Joe G has been looking into the posts here at TSZ. Apparently this inspired him to get into a series of outbursts of rage. Well, maybe not. Looking at his blog rage seems to be his normal state. Back in his blog he’s stated fuming about what he thinks are facts that prove intelligent design, I mean Intelligent Design, with capitals because, let’s not forget, ID is about “God.” So I’ve been trying to explain to him why that’s profoundly and irremediably wrong. Here I’ll expand a bit on that, and thus willl try and avoid contaminating other threads with Joe G’s angry prose.
To get this started, I’m going to check Joe G’s latest attempt, Joe G starts thusly:
The genetic code is evidence for Intelligent Design based on the following facts:
Facts!? Wow, this is starting so well, I’m sure I’m going to be convinced! Good-bye sinful atheistic life!
1- The genetic code involves a coded information processing system
Well, that’s the way we decided to describe it, precisely because the people involved in deciphering how organisms get proteins from the DNA sequence were somewhat involved in deciphering human codes. So, we call them codes by analogy, not because anybody really thought that they’re codes in the sense of human codes. But the analogy works so well, that we can give this one to Joe G. So, Joe G, what’s next?
2- There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems
Here’s where you start very poorly Joe G. Well, you started poorly with the title, but I’m very forgiving. Nature produces coded information all the time. It happens all around you. Scientists have examined how it happens, and they have found no designers lurking in there. Not a single one. Life continues to reproduce, and thus produce more life forms, each with their genetic codes and the systems that process the encoded information. Lots and lots and lots of new systems appear all the time. Many times over in the time it took me to write this very sentence. So, how come Joe G needs evidence for what’s happening right in front of him. Inside him, each time a bacterium reproduces in his very intestines, on his very skin? Well, all he does is deny it and affirm that it happens by design. On what basis? None. Not a single observation involves an intelligent designer doing anything. These organisms reproduce physically, using everything according to what we know about nature so far. Therefore, I prefer to believe what I’m witnessing, over those fantasies of Joe G’s. Is that wrong?
3- There isn’t even a way to test the claim that nature can produce coded information systems
Of course there is. Look around you Joe G. If you want it to happen in a test tube, in an experimental system, there’s plenty of scientists working with bacterial cultures, with rats, with mice, and all of those model organisms reproduce. Can you believe it? they do! And all of them could not even exist if it weren’t for the “encoded information processing systems” you like so much. Not even you would be able to do anything without them! Not even you! That means that even you are evidence that nature produces those systems. Ask your parents, and they’ll tell you they went very physical in order to have you.
4- There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition
Sorry Joe G, but, as I said, that’s false. They’re produced by all kinds of organisms, often without any volition, like with bacteria, who do it after eating and growing too much, and rarely there’s any intelligence involved.
Not only that, here’s where you have to stop and examine your claim. Of course, you mean to say that you, personally, only know about humans being able to produce such kinds of systems. However, you’re ignoring some very interesting problems:
- The systems you’re talking about exist in humans: therefore we could not have made those genetic code/information processing systems ourselves.
- The very systems we use to produce coded information processing systems, meaning our very intelligences, are themselves code information processing systems. We have to be able to cope with encoded information. We need to be able to produce abstractions, work with them, put them together, infer, test, infer further, etc, before we can produce any other code. That means that making codes via “intelligent agency volition” requires systems able to process encoded information. So, if you wanted to propose an intelligence, other than the human one, you’d still be engaged in a silly impossible circularity.
- Thus, the only possible way out, is for code information processing systems to be producible in ways other than “intelligent agency volition,” again, given that such intelligences are themselves and work on the foundations of preexisting code information processing systems.
That was it for Joe G’s “facts.” However, given that I had already answered his silly syllogism, Joe G continued:
Peer-review is devoid of any science showing that nature can produce coded information processing systems. The fact that the genetic code is still called a “frozen accident” tells us there still isn’t any way to test the claim that nature can do it. And peer-review and textbooks are absent such a test
No it isn’t. Again, it happens all around us all the time. As, as I explained, they must be doing so naturally, because any preexisting intelligence implies preexisting code information processing systems. Thus, you’d be proposing ludicrous imaginary intelligent designers, I mean, Intelligent Designers, useless as explanations. Gaining nothing in return. So, instead of wondering how the systems forming those other, imaginary intelligences came to be, I’d better cu to the chase and investigate the nature that we can witness. One where nobody has caught any intelligent designers at work in that constant production of what looks, very convincingly, like natural code information processing systems.
EvoTARDs may disagree but they will NEVER be able to refute any of those 4 facts. entropy will be its normal lying self and post total lying bullshit about what I posted. But it will NEVER present any science to refute what I posted.
Well, only the first survived, and only because the analogy works and I’m feeling generous.
And morons, if it could not have been humans that produced the genetic code then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Nature doesn’t magically get an ability just cuz humans were not around.
What a load of hubris. You think you’re above nature Joe G, but it’s the other way around. We have the ability because nature has it. Otherwise, we could not even possibly exist. Our intelligences work naturally. Our very designs work naturally. Everything we do works according to the ways of physics and chemistry. You’re putting the cart before the horse, and the blunder is spectacular. In order to infer “Intelligent Design”, you ignore the very reason our intelligences work. You ignore the very meaning of intelligence.
A single flare of the sun has enough energy to obliterate our planet and you think you can do more than nature. A single volcano could destroy everything around you and you think you can do more than nature. A single water current could break all your bones against some very natural rocks, and you think you can do more than nature. A bunch of wolves would happily devour you, caring not one bit about your intelligence, and you think you can do more than nature. What a pathetic joke.
Most sincerely,
—Entropy
Somewhere else, Joe G argued precisely what I was expecting him to argue. Well, he started with many things I already answered, and demonstrates that he didn’t read those answers. So I won’t bother with that part. What’s the point of repeating what Joe G already decided to ignore, quite conveniently I might way. Oh, sorry. He ignored all of it by a mere chance event. Of course.
So, let’s see that “novelty” from Joe G:
OK, we went through this, and Joe G is wrong. There’s plenty of evidence, his personal incredulity notwithstanding.
Wait a minute. Are, among “that which has to be explained” human beings? Are we not living organisms? Aren’t we complete with coded information processing systems? We are? Well, then why are you using that which has to be explained to propose a magical being in the sky?
As of me. I’m using those life forms because they’re part of nature. You’re questioning nature’s power to produce those systems. Since life forms reproduce naturally, then each time they reproduce, a brand new set of coded information processing system arises. I would be ok with you using those very life forms as evidence if you found that magical beings are caught at work every time reproduction is examined. In other words, each time new coded information processing systems arose.
What’s not right, what’s truly circular, as I explained in the OP, is your, ahem, “proposal.” Not only because you’re relying on the very thing that needs to be explained, but also because you’re ignoring that, intelligence itself is a coded information processing system, and that, in order for intelligence to do its work, it relies entirely on those very things that need explaining. In other words, your explanation is hopelessly circular because you insist that the one and only way for producing coded information processing systems is intelligence.
Given that, the only way out of the hopeless, unproductive, and ridiculous, circle is to accept that nature must be able to produce those systems, even in the absence of prior life.
Let’s see if now that you were questioning the mote in my eye, you managed to notice the beam in thy own eye.
Can I do even better about that tiny mote in my eye? I sure can. But let’s save it for a later comment.
Best!
—Entropy
In yet another thread, Joe G changes the language about a discussion we were having on chance events, in hopes that the change of terms would make it look as if he was right all along and I was, concomitantly wrong all the time.
Unfortunately for Joe G, he changed the language in the very direction I wanted to explain his mistake. I delayed doing so to avoid being told that I was equivocating. So, Joe G has saved me the trouble.
Besides that help he gave me, Joe G insists on imagining that science is like religion, a matter of some priesthood pronunciations, where thinking about the phenomena we’re trying to understand is of no consequence. This despite I’ve tried to make him aware that this is not about priesthoods. That I have as much a right to reword and rethink, as any other scientist, specially as new data about the phenomena arises.
Anyway, here it goes:
Thanks for rewording Joe G. This is the issue. The concept of randomness implies an unbiased happenstance, nut just happenstance. The word “chance”, in good Ernst’s words is precisely referring to random events, not to whether they’re intentional or unintentional, since, obviously, Ernst wouldn’t think of natural selection as being planned. Yet, good Ernst clarified that it wasn’t exactly “chance” phenomena, since biases exist. That’s why he uses the words “almost” and “except.” Because he means to say it’s not precisely random, because constraints introduce biases.
Since sources for biases continue to be discovered, some scientists have started to describe these events as blind to their selective effects, rather than insist on random, let alone a word so easy to lead to equivocations as “chance.”
So, thanks for the rewording. Maybe now you’ll be in a better position to notice what’s your problem understanding both, Ernst and me.
That’s not entirely correct, and I already explained to you that even a process of elimination can still be called selection, your imaginary evolution priesthood notwithstanding. Selection doesn’t always have to be positive. It can be negative. Oh!! Would you look at that!? That’s precisely what scientists call the types of selection they have found in nature!! Isn’t that some fortunate happenstance?
As I explained ad nauseam, a result of, doesn’t mean “it includes the process of”.
If you don’t care, then you should not keep repeating it, as if that meant something.
I already told you, you’ve got it wrong. The whole point of NS is to explain the origin of novel life forms via divergence from prior life forms. NS is not a designer mimic, it’s a natural phenomenon.
You’re so full of, ahem, twisted pride, that you think everything is about copying what you can do. However, engineers often explore nature for ideas to use in design. Thus, designers would be rest-of-nature mimics, not the other way around. The only reason you think of NS as a designer mimic, is your twisted and hopelessly circular idea that we’re designed, and that those evil evolutionists are trying to substitute your magical being in the sky with a natural phenomenon that could perhaps imitate it. Sorry. That’s not the case, and you’re putting the cart-before-the-horse.
Intelligence depends on nature, not the other way around. So, I have an idea, refuse anything from nature. Don’t eat, don’t drink water, don’t breath. Under those conditions, try and design something. Let me know how that goes.
It doesn’t care about anything. It’s a non-sentient natural phenomenon.
Best as always,
—Entropy
Great, prove it.
Great tell us all about the new systems. The new information produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_codes
Translation table 1: The standard code
Translation table 2: The vertebrate mitochondrial code
Translation table 3: The yeast mitochondrial code
Translation table 4: The mold, protozoan, and coelenterate mitochondrial code and the mycoplasma/spiroplasma code
Translation table 5: The invertebrate mitochondrial code
Translation table 6: The ciliate, dasycladacean and hexamita nuclear code
Translation table 7: The kinetoplast code; cf. table 4.
Translation table 8: cf. table 1.
Translation table 9: The echinoderm and flatworm mitochondrial code
Translation table 10: The euplotid nuclear code
Translation table 11: The bacterial, archaeal and plant plastid code
Translation table 12: The alternative yeast nuclear code
Translation table 13: The ascidian mitochondrial code
Translation table 14: The alternative flatworm mitochondrial code
Translation table 15: The Blepharisma nuclear code[3][4]
Translation table 16: The chlorophycean mitochondrial code
Translation table 21: The trematode mitochondrial code
Translation table 22: The Scenedesmus obliquus mitochondrial code
Translation table 23: The Thraustochytrium mitochondrial code
Translation table 24: The Pterobranchia mitochondrial code
Translation table 25: The candidate division SR1 and gracilibacteria code
Translation table 26: The Pachysolen tannophilus nuclear code
Translation table 27: The karyorelict nuclear code
Translation table 28: The Condylostoma nuclear code
Translation table 29: The Mesodinium nuclear code
Translation table 30: The peritrich nuclear code
Translation table 31: The Blastocrithidia nuclear code
Translation table 33: The Cephalodiscidae mitochondrial code
‘Prove it’ demands the guy who never proves anything himself.
It’s been explained (proven) why fitness is not circular over and over again to phoodoo but he then repeats that incorrect claim anyway. Why would anyone waste any time proving anything to you?
OMagain,
Good, then you can tell us when.
Maybe you are living in a simulation. How would you know?
If OM is living in a simulation, then you are an imaginary part of it. I’m pretty sure my thoughts are real so then you must be part of my simulation. This gets complicated. Reality and stubbed toes seem more parsimonious.
The fact that there are so many and so minor variations of the genetic code strongly suggest relatedness and evolution from a common ancestor.
When what?
Nobody would simulate someone like you, that’s why.
Is what phoodoo originally asked.
I provided what he asked for.
When you say? Given you never included that in your original question am I to take it now that you accept those variations as “new systems” that have “new information” and the only open question is when those new systems arose?
Am I correctly understanding you?
When did your designer design these alternate codes phoodoo?
If you were living in a simulation don’t you think you’d have answers for these questions? Why is it your god has left you so bereft?
OMagain,
If you have no idea when they arose, what the fuck is the point in calling them new?
I already did. Did you read it all?
Oh! You got that far? Then why did you leave your question above if it was immediately answered?
Tell us about the new systems? Each newly formed organism has a newly formed system. Also, OMagain gave you a few examples of alternative, relatively novel, codes. I’d think this is over, but you seem to imagine that if you ask further questions the answers already provided just disappear.
If you think we’re in a simulation, is up to you to prove it, not ours to prove it false. It’s like your imaginary friend. If you think it exists, it’s not up to us to prove that it doesn’t, it’s up to you to prove that it does.
———
The point is that they’re new relative to the standard code, as evident from their lower occurrence and being found in organisms, and organelles, derived from lineages that bear the standard code.
If you think nature created a code it’s up to you to prove. That’s the point, dope.
Every organism that exist is a system?
If you believe in materialism why call an organism a system-its just a bag of chemicals, where is the system?
You making up your own definition for systems doesn’t negate Joe’s point in the slightest. You have just decided to change what words mean. In that case I can say, well, If I say a dog is a cloud so that proves clouds are made of dogs, that doesn’t make it so.
More utter stupidity.
From whom, phoodoo? ,)
It does it all the time. What part of reproduction do you fail to understand? What part about never finding an intelligent designer doing anything during reproduction do you fail to understand? If nature does it today, why should be doubt its capacity? Why should we doubt it has done it before?
Of course.
I don’t “believe in materialism”, dope, we live in the physical, and I haven’t found any evidence that there’s anything non-physical. That’s all. If you think there’s more than the physical it’s up to you to prove it.
Both, bags of chemicals and systems are physical, dope. Systems are not defined as magical/unnatural/supernatural entities. They’re defined by their characteristics, by their components forming an interacting network that works as a whole, not by your feelings against materialism. There’s no reason to stop calling a system, a system, just because you don’t understand something that simple.
That’s not what I did. Joe G would agree that organisms are systems. Joe G would even welcome the definition to try and support his hopelessly circular argument. What I did is show that code information processing systems are newly formed all around us, all the time, naturally. Try and keep up, dope.
———
If you don’t understand something that straightforward, the utter stupidity is yours.
I wonder who does the map reading when phoodoo is out for a drive.
I missed when you said we were measuring from.
When are we measuring from phoodoo?
When Shakespeare does it, he makes it so.
You, not so much.
Sometimes people get to redefine what we understand things to mean. The discovery we could synthesize “organic” chemicals. That the universe is expanding. That clouds are actually also mechanisms for bacteria to disperse, an ability which they have evolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprecipitation
Shows what phoodoo knows.
Well, same to you. If you think your Intelligent Designer created DNA then prove it?
Or is “proving” that evolution could not do it proving that your designer did do it? Not that you’ve done that, of course.
But go on, if “nature did not create a code” then what did create DNA, and when?
Indeed. Looking forward to the When of When DNA was created according to ID/phoodoo.
I’ve mentioned this before: it’s interesting that almost all variant positions are STOP in at least one lineage. Why? I can provide an evolutionary explanation for that – turning STOP into an amino acid merely generates a small ‘tail’, whose average length depends on the number of STOP codons remaining. Such tails are unlikely to interfere extensively with protein function, particularly when there are lots of STOPs. So, a plausible evolutionary explanation (not a ‘proof’, but still a perfectly reasonable possibility) is that the variants are due to the filling in of STOP codons, which suffers less purifying selection than a change in the other direction, from assignment to STOP. That would tend to chop proteins up into little pieces.
That’s my proposed explanation. What says Design? Why do some organisms need 4 STOPs and one fewer acid assignment compared to others? This variation even occurs in our own cells. Our mitochondria have a slightly different code from our nuclei.
Even the ‘standard’ code varies in the same nuclear genome – alternative start codons are used in some mammalian proteins, there are positionally sensitive codons that code for an acid near the beginning and act as STOP when near the end of the ORF. So: why all this baroque variation?
And all just lucky accidents that work. Imagine that!
Don’t worry phoodoo, you already made your point: you’re really angry at being a product of natural phenomena. We’ve got it. You can stop already with the demonstrations.
Entropy,
Are you suggesting that one would find life to be less fulfilling if they believed that everything was just meaningless bags of delusional chemical reactions? Bite your tongue, why would that make life any less enjoyable? Why would there be anger?
Your silly supposition only makes sense if that is how you feel about life given your beliefs..
You really should attempt to understand what it is you want to say when you say it. Why swallow your own socks unless you just love the taste?
I have to give Entropy credit, she has shown me that all of life has been proven to be intelligently manufactured.
She has done that by showing that one can create any definition they want them claim it is so. In just the same way that she claims new systems of life are created each time something reproduces. Every bacteria is a new system of life. Oh your just blinked, a hundred trillion new systems were just made. I mean a trillion trillion, no no, a billion trillion just now, look look, another trillion trillion trillion, how did you miss it??
How many systems of life are there? Do you mean now, or now?
The attribution of ‘luck’ is debatable. But yeah, mutations, certainly. Why not?
Here’s an example:
This differs from the ‘standard code’ (chauvinism: we aren’t the ‘standard’, we’re a variant!) by coding for Tryptophan as UGA, where our nuclei use it as STOP. We have 3 STOP codons, and just one, UGG, coding for Tryptophan. Why this difference? If it’s not an ‘accident’, lucky or otherwise, it’s deliberate. This is a very common difference between nuclear and mitochondrial codes.
It’s actually pretty simple to change UGA from STOP to tryptophan, and vice versa, if you have already assigned UGG to tryptophan. The 3rd position A and G are both purines, having very similar shape, so
1) STOP -> UGA
Gain a UGA tRNA, by duplication and point mutation of UGG. Since the UGG aminoacyltransferase never had to distinguish down to individual purine level, triplet specificity is unlikely, and both would become viable substrates.
2) UGA -> STOP
Lose a UGA tRNA.
Have a look at the variety of organisms that use this code (code 4), plus all the mitochondria and bacteria that also use the UGG-Trp coding, and try and explain this distribution using ‘Not-Lucky-Accidents’ Theory.
Funny how one the one side we have proposed explanations and on the other side we just have incoherent anger.
As opposed to what? It’s very amusing that you can’t bring yourself to say.
Well, phoodoo? Is the sum total of the wisdom of “Intelligent Design” the idea that “lucky accidents” aka your strawman of evolution could not possibly have done it?
Why are you so afraid to say what you beleive?
How often do you hear a cock crowing, out of interest.
Even Sal is more honest then you, he admits that a ‘poof’ from the old man in the sky did it. Whereas you just won’t say.
Allan Miller,
Oh I dunno, maybe because it requires a metric shit ton of synchronization to have any chance at all of working. It’s tempting to compare it to making a fighter jet out of some used paper plates, a broken ice skate, a few dinosaur bones and some scrambled eggs and try make it the best you can, but even that’s too easy.
The bullshit smokescreen me saying, yea but what about choosing the best model of the scrambled eggs and paper plate construction each time, don’t you think eventually it will become pretty good?
Uh , no I don’t. I don’t have the faith of a blind skeptic to fall back on.
What do you mean by ‘working’? Please define ‘working’.
Mistake 1: Assuming there is a target
Mistake 1 again. There is no target.
Mistake 2: Starting with the end instead of the beginning. You don’t get a fighter jet in step 1. You might get a paper plane. And that still files. A step towards a jet.
Mistake 1 again. There is no target. There is not need for it to become ‘eventually good’. It’s fine as it is. Unless, of course, the niche changes.
Mistake 3: Assuming there is only one opportunity for evolution. There are as many paths for change as there are individual organisms and replication events. There are many piles of used paper plates etc.
Then presumably you have something you can share, what the actual origin of fighter jets are?
Why oh why won’t you say where fighter jets come from phoodoo?
Or is it that it sounds unlikely, fighter jets are formed in one step, entire, when the Intelligent Designer wishes it so?
I mean, when you put it like that it sounds even less likely than paper plates becoming fighter jets. Is that why you won’t actually say those words?
If you don’t have faith it must mean that what you believe the actual origin of life is to you is a fact. What is that fact phoodoo?
Jesus did it?
Seems to me you’re happy to re-define what evolution is, so you can claim it’s stupid.
And yet even paper planes can evolve: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/courses/27615/exercises/airplane.php
Focus, phoodoo, focus. I’m not talking about the entirety of the genetic code, I’m talking about the pattern of codes with UGA as respectively either Tryptophan or STOP. I say that is easy to achieve, evolutionarily speaking. You say it isn’t, and must be due to a Design choice. So, what do you think guides that choice? What Design reason can you envisage for mitochondria, Mycoplasma, certain fungi, an alpha-proteobacterial symbiont of cicadas, etc, to use UGA for tryptophan, when UGG does the job perfectly satisfactorily? Or conversely, why do nuclei get away with using UGG as STOP? Our mitochondria do it one way, our nuclei another.
Why can this difference NOT be due to evolution?
I have done both of those things now. Do you concede you were wrong?
If not, then you must accept that Intelligent Design has no explanation to offer for these alternative coding schemas. That they are indeed ‘new’ systems with ‘new’ information.
Unless, of course, you have defined ‘new’ to merely mean ‘the product of ID’ in which case heads you win, tails you win.
Except you don’t, do you? As a apologist for genocidal ruling party, you lose regardless. I wonder if Jesus would approve of your approval of people being in camps…..
You may be asking too much of phoodoo there.
phoodoo,
It’s a better approach than just thinking things into existence whole-cloth, I have found, in a lifetime’s experience of design. But you are also making the mistake that evolution is only ever about ‘advantage’. Change can also occur without any specific advantage. That’s an important distinction with Design, which seems only able to counter adaptive change (granting your legendary difficulties with comprehending adaptation itself). On the nonadaptive part, which I think UGG as STOP or Trp represents, Design has nothing to say.
Allan Miller,
Focus Allan focus. I am talking about the entire ridiculous premise of life.
Not only are we expected to swallow this preposterous theory that if you have chaotic replicators eventually they will eliminate all the chaos and become beautifully, efficient, elegant, intelligent, talented, swift, agile, amazing, non-chaotic machines-but, all from copying accidents with no plan at all, BUT we are ALSO expected to believe that the code that makes all of this possible ALSO derived from meaningless , junk chaotic disturbances, until one day, one day it become this miraculous, preserved efficient code for all of life.
Do evolutionists take regular doses of DMT?
Lunacy.
Phoodoo engages parrot mode. Whirr sproink.
And therefore dodging the question. Way to go.
So what’s the reason for UGG coding for Trp in some genomes and STOP in another? Have you no intellectual curiosity whatsoever?
It makes much more sense that an old man in the sky sent his son, who was also himself, to die on earth, but not actually die, to forgive everyone everything which was odd anyway as all the things the people did were known in advance anyway, but regardless of that it all started with a talking snake anyway.
So when we compare one ridiculous story (chemicals rubbing together) to another ridiculous story (“let there be light, oh and a talking snake”) I think we can rate them on their ridiculousness. And apparently so do a lot of other people.
And lo! It has been so rated. You lose. A fable for shepherds.
phoodoo’s story is so ridiculous he won’t even say what it is. It’s that ridiculous that even he can’t bring himself to express it in words in a form where his name is tied to it irrevocably.
Is your story the shepherds story phoodoo? Why won’t you say? I assume it is, as after all it almost always is. But it’d be nice for you to confirm.
It turns out everyone does.
https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-report/mystical-psychedelic-compound-found-normal-brains
Again, shows what phoodoo knows.
Narrator: Nobody paid phoodoo to be curious, so curious he was not.
Its not even a real question Allan. What’s the reason? What’s the reason for the weak nuclear force? What’s the reason for hydrogen?
It’s nonsensical.
Do you think that he thinks that this tatic is working? Or is it just the least worst approach, approach?
Can’t say what I actually think, no, that would be absurd.
Can’t actually engage them on what they are actually saying, I’ve got nothing there either.
I know, I’ll pretend that paper plates and eggs are a reasonable analogy for evolution and given it’s absurd that you can’t get to fighter jets from plates and eggs that’ll prove that you can’t get from chemicals to life. Yeah, they’ll never notice that plates and eggs are fundamentally different in nature to chemicals and the analogy will hold and I’ll win!
sad really.
No, it’s not. You are just incurious and think the answer does not matter. Because you know better, or you think you do.
All those things you mention are outside the purview of science.
That is not. And yet you pretend that it is by conflating it with those other things.
Why? What possible agenda is serviced here?
Perhaps this will help:https://medium.com/the-polymath-project/science-does-not-ask-why-9b80e6c81a9e
Perhaps you’ll grow up soon.
According to Intelligent Design, what is the reason for hydrogen?
When stated according to the ID premise these nonsensical questions suddenly seem like they should have answers.
And the answer seems to be, as it always is, it was designed that way. What is the reason for hydrogen? The designer wanted it that way.
So, phoodoo, what’s so ridiculous about asking the why questions under ID?
I think you are equivocating on the word ‘reason’.
When you do that, sure. That’s not the only way to approach things, however.
It seems to me that without some guidance on where phoodoo draws the line, any question asked can be labeled as ridiculous and ignored. And phoodoo is not one for making such statements, we can only await his individual pronunciations on what is and what is not worth investigating with bated breath.
OMagain,
Yup. If that ‘why’ question’s nonsensical, they all are!
You’re making several categorical mistakes here. It’s you who imagines that being a product of nature makes you a meaningless bag of delusional chemical reactions.
Taking that kind of attitude I can show disdain for being the product of a capricious anger-prone all-powerful being and that my destiny is to be eternally worshipping that magical being just because that being made me. I find that not just disdainful, but empty and meaningless.Actually, it gave me a sense of desperate emptiness, even back when I believed it. Realizing that was just fantasy gave me a joyous sense of relief.
So, here’s your problem number two, you do not understand that whether we were created by a magical being in the sky, or by the way nature works, meaning is a personal thing. It’s subjective no matter what. I can neither understand, nor gain, your love for having such an empty eternal destiny. So, instead of looking childishly for a father figure to take care of me, I grow up and accept things as they are.
Do I find meaning in my non-eternal life? Yup. Plenty. For example, I love learning how things work. I love gaining understanding. I love singing, dancing, cooking, exercising. I enjoy life and appreciate it, precisely because it’s not going to last forever. Will you even understand how that’s possible? Most probably not, but that’s precisely the point: meaning is subjective regardless.
No phoodoo, all I need is look at your comments. Always disdainful. Always ignoring everything that’s explained to you, as if the mere act of trying to understand our positions conflicted you. As if understanding the mistakes you make in each and every one of your uninformed “interpretations” could hurt you. I don’t need to share your disdain in order to notice your tone and deafness phoodoo. Your comments ooze anger.