| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 03:30:20 AM |
| Object: |
Re: evolution and "materialism" |
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
david ford wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
david ford wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
(snip)
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
accident investigation?
Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
common knowledge.
Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
mentioned.
It's amazing how openly David Ford admits his cluelessness
these days
Here's something else I'm clueless about:
How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
I think Howard gave an answer, but I'm totally clueless about what your
answer, Chris, is.
Well, shucks, David, if you've actually received a
competent answer previously, how would my opinion on
the subject really matter?
Howard's answer had the same level of sophistication, plausibility, and
detail as your typical just-so story. I was curious to see if you
could provide a better answer.
Your attention span isn't
*that* limited, is it?
Yes.
I'm totally clueless about what your answer, Chris, is to the question,
How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
news:dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1@individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
news:dford3-348nj6F47evohU1@individual.net
(snip)
- all he seems to be able to do is pointlessly
gainsay other posts, and with a tone that clearly states
that his beef isn't so much with "materialism" as it is
with *any* form of empirical investigation, regardless
of the phenomenon being investigated.
(Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
and not another?
Beats me.
In other words, you don't have anything resembling
a better answer even though your argument seems to
depend on your providing one. What a surprise.
"a better answer" than what?
Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
laugh.)
I hope you didn't laugh at
Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0503101041.2bfdea1a@posting.google.com
Nah. The bit about the car not being "designed" just shows
how dysfunctional your thinking about scientific research
really is. *****-poor analogy to the "totally-mindless processes"
of nature, to boot.
Care to take up a hobby you might actually be *good* at,
like, say, Tiddlywinks?
Maybe.
Do you "laugh" at any of this?:
It's common knowledge that a high level of intelligence only existed
when humans began to exist.
Therefore, when life originated long ago on the early earth, life came
from non-life totally apart from the input of any mind/ intelligence.
Abiogenesis occurred within a small timeframe, because the earliest
that life could have arisen on earth is when life _did_ arise on
earth.
This proves that abiogenesis occurred readily/ easily.
We used to think that abiogenesis needed billions of years to occur.
We now know that abiogenesis doesn't need billions of years to occur,
given the above-described small timeframe.
Life could have gone from earth to Mars, as debris from asteroid
collisions on earth went into space and perhaps traveled to Mars.
Life could have gone from Mars to earth.
If life is discovered on Mars, we will then know that abiogenesis
occurred at least twice: on earth, and also on Mars.
In the laboratory experiments using non-highly-reducing atmospheres,
it's quite clear that significant amounts and varieties of amino acids
aren't produced. Therefore, the early earth's atmosphere _must_ have
been highly-reducing.
the IDiotic allegation that the primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: evolution and "materialism" |
15 Sep 2005 07:32:33 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
david ford wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
david ford wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
(snip)
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
accident investigation?
Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
common knowledge.
Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
mentioned.
It's amazing how openly David Ford admits his cluelessness
these days
Here's something else I'm clueless about:
How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
I think Howard gave an answer, but I'm totally clueless about what your
answer, Chris, is.
Well, shucks, David, if you've actually received a
competent answer previously, how would my opinion on
the subject really matter?
Howard's answer had the same level of sophistication, plausibility, and
detail as your typical just-so story. I was curious to see if you
could provide a better answer.
The level of sophistication in the answer far exceeded that of the
question. The answer showed:
Awareness of the unlikelihood of abiogenetic origins
of catalytic molecules, template based replication,
and transcription in three different molecules.
Awareness of the most likely solution, and maybe even
why it is most likely.
Awareness of the difference between the first life, and
modern life, and the implications for how much we can
know about the mechanisms of evolution for each.
Background knowledge of the experimental support for
these evolutionary mechanisms.
Awareness of the relationship between structure
and function in biochemistry.
Awareness that bacteria are modern organisms.
The question showed unawareness of the basics of genetics,
leading to an inability to well define originate. For example, your
DNA originated in your parents DNA (particularly a few
mutations if you wish to confine originate to
unique sequence not previously in the population).
If you want detailed answers, ask specific questions.
Warning: this may involve actual learning.
We would like to see you come up with a better QUESTION, one that
shows familiarity with science.
[snip]
Tracy P. hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: evolution and "materialism" |
17 Sep 2005 12:13:53 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
david ford wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
david ford wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
(snip)
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
accident investigation?
Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
common knowledge.
Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
mentioned.
It's amazing how openly David Ford admits his cluelessness
these days
Here's something else I'm clueless about:
How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
I think Howard gave an answer, but I'm totally clueless about what your
answer, Chris, is.
Well, shucks, David, if you've actually received a
competent answer previously, how would my opinion on
the subject really matter?
Howard's answer had the same level of sophistication, plausibility, and
detail as your typical just-so story. I was curious to see if you
could provide a better answer.
I've done reseach in abiogenesis? Sorry to disappoint you,
but I haven't. Neither have you, however. And since this
little point was already answered by Howard earlier (and
reiterated by Tracy Hamilton in this thread), the point
is moot.
Your attention span isn't
*that* limited, is it?
Yes.
You know, with straight lines like *that*...
I'm totally clueless about what your answer, Chris, is to the question,
How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
Since I'm not doing research in abiogenesis, I fail to
see how this is relevant. And what's *your* explanation,
David? C'mon, let's read it...
(snip)
(Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
and not another?
Beats me.
In other words, you don't have anything resembling
a better answer even though your argument seems to
depend on your providing one. What a surprise.
"a better answer" than what?
Empirical ones. What did you *think* I'm writing about?
Y'know, the more I read some of your replies, the more
I get the feeling that you actually do have something
on the order of a learning defect, at least as far
as reading comprehension is concerned.
Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
laugh.)
I hope you didn't laugh at
Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0503101041.2bfdea1a@posting.google.com
Nah. The bit about the car not being "designed" just shows
how dysfunctional your thinking about scientific research
really is. *****-poor analogy to the "totally-mindless processes"
of nature, to boot.
Care to take up a hobby you might actually be *good* at,
like, say, Tiddlywinks?
Maybe.
Do you "laugh" at any of this?:
(snip)
Once I find out what point you were trying to make WRT to
ID with all of that, maybe I will - it just depends on
how funny it is.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
