing anything constructive?
How about things that Africa actually needs. Like contraception and other medical services like more vaccines and retro-viral drugs.
'How about things that Africa actually needs'
ReplyDeleteEven basic education based on reality!
But seeing as Bill and his minions are rather handicapped that way it is a bit like the intentionally blind leading the situationally blind over the edge of a rather high cliff then the intentionally blind can blame Satan and not there own stupid and ignorant navigation!
At least the tank can be flogged off for scrap...fairy stories tend to cling like fatuous dingleberries that cling to the hairs of a certain part of the anatomy...but 10 times as irritating!
And they allow the torture and murder of young kids that the truly demented claim as witches.
Yes religion...a wonderful example of toxic poison...you would have thought the missionary zeal would have learnt something from the polynesian exploits a 100 years back...but alas no such integrity...why am I not surprised?
Boak.
ReplyDeleteTypical rabid atheists.
Like it, lump it or bark at it like a dog, the gospel has and continues to bring education, medical help and prosperity to poverty stricken regions all over the world.
This is done by individuals who on many occasions sacrifice excellent careers to help others, and succeed.
Yes we know, religion is faith based and yes like every other human endeavour its often abused but the thousands of people who have full bellies, teeth that arent rotting in their heads and eyes that can now see without cataracts probably understand the issue a lot more than you do.
Your like a broken record.
All you seem to do is throw the baby out with the bath water EVERY TIME.
Its soooooooooooo..... boring.
Yes we know so called "religious people" be they Christian or otherwise have caused immense suffering BUT so have those who hold to atheism, agnosticism and every other "ism" in the world.
Its called human selfishness and stupidity....newsflash YOU suffer from it too.
Get over it.
Snore, snore charac-atore.
The endless pendulum swing of tit-for-tat athiest/ religious= good/bad is so narrow minded its depressing.
I expect better from human beings but then I'm a glass half full kind a guy!!!
BTW Garv, that tanks crap. Bundle of rust too.
Check this one out
http://www.russianmilitary.co.uk/news-story.php?id=10
Dear Anon,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're right about the atheists and their rejection of anything to do with religion. However the kind of work Bill would spend £17,000 on in Africa isn't going to be the kind that cures cataracts and provides clean drinking water. Leastways, not to people that haven't accepted the demands of his cult first.
Give Bill £20, and tell him he can *only* either spend it on a box of chocolates for himself or to donate to an Islamic charity where it will be used to save someone's sight in Africa, and he'd be stuffed with chocolates within 30 minutes.
ReplyDeleteYeah right get stuck into the ole Bill. One problem though..
ReplyDeleteHes right.
17k would do a lot of good but then we all make decisions every day to spend money on things which are surplus to our own survival. Why buy steak when spam will do?
You do it too Bill and I doubt garv was going to spend his hard earned on a tank (cool toy though)
So..... as ever in life its a case of balance. Hard to find and easy to lose but thats life for you.
Balance boys, balance....and that includes your deist/atheist crusades.
Your mate
Awoooeeeeeeee...
"Hes right."
ReplyDeleteOne minor detail mars your otherwise excellent post.
You're wrong.
He's not right.
Indeed evangelical preachers have had such a wonderful humanitarian influence:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alternet.org/world/150899/how_american_evangelism_triggered_the_murder_of_gays_overseas/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html
http://www.childrensprotection.info/2012/01/evangelical-pastors-in-nigeria-have.html
What many parts of Africa need are good health care and decent secular education.
ReplyDeleteHealth care is important since many people there are subject to parasite infections, these result in poor health and reduced intelligence.
One of the problems is the hydroelectric systems built to power aluminium smelting. The disruption of river systems produce ideal conditions for biting black flies and mosquitoes to thrive, resulting in the spread of diseases like Malaria and Onchocerciasis.
Here we go again.
ReplyDeleteEven after I pointed out...
"Yes we know so called "religious people" be they Christian or otherwise have caused immense suffering BUT so have those who hold to atheism, agnosticism and every other "ism" in the world.
Its called human selfishness and stupidity....newsflash YOU suffer from it too.
Get over it."
You still cant resist citing examples, what is my next move in this childish game...should I post links to incidents where atheists have done bad things?
Boring.
I think chaps, though as extremists, you may be loath to admit it, them Christian types have indeed done loads of good with education, sanitation, medical help etc etc in many poor countries.
Yeah the whole gospel bit may get on your tits but man up and admit it. Christian doctors and surgeons have given up lucrative careers to work for nothing in dangerous places just because they believe their God wants them to help others who have nobody.
Grow a pair, you can commend such people for their practical work without agreeing with their prime motivation for doing so.
Honestly, your like 2D cardboard cut-outs of men sometimes.
" Christian doctors and surgeons have given up lucrative careers to work for nothing in dangerous places just because they believe their God wants them to help others who have nobody."
ReplyDeleteIndeed they have. But reading Bill's post literally he wasn't talking about spending money sending doctors and surgeons, Christian or otherwise, to Africa. He just seemed interested in sending preachers. And, of course,preachers of his particular, narrow, denomination, that probably regards the one you're part of as a bunch of Hell-bound heretics. Hardly a practical use of £17,000, I'm sure you'd agree.
So, as we say, you're wrong, because Bill is wrong.
Hi fellow anon
ReplyDelete"" Christian doctors and surgeons have given up lucrative careers to work for nothing in dangerous places just because they believe their God wants them to help others who have nobody."
Indeed they have. But reading Bill's post literally he wasn't talking about spending money sending doctors and surgeons, Christian or otherwise, to Africa. He just seemed interested in sending preachers. And, of course,preachers of his particular, narrow, denomination, that probably regards the one you're part of as a bunch of Hell-bound heretics. Hardly a practical use of £17,000, I'm sure you'd agree.
So, as we say, you're wrong, because Bill is wrong."
I take your point but its my experience that the doctors and preachers are very often the same person.
I know a missionary bloke who works to help the abandoned kids who live in the sewerage system of Romania, he summarises his work by saying he wraps the Gospel up in a sandwich.
For me thats as good as Christianity gets.
So if its a bloke like that getting the 17k to do his feeding and preaching I'm more than happy.
Feel a bit selfish now :(
As for Bill not playing with me? awk I'm as hardcore fundy as you can get, Im used to rejection :)
" he summarises his work by saying he wraps the Gospel up in a sandwich."
ReplyDeleteBut does a person get the sandwich regardless. Or is acceptance of his interpretation of the gospel a requirement to being allowed to eat?
"As for Bill not playing with me? awk I'm as hardcore fundy as you can get, Im used to rejection :)"
I'm sure if you tell him you find the idea of two men kissing in public disgusting he'll be your friend.
Unless you don't.
"But does a person get the sandwich regardless. Or is acceptance of his interpretation of the gospel a requirement to being allowed to eat?"
ReplyDeleteDid you REALLY write that?
How far does the pendulum have to swing before your so ingrained in your own opinion that such a statement could actually be thought possible?
Of course he doesnt, he, just like the doctors and teachers and nurses and bricklayers etc etc give up their lives to serve the poorest of the poor because they believe in the God many here seem to take great joy in ridiculing.
Thats not to say that everyone that tries to serve God does a great job or doesnt mess up, everyone messes up to some degree or other BUT for those orphans who go to sleep with a full belly the man who came to their home in the sewer 80ft under the city seems to really believe what he says.
Even an arch enemy of deism must conclude that its better that that kid has food and hears a message than goes to sleep hungry?
Now, unto the usual old political correctness set-up line.
"I'm sure if you tell him you find the idea of two men kissing in public disgusting he'll be your friend."
Personally I find the idea of two blokes kissing disgusting full stop but then thats not my bag baby.
I also think almonds are disgusting, modern arts crap and Chihuahuas are a K9 abomination
OH NO!!!!
He said he hates gays and wants them all burnt to death!!!!!
Actually, no I didnt.
I'm just not into homosexuality, its just not my thing. I do however understand that some blokes do feel that way so I respect them as human beings and acknowledge they've as much right to exist as I do.
Why does it always have to end up in extremes?
"But does a person get the sandwich regardless. Or is acceptance of his interpretation of the gospel a requirement to being allowed to eat?"
ReplyDeleteDid you REALLY write that?
How far does the pendulum have to swing before your so ingrained in your own opinion that such a statement could actually be thought possible?
Of course he doesnt, he, just like the doctors and teachers and nurses and bricklayers etc etc give up their lives to serve the poorest of the poor because they believe in the God many here seem to take great joy in ridiculing.
Thats not to say that everyone that tries to serve God does a great job or doesnt mess up, everyone messes up to some degree or other BUT for those orphans who go to sleep with a full belly the man who came to their home in the sewer 80ft under the city seems to really believe what he says.
Even an arch enemy of deism must conclude that its better that that kid has food and hears a message than goes to sleep hungry?
Now, unto the usual old political correctness set-up line.
"I'm sure if you tell him you find the idea of two men kissing in public disgusting he'll be your friend."
Personally I find the idea of two blokes kissing disgusting full stop but then thats not my bag baby.
I also think almonds are disgusting, modern arts crap and Chihuahuas are a K9 abomination
OH NO!!!!
He said he hates gays and wants them all burnt to death!!!!!
Actually, no I didnt.
I'm just not into homosexuality, its just not my thing. I do however understand that some blokes do feel that way so I respect them as human beings and acknowledge they've as much right to exist as I do.
Why does it always have to end up in extremes?
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/12/22/noted/
ReplyDeleteHahahahahahaaaaaa
ReplyDeletePathetic,
You struck a blow for free thinking there lol.
I am so sick of these militant atheist, thinking that "science" has all the answers when it clearly does not. It makes me so sad that they cannot recognise the Lord God, their Creator and Sustainer, their friend and their master.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few reasonable atheists around, but the ones on this site are all very rude and angry people. I think Garvan should ban you all.
Thanks Yellowcat, my bad - my bleary eyes hadn't noticed the embedded link and were deceived by the title itself being a link.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen the tank, I remember years ago seeing an ex-military vehicle for sale on a forecourt with the sign "one lady owner" - referring, I imagine, the the queen!
"I am so sick of these militant atheist, thinking that "science" has all the answers when it clearly does not"
ReplyDeleteWhat about those of us who aren't atheists, but who still think the creationist nonsense you peddle is a load of dog poo? Should we be banned as well, for not fitting into your simple black and white categories?
By the way, Bill, there's quite a lot of questions for you on the Obscenity Trial post which you haven't responded to yet.
ReplyDeleteBut probably won't, because you;re too scared to ...
>"Your like a broken record."
ReplyDeleteNo.
YOU'RE like a broken record.
(See what I did there?)
Yeah, I see it aright. ;)
ReplyDeleteYou know you have won the debate when....
*14 Your opponent corrects your spelling or grammar.
Cheers.
Bill said..."I think Garvan should ban you all."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter Bill, can't face the truth?
Remember, every morning you should look in the mirror and say loudly and clearly "THERE IS NO GOD AND I HAVE NO SOUL"
"THERE IS NO HEAVEN OR HELL"
"RELIGION IS A FICTION FOR THE DELUDED AND I DO NOT NEED IT IN MY LIFE"
Keep doing that every morning and evening and you will soon find yourself free from faith.
Good luck with this.
I only have your best interests in mind.
Bill said...
ReplyDelete"I am so sick of these militant atheist, thinking that "science" has all the answers when it clearly does not."
Of course if your mind was not being clouded by your religious infection you would be able to see that while science may not have all the answers is actually does have some of them. Unlike the scrabbling superstitions and wilful ignorance so ardently pushed by your religionist mob.
I was rather hoping Bill could list the people he thinks should be banned for being atheists.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps he could list the names of the ones he doesn't think should be banned, as that might be shorter.
Come on, Bill, let's see your Ban List.
You know you have won the debate when....
*15 Your opponent asks for you to be banned from the forum.
Touché
ReplyDeleteKnock it off Bill, your not doin us any favours!
Lol
There is always the possibility that Bill is a militant atheist POE.
ReplyDeleteWe would never know.
"There is always the possibility that Bill is a militant atheist POE"
ReplyDeleteI've often wondered that about some of the more vocal, and anonymous, creationists that appear from time to time.
(I managed to infiltrate a closed creationist forum once by pretending to be one. It's very easy. What was harder was trying to maintain a certain level of integrity. I got banned for being honest.)
The fact that you had to lie to gain entry would seem to call your pious decorations of being honest into question somewhat kapt?
ReplyDeleteThose at the extremities rarely see the irony in their own statements.
"The fact that you had to lie to gain entry would seem to call your pious decorations of being honest into question somewhat kapt?"
ReplyDeleteI don't claim to be scrupulously honest. But I thought that it was funny that in a group that claimed a moral high-ground honesty was regarded as grounds for a ban.
I questioned the ethics of using out-of-context quotes, amongst other things. Apparently on creationist forums that's a big no-no.
For the record I used to maintain two IDs on the BBC boards many, many years ago. Both non-creationist, but with different approaches. I learned some interesting things about the psychology of creationists doing it, but I shan't be revealing the information, because it's still useful.
And, of course, that's the nice thing about being an 'evolutionist'. Creationists are always telling us we have no morals, so perhaps we should live up to their expectations from time to time to save them being disappointed.
ReplyDelete>"You know you have won the debate when...."
ReplyDeleteA religionist has the "mickey" taken out of them but they're too stupid to understand.
Lol
ReplyDeleteI'm sure...
"you know you've won when your deafened by the noise of your opponent scrapping the barrel"
Is probably in there too but I can't be bothered looking it up.
Moving on.....
Why would you want to scrap the barrel? It's a perfectly good barrel; it has years of use left in it.
ReplyDeleteMind you, someone's been scraping the bottom. That'll need repair. I wonder who it was?
ReplyDeleteHmm, a few pages of Genesis Chapter One from a King James Bible. Well, that's a clue ...
Lol please stop,
ReplyDeleteThis self harmings a terrible thing to witness.
You missed an apostrophe.
ReplyDeleteAlso there's a comma where you probably meant a full-stop.
ReplyDeletePleaee, no more.
ReplyDeleteIts getting embarrassing.
lol, Try to resist it, you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteResist what? The missing apostrophe again?
ReplyDeleteNo the misspelling of "please" lol
ReplyDeleteThe depths of debate are staggering now lol
Have a nice day old bean!.
Is Anonymous legion?
ReplyDeleteIt's not difficult to make up a pseudonym.
lol
ReplyDeleteI think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills whilst waiting for creationists to come up with rational and scientific evidence for their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteWhatever gives you comfort u stick with it ;)
ReplyDeleteBtw much as it pains me to point out the obvious ...the fact that it took intelligence to perfect the system is lost on u isn't it.
Ah well.
If creationism is good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me, and every other Christian to boot!
ReplyDeleteAre you saying Jesus believed in something for which there is not only no evidence but for which there is evidence showing it didn't happen?
ReplyDeleteActually you can probably point to creation as being fairly difficult to disprove. But, sadly, your false doctrine of Bible Worship requires you to believe every last bit of it. Including a global flood that apparently not only shaped teh world's landscape as we see it now, but explains the distribution of animals, plants and humans upon it. Sadly there is no evidence for this flood, and a lot of evidence that shows it couldn't have happened. leastways, not as described in Genesis - you could, of course, speculate any number of extra-biblical miracles, but there's zero evidence for them.
The flood shows Genesis isn't accurate history, and your false doctrine collapses with it.
"If creationism is good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me, and every other Christian to boot!"
ReplyDeleteOther Christian, Bill?
Aren't they a group which are known by their fruits? Something you have yet to demonstrate any of.
".the fact that it took intelligence to perfect the system"
ReplyDeleteFact?
How do you tell the difference between something that is intelligently designed, and something that is not.
Also, how was the design implemented?
You said...
ReplyDelete"I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills"
I replied...
"Btw much as it pains me to point out the obvious ...the fact that it took intelligence to perfect the system is lost on u isn't it."
I was right, it was lost on you.
The letters, punctuation and grammar you refer to now as "refined" is a language/ communication system for storing and passing on information.
You argue in jest but my point is accurate, that the system has been created and improved using applied intelligence.
The letters and the order they appear in is in itself an expression of intelligence. Thats cannot and would not be argued with.
Neither would you argue for one minute that this information communication system is simply random shapes and marks that have just happened by nature to form into words with meaning over time. You would ridicule the very notion, of course intelligence was required.
Yet by comparison that is exactly what you do when arguing that the genetic code, a far more complex information storage and communication system, formed simply by nature without any intelligence involved either in its original state or in the corrupted state we now see it.
Now I know we can get into all sorts of depth about natural selection but in effect all natural selection does is test the various variations in that DNA code for success using environmental conditions. It does not create or add anything to the code itself, it simply weeds it.
This has been argued a gazillion times and why bother getting into it again?
Bottom line is I logically conclude that just as the information storage and communication system we are using now to silently speak to each other was created using intelligence so must have the far more complex dna code system we utilise to exist.
Hence my original comment.
I doubt we shall agree :(
So how was this design implemented?
ReplyDeleteAnd who is the designer? Tell us who you personally think the designer is.
"So how was this design implemented?"
ReplyDeleteIf your refereeing to the design inherent in language it either began with a complete grammatical system which has been adapted (and in my view degraded over the centuries) or it evolved from grunts and squeaks.
Either way it was intelligence that made it into the ordered, structured system we use today.
In fact the latter would be more likely when we consider the example in observed reality of intelligent parents teaching the children they have created in their intelligent image to speak.
A bit "religious" there but a good example of intelligence coming from intelligence.
If your referring to the origin of the infinitely more complex DNA code then similar is true.
Remember natural selection does not "create" anything. Evolution does not "create" anything, it is in effect code copy errors bouncing off environmental conditions. Thats it.
The logical conclusion is then how did the code (which obviously does very occasionally produce copy errors)originate?
Now I am well aware that following the logic of evolution we have to decent further and further back in time to envisage a point where a simple dna code could have originated by natural processes but just how much of a stretch are we willing to allow simply to rule out intelligence in the codes origin?
Firstly, how on Earth can and "original" dna code be described as "simple"? I think that's a massive red herring. There is nothing simple about DNA and any explanation of its origin is completely theoretical.
Secondly, Just how fantastical will we allow the imagined conditions required for its natural origin to be? We have had everything from deep Earth volcanoes to alien intervention? I believe I'm right in saying there are NO testable and verifiable theoretical conditions whereby life could have spontaneously self generated.
Now I know its far more complicated than that but this is just a comments box after all but the question remains, we cannot envisage the conditions or environment where a so called "simple" DNA code could form, and neither can we observe this happening today.
Explanations of a cosmic "one-off" event which brought "life" into being are as much faith based as any religion.
If only due to these two very simple concepts I believe the logic that intelligence was involved in the formation of life, DNA code and the universe itself to be a logical one.
Its my conclusion, you don't have to share it and I respect your right to hold an opposing view.
"And who is the designer? Tell us who you personally think the designer is."
Does it matter?
"Does it matter?"
ReplyDeleteOnly in the fact that you evaded the question.
" I believe the logic that intelligence was involved in the formation of life, DNA code and the universe itself to be a logical one."
So you don't believe in a designer competent enough to bring into being a universe with natural processes capable of producing DNA? Your designer has limits?
I know some people believe the designer is some kind of omnipotent being. You obviously don't, so it does make your views as to who or what the designer is more intriguing.
You also don't state how you think the design was implemented - you just argued why design had to have taken place.
So you expended many words in not answering either question.
Almost as if you were evading answering them for some reason.
At least Bill and Garvan are honest in their views - they believe their designer popped the universe, the earth and life into existence over six days, about 6000 years ago. They also believe their designer then destroyed most of the life on earth in a great big flood.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you believe? If not, in what aspects do you differ?
""Does it matter?"
ReplyDeleteOnly in the fact that you evaded the question."
I didnt avoid the question, I merely questioned the relevance of what personal views on who or what characteristics of this possible creator may be?
After all, one may conclude something was created without having any idea who the individual was that created it.
Perhaps you cannot see past the logic of my conclusion and instead try to detract from the integrity of that logical conclusion by attempting to point out flaws in what you perceive my views on that possible creator to be?
"So you don't believe in a designer competent enough to bring into being a universe with natural processes capable of producing DNA? Your designer has limits?"
Not at all, for all I know if a designer exists they could well have created natural processes capable of bringing DNA into existence or they could have done it instantly.
As to your further point, if such a being exists the truth of whether they are limited or not is due to their own nature and ability and not my perception of it. My "belief" in them or their limits is irrelevant to the truth of the reality of their existence or their limitations.
It does seem you are arguing against a perceived opinion here.
"I know some people believe the designer is some kind of omnipotent being. You obviously don't, so it does make your views as to who or what the designer is more intriguing."
Are you sure I dont believe that such a being would be omnipotent? Regardless, such perceptions are "faith" based after the fact matters.
My conclusion that intelligence was used and the examples discussed are not faith based but logical conclusions.
I reality these are in a way two separate matters.
"You also don't state how you think the design was implemented - you just argued why design had to have taken place."
An argument the logic of which you have yet to refute in any way BTW.
Are you agreeing that my conclusion is a fair one or that I am at least at liberty to draw this conclusion intellectually?
That would be quite something and at the very least a step forward from the simple mantra hurling that takes place in such discussions.
Its almost as if you cannot argue with the logic of the conclusion and seek to either refute or ignore it by seeking to attack what you perceive to be my view on the being who may or may not have created the system? or by my perceived lack of explanation of how the intelligence of the system itself was implemented?
Neither reason detracts from the original conclusion.
Must it always be a dance of mutual contempt? I dont think so.
I can understand and respect your view and your right to hold it, can that be mutual?
"At least Bill and Garvan are honest in their views"
ReplyDeleteIn what way does questioning my honesty help your argument?
Have I lied?
Have I acted dishonestly?
Have I sought to say such of you?
Why then call my character into question?
If I have told you the truth and only sought to explain my position logically why stoop to such levels?
Man A looks at the universe and concludes it was brought into existence using intelligence.
Man B looks at the universe and concludes it and nature itself were brought into existence by nature itself.
Both men draw their conclusions logically. There should be no reason why both cannot communicate the reasons for their conclusions in a mutually respectful manner.
"attempting to point out flaws in what you perceive my views on that possible creator to be?"
ReplyDeleteWhy? Are their flaws in your creator?
"ts almost as if you cannot argue with the logic of the conclusion and seek to either refute or ignore it by seeking to attack what you perceive to be my view on the being who may or may not have created the system?"
Not at all - I'm sure that to you your logic is sound. I skipped over it because it didn't answer the questions I asked.
Bill and Garvan are not ashamed to state their views as to who or what the designer is. They don't hide behind 'logic'. They are so sure in their faith that they shout it through megaphones on the street. They don't write paragraph after paragraph claiming that their faith isn't important enough to share with other people.
I'm sorry your faith is so weak that you are ashamed to share it with people.
By their fruits you shall know them ...
But since you like logic so much:
ReplyDeleteWhen does logic say humans first appeared?
Does logic tell you that there was a global flood that wiped out all land-based life bar the inhabitants of a large boat?
(Note you don't have to state the logic - just give a time period for the first question and a 'yes' or 'no' for the second. Retrain your verbosity. You can outline the logic in a later post if you wish.)
You skipped over it because it didn't answer the question you asked?
ReplyDeleteThat's convenient.
And now you want me to declare some religious faith so you at least have the veneer of an excuse to dismiss the fair reasoning in my conclusion.
Sorry old chap, can't let you away with it so easy.
I can't believe your argument is so weak you have to resort to luring me into an argument over Noahs ark lol
If you wish to ridicule Garv and Bill for their street preaching and religious faith, feel free, but don't pretend that it's because your somehow able to logically refute their belief in a creator. Your clearly can't and your motivation isn't some scientific crusade for truth and reason.
It's simply religious bigotry.
It's simply religious bigotry.
Continued evasion noted.
ReplyDeleteContinued lack of fruit noted.
And not religious bigotry at all - just simple, logical observation. I leave the religious bigotry to Garvan and Bill - they seem so good at it.
Anyway, there's no logical arguments that show that Noah's Ark and the global flood are real events. So your evasion of that subject was probably for the best in your case.
ReplyDeleteStill trying to fit me into the only box you're well practiced at arguing?
ReplyDeleteWhy waste your time hurling predictable rocks from your trench, what is gained?
Forget the religious stuff, if you believe my conclusion to be wrong then explain why it's unreasonable or accept it as an potentially valid position and move on from there.
This pathetic attempt to box people in so you can act your role is intellectually shameful and a dead end.
Learn from and teach someone who holds a different view from you or continue to act out the role you've become accustomed too.
It's up to you.
Still evading.
ReplyDeleteI also note that you have never stated how you think the designer you logically posit implemented the design. What good is a Designer without a Manufacturer?
Is that you admitting my conclusion is intellectually valid?
ReplyDeleteWould that give you a warm comforting glow you could mistake for victory?
ReplyDeleteI say again, how is the design implemented? What good is a Designer without a Manufacturer?
Warm comforting glows are nice and all but no, thats not my intention.
ReplyDeleteWhat it would do is give us a basis to work from.
You have not refuted or argued against the reason and logic I have used to draw my conclusion that I believe intelligence is apparent in the universe and its creation.
I therefore would like you to clarify whether you then accept the intellectual integrity of my conclusion(even if you don't agree with it) before addressing your other questions.
My reasons for requesting this acceptance or your reasons for not doing so first are quite clearly displayed in your own responses so far.
On many occasions now you have attacked my conclusion based on your views about an ark, a flood and a 6000 year old universe.....yet I did not mention ANY of those things.
You are boxing shadows.
I am quite happy to explain how I believe the design (which I assert is apparent, was implemented) but I do not intend to let you off the hook by giving you reasons to dismiss the logic of my original conclusion because we disagree with the design implementation.
With respect you've been itching for that excuse from the start.
I do not wish a victory, I do not want to get one over on you. What I do want is meaningful, respectful intelligent discussion on the issue NOT the very usual mantra based arguments. C'mon we both could write the other parties next twenty responses should the discussion go that way but why should it? it doesnt have to.
So, if you accept the legitimacy of my original conclusion, even if you dont agree with it just say so, but if not please tell me why.
Once thats done we can move on and address all your questions.
I respect your view and intelligence, please respect mine and I will tell you what I believe and why.
Ok - I accept your logic.
ReplyDeleteIt was all designed.
Now, logically, when was it designed and how was it implemented?
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteSo, accepting that the conclusion based on the examples given is logical and intellectually valid ie they would seem to indicate intelligence and therefore design, You're question is...Was the design implimented instantly or did it occur over time?
Its a fair question.
The obvious consideration to bear in mind here is that even if special "complete" creation did occur how would we know it?
If man came into being fully formed and perfect as the Bible would state and that trees and life forms were instantly brought into being and later affected detrimentally by "the fall" how could you prove that? How could we be sure that we weren't just created five minutes ago with fully formed memories?
Ludicrous but true so we have to realise that such a thing cannot be proved even if completely true we therefore have to examine the reality around us and determine for our own selves which explanation is more likely to have occurred.
So, how then could we establish if such an even were true?
Well, remembering that our original conclusion that the universe does appear to be designed and there is nothing intellectually wrong with that view we can examine the example given previously for instance (DNA)to see if it concurs with we we can see, observe and test today.
Even if the Biblical account does concur with what we observe that still does not prove that ex-nilo creation occurred, it simply means (like any theory) that the explanation stands until further facts would seem to indicate otherwise.
Facts are facts, interpretations may differ but facts are facts.
So, what exactly does the Bible state happened?
Well, simply put it states that.
A, The ultimate being (God) created the universe ordered and structured.
B, He created man, animals and plants.
C, This original creation was perfect.
D, Subsequently this perfect creation became corrupt.
Thats a very general description but pretty accurate I think.
Ok, put in simple terms...
An intelligent being brought (by unknown extra or super-natural means)the universe into being including man and that man was created perfect with perfectly functioning physical systems including obviously perfect DNA.
This perfect creation was corrupted and that included the physical make up of man.
Again a pretty simple summary so the question is....
What is more likely?
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
b, The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over eons.
If we examine the two options the first if demonstrated to be the most likely would indicate support for the creation hyotheseis and the existence of a creator.
The second if demonstrated to be correct would not necessarily disprove the existence of a creator but only show that if He did exist that He must have used a slow gradual system in the creation of man.
I would also accept that if purely natural process could be demonstrated to produce the universe then such a being is not as necessary in any explanation of existence.
Big post but fair enough?
If your generally happy to proceed we can examine those two options?
"Big post but fair enough?"
ReplyDeleteAt what point did the Bible enter the equation? And why?
"If your generally happy to proceed we can examine those two options?"
ReplyDeleteI'm all ears ...
Are both anons the same person there?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible entered the equation about 50 posts ago and it wasn't I that introduced. I do of course understand that even if a Creator exists they may or may not be the one described in the Bible. They could be the God described in any number of religions or perhaps in no way similar to any of them.
This blog however is primarily focused on the standard Judeo/Christian understanding of God and the creation account and lets face it creation evolution haggling features heavily in the Fantastic Adventures of Dr Garvin Ellison so its a decent place to start, no?
TBC
Ok
ReplyDelete"What is more likely?
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
b, The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over aeons."
So given that the theory of a designer extrapolated from my previous conclusions is fair enough in principal and that we are interpreting this designer in the context of the Judeo?Christian model which of the two above explanations best fit the reality we observe around us.
Ok lets consider option A.
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
Well, any scientific testable/ repeatable experiment will demonstrate that DNA is the most complex information storage and retrieval/communication system currently known to man.
DNA is incredibly complex and I doubt we fully understand it, in fact despite the fortunes spent and thousands of hours of research the greatest minds on the planet are still perhaps only scratching the surface of what could be known about this amazing system.
There is no doubt whatsoever that it is perhaps the most highly ordered system in the universe. It exhibits a level of order and functional complexity previously unimagined. The self replicating and checking functions are incredible.
However it isnt perfect.
We know and do observe in our reality that this awesome information system does on the very, very, very odd occasion throw up copy errors. Sadly these copy errors account for numerous diseases that plague man every day.
Just google how many diseases are caused by these copy errors, its a massive list and very common diseases are all there.
So there are problems with the system but lets not overstate it, the percentage of actual DNA copy errors per replication is a minuscule percentage of the overall number but thats cold comfort to sufferers.
Now, considering the Biblical model that Man was perfect, this means that his eyesight was perfect, his hearing perfect, motor functions and mental capacity, memory etc was perfect. In fact his DNA was perfect. No copy errors occurred in that perfect DNA and therefore no sickness causing genetic mutations either.
That is a fair extrapolation from the word "Perfect" in a modern day DNA context.
Now the Biblical account does state that a corruption occurred which affected man detrimentally. It is obvious from the Biblical account that this corruption led to diseases and suffering, ie what we call today "Genetic disorders".
Obviously the Bible is not a scientific textbook and does not mention DNA but the events described can clearly be demonstrated to concur with my summary here.
So does the Bibles account of a corrupted perfection concur with our modern day examination of DNA?
I believe yes.
Its very very clear that DNA is an unbelievably ordered information storage and retrieval system and that although highly structured and functionally complex it does occasionally generate corruptions, ie copy errors.
So broadly speaking corrupted perfection COULD be used to describe DNA. Certainly the DNA molecule is as close to a perfectly structured system as we could imagine, especially since we are still just scratching the surface as far as understanding its order goes.
Now, we have observed that these copy errors accumulate in the population over generations and new copy errors are passed on but lets take the corrupted perfection model and go backward in time.
ReplyDeleteVery simply put if our generation had 1000 copy errors in its dna and we traced our linage backwards to our great grandparents we may find that they had 998 copy errors, going back further the number of copy errors would reduce until the point where none existed at all and the system was...perfect.
This is a logical conclusion when we accept that copy errors increase with subsequent generations.
IE. if more copy errors occur with each generation and are passed on then going back in time through the generations there should obviously be less copy errors in the code, going further back we end up with a perfect, uncorrupted dna code.
This again is in line with the Biblical narrative of corrupted, original perfection. It also concurs with the observable law of decay.
I think its fair to say that very generally speaking there is an observable decay in the structured functional complexity of DNA and the results are ever with is in the form of deformity and disease.
So...
a, The ex-nilo creation view- Does mans DNA exibit the characteristics of a perfect ordered system into which has entered corruptions or...
I feel it does, granted you may not but I think corrupted perfection is a workable interpretation of what we observe in DNA today.
Interestingly the theory of evolution too depends heavily on these observable copy errors and we will no doubt come to that soon.
(Sorry I had to split all that up, Garvs comment box finds it difficult to cope if we're not just cracking one liners at each other lol)
Nice try but total cobblers...
ReplyDeleteYou have posited assumption after assumption and twisted it to fit...cannot even be bothered in explaining your clumsy and backward take on perfect to corrupt and trying to tie that in with the 2nd law and a rather vague claim involving Entropy...which goes in the opposite direction anyway.
Try to contain yourself Brew, I know its difficult for you but please let the discussion take its course.
ReplyDeleteBTW I know that you are well aware that all proposed theories on a naturalistic origin model for the universe also depend on assumption after assumption (including extra dimensions and unobserved natural phenomena for instance).
So lets not get bogged down it another useless, unproductive slanging match.
If your interested in hearing what my views are and why I believe them correct then sit back and listen, if not just dont read them.
But please, lets not lose it.
If you want to so badly delude yourself that your utter bilge is a way of explaining life's little mysteries, go ahead knock yourself out...be mu guest, just be aware that your nonsense does not fly, it is fallacious crud from the get go.
ReplyDeleteMind you it is only to be expected from a theist of very little actual knowledge.
PS.....Learn what DNA and Copy errors actually are before pontificating made up nonsense on the subject.
But carry on...bury yourself...good for a laugh!
As usual brew you embarrass yourself with your vitriol and bile.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you are incapable of simply allowing another person to explain their view if it disagrees with yours.
Bad show old bean, the irony is your claims of seeking only truth are exposed by the predjudice you display when attacking those who disagree with you.
Brew old chap, I may be wrong. My reasoning and logic may be flawed. So what?
It's clear I'm not lieing, trying to defraud anyone or insulting people for the sake of it so why not simply listen to the explanation of someone who holds a view different to yours.
Anon.
That's a quick summary of my thuggee on 'A' give me a shout when you get a chance and I will explain my view on 'B'
Cheers
lol "Thugee" err. thats "theory" after an I-phone spell checkers finished.
ReplyDeleteConsider it a copy error lol
Let me know when your ready anon for my thoughts on B
"b, The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over aeons."
'It seems you are incapable of simply allowing another person to explain their view if it disagrees with yours.'
ReplyDeleteWell that is a the main problem you have...it is not 'just' my view.
It is the view of Evolutionary biologists the world over...and it is no conspiracy...it is a fact that you have misunderstood the science and invented your own to twist sciency sounding words to suit your view...
As I say...go ahead if it makes you feel all clever and pink and fluffy for jeebus...
Just do not expect to be patted on the head for it!
Strangebrew is not happy.
ReplyDeleteDuly noted.
Moving on..
'Strangebrew is not happy.'
ReplyDeleteNah do not flatter yourself so much!
It takes a heck of a lot more then your inanity to wind me up!
I have the popcorn and a tube of fosters and a comfy chair...I await your genius?
Well theres an invitation for cordial discussion if I ever saw one.
ReplyDeleteSorry to dissapointing brew, your the village heckler, I'm waiting on the squire.
Better keep yer Fosters on ice for a bit.
Actually I've been going back through the thread, and I've lost the original, logical, argument that DNA and life *must* have been designed.
ReplyDeleteCould you clearly restate it?
It started here and then we developed it further, must we go back over this again?
ReplyDeleteTry to remember, I am not trying to convert you to being a rampant creationist, I just said I was willing to logically explain why I consider intelligence was used in the creating of the universe, if your willing to hear it.
You can hear without agreeing, its OK I dont mind.
We can always go back to lippy one liners ans Strangebrews self assured blind arrogance if you prefer but thats been done to death.
We can go back to the start of the exchange or move onto point B, let me know.
Anyway heres where it started.....
You said...
"I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills"
I replied...
"Btw much as it pains me to point out the obvious ...the fact that it took intelligence to perfect the system is lost on u isn't it."
I was right, it was lost on you.
The letters, punctuation and grammar you refer to now as "refined" is a language/ communication system for storing and passing on information.
You argue in jest but my point is accurate, that the system has been created and improved using applied intelligence.
The letters and the order they appear in is in itself an expression of intelligence. Thats cannot and would not be argued with.
Neither would you argue for one minute that this information communication system is simply random shapes and marks that have just happened by nature to form into words with meaning over time. You would ridicule the very notion, of course intelligence was required.
Yet by comparison that is exactly what you do when arguing that the genetic code, a far more complex information storage and communication system, formed simply by nature without any intelligence involved either in its original state or in the corrupted state we now see it.
Now I know we can get into all sorts of depth about natural selection but in effect all natural selection does is test the various variations in that DNA code for success using environmental conditions. It does not create or add anything to the code itself, it simply weeds it.
This has been argued a gazillion times and why bother getting into it again?
Bottom line is I logically conclude that just as the information storage and communication system we are using now to silently speak to each other was created using intelligence so must have the far more complex dna code system we utilise to exist.
Hence my original comment.
I doubt we shall agree :(
So a summary of the logic is:
ReplyDeleteHuman language developed as a product of intelligence.
DNA is more complex than human language.
Therefore DNA must be the product of intelligence.
Yes?
' So a summary of the logic is...'
ReplyDeleteShorter version...
"Godwotwentandgoneanddidit"
But the 'analysis' was good for a laugh...I knew it would be...not disappointed!
I've stopped reading posts by "Anonymous" because, however many of you there are, most of you are thick and boring.
ReplyDeleteIf you've got something to say then pick a name and post using that name.
Unless you are a dribbling creationist idiot in which case just give up. Strangebrew is ten times smarter than you'll ever manage.
An insult AND an argument from authority in one post Dr Bob?
ReplyDeleteSomewhat weak as an overall debating tactic don't you think?
Strangebrew.
ReplyDeleteDespite the worship of your fans who consider you their genius leader I'm afraid I must point out the obvious truth that you seem unable to meet any view other than your own with anything other than mockery and ridicule, regardless of how logical it is, even before its been fully explained.
Is this the "smarter" that Dr Bob refers too? Surely even one such as yourself must be forced to conclude that there have been dozens of famous scientists who believed in God as the creator of the universe. You of course may not agree with such, this is your prerogative.
It would appear that quite contrary to scientific method, you have already learnt the "truth" and any discussion which would in any way conflict with your belief must be ridiculed and lambasted?
You will of course say that thus far no point raised has measured up to your standard but how can such a discussion take place in the circumstances you create with your childish goadings?
Prove me wrong and see if you can demonstrate a cordial manner in further exchanges?
"So a summary of the logic is:
ReplyDeleteHuman language developed as a product of intelligence.
DNA is more complex than human language.
Therefore DNA must be the product of intelligence.
Yes?"
As you will note, this exchange only occurred after yet another silly jibe about grammar and punctuation and that it was suggested....
""I think evolutionists are such good grammar, punctuation and spelling pedants because they've had 200 years to refine their skills""
I made the obvious and very simple observation that the information storage and communication system you were referring to came into being via intelligence and that any argument otherwise was so foolish none would argue against it.
My remark was an off the cuff response to a silly jibe but it was entirely correct.
Such simple observations have often been the genesis of great discoveries and the better understanding of our universe.
We then began a discussion were the same logic in concluding the English language required intelligence to form was expounded to explain the origin of an immensely more complex information storage and communication ie. DNA.
Was it wrong to apply one reasoned explanation to another area?
I would say no, its done all the time. One may find it personally "wrong" or offensive because if demonstrated as logical it may lead one to consider that the existence of a creator may be an accurate conclusion but this view has more to do with a personal view than a logical conclusion.
The fact that some would find such a consideration (God exists) offensive clearly demonstrates the bias in such discussions. This blog is a prime example.
Anyway, if we return to the logic of my observation and its application to an even more complex information system, is it right to apply the logic of an observable fact and apply it to another question?
Yes of course.
Do you not consider the old tale of how when approaching a car engine appears to emit a high pitch noise but on passing the sound seems to become low pitched?
A very simple and obvious truth you will agree, is it not also true that the same effect was explored as an explanation in other fields including cosmology?
I seem to remember there's a big telescope somewhere named after some bloke who came up with a theory based on the above.
So me exploring or expounding the theory that DNA, as an information storage and communication system may have originated using intelligence just as we've already agreed the English language did is an entirely fair and reasonable stance.
That is not to say its accurate, but it is a fair and reasonable point from which to explore the possibility. Objecting to such a reasonable approach on the grounds that one doesnt like to consider that God may exist is neither rational nor fair. Its not event scientific.
I have since given a short summary of my thoughts on if the DNA code was created using intelligence then I think corrupted perfection is a more likely explanation for its current condition.
As we have now had to return to the beginning of the discussion I have yet to have the opportunity of expling why I think this explanation is more in keeping with observational facts than the..
(B) The evolutionary view- that the order and complexity we see exhibited in mans DNA has occurred via natural processes over eons.
Perhaps we can move onto this sometime?
PS Anon, out of interest, can you without qualification tell me your current position on the question of whether you as an individual believe in the existence of God?
"PS Anon, out of interest, can you without qualification tell me your current position on the question of whether you as an individual believe in the existence of God?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
"So me exploring or expounding the theory that DNA, as an information storage and communication system may have originated using intelligence just as we've already agreed the English language did is an entirely fair and reasonable stance."
ReplyDeleteOf course, the English language wasn't actually designed as such, was it? It has developed from other languages in a way that couldn't actually be described as directed or controlled. Indeed over time it has changed, adapted and even given rise to variants, some of which could almost be considered languages of their own.
So whilst language may be a product of design at the start, the development and complexity of it has come about by an uncontrolled and undirected process.
So we are back to the idea that intelligence might create a particular thing directly, but may also create processes which give rise to that thing. The English you and I speak and write now is not the product of a single, intelligent act of creation; it's the result of an undirected process spanning 2,000 years.
Not sure I agree anon, at each stage and with each change language in both it's written and audible form is directed with intelligence.
ReplyDeleteEven when we incorporate a word used in a foreign language or slang term this is done for a reason and communicates meaningful information. So I think calling it's development an uncontrolled and undirected process is the complete opposite of the reality, how on earth can random letters, shapes or audible sounds randomly communicate meaningful information?
Indeed, it should be noted that not only must the letters and sounds be ordered in their function but the language within which they are received and interpreted must also be already in place. In other words it requires two factors to be in place, one is the word or sound and the other is the system within which thy are interpreted.
Intelligence in this context is unavoidable in inception and development.
This is a defendable and logical cinclusion and I'm sure deep down you acknowledge that.
Now apply the same logic to the far more complex information storage and communication system that is DNA.
Read again why I conclude (A) to be correct, when your ready I will explain my thoughts on (B).
Yes
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, I could tell you did.
Ps, well done for confessing your faith in this lions den, that takes guts in itself.
Regardless if whether my view is correct or yours is, may the God we both believe in bless you.
"Ps, well done for confessing your faith in this lions den, that takes guts in itself."
ReplyDeleteActually all I did was answer your question precisely and truthfully. I didn't say what you think I did.
But:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for that, I could tell you did."
How?
It's obvious in the way you write.
ReplyDeleteHard to hide it really.
Anyway, That is a faith based issue, we are discussing logical conclusions drawn from observations of the natural world.
ReplyDeleteI may conclude that the order of the natural world itself argues in favour of the existence of God but let's stay with the subject in hand.
"I didn't say what you think I did"
ReplyDeleteLol relax anon, I don't think we'll be singing Kum-bi-ya round the campfire anytime soon, we just talkin.
"It's obvious in the way you write."
ReplyDeleteNope. Not seeing it.
Next you'll be assuming I'm a man.
Yet I did?
ReplyDeleteI suppose it was because you joined in with the rabble ridiculing creation but stopped short of ridiculing God Himself.
Funny enogh I had written "mate" on one response and then deleted it before posting for that reason lol
"I suppose it was because you joined in with the rabble ridiculing creation but stopped short of ridiculing God Himself."
ReplyDeleteNeither do I ridicule Allah, Ganesh, Odin or Blind Io. But I can tell you for free that I don't believe in the existence of at least one of them :)
Good call, but they do say that too many cooks.....
ReplyDelete:)
So who's go is it now?
ReplyDeleteIt's his go.
ReplyDeleteOooohh your deep!
ReplyDeleteThere is of course no evidence that genomes did not arise by evolution and plenty of evidence genetic mutations give rise to new features in organisms.
ReplyDeleteSome things such as eyes appear to be relatively easy to evolve.
Your so right you've lost the gift of grace to doubt.
ReplyDeleteWho can hear.