AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't have any issue with you asking him for the characteristics of similarity and haven't questioned that. And I don't think he's saying that because it's hard to believe that DNA happened naturally, rather he's asking why he should believe that it isn't a designer when it looks to have similarities to what he looks on as designed.

But again, what "similarities"? Even if there were similarities I don't see how that would help him, but we can't even get to that when he can't or won't tell us what he thinks them to be.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Well, I just hope this page doesn't become unavailable on my computer before SotS responds!!

Torridon has stated his position clearly and Nearly Sane (#844, #846, #848) sees where I'm coming from (whether he agrees or not) and has also correctly (in my opinion) identified that bluehillside is arguing against things I haven't said.

Bluehillside hasn't helped himself by refusing to provide citations of what I am supposed to said, and in the single case where he has done so, has only quoted my #812, but ignoring the specific content of my #773, #803 and #806 (for which #812 needs to be seen in context) where the specifics of the comparison I'm making are so clear that other posters can see it (whether they agree or not).

Incidentally, my #776, #803 and #806 may also answer this

But again, what "similarities"? Even if there were similarities I don't see how that would help him, but we can't even get to that when he can't or won't tell us what he thinks them to be.

But there will probably now be a debate about what is meant by similarities. 

Edit: Changed 773 to 776

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But again, what "similarities"? Even if there were similarities I don't see how that would help him, but we can't even get to that when he can't or won't tell us what he thinks them to be.

As I said in the post you were replying to

'I don't have any issue with you asking him for the characteristics of similarity and haven't questioned that. '

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Torridon has stated his position clearly and Nearly Sane (#844, #846, #848) sees where I'm coming from (whether he agrees or not) and has also correctly (in my opinion) identified that bluehillside is arguing against things I haven't said.

Bluehillside hasn't helped himself by refusing to provide citations of what I am supposed to said, and in the single case where he has done so, has only quoted my #812, but ignoring the specific content of my #773, #803 and #806 (for which #812 needs to be seen in context) where the specifics of the comparison I'm making are so clear that other posters can see it (whether they agree or not).

Incidentally, my #773, #803 and #806 may also answer this

That’s not true. 773 is a post by Sebastian Toe in any case, and I rebutted your 803 and 806. On both occasions though you just ignored the rebuttals (as you generally do by the way).

But there will probably now be a debate about what is meant by similarities.

As there should be given that you’ve used the term but not bothered to tell us what you mean by it. What similarities do you think there to be?

[torridon]

Torridon has stated his position clearly and Nearly Sane (#844, #846, #848) sees where I'm coming from (whether he agrees or not) and has also correctly (in my opinion) identified that bluehillside is arguing against things I haven't said.

I think my take boils down to this - that something from nothing is challenging to understand, but something from something more challenging to understand still has effectively negative explanatory value. Ockham's razor suggests my (first) option as the least worst option

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What similarities do you think there to be?

Classic bluehillsiding again. Say why what I've said in the posts #776, #803, #806 are not similarities, then ask for similarities...

Goodnight.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I think my take boils down to this - that something from nothing is challenging to understand, but something from something more challenging to understand still has effectively negative explanatory value. Ockham's razor suggests my (first) option as the least worst option

As ever, I appreciate your honesty and can understand why you have reached this conclusion.

[Gordon]

Classic bluehillsiding again. Say why what I've said in the posts #776, #803, #806 are not similarities, then ask for similarities...

Goodnight.

I'd have thought my #779 dealt adequately with your #776 and also your #803:I think you are making the same category error in both your posts.

[Gordon]

There you go again! Asking a question whilst trying to deny the person the method whereby to answer your question.

Stuff people make looks designed: Do human beings design things or not? Do human beings make things or not?

stuff in nature looks designed: Is DNA the blueprint for living organisms, or not?

Can the characteristics of what human beings make (blueprints, instructions, storage of information) be compared with what we know of DNA (blueprint, instructions, storage of information)?

If not, why not?

I think you need to unpack 'looks designed'. You mention three characteristics: blueprints, instructions, storage of information', where the first two allude to plans and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'information', so that might need some clarification in relation to the objects being compared - something clearly designed by humans and DNA.

I'm fortunate to own several tasty guitars and one of these is one of the most iconic electric guitars: the Fender Stratocaster, which was designed by the late great Leo Fender, and comes with a handbook that contains a blueprint (of how it is assembled) and also instructions for use.

So, in what way is my Strat analogous to DNA? 

[torridon]

I think my take boils down to this - that something from nothing is challenging to understand, but something from something more challenging to understand still has effectively negative explanatory value. Ockham's razor suggests my (first) option as the least worst option

As ever, I appreciate your honesty and can understand why you have reached this conclusion.

Well if you reach a different conclusion, show your working.

To me it looks like a no-brainer, it looks like a choice between rising to the challenge to understand our reality or failing to rise to that challenge substituting instead a naive falsity of some unseen higher power contriving it all through an act of intentional willpower thereby placing the answers to our deepest questions effectively out of reach behind some fantasy wall of unknowableness.   Thinking like this has evolved over time, I would say, it is a very human thing to do granted, but it is not the product of fearless and dogged pursuit of truth through evidence and reason, rather it generally has the character of a strategy of truth-avoidance, like the excuses we make to avoid going to the dentist. We avoid the challenge of understanding our reality in part because we don't want to go there; we'd rather not face up to the nihilist nightmare of a meaningless universe, we can sleep more easily in our beds at night without the existential angst of our mortality, so we set about inducing beliefs to counter those states of mind.  Beliefs spread quite often, not because they are true, but more because they hold appeal for the human mind.

[SusanDoris]

#859

If only people, SotS and AB in particular would read and actually internalise such rational common sense ...

[torridon]

You are assuming that DNA evolved. If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.

How can such a position be a matter of personal opinion ?  Unless you are a specialist in those fields of course.  As far as I understand the science, DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability. DNA didn't just appear out of nowhere - this is, again, just magic thinking to avoid putting in the hard yards to understand the real provenance of things.

[Gordon]

For anyone interested in the history of the scientific investigation of abiogenesis (inc. RNA and DNA research) this from the BBC sites covers much of the ground, and although it isn't a quick read it is worth the effort.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

[SusanDoris]

You are assuming that DNA evolved. If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.

You use the word 'forethought', but this implies planning and purpose. Can you explain why you think DNA can do this?

[Walter]

You use the word 'forethought', but this implies planning and purpose. Can you explain why you think DNA can do this?

SOTS

is not qualified to answer this . He can only guess , make assumptions, argue idiotically. His religion has blinded him .Just think about that for a minute. Having a belief so strong it causes you to reject reality. Why would anyone in their right mind
allow themselves to be manipulated in this way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

You use the word 'forethought', but this implies planning and purpose. Can you explain why you think DNA can do this?

He thinks it essentially for the same reason that a puddle might marvel at the hole he’s in for fitting him so exactly. No matter how many times you explain that evolution is unguided he just ignores the evidence, goes quiet for a bit, then returns with his, “yes, but what are the chances of DNA knowing how to make little ol’ me?” type questions (“forethought” etc).

The answer of course is that’s a 100% certain that DNA would encode for him (and for howler monkeys and for tree ferns etc) because that’s what it does - and had the adaptations been different then it would be 100% certain that DNA would have encoded for whatever different organisms happened to appear.

What’s frustrating here I find is that, rather than try to respond to the argument that undoes him, he just ignores it as if it didn’t exist and repeats his questions from incredulity with no sense that they’re null.

Oh well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability.

How did that work? What is the evidence for this if chemicals by definition do not die as such...and if they don't die, how can chemicals become extinct.

I'm afraid without justification this just sounds like an ultradarwinian flight of fancy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I'd have thought my #779 dealt adequately with your #776 and also your #803:I think you are making the same category error in both your posts.

And 778 for that matter. Be nice if he at least tried to engage with the rebuttals that undo him, though I guess repeating his category error instead takes less effort.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

How did that work? What is the evidence for this if chemicals by definition do not die as such...and if they don't die, how can chemicals become extinct.

I'm afraid without justification this just sounds like an ultradarwinian flight of fancy.

Not "chemicals", combinations of chemicals. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Not "chemicals", combinations of chemicals.

combinations? combined how? chemical reaction? That just produces different chemicals
how would it account for some bastardised definition of extinction when chemicals do not die?

I am prepared to be persuaded on this since I understand evolution and even DNA 'evolving' through mutation. But something other than RNA or DNA having once been sounds more like legend.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

combinations? combined how? chemical reaction? That just produces different chemicals
how would it account for some bastardised definition of extinction when chemicals do not die?

I am prepared to be persuaded on this since I understand evolution and even DNA 'evolving' through mutation. But something other than RNA or DNA having once been sounds more like legend.

Dodos were combinations of chemicals. Dodos are extinct. QED.

[SusanDoris]

What’s frustrating here I find is that, rather than try to respond to the argument that undoes him, he just ignores it as if it didn’t exist and repeats his questions from incredulity with no sense that they’re null.

Oh well.

It's not just that he ignores them, I get the impression that he reads them with a slightly* patronising smile, thinking, 'But of course I know better.'

* I refrain from using 'very' here!

[Walter]

Spoof,

Dodos were combinations of chemicals. Dodos are extinct. QED.

Blue

I really don't know why you involve yourself in this shit storm. You risk becoming contaminated.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Dodos were combinations of chemicals. Dodos are extinct. QED.

No because Torridon was talking about self replicating molecules becoming extinct.
How does a class of self replicating molecules like DNA or RNA become extinct.

I think you are trading on the fact that nobody actually reads atheist posts critically as Walter so demonstrates....

Ah well, perhaps Torridon can explain himself instead of leaving you to ''polish his turds.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah well, perhaps Torridon can explain himself instead of leaving you to ''polish his turds.''

By using your own.