YEC (was Heaven will be boring)

[Enoch2021]

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.

Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information? If you need me to POST IT (You already seen it ) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence.

Biblical Faith is the exact opposite. You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

False Equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency:

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:

"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


Which Fallacy is in play here?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF's...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, eh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle his mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress,


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER!!

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?


Love, this is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water.

regards

[FarWanderer]

I like ice cream.

And where was it sourced from? Also where's the "Ice Cream" i.e., is it in the letters "ice cream"?

These challenges are erroneous.

You are saying two things:
Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.

You provided a definition for "information", being: "The communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence."

Is my statement of "I like ice cream" not communication of knowledge seen by everyone reading this thread?

What's the difference?

The difference is between the Physical "Mother Board" and Windows 7.

Windows 7 is no less physical than a motherboard. It is a physical configuration of a physical medium.

You seem to be trying to claim they are metaphysically the same and metaphysically different at the same time. Which is it? Is DNA software, or is it not?

DNA (The Physical Molecule) is made up of Sugar, Nucleobases, and Phosphate. DNA isn't Software in itself anymore than Microchips isn't Windows 7... The Message "Software" Transcends the Medium.

This is just Platonism- that the idea of a tree "transcends" a physical tree. It's not even right or wrong; it's just a fiat of definition; an arbitrary interpretation.

[historia]

If by "done their homework" you mean "read a bunch of King James Only propaganda," then, yes, I suppose one might arrive at this conclusion. But have you read the works of respected textual critics?

No, I didn't mean that; ergo, Strawman Fallacy.

That was a rhetorical question, Enoch. I'm simply pointing out that your conclusions are drawn from misinformation.

But if you want to play the Fallacy Game, let's play.

Who are "respectful" textual critics...?

Whether they are "respectful" or not, respected textual critics are those prominent scholars who have devoted their career to researching the manuscripts of the New Testament. They all invariably have Ph.D.'s in Theology or History, have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and books in the field, and are highly cited by other scholars. Examples include Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Kurt Aland, and D.C. Parker.

Have you read any of them?

What do you mean when you say they are "corrupt"?

There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone! (That's what I mean by "Corrupt"...there's some more just below).

Okay. But there are contradictions between all New Testament manuscripts. Would you say, then, that the King James Version is also "corrupted" because the Textus Receptus, the critical Greek text on which the KJV was based, contradicts many other Greek manuscripts, including those of the Majority Text? If not, why?

Last 12 Verses of Mark (16:9-20) Most Modern Translations there will be a marginal notation that these verses were added later and question the authenticity. They are not found in the 3 codices.

Yes, that's because several different endings were added to various copies of the Gospel of Mark between the second and fourth centuries. No other gospel has this kind of textual issue. Why do you think Mark alone has these different endings?

In 150 AD, several Centuries before these Codices, Irenaeus quotes these verses in his commentary! ahhh, Houston we have a problem.

And what exactly would that problem be? Irenaeus was familiar with a copy of Mark that included the long ending. No surprise there. Eusebius, writing in Caesarea in the fourth century, tells us that that some manuscripts of Mark did, indeed, contain this ending, but the vast majority did not. Again, why do you think that is?

In 156 AD, Irenaeus (talking about the Gnostics): "Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened."

See, this is the problem with relying on propaganda. The full quote from Irenaeus actually reads:

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened.

Clearly, Irenaeus is not talking about the Gospel of Mark. Further, there are no "shortened" or "mutilated" versions of Luke or the Pauline epistles in the codices you've referenced. Seems then that this quote from Irenaeus is irrelevant to our discussion.

Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and other NT codicies were not produced by "Gnostics" or Marcionites -- that is pure fantasy. They are early copies of orthodox texts produced by orthodox Christians.

What does this even mean? These codices include ancient Greek manuscripts of the same books that are in any New Testament. What possibly makes them "Gnostic"?

Did you know they spoke and wrote in GREEK in Alexandria that time; Mainly due to Alexander The Great.....Greece---"Greek".

Yes. But what does that have to do with my question? I asked you what makes these manuscripts Gnostic?

Or was this earlier comment suppose to suffice?

All three Codices are believed to originate in Alexandria Egypt. Home of the Gnostics.

So let me see if I understand you here. There were Gnostics in Alexandria, so any manuscript produced in Alexandria is therefore Gnostic?

That would be like saying: because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is headquartered in New York, all books published in New York are Jehovah's Witness books. That would be a genetic fallacy.

This is simply irresponsible slander. Westcott and Hort were not "heretics" or "satan worshipers."

Oh really?

Yes, really. Westcott, for example, was a conservative Anglican bishop. I have little doubt that he would be deemed a "heretic" in the eyes of some backwoods Fundamentalists, but then again, you can find Christians who would consider those same Fundamentalists to be "heretics" as well. Let's keep this conversation within the realm of reason. These men were not "heretics."

Westcott wrote,
"How certainly I should have been claimed a heretic".
B.F. Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 233

Are you familiar with the term 'quote mining', by chance?

Better yet, here is the full quote from Westcott you've sniped above. I'd like for you to tell me what exactly you think he is discussing in this letter, and what he means when he -- quite clearly in jest -- says he would be proclaimed a "heretic."

TO THE REV. J. F. WlCKENDEN
HARROW, 15th September [1855?].

Will you not excuse me if I decline to attempt to settle any chronological point in the Gospels? The data are far too uncertain to give more than a probable conclusion; and in many cases the order of time is wholly hopelessly uncertain. How much I should like to have been in some closet to listen to your discussion of aion. What unorthodox groans would have issued from the recess quarter? How certainly I should have been proclaimed heretic ! I do hope you furnished the good people with a Bruder. . . .

Continuing on:

Then, start here, it won't take long....

Ghostly Guild
Hermes Club
The Eranus Club....with Arthur Balfour.
F.J.A Hort, The First Epistle of Peter, p. 39
Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol 1
F.J.A. Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1 and 2
B.F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Wescott
B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John
B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews

You may also be interested in their relationship with Helena Blavatsky (Founder of Theosophy----- satan worshipers)
http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/Refer ... d_Hort.pdf

I got 30 others if that source doesn't do it for ya.

Yes, I'm familiar with the usual KJV Only arguments. That KJV Only advocates have to stoop to impugning the character of conservative scholars like Westcott and Hort shows just how desperate their position really is. The propaganda you've been reading isn't prepared to address the actual arguments and scholarship of these men, so it resorts to ad hominem attacks. That would be another fallacy.

Note, too, that modern English translations of the Bible are not based on the Westcott and Hort text, which was published in 1881

Except these...

Not exhaustive...

(NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation)

Nope, on this you are simply mistaken. Virtually all of these translations are based on the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The preface of each will tell you so.

And this is ultimately the problem with your ad hominem attacks against Westcott and Hort. Even if half of it was true -- which it isn't -- it wouldn't matter anyway. The personal doctrinal beliefs of these men have nothing to do with the manuscript evidence and critical theories that help us uncover the earliest text of the New Testament.

It's also an argument that is 130 years out of date. Modern translations of the Bible are not based on a handful of codices. The NA-UBS text is based on a reasoned eclectic approach that takes into account all NT manuscripts, including very early Greek papyri discovered since the time of Westcott and Hort, as well as early translations of the New Testament into Latin, Syriac, and other languages. It's also based on 150 years of research from scholars of all theological backgrounds.

The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll realize how lame it is to attack the character of two 19th Century conservative scholars.

Anything Else?

Since we've made it this far, let's go back to the Fallacy Game to tally the score. In your response you had one genetic fallacy, two instances of quote mining, and a whole slew of ad hominem attacks. I think you win!

[ytrewq]

Personal opinion does not constitute scientific evidence.

My this is tedious. Well lets get to it...

Well how about this (You know, what you've been "avoiding") and this is addressed directly to you....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLYgoing from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception!!

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

And guess what that Ribosome is made up of? rRNA and "Functional Proteins" and a boatload of them. Where'd you get them? Where'd you get "Functional" RNA?

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif rotflol. And Yes, it gets better....

Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, huh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle this mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress.


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER! If you still have doubts, well here Ya Go...

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?

Refute It!!

regards

I am not a geneticist.

Are you a professional geneticist?

Your lengthy posting quotes from Craig Venter, who beyond all doubt IS a professional geneticist.

Craig Venter is an Atheist.

Steve Kroft asked Venter on CBS' Sixty Minutes, 21 November 2010: "Do you believe in God?" Venter replied, "No. The universe is far more wonderful."

Why would I believe you rather than Craig Venter?

Though I am not a geneticist, I can still ask an obvious question.

In your personal opinion (though I strongly suspect that most of your posting is not your own thoughts but has been taken from elsewhwere) there are various 'challenges' faced by the theory of evolution, certain questions that are not fully understood. That is actually true of many theories, even though the evidence that the basic theory is true is overwhelming, as is the case with evolution.

Anyway, let me make the following observation. No matter how difficult it might be to understand some details within the framework of evolution, that pales into insignificance compare with the problems you face in coming up with an alternative explanation, with supporting evidence, that does a better job.

Hint. Saying 'God did it' or 'God was the intelligent designer' does not cut it, and tells us essentially nothing at all.

You will need first of all to demonstrate that your Intelligent Designer even exists, which no one to date has ever done, so you will fail right there at the first hurdle. Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today, that we know have in fact evolved (changed) over millions of years. Did your Intelligent Designer actually set up camp on Earth, and mix up DNA in a test tube? Is your Intelligent Designer a carbon based, intelligent lifeform with fingers and eyes that could actually do that, or if not, what exactly is your designer, and how does he get stuff done without fingers and eyes and presumably a very well set up Laboratory? Who made and designed your designer? You will need convincing evidence for all of this and more. Did he set up a 'fossil factory' to prodce the fossils we find, and scatter them around the world? He must have been camped on Earth for many millions of years mixing up DNA's coded in different ways, that we know have changed over millions of years to progressively produce all the species we see today, not to mention all the extinct ones, that are actually the majority. Evolution is still occuring today, so exactly how is your Intelligent designer doing that? You will need to explain precise mechanisms that explain all known observations, and quite obviously it is not good enough just to say 'God did it'.

You might also like to explain why many anatomical features and constructions found in animals are highly non-optimum and quite clearly not intelligently designed. For example, the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes. Like more detail on that?

I await with interest a detailed description of your alternative theory.

Good Luck!

I think all of us here on the forum might do better to believe Craig Venter and other professionals in the field.

I also note that in the US highest Court of Law, it was determined that 'Creation Science' and 'Intelligent Design' were not true sciences at all, and were therefore not required to be taught in schools.

[woodsman]

Boring as batschit.

[Enoch2021]

If by "done their homework" you mean "read a bunch of King James Only propaganda," then, yes, I suppose one might arrive at this conclusion. But have you read the works of respected textual critics?

No, I didn't mean that; ergo, Strawman Fallacy.

That was a rhetorical question, Enoch. I'm simply pointing out that your conclusions are drawn from misinformation.

But if you want to play the Fallacy Game, let's play.

Who are "respectful" textual critics...?

Whether they are "respectful" or not, respected textual critics are those prominent scholars who have devoted their career to researching the manuscripts of the New Testament. They all invariably have Ph.D.'s in Theology or History, have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and books in the field, and are highly cited by other scholars. Examples include Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Kurt Aland, and D.C. Parker.

Have you read any of them?

What do you mean when you say they are "corrupt"?

There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone! (That's what I mean by "Corrupt"...there's some more just below).

Okay. But there are contradictions between all New Testament manuscripts. Would you say, then, that the King James Version is also "corrupted" because the Textus Receptus, the critical Greek text on which the KJV was based, contradicts many other Greek manuscripts, including those of the Majority Text? If not, why?

Last 12 Verses of Mark (16:9-20) Most Modern Translations there will be a marginal notation that these verses were added later and question the authenticity. They are not found in the 3 codices.

Yes, that's because several different endings were added to various copies of the Gospel of Mark between the second and fourth centuries. No other gospel has this kind of textual issue. Why do you think Mark alone has these different endings?

In 150 AD, several Centuries before these Codices, Irenaeus quotes these verses in his commentary! ahhh, Houston we have a problem.

And what exactly would that problem be? Irenaeus was familiar with a copy of Mark that included the long ending. No surprise there. Eusebius, writing in Caesarea in the fourth century, tells us that that some manuscripts of Mark did, indeed, contain this ending, but the vast majority did not. Again, why do you think that is?

In 156 AD, Irenaeus (talking about the Gnostics): "Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened."

See, this is the problem with relying on propaganda. The full quote from Irenaeus actually reads:

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened.

Clearly, Irenaeus is not talking about the Gospel of Mark. Further, there are no "shortened" or "mutilated" versions of Luke or the Pauline epistles in the codices you've referenced. Seems then that this quote from Irenaeus is irrelevant to our discussion.

Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and other NT codicies were not produced by "Gnostics" or Marcionites -- that is pure fantasy. They are early copies of orthodox texts produced by orthodox Christians.

What does this even mean? These codices include ancient Greek manuscripts of the same books that are in any New Testament. What possibly makes them "Gnostic"?

Did you know they spoke and wrote in GREEK in Alexandria that time; Mainly due to Alexander The Great.....Greece---"Greek".

Yes. But what does that have to do with my question? I asked you what makes these manuscripts Gnostic?

Or was this earlier comment suppose to suffice?

All three Codices are believed to originate in Alexandria Egypt. Home of the Gnostics.

So let me see if I understand you here. There were Gnostics in Alexandria, so any manuscript produced in Alexandria is therefore Gnostic?

That would be like saying: because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is headquartered in New York, all books published in New York are Jehovah's Witness books. That would be a genetic fallacy.

This is simply irresponsible slander. Westcott and Hort were not "heretics" or "satan worshipers."

Oh really?

Yes, really. Westcott, for example, was a conservative Anglican bishop. I have little doubt that he would be deemed a "heretic" in the eyes of some backwoods Fundamentalists, but then again, you can find Christians who would consider those same Fundamentalists to be "heretics" as well. Let's keep this conversation within the realm of reason. These men were not "heretics."

Westcott wrote,
"How certainly I should have been claimed a heretic".
B.F. Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 233

Are you familiar with the term 'quote mining', by chance?

Better yet, here is the full quote from Westcott you've sniped above. I'd like for you to tell me what exactly you think he is discussing in this letter, and what he means when he -- quite clearly in jest -- says he would be proclaimed a "heretic."

TO THE REV. J. F. WlCKENDEN
HARROW, 15th September [1855?].

Will you not excuse me if I decline to attempt to settle any chronological point in the Gospels? The data are far too uncertain to give more than a probable conclusion; and in many cases the order of time is wholly hopelessly uncertain. How much I should like to have been in some closet to listen to your discussion of aion. What unorthodox groans would have issued from the recess quarter? How certainly I should have been proclaimed heretic ! I do hope you furnished the good people with a Bruder. . . .

Continuing on:

Then, start here, it won't take long....

Ghostly Guild
Hermes Club
The Eranus Club....with Arthur Balfour.
F.J.A Hort, The First Epistle of Peter, p. 39
Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol 1
F.J.A. Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1 and 2
B.F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Wescott
B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John
B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews

You may also be interested in their relationship with Helena Blavatsky (Founder of Theosophy----- satan worshipers)
http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/Refer ... d_Hort.pdf

I got 30 others if that source doesn't do it for ya.

Yes, I'm familiar with the usual KJV Only arguments. That KJV Only advocates have to stoop to impugning the character of conservative scholars like Westcott and Hort shows just how desperate their position really is. The propaganda you've been reading isn't prepared to address the actual arguments and scholarship of these men, so it resorts to ad hominem attacks. That would be another fallacy.

Note, too, that modern English translations of the Bible are not based on the Westcott and Hort text, which was published in 1881

Except these...

Not exhaustive...

(NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation)

Nope, on this you are simply mistaken. Virtually all of these translations are based on the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The preface of each will tell you so.

And this is ultimately the problem with your ad hominem attacks against Westcott and Hort. Even if half of it was true -- which it isn't -- it wouldn't matter anyway. The personal doctrinal beliefs of these men have nothing to do with the manuscript evidence and critical theories that help us uncover the earliest text of the New Testament.

It's also an argument that is 130 years out of date. Modern translations of the Bible are not based on a handful of codices. The NA-UBS text is based on a reasoned eclectic approach that takes into account all NT manuscripts, including very early Greek papyri discovered since the time of Westcott and Hort, as well as early translations of the New Testament into Latin, Syriac, and other languages. It's also based on 150 years of research from scholars of all theological backgrounds.

The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll realize how lame it is to attack the character of two 19th Century conservative scholars.

Anything Else?

Since we've made it this far, let's go back to the Fallacy Game to tally the score. In your response you had one genetic fallacy, two instances of quote mining, and a whole slew of ad hominem attacks. I think you win!

They all invariably have Ph.D.'s in Theology or History, have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and books in the field, and are highly cited by other scholars. Examples include Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Kurt Aland, and D.C. Parker.

Have you read any of them?

I really don't care if they have 30 PhD's each, and yes I have come across them.

Enoch2021: There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!

Historia: Okay. But there are contradictions between all New Testament manuscripts.

Okay??? Not in the Universal zip code of that scale love.

contradicts many other Greek manuscripts, including those of the Majority Text?

Yes the Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus...to name the Biggies. So what's your point?

Yes, that's because several different endings were added to various copies of the Gospel of Mark between the second and fourth centuries.

Thanks.

Are you familiar with these...

(Deuteronomy 4:2) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

(Revelation 22:18-19) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: {19} And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

If one WORD was tampered with "INTENTIONALLY" it's corrupted.

It goes back to this...

(Genesis 3:1-4) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? {2} And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: {3} But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. {4} And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

So satan's top 2 Tactics:

1. Create Doubt. 2. CHANGE the WORD of GOD. Probably why we have over 400 Bibles, eh? Muddy the waters a bit.

No other gospel has this kind of textual issue. Why do you think Mark alone has these different endings?

Clearly, Irenaeus is not talking about the Gospel of Mark. Further, there are no "shortened" or "mutilated" versions of Luke or the Pauline epistles in the codices you've referenced. Seems then that this quote from Irenaeus is irrelevant to our discussion.

Really?

It's not Mark alone, love? But one WORD altered in Mark alone scuttles them IN TOTO. Let's take just a cursory look see (Just a Sample)...

What "They" Deleted (Highlighted)....

Matthew 6:13 ( For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.)
Matthew 18:11 "The Whole Passage"...... (" For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.")
Matthew 25:13 ("wherein the Son of Man cometh").

Luke 2:33 changed ("Joseph" to "father") HERETICS!!!!
Luke 4:4 ("And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.")
Luke 24:40 "The Whole Passage" ("And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.") Yep, can't have this in Scripture.

John 3:15 ("That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.") No Damnation....Shocker!

Acts 2:30 ("Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;")

Acts 8:37 "The Whole Passage" ("And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.")

Romans 14:9 ("For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.")

Are Ya seeing a "PATTERN" here, per chance?

Ephesians 3:9 ("And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:")

Ephesians 3:14 ("For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,")

Revelation 11:17 ("Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.") Is HE coming Back??

And what exactly would that problem be? Irenaeus was familiar with a copy of Mark that included the long ending. No surprise there. Eusebius, writing in Caesarea in the fourth century, tells us that that some manuscripts of Mark did, indeed, contain this ending, but the vast majority did not. Again, why do you think that is?

Well the problem there Historia, is the TEXT was Manipulated...MY ENTIRE POINT!
The Why is Painfully Irrelevant; however, I have a pretty good idea. SEE: Genesis 3.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened.

Clearly, Irenaeus is not talking about the Gospel of Mark. Further, there are no "shortened" or "mutilated" versions of Luke or the Pauline epistles in the codices you've referenced.

What on Earth? KaBooM!!! Thanks, we've pinpointed the problem....Reading Comprehension.

Love, Define "Curtailing"....? (SEE also, Above for Luke and Pauline Epistles)

And pray tell, What is/are the Antecedent to...."which they have themselves thus shortened" ??

Oh, and I never said "he" was "exclusively"/specifically talking about Mark; Ergo...Straw Man (Fallacy)

So let me see if I understand you here. There were Gnostics in Alexandria, so any manuscript produced in Alexandria is therefore Gnostic?

That would be like saying: because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is headquartered in New York, all books published in New York are Jehovah's Witness books. That would be a genetic fallacy.

Yes it sure would be accept for the fact that these codices ORIGINATED there.... the TEXTS were Manipulated....and Gnostics were known for Manipulating Scripture. Besides that, yes it would be a Genetic Fallacy.
Was there "A SCHOOL" of Gnosticism in Alexandria, per chance?

From your quote above "Irenaeus": "Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures.

"Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher. In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought. Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body."
Adolph Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God (1924)

Who do you suppose were "The Followers" of a Gnostic Philosopher who were "Mutilating" Scripture? err Gnostics, maybe....?

Yes, really. Westcott, for example, was a conservative Anglican bishop. I have little doubt that he would be deemed a "heretic" in the eyes of some backwoods Fundamentalists, but then again, you can find Christians who would consider those same Fundamentalists to be "heretics" as well. Let's keep this conversation within the realm of reason. These men were not "heretics."

Hey Darlin, you can sell that to the the one you just sold the bridge to.

In a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Westcott wrote,
"No one now I suppose hold that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history- I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did".
Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 69

Westcott wrote,
"The concept is that bringing Christ to the full perfection of his humanity which carries with it the completeness of power and dignity. This perfection was not reached until after death".
B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 49

westcott wrote,
" The resurrection seems to me to be the image of man unfallen to a higher life-not future but present. Not I shall be hereafter but I am".
B.F. Westcott, Life of Westcott, Vol 2, p.77

He's a HERETIC!! ...along with his partner in Crime. Would you like some of Hort's? They're quite the Spectacle!!

Are you familiar with the term 'quote mining', by chance?

Yes, I'm very familiar "on this forum" with the charge. Not so much with the SUPPORT, However.
It appears he was calling it like he was seeing it. The 3 Citations above leave quite little doubt he was right on the "MARK"!

Yes, I'm familiar with the usual KJV Only arguments. That KJV Only advocates have to stoop to impugning the character of conservative scholars like Westcott and Hort shows just how desperate their position really is. The propaganda you've been reading isn't prepared to address the actual arguments and scholarship of these men, so it resorts to ad hominem attacks. That would be another fallacy.

I not only ILLUSTRATED Step by STEP what they've DONE but then who they Associated with. I could shut down the servers here with their involvement in the OCCULT, Love. So your Frivolous Charges are quite Empty.

Nope, on this you are simply mistaken. Virtually all of these translations are based on the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The preface of each will tell you so.

Ipse Dixit, eh? A "Nope". You need to take a little closer look.

The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll realize how lame it is to attack the character of two 19th Century conservative scholars.

Conservative Occultists?

In your response you had one genetic fallacy, two instances of quote mining, and a whole slew of ad hominem attacks. I think you win!

Perhaps it would be a good idea to go back and RE-evaluate.

regards

[Enoch2021]

I like ice cream.

And where was it sourced from? Also where's the "Ice Cream" i.e., is it in the letters "ice cream"?

These challenges are erroneous.

You are saying two things:
Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.

You provided a definition for "information", being: "The communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence."

Is my statement of "I like ice cream" not communication of knowledge seen by everyone reading this thread?

What's the difference?

The difference is between the Physical "Mother Board" and Windows 7.

Windows 7 is no less physical than a motherboard. It is a physical configuration of a physical medium.

You seem to be trying to claim they are metaphysically the same and metaphysically different at the same time. Which is it? Is DNA software, or is it not?

DNA (The Physical Molecule) is made up of Sugar, Nucleobases, and Phosphate. DNA isn't Software in itself anymore than Microchips isn't Windows 7... The Message "Software" Transcends the Medium.

This is just Platonism- that the idea of a tree "transcends" a physical tree. It's not even right or wrong; it's just a fiat of definition; an arbitrary interpretation.

These challenges are erroneous.

You are saying two things:
Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.

I'm saying that INFORMATION only comes from Intelligent Agent. Information is not "Physical"...that is, you can't put it in a Jar and Paint it RED...it's Semiotic.

Ya see, Let's say I wrote on the board in chalk: "I Like Ice Cream" then erased it with my hand. Can you then inspect/take the chalk off my hand and Liberate the Message? The Medium is not the Message.

Windows 7 is no less physical than a motherboard. It is a physical configuration of a physical medium

Say What?? Take a Picture of Windows 7 (Not the CD Case) and post it here.

And again....

Roger Sperry PhD, Neurobiologist and Nobel Laureate...

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink".

It's not even right or wrong; it's just a fiat of definition; an arbitrary interpretation.

Please show where/how that it's "arbitrary"?

So...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

If you can't (and you can't) then "Information" Transcends the Medium. As is noted, here....

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

regards

[Enoch2021]

Personal opinion does not constitute scientific evidence.

My this is tedious. Well lets get to it...

Well how about this (You know, what you've been "avoiding") and this is addressed directly to you....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLYgoing from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception!!

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

And guess what that Ribosome is made up of? rRNA and "Functional Proteins" and a boatload of them. Where'd you get them? Where'd you get "Functional" RNA?

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif rotflol. And Yes, it gets better....

Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, huh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle this mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress.


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER! If you still have doubts, well here Ya Go...

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?

Refute It!!

regards

I am not a geneticist.

Are you a professional geneticist?

Your lengthy posting quotes from Craig Venter, who beyond all doubt IS a professional geneticist.

Craig Venter is an Atheist.

Steve Kroft asked Venter on CBS' Sixty Minutes, 21 November 2010: "Do you believe in God?" Venter replied, "No. The universe is far more wonderful."

Why would I believe you rather than Craig Venter?

Though I am not a geneticist, I can still ask an obvious question.

In your personal opinion (though I strongly suspect that most of your posting is not your own thoughts but has been taken from elsewhwere) there are various 'challenges' faced by the theory of evolution, certain questions that are not fully understood. That is actually true of many theories, even though the evidence that the basic theory is true is overwhelming, as is the case with evolution.

Anyway, let me make the following observation. No matter how difficult it might be to understand some details within the framework of evolution, that pales into insignificance compare with the problems you face in coming up with an alternative explanation, with supporting evidence, that does a better job.

Hint. Saying 'God did it' or 'God was the intelligent designer' does not cut it, and tells us essentially nothing at all.

You will need first of all to demonstrate that your Intelligent Designer even exists, which no one to date has ever done, so you will fail right there at the first hurdle. Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today, that we know have in fact evolved (changed) over millions of years. Did your Intelligent Designer actually set up camp on Earth, and mix up DNA in a test tube? Is your Intelligent Designer a carbon based, intelligent lifeform with fingers and eyes that could actually do that, or if not, what exactly is your designer, and how does he get stuff done without fingers and eyes and presumably a very well set up Laboratory? Who made and designed your designer? You will need convincing evidence for all of this and more. Did he set up a 'fossil factory' to prodce the fossils we find, and scatter them around the world? He must have been camped on Earth for many millions of years mixing up DNA's coded in different ways, that we know have changed over millions of years to progressively produce all the species we see today, not to mention all the extinct ones, that are actually the majority. Evolution is still occuring today, so exactly how is your Intelligent designer doing that? You will need to explain precise mechanisms that explain all known observations, and quite obviously it is not good enough just to say 'God did it'.

You might also like to explain why many anatomical features and constructions found in animals are highly non-optimum and quite clearly not intelligently designed. For example, the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes. Like more detail on that?

I await with interest a detailed description of your alternative theory.

Good Luck!

I think all of us here on the forum might do better to believe Craig Venter and other professionals in the field.

I also note that in the US highest Court of Law, it was determined that 'Creation Science' and 'Intelligent Design' were not true sciences at all, and were therefore not required to be taught in schools.

Are you a professional geneticist?

No.

Your lengthy posting quotes from Craig Venter, who beyond all doubt IS a professional geneticist.

What does "Lengthy Posting" have anything whatsoever to do with verifying Dr. Venter as a Professional Geneticist?

Craig Venter is an Atheist.

Yes, he surely is.

Steve Kroft asked Venter on CBS' Sixty Minutes, 21 November 2010: "Do you believe in God?" Venter replied, "No. The universe is far more wonderful."

Why would I believe you rather than Craig Venter?

What does Dr. Venter's "Religion/Beliefs/Faith" have to do with what I posted? If you would have commented on his favorite color it would have been just as relevant.

Well because I just provided Irrefutable Scientific Evidence of THE CREATOR. Did Dr.Venter provide Irrefutable Scientific Evidence of No CREATOR?

In your personal opinion (though I strongly suspect that most of your posting is not your own thoughts but has been taken from elsewhwere)

Strongly Suspect, eh? Please, can you reveal your "divining powers"/Technique for coming to the conclusion of this back-handed slight and we'll TEST it in other Genre's.

In your personal opinion (though I strongly suspect that most of your posting is not your own thoughts but has been taken from elsewhwere) there are various 'challenges' faced by the theory of evolution, certain questions that are not fully understood. That is actually true of many theories, even though the evidence that the basic theory is true is overwhelming, as is the case with evolution.

I was preparing for a question with your preface:"In your personal opinion..." did you forget to ask?

There is no "Evidence" for evolution and it's not "Science" or a VALID "Hypothesis" or a "Scientific Theory". It's a "Just So" Story; AS EVIDENCED BY (Full Step By Step debunking)....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

Anyway, let me make the following observation. No matter how difficult it might be to understand some details within the framework of evolution, that pales into insignificance compare with the problems you face in coming up with an alternative explanation, with supporting evidence, that does a better job.

Ahhh, you're walking on the North Shore of Hawaii exclaiming: "What Ocean?" The "Scientific Evidence" that you failed address one iota of is staring you in the face....the POST you just Quoted.

You will need first of all to demonstrate that your Intelligent Designer even exists

I just did. I don't know and don't need to track down the Engineer that DESIGNED my Jeep Grand Cherokee. The Functional Specific Complexity of the Jeep is the Compelling Factor and Evidence of the matter.

Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today

It's Called The Genetic CODE. The HOW? Well HE Spoke it. I don't have the first clue HOW they built the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space shuttle Engine) but I can tell you for an Absolute FACT that Intelligent Agent(s) were it's Source and not wind/waves colluding with Copper and Iron Ores.

Who made and designed your designer?

The Who Created the CREATOR conundrum? Well, He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition. Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT. SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause). To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress...it's Fallacious.

Did he set up a 'fossil factory' to prodce the fossils we find, and scatter them around the world?

It's Called "The FLOOD". Ya stepped into that one Please explain the Fossilization Process....?

millions of years

Begging The Question (Fallacy). Validate "Millions of Years"...

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

all the species we see today

It's called Genetic Variation or Change in Allele Frequency.

You might also like to explain why many anatomical features and constructions found in animals are highly non-optimum and quite clearly not intelligently designed. For example, the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes. Like more detail on that?

Tell ya what, take a shot falsifying any of the Null Hypothesis above and the I'll explain "your" Giraffe dilemma.

I await with interest a detailed description of your alternative theory

Yes, I already did, Look Up. Start with "INFORMATION" and work your way down.

I think all of us here on the forum might do better to believe Craig Venter and other professionals in the field

Well believing someones "Beliefs/Faith/Religion" no matter who they are without personal Due Diligence is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.

I also note that in the US highest Court of Law, it was determined that 'Creation Science' and 'Intelligent Design' were not true sciences at all, and were therefore not required to be taught in schools.

Are you referring to that Kangaroo Court Dover? Since when is "Scientific" Matters adjudicated by "Non-Scientific" Judges? You think Judge Jones called on his extensive background as being the chair of the PA State Liquor Control Board to help render his decision for the ACLU....? Who's next to preside.... MADD or the Boy Scouts of America?
You'll also note that, the trainwreck of a fiasco is only recognized in Dover, right?

Would you like to go through the Court Documents where I'll show Judge Jones Copy and Pasted Eric Rothschild (Interesting name) attorney for the ACLU.... document nearly Wholesale?

Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)

regards

[Elijah John]

Boring as batschit.

Moderator Warning


Ordinarily, a newbie posting a "one liner" would only receive a comment. But since this one liner also contains a scatological reference (thinly disguised with deliberate misspelling) this one deserves a warning. Please adhere to higher standards of decorum when posting at this site.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 60 by Enoch2021]

Ok, so that's it then. This is your personal theory (I'm hapy to accept that), and your entire theory is encapsulated in your posting.

All you have done, my friend, is tell us that you personally are incapable of seeing how evolution could possibly have been reponsible for producing certain structures that you believe to be irreducibly complex, and therefore it MUST have been done by an intelligent designer, that is also the God that you happen to believe in. Firstly, such claims of 'irreducibilty' have been shown to be wrong in many examples before yours, demonstrating that just because you have concluded that something is irreducibly complex, by no means proves that it is. History is good teacher. Secondly, it does not follow that a 'God' must be involved, much less 'your' God. And finally, and very importantly, just saying 'God must have done it' is no explanation for anything, unless you can offer another a complete and coherent alternative to evolution, with full details as to exactly how your alternative theory explains everything, and here you fail completely.

You ask the relevance of Craig Venter's take on all of this. Well, you see, unlike you, Craig Venner is a professional in this field, and he represents the vast majority of other professionals in the field, who completely reject your Intelligent Designer conclusions, and I tend to believe them.

If you really want answers to your questions, then you need to ask professionals in the field such as Venter. Have you asked them? Given their combined level of experience and expertise compared to yours, and given they do NOT favour ID over evolutuon, I have good reason to believe they would demolish your arguments.

Also, if your arguments for ID are as good as you obviously think they are, then why don't you publish your theory? If true, and if you have clearly demonstrated it to be true, then Journals such as Nature and Science are always looking for groundbreaking research such as yours, and you do not need any qualifications to publish in these journals. Why haven't you published your work? Could it be that it would not be accepted because (a) your points would be easily demolished by experts in the field and (b) you have offered no satisfactory alternative beyond 'God did it'? Go on. Publish your work.

ytrewq: Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today

Enoch2021: It's Called The Genetic CODE. The HOW? Well HE Spoke it. I don't have the first clue HOW they built the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space shuttle Engine) but I can tell you for an Absolute FACT that Intelligent Agent(s) were it's Source and not wind/waves colluding with Copper and Iron Ores.

And that is a good summary of the quality of your case, and your complete inability to present details of your alternative theory to evolution, details that are necessary for your case to be worth anything at all.

On your own admission, you haven't a clue how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today.

How did your designer actually and physically implement the genetic code?

Well HE spoke it!

Really? And that is a detailed and satisfactory explantion of HOW your claimed designer actually implemented the genetic code? Are you serious? You will need to do a lot better than that to be taken seriously.

Good luck in getting your theory published and accepted!

PS! If you are going to publish your theory and have it taken seriously and accepted, then you will first need to explain why many features and constructional details of animals are clearly not intelligently designed, such as (but not limited to) the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes.

[Stonez]

Is there any justification for the idea heaven will be boring?

has anyone had a good experience that was boring the second time because it was better?

I've never been able to see this idea of heaven from reading the bible?
I get the clear impression the early Christian belief and bible teaching is that the dead will raise at the end of it all and judgment will sit. Heaven seems to only be referring to the sky above.

I see that it speaks of a paradise on earth in a new heaven and earth after this judgment day. So, from the bible, I get the clear impression that people die and stay dead until this end of days judgment where they will be raised from the dead and judged and may enter paradise in the new heaven and earth, if god doesn't burn them(discard them)....Hence RIP...

Heaven seems to come out of things like Greek Mythology.