Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Paranoid Android]

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.

Don't argue, my brother. We need to strengthen ourselves and avoid getting in contention with the heretics.

 

[dust1n]

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.

Yup, except the scientists on that study I just produced more with synthetic DNA, and used those amino acids to combine with the original 20 known of, and create novel proteins. Also not sure which picture you are referring to. Sorry, hundreds and hundreds of posts and all.

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.

DNA isn't a machine in and of itself.... But there is nothing about what I stated that DNA isn't universal. It being universal among st itself, still doesn't equate to a computer.

And many observations of development, they fit with there being a 3D representation of the adult organism, to guide development.

Which "observations of development"?

I cannot even begin to contemplate how development can occur without a 3D image of the finished product to guide it.

How can one develop a 3D image guided by the 3D image which has yet to be developed?

 

[dust1n]

They should stop arguing. First, it doesn't mater what you say. We know because we know.

In which case, it doesn't matter what anyone knows.

 

[Paranoid Android]

In which case, it doesn't matter what anyone knows.

You will convince everyone that what you believe is true. We will disagree. What will you do ? We won't change our opinion. You can either kill us, lock us up or leave us alone. If you lock us up, we'll still teach it. If you kill us, someone else will take it up. If you leave us alone, then it doesn't matter. As long as one person believes, you don't win.

 

[dust1n]

You will convince everyone that what you believe is true. We will disagree. What will you do ? We won't change our opinion. You can either kill us, lock us up or leave us alone. If you lock us up, we'll still teach it. If you kill us, someone else will take it up. If you leave us alone, then it doesn't matter. As long as one person believes, you don't win.

No, there is another option. I will neither kill, restrain, nor ignore blatant misrepresentations about a science, but rather just counter them as they come up over and over again.

Win what? You think I'm winning something spending my time correcting false statements by evolution? PA, I honestly couldn't care less. Creationism has no influence in society anymore. It will not be taken again seriously by any significant portion of scientists, whether I'm here or not.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Get real. Again, I said that whether someone has a soul or whether God exists is factual. It is either true that God exists or it is false that God exists. Whether one believes that a soul or God exists is subjective.

Further, I said that feeling love for someone is subjective. But, whether someone feels love for someone is either factual (true) or false. I have never claimed that love is objective, and I have never claimed that good and evil are objective truths by any means.

"Subjectivity", in my world view, is the 1st person. Opinions, choices, emotions, etc. are all subjective. Subjectivity is how we view the world as an individual. But, often, our subjective view of reality doesn't paint an accurate picture, and, thus, what we see as being real subjectively, could, objectively, be false. Obviously, feeling emotions is subjective, but emotions are often effected by objective/outside forces, like drugs and alcohol or seeing a friend you haven't seen I'm a while.

That is my view on the subject.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Your position is subjective, and you are presenting it as fact. That's isn't going to work as any sort of argument.

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

You're making claims without realizing it. Ie every time you present your arbitrary opinion as a fact or parameter by which to compare other arguments.

 

[leibowde84]

Your position is subjective, and you are presenting it as fact. That's isn't going to work as any sort of argument.

You're making claims without realizing it.

What claims specifically? Please provide my comments.

 

[dust1n]

Your position is subjective, and you are presenting it as fact. That's isn't going to work as any sort of argument.

Would you mind informing your OP of this?

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Get real. Again, I said that whether someone has a soul or whether God exists is factual. It is either true that God exists or it is false that God exists. Whether one believes that a soul or God exists is subjective.

Further, I said that feeling love for someone is subjective. But, whether someone feels love for someone is either factual (true) or false. I have never claimed that love is objective, and I have never claimed that good and evil are objective truths by any means.

"Subjectivity", in my world view, is the 1st person. Opinions, choices, emotions, etc. are all subjective. Subjectivity is how we view the world as an individual. But, often, our subjective view of reality doesn't paint an accurate picture, and, thus, what we see as being real subjectively, could, objectively, be false. Obviously, feeling emotions is subjective, but emotions are often effected by objective/outside forces, like drugs and alcohol or seeing a friend you haven't seen I'm a while.

That is my view on the subject.

Well a repetitious contradiction of terms. Do you also regard the earth as subjective, but then you "believe" it exists, same as the soul? And you had good and evil as the only truly subjective terms, but I guess you forgot about that, and rearranged it again. Just making it up while you are writing your posting.

As before, creationism has an integrated conceptual scheme, whereas you just say the word subjective and objective a lot, without logic, without meaning. Or it is some kind of wishlist for a concept, that you wish love to be both objective and subjective at the same time. It is not actually demonstrating how this can be made to work. Feeling love is subjective and factual, is a straighforward contradiction of terms.

Subjectivity is choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion. Objectivity is making a model of something, which is what a fact is. Fact applies to the creation category, and opinion applies to the creator category. The subjective domain chooses which way the objective domain turns out. Facts use the logic of being forced, and opinion uses the logic of freedom. You see, integrated into a whole conceptual scheme. As consistent with common discourse meaning of opinion and fact, consistent with the freedom of opinion in constitutions, consistent with the focus on faith in religion, and consistent with mathematics as the theory of everything in science etc..

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yup, except the scientists on that study I just produced more with synthetic DNA, and used those amino acids to combine with the original 20 known of, and create novel proteins. Also not sure which picture you are referring to. Sorry, hundreds and hundreds of posts and all.



DNA isn't a machine in and of itself.... But there is nothing about what I stated that DNA isn't universal. It being universal among st itself, still doesn't equate to a computer.



Which "observations of development"?



How can one develop a 3D image guided by the 3D image which has yet to be developed?

Because as I already explained, the dna system has the same mathematical ordering as the physical universe. The physical universe can produce 3D objects, the DNA system having the same ordering, it would also be capable to produce 3D objects.

You are just intentionally not thinking straight, and if you still have the capability of thinking straight, who knows?

 

[dust1n]

Because as I already explained, the dna system has the same mathematical ordering as the physical universe.

Okay, than show the mathematical ordering of the DNA system and the physical universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Okay, than show the mathematical ordering of the DNA system and the physical universe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for showing you apparently don't understand the word "mathematical"

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thanks for showing you apparently don't understand the word "mathematical"

20 on one side 20 on the other, etc. the mathematical ordering is the same. And this diagram is based on pure mathematics.

 

[Desert Snake]

No problem with the OP. This is just completely inaccurate. You are basing it on the incorrect assumption that without belief in deities, one is necessarily a materialist. No reason to think this, that's all.

Claim that I'm making some assumption, sort of off topic, then another claim that your statement is fact.

I just meant I wasn't referring to the OP. If you did a bit if research you would see why the color of flamingos has nothing to do with your argument.

This is an interesting one. Here, the ''research'' conforms to your subjective premise, ie it's a statement of personal belief presented as fact. In other words, the research could back my proposal as well, /design.

Materialism, as I showed, is very different than evolution. It doesn't mean that they aren't related I guess, but you cannot hold evolution responsible for the shortcomings of materialism, as materialism is far more extreme.

Here is a claim that materialism is very different from evolution.

I considered all of your points and I explained that, with your explanation of "creationism" being "God did it"/"God made everything as is", you are making an unfalsifiable claim ... unfalsifiable claim = no claim at all (logically speaking).

Here you are positing that I'm making an unfalsifiable claim, hence it's not a claim(?). This still has to be explained, because that would mean that everything that you cannot falsify, is not a claim, essentially.

If you mean strong atheism, that is also an unfalsifiable claim. Ive stated that several times actually. Atheism, as in merely a lack of belief in God or god's, that is not a claim at all.

Here you are positing that although theism is a claim, atheism is not. This is actually a position that atheism is the basis of truth by which one would compare theism. Which is a claim of course, and you haven't proven that, or even provided a reasonable explanation.

But, obviously "random" in this context means "not intentionally ordered". That in no way means that patterns and such shouldn't be expected. For this reason, isn't this a straw man?

Claim/Here you equate complicated patterns /as per the op subject/, as something to be ''expected''. It's an interesting argument from inference, but it's unsupported. Ie it has to relate to the op proposition, and it clearly wouldn't.

But, there is no evidence supporting creationism that is verifiable, but there is for evolution. So doesn't that make evolution more likely?

Claim

It ignores the insane amount of time it all had to happen. Low probabilities go out the window.

Claim/ this seems to ignore the context, which would not infer an isolated sequence of coin flips probability, hence changing the probability. As per the OP, it's completely incorrect, as shown by reality.

That's what they all say ... Time isn't fact and the amount of time we are talking about cannot be ignored.

Claim/Some reference to creationists all saying something.

Don't you assume that, because the universe SEEMS too complex to be random IN YOUR OPINION, you ASSUME it must be designed? And, that is merely the logical fallacy of the God of the gaps ta boot.

Here you are making the claim that I'm assuming things, by which you are claiming I arrived at my conclusions/ argument whatever. This is essentially meaningless.

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,

Unsupported claim

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.

Unsupported claim made from personal belief.

My support of it is based on faith.

But, there is no legitimate logical argument to support the jump to God being the designer.

Claim based on subjective belief.

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

What claims specifically? Please provide my comments.

Here are some claims, whether inferred or not. You seem to be using a personal and arbitrary format by which to judge what is a claim, and what isn't.

 

[dust1n]

As noted, there is no math here. It's just comparing things that have the same numbers.

Either way, as I had just posted:

This company implanted a synthetic base pair into a genetics of E.Coli bacterium, which maintained itself and reproduces. So unless scientists can also add a corresponding another parameter to your four parameters mass, space, time, and charge (whatever that means and is suppose to be), then there is clearly no reality to this mathematical ordering you've presented, otherwise, what the scientists did at this company was impossible to do. Even then others have done the same thing...

"The Romesberg team at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) recently created an unnatural DNA base pair that can be incorporated into the genome of E. coli. While in nature the genetic code only contains two DNA base pairs, A-T and C-G, these researchers have made a bacterium that can “stably harbor DNA containing three” (1).

Creating this unnatural base pair posed many problems for the researchers at TSRI. First, the pair must fit into the DNA double helix and exhibit binding properties similar to those of natural base pairs in order for the DNA double helix to be stable. In addition, DNA polymerases must be able to recognize, incorporate, and properly match the unnatural base pair when synthesizing new DNA. Perhaps the most difficult challenge, these foreign nucleotides must be able to evade highly efficient DNA repair machinery in the cell. Despite these obstacles, in 2008 the team synthesized DNA and transcribed strands containing a new synthetic base pair in vitro (2).

After finding success with the base pair d5SICS and dNaM in vitro, the team decided to attempt expression in vivo in E. coli, but this expression posed many problems as well (2). The unnatural nucleoside triphosphate building blocks cannot be made from material already inside the bacterium, meaning researchers had to provide the bacteria with the right building blocks in the solution surrounding the cell. In addition, to get the building blocks into the cell, nucleotide triphosphate transporters had to be added to the media (1).

After another year of work, researchers found that the bacteria grew at a normal rate using transporters from algae to facilitate intake of the unnatural base pair. When the molecular building blocks and transporters for dNaM and d5SICS were no longer provided in solution, however, the bacteria replaced the synthetic base pairs with natural A-T and C-G pairs. According to Denis A. Malyshev, one of the lead researchers on the project, “these two breakthroughs provide control over the system,” as researchers can determine when the synthetic pair is expressed by manipulating the surrounding media (1).

The findings from The Scripps Research Institute have significant implications for future research. Romesberg’s team hopes that this synthetic genetic material will be used to re-engineer cells and produce new, unnatural amino acids that can be used in novel therapeutics and nanomaterials (2).

References:

1. Denis A. Malyshev, Kirandeep Dhami, Thomas Lavergne, Tingjian Chen, Nan Dai, Jeremy M. Foster, Ivan R. Corrêa, Floyd E. Romesberg. A semi-synthetic organism with an expanded genetic alphabet. Nature, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nature13314

2. Scripps Research Institute. “Semi-synthetic organism: Scientists create first living organism that transmits added letters in DNA ‘alphabet’.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 May 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140507132129.htm>.

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/news/a-semi-synthetic-organism-the-third-dna-base-pair



I mean, I realize that all the universities of the world deny freedom and create depressed people with their evolutionist garbage, but not of that really changes the fact that these scientists were able to utilize DNA in a way the breaks your supposed unification of physics and biology.

By the way, because they added base pairs, this DNA can make 172 amino acids, not 20. So Unless someone has found 152 new "algebraic elements of fermionic+vacuum structure," too, then these things no longer correspond to one another.

 

[dust1n]

"This has very important implications for our understanding of life," said Floyd Romesberg, whose team created the organism at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. "For so long people have thought that DNA was the way it was because it had to be, that it was somehow the perfect molecule."

From the moment life gained a foothold on Earth the diversity of organisms has been written in a DNA code of four letters. The latest study moves life beyond G, T, C and A – the molecules or bases that pair up in the DNA helix – and introduces two new letters of life: X and Y.

Romesberg started out with E coli, a bug normally found in soil and carried by people. Into this he inserted a loop of genetic material that carried normal DNA and two synthetic DNA bases. Though known as X and Y for simplicity, the artificial DNA bases have much longer chemical names, which themselves abbreviate to d5SICS and dNaM.

In living organisms, G, T, C and A come together to form two base pairs, G-C and T-A. The extra synthetic DNA forms a third base pair, X-Y, according to the study in Nature. These base pairs are used to make genes, which cells use as templates for making proteins.

Romesberg found that when the modified bacteria divided they passed on the natural DNA as expected. But they also replicated the synthetic code and passed that on to the next generation. That generation of bugs did the same.

"What we have now, for the first time, is an organism that stably harbours a third base pair, and it is utterly different to the natural ones," Romesberg said. For now the synthetic DNA does not do anything in the cell. It just sits there. But Romesberg now wants to tweak the organism so that it can put the artificial DNA to good use."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/living-organism-pass-down-artificial-dna-us-scientists

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As noted, there is no math here. It's just comparing things that have the same numbers.

Either way, as I had just posted:

.

Your Darwinism has apparently prejudiced you to see everything as just a coincedence. That the numbers are the same, just coincedence.

You present no theory, you only present loose facts.

That the experimenters can make it work with 6 bases, makes it clear that the 4 bases are not arbitrary. There are 4 bases, because there are likewise 4 parameters of mass, time, space and charge. And what with the other numbers, it requires explanation why basically there are only 20 amino acids, in stead of a few thousand or whatever.

 

[dust1n]

Your Darwinism has apparently prejudiced you to see everything as just a coincedence. That the numbers are the same, just coincedence.

You present no theory, you only present loose facts.

That the experimenters can make it work with 6 bases, makes it clear that the 4 bases are not arbitrary. There are 4 bases, because there are likewise 4 parameters of mass, time, space and charge. And what with the other numbers, it requires explanation why basically there are only 20 amino acids, in stead of a few thousand or whatever.

Ah, but then here is another amino acid that wasn't created by humans but occured naturally, making 21 amino acids.

"In high school biology classes, we learn that there are 20 amino acids. But in the past two decades, researchers have discovered two additional amino acids that are incorporated into natural genetic codes – selenocysteine (Sec) and pyrrolysine (Pyl). Every amino acid has its own transfer RNA (tRNA) and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS). The tRNA molecule binds specifically to the amino acid and brings it to the site of protein synthesis. The enzyme aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase specifically attaches the amino acid to its tRNA.

The twenty-first amino acid, Sec, has its own specific codon and tRNA, but it lacks its own aaRS. In fact, Sec is synthesized through the modification of the canonical amino acid serine after its attachment to the Sec tRNA. Pyl, on the other hand, has its own specific codon, tRNA, and aaRS. Thus, the entrance of Pyl into the natural genetic codes of certain organisms also marks the evolution of the first non-canonical aaRS and tRNA."

http://www.yalescientific.org/2009/10/expanding-the-genetic-code-discovery-of-two-new-amino-acids/

And another:

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Two years ago, Ohio State University researchers surprised the scientific community by announcing their discovery of a 22nd genetically encoded amino acid.

Now they have capped that discovery with news that they have successfully synthesized the amino acid itself – L-pyrrolysine – and shown that bacteria can incorporate it into new proteins – the biological components which do most of the work in cells.

The importance of their work is the explanation of exactly how the 22nd amino acid is incorporated into proteins inside living cells. The genetic instructions to put pyrrolysine into proteins follows a traditional path that many scientists had not predicted.

For decades following the discovery of the structure of DNA, the dogma was that the genes in the DNA were decoded to produce proteins built from only 20 “canonical” amino acids.

But in 1986, researchers discovered that a 21st amino acid – selenocysteine – was incorporated into certain proteins. What separated selenocysteine from the other previously identified amino acids was the fact that it was inserted into protein by a very different path.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/aminosyn.htm

But you can ignore those too, if you'd like.