Author Topic: Origins  (Read 2821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Origins
« on: November 14, 2008, 11:39:27 PM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos.Stephen Hawking says that the cosmos has aseity and has always existed.
Yeah, right....The cosmos has the attributes of God...

No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Origins
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2008, 11:41:20 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Origins
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2008, 05:19:52 AM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos.Stephen Hawking says that the cosmos has aseity and has always existed.
Yeah, right....The cosmos has the attributes of God...

No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.

Whenever you find yourself saying "it should be obvious", alarm-bells should start ringing. It's a surefire signal that you've assumed something that perhaps you shouldn't.

What makes the "genetic language", as you put it, a "language"? I'd put it to you that it is merely the chemical properties of different molecules that cause certain reactions to take place, and result in different effects in different environments. The meaning, if one could use such a term, of these is defined not by any evident sentient entity, but by complex natural processes that take place in the environment. The sentience involved here is ours, in that it is we - in our never-ending quest for pattern-recognition - who define it as a "language" in our effort to understand those processes. In a suitable environment, molecule A in cell 1 gives rise to organism Alpha. Molecule B in cell 2 gives rise to organism Beta. The characteristics of those organisms are essentially arbitrary until you apply natural selection and competition - for it is these that "determine" whether organism Alpha or Beta will be successful and breed into the next generation.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that these characteristics are the product of sentience or intelligence. For a start, everything we know about sentience or intelligence suggests that these require a sufficiently advanced organism with a brain, and the only such organisms we know about are themselves derived from a long, complex series of natural processes. To postulate some form of sentience or intelligence that does not arise out of a series of natural processes is completely outside the ball-park of our understanding of the Universe. It simply Does Not Compute.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Origins
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2008, 06:41:53 AM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.

Genetic "language"? Can you speak it?

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2008, 06:49:11 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Origins
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2008, 07:26:30 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

from Dictionary.com

syn•tax:

As applies to Linguistics.

a. the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language.
b. the study of the patterns of formation of sentences and phrases from words.
c. the rules or patterns so studied: English syntax. 
d. a presentation of these: a syntax of English. 
e. an instance of these: the syntax of a sentence.

What are the "syntactic rules" for the "language" of DNA?
 

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Origins
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2008, 10:24:15 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

It's considered theft and dishonesty. Cite your source, or write it in your own words.

It gets tiresome teaching christians to be moral, you really should be doing this yourself.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline PingTheServer

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Devil's Advocate
Re: Origins
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2008, 11:46:11 AM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos.Stephen Hawking says that the cosmos has aseity and has always existed.
Yeah, right....The cosmos has the attributes of God...

No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.


It's ok to say "We don't know" and not have to attribute our ignorance of anything to one of the thousands of magical beings we created.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1411
  • Darwins +49/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Origins
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2008, 05:38:36 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?
Dictionary.com

Language

12.    Computers. a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use, by means of which a computer can be given directions: The language of many commercial application programs is COBOL.

Where is the connection between a computer language and DNA, explain.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2008, 10:55:21 PM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos.Stephen Hawking says that the cosmos has aseity and has always existed.
Yeah, right....The cosmos has the attributes of God...

No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.

Whenever you find yourself saying "it should be obvious", alarm-bells should start ringing. It's a surefire signal that you've assumed something that perhaps you shouldn't.

What makes the "genetic language", as you put it, a "language"? I'd put it to you that it is merely the chemical properties of different molecules that cause certain reactions to take place, and result in different effects in different environments. The meaning, if one could use such a term, of these is defined not by any evident sentient entity, but by complex natural processes that take place in the environment. The sentience involved here is ours, in that it is we - in our never-ending quest for pattern-recognition - who define it as a "language" in our effort to understand those processes. In a suitable environment, molecule A in cell 1 gives rise to organism Alpha. Molecule B in cell 2 gives rise to organism Beta. The characteristics of those organisms are essentially arbitrary until you apply natural selection and competition - for it is these that "determine" whether organism Alpha or Beta will be successful and breed into the next generation.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that these characteristics are the product of sentience or intelligence. For a start, everything we know about sentience or intelligence suggests that these require a sufficiently advanced organism with a brain, and the only such organisms we know about are themselves derived from a long, complex series of natural processes. To postulate some form of sentience or intelligence that does not arise out of a series of natural processes is completely outside the ball-park of our understanding of the Universe. It simply Does Not Compute.


Quote
What makes the "genetic language", as you put it, a "language"? I'd put it to you that it is merely the chemical properties of different molecules that cause certain reactions to take place, and result in different effects in different environments.

So life began because different molecules were randomly mixed together, which caused certain reactions to take place,,,,,.
Do you consider that to be a rebuttal?
You actually believe the spontaneous generation nonsense?
Perhaps you are unaware of the complexity of cell biology.Darwin, certainly, was unaware of the complexity of a single cell.

What makes the genetic code a "language" is the fact that DNA stores information, retrieves information, and uses information to build a creature starting with a single cell (egg) and sperm.
In other words a creature is built according to a very precise set of instructions which has been stored in the single celled egg and sperm.

What is the origin of the instructions?



1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2008, 11:16:15 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

It's considered theft and dishonesty. Cite your source, or write it in your own words.

It gets tiresome teaching christians to be moral, you really should be doing this yourself.

It is considered theft to cut and paste a dictionary definition? By whom? The people who make dictionaries? Any rephrasing of a definition will alter it.

As to the morality lesson, thanks for caring. I'll try not to burden you with more crimes of theft and dishonesty.
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Origins
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2008, 12:14:53 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

It's considered theft and dishonesty. Cite your source, or write it in your own words.

It gets tiresome teaching christians to be moral, you really should be doing this yourself.

It is considered theft to cut and paste a dictionary definition? By whom? The people who make dictionaries? Any rephrasing of a definition will alter it.

As to the morality lesson, thanks for caring. I'll try not to burden you with more crimes of theft and dishonesty.

Then cite your source.

"Dictionary.com defines....." is all you need to add.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Origins
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2008, 06:36:34 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

It's considered theft and dishonesty. Cite your source, or write it in your own words.

It gets tiresome teaching christians to be moral, you really should be doing this yourself.

It is considered theft to cut and paste a dictionary definition? By whom? The people who make dictionaries? Any rephrasing of a definition will alter it.

As to the morality lesson, thanks for caring. I'll try not to burden you with more crimes of theft and dishonesty.

Who cares what you think of the rule, or of your opinion about it?

Cite your sources.

Do christians need a "obey or else" statement for every moral act?
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2008, 07:21:29 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

It's considered theft and dishonesty. Cite your source, or write it in your own words.

It gets tiresome teaching christians to be moral, you really should be doing this yourself.

It is considered theft to cut and paste a dictionary definition? By whom? The people who make dictionaries? Any rephrasing of a definition will alter it.

As to the morality lesson, thanks for caring. I'll try not to burden you with more crimes of theft and dishonesty.

Who cares what you think of the rule, or of your opinion about it?

Cite your sources.

Do christians need a "obey or else" statement for every moral act?

All of us are sinners in need of a Savior. Even you....
Quote
moG, I am very sad that Zeus will skull-f**k you and your entire family when you die, for not obeying his word and not worshipping him  properly. It is so sad to see your hatred lead to such a pathetic eternity. Your baby son or daughter one day ask you "why did you condemn us to eternal torture for your ignorance of Zeus the almighty?". It is so sad, I'll sacrifice a goat to Zeus for you, I know you won't change your mind, you're too ignorant. Maybe you children or their children will learn the truth and only you need be skull-f**ked for eternity.
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Origins
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2008, 02:53:30 PM »
So life began because different molecules were randomly mixed together, which caused certain reactions to take place,,,,,.

Randomly? Your words, not mine.

Quote
Do you consider that to be a rebuttal?

To an assertion as poorly supported as the one you provided ("it just has to be a result of intelligence!"), mocking laughter would have been an adequate rebuttal. Can you provide a single known example of intelligence that hasn't arisen as a result of natural processes, for which you can provide a shred of reliable evidence?

Quote
You actually believe the spontaneous generation nonsense?

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was an old notion that stated that complex organisms were "spontaneously generated" from decaying ones. It has long since been discarded, and we now know it to be false. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, says no such thing: rather, it says that primordial self-replicating systems arose at some point in the distant past, and most likely under very different Terrestrial conditions to the ones that prevail today, from simpler molecules and compounds. It is a current scientific hypothesis - one with some degree of support, and in which field research is ongoing. I would say that I am reasonably confident that it will eventually produce further positive results.

Quote
Perhaps you are unaware of the complexity of cell biology. Darwin, certainly, was unaware of the complexity of a single cell.

I am dimly aware of the complexity of cell biology (though I would not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about it, as I am not active in the field). There is, however, nothing that says that primordial self-replicating systems had to be anywhere near as complex as a modern cell.

Quote
What makes the genetic code a "language" is the fact that DNA stores information, retrieves information, and uses information to build a creature...
...In other words a creature is built according to a very precise set of instructions...

Precise, that is, save for the various copying errors, and to make note of a small point, modern DNA couldn't do it without the assistance of the apparatus of that complex modern cell you mentioned - and even then, nothing useful would come of it but for the steady supply and appropriate balance of nutrients from the immediate external environment (e.g. the mother in placental mammals).

But what makes the various codes in DNA "information"? Again, I would put it to you, it is the process of natural selection that provides that differentiation between various types of organisms.

Quote
...starting with a single cell (egg) and sperm.
... which has been stored in the single celled egg and sperm.

Egg and sperm? Only in sexual reproduction. ;)

Quote
What is the origin of the instructions?

In sexual reproduction? The parents, obviously. In asexual reproduction? The parent, obviously.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Origins
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2008, 04:49:27 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

It's considered theft and dishonesty. Cite your source, or write it in your own words.

It gets tiresome teaching christians to be moral, you really should be doing this yourself.

It is considered theft to cut and paste a dictionary definition? By whom? The people who make dictionaries? Any rephrasing of a definition will alter it.

As to the morality lesson, thanks for caring. I'll try not to burden you with more crimes of theft and dishonesty.

Who cares what you think of the rule, or of your opinion about it?

Cite your sources.

Do christians need a "obey or else" statement for every moral act?

All of us are sinners in need of a Savior. Even you....
Quote
moG, I am very sad that Zeus will skull-f**k you and your entire family when you die, for not obeying his word and not worshipping him  properly. It is so sad to see your hatred lead to such a pathetic eternity. Your baby son or daughter one day ask you "why did you condemn us to eternal torture for your ignorance of Zeus the almighty?". It is so sad, I'll sacrifice a goat to Zeus for you, I know you won't change your mind, you're too ignorant. Maybe you children or their children will learn the truth and only you need be skull-f**ked for eternity.

What does that have to do with your plagiarism?

You are dishonest, you are called on it, you whine about it, then you copy paste some mockery of another instance of your moral laxity.

Are you twelve?

It's simple, admit your mistake, STFU about it, and go on. Or, you can always GTFO.

Either is fine.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4161
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: Origins
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2008, 07:47:51 PM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos.Stephen Hawking says that the cosmos has aseity and has always existed.
Yeah, right....The cosmos has the attributes of God...

No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.


So its better to take the simplest route and say "Goddidit"? Wouldn't it be much more honest to say "I don't know, I wasn't there"?
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline Freezykow

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "For the love of money is the root of all evil"
Re: Origins
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2008, 09:29:14 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.

Out of that whole post thats the only thing you have to say?
When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

Offline Freezykow

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "For the love of money is the root of all evil"
Re: Origins
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2008, 09:33:28 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

Oh my... moG approach this cautiously. These people are infamous for completely destroying the whole purpose of a topic because of the meaning of a word that could easily be substituted. It's a simple Atheist tactic to annoy the person out of the thread to avoid any questions.
When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

Offline switch

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2008, 10:17:44 PM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

Oh my... moG approach this cautiously. These people are infamous for completely destroying the whole purpose of a topic because of the meaning of a word that could easily be substituted. It's a simple Atheist tactic to annoy the person out of the thread to avoid any questions.

Here's my page on Abiogenesis:
http://www.godriddance.com/Abiogenesis.php

I've been careful to cite sources and "cover all bases" so to speak. Tell me what you think.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2008, 01:28:20 AM »
So life began because different molecules were randomly mixed together, which caused certain reactions to take place,,,,,.

Randomly? Your words, not mine.

Quote
Do you consider that to be a rebuttal?

To an assertion as poorly supported as the one you provided ("it just has to be a result of intelligence!"), mocking laughter would have been an adequate rebuttal. Can you provide a single known example of intelligence that hasn't arisen as a result of natural processes, for which you can provide a shred of reliable evidence?

Quote
You actually believe the spontaneous generation nonsense?

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was an old notion that stated that complex organisms were "spontaneously generated" from decaying ones. It has long since been discarded, and we now know it to be false. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, says no such thing: rather, it says that primordial self-replicating systems arose at some point in the distant past, and most likely under very different Terrestrial conditions to the ones that prevail today, from simpler molecules and compounds. It is a current scientific hypothesis - one with some degree of support, and in which field research is ongoing. I would say that I am reasonably confident that it will eventually produce further positive results.

Quote
Perhaps you are unaware of the complexity of cell biology. Darwin, certainly, was unaware of the complexity of a single cell.

I am dimly aware of the complexity of cell biology (though I would not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about it, as I am not active in the field). There is, however, nothing that says that primordial self-replicating systems had to be anywhere near as complex as a modern cell.

Quote
What makes the genetic code a "language" is the fact that DNA stores information, retrieves information, and uses information to build a creature...
...In other words a creature is built according to a very precise set of instructions...

Precise, that is, save for the various copying errors, and to make note of a small point, modern DNA couldn't do it without the assistance of the apparatus of that complex modern cell you mentioned - and even then, nothing useful would come of it but for the steady supply and appropriate balance of nutrients from the immediate external environment (e.g. the mother in placental mammals).

But what makes the various codes in DNA "information"? Again, I would put it to you, it is the process of natural selection that provides that differentiation between various types of organisms.

Quote
...starting with a single cell (egg) and sperm.
... which has been stored in the single celled egg and sperm.

Egg and sperm? Only in sexual reproduction. ;)

Quote
What is the origin of the instructions?

In sexual reproduction? The parents, obviously. In asexual reproduction? The parent, obviously.

Quote
Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was an old notion that stated that complex organisms were "spontaneously generated" from decaying ones. It has long since been discarded, and we now know it to be false. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, says no such thing: rather, it says that primordial self-replicating systems arose at some point in the distant past, and most likely under very different Terrestrial conditions to the ones that prevail today, from simpler molecules and compounds. It is a current scientific hypothesis - one with some degree of support, and in which field research is ongoing. I would say that I am reasonably confident that it will eventually produce further positive results.

From Dictionary.com....

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis      (?'b?-?-j?n'?-s?s)  Pronunciation Key
n.   The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.


Quote
What is the origin of the instructions?

Quote
In sexual reproduction? The parents, obviously. In asexual reproduction? The parent, obviously.

The parents or parent are/is not the fountainhead but the stream.

origin
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
or?i?gin
? ?/??r?d??n, ??r-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [awr-i-jin, or-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2008, 01:35:38 AM »
Quote
a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use

Not your words. Cite your source.
What is wrong with cutting and pasting a simple definition of the term from Dictionary.com?

Oh my... moG approach this cautiously. These people are infamous for completely destroying the whole purpose of a topic because of the meaning of a word that could easily be substituted. It's a simple Atheist tactic to annoy the person out of the thread to avoid any questions.

Here's my page on Abiogenesis:
http://www.godriddance.com/Abiogenesis.php

I've been careful to cite sources and "cover all bases" so to speak. Tell me what you think.


Very well done!!

With your permission I would like to dedicate a thread to a rebuttal of your arguments against God.

Yea or nay? :)
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2008, 02:00:31 AM »

What does that have to do with your plagiarism?

You are dishonest, you are called on it, you whine about it, then you copy paste some mockery of another instance of your moral laxity.

Are you twelve?

It's simple, admit your mistake, STFU about it, and go on. Or, you can always GTFO.

Either is fine.

Am I twelve what?

I hereby freely plead guilty of being a liar and a thief.

When I appear before God, (clothed with the righteousness of Christ), I will forevermore no longer be a liar and a thief
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2008, 02:38:46 AM »
No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos.Stephen Hawking says that the cosmos has aseity and has always existed.
Yeah, right....The cosmos has the attributes of God...

No one has given a reasonable explanation for the origin of the genetic language found in the dna molecule.It should be obvious to any prudent person that language (a set of characters and symbols and syntactic rules for their combination and use) is the product of intelligence. It is the incorporeal idea communicated by a sentient being who uses matter and energy to effect communication within the cell.


So its better to take the simplest route and say "Goddidit"? Wouldn't it be much more honest to say "I don't know, I wasn't there"?

It would be more honest to say,"I don't know, I wasn't there", if I did not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline switch

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2008, 03:11:22 AM »
Here's my page on Abiogenesis:
http://www.godriddance.com/Abiogenesis.php

I've been careful to cite sources and "cover all bases" so to speak. Tell me what you think.

Very well done!!

With your permission I would like to dedicate a thread to a rebuttal of your arguments against God.

Yea or nay? :)

I don't mind at all if you do that. I'd prefer you offer a rebuttal to the abiogenesis page first, if you please. If you don't want to or don't feel like that's your subject, then you do not have to worry about it.

Offline switch

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2008, 03:22:08 AM »
From Dictionary.com....

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis      (?'b?-?-j?n'?-s?s)  Pronunciation Key
n.   The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

Dictionary.com is fine for most things, but I don't think it is to be relied upon for the fine points of biology.

Spontaneous generation is the notion that, almost instantaneously, modern living things can come from non-living material.

Abiogenesis is the notion that non-living replicators (things which can reproduce themselves), can form from non-living material and, over thousands/millions/billions of generations, evolve into living organisms. It is crucial to point out here that "life" simply refers to anything which has the properties of reproduction, metabolism, growth, and the ability to respond to stimuli. It is also crucial to note that some things have some of these properties, but not all of them (the virus is a good example). So what scientists think is that something which was "almost life" (in the same way that the virus is "almost life") evolved, over many generations, into what we now refer to as living. Plausible, Well evidenced scenarios for this are being researched and experimented upon today (Just research the 'RNA World').

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Origins
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2008, 06:29:45 AM »

What does that have to do with your plagiarism?

You are dishonest, you are called on it, you whine about it, then you copy paste some mockery of another instance of your moral laxity.

Are you twelve?

It's simple, admit your mistake, STFU about it, and go on. Or, you can always GTFO.

Either is fine.

Am I twelve what?

I hereby freely plead guilty of being a liar and a thief.

When I appear before God, (clothed with the righteousness of Christ), I will forevermore no longer be a liar and a thief

I'd apologize, because of causing others to suffer the consquence of my acts, and try to do better in the future.

I'm sure it's not as good as putting all the responsibility on someone else, sarcastically taking the blame to make a point about my conditioned belief system, and then not apologizing.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline moG

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Origins
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2008, 09:00:21 AM »

What does that have to do with your plagiarism?

You are dishonest, you are called on it, you whine about it, then you copy paste some mockery of another instance of your moral laxity.

Are you twelve?

It's simple, admit your mistake, STFU about it, and go on. Or, you can always GTFO.

Either is fine.

Am I twelve what?

I hereby freely plead guilty of being a liar and a thief.

When I appear before God, (clothed with the righteousness of Christ), I will forevermore no longer be a liar and a thief

I'd apologize, because of causing others to suffer the consquence of my acts, and try to do better in the future.

I'm sure it's not as good as putting all the responsibility on someone else, sarcastically taking the blame to make a point about my conditioned belief system, and then not apologizing.

You did not ask me to apologize. You said to admit my mistake. I complied with your request.My salvation has been accomplished by the life and work of Jesus Christ. It is not by faith in my own works that I am saved, but by repentance and faith in His work that I am justified before God.I apologize to you and any others that I have offended.
1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Origins
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2008, 02:12:45 PM »
Quote
Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. {...}

From Dictionary.com....

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis      (?'b?-?-j?n'?-s?s)  Pronunciation Key
n.   The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

As Switch intimated, one should be wary of using dictionary.com when using scientific terms. Modern abiogenesis hypotheses are quite distinct from the discredited notion of "spontaneous generation" that was killed off by Louis Pasteur.

Quote
Quote
Quote
What is the origin of the instructions?
In sexual reproduction? The parents, obviously. In asexual reproduction? The parent, obviously.

The parents or parent are/is not the fountainhead but the stream.

Looked at in that respect, the "instructions" are - put simply - the accumulation of genetic changes over a multitude of generations. The "source" of any particular genetic trait therefore differs: the "source" of the traits for opposable thumbs is different to the "source" of the traits for a spinal column.

It's not a case of "this is a complete set of instructions, now who wrote the source-code for all this". The "who" (or rather, "what") that "wrote the source-code" is, in the case of each and every genetic trait, modification with descent and natural selection: mutations that provide some advantage to a subset of a population in their environment, to the extent that they come to dominate that population over time. If you have two separate populations of the same species in different environments, if one develops a mutation that becomes predominant, and if they are separated for a sufficiently long period that they no longer interbreed, you have speciation. You effectively have more "information" there, as you have two species where once there was just one. As such, there's not one "origin" for all the genetic traits that make up herring, hippopotamuses or humans; there are many, and the details of each and every trait provide us with compelling clues as to the origins of these species and how they fit into the biological taxonomy.

This much is known. Speciation has been observed. We have seen what you might call an "increase in information" in the lab, and in the wild. The multiple lines of evidence for the origin of species - in anatomy, the fossil record, and especially in genetics - are sufficiently compelling that there's no serious question as to its occurrence in the scientific community. However, how the first self-replicating molecules were formed - what "kick-started" the process if you will - is still a matter of ongoing research.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.