Re: Tom Bethell is Heroically Confused Again

On Sep 2, 2:56 pm, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snip

It is not nessary to act, but it helps to see.

My point is that sight is not necessary for action.

Sight is necessary for some types of action. Also, it takes those who
see to teach certain things to those who do not see. If color
recognition is key for certain activities then sight is ncessary for
action.

Can you provide any evidence that color recognition is necessary for
abiogenesis? You are moving the goalposts, as your original claim
was that action wasn't possible without sight. Now you are saying,
that sight is necessary for actions requring sight. But why should we
assume that without sight, nothing can be done?



You're chasing after a red herring.

Actually, I'm shaking my head at your stupidity.....






He knows that he must +see+
in order to arrange.

Unless he's blind. Then he uses his other senses.

But there are limits to what he can arrange. Especially if there are
limits to what his other senses can perceive.

Physical limits. Because there must be a physical mechanism

Red herring. a physical mechanism is required for computer viruses
but software programmer made the virus.

Which is why no one assumes that a supernatural being created the
software virus. The programmer is a living thing. The computer virus
is not, even if it acts something like a living thing.

It is a false to believe that
the act of a virus's self replication means that all they were created
by self-replicating viruses.

Since no one is promoting such a belief, what is the relevance?
Computer viruses are known to be written by humans. There is no other
mechanism by which computer viruses can be produced. Just because
viruses self reproduce does not mean that they are living things, or
that living things must have been written by malicious teenagers.



But it's a moot point.
My discussion is not about how intelligence uses instruments or
instruments accompany intelligence, but rather, how intelligence
orders things. How this is done is not part of my discussion, but you
like to make it part of the discussion though I find it irrelevant.

The point remains that "though" does not exist outside of the
physical.

For human beings, that is correct cand there is no disagreement. I
don't believe in an etheral soul. That is a pagan notion.

I'm not talking about souls here. I'm talking about the brain, and
the brain cells.

snip

Correct. But here is where your implied argument fails. The birthing
mechanism already exists.

The "birthing mechanism" is a natural process, which evolved.

Were you there when it happened?

The "were you there" gambit is an admission you have lost the
argument. As has been pointed out before, one doesn't have to be
present at the event to examine the evidence left behind. The
evidence clearly shows that the various methods by which living things
reproduce have evovled. There is no evidence whatsoever that a
supernatural being "poofed" things into existance.






All you perceive is the fact the birthing
is continuous. But birthing does not continue indefinitely into the
past.

It continues to the point of abiogenesis.

Cell division supposedly happened just after abiogenesis,

Actually, cell division probably didn't occur until much later. The
first self replicating molecules were most likely not cellular.

and sexual
reproduction much later. But that is just an unobserved myth.

No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Noah's Ark is an
"unobserved myth".

Sort
of the imaginary protocell of the gaps.

As has been pointed out by others, speculative does not mean
imaginary. There are no "gaps" that this "protocell" is meant to
fill.






Likewise, a computer virus may replicate itself, but that
doesn't prove that the computer created it, or that electricity or a
monkey on the keyboard created it. So your argument is flawed.

I'm not dealing with "proof" here. I'm pointing out that without a
physical mechanism, "thought" can't do bupkis. A computer virus is
not a living organism.

I don't disagree withthe fact that physical mechanism is necessary for
human thought.

In your case, you don't seem to be familiar with human (or even
primate) thought.

I said that already. But a computer viruses is an
entity that replicates itself. you could assume that chance electronic
biogenesis created it.

Why would anyone assume that, when there is evidence that computer
viruses are the result of malicious hackers?

Nobody, after all, knows for certain if a
human being actually created every single computer virus.

There is no evidence that anyone but humans created the computer
viruses.

Some viruses
remain a mystery, and for certain in some city in the US, a monkey had
access to a computer.

There is no evidence that monkeys are malicious or stupid enough to
create computer viruses.

You could say, that unless that virus creator
showed himself to you, you wouldn't believe in him.

What I would say is that there is plenty of evidence that humans
create computer viruses, as there is no other mechanism by which these
viruses can be produced. Certianly there is no evidence that a
supernatural being made these viruses, or that other life forms have
done so.



snip

Cognitive enty is required.

That's your claim, but you haven't given any reason why it's
required.

Because it's an absurd proposition.

You admit your own claim is an absurd proposition. At least that's
some progress.

A monkey would find it easier to
create a computer virus than to create a protocell.

Monkeys are not thought to have created either. Why are you bringing
monkeys into this?

A monkey would
find it easier to create a computer virus than to create a work of
shakespeare.

Which is irrelevant, as no one claims that monkeys write Shakespeare,
or create computer viruses. Abiogenesis was a natural process, as
far as can be told. There is no reason to invoke a "cognative
enitity" to explain life, when there is evidence that natural
processes can produce life.





You're trying to equate birthing or
computer virus self replication with "no cognitive entity" required.

No, you brought up the "computer virus", and "birthing process".
I'm pointing out that without a physical mechanism, a "cognative
entity" can't do anything. Also, natural processes don't require any
"cognative entity".

Computer viruses do not need a human entity to allow it to continue to
replicate.

Since computers are human inventions, and without a computer network
to propogate in, computer viruses can't spread, that's a dubious
claim.


Birthing doesn't need an intelligent entity to allow it
continue. But the birthing apparatus was never seen coming into
existence.

There are many "birthing apparati" known in biology. One doesn't
need to observe one coming into existance to understand the evidence
leading to the conclusion. Again, you are invoking the "were you
there" which is an admission you are unable to address the
evidence.



I'm just drawing a contrast, here, Dana.

And typically doing a very poor job of it. The "contrast" you are
tying to draw just indicates you don't understand what science does.


You claim that a
monkey could not create a computer virus,

WRONG. I never made that claim. What I have said is that there is
no evidence of a monkey creating a computer virus. Humans are known
to create computer viruses. It's most reasonable to infer that if you
have a virus on your system a human being wrote it.

yet you claim that nature
created life without the assistance of an intelligent entity.

Because there is no need to assume such an "intelligent entity" and no
evidence that such an entity exists. I know you are going to see
this as endorsing atheism but it's not. One can believe in something
where there is no evidence.

I also
draw the contrast between the relatively simple compouter virus as
compared to the extremely complex proto-cell.

How complex do you think a "protocell" would have been? And what are
you basing that on? Also you seem to be assuming that this
'protocell" would have been an instantaneous event, not a result of a
long process.

snip

No one will ever consider you bright. But who claimed that natural
processes are like a monkey sitting at a computer, and why would
anyone mistake a computer virus for a living thing?

You can find books written by evolutionists claiming that a bunch of
monkeys could create Shakespear given enough time.

Please provide the citation for that. What the illustration was
intended to show is that with an infinite amount of time, very
unlikely events can occur. No one is actually claiming that the
monkey writing Shakespeare would actually happen.

You're quite
correct in saying that natural process aren't like a monkey sitting at
a computer.

But I'm beginning to consider that it would explain your own
posts......

Nature, is a much more complex thing. You need oxygen
for ozone.

Moron, ozone is oxygen.

And if you have oxygen it would destroy the aminos.

There was little free oxygen on the ancient Earth.

But if
you dont' have ozone you have ultraviolet rays that would destroy
aminos.

Unless something blocks the ultraviolet rays, such as water, or
rocks.....


That's why it is speculated that life was mythologically
created at the bottom of the ocean where it wouldn't be susceptable to
ultraviolet rays.

Actually, one of the suggestions is that life began is shallow pools.
Another is that it may have been in clay substrates. There are many
possible places on the ancient Earth that life could have started.
Again, speculation and mythology are different things.

But the problem is, without a protective membrane
the chemicals would be destroyed.

By what, exactly?

Also, proteins are needed to create
proteins.

Amino acids, and some kind of substrate are required for protein
formation.

So how do you get proteins into existence without
proteins? That's how nature does it.

That's how nature does it now. At one time nature may have had a
different way.



Proteins create proteins.

DNA and RNA create proteins from amino acids.



Do you have a proto-protein machine of the gaps?

Why would I need one? Just because you are not able to realize that
nature is more clever than you are doesn't mean anything.

snip

And you twall a monkey qwee-ate a computer virus. You
did, you did.

What is this baby talk supposed to mean? What does this have to do
with natural processes?

It means you never tall a monkey qweeate a computer virus. You
didn't, you didn't.

Since I never made such a claim, I fail to see the relevance, or the
reason for the baby talk.

snip

Computer viruses are not living things.

That is correct. But they are easier to create than a volume of
Shakespeare.

What is the relevance here? Where did I ever claim otherwise?


snip

Who created the birthing process, it did not exist indefinitely into
the past.

The "birthing process" evolved over millions of years. It didn't need
anyone to create it.

Did you see it happen?


A third admission that you've lost the argument. I accept your
concession.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tom Bethell is Heroically Confused Again
    ... But since the computer virus ... There are many computer viruses by the way, ... A monkey could have written it or even a dangling phone in the wind ... present at the event to examine the evidence left behind. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SKEPTIC article on O Jews and science
    ... With linguistic evidence, it'd give us more ability judge their ... A monkey can be trained to do simple sign language. ... If you don't know the difference between an ape and monkey you ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... Nobody has seen any descent from monkey or monkey from lemur. ... evolution is fact - how does that relate to your statement that monkeys ... evidence that you are right; it is merely good evidence that you lack a ... A "law" is a description of what occurs in a particular ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Justice Hansens Decision
    ... Tendulkar and Hayden were impressive witnesses, ... but could distinctly hear "big monkey". ... I have reviewed the television evidence of what ... Lee while completing a single Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Tom Bethell is Heroically Confused Again
    ... There is plenty of evidence that this "intelligence" exists. ... the laptop and constructed a computer virus. ... to create a computer virus than it is to create a complex single ... The simplicity of creation is not a metric of whether or not something was the result of deliberate action, or a natural process. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading