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.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 37
18
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Barcs

Yep, it's really interesting when you think about it, although evolution was the technical "designer", not a conscious entity with goals in mind.


Speaking of deduction


So to borrow your own words, this premise must be accepted on face value or by faith. Since you can't prove anything about this statement, your conclusion cannot be considered empirical truth.


You completely missed the point. I am not making a logical inference. Evolution has tons of tangible evidence behind it and I already posted the link here that creationists /ID people refuse to even attempt to debunk it. Are you seriously denying that evolution changes creatures over time or claiming that common descent is false?

www.talkorigins.org...

Here's the link for the people that recently joined the discussion. That statement above is very much proven scientifically. There are hundreds of scientific papers confirming genetic changes and natural selection. No need for logical inferences to hypothetical scenarios.


Current estimates put the percentage of ordinary matter in the universe anywhere in the 3-10% range depending on the source, and everything else is comprised of dark matter, dark energy, which we can't even see or detect. So how can we make assumptions on what may or may not be hospitable amongst that huge portion of the universe?


Also just wanted to say that simply because there is matter, doesn't mean our type of life can survive. 99.9999% comes from the potentially inhabitable planets vs the uninhabitable place in the universe (which is right around 99.9999% give or take a decimal place).
edit on 7-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
It is not false because the origin is unknown. All known does not exist in this statement "inference to the only known cause". That is another strawman.


Dude, look up what a strawman is before accusing me of that nonsense. Your original statement very much talked about known causes and known codes, but since then, you've backtracked from that because you realize it doesn't hold any weight and only debate semantics.


I am not using the term "All codes". Another strawman.


Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit. Stop with the semantics crap already. You aren't even arguing with me, let alone debating. You are deflecting and dodging everything. I said that the conclusion is ONLY true if the premise is true. Inferences can only prove that much. It doesn't count as tangible objective evidence and isn't relevant in science. I VERY CLEARLY explained that but all you can do is quote mine and deflect.




Unfortunately you can't prove the premise,


I am not claiming proof, only the empirical observation regarding the only known cause. Another strawman.


Oh yeah, backtrack even more and debate even more semantics. Have you even addressed a single one of the big 5 points yet? Nope. Stop wasting my time.


Because they evade the central question, as in obfuscation. Why are you afraid to admit there is only one known cause?

No they do not. They address it clearly and directly. There is nothing ambiguous about any of it. If you find I am using ambiguous terms to intentionally cloud the waters so to speak, you need to point that out because I'm being as specific and exact as I can in every statement I make. You are only debating insignificant technicalities like "Oh man, you totally said proof instead of objective tangible evidence. Dude that's a total strawman".
Yeah I dropped a smiley because your straw man accusations are absurd.


Here is another inference.

Random mutation and natural selection accumulate to create new organs, tissue types and body plans.

You can apply your inductive and deductive arguments to these as well. This is not an empirical conclusion.

Yet you say science does not do this all the time.


Now THIS is a straw man. You clearly set up your own definition with the intent for easy debunking. Too bad you haven't even LOOKED at the evidence.


The theory of evolution is also an inference.

That is an absolute lie. I can't believe the dishonesty you use to argue your points. Yeah it's not a scientific theory or anything with evidence behind it.
And yet earlier in the thread you DID SAY that you agree with evolution.


Exactly, the big bang, dark matter, black holes, the entirety of cosmology, and the theory evolution are all inferences. A great deal of science is based on inference. They are all subject to the same principles of inductive and deductive reasoning. Science does not deal in proofs. The arguments against the inference to the only known cause as it relates to code apply equally to all of these. So it is some what hypocritical to use the arguments Barcs has been using. The simplistic theory of evolution is perhaps one of the "loosest" inferences as is cosmology IMO.


That is simply not true. Science is based on objective evidence and experimentation. It's not just assumed via inference. You grossly misrepresent the scientific method. Stop being so intellectually dishonest. It's getting old.

Address my points and provide the evidence I asked for. You are the one clouding the issue with nothing but semantics. You just keep repeating your inference to known causes argument over and over again, despite me specifically address it and breaking it down thoroughly. This conversation has gone nowhere because you refuse to even take part in any part of beyond that one statement and your silly little semantics trap.

Either respond to my points or don't respond. I'm not going to keep going back and forth when you can't even respond to counter points without flat denial and no objective evidence whatsoever.

And once again, the thread title clearly says, "why it MUST exist". If that is not proven, then the statement is false, which is what I've been arguing. You don't even seem to understand what I'm saying.

/thread.... unless he actually responds with more than just denial.


edit on 7-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Forgive me if I don't take your self righteousness very seriously. Let me dumb it down and not use too many words so you can comprehend. I have not used syllogism in this thread but here we go.

1. The only known cause of code is an intelligent agent(s) - empirical fact.
2. The genetic code is a code - empirical fact.
3. Therefore intelligence currently stands as the only casual cause for the emergence of the genetic code.

It is really not that difficult. The fact you can not admit to premise one speaks volumes and amounts to denial.
All of your twisting of my words and evasiveness on premise one is simple to distort what is very simple, as in obfuscation.

You can't admit it. I understand.
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Very typical. Resort to your original argument. This "debate" has been very disappointing. Another post and still nothing addressing my counter points.


If by empirical, you mean it's a guess, then you are correct. It still does not count as objective evidence, which is the term I originally used and have been using throughout this thread.. You changed to empirical later in the conversation when it suited you. This is twice now that you have backtracked from your original inference.

www.everythingbio.com...


information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.


This is why I use the word proof and objective evidence. I know you will quote mine the definition to 'obtained through observation". I will pre-debunk your future response again. Nobody has ever observed anything outside of human society intelligently design codes. Intelligent design as it is defined has not been observed. You confuse it with human intelligence when the definition is:

dictionary.com
the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent.


Please explain to me what scientific observations have been made in that in direct relation to that? We have one thing that's really complex, and we do not know the origin of it. Sorry but your inference does not count as a scientific observation or experimentation and is therefor NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. You continue to confuse scientific terminology with layman's terms and deny my points. People haven't watched or witnessed an intelligent agent or entity design anything, ever. Intelligent design does not have objective evidence to support it.

Still awaiting your dissection of my original counterpoints.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You are a special guy Barcs, I have said over and over it is not proof but inference. The premises are objective evidence they are not subjective. It is your mantra I know, I have noticed it in other threads. You just keep going on like a broken record. Your counter points do not refute the syllogism above in any way and neither does your response to it. I really did not think they were worthy of addressing. But if you really wish I will address them if you want more of your logical fallacies revealed. but I don't see why I just nullified them completely. You can't refute my argument.

There are thousands of codes in the biological world! Organisms use them to communicate. Some are very sophisticated. IT IS NOT A HUMAN INVENTION. My argument does not require it be digital any code at all applies. The fact it is digital (which you denied) only compounds the inference! This was the only point I did not address, it amounts to nothing except deepening the inference. It does not help you. The rest of your points were repeats I already answered. Get over yourself.

Yes your quote clearly states observation, but then you put your limits and caveats in place and say that part does not matter and if I mention it's quote mining. My god. You are a special guy. Very special.

The inference is air tight and stands firm. You say there is no inference in blind evolution. That is blatantly and self evidently false. inferences from phylogeny. inferences from the fossil record. Extrapolating based on weak experimental evidence to the creation of new organs and body plans is an inference. Not objective evidence! But completely subjective. You have double standards. Blind evolution is your religion very clearly. You are also no different to a religious fundamentalist.

Semiosis is irriducable and it is not physics and never can be.

Here is a liitle article that I dug up just for you. Enjoy your dillusions. I would get more reason from a brick wall.

thomassheridanarts.com...
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 





Interesting. I guess that puts you in the perils of inductive and reductive reasoning then. Precisely my point. My point was not if these things are true or not. Thanks guys. You fell hook line and sinker for that one. Aparently science does not make inferences all the time, and deductive and inductive reasoning is not valid according to some.


Your confusing real science with the creationist, naturally gifted with stupidity and determined to misunderstand everything you tell them. Real scientific theory is what connects those abstract propositions of deductive and inductive reasoning to reality.



The scientific methodology I am employing is the exact same. The observed phenomena is that intelligence creates codes and codes are not physics.


Semantics do nothing for your argument.
Biology is highly dependent on chemistry and all of biology/chemistry operates according to the laws of physics.




BTW. Intelligent code is not a human construct. DNA was doing it billions of years before us. And the biological world is full of intelligent codes for communication and infinite regress aplies equally to the physical, the big bang is an effect without a cause it would seem. Science does not work without logic and reason.


Yours is the familiar ID argument that because information cannot increase by natural means, and because only an intelligence can create information, therefore an intelligence created life.
This illustrates your fundamental mistake about chemistry and biology that you think gives you sufficient basis for making any claims of design in biology.
Both intelligent and unintelligent organisms use "specific codes". Chemical signals are actually used as the prime method of communication by unintelligent organisms far more often than by intelligent ones. And given that we know of, and have observed, natural mechanisms for increasing the length of the DNA as well as altering bits of information, there would not seem to be any limit on the information that can be added or subtracted by natural means.
This means that you can't claim that coded information always has an intelligent cause, because this is known to be untrue. And if you wish to imagine that there was once an organism with information that did have an intelligent cause, then the onus of proof is on you.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Just for fun... BTW codes are not physics or chemistry. Sorry to disapoint you Fish. The code exploits chemistry.


Originally posted by Barcs
1. Inference to the only "known" cause is not empirical truth. I explained how inferences work and you ignored it / denied it.


I never said that. The premises are empirical, objective truth. An inference is not proof as I have said over and over.


2. You still have not explained how the logic in my inference is any different from the logic in yours. Flat out denial of my points is not good enough. I didn't post it to be accurate or prove anything, I posted it to show the flaws in the logic, as it follows the same exact logic as yours, and you perfectly demonstrated my point by bringing up the same exact arguments I originally used on your inference.

1. All known causes of origins of phenomena in the universe are naturalistic, except things that are man made.
2. DNA is a phenomena in the universe and is not man made.
3. DNA has naturalistic origins.


Besides being ridiculous? Yes I did address it. Difference 1. It is ambiguous, you insert the term natural instead of code if you used the word code it would be obviously false. That is misleading and deceptive. The word natural is subjective, is a beehive natural? if I make a mud hut is that natural? Difference 2. And where it collapses. The entire thing rests on being man made. It is absurd and yet another strawman.

You have not shown any flaws in the last syllogism. Only whined about not addressing your points and your self refuting quote on empirical evidence, quite humourous I must add.


3. You still have not posted objective evidence for ID or demonstrated a mechanism for ID that has evidence to back it.


Premise one and two are not subjective but objective. We are surrounded by our own intelligent designs, the mechanisms for those are self evident. It is a stupid question. You have no objective evidence for a natural origin of code. In fact you have no objective evidence for the grandiose extrapolation for your version of evolution.


4. You still have not defined what is considered digital information as per your hypothesis. This request has been ignored 3 times now.


It is not part of my hypothesis. It applies to any code. This is misdirection and irrelevant. Your hang up on being digital is because you denied the digital nature of DNA. Scientific denial. The fact that it is digital only further points to an intelligent cause. It does not help you.


5. You don't understand that burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the person who asks you to prove your claim. I don't have to prove materialism or naturalism to debunk ID when there is no objective evidence for it. ID is debunked by default until actual evidence exists beyond appeals to ignorance and incredulity.


An inference is not a claim of proof! How many times have you made this blatant Strawman! The inference is a strong as any, stronger because it only valid one. You can't refute it. To refute it the burden of PROOF is on you to empirically demonstrate an unguided natural cause. Which is impossible. Because code is not physics.

There you go. The inference stands and you have not poked a single hole in it, no amount of whining can do it.

Semiosis exists at the fundamental level of life, it needs explanation and you do not have one, not even a clue.
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Dont waist your time on him all his information is pulled off some website he has no clue about science.He even put up a diagram to explain a question i asked when i was willing to accept that as his answer he disagreed with his own diagram guess he realized he screwed up. All he can do when he gets in trouble is come out with the same tired argument not realizing its not scientific and means nothing.I even showed him i can make up a hypothesis using his argument that doesn't concern a god and i tried to get him to understand it was just as useless.

This is why ID will never be a science because science doesn't cover the unknown with god did it, it seeks an answers.


PS I think ill create a website from my genisis cell idea wonder if i can sell a book like those so called scientists selling books to the gullible on intelligent design. My genesis cell created life on earth. It popped into existence and created the first life.But remember were arguing with someone that actually said maybe aliens did it.

edit on 6/7/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



From your link: map.gsfc.nasa.gov...



From your quote:

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum,


Which part of the pie makes up the remaining .00001% that is not "lethal radiation-filled vacuum"?


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
He is saying that out of the 0.00001% of the universe that contains matter (that is almost entirely found in stars, black holes etc.) only 0.00001% of it is found in planets etc.


Yes I understand what he's saying. Where does he derive this figure from if all other sources including the one you cited show it to be more around 5%. That's a pretty huge difference from where I'm sitting


I think the "critical density" type studies suggest that ordinary matter can now only account for 4-5% of the required mass of the universe (hence dark energy/matter)


Yes I understand


It doesn't make the statements you are referring to wrong. In fact, what he terms "lethal radiation filled vacuum" is now thought to somehow account for most of the mass in the universe,


How does it not? Dark matter and Dark energy account for most of the mass in our universe. Current estimates put it at 95%, not 99.99999. Did you read your own link?

Not to mention, neither emit any radiation that we can detect. But we know it's there. So what am I missing here? What does he mean by "lethal radiation filled vacuum"??


So you are hopeful that we will find earth like biological life floating around in this "lethal radiation filled vacuum"? Good luck with that


Why wouldn't I be? You do realize that we've been sending biological life into space to face the extreme conditions up there; i.e cold, vacuum, UV radiation (1000x stronger than on earth), cosmic radiation etc. Not only did they survive these conditions but they also were able to reproduce upon returning to earth.
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.world-science.net...

Liv­ing or­gan­isms sur­viv­ing in open space sup­ports the idea of “pansper­mia” – life spread­ing from one plan­et to an­oth­er, or even be­tween so­lar sys­tems. It seems pos­si­ble that or­gan­isms could col­o­nise plan­ets by hitch­ing rides on as­ter­oids. The agen­cy is prob­ing this the­o­ry fur­ther on fu­ture Sta­t­ion mis­sions with dif­fer­ent sam­ples.



It might be found on planets similar to ours, though how much do you think those figures would change? They wouldn't really change at all in any meaningful way.


You say that as if you know everything about the universe. Kepler is out there looking. Why don't you ask NASA if the discovery of biological life on other planets won't have meaningful impact.
www.nasa.gov...

You've got to be kidding.
edit on 7-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

You completely missed the point. I am not making a logical inference. Evolution has tons of tangible evidence behind it and I already posted the link here that creationists /ID people refuse to even attempt to debunk it. Are you seriously denying that evolution changes creatures over time or claiming that common descent is false?


No I haven't Barcs. I was making the point about the 2nd part of your initial statement. I am not denying evolution. I am not denying natural selection. But I am questioning the force that drives these processes.

What drives the need for survival?

Why the need to survive and reproduce in the first place? Where does this arise from?

Has anyone even tried answering the question about semiosis?


Also just wanted to say that simply because there is matter, doesn't mean our type of life can survive.


Thanks for stating the obvious. I wasn't suggesting that at all.


99.9999% comes from the potentially inhabitable planets vs the uninhabitable place in the universe (which is right around 99.9999% give or take a decimal place)


1 decimal place in a seemingly infinite universe is a big difference



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


You forget something most of matter in the universe is in stars not in planets. And guess what stars are lethal balls of radiation. Lets use our solar system for an example: Of all the mass in the solar system - Sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets and everything - the Sun is about 99.5%. Half of the remaining 0.5% is Jupiter. So lets say we have a typical solar system. 99.75 % counting jupiter because we cant survive there and can make a craft that can. Throw saturn in the mix around 99.90 % no way for life to survive. But lets remove saturn and jupiter for a minute and assume that every planet is hospitable to life even though we know thats not the case.

So say 5% is matter of the universe now we deduct the stars. So if 99.5 percent is tied up in solar masses now this figure is going to be higher because theres alot of mass tied up in black holes as well. So if just off thi 99.5 means there would be .05025 % of universes mass is in planets it would be conservative to say half of those have lethal radiation levels. But assuming all planets could support life not including matter in black holes there would be .05025 % of the entire universe we could live on. With other requirements we need such as magnetic shields And not to much gravity temperature conditions Its pretty safe bet that less then 10% would even be hospitable and would kill us even with life support systems.

When you look at general numbers think of all the things involved so yes the calculation that 99.9 % of the universe would kill us instantly is very true.
edit on 6/8/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Dear Barcs,

I paid a brief visit to your talk origins website, which is a paper defending common descent. While there, I found this in the early going:


In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. . . . Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.


That seems to this untutored person to be a pretty significant assumption. Wouldn't self replicating indicate the existence of the codes under discussion here? And if so, and if I'm following, it seems as though the article assumes the existence of what is being questioned here.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I'm just going to chime in here again. Basically your argument seems to be that because DNA is complex, it must have come from intelligence.. However, intelligence is a complex thing, so you are saying a highly complex system caused DNA.

You say that it is the only known cause, since we are conscious, you cannot fathom any other force that could do such a thing.

I'd just like to drop an alternate theory that we could infer exists, because I disagree with your absolute statement that intelligence is the only known cause.

To put it very simply.. Energy/Matter exists, period. goes through every possible physical state, and over time, robust forms emerge, out of all those combinations, the cell emerges and propagates simply because it can, the process of flux continues and more stable forms emerge. Eventually you get a system large enough that feeds back information into itself in something that eventually represents experience/consciousness.

Apply this to any time in history (even the supposed time before the big bang if you want to entertain the notion that a consciousness had some hand in altering the universe we see now). However, it's entirely possible consciousness could have existed in some form prior the bigbang, and still not have had an influence on the bigbang, Life still arising from that constant process of changing form until more robust forms take their hold.. And yes, we just have to accept consciousness is a part of reality, but not the cause of reality/complexity.

Additional points - you mentioned even "extra terrestrials" could have been the ID'ers, but that is illogical since you would have the same problem of creating another complex entity that created them after the big bang occurred.

Unless of course you want to say that there is a omniscient omnipotent god who is actively participating in the universe it "created", who exists beyond the bigbang, yet can alter parts of the universe to create life (I find this view to be highly illogical/unlikely and is like a leaky boat with many holes that one constantly tries to fill the gaps in with intelligence).

More likely is that if there was any intelligent design to our universe, the program for life would have been present in the time of the bigbangs' conception, and also, the intelligent design was obviously not perfect. There could be a much more agreeable universe for life to propagate (as others are indirectly stating in this thread)

I am willing to accept there may have been consciousness prior to the bigbang(whom, as I stated earlier, had the same philosophical/existential problems we did), who could have used its "will" to influence the next stage of reality to propagate consciousness in some way(as in, perhaps there was only one consciousness who was so existentially lonely that he propagated a universe that created many "separate" entities in order to have "communion" with itself). However, this does not make him a creator of the universe, just as we cannot create matter. This scenario could only be a snapshot of an eternal cyclical process involving consciousness arising from energy/matter and influencing its surroundings in order to have new experiences/change form.

However, this is all just speculation.

It only differs from your perception in that I look beyond the intelligence to base matter, concluding that consciousness is a complex thing which occupies space/matter, ergo it did not always exist, there was a process by which it formed, which means that it did not create itself, or matter itself/the universe.. Sorry I keep repeating myself, but people seem unable to grasp this (especially those intent on saying consciousness(a highly complex configuration) was the first thing to exist before the constituent parts of its structure arose.
edit on 8-6-2013 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Barcs
 


Dear Barcs,

I paid a brief visit to your talk origins website, which is a paper defending common descent. While there, I found this in the early going:


In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. . . . Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.


That seems to this untutored person to be a pretty significant assumption. Wouldn't self replicating indicate the existence of the codes under discussion here? And if so, and if I'm following, it seems as though the article assumes the existence of what is being questioned here.

With respect,
Charles1952


This statement tells you that evolution does not nor was it intended to explain how life got here only what happens after it does. Abiogenesis explains how life got here but not what happens after it does. Theories are very specific in science they explain what was tested. So you cant use the theory of the big bang to explain laws of motion for example. Or the buoyancy principle to explain thermodynamics its not what they were designed to do!

PS why do people put stars on quotes that are blatantly wrong unless your bias to a belief. Think about this if you believe something your willing to accept anything as fact doesn't that scare you people at all? Darwin never claimed to know how life was created when he first purposed it a lot of people misinterpreted his work. And looking on here seems to be a lot of people still do that to this day. If you believe theres a god great. Theres nothing wrong with that but dont expect a belief to be verified by science because most of the time there not.
edit on 6/8/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yes, I see now how I misinterpreted the percentages. Makes perfect sense

Although quite honestly I forget what the point of this part of the discussion was in the first place



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yes, I see now how I misinterpreted the percentages. Makes perfect sense

Although quite honestly I forget what the point of this part of the discussion was in the first place



It was that the universe was made to support life i know if i created a universe to support life i could have done a better job. Why dont people look at it the other way lifeis hanging on by a thread in a universe that is hostile. But you know what were still here and thats a true miracle. Life had to fight every inch of the way but we did it! Now theres something to celebrate. I was reading an article the other day that amazed me when i thought about t. Do you know what caused the largest mass extinction on earth? The addition of oxygen into the atmosphere the entire eco system had to adapt. Most people dont realize this but oxygen is toxic and a corrosive and very hostile to life forms. But life adapted and used this so now its indispensable to life. Think life was thrown a curve ball and then used a toxic substance to survive. theres cells that can live in arsenic kills most everything else instantly life finds a way to adapt and overcome and i think that just cool when you think about it.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WorShip
 



No the argument has nothing to do with complexity.
Semiosis is not physics and can never be a result of interactions of matter or energy.

There are no physical constraints between a sign and the thing it represents or it's meaning. What it represents does not manifest until it is interpreted.
There are also no physical constraints between the representation and the interpretant. The triadic arrangement is irriducible.

Codes are not physics and can not be created by physics, there are two intangible non physical qualities in code. The abstract meaning or the representation and the formal rules by which it is interpreted. It defies materialism. This is clearly self evident.

BTW. I really appreciate that you did not have to resort to insults and slander in your post. It is a rare thing here. I respect your opinions and manner. Thank you.
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by WorShip
 



No the argument has nothing to do with complexity.
Semiosis is not physics and can never be a result of interactions of matter or energy.

There are no physical constraints between a sign and the thing it represents or it's meaning. What it represents does not manifest until it is interpreted.
There are also no physical constraints between the representation and the interpretant. The triadic arrangement is irriducible.

Codes are not physics and can not be created by physics, there are two intangible non physical qualities in code. The abstract meaning or the representation and the formal rules by which it is interpreted. It defies materialism. This is clearly self evident.

BTW. I really appreciate that you did not have to resort to insults and slander in your post. It is a rare thing here. I respect your opinions and manner. Thank you.
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Since i was going to discuss semiosis with you early but couldn't even get you to talk any thing science. Where you aware there are problems with applying semiosis to cells it just doesn't exactly fit. But they dont tell you that on ID websites because its inconvenient. Now theres a couple of things wrong i was going to point out to you through the debate once we had a definition but i think you figured out it was a trap and disagreed with your diagram you posted.

But we don't need definitions for code a set of symbols (sign) for representing something fairly simple . But lets examine genetic code for a minute will compare it morse code. Well these two codes can be described by a “transformation matrix” or a “conversion table” so there is similarities so far so good.Now lets look at the code itself morse code is perfectly reversible, or invertible meaning that i can change morse code in to a language or a language into morse code doesnt matter. I can take an a and turn it in to dashes or i can take dashes and turn it into an a.In fact all man made codes can do this conversion doesn't matter which direction we chose.The reason is true code represents something else entirely. However the genetic code is absolutely irreversible, or non-invertible. It is a process that goes from genes to proteins and absolutely not viceversa. The reverse transformation is not just avoided, it is physically impossible.And the other funny thing is cells interactions are strictly enforced by chemistry this is why genetic code doesnt stand for something else it is the only way chemistry can interpret it. This is why everyone says genetic code is like a code because in truth it isnt.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

Yay, more backtracking. So now the goalposts have been moved again and we are no longer talking about digital codes, which was part of your original argument. This is hilarious. You are attempting to fine tune the definition to your worldview. I can't be bothered explaining debating, logic and science to somebody that has obviously never partaken in any of the 3 and won't even listen to reason. You have retracted from your 3 point inference and now only use the phrase 'interference to only known cause', when there has NEVER once EVER been anything determined to have been designed by an intelligent entity outside of ourselves and the world we live in. Stop confusing ID with human intelligence. The concepts are NOT the same. ID is not a known cause and will not be until the process is actually observed or the designer is discovered. You have grossly misrepresented both logic and the scientific method. The only known cause of anything in the universe outside of humans is naturalism. Sorry but it's true. It's an 'inference to the only known cause'
Inferences are not scientific, and therefor not objective. I expect more denial.


You say there is no inference in blind evolution. That is blatantly and self evidently false. inferences from phylogeny. inferences from the fossil record.


Please provide the inference from the fossil record that they claim proves evolution. If you could cite the theory itself, that would be great. Please post the exact inference with the 3 points that comes directly from the theory of evolution (modern synthesis). Good luck.

Let's be real, though. You won't. I've asked for you to back up many claims and you just pretend I didn't say it or it doesn't matter. You have not referenced the actually theory of evolution once. You just keep making generalizations. Suit yourself, you are no longer worthy of my time because you have no intellectual honesty, you invoke double standard in every argument, and you post lies. How can you honestly claim intelligent design has objective evidence behind it, but evolution does not?
You clearly don't understand the scientific method and how it scientifically proves things, UNLIKE logical inferences that require the first statement to be verified undeniable truth to be valid. I expect more denial of this point.

Semiosis is a joke and that's not an argument. You are simply saying, "well I don't understand this part, or how xyz could have formed, therefor it's automatically wrong, despite us observing evolution and speciation in a lab.

And even more funny you end the post on a personal insult. You must be really proud of yourself. You can deny and ignore points with the best of them.

****I actually just noticed you did decide to respond to them after this post. Couldn't you have just done that in the first place instead of all the weaving and dodging I will respond to your post as soon as I get a chance.
edit on 8-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I'm inclined to disagree. Your statement is unfounded. You can't claim physicality has nothing to do with it. Why do I say this? Because semiosis is dependent on physicality to create the relativity of experience.

edit: just got home, drunk, cant be bothered elaborating on this statement atm^
edit on 8-6-2013 by WorShip because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join