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 edmc^2
But all is not lost as I'm about to explain to you the SIGNIFICANCE of the four letters.
You see - it's NOT the four letters (what they stand for matters), IT'S THE WAY THEY ARE PUT TOGETHER - in layman's terms - MATTERS. In other words, IT'S THE SEQUENCE OF THESE FOUR LETTERS THAT COUNTS!!
In other words it's the way the letters - codes - are arranged - sequenced - together that GIVES them MEANING.
If you still don't get this - let me give you a very simple example.
This word: udmb - if the letters are NOT properly SEQUENCED it doesn't mean a squat. But by arranging them properly the meaning of the letters will be revealed.
So what do you think udmb means - if I arrange the four letters this way: DUMB
Based in your response above - I'm expecting NO - they don't exist because the DNA code is just a bunch of FOUR LETTERS.
In fond memory of god,
born of superstition,
flourished in savage medieval ignorance,
threatened by Copernicus,
weakened by Galileo,
assailed by Darwin,
finally succumbed to his mortal enemy, knowledge (and common sense),
now a redundant concept,
lives on only in indoctrinated minds and their resultant logical fallacies.
RIP god of the gaps.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny
Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...
happybunny not so happy??? lately???
Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.
In short take a brake dude.
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by edmc^2
OK let me update my list of your circular counter argument tactic when you can't refute something.
First you use just an "OPINION"
if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"
if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY"
then the latest - "ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"
anything you want me to add?
Look up each fallacy and you will understand why it is blatantly obvious that you are using them. You forgot equivocation, and god of the gaps. Those are also a huge part of your faulty arguments. I think you could also throw in appeal to magic and hasty generalization. Did I miss any of them?
Wow, what an amazingly complex language! It has a grand total of 4 letters that repeat over and over again.
I said it isn't a complex LANGUAGE, not that it doesn't exist or have function. It's a man made code. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Find real evidence, not wishful thinking. I admit that DNA seems complex and we aren't sure of its exact origins and evolution. Heck, maybe it was designed, but if you want to assert that as fact, you need a way stronger case. You need tangible evidence.
meaning "simple"
isn't a complex LANGUAGE
There is no such thing as complex language that uses only 4 letters
The Human Genome Project (HGP) is an international scientific research project with a primary goal of determining the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up DNA, and of identifying and mapping the approximately 20,000–25,000 genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint.[1] ^ Robert Krulwich (2001-04-17). Cracking the Code of Life (Television Show). PBS. ISBN 1-5375-16-9. www.pbs.org... en.wikipedia.org...
It's obvious that "I don't know" is not a positive claim.
A personal delusion is one thing, yet it is really quite amazing the lengths people go to to dress up and peddle their delusion as science, expecting others to believe.
Submitting science to scrutiny is not always a bad thing IMO.
a preemptive attack while the possibility still exists, with the expectation that knowledge in this area will see gods domain dwindle even further, to virtually nothing.
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny
Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...
happybunny not so happy??? lately???
Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.
In short take a brake dude.
That's Mrs. Dude to you, buddy. And learn how to spell. Another sign of your total, all-encompassing ignorance.
The "proof" you speak of is not some impossible standard. Scientific proofs are found by gathering evidence and assessing probability. They aren't absolutes, and nobody in the history of science has ever suggested they are absolutes. When we speak of "proof" of some god, we are merely asking for evidence to be shown with which one can draw inferences based on knowledge we already know. Nobody will ever be able to gather evidence, and thus assess the probability of god's existence because god is said to exist outside the natural laws of physics and chemistry, in a supernatural world that humans have created. Because of this, saying a talking sock is the creator is just as logical as saying god did it. Ironically, a sock that talks is a more descriptive characterization than any there has been for god, so at least we can all visualize the same thing.
Originally posted by squiz
Yet atheist demand proof of God, This is rediculous when we cannot prove basic theories of geometry either!
Originally posted by uva3021
When we speak of "proof" of some god, we are merely asking for evidence to be shown with which one can draw inferences based on knowledge we already know.
Why did you pick consciousness as a trait that exists outside the universe. Because conscious beings can make automobiles?
Certainly there is enough evidence to assume whales, simians, corvids, elephants, and horses all have something that is analogous to consciousness.
Mostly all organisms, however, have a germ plasm. Why can't there be a giant mass of germ plasm that exists outside the universe?
Invoking Godel's theorem for proof of god?
But are we to say since we can't literally count all the little squares that god must exist? That's absurd.
Bingo! It's been done. No one has been able to falsify the origin of code with a physical cause.
Originally posted by Barcs
And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause. So we're stuck in agreement that neither of us knows the answer, right?
Originally posted by squiz
What if we draw a circle around the entire universe? The universe cannot explan itself it's existance relies on something outside the circle, outside matter, outside energy, outside time. Applying Gödel theorem we know that what is outside the circle is not matter,energy or time it is immaterial.
Any system of logic will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.
All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. This cannot be proven as Gödel demonstrated. You cannot prove that tommorow will come. .
Yet atheist demand proof of God,
The materialist/atheists view of naturalism is something like this-
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”
Gödel demonstrated this is not logical, as I said atheism is not logical because it relies on the premise that everything can be explained by materialism or a belief that it can. Gödel destroyed this assumption. Don't blame me! Blame one the greatest mathematicians who ever lived.