Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Love?! Lol. Where did that come from?

You said emotions are regarded as fact in a court of law. Love is an emotion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just for future reference, DNA could be compared to a hard drive. That's about it. No other metaphor of computer parts would make sense..

Well that was about the most annoying one-sided "skepticism" again. It can be reasoned certainly that RNA is like RAM, and I have seen them reason it, so all this talk of cannot be, because I don't see it, is losing sight of the big picture. The wide variety of organisms points toward a universal machine to construct them, as different from a collection of peculiarities producing. To say it is not like a computer, is to say it is not like a universal machine, which is to say that the DNA system is like an infinite alphabet, ABCDEFGH.... which it is not. It is only CTGA (and 2 of those could be considered stop and start, which would leave binary code).

But I don't think it would be the CPU which is central to the DNA computer design, it is the user. Basically there is the 3D DNA world, which is similar to a computersimulation, but also basically similar to human imagination. And choosing would function very well in such a DNA world.

 

[dust1n]

Basically there is the 3D DNA world, which is similar to a computersimulation, but also basically similar to human imagination.

Let me see it.

 

[leibowde84]

....^



...^


Are you going to answer this?

You seem to be contradicting yourself on various levels.

lol. These are called questions. Do you have a different meaning for the word "question" too? In other words, I didn't make any claims

You said emotions are regarded as fact in a court of law. Love is an emotion.

If it can be verified, sure it is. A court of law is only able to consider fact, so this reduction of emotions is necessary. The court will never accept anything merely on someone's word without verification.

 

[leibowde84]

....^



...^


Are you going to answer this?

You seem to be contradicting yourself on various levels.

First if all, you might want to re-read the first comment you quoted me on. It was a question posed to point out the assumptions made by intelligent design. ID supporters assume God, and materialists assume randomness and time is sufficient. I am a supporter of Id, but I also recognize that it isn't supported by reason. My support of it is based on faith. But, there is no legitimate logical argument to support the jump to God being the designer.

So, no, I did not contradict myself at all. And, BTW, questions aren't claims ... They are inquiries. Don't assume so much!

 

[leibowde84]

It is more excuses. First you don´t have the mathematical substantiaton, now you assert love and hate are fact, yet you cannot measure them, maybe in the future. You got nothing.

...the way love is judged to be real is by choosing. There is no way reaching a conclusion about what is real by expression of your emotion with free will, thus choosing, is ever going to be science. Not even when we have exhaustive knowledge about everything, will love be a matter of fact.

You display more of the typical utter devotion to fact at the intellectual level, to the exclusion of any unapologetic opinion, as categorically distinct from a fact. An opinion which actually says something about reality, like that the soul is real, or God is real. Subjectivity that actually matters and which is not artsy fartsy.

Saying that God is real is not an opinion. It is a claim about reality that is either true or false.

Saying that one THINKS or FEELS that God is real would be an opinion. But it wouldn't say anything about reality. It would just be the way the a specific person sees reality.

 

[leibowde84]

As it is shown that you conflate fact and opinion elsewhere, it is simply an expression of your desire to regard good and evil as fact. It is not faith of any kind.

Can you provide my comment where I conflate fact and opinion? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I certainly do not believe and have never claimed that good and evil are factual or objective. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I am a staunch believer that good and evil are subjective.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just an observation.....
I'm amazed at the patience & perseverance of some in this thread.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Let me see it.

Yes that's a good idea, go looking for it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Saying that God is real is not an opinion. It is a claim about reality that is either true or false.

Saying that one THINKS or FEELS that God is real would be an opinion. But it wouldn't say anything about reality. It would just be the way the a specific person sees reality.

It is saying either love must be fact, or it is not real. You have per definition excluded all subjective terms. God, the soul, emotions, are properly defined as subjective terms.

There you go again rejecting all subjectivity, much as you claim to believe in God and such.....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you provide my comment where I conflate fact and opinion? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I certainly do not believe and have never claimed that good and evil are factual or objective. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I am a staunch believer that good and evil are subjective.

It means that you regard what are properly subjective terms, as fact. That you regard good and evil as fact.
You previously argued how love is fact, how beauty is objective. How maybe later science can find all these as fact. etc. etc. And that you use the word subjective means nothing, because you do not accept subjectivity in a creationist sense. It is just saying the word subjective, without logic, without meaning.

Now you are saying that good and evil are subjective, and therefore not real. It is blatant rejection of subjectivity.

 

[dust1n]

Yes that's a good idea, go looking for it.

Have you seen it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Have you seen it?

No but it is the only current theory that makes sense. There is no other coherent theory, except maybe first decisions in the universe, for the rest there are only loose facts.

 

[dust1n]

No but it is the only current theory that makes sense. There is no other coherent theory, except maybe first decisions in the universe, for the rest there are only loose facts.

Well, sorry Mohammad, I'm going to find it very hard to believe that something as complex as a means of which cell operates on the premises of a computer language.

DNA is far more than 2-bit, as explained in the that long-boring skepticism I provided. But for the purposes of storing 2 bit information on it, it is perfectly achievable. Computer data can be stored in DNA and retrieved from DNA. That doesn't mean a cell uses DNA like a computer does, because a computer is operating on different premises when using the DNA, then when the cell is.

Just for funsyyy, scientists have been manipulating genetic information in DNA to create amino acids for proteins that have never been seen before, just came out last month:

"PRESS RELEASES – 18 August 2015

Synthorx’s synthetic DNA base pair expands the DNA alphabet to enable the creation of more diverse proteins for wide variety of applications in medicine and technology

SAN DIEGO, August 19, 2015 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Synthorx Inc. announced today that the company has employed its proprietary protein expression system to successfully produce proteins containing novel amino acids. Using a semi-synthetic DNA template (containing the synthetic base pair X and Y), Synthorx scientists were able to produce RNA containing X and Y, which was used with an otherwise fully natural biological system, to efficiently direct the incorporation of multiple novel amino acids at different sites in proteins.

“Synthorx has built a world class research team that has achieved a scientific milestone in record time,” said Court Turner, president and co-founder of Synthorx. “By advancing our technology to this stage, we are now poised to produce proteins containing multiple novel amino acids, to fill our drug discovery pipeline as well as enable our partners in many aspects of drug development and manufacturing.”"

http://synthorx.com/news/2015-08-18-synthorx-advances-its-synthetic-dna-technology-to-make-its-first-full-length-proteins-incorporating-novel-amino-acids

ATCGXY?

 

[leibowde84]

It is saying either love must be fact, or it is not real. You have per definition excluded all subjective terms. God, the soul, emotions, are properly defined as subjective terms.

There you go again rejecting all subjectivity, much as you claim to believe in God and such.....

The existence of God is either factual or false. The existence of the soul is the same way. Emotions are subjective, but whether or not someone has an

It means that you regard what are properly subjective terms, as fact. That you regard good and evil as fact.
You previously argued how love is fact, how beauty is objective. How maybe later science can find all these as fact. etc. etc. And that you use the word subjective means nothing, because you do not accept subjectivity in a creationist sense. It is just saying the word subjective, without logic, without meaning.

Now you are saying that good and evil are subjective, and therefore not real. It is blatant rejection of subjectivity.

No, you merely have an issue with comprehension. I never claimed that good and/or evil are facts. Please provide the comment where I did that, or I will report your comments, past and present, for dishonesty, trolling, and untrue accusations.

Now, if you are merely being dishonest and trying to stupidly infer that by saying the existence of God is either fact or false, I am also saying that the idea or notion of "God" is "objective" or "definable", that is an indication of your inability to understand the basic limits of the words you write and logic in general.

 

[Paranoid Android]

The existence of God is either factual or false. The existence of the soul is the same way. Emotions are subjective, but whether or not someone has an

No, you merely have an issue with comprehension. I never claimed that good and/or evil are facts. Please provide the comment where I did that, or I will report your comments, past and present, for dishonesty, trolling, and untrue accusations.

Now, if you are merely being dishonest and trying to stupidly infer that by saying the existence of God is either fact or false, I am also saying that the idea or notion of "God" is "objective" or "definable", that is an indication of your inability to understand the basic limits of the words you write and logic in general.

People, give up the argument. Yes, we are stupid, illogical, foolish and you are geniuses. And yes, God created everything.

 

[leibowde84]

People, give up the argument. Yes, we are stupid, illogical, foolish and you are geniuses. And yes, God created everything.

What on earth are you talking about?

He is making blatantly false claims about what I've said in past comments. And, he conveniently refuses to even try to back up these false claims.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, sorry Mohammad, I'm going to find it very hard to believe that something as complex as a means of which cell operates on the premises of a computer language.

I'ts a good theory. And the picture I posted previously showing that the mathematical ordering of the DNA system is the same as that of the physical universe, requires some explanation. The basic structure of the DNA system only produces uh 20 amino acids. Why not more? If it is not a universal machine, then we would expect an infinity of amino acids, to deal with an infinity of variations of organisms.

And many observations of development, they fit with there being a 3D representation of the adult organism, to guide development. I cannot even begin to contemplate how development can occur without a 3D image of the finished product to guide it. I have no idea how chaos can be avoided then, to produce a whole organism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The existence of God is either factual or false. The existence of the soul is the same way. Emotions are subjective, but whether or not someone has an

No, you merely have an issue with comprehension. I never claimed that good and/or evil are facts. Please provide the comment where I did that, or I will report your comments, past and present, for dishonesty, trolling, and untrue accusations.

Now, if you are merely being dishonest and trying to stupidly infer that by saying the existence of God is either fact or false, I am also saying that the idea or notion of "God" is "objective" or "definable", that is an indication of your inability to understand the basic limits of the words you write and logic in general.

It's ridiculous. God, the soul, love and hate are fact according to you, yet you want credit for accepting good and evil are subjective. I already explained that according to creationist definitions, you regard good and evil as fact. Good and evil in creationism are derived from what is identified as loving and hateful. So if love is already fact, then good and evil must be fact too.

And you have done absolutely nothing to explain how subjectivity works in your denial of the creationist explanation of it. You merely blandly posit, love is objective, good is subjective, etc. There is no logic in it, it is arbitrary.

 

[Paranoid Android]

What on earth are you talking about?

He is making blatantly false claims about what I've said in past comments. And, he conveniently refuses to even try to back up these false claims.

They should stop arguing. First, it doesn't mater what you say. We know because we know. Second of all, we have to be firm in our Creationist stance. That means we have to train and firm up our belief in Creationism and not listen to you're heresies.