I'm still reading and learning (and missing a lot as some things pass over my head), but I pat myself on the back for a similar assessment early in the original thread.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Yes, that's all you have. pretty picturs, semantic manipulation, illogic, willful ignorance, incredulity. Oh yes, and, of course, Jesus and his delusional biographers.
So let me get this straight, you pronounce...
Which is saying that you have dismissed my position based in part on me believing the Earth was created a few thousand years ago. WHICH MEANS...you MUST have already concluded that the Earth is far older.
Then I ask you to SUPPORT "YOUR" Implied Claim...
"Scientifically Validate i.e., Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Experiment that Validates that the Earth/Universe are older than a few thousand years so as to SUPPORT your position...?
Highlight the Independent Variable used in the TEST....?"
Which you then....
Back @ me, eh? Ahhh, I never made the claim, errr...YOU DID!
What on Earth does this even mean?
ahhh
, how on Earth are you concluding that I'm shouting @ you?
That don't 'agree' with me about what...The Math?
And pray tell, what on Earth does 'The Wave Function' have anything WHATSOEVER to do with the Age of The Earth?
This is too far OT, start a new thread.
regards
Which is saying that you have dismissed my position based in part on me believing the Earth was created a few thousand years ago. WHICH MEANS...you MUST have already concluded that the Earth is far older.
Then I ask you to SUPPORT "YOUR" Implied Claim...
"Scientifically Validate i.e., Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Experiment that Validates that the Earth/Universe are older than a few thousand years so as to SUPPORT your position...?
Highlight the Independent Variable used in the TEST....?"
Which you then....
Back @ me, eh? Ahhh, I never made the claim, errr...YOU DID!
What on Earth does this even mean?
ahhh
, how on Earth are you concluding that I'm shouting @ you?That don't 'agree' with me about what...The Math?
And pray tell, what on Earth does 'The Wave Function' have anything WHATSOEVER to do with the Age of The Earth?
This is too far OT, start a new thread.
regards
ComfySlippers
Banned
.
Careful now, that could be interpreted as an Op-ED ColOr cOmmNtary and the standard "Are you Pre-Law?' nonsense.
Oh, and the definition of a type of fallacy, complete with an example.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Anyone who cares to examine the subject can see that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. It is the daftest thing young earth creationists are forced to swallow and will rarely attempt to argue. That and the recent global extinction event and all land life respawning at a point centred in the Middle East. Rendered absurd by easy to understand observations.
Start that thread if you dare, Daniel.
Start that thread if you dare, Daniel.
Preamble: my post, which Daniel quotes, includes a test.
A test of what?
A hypothesis (or theory? model? law?? I have difficulty using the right term per Danielscience) concerning Danielscience.
You see, I had noticed that Daniel is quite selective in which posts he responds to. Some ISF members have, apparently, formed the conclusion that he has them on Ignore.
However, my hypothesis (law?) is that, in Danielscience, one "MUST" never respond to those posts which would require an admission of a mistake, an inconsistency (within Danielscience), etc.
And my post - the one which Daniel replied to (and that I'm quoting) - was to test that hypothesis.
(I'll leave you, dear reader, to work out what the INDEPENDENT variable is, and what the "Dependent" one is).
No.
(unless "a shining example of" has a meaning, in Danielscience, different from what an English speaker with a degree in physics, biochemistry, etc would infer).
And even if it were, the two are different and distinct, making it possible - logically - for something to be prevented "by Gibbs Free Energy" but not prevented "by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" (for example). What is the name - in Danielscience - for this Logical Fallacy?
I can recommend a good textbook on the subject; would you like me to suggest one?
Fallacy of Ignorance, example #... (I've lost count).
In Danielscience that's called Fallacy of "Color" COMMENTARY, isn't it?
Oh dear ...
If you read the chain of posts and responses (etc), you'll see that it is derived from your own claims, concerning DNA, functioning proteins, etc (sorry that I cannot faithfully reproduce the CAPs, "quotes", hilites, etc; I hope lack that does not render my statement unintelligible in Danielscience).
Maybe this called the Fallacy of Forgetting (in Danielscience)?
Sorry.
I forgot that, in Danielscience, it is impermissible to ask a question (I assume you noticed the question marks; here's the relevant part of my post, in full (I have emphasized the question marks): "In any case, if cells can divide without violating the second law of thermodynamics (which is really a model, right? or perhaps a theory?), why would anything in any abiogenesis hypothesis do so? You think the scientists who work in this field are so ignorant that they do not incorporate it into their models?"), and that it is permissible to leave them out, when quoting. As you can see, I have a long way to go before I master the Danielscience of quote mining ...
A test of what?
A hypothesis (or theory? model? law?? I have difficulty using the right term per Danielscience) concerning Danielscience.
You see, I had noticed that Daniel is quite selective in which posts he responds to. Some ISF members have, apparently, formed the conclusion that he has them on Ignore.
However, my hypothesis (law?) is that, in Danielscience, one "MUST" never respond to those posts which would require an admission of a mistake, an inconsistency (within Danielscience), etc.
And my post - the one which Daniel replied to (and that I'm quoting) - was to test that hypothesis.
(I'll leave you, dear reader, to work out what the INDEPENDENT variable is, and what the "Dependent" one is).
JeanTate said:
No.
(unless "a shining example of" has a meaning, in Danielscience, different from what an English speaker with a degree in physics, biochemistry, etc would infer).
And even if it were, the two are different and distinct, making it possible - logically - for something to be prevented "by Gibbs Free Energy" but not prevented "by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" (for example). What is the name - in Danielscience - for this Logical Fallacy?
I can recommend a good textbook on the subject; would you like me to suggest one?
Fallacy of Ignorance, example #... (I've lost count).
oy vey10000...
Then, you have the mind numbing audacity to call me ignorant...
So, in Danielscience, Fallacy of Ignorance is acceptable, right?
Your display is tantamount to a Neurosurgical Candidate in a middle of an Interview, stating: "What's a Cerebellum??"
In Danielscience that's called Fallacy of "Color" COMMENTARY, isn't it?
Oh dear ...
If you read the chain of posts and responses (etc), you'll see that it is derived from your own claims, concerning DNA, functioning proteins, etc (sorry that I cannot faithfully reproduce the CAPs, "quotes", hilites, etc; I hope lack that does not render my statement unintelligible in Danielscience).
Maybe this called the Fallacy of Forgetting (in Danielscience)?
Do you even know what you're arguing or your position, by chance?
Sorry.
I forgot that, in Danielscience, it is impermissible to ask a question (I assume you noticed the question marks; here's the relevant part of my post, in full (I have emphasized the question marks): "In any case, if cells can divide without violating the second law of thermodynamics (which is really a model, right? or perhaps a theory?), why would anything in any abiogenesis hypothesis do so? You think the scientists who work in this field are so ignorant that they do not incorporate it into their models?"), and that it is permissible to leave them out, when quoting. As you can see, I have a long way to go before I master the Danielscience of quote mining ...
Huh?
Yes. As I said, if there was a creator, it would be blasphemous to ignore the evidence that they presumably left showing that the the Earth was at least many millions of years old - I accept that radioisotope dating to 4.5-billion years is going to be somewhat harder to understand.
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
If you take as literal truth a creation myth that is so simple to falsify you don't have the high ground to pontificate what science is or gainsay expert opinions on our best narratives.
Last edited:
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,772
Actually John is NT. Genesis is OT. If either is brought up in a science thread then it's valid to look at how the English text was derived.
As I explicitly stated: the age of the Earth. How old do you think it is?
Last edited:
You are seriously confused, you're conflating two different topics....
Ya see, BOTH "Sand Dunes" and "Sand Castles" are made "FROM" sand...there's no Argument here.
The Argument is: what/who "FORMED" the derivative/consequent (sand dune vs sand castle) out of it (sand).
Now, if you wanna travel down the other incoherent road and make your case for Who/What made the Sand; I got you checkmated there also
, SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics.regards
And you expect further discussion??
Thanks for a 'Hammerin away @ the C4 Fire'.
goodbye
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
WOW! FROM and FORMED in big bold font. I'm convinced.You are seriously confused, you're conflating two different topics....
Ya see, BOTH "Sand Dunes" and "Sand Castles" are made "FROM" sand...there's no Argument here.
The Argument is: what/who "FORMED" the derivative/consequent (sand dune vs sand castle) out of it (sand).
Now, if you wanna travel down the other incoherent road and make your case for Who/What made the Sand; I got you checkmated there also
regards
Ahhh, "OT" = Off Topic, for goodness sakes.
There was a big clue in the context of the senetence..."This is too far OT, start a new thread". The big clue is Highlighted.
So again, how does 'The Math' of 'The Wave Function' impact the Age of the Earth??
And what does 'Agree/Disagree' have anything WHATSOEVER to do with Science?
Start @ page 10 in this thread, and read through some of the posts. You'll surely come by it.
regards
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
Ahhh, "OT" = Off Topic, for goodness sakes.
There was a big clue in the context of the senetence..."This is too far OT, start a new thread". The big clue is Highlighted.
So again, how does 'The Math' of 'The Wave Function' impact the Age of the Earth??
And what does 'Agree/Disagree' have anything WHATSOEVER to do with Science?
Start @ page 10 in this thread, and read through some of the posts. You'll surely come by it.
regards
Am I to understand that it's perfectly fine for a word to have more than one meaning? Interesting new twist.
ComfySlippers
Banned
So has anyone conjured up a Definition for Information yet?
If your position is that Information is Physical, Matter/Energy...then, can you please post the Chemical Formula/meV's, Dimensions (L/W/H), Location/Position for...
1. "Look Out, there's a Tiger Behind You!"....?
2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first
then continue, Thanks)
3. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp
regards
If your position is that Information is Physical, Matter/Energy...then, can you please post the Chemical Formula/meV's, Dimensions (L/W/H), Location/Position for...
1. "Look Out, there's a Tiger Behind You!"....?
2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first
then continue, Thanks)3. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp
regards
ComfySlippers
Banned
.So has anyone conjured up a Definition for Information yet?God s
If your position is that Information is Physical, Matter/Energy...then, can you please post the Chemical Formula/meV's, Dimensions (L/W/H), Location/Position for...
1. "Look Out, there's a Tiger Behind You!"....?
2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first
3. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation underhall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp
regards
On the fifth day, God created pixels.
He was not pleased with Daniel.
But no man was there to witness His displeasure.
Last edited:
If a creator made the Earth, why doubt the evidence that they left? Why is that not insulting to them?