Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God"

[dust1n]

That's not stealing. And you are one to talk referencing a download for a commercially available book. Sure Rowlands would appreciate that?

As far as taking written material without indicating who wrote it (at the the least) is plagiarism. As far as referencing a book that is copyrighted online, I did not upload the book, obviously.

http://www.conformon.net/publications/books/

And for the rest, now you discard the dna worlds theory because you cannot find it in Rowlands book? That's not argument.

I discard the DNA worlds theory, because I'm not aware of any test of some hypothesis that provides any evidence for it, and also no internet appears to yield any results for anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, Ray Comfort is the Banana Man.

I always wanted to ask him what he thought of the pineapple.

Or the coconut.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As far as taking written material without indicating who wrote it (at the the least) is plagiarism. As far as referencing a book that is copyrighted online, I did not upload the book, obviously.

http://www.conformon.net/publications/books/

I discard the DNA worlds theory, because I'm not aware of any test of some hypothesis that provides any evidence for it, and also no internet appears to yield any results for anything.

It's a commerically available book. You cannot provide download links to commercially available movies. It's a big question mark. I also provided a link to that book once on another website, I put a questionmark besides it whether it was legal.

All authoritarian garbage with you. You see the same numbers on either side of the diagram. I call that, the mathematical ordering is the same. Peter Rowlands doesn't call it that, he is the authority, so then you charge there is no mathematical ordering, while everybody can just see that the numbers on either side are the same. Then you make a spiel about plagiarism, that's just only about authority again as well. Then you look for DNA worlds on the internet to find an authority. Can't find it, therefore discard it, it's solely about authority again.

Those with a brain can think this through that it's a good overall theory. This certainly has better scientific standards than multiverse theory, seeing as that it makes sense, is coherent, is consistent with the available data, explains lots of stuff, etc.

 

[dust1n]

It's a commerically available book. You cannot provide download links to commercially available movies. It's a big question mark. I also provided a link to that book once on another website, I put a questionmark besides it whether it was legal.

If the author wished the publication to be taken down, he could simply have his lawyer send the owner of that website a cease and desist order.

All authoritarian garbage with you.

A new flavor of garbage.

You see the same numbers on either side of the diagram. I call that, the mathematical ordering is the same. Peter Rowlands doesn't call it that, he is the authority, so then you charge there is no mathematical ordering, while everybody can just see that the numbers on either side are the same. Then you make a spiel about plagiarism, that's just only about authority again as well.

Just saying, the "numbers matching on either side of the diagram" is described by the author as to be what seems like examples of some underlying principal. "20" amino acids is not the number of naturally occuring amino acids. The same text even acknowledges this on page 549.

Then you look for DNA worlds on the internet to find an authority. Can't find it, therefore discard it, it's solely about authority again.

Correct. I don't work with DNA. You don't work with DNA. So unless you know someone who does, I don't consider your personal opinion of DNA valuable.

Also, why would you complain about me using the "authority" of understanding? You are the one who originally quoted an authority when you used the diagram in the first place.

Those with a brain can think this through that it's a good overall theory.

Unlikely. I'd bet the majority of animals with a brain can't think it at all.

This certainly has better scientific standards than multiverse theory, seeing as that it makes sense, is coherent, is consistent with the available data, explains lots of stuff, etc.

I don't value much of multiverse theory myself.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If the author wished the publication to be taken down, he could simply have his lawyer send the owner of that website a cease and desist order.

A new flavor of garbage.

Just saying, the "numbers matching on either side of the diagram" is described by the author as to be what seems like examples of some underlying principal. "20" amino acids is not the number of naturally occuring amino acids. The same text even acknowledges this on page 549.

Correct. I don't work with DNA. You don't work with DNA. So unless you know someone who does, I don't consider your personal opinion of DNA valuable.

Also, why would you complain about me using the "authority" of understanding? You are the one who originally quoted an authority when you used the diagram in the first place.

Unlikely. I'd bet the majority of animals with a brain can't think it at all.

I don't value much of multiverse theory myself.

I see that you continue your misrepresentation of the number of amino acids, that you total to 25 or whatever, and refuse to recognize the special significance of this group of 20.

That the numbers on either side are the same is evidence for DNA worlds theory. If one can think, which you refuse to do. I do not use Rowlands as an authority, why I didn't even mention him in the post you responded to at first, I just use the data he produced. The theory also has got more evidence going for it than the big bang theory, which is only based on red shift and a few other tenuous lines of evidence, or so I gather.

 

[dust1n]

I see that you continue your misrepresentation of the number of amino acids, that you total to 25 or whatever, and refuse to recognize the special significance of this group of 20.

The special significance being?...

That the numbers on either side are the same is evidence for DNA worlds theory.

According to you, not the author.

[/quote]If one can think, which you refuse to do. I do not use Rowlands as an authority, why I didn't even mention him in the post you responded to at first, I just use the data he produced.[/quote]

Right. He produced the data. Therefore it's sort of important to know how the data came about and what context it is in. Otherwise, it would just picking random stuff through someone's work.

The theory also has got more evidence going for it than the big bang theory, which is only based on red shift and a few other tenuous lines of evidence, or so I gather.

Yeah, it has a diagram with matching numbers and arrows.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yeah, it has a diagram with matching numbers and arrows.

It's an astonishing diagram, with astonishingly matching numbers. More of your darwinistic failure to view things as anything other than meaningless coincedence.

 

[dust1n]

It's an astonishing diagram, with astonishingly matching numbers. More of your darwinistic failure to view things as anything other than meaningless coincedence.

I don't view it as meaningless coincidence. I just don't think it means what you think it means.

By the way, what's the special significance of those 20 amino acids I'm failing to realize?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't view it as meaningless coincidence. I just don't think it means what you think it means.

By the way, what's the special significance of those 20 amino acids I'm failing to realize?

I have no idea what the special significance of them is, but they are a group by many accounts, not just in Rowlands diagram.

So what is the meaning of it then if not DNA worlds theory? Or so to say, having excluded the most obvious and meaningful interpretation of the data for ideological reasons, what load of self-serving ideas can you come up with?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't really give myself a label, I'm certainly a skeptic of evolution as taught

I think I'd agree with Darwin, that evolution driven by God isn't evolution at all. The whole essence of evolution, is that the diversity of species is driven primarily by accidental changes, not design- that would seem to be the most wide angle- fundamental difference to me- wherever the mechanisms, details, and labels go from there.

I consider natural history is something else again, it covers the more empirical observations of life that existed in various forms, without getting into conjecture of how they came to be that way

You say "evolution as taught", but the theory is econstantly improving, and so is what is taught. So what do you mean exactly?

 

[leibowde84]

Or so to say, having excluded the most obvious and meaningful interpretation of the data for ideological reasons, what load of self-serving ideas can you come up with?

are you saying that religiously based beliefs do this?

 

[dust1n]

I have no idea what the special significance of them is, but they are a group by many accounts, not just in Rowlands diagram.

So you are upset that I do not recognize the special significance, but you don't know what it is? What why I think it's significant for no given reason?

So what is the meaning of it then if not DNA worlds theory? Or so to say, having excluded the most obvious and meaningful interpretation of the data for ideological reasons, what load of self-serving ideas can you come up with?

No idea. I have no where the level of formal language skills to read that book.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you are upset that I do not recognize the special significance, but you don't know what it is? What why I think it's significant for no given reason?

No idea. I have no where the level of formal language skills to read that book.

Common sense says, the physical universe provides for 3D objects, then the DNA system having the same mathematical ordering as the universe, it would also provide for 3D objects. And 3D objects in the DNA world, would explain a lot. This theory has the authority of common sense.

 

[dust1n]

Common sense says, the physical universe provides for 3D objects, then the DNA system having the same mathematical ordering as the universe, it would also provide for 3D objects. And 3D objects in the DNA world, would explain a lot. It has the authority of common sense.

I don't think that in a world of three dimensions of space that I'd expect to find DNA capable of producing a 2D, or 4D, or 9D objects. Okay? I don't see how the number of amino acids and organism can produce is relevant...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't think that in a world of three dimensions of space that I'd expect to find DNA capable of producing a 2D, or 4D, or 9D objects. Okay? I don't see how the number of amino acids and organism can produce is relevant...

It only matters that the number are the same as on the physics side. There are 3D object on the physics side, so there should be 3D objects on the DNA side as well, because the numbers are the same.

 

[dust1n]

It only matters that the number are the same as on the physics side. There are 3D object on the physics side, so there should be 3D objects on the DNA side as well, because the numbers are the same.

As far as I'm aware, all objects exist in 3 dimensions of space...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As far as I'm aware, all objects exist in 3 dimensions of space...

Well obviously the DNA world has it's own objects, and it's own DNA space, just like a computersimulation, or human imagination for that matter, also has it's own 3D objects and it's own space.

 

[dust1n]

Well obviously the DNA world has it's own objects, and it's own DNA space, just like a computersimulation, or human imagination for that matter, also has it's own 3D objects and it's own space.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As far as I'm aware, all objects exist in 3 dimensions of space...

*At least 3.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You say "evolution as taught", but the theory is econstantly improving, and so is what is taught. So what do you mean exactly?

True, nobody can quite agree on specifics, mechanism, reasons for gaps etc etc,

the only agreement across 'evolution as taught' is that its all down to chance, as opposed to design, that's a pretty fundamental difference