It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: spy66
Hehehe.... no-one is forcing you to be saved against Your will. Neither is anyone forcing you to read and reply to topics like this. That is all on you.
There is not doubt in my mind that you will have Your whish granted. So dont be worried, the little book mentions that specifically as well.
The little book also mentions that many of you will regret being ignorant after. But i am sure you wont be one of them?
Nobody is forcing you either and nobody was asking whereislogic for their pitty.
originally posted by: spy66
Logic is a very personal thing. Logic is something that one have to Challenge all the time. It takes time and effort to get to the bottom of Things. I hardly think you have made much effort to Challenge the truth.
One of the reasons I keep sharing both the video with Newton using inductive reasoning as well as the video with Michael Behe where he explains how inductive reasoning works in a bit more detail than what I quoted before about it.
From:
5:00 - 13:22
26:50 - 39:30
originally posted by: whereislogic
"But you don't want to talk about the value of inductive reasoning
We tried to illustrate how molecular machines interact each other in the central dogma by giving "Japanese robot-anime" style representation to the molecules. By using this approach, people (especially kids) can easily distinguish between those molecules and understand how they function in our body.
originally posted by: whereislogic
Sometimes it can be hard to recognize the line between foolish and ignorant debates and making a defense before everyone who demands a reason for why I think God exists and why he will do away with death, sickness, wickedness, evil and ultimately the Devil
I'm just stupidly responding and attempting to demonstrate how people's thoughts are led into a self-destructive vicious circle of erronuous illogical ways of thinking and fruitless debate; the videos are more interesting and probably more useful than my futile attempts at preventing people from going around in circles for a gazillion rounds of back and forth commentary without actually learning a thing about life and the machines it is made up of and where they might have come from or what may have caused them to come into existence...
originally posted by: whereislogic
Still, in spite of whether or not that's my main motivation, I'd still consider it a beneficial thing if even 1 person thinks of some other possibilities or ways of thinking about these subjects because of my commentary.
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Barcs
In your attempt to cover up or excuse your use of your typical straw man argument you present yet another one and twist again my attempt to close that door for you before you open it. No I am not suggesting biomolecular machines are simple and it's not important (regarding my commentary and this conversation).
Your issue with the video made by Japanese scientists is again a non-issue, those who actually study or research this subject would know how much more accurate that video displays the machines in question (than some of the other videos out there or vague textbook pictures without showing the machines in action, which is a lot more telling or instructive than pictures with a wall of text describing functions, quicker and easier to learn too with moving animations).
The beef over your usage of the term I described in short as using a straw man argument, and since you like to continue using this straw man argument, you won't admit that it is a straw man argument and you're even backing of your earlier statements about it pretending it was just about you referring to "biomolecular machines" as "complexity" (which is vague, not everything that is complex is a machine, so only someone trying to confuse people about that would do that; and the word "complex" or "complexity" is ideal for such twisting games, since it can be considered in the eye of the beholder whether a person considers something to be complex or simple or somewhere vaguely in between, it's much easier to start a useless fruitless debate about, the types of debates the bible warns about).
originally posted by: Barcs
I have not used a single straw man.
Machine is your interpretation. It is not an actual machine any more than the brain or the stomach is a machine.
Is there proof that DNA was created? Is there proof that it couldn't have arisen naturally? No there is not.
However, nature has already spent millennia developing its own machines,...
originally posted by: whereislogic
Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine.