22 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipThe only reason you THINK you know that as a fact is because of the man made religion, the big three, the Abrahamic religions, all based on bogus tales not even original, the 7 day creation myth came directly from the Egyptians, so your original writers didn't even have the creativity to come up with their own mythology of creation, instead just plagiarized older bogus creation myths made up by people even older than Judaism who also didn't know crap about the cosmos and our place in it.Part of reasoning is considering "what if the answer is the thing I don't like?" Not fun to think about sometimes, but if you never do it, you can end up BS'ing yourself.
Emotional attachment can be put aside.
I can work really really really hard and imagine that the rules for the game of chess had no intelligent planning, [b]SOM ...[text shortened]... her what [b] I know.
Stuff like that does not happen without an intelligence involved.[/b]
They didn't understand it at all so just made up crap to placate their people. That is the sum of religion, placation of unruly populations, nothing more. Well there is the part where said religions become politically powerful and take on a life of its own.
All bogus of course, man made 100% but powerful politically speaking. You don't cross the local priest or you find yourself at the business end of a pike.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonhouse
The only reason you THINK you know that as a fact is because of the man made religion, the big three, the Abrahamic religions, all based on bogus tales not even original, the 7 day creation myth came directly from the Egyptians, so your original writers didn't even have the creativity to come up with their own mythology of creation, instead just plagiarized older bogus creation myths made up by people even older than Judaism who also didn't know crap about the cosmos and our place in it.
They didn't understand it at all so just made up crap to placate their people. That is the sum of religion, placation of unruly populations, nothing more. Well there is the part where said religions become politically powerful and take on a life of its own.
All bogus of course, man made 100% but powerful politically speaking. You don't cross the local priest or you find yourself at the business end of a pike.
Mostly Genetic Fallacy
How or where you picked up the belief is not the point.
Only if it is true or not is the point.
22 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipI think that when you accuse people of things then they deserve specifics.
I am tired of your zingers, stupid one liners, and chat holding your own beliefs close to the vest asking questions of the other person. I've been tired of it.
If you say I make 'stupid one liners' then I deserve to know what these one liners were.
If you claim I hold my beliefs close to the vest, I deserve to know where I refused to divulge my beliefs.
Merely accusing then running is rude and dishonest.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Feb 14
2 edits
50 Renown Academics speak of their Atheism, Agnosticism, dislike for religion, unbelief in "afterlife", and skepticism of intelligent design, absence of faith, and disbelief in any evidence for God.
( all of which I dissagree with. But I enjoyed hearing their opinions )
23 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipWith chess, we know that the pieces move the way they do solely because of ideas in our minds. That is why we do not just move them any old way even though it is physically possible.Part of reasoning is considering "what if the answer is the thing I don't like?" Not fun to think about sometimes, but if you never do it, you can end up BS'ing yourself.
Emotional attachment can be put aside.
I can work really really really hard and imagine that the rules for the game of chess had no intelligent planning, [b]SOM ...[text shortened]... her what [b] I know.
Stuff like that does not happen without an intelligence involved.[/b]
When I talk about considering stuff you don't like, that cuts down to the very words you use to speak of the issue. Examining:
And imagining how the information bearing function of DNA developed across varied species without intelligenceLook at the assumptions and prejudices housed in those word choices. "Information bearing" without acknowledging the presence of junk DNA that no longer bears useful information. Even just the word 'information' - pieces of data that are used by intelligent minds.
And 'across varied species' - when 'species' is a man-made distinction, to help us understand and classify various types of life. Nature has no concept of 'species'.
I will also dismiss some misconceptions in the rest of your post.
- Newton and Galileo were not trying to prove Intelligent Design. They were trying to figure out how the physical universe worked. Back then, few were questioning the premise that the Universe was created by a god.
- I'm not saying you are lazy. I don't presume to know why you have not tried hard to conceive of DNA that is not designed. It could possibly be unpleasant to think about, or perhaps you treated the possibility with scorn and wrote it off as a waste of time, or .... who knows, insert the reason of your choice.
- I don't think of you as 'bursting veins with hatred'. I also don't think it should take the rest of your life to consider those possibilities. Give it a sincere, honest effort for a bit. Just a suggestion.
23 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou would be better off if you would try to assume the creation was created by God too.
With chess, we know that the pieces move the way they do solely because of ideas in our minds. That is why we do not just move them any old way even though it is physically possible.
When I talk about considering stuff you don't like, that cuts down to the very words you use to speak of the issue. Examining:[quote]And imagining how the information bea ...[text shortened]... to consider those possibilities. Give it a sincere, honest effort for a bit. Just a suggestion.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambit
With chess, we know that the pieces move the way they do solely because of ideas in our minds. That is why we do not just move them any old way even though it is physically possible.
When I talk about considering stuff you don't like, that cuts down to the very words you use to speak of the issue. Examining:[quote]And imagining how the information bea ...[text shortened]... to consider those possibilities. Give it a sincere, honest effort for a bit. Just a suggestion.
Look at the assumptions and prejudices housed in those word choices. "Information bearing" without acknowledging the presence of junk DNA that no longer bears useful information. Even just the word 'information' - pieces of data that are used by intelligent minds.
I would have to review the "junk DNA" matter. The last I heard, it was argued that this so-called "junk DNA" was discovered to have a useful purpose. But I cannot remember the details with revisiting that discussion.
And 'across varied species' - when 'species' is a man-made distinction, to help us understand and classify various types of life. Nature has no concept of 'species'.
As a former computer programmer we developed certain re-usable sections of logic that could be applied over other areas of code. In object oriented programming, I believe that this kind of scheme began to be discribed as class inheritance and instantiation of a class.
I don't mean to sound too sophisticated. But it is a technique of highly intelligent re-use of a concept in various and diverse situations where it could be applied.
Now something like DNA used across hugely varied life forms SCREAMS to me of intelligent programming. I just cannot help it.
Yes, I know there is no apparent dictionary in nature with the word "species" in it. But maybe there IS some code which virtually means that which we will discover. If not it is all the more amazing that if a Creator's mind designed life and all things the Mind did so keeping billions of definitions just by memory. He didn't have to write down what the definition was. He just created it and will recall it without fail from memory even if He has to for eternity.
Of course we need to arrange the creation in human dictionaries to keep track of it all with our limitations of mind.
I will also dismiss some misconceptions in the rest of your post.
I have to go and meet with some saints for the enjoyment of the Lord.
Latter.
24 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipAs a current programmer, re-usable sections of code existed before object oriented programming as functions. You could develop a whole library of commonly used functions and simply call files from the library as needed to support your program.Look at the assumptions and prejudices housed in those word choices. "Information bearing" without acknowledging the presence of junk DNA that no longer bears useful information. Even just the word 'information' - pieces of data that are used by intelligent minds.
I would have to review the "junk DNA" matter. The last I heard, it was ar ...[text shortened]... . [/quote]
I have to go and meet with some saints for the enjoyment of the Lord.
Latter.
A Class is a generic description of an object's properties. Class inheritance is when a Class takes properties from its parent Class. Instantiation of a Class means creating a specific object of that Class by name. Neither is well-described by 're-use of logic'.
24 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThere is no "junk DNA". The evilutionists used to claim that out of their ignorance, because they did not know all the functions of the information code in the DNA. That idea has proved to be false as more and more of the functions of the so-called "junk DNA" has been revealed.Look at the assumptions and prejudices housed in those word choices. "Information bearing" without acknowledging the presence of junk DNA that no longer bears useful information. Even just the word 'information' - pieces of data that are used by intelligent minds.
I would have to review the "junk DNA" matter. The last I heard, it was ar ...[text shortened]... . [/quote]
I have to go and meet with some saints for the enjoyment of the Lord.
Latter.
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode
24 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI see it has been re-named with the more cautious 'non-coding DNA'. But your article does not state that there is no non-coding DNA. It just states that a portion of what they thought was 'junk' in the human genome actually has a purpose.
There is no "junk DNA". The evilutionists used to claim that out of their ignorance, because they did not know all the functions of the information code in the DNA. That idea has proved to be false as more and more of the functions of the so-called "junk DNA" has been revealed.
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell, if it has a purpose, then how can it be junk?
I see it has been re-named with the more cautious 'non-coding DNA'. But your article does not state that there is no non-coding DNA. It just states that a portion of what they thought was 'junk' in the human genome actually has a purpose.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIt can't. But let's not lose site of the larger point - you don't actually read the articles you post here. You just google for things and get all happy when you see "blow for junk DNA" and post the link without even knowing what is in it.
Well, if it has a purpose, then how can it be junk?
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, I get all happy, because it proves me right and you evilutionists wrong again.
It can't. But let's not lose site of the larger point - you don't actually read the articles you post here. You just google for things and get all happy when you see "blow for junk DNA" and post the link without even knowing what is in it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]As a current programmer, re-usable sections of code existed before object oriented programming as functions. You could develop a whole library of commonly used functions and simply call files from the library as needed to support your program.
Yes I know re-usable goes back. Probably the first time I noticed the concept was in the IBM Basic Assembly Language macro call.
You understand then how reusable concept applied over and over across a wide spectrum of applications is so ... intentional. I think that is the word I may need.
A Class is a generic description of an object's properties. Class inheritance is when a Class takes properties from its parent Class. Instantiation of a Class means creating a specific object of that Class by name. Neither is well-described by 're-use of logic'.
"Re-use of logic" is not the best jargon, as compared to the current literature.
Anyway, I see a mirror of some of these concepts in nature. And the intelligence that we read OUT of them I believe we can read out because it was programmed INTO nature.
I think basically mind recognizes what mind has done.