- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,03:58) stu I still have many other disasters ,there is more than 100
we still have to go to the chemical incidents
Pierre
Pierre
We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. I did say that I thought bridges were reliable on the whole, and that is still overwhelmingly true. Your list contains many examples of poor engineering, but I notice you include bombings, which is hardly fair, and god, which is interesting.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,13:49) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,03:58) stu I still have many other disasters ,there is more than 100
we still have to go to the chemical incidents
Pierre
Pierre
We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. I did say that I thought bridges were reliable on the whole, and that is still overwhelmingly true. Your list contains many examples of poor engineering, but I notice you include bombings, which is hardly fair, and god, which is interesting.
Stuart
stuthat s is exactly my point ,wen i told you that the tool is only as good has the men that holding it ,or make it,
and this is true in all things
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,07:50) Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,13:49) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,03:58) stu I still have many other disasters ,there is more than 100
we still have to go to the chemical incidents
Pierre
Pierre
We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. I did say that I thought bridges were reliable on the whole, and that is still overwhelmingly true. Your list contains many examples of poor engineering, but I notice you include bombings, which is hardly fair, and god, which is interesting.
Stuart
stuthat s is exactly my point ,wen i told you that the tool is only as good has the men that holding it ,or make it,
and this is true in all things
Pierre
You are trying to compare bridges with radioisotope dating.So you won't mind if I call Jesus a terrorist because religious people tend to be violent, as seen in islamic suicide bombing.
That's your logic.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,17:45) I don't see what falling bridges has to do with the uncertainties associated with radiocarbon dating.
Oh yeah. Bridges aren't perfect but radio carbon dating is, even though there is a need for calibration due to natural and man-made processes.Bridges are also subject to calibrations because of natural and man-made processes.
Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,06:49) We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.
I know you might not like to face it, but putting full faith into scientists who are mere imperfect men and woman will result in disappointment Stu. They are not the gods you think they are.Remember, they were the smart kids at school and even then, they had plenty of flaws, biases, and misconceptions.
Nothing has changed that much since then, except they went on to higher education in the specialty subject.
You need to be able to think for yourself Stu. I know that I have posed the most basic of questions to you, and you are unable to answer because your prophets never left you an answer that you could parrot.
Humour aside, you should try it Stu. Seeking for the truth has its rewards.
Anyway, I just noticed that the topic is about archaeology, not gas leaks.
Quote (t8 @ July 29 2011,23:10) Anyway, I just noticed that the topic is about archaeology, not gas leaks.
Hi T8,
You probably deserve a tile for that one, but it was funny.
Tim
Quote (t8 @ July 29 2011,23:10) Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,06:49) We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.
I know you might not like to face it, but putting full faith into scientists who are mere imperfect men and woman will result in disappointment Stu. They are not the gods you think they are.Remember, they were the smart kids at school and even then, they had plenty of flaws, biases, and misconceptions.
Nothing has changed that much since then, except they went on to higher education in the specialty subject.
I agree with you completely t8, up to this point.Unlike religious faith, no one's word is to be trusted. That is the motto of the Royal Society and a good motto for all science. It is also why science is only a faith for those who are obsessed by the idea that some people would follow false gurus. Science has moved on from celebrity-based epistemology, as in the cults of Jesus, to evidence-based, falsifiable knowledge. Which is why radiocarbon dating needs a detailed calibration curve, but with god anything is possible.
Regarding the question you asked me, what was that?
How are your answers coming along for the question I asked you?
Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,08:09) Quote (t8 @ July 29 2011,23:10) Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,06:49) We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.
I know you might not like to face it, but putting full faith into scientists who are mere imperfect men and woman will result in disappointment Stu. They are not the gods you think they are.Remember, they were the smart kids at school and even then, they had plenty of flaws, biases, and misconceptions.
Nothing has changed that much since then, except they went on to higher education in the specialty subject.
I agree with you completely t8, up to this point.Unlike religious faith, no one's word is to be trusted. That is the motto of the Royal Society and a good motto for all science. It is also why science is only a faith for those who are obsessed by the idea that some people would follow false gurus. Science has moved on from celebrity-based epistemology, as in the cults of Jesus, to evidence-based, falsifiable knowledge. Which is why radiocarbon dating needs a detailed calibration curve, but with god anything is possible.
Regarding the question you asked me, what was that?
How are your answers coming along for the question I asked you?
Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
Stuart
stuQuote Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species? even man who as the similar DNA are very different in behavior and ability,and not all are right handed ,and not all are strong,not all are female gender,so what is your point?
so even the remains fund in archaeology are only true if they are proven without of a doubt,if not they are only a assumed theory,
PierreQuote (Stu @ July 30 2011,00:08) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,07:50) Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,13:49) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,03:58) stu I still have many other disasters ,there is more than 100
we still have to go to the chemical incidents
Pierre
Pierre
We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. I did say that I thought bridges were reliable on the whole, and that is still overwhelmingly true. Your list contains many examples of poor engineering, but I notice you include bombings, which is hardly fair, and god, which is interesting.
Stuart
stuthat s is exactly my point ,wen i told you that the tool is only as good has the men that holding it ,or make it,
and this is true in all things
Pierre
You are trying to compare bridges with radioisotope dating.So you won't mind if I call Jesus a terrorist because religious people tend to be violent, as seen in islamic suicide bombing.
That's your logic.
Stuart
stuyou getting out of your mind making a statement like that ,
it is like telling me because the the guy in France is breaking concrete with a air hammer ,i have now a headache in northern Canada?
common man wake up,
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2011,08:37) Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,00:08) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,07:50) Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,13:49) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,03:58) stu I still have many other disasters ,there is more than 100
we still have to go to the chemical incidents
Pierre
Pierre
We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. I did say that I thought bridges were reliable on the whole, and that is still overwhelmingly true. Your list contains many examples of poor engineering, but I notice you include bombings, which is hardly fair, and god, which is interesting.
Stuart
stuthat s is exactly my point ,wen i told you that the tool is only as good has the men that holding it ,or make it,
and this is true in all things
Pierre
You are trying to compare bridges with radioisotope dating.So you won't mind if I call Jesus a terrorist because religious people tend to be violent, as seen in islamic suicide bombing.
That's your logic.
Stuart
stuyou getting out of your mind making a statement like that ,
it is like telling me because the the guy in France is breaking concrete with a air hammer ,i have now a headache in northern Canada?
common man wake up,
Pierre
Good to see you understand why you can't compare apples with oranges, as the saying goes.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,15:48) Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2011,08:37) Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,00:08) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,07:50) Quote (Stu @ July 29 2011,13:49) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2011,03:58) stu I still have many other disasters ,there is more than 100
we still have to go to the chemical incidents
Pierre
Pierre
We have already discussed Bhopal, so you don't need to copy and paste the entire Wikipedia article for that one, at least.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. I did say that I thought bridges were reliable on the whole, and that is still overwhelmingly true. Your list contains many examples of poor engineering, but I notice you include bombings, which is hardly fair, and god, which is interesting.
Stuart
stuthat s is exactly my point ,wen i told you that the tool is only as good has the men that holding it ,or make it,
and this is true in all things
Pierre
You are trying to compare bridges with radioisotope dating.So you won't mind if I call Jesus a terrorist because religious people tend to be violent, as seen in islamic suicide bombing.
That's your logic.
Stuart
stuyou getting out of your mind making a statement like that ,
it is like telling me because the the guy in France is breaking concrete with a air hammer ,i have now a headache in northern Canada?
common man wake up,
Pierre
Good to see you understand why you can't compare apples with oranges, as the saying goes.Stuart
stu 
Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,01:09) Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
On the basis of it, it could be either.If I dissected a programs code and say 45% or 95% of the code was the same as another program, I can conclude 2 things.
One is that the code was taken from the other program.
Or that the author of both programs is the same.Why? Because code can have an immense amount of ways it can be written and the chances that two independent code bases were the same or similar is too staggering.
In either situation, no would assume that the code mutated from one program to the other even when code can degrade when executed. But this is what you re arguing for.
The code argument backs up a coder, not the lack of one.
Back to the drawing board Stu.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,13:33) Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,01:09) Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
On the basis of it, it could be either.
Since the question was not about computer code, I removed that irrelevant part of your answer.It looks like you are now fudging on the claim you made earlier that there is evidence for common design in living things.
In other words your idea is unable to make predictions. That is confirmation that it has no power to explain anything.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2011,07:41) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,13:33) Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,01:09) Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
On the basis of it, it could be either.
Since the question was not about computer code, I removed that irrelevant part of your answer.It looks like you are now fudging on the claim you made earlier that there is evidence for common design in living things.
In other words your idea is unable to make predictions. That is confirmation that it has no power to explain anything.
Stuart
stuIn DNA if certain parts of it are removed or crossed this also could mean that to who ever belongs the DNA may be handicapped in a way that it can not survive,no?
if this is true ,then the DNA as to be calculated to the exact formula to have the out come that we can see ,like in the various animal .
Pierre
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2011,00:41) Since the question was not about computer code, I removed that irrelevant part of your answer.
A computer executes code. It can be a PC, tablet, smartphone, or even punch card machine.
It comes from the word compute.Nature executes code too.
If it didn't, then we wouldn't bother with deciphering the DNA of species for example, because the code would be meaningless. When we look at code in nature, it is beyond anything that the combined intelligence of man has come up with.And you expect me to believe that something with the IQ of less than a caterpillar produced this incredible code that makes all our coding prowess not even match the DNA of one person's big toe.
You are living in a dream world Stu.
This is why it is foolish to deny God. The evidence of an intelligence beyond anything we can imagine is staring you in the face. But you choose with your own will to be ignorant. I can't change that, only you can. You are the master of your own destiny. I can only give you helpful advice at most.
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 02 2011,02:45) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2011,07:41) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,13:33) Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,01:09) Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
On the basis of it, it could be either.
Since the question was not about computer code, I removed that irrelevant part of your answer.It looks like you are now fudging on the claim you made earlier that there is evidence for common design in living things.
In other words your idea is unable to make predictions. That is confirmation that it has no power to explain anything.
Stuart
stuIn DNA if certain parts of it are removed or crossed this also could mean that to who ever belongs the DNA may be handicapped in a way that it can not survive,no?
if this is true ,then the DNA as to be calculated to the exact formula to have the out come that we can see ,like in the various animal .
Pierre
The “calculation” involves subtraction, mostly of genetically unfit embryos (DNA is more like a recipe for an embyo that continues to follow DNA instructions as it develops after birth) .Five out of every six fertilised human eggs fail to implant mostly because they are genetically non-viable.
So, if you were thinking of a creator that calculates the DNA, then it gets it wrong over 83% of the time.
Of course that is not really a helpful analogy for what is actually going on.
Stuart
t8
Quote Nature executes code too. If it didn't, then we wouldn't bother with deciphering the DNA of species for example, because the code would be meaningless.
We decipher DNA code and analyse it in the way a computer would. But there is no analogy in the computing world for the chemical effects that proteins have, the products made when ribosomes interptet that code. Your analogy has always been a false one. All you are doing is using the word code in both cases. We know that one of those codes is written by programmers, but that does not imply that DNA code is programmed, and we actually know how it came to be like it is. That theory is based on Darwin and demonstrated to be true by comparing that code between species, looking for differences. If you can give an alternative explanation for the patterns of differences in the code then you might have something relevant to say. You’ll be relieved to learn that I am not holding my breath.Quote When we look at code in nature, it is beyond anything that the combined intelligence of man has come up with.
Speak for yourself.Quote And you expect me to believe that something with the IQ of less than a caterpillar produced this incredible code that makes all our coding prowess not even match the DNA of one person's big toe.
Yes. Actually much less than a caterpillar, natural selection has no intelligence by anyone’s definition of the word.Quote This is why it is foolish to deny God. The evidence of an intelligence beyond anything we can imagine is staring you in the face.
The best attempt at showing that was Michael Behe’s effort with intelligent design based on his idea of irreducible complexity, and it was shown that every example he came up with was completely wrong.What actually stares you in the face is that every system down to the protein components of cell walls have history in ancestor species, often doing an entirely different job but coopted to a new, helpful function in a descendent species. In other words, although Darwin didn’t know what proteins were, his theory fits perfectly with that much more recent discovery.
But if you have unambiguous evidence which contradicts this, then please tell us what it is. Cozy fables about computers is not going to cut it.
Quote But you choose with your own will to be ignorant. I can't change that, only you can. You are the master of your own destiny. I can only give you helpful advice at most.
OK. Give me some advice that is unquestionably helpful, that involves your god.And maybe you could also tell me what a god is while you are at it.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2011,23:24) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 02 2011,02:45) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2011,07:41) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,13:33) Quote (Stu @ July 30 2011,01:09) Would you predict, given you claim that the commonality of the DNA code implies common design not common descent, that the same job should be expected to be done the same way in different animals species?
On the basis of it, it could be either.
Since the question was not about computer code, I removed that irrelevant part of your answer.It looks like you are now fudging on the claim you made earlier that there is evidence for common design in living things.
In other words your idea is unable to make predictions. That is confirmation that it has no power to explain anything.
Stuart
stuIn DNA if certain parts of it are removed or crossed this also could mean that to who ever belongs the DNA may be handicapped in a way that it can not survive,no?
if this is true ,then the DNA as to be calculated to the exact formula to have the out come that we can see ,like in the various animal .
Pierre
The “calculation” involves subtraction, mostly of genetically unfit embryos (DNA is more like a recipe for an embyo that continues to follow DNA instructions as it develops after birth) .Five out of every six fertilised human eggs fail to implant mostly because they are genetically non-viable.
So, if you were thinking of a creator that calculates the DNA, then it gets it wrong over 83% of the time.
Of course that is not really a helpful analogy for what is actually going on.
Stuart
stuQuote Of course that is not really a helpful analogy for what is actually going on. Stuart
then what is ?
stu
Quote OK. Give me some advice that is unquestionably helpful, that involves your god. And maybe you could also tell me what a god is while you are at it.
Stuart
sound familiar,evolution is a mystery of the unknown,remember ,
we has believers in God do not have that mystery of the unknown,but it take more than a IQ to understand it ,
it is just like this ;you try to figure out what to do with your car because you do not have the manual ,we(believers) have the manual but you refuse to accepted because you figure that you have more fun without it ,
right ??
Stu, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or something with an IQ less than a pair of jandals can produce a universe, then such a person's condemnation of the existence of God is not only futile, but is foolish. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows foolishness in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just Atheistic platitude with name calling or stone throwing.
Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
