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

[ytrewq]

Unfortunately, for your theory to be worth a cracker, you do indeed need to able to explain how it actually works in practice.

As Mentioned least 5 times now, it's not a "Theory"; It's a Law.

Scientific Theories: explain the "How/Why".
Scientific Laws: describe "The What".

Ergo, your continued incessant insistence is nonsensical.

No my friend, it is certainly not a 'Law', despite the fact the you regard it as such.

Your assertion that something is a 'Law' does not make it so.

I have read that paper though, and agree it is interesting. However, it seemed to be more to do with abiogenesis rather than evolution.

Is your claim that abiogenesis could not have happened without divine intervention, or that subsequent evolution cannot happen without divine intervention?

[Enoch2021]

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

Your reply here is extraordinary. Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?

You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what? Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case, and then went on to describe that case in his findings. Well of course he would, and should. What's your problem?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement, then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science. But she really loses it in suggesting that the matter was related to 'freedom of religion'. Whether ID is valid science has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?
You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

Yes, it's akin to presenting 2 different solutions for a Tensor Calculus Equation to a 2nd grader then asking for their ruling then Sourcing it as some kind of a "Proof". Who shot themselves in the foot?

when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all...

Ahhh, weren't the ID advocates represented by Scientists also? Who/why makes the call on who are the "Best Scientists"....?

ID is not science, eh? You must have forgot about the Null's along with the rest of my post discussing "INFORMATION". Repeating the same mind-numbing Narrative over and over again in Lieu of "Scientific Evidence" is "Whistl'n Past the Graveyard". Would you like me to post it again for review? (You might comment on the "actual" argument this time).

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what?

It's not close to "probably"...more like "Exactly". So what, eh? Well since the 2nd grader doesn't have the first clue...he stole somebody else's work and pretended he did know.

Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case....

Logically? Please support how this has anything to do with "logic"....?

On what Basis did he arrive his conclusion.... the hair style of the Court Recorder?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement

I was under the impression that the comment was not so much concerning "Impartial" but more an "Ineptness" concerning the Subject Matter.

then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science.

Decide? This is tantamount to "deciding" whether a students 95% Score is 95% or 75%.

SEE this post on: "Political" science...an embark accordingly: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 050#707050

I want somebody to SHOW (not "decide") where my "Scientific Evidence" (See: "INFORMATION" post) concerning ID isn't Science....?

Then "SHOW" (not "decide") a refutation regarding the "Just So" Story tenets of evolution, here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930


regards

[ytrewq]

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

Your reply here is extraordinary. Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?

You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what? Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case, and then went on to describe that case in his findings. Well of course he would, and should. What's your problem?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement, then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science. But she really loses it in suggesting that the matter was related to 'freedom of religion'. Whether ID is valid science has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?
You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

Yes, it's akin to presenting 2 different solutions for a Tensor Calculus Equation to a 2nd grader then asking for their ruling then Sourcing it as some kind of a "Proof". Who shot themselves in the foot?

when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all...

Ahhh, weren't the ID advocates represented by Scientists also? Who/why makes the call on who are the "Best Scientists"....?

ID is not science, eh? You must have forgot about the Null's along with the rest of my post discussing "INFORMATION". Repeating the same mind-numbing Narrative over and over again in Lieu of "Scientific Evidence" is "Whistl'n Past the Graveyard". Would you like me to post it again for review? (You might comment on the "actual" argument this time).

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what?

It's not close to "probably"...more like "Exactly". So what, eh? Well since the 2nd grader doesn't have the first clue...he stole somebody else's work and pretended he did know.

Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case....

Logically? Please support how this has anything to do with "logic"....?

On what Basis did he arrive his conclusion.... the hair style of the Court Recorder?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement

I was under the impression that the comment was not so much concerning "Impartial" but more an "Ineptness" concerning the Subject Matter.

then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science.

Decide? This is tantamount to "deciding" whether a students 95% Score is 95% or 75%.

SEE this post on: "Political" science...an embark accordingly: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 050#707050

I want somebody to SHOW (not "decide") where my "Scientific Evidence" (See: "INFORMATION" post) concerning ID isn't Science....?

Then "SHOW" (not "decide") a refutation regarding the "Just So" Story tenets of evolution, here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

regards

Your reasoning is that the Judge was an unsuitable person to judge whether ID should be rejected as being a vaild science, as he was not a trained scientist in the relevant field himself, and was thus inept (your word) and unqualified regarding the subject matter.

That is an arguable case, though there is also something to be said for an impartial judge. The alternative that you are strongly advocating, is that the judgement should have been made by a representative selection of the best professional scientists of the field, who would be the best qualified re the subject matter, and without a shadow of a doubt, the overwhelming consensus of professional scientists reject ID, and reject that it is valid science. Maybe you are right, and the judge should instead have obtained a consensus from the best scientists in the field, who would in turn have comprehensively rejected ID. Fair enough. I won't argue with you on that.

You have not answered quite a number of my questions and postings, which is a shame because I find the topic interesting, and I would not be asking the questions unless I took the article that you are quoting from seriously. Your own gross extensions to the article I find less convincing though, and when I question you on the details off your considerably extended claims, I get no answers. I would be sincerely appreciative if you could 'have a go' at the questions I have asked. Perhaps I'll group the unanswered questions into a summary for you.

I am not fobbing off your own questions. I need to know exactly what you believe before I can respond, because your beliefs clearly go well beyond what is written in the article.

Cheers

[Goat]

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

Your reply here is extraordinary. Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?

You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what? Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case, and then went on to describe that case in his findings. Well of course he would, and should. What's your problem?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement, then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science. But she really loses it in suggesting that the matter was related to 'freedom of religion'. Whether ID is valid science has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?
You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

Yes, it's akin to presenting 2 different solutions for a Tensor Calculus Equation to a 2nd grader then asking for their ruling then Sourcing it as some kind of a "Proof". Who shot themselves in the foot?

when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all...

Ahhh, weren't the ID advocates represented by Scientists also? Who/why makes the call on who are the "Best Scientists"....?

ID is not science, eh? You must have forgot about the Null's along with the rest of my post discussing "INFORMATION". Repeating the same mind-numbing Narrative over and over again in Lieu of "Scientific Evidence" is "Whistl'n Past the Graveyard". Would you like me to post it again for review? (You might comment on the "actual" argument this time).

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what?

It's not close to "probably"...more like "Exactly". So what, eh? Well since the 2nd grader doesn't have the first clue...he stole somebody else's work and pretended he did know.

Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case....

Logically? Please support how this has anything to do with "logic"....?

On what Basis did he arrive his conclusion.... the hair style of the Court Recorder?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement

I was under the impression that the comment was not so much concerning "Impartial" but more an "Ineptness" concerning the Subject Matter.

then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science.

Decide? This is tantamount to "deciding" whether a students 95% Score is 95% or 75%.

SEE this post on: "Political" science...an embark accordingly: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 050#707050

I want somebody to SHOW (not "decide") where my "Scientific Evidence" (See: "INFORMATION" post) concerning ID isn't Science....?

Then "SHOW" (not "decide") a refutation regarding the "Just So" Story tenets of evolution, here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

regards

Your reasoning is that the Judge was an unsuitable person to judge whether ID should be rejected as being a vaild science, as he was not a trained scientist in the relevant field himself, and was thus inept (your word) and unqualified regarding the subject matter.

That is an arguable case, though there is also something to be said for an impartial judge. The alternative that you are strongly advocating, is that the judgement should have been made by a representative selection of the best professional scientists of the field, who would be the best qualified re the subject matter, and without a shadow of a doubt, the overwhelming consensus of professional scientists reject ID, and reject that it is valid science. Maybe you are right, and the judge should instead have obtained a consensus from the best scientists in the field, who would in turn have comprehensively rejected ID. Fair enough. I won't argue with you on that.

You have not answered quite a number of my questions and postings, which is a shame because I find the topic interesting, and I would not be asking the questions unless I took the article that you are quoting from seriously. Your own gross extensions to the article I find less convincing though, and when I question you on the details off your considerably extended claims, I get no answers. I would be sincerely appreciative if you could 'have a go' at the questions I have asked. Perhaps I'll group the unanswered questions into a summary for you.

I am not fobbing off your own questions. I need to know exactly what you believe before I can respond, because your beliefs clearly go well beyond what is written in the article.

Cheers

The judge DID do that.. he was shown without a doubt that the ones who were pushing 'ID' had religious motivations, and no evidence.

[Enoch2021]

Your reasoning is that the Judge was an unsuitable person to judge whether ID should be rejected as being a vaild science, as he was not a trained scientist in the relevant field himself, and was thus inept (your word) and unqualified regarding the subject matter.

That is an arguable case, though there is also something to be said for an impartial judge. The alternative that you are strongly advocating, is that the judgement should have been made by a representative selection of the best professional scientists of the field, who would be the best qualified re the subject matter, and without a shadow of a doubt, the overwhelming consensus of professional scientists reject ID, and reject that it is valid science. Maybe you are right, and the judge should instead have obtained a consensus from the best scientists in the field, who would in turn have comprehensively rejected ID. Fair enough. I won't argue with you on that.

You have not answered quite a number of my questions and postings, which is a shame because I find the topic interesting, and I would not be asking the questions unless I took the article that you are quoting from seriously. Your own gross extensions to the article I find less convincing though, and when I question you on the details off your considerably extended claims, I get no answers. I would be sincerely appreciative if you could 'have a go' at the questions I have asked. Perhaps I'll group the unanswered questions into a summary for you.

I am not fobbing off your own questions. I need to know exactly what you believe before I can respond, because your beliefs clearly go well beyond what is written in the article.

Yea sure. We're quite done. In fact, we were done after I posted "Information". As we all know, the rest is barely palpable background noise.

When you can falsify any of the Null's, gimme a ring.

regards

[Enoch2021]

The judge DID do that.. he was shown without a doubt that the ones who were pushing 'ID' had religious motivations, and no evidence.

No evidence?

Have you seen: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Please refute...? You can be the first.

religious motivations

It's funny you should "Charge" that.

Christianity is not a "religion". Religion-- mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect.

Jesus Christ was the most ANTI-"religious" person to ever walk the Earth; Ergo...Christianity is not a "religion".

However, here's a "religion" for ya....

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint " and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it " the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a RELIGION. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. {Emphasis Mine}
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

It's the "BLIND" Faith Variety.

regards

[Bust Nak]

No evidence?

Have you seen: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Please refute...? You can be the first.

It's already been refuted, that's why you keep trying to restart the conversation in seperate threads. The objections rised in the many previous incarnations are still there.

Christianity is not a "religion". Religion-- mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect.

You say that like Christianity isn't just another of "mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect."

Jesus Christ was the most ANTI-"religious" person to ever walk the Earth;

No he wasn't. At best he was anti presthood.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint " and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it " the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a RELIGION. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. {Emphasis Mine}
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

Well, Ruse isn't here to defend his piece, you want to have a go?

[Enoch2021]

No evidence?

Have you seen: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Please refute...? You can be the first.

It's already been refuted, that's why you keep trying to restart the conversation in seperate threads. The objections rised in the many previous incarnations are still there.

Christianity is not a "religion". Religion-- mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect.

You say that like Christianity isn't just another of "mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect."

Jesus Christ was the most ANTI-"religious" person to ever walk the Earth;

No he wasn't. At best he was anti presthood.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint " and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it " the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a RELIGION. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. {Emphasis Mine}
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

Well, Ruse isn't here to defend his piece, you want to have a go?

It's already been refuted, that's why you keep trying to restart the conversation in seperate threads. The objections rised in the many previous incarnations are still there.

Yea, Right. Can you show where...."Specifically"? Cause, to refute it...someone must show Stupid Atoms CREATING Their Own Software. Please, Go Ahead....?

You say that like Christianity isn't just another of "mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect."

Yes, that's right...it isn't.

No he wasn't.

Ipse Dixit, eh?

It basically boils down to these:

(Romans 10:9) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

(Mark 12:29-31) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: {30} And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. {31} And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

That's just about it. If that's "Religion", I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot.

Well, Ruse isn't here to defend his piece, you want to have a go?

Yes, that's why I Quoted Him. What's to defend?

Have a Go? a Go what, lol. Yea sure, start here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746


regards

[Bust Nak]

Yea, Right. Can you show where...."Specifically"?

Of course, but I'd rather you go and address it there instead of here. Frankly I would call your cut and paste in multiple thread as spam.

Cause, to refute it...someone must show Stupid Atoms CREATING Their Own Software. Please, Go Ahead....?

Sure, it's done. Go back to those thread and address our points in general, and mine in particular where I pointed out how "stupid atoms created their own software."

Ipse Dixit, eh?

No, I am just telling you what the Bible said, it might not be true at all.

It basically boils down to these:

(Romans 10:9) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

(Mark 12:29-31) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: {30} And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. {31} And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

That's just about it.

Well there you go. It's religion as you defined it: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect to reconcile with GOD.

If that's "Religion", I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot.

Not interested in your appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Yes, that's why I Quoted Him. What's to defend?

The claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

Yea sure, start here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Two points: First I did start there, and I am asking you to finish it. Next, even if your post was taken for granted, that does not support the claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

[Enoch2021]

Yea, Right. Can you show where...."Specifically"?

Of course, but I'd rather you go and address it there instead of here. Frankly I would call your cut and paste in multiple thread as spam.

Cause, to refute it...someone must show Stupid Atoms CREATING Their Own Software. Please, Go Ahead....?

Sure, it's done. Go back to those thread and address our points in general, and mine in particular where I pointed out how "stupid atoms created their own software."

Ipse Dixit, eh?

No, I am just telling you what the Bible said, it might not be true at all.

It basically boils down to these:

(Romans 10:9) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

(Mark 12:29-31) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: {30} And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. {31} And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

That's just about it.

Well there you go. It's religion as you defined it: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect to reconcile with GOD.

If that's "Religion", I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot.

Not interested in your appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Yes, that's why I Quoted Him. What's to defend?

The claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

Yea sure, start here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Two points: First I did start there, and I am asking you to finish it. Next, even if your post was taken for granted, that does not support the claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

I point out the existence of evolutionary algorithms.

This is the refutation? Can you be a "Tad" more specific?

And, this is what?....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 326#702326

Frankly I would call your cut and paste in multiple thread as spam.

1. Why?

2. "Cut and Paste", eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does "Cut and Paste" have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure) and Hydrogen Bonding".
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Cut and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.
Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Cut and Pasted??

Sure, it's done. Go back to those thread and address our points in general, and mine in particular where I pointed out how "stupid atoms created their own software."

Yes, I seen them the first time. And did this Read that real slow a couple of times....because what you're saying is "Atoms" have Sentience and Intelligence!!! This sorta motif...

When viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponential Specifically Complex Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day"; then concluding...
That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board is responsible for the Construction, Arrangement of those Letters, and the Message thereof?

Is this what you're attempting to sell here?

(Romans 10:9) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

(Mark 12:29-31) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: {30} And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. {31} And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."



Well there you go. It's religion as you defined it: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect to reconcile with GOD.

Yes, and this is Ice Hockey...

The claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

Yes, He Said It. What is it that needs "defending"?

Yea sure, start here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746


Two points: First I did start there, and I am asking you to finish it. Next, even if your post was taken for granted, that does not support the claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

1. Finish It? It is Finished.

2. ahhh, The "Information" Post (Link) has nothing whatsoever to do with Professor Ruse's thoughts on anything; so, I'm a loss with your response here.

regards