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

[historia]

Those who've done their Homework know that the Authorized King James Version is the ONLY Standard.

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?

The majority of the newer Translations are Demonstrably Corrupt

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

... which are sourced by Gnostic Codices: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus.

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"?

And two self admitted Heretics... and by my research, satan worshipers: Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort).

This is simply irresponsible slander. Westcott and Hort were not "heretics" or "satan worshipers." That's the silly claims of KJV propaganda. But, even if they were, the important thing here is whether the critical text they produced more accurately reflected the original text of the New Testament than the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based. All serious textual critics today would agree it does.

Note, too, that modern English translations of the Bible are not based on the Westcott and Hort text, which was published in 1881, but rather the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, which takes into account the many manuscripts discovered since then.

[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

[Enoch2021]

Those who've done their Homework know that the Authorized King James Version is the ONLY Standard.

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?

The majority of the newer Translations are Demonstrably Corrupt

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

... which are sourced by Gnostic Codices: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus.

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"?

And two self admitted Heretics... and by my research, satan worshipers: Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort).

This is simply irresponsible slander. Westcott and Hort were not "heretics" or "satan worshipers." That's the silly claims of KJV propaganda. But, even if they were, the important thing here is whether the critical text they produced more accurately reflected the original text of the New Testament than the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based. All serious textual critics today would agree it does.

Note, too, that modern English translations of the Bible are not based on the Westcott and Hort text, which was published in 1881, but rather the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, which takes into account the many manuscripts discovered since then.

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.

Straw Man (Fallacy)--- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Who are "respectful" textual critics...?

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

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

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.

In 150 AD, several Centuries before these Codices, Irenaeus quotes these verses in his commentary! ahhh, Houston we have a problem.
2nd Century AD Hypolatus also comments on these verses.

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."

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".

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

Oh really?

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

That does it for that I suppose. 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.

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)

Anything Else?

regards

[FarWanderer]

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/

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

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

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

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

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

"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)

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

Say What?

Love, He said this (Zzyzx): "Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence."

The Bible Says This... (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Can you Compare and Contrast the two and show the differences....?

I don't want to argue the matter of whether Zzyzx was right. That was never the point.

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

Can you show us some?

Yes.

I like ice cream.

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

No, Dr. Craig Ventor PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) is claiming they're Interchangeable.

If you aren't making that claim by proxy by quoting it, what is the point of the quote?

Well you can see DNA...the Physical Molecule. You can't see "Software" Love.

What's the difference? 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?

Practical Exercise: Please Liberate the FINV Function of Excel by investigating and extracting it from your Computer. Put it in a Jar and Paint it Red, take a picture and post it here.

And/Or, Please show us where (or the Instructions for) on DNA Proper: aminoacyl tRNA synthetase....?

Thanks

You are talking about things I have little specific knowledge about. However, I am sure that in principle they could be done.

[Zzyzx]

.

Hope is real even if unproven because once it is proven it is no more hope so if you have any hopes for anything in your life, you have faith in the unproven.

Is hope a reliable means of bringing about positive effects?

Who starts a project if they have absolutely no hope it will end well?

Does the hope itself bring about positive effects " or are those effects produced by effort and input (disregarding pure chance)? Notice that I asked if hope is "a reliable means of bringing about positive effects." Care to try to address that?

1. the bible itself,

How does one rationally / intelligently decide that the bible is reliable? Are they aware that it is composed of opinions and unverifiable stories written by anonymous people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they describe?

The Bible is evidence. The experience of that evidence starts as something bigger than ourselves, even if it is "unverifiable stories written by anonymous people", there is a depth and continuity to the stories that other books don't have.

Many great works of literature have depth and continuity. What is the basis for claiming that the bible is superior in that respect? If it cannot be shown to be superior, why should it be given any special attention?

The wow factor catches the attention of many people

The "Ugh factor" catches the attention of many people. Perhaps those who are wooed by supernatural tales are one group and those less inclined toward such "explanations" compose the other group.

who start to take spirituality serious after that.

Spirituality need not involve nor start with religion. There are many paths. So what?

But the real importance of this book is found in the witness of the Holy Spirit who claims it is His book and it says what He wants it to say.

1. Can the HS be shown to have written or influenced the bible? That may be folklore or tradition, but is it true?

2. If a book claims that it is true does that mean that it is actually true? If a book claims to have been "inspired" by someone or something, does that mean it really was? How can the truthful be distinguished from the non-truthful?

In fact, it is not uncommon for Non-Christians to demonstrate greater understanding of both than their Christian counterparts.

Why is that?

I'm sorry I cannot answer because I have no experience of this claim being true though I hear it a lot from non-believers who are often riding a straw horse, not Christian doctrine at all.

After three years as a member of this Forum have you not observed this yourself? Truthfully?

2. the life of Christ,

Are believers aware that all that is known of the life of Jesus was written by those unidentified people who may or may not have been truthful and accurate and who may or may not have had reliable information?

Unknown to the non-believer is the witness of the Hoy Spirit

Several non-believers who debate here were fervent believers for many decades before deciding that it was all hokum. Did all of them not witness the "holy spirit" as devout Christians?

within us about the truth of His life and its meaning. That is, I and others, found GOD first then decided about Christ. You are not denying that the life of Christ was a pivotal event in the human world?

We know very little about the life of Jesus. His last three years, after giving up his day job and becoming a preacher, are presented by promoters of the religion established in his name.

That religion has had large influence since it was adopted as the official religion of the Roman empire during the declining phase of the empire. Whether that faithfully represents the life of Jesus is debatable. It does, however, heavily represent the preachings / teachings of Paul/Saul and others that dominate the New Testament.

3. the witness of others,

Are testimonials (witnessing) known to be reliable? Since testimonials are presented for widely varying and often contradictory positions, how can one rationally / intelligently decide which to accept as reliable?

When they coincide with my own spiritual experiences I find them to be quite reliable.

Yes, when what is claimed by others fits with one's religious beliefs they tend to regard them as reliable. They also dismiss the testimonials of those who worship different gods.

The criteria for acceptance appears to be "Does it agree with my beliefs?"

Much more reliable than the so called scientific (no experiments, no replication, no falsification) squabbles based upon a math only 1% may understand, for instance.

Is the reliability of advanced mathematically based theories of any importance in one's decisions or actions?

4. the character changes of the reborn life and

Character changes occur with widely varying influences " some positive, some negative, some neutral. If one attributes changes to the influence of fairies, for example, is that assurance that it is true?

If fairies had a religious history, a book and a Messiah, who knows?

Why, exactly, would religion and a messiah be required to have fairies influence human affairs?

Of course changes come from many places in the human psyche but mine came from the conflict between me and a spiritual force who destroyed me so I could be built back up. <shrug>

People often blame such things as "spiritual forces" for their own poor or disastrous decisions. If the outcomes of their prior decisions and actions are negative enough for them to "hit bottom" ANY path out of the morass they have created for themselves must seem like a "savior."

The context was purely Christian so how can I deny it and suddenly attribute it to anything else, fairies included?

Some recover from their abyss through religion, others through psychological counseling or even service in the military. "Any port in a storm" may apply (and look very inviting).

5. the indwelling Holy Spirit....not our faith, not our belief,

Some choose to base their decisions on a "feeling" that an invisible, undetectable supernatural entity "dwells within" them. However, that cannot be shown to be anything other than imagination and/or emotion. Does that constitute reliable?

My beginning experiences were not the same as the middle experiences which were less than the last ten years...which have proven out to me to have been highly reliable as a definition of reality and only getting stronger, not weaker since the late 70s.[/quote]
Different strokes . . . My experiences back into the 1940s have demonstrated over and over that life is what we make of our circumstances. No gods required.

Attempted Christian indoctrination failed completely by claiming that animals converse in human language and dead bodies come back to life. Even as an eight year old kid I knew better than that. I couldn't imagine why adults would tell such whoppers with a straight face " and still can't.

In adulthood I found many more reasons to doubt the dogma and literature.

your straw dog with no teeth.

Kindly identify exactly what you characterize as my "straw dog."

Fatih is blind because it has no evidentiary value.

If faith has evidential value, the weight of evidence is against Christianity since the majority of the world's population (68% according to CatholicCulture.org) are NOT Christian.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 45 by Enoch2021]

Sure enough, DNA exists and is the means by which genetic information is conveyed from generation to generation.

I do not know how it originated and neither does anyone else beyond speculation. I do not pretend to have knowledge that I do not have whereas others seem to regard their speculations and mental gymnastics as knowledge. I disagree.

Some claim that their favorite "god" designed what we know as genetics; however, they cannot show that the supposed design is linked to their supposed creator (or even that their supposed creator is anything more than imaginary) " and offer only speculation as "evidence."

Because I am honest enough to acknowledge that I do not know how DNA originated does NOT compel me to accept anyone's speculation and/or mental gymnastics thrown out with a demand "refute it."

I am quite satisfied to have readers decide what position is more rational.

[Enoch2021]

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/

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

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

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

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

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

"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)

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

Say What?

Love, He said this (Zzyzx): "Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence."

The Bible Says This... (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Can you Compare and Contrast the two and show the differences....?

I don't want to argue the matter of whether Zzyzx was right. That was never the point.

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

Can you show us some?

Yes.

I like ice cream.

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

No, Dr. Craig Ventor PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) is claiming they're Interchangeable.

If you aren't making that claim by proxy by quoting it, what is the point of the quote?

Well you can see DNA...the Physical Molecule. You can't see "Software" Love.

What's the difference? 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?

Practical Exercise: Please Liberate the FINV Function of Excel by investigating and extracting it from your Computer. Put it in a Jar and Paint it Red, take a picture and post it here.

And/Or, Please show us where (or the Instructions for) on DNA Proper: aminoacyl tRNA synthetase....?

Thanks

You are talking about things I have little specific knowledge about. However, I am sure that in principle they could be done.

I don't want to argue the matter of whether Zzyzx was right. That was never the point.

Well that wasn't the argument between us and is moot. You said I characterized it erroneously which I Illustrated that was erroneous.

Then....

You said it wasn't a Fallacy based on the erroneous assumption that he quoted it from Scripture; which I also Illustrated was erroneous.
Now we're up to date.

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"?

If you aren't making that claim by proxy by quoting it, what is the point of the quote?

No, I agree with him. The point of the matter is "You" said "I" said it....but "I" did not.

What's the difference?

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

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.

You are talking about things I have little specific knowledge about. However, I am sure that in principle they could be done.

I assure you, it can't be done. It would be Tantamount to searching for War and Peace in ink/paper/glue molecules.

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".

regards

[Enoch2021]

.
[Replying to post 45 by Enoch2021]

Sure enough, DNA exists and is the means by which genetic information is conveyed from generation to generation.

I do not know how it originated and neither does anyone else beyond speculation. I do not pretend to have knowledge that I do not have whereas others seem to regard their speculations and mental gymnastics as knowledge. I disagree.

Some claim that their favorite "god" designed what we know as genetics; however, they cannot show that the supposed design is linked to their supposed creator (or even that their supposed creator is anything more than imaginary) " and offer only speculation as "evidence."

Because I am honest enough to acknowledge that I do not know how DNA originated does NOT compel me to accept anyone's speculation and/or mental gymnastics thrown out with a demand "refute it."

I am quite satisfied to have readers decide what position is more rational.

Sure enough, DNA exists and is the means by which genetic information is conveyed from generation to generation.

Where'd you get INFORMATION? Information is only sourced by Intelligent Agency sir.

I do not know how it originated and neither does anyone else beyond speculation.

Are you speaking to the Physical Molecule or the "Software"?

Now, I've discussed this with you least 2 Times in the past week ....

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided), the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

This is Prima Facie....Self Evident. Care to Refute...this time??

whereas others seem to regard their speculations and mental gymnastics as knowledge. I disagree.

Generalized Baseless Sweeping Assertion (Fallacy). And I'm not others, I'm right here.

You disagree, eh? Based on What, besides the "Color Commentary"....?

Some claim that their favorite "god" designed what we know as genetics; however, they cannot show that the supposed design is linked to their supposed creator (or even that their supposed creator is anything more than imaginary) " and offer only speculation as "evidence."

Well this point, with your Hand-Wave Dismissal of Reliable Historical Documentation, I'll just settle for a Reckoning of an Intelligent Agent behind the Whole Ball Game.

You asked for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE sir. I provided it to you in Spades!!!! Go and refute any of the Null's; if you can't (and you can't) then your position is U N T E N A B L E. It's as simple as that.

I am quite satisfied to have readers decide what position is more rational.

Translation: "No Argument". And if they can "Fog a Mirror" and can reckon that ink/paper/glue molecules can't Author Books, they should be able to reconcile all of it in less than a Planck Time.

Is there anything else sir?


regards

[ttruscott]

...

Does the hope itself bring about positive effects " or are those effects produced by effort and input (disregarding pure chance)? Notice that I asked if hope is "a reliable means of bringing about positive effects." Care to try to address that?

I doubt if I can...it sounds like climate warming science to me, sigh. Hope impels the process, effort and input realize it. I dunno....

Many great works of literature have depth and continuity. What is the basis for claiming that the bible is superior in that respect? If it cannot be shown to be superior, why should it be given any special attention?

Did I claim it was superior evidence or only evidence? It is a personal thing how much attention one thinks it deserves, eh?

The wow factor catches the attention of many people

The "Ugh factor" catches the attention of many people. Perhaps those who are wooed by supernatural tales are one group and those less inclined toward such "explanations" compose the other group.

I know what you mean having spent my wayward youth in university harassing the young Christian ladies just as you do now but with a more salacious intent, sigh.

I have since decided that it was my attitude toward GOD that determined my attitude toward the Bible, not the other way around.

But the real importance of this book is found in the witness of the Holy Spirit who claims it is His book and it says what He wants it to say.

1. Can the HS be shown to have written or influenced the bible?

Not to my knowledge - He must tell you that Himself for it to be believed imhCo.

2. If a book claims that it is true does that mean that it is actually true? If a book claims to have been "inspired" by someone or something, does that mean it really was? How can the truthful be distinguished from the non-truthful?

I don't distinguish the truth so much as I learn it from a trusted source.

After three years as a member of this Forum have you not observed this yourself? Truthfully?

If you must, re-read my posts...I have been constantly correcting both atheists for straw man argument based on non-Christian doctrine and Christians for doctrines based upon blasphemy. As for a strict understanding of the bible, I find the atheists wanting because of the antagonistic interpretation they give every spin of scripture which is always based on a misunderstanding or a rejection of a Christian definition. The Christians I respect know their book and understand the doctrine. There are those who miss the mark in both camps, <shrug>.

Unknown to the non-believer is the witness of the Hoy Spirit

Several non-believers who debate here were fervent believers for many decades before deciding that it was all hokum. Did all of them not witness the "holy spirit" as devout Christians?

I cannot speak to their personal experiences but I never discount anyone as eternally lost. All the sinful elect accepted YHWH as their GOD and knew HIM as Saviour yet rebelled against HIS plan for the judgment of the non-elect...rebellion to GOD is old hat stuff for the sinful elect and to think they may have done it again here on earth is nothing to me...if they are under HIS promise of salvation all will be well.

When they coincide with my own spiritual experiences I find them to be quite reliable.

Yes, when what is claimed by others fits with one's religious beliefs they tend to regard them as reliable. They also dismiss the testimonials of those who worship different gods.

The criteria for acceptance appears to be "Does it agree with my beliefs?"

It is now but that is after a time of deep soul searching and 6+hours a day for 3 years of comparative Bible study until I made up my mind about reality. I paid my dues and I earned the right to say "this is what I believe is true and contradictions are not true."

Do you not use the criteria for your acceptance to be "Does it agree with my beliefs?"

Much more reliable than the so called scientific (no experiments, no replication, no falsification) squabbles based upon a math only 1% may understand, for instance.

Is the reliability of advanced mathematically based theories of any importance in one's decisions or actions?

No, not to me...except I must buy expensive and toxic light bulbs to make a climate warmer rich.

Of course changes come from many places in the human psyche but mine came from the conflict between me and a spiritual force who destroyed me so I could be built back up. <shrug>

People often blame such things as "spiritual forces" for their own poor or disastrous decisions. If the outcomes of their prior decisions and actions are negative enough for them to "hit bottom" ANY path out of the morass they have created for themselves must seem like a "savior."

Some people also blame their bad actions upon higher emotions like love, stalkers for instance and emotional vampires. "I love you so much" can apparently justify anything.

How others justify their evil says nothing to me about our decisions or we could not move forward ourselves.

If faith has evidential value, the weight of evidence is against Christianity since the majority of the world's population (68% according to CatholicCulture.org) are NOT Christian.

Amen,

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

I am quite satisfied to have readers decide what position is more rational.

IF you had a vivid and personal experience of GOD that you could not deny, would you still depend upon rationality as you now do? Would your definition of rational change to include your experience?

Is it fair to discount all claims of a personal experience as unproven so immaterial or is it just gas lighting?

Peace, Ted