Journey Inside The Cell

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
So only those alleged aspects of creative intelligence that are supernatural, will be excluded by science, if there are any proposed. Further, science does not demand that any person use only naturalistic explanations when NOT doing science.

He hints that he gets it that creative intelligence requires a met ...[text shortened]... that point. Metaphysical or theological implications are beyond the point he is laboring on.

How do you do this bolding that makes quotes clear?

You say, "What I recall him saying was that the Dover case was decided on that kind of circular reasoning on the part of the judge."

I say, of course he'd say that.

You say, "As for accepting ID but filtering out the supernatural, I think that would put you right on par with Dr. Meyer. That's seems to be all he is asking his colleagues to consider."

I say, he wouldn't say science rejects it, unless he had a supernatural source in mind. That's because science wouldn't reject it, if he had reproducible evidence of a natural creative intelligence. Obviously it's Christian creationism, Kitzmiller v. Dover, The Panda's Thumb, dressed up yet again, or he wouldn't say that. They never should have defended against that lawsuit.

You say, "I only see Meyer requesting that his peers come up to that point. Metaphysical or theological implications are beyond the point he is laboring on."

I say, I don't agree that those implications aren't present and looming in his mind. If he has reasons to propose a naturalistic creative intelligence, he needs to trot them out. Or, as he proposes at the end, who needs it to be naturalistic (scientific) as long as it's true? That's the part I agree with. That only leaves how we discern what is true. By what we were told is true, by authority figures?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think he really got fed up with the futility of arguing all the time.

Agreed it's kinda silly I understand if that's the case for him. It's like banging your head against a brick wall.





Manny

Originally posted by JS357
How do you do this bolding that makes quotes clear?

You say, "What I recall him saying was that the Dover case was decided on that kind of circular reasoning on the part of the judge."

I say, of course he'd say that.

You say, "As for accepting ID but filtering out the supernatural, I think that would put you right on par with Dr. Meyer. That's seems ...[text shortened]... w we discern what is true. By what we were told is true, by authority figures?

============================
How do you do this bolding that makes quotes clear?
============================

Left brackett, b, right brackett (what ever you want bolded) left brackett, slash, b, right brackett.

=============================================
You say, "What I recall him saying was that the Dover case was decided on that kind of circular reasoning on the part of the judge."

I say, of course he'd say that.
================================

Why "of course he would say that" ?

=====================================
You say, "As for accepting ID but filtering out the supernatural, I think that would put you right on par with Dr. Meyer. That's seems to be all he is asking his colleagues to consider."

I say, he wouldn't say science rejects it, unless he had a supernatural source in mind. That's because science wouldn't reject it, if he had reproducible evidence of a natural creative intelligence. Obviously it's Christian creationism, Kitzmiller v. Dover, The Panda's Thumb, dressed up yet again, or he wouldn't say that. They never should have defended against that lawsuit.

You say, "I only see Meyer requesting that his peers come up to that point. Metaphysical or theological implications are beyond the point he is laboring on."

I say, I don't agree that those implications aren't present and looming in his mind. If he has reasons to propose a naturalistic creative intelligence, he needs to trot them out. Or, as he proposes at the end, who needs it to be naturalistic (scientific) as long as it's true? That's the part I agree with. That only leaves how we discern what is true. By what we were told is true, by authority figures?

=======================================

To tell the truth I've seen so many videos since I was talking about that one, I'd have to view the whole thing over again by now.

No argument this evening.

This video reaveas how some dissagreeing scientists and philosophers came together to formulate a unified challenge to Darwinism. (Hey, that's not fair!)

Intelligent Design Documentary:

YouTube&NR=1

I think some of what this young lady says is worth listening to.

It is on Mutations not being benefitial to the process of Evolution.

(Not an endorsement of everything Nephilimfree teaches)

http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4

Originally posted by jaywill
I think some of what this young lady says is worth listening to.

It is on Mutations not being benefitial to the process of Evolution.

(Not an endorsement of [b]everything Nephilimfree teaches)

http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4[/b]

The link first claims that scientists have found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function. That is clearly false. Scientists have not found any such thing.

It then says that genes that control coding genes are dependent on them and visa versa -which may be true to a limited extent.
But then it claims that this means it could not evolve because of the question of which came first; well, obviously the coded genes came first because not all coding genes need other genes to regulate them -so that argument is just nonsense for it ignores the known biological facts.

It then gives a really stupid argument that is stupid because it claims, as the premise of this argument, that evolutionists claim that ALL random mutations are beneficial -no evolutionist claims this so the whole premise of the stupid argument is false.
It simply ignores the fact that natural selection would inevitably weed-out any harmful mutation thus just leaving behind just the beneficial ones.

It then gives a really stupid argument by using silly flawed maths that basically says that the necessary number of mutations for us to evolve could not have happened in the required time scale. It claims, as one of the premise of this argument, that evolutionists claim that mutation rates are always fixed and cannot vary ...ever ...no they don't! We claim no such thing. Why cannot the mutation rate sometimes vary? Their silly maths also fails to take into account the non-fixed population sizes and chromosome mutations etc.

Basically, it just says a load of crap.

I hate to appear insulting, but you are either ignorant
or lying. Which is it? If you are a liar, you will probably
just lie some more.

Truely,
RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
I hate to appear insulting, but you are either ignorant
or lying. Which is it? If you are a liar, you will probably
just lie some more.

Truely,
RJHinds

Who are you referring to, and what do you base that claim on?

Also, if the person in question is lying (and will probably lie some more), you should nevertheless be able to prove they are lying surely? Or at least prove that what they say is false.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The link first claims that scientists have found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function. That is clearly false. Scientists have not found any such thing.

It then says that genes that control coding genes are dependent on them and visa versa -which may be true to a limited extent.
But then it claims that this means it could not evolve beca fixed population sizes and chromosome mutations etc.

Basically, it just says a load of crap.

"Stupid" .... "Load of crap" typical dismissal. I don't believe you're ready to debate this guy. He has extended the challenge for a public debate. Sounds like it could be an easy job for you. Why don't you respond and we'll all listen in ?

I still want people to see it and consider inspite of your cavalier rejection.


You're a Java Programmer. Am I right. You should know what metalanguage is and can do.

How could a Meta language evolve ? That's intelligent design I think.


http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4

Originally posted by jaywill
"Stupid" .... "Load of crap" typical dismissal. I don't believe you're ready to debate this guy. He has extended the challenge for a public debate. Sounds like it could be an easy job for you. Why don't you respond and we'll all listen in ?

I still want people to see it and consider inspite of your cavalier rejection.


You're a Java Programm ...[text shortened]... n I think.


[b] http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4 [/b]

Cavalier rejection? He gave detailed responses for every point you asked.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Cavalier rejection? He gave detailed responses for every point you asked.

Exactly!

Originally posted by jaywill
"Stupid" .... "Load of crap" typical dismissal. I don't believe you're ready to debate this guy. He has extended the challenge for a public debate. Sounds like it could be an easy job for you. Why don't you respond and we'll all listen in ?

I still want people to see it and consider inspite of your cavalier rejection.


You're a Java Programm ...[text shortened]... n I think.


[b] http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4 [/b]

“...You're a Java Programmer. Am I right. You should know what metalanguage is and can do. ...”

yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage

“...How could a Meta language evolve ? ...”

It didn’t. Metalanguage is not something that exists in nature but rather is a human construct.
One of the crap that link claimed is that junk DNA is needed for “ Metalanguage” -that is just pure ignorance.
“ Metalanguage” means a language to define some other language -so what has that got to do with junk DNA?....answer....nothing.

“...That's intelligent design I think. ...”

yes, human intelligence -only humans create metalanguage.

“...http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4 ...”

yes, you already pointed out that link and I have already debunked each and every claim it makes so I don't know why you mention that link again.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...You're a Java Programmer. Am I right. You should know what metalanguage is and can do. ...”

yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage

“...How could a Meta language evolve ? ...”

It didn’t. Metalanguage is not something that exists in nature but rather is a human construct.
One of the crap that link claimed is that junk DNA is need ready debunked each and every claim it makes so I don't know why you mention that link again.

Metalanguage was the term I used. I think the term the video used was metacode. I am not sure until I view it again. And I would post it again.

You have code to assemble protiens.

You also have code to direct the isage of code to assemble protiens.
I would call that a metacode. That is code directing how code should be used.

If you want to think that such an assemblage evolved by random mutations and natural selection, you go ahead and believe that.

Not me.

Now, would either you or Proper Knob take up the challenge to debate Nephimlimfree on the subject. I heard at alweast one recorded debate with him on YouTube. I don't see why you could not.

I plan to challenge him on some entirely different issues on Bible interpretation when I get my YouTube skills up better.

If you disagree with claim that the JUnk DNA is metacode, either in great part or totally, let me see you debate NephilimFree on that.

That goes for you too Proper Knob.

=======================================
The link first claims that scientists have found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function. That is clearly false. Scientists have not found any such thing.
=============================================

Quote me a reputable source claiming what percentage they know is junk DNA and what percentage is not. Or quote me a source claiming it is all junk DNA.

===================================
It then says that genes that control coding genes are dependent on them and visa versa -which may be true to a limited extent.
================================

How did the relationship "to a limited exent" evolve ?


=========================================
But then it claims that this means it could not evolve because of the question of which came first; well, obviously the coded genes came first because not all coding genes need other genes to regulate them -so that argument is just nonsense for it ignores the known biological facts.
=================================

Why is it obvious ?

And if you are right, those genes that DO need other genes to regulate them - How did that evolve ?


================================
It then gives a really stupid argument that is stupid because it claims, as the premise of this argument, that evolutionists claim that ALL random mutations are beneficial -no evolutionist claims this so the whole premise of the stupid argument is false.
=====================================

I didn't hear that claim. It seems the entire premise is that the number of damaging random mutations would vastly outweigh the benefitial ones.

It ALL were harmful, then the entire argument the video makes would not have been made.


======================================
It simply ignores the fact that natural selection would inevitably weed-out any harmful mutation thus just leaving behind just the beneficial ones.
=====================================

The premise of the video as I understood it was that the probability stood AGAINST what you say and not for it.

===================================
It then gives a really stupid argument by using silly flawed maths that basically says that the necessary number of mutations for us to evolve could not have happened in the required time scale. It claims, as one of the premise of this argument, that evolutionists claim that mutation rates are always fixed and cannot vary ...ever ...no they don't! We claim no such thing. Why cannot the mutation rate sometimes vary? Their silly maths also fails to take into account the non-fixed population sizes and chromosome mutations etc.
=================================

Varying rates may be an objection. Then again it may be an excuse.

I have to leave no. But Crap, silly, and other perjuratives you used, I think were sensationally negative. And that is why I posted it again. You wish to easily turn people away frm substantial objections to your theory.

And agains, I'd like to witnesss your debate with NephelimFree on the subject matter.

===========================
Basically, it just says a load of crap.
=========================

I think your religion of Scientism and Darwinian Evolution is trash.

I am pretty certain that if Charles Darwin knew what we know now about the living cell he would have never written that book, Origin of Species.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================
The link first claims that scientists have found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function. That is clearly false. Scientists have not found any such thing.
=============================================

Quote me a reputable source claiming what percentage they know is junk DNA and what percentage is not. Or quote me a source claiming it is all junk DNA.[/b]

He does not need to find any such quotes because he has not made any such claim. He is claiming that scientists have not found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function. He is not claiming that they have found that most of the junk DNA does not have a vital function.

The link in question makes a false claim.