Evidence that demands a verdict

[guohua]

I think you all each and everyone of YOU gave excellent replies, you all spoke as Individuals Not Puppets of any One Belief.

Religion and Religious Beliefs are best left in the Church or discussed in groups of Like Minded People when asking about the Origins of Life or God, That Is JMHO.

[Mystic Wanderer]

I think you all each and everyone of YOU gave excellent replies, you all spoke as Individuals Not Puppets of any One Belief.

Religion and Religious Beliefs are best left in the Church or discussed in groups of Like Minded People when asking about the Origins of Life or God, That Is JMHO.

I agree. 

One thing we were taught during training where I used to work was that it wasn't advised to get into a debate with co-workers about religion, or to ask how much money they made.  If they disagreed with you, or made more money than you, it would only lead to bad feelings between the two. They suggested VERY STRONGLY we avoid these subjects with our co-workers so we could work well together as a team.

[Ninurta]

What goes for Muslims, in my view, applies equally to Atheists. They can hunt their own evidence down and cook it in their own camp.

And the emphasis -in my opinion, is on the words 'own camp'!

Well, to be honest, I'd be just as happy for the Christians to stay in their own camps, too - at least the Christians as they present themselves these days. I've never been able to find anywhere in the bible where it says "go forth and harass folks, beat 'em with a bible until it makes a thumping sound if you have to, and keep it up until they come around to your way of thinking." That sort of proselytizing or forced conversion sounds disturbingly Islamic to me.

Although Jesus did say to go forth and preach the gospel, nowhere did he say "harangue the crap out of folks who don't want to hear it to begin with until they hate the very ground on which thou standeth." That, to me, seems a bit counterproductive to "conversion" or "getting the message out", as it seems to be rather offputting of the message they claim they're trying to get across.

Kinda like a beheading can be offputting.


.

[Ninurta]

I think the word is 'problematic'!!

The sort of sentiment expressed in that video is borne of an inability to comprehend the English language. The United States Constitution says that "Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion". It doesn't say a damned thing about the angle a football coach must hold his head at. As a matter of fact, a plain understanding of the Amendment should make it abundantly clear that no one, not even Congress, can legally PREVENT those folks from praying if they so choose, or not praying if they don't want to.

Kids these days!


.

[dadmansabode]

Oh this ole poor dead horse of a thread .... gettn all beat .... where will it end, where WILL it end ?

[guohua]

Oh this ole poor dead horse of a thread .... gettn all beat .... where will it end, where WILL it end ?

It's pretty much ended. 

[Ninurta]

Oh this ole poor dead horse of a thread .... gettn all beat .... where will it end, where WILL it end ?

The following is as a Moderator, not as a thread participant:

You know, that one-liner seemed not to add a whole lot to the topic of the thread. Didn't seem to be on topic at all. If it was a serious question, which I doubt (seemed like a little packet of pure snark to me), then the answer to your question is that the thread could end right here, right now.

I'm all for free speech, lively discussion (even hard core knock-down drag-out debate), religious freedom (and, well, freedom of most any kind), so if that's what you're after, have at it. take off the gloves if you'd like, but one more sideways glancing snarky comment will get this thread locked down tighter than Fort Knox. I'd not delete it, of course, since it does have value, but I'll slap a padlock on it fast enough to make your head spin. We don't all have to agree, but disagreement will be respectful, in the interest of community. The bar for brawling is in a whole 'nuther thread.

Just sayin'...

Now, back to the regularly scheduled programming.

.

[BIAD]

[dadmansabode]

The following is as a Moderator, not as a thread participant: You know, that one-liner seemed not to add a whole lot to the topic of the thread. Didn't seem to be on topic at all. If it was a serious question, which I doubt (seemed like a little packet of pure snark to me), then the answer to your question is that the thread could end right here, right now. I'm all for free speech, lively discussion (even hard core knock-down drag-out debate), religious freedom (and, well, freedom of most any kind), so if that's what you're after, have at it. take off the gloves if you'd like, but one more sideways glancing snarky comment will get this thread locked down tighter than Fort Knox. I'd not delete it, of course, since it does have value, but I'll slap a padlock on it fast enough to make your head spin. We don't all have to agree, but disagreement will be respectful, in the interest of community. The bar for brawling is in a whole 'nuther thread. Just sayin'... Now, back to the regularly scheduled programming.

your post above Ninurta ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation you chose - are they of A or B

A = random / mindless / no sequence (just fell where they happened to land)
B = code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven design - intelligence

[Ninurta]

your post above Ninurta ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation you chose - are they of A or B

A = random / mindless / no sequence (just fell where they happened to land)
B = code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven design - intelligence

They are American English, hillbilly dialect specifically. They are not random,  but can only be understood by recipients who also speak some variety of English. Therefore, they may appear random to the uninitiated, but are not truly random.

The purpose of language is communication, but it requires both sides of a conversation to be speaking the same language. Otherwise, both think the other is speaking gibberish. This is the situation we find ourselves in with the conversation between Atheists and Theists - neither can understand the other, because neither has the background to comprehend what the other is saying.

It's a matter of perception - where you see intelligent sequencing in the 4 letters of the DNA code, Atheists are only equipped to see randomness.... which you are not equipped to see.


.

[dadmansabode]

your post above Ninurta ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation you chose - are they of A or B

A = random / mindless / no sequence (just fell where they happened to land)
B = code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven design - intelligence

They are American English, hillbilly dialect specifically. They are not random,  but can only be understood by recipients who also speak some variety of English. Therefore, they may appear random to the uninitiated, but are not truly random .... The purpose of language is communication, but it requires both sides of a conversation to be speaking the same language. Otherwise, both think the other is speaking gibberish. This is the situation we find ourselves in with the conversation between Atheists and Theists - neither can understand the other, because neither has the background to comprehend what the other is saying .... It's a matter of perception - where you see intelligent sequencing in the 4 letters of the DNA code, Atheists are only equipped to see randomness.... which you are not equipped to see.

It's a matter of perception .. no, it's a matter of being what it is < follow the science
Atheists are only equipped to see randomness .. and therein lies your folly ...... later dude

11-20-2017 .. Complex grammar in the genome defies evolution 
11-20-2017 .. Complex grammar of the genomic language 
11-11-2017 .. DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

[Ninurta]

which you are not equipped to see.
It's a matter of perception .. no, it's a matter of being what it is < follow the science
Atheists are only equipped to see randomness .. and therein lies your folly ...... later dude

11-20-2017 .. Complex grammar in the genome defies evolution 
11-20-2017 .. Complex grammar of the genomic language 
11-11-2017 .. DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

"no, it's a matter of being what it is < follow the science"

I'd be happy to, and am equipped to do so. All I need is for you to explain what you think "the science" IS. Until you can do that, my comment stands as is. The perception of a Theist and the perception of an Atheist will be different, given the same set of observations, because their knowledge and experiential bases are different. Either can only understand what they can comprehend, and both have different bases of comparison to comprehend with. "Science" is not nearly as cut and dried as either you or your opponents seem to think.

"and therein lies your folly ...... later dude"

Well! THAT was helpful! Why don't you make an attempt to explain how you think my "folly" factors into that sentence at all? You may note, with a careful reading of my posts, that nowhere have I claimed to be an Atheist, and in fact I am not one. Equipped with that knowledge, I'm at a loss to understand how you think my "folly" related to that sentence at all.

Explaining yourself goes a long way in promotion debate and discussion. Just throwing out randomness and skating with a "later dude", well, not so much.

.

[Grace]

I think you all each and everyone of YOU gave excellent replies, you all spoke as Individuals Not Puppets of any One Belief.

Religion and Religious Beliefs are best left in the Church or discussed in groups of Like Minded People when asking about the Origins of Life or God, That Is JMHO.

I disagree. Discussing beliefs of all kinds helps us to understand one another, even if its not something we ourselves believe. Otherwise, why have a religious beliefs forum here at rogue nation, or a spiritual beliefs forum, or even allow politics to be discussed? Just because we differ on various matters should never be a reason not to discuss those things we differ about. Rather, it opens a door of understanding. Silencing people just because we disagree is wrong on all counts. If a topic bothers you, then don't join in the discussion, if you feel you cannot beg to differ politely, then don't join in the discussion.. but don't say keep it in Church, or keep it only among like-minded people, that silences others of their views, and much of what makes them, them. Many things I don't agree with all of you about, but I don't run around telling any of you to shut up either, as that would be just plain wrong - and it would deprive me of some very wonderful friendships with people I do happen to care about.

Just saying.

[Ninurta]

@'dadmansabode' -

Just to add to my immediate previous post, "Evidence" is utterly useless without the application of logic to it. A box of rocks is "evidence", but until you apply logic, you cannot tell what it is evidence OF.

Explain your logic as applied to the "evidence" you speak of, and we can move forward from there. Until you do, everything sits and spins, going nowhere.

.

[dadmansabode]

@'dadmansabode' - A box of rocks is "evidence"

 
A box of rocks is evidence of matter alone, there is no DNA, there is no life

DNA is not just matter alone .... DNA is matter plus ....inXXXXXXion ........ < come-on class, you can do it

Stephen Meyer: Darwin: A Myth for the Post-Christian Mind ... 



Darwin's doubt about his own theory
the Cambrian explosion

The Origins of Information: Exploring and Explaining Biological Information
.... In the 21st century, the information age has finally come to biology. We now know that biology at its root is comprised of information rich systems, such as the complex digital code encoded in DNA. Groundbreaking discoveries of the past decade are revealing the information bearing properties of biological systems .... Philosopher of science Dr. Stephen C. Meyer is examining and explaining the amazing depth of digital technology found in each and every living cell, such as nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval and storage systems, and genomic operating systems ...... Meyer is developing a more fundamental argument for intelligent design that is based not on a single feature like the bacterial flagellum, but rather on a pervasive feature of all living systems. Alongside matter and energy, Dr. Meyer shows that there is a third fundamental entity in the universe needed for life: information .... darwinsdoubt.com 

The mystery of the missing fossils
political correctness in the American University
1953 .... the structure of the DNA Molecule
1957 .... breaking the code of life ..... s e q u e n c e 100100101101001010101
code (a symbol convention) instruction / conveying functional information to the cell
the Cambrian explosion ... new code and instruction
random changes degrade function rather than enhance function
10,000 different way to arrange the digits for the bike lock .... but only one arrangement will open it

An Intelligent cause
DNA, just as computer code comes from a programmer
Conclusion = the theory for Intelligent Design is indeed scientific

[Ninurta]

@'dadmansabode' - A box of rocks is "evidence"

 
A box of rocks is evidence of matter alone, there is no DNA, there is no life

That is a very short, very "unscientific" view. A box of rocks is evidence of much more than just matter alone. It is evidence that:

1) Matter exists
2) matter can form into conglomerations we know of as "rocks"
3) Boxes exist
4) someone, or something, put rocks in a box - unless you would care to argue that rock just jump into boxes all by themselves.
5) Since boxes exist, there must have been some action that caused matter to form into boxes. Since plant fibers do not generally form cardboard or wooden boxes of their own accord, just the existence of the box alone, with or without rocks, implies that there may be an agency, perhaps an intelligent one, that goes around making boxes.
6) Some of those boxes may have been intended to hold rocks - or, again, that could have been purely random. That point needs further investigation, experimentation, observation, and analysis.
7) The ability to make boxes and place rocks in them implies that life may also exist. The very existence of a box of rocks implies it, and also implies that there may be an intelligence behind it. Not that it's really all that bright to go around chucking rocks into boxes, but whomever or whatever does so probably has a reason for doing it.
8) there are lots more points that can be made from a box of rocks. Use your imagination. Logic helps.

So, a mere box of rocks is evidence of much more than just matter alone - it is also evidence of life. DNA is optional.

DNA is not just matter alone .... DNA is matter plus ....inXXXXXXion ........ < come-on class, you can do it

Stephen Meyer: Darwin: A Myth for the Post-Christian Mind ... 



Darwin's doubt about his own theory
the Cambrian explosion

The Origins of Information: Exploring and Explaining Biological Information
.... In the 21st century, the information age has finally come to biology. We now know that biology at its root is comprised of information rich systems, such as the complex digital code encoded in DNA. Groundbreaking discoveries of the past decade are revealing the information bearing properties of biological systems .... Philosopher of science Dr. Stephen C. Meyer is examining and explaining the amazing depth of digital technology found in each and every living cell, such as nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval and storage systems, and genomic operating systems ...... Meyer is developing a more fundamental argument for intelligent design that is based not on a single feature like the bacterial flagellum, but rather on a pervasive feature of all living systems. Alongside matter and energy, Dr. Meyer shows that there is a third fundamental entity in the universe needed for life: information .... darwinsdoubt.com 

The mystery of the missing fossils
political correctness in the American University
1953 .... the structure of the DNA Molecule
1957 .... breaking the code of life ..... s e q u e n c e 100100101101001010101
code (a symbol convention) instruction / conveying functional information to the cell
the Cambrian explosion ... new code and instruction
random changes degrade function rather than enhance function
10,000 different way to arrange the digits for the bike lock .... but only one arrangement will open it

An Intelligent cause
DNA, just as computer code comes from a programmer
Conclusion = the theory for Intelligent Design is indeed scientific

Huh?

Have you got any thoughts of your own in the matter? If you can't explain your links in your own words, I must conclude that you don't understand them yourself. Parrots can be trained to spit out disjointed links. I'd like to hear your own thoughts.

P.S. - DNA is not digital. Digital systems are binary, composed of just two distinct states "off" and "on", "1" or "0", in an astonishingly complex variety. DNA is composed of 4 bases, twice as many as digital information, and is capable of conveying much more complex information.

.

[dadmansabode]

DNA is composed of 4 bases, twice as many as digital information, and is capable of conveying much more complex information. < thank you

and only information is born of intelligence

[Ninurta]

Obviously, this guy isn't going to get it .... I'll set him aside for now ..... later dude

Correct. It truly IS obvious that one of us isn't going to "get it", and may not have "it" to get. I can explain myself coherently. When you can do so as well, feel free to come back for a re-match.

Later dude.

.

[Ninurta]

DNA is composed of 4 bases, twice as many as digital information, and is capable of conveying much more complex information. < thank you

and only information is born of intelligence

Negative, Ghostrider.

Information exists, whether intelligence does or not. Look to Washington, DC for an example - information virtually gluts the place, yet there is little or no intelligence there to make use of the information present. Intelligence merely comprehends the information and analyses it. In other words, information is independent of intelligence. Air exists, whether or not there is any organism there to try breathing it. Likewise with information.

However - brownie points and kudos for taking the effort to explain yourself - now THAT'S what I'm talking about! Gave ya a karma point for the effort!

.

[dadmansabode]

more explanation for you

CODE IS DEFINED as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . . 
DNA's definition as a LITERAL CODE ( and not a figurative one ) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's . . . 
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages . . . DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: .. 
The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins .. Genetic information passes from DNA to an RNA copy and then is READ in the cell by the the ribosome which makes a protein molecule based on the genetic information encoded in DNA . . . This is the central tenet of molecular biology . . . Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical .. but in fact quite literal in every way . . . In other words .. the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all .. it is direct application of mathematics to DNA .. which by definition is a code

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATTERNS AND CODES

PATTERNS occur naturally .. no help required from a 'designer' . . . 
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer .. snowflakes .. tornadoes .. hurricanes .. sand dunes .. stalactites .. rivers and ocean waves . . . 
These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals .. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day

CODES .. however .. do not occur without a designer . . . 
Examples of symbolic codes include music .. blueprints .. languages like English and Chinese .. computer programs .. and yes .. DNA
The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code .. Chaos can produce patterns .. 
but chaos has never been shown to produce codes or symbols . . . Codes and symbols store information .. which is not a property of matter and energy alone .. 
Information itself is a separate entity.

see also: DNA, the tiny code that's toppling evolution