What do Religious people say to this?

[buffalo]

Wiki, provided there are citations, is an excellent source for explaining things in lay terms.

[qutoe]What drives the folding in the particular way? How early in life was folding present?

The properties of the ammino acids. One key factor is whether the amino acid is hydrophilic or hydrophobic.

How early in life was folding present? I’m not a paleontologist, but if I had to guess I’d say very early.

Now consider the combination of possible 3D folds.

A ‘scientific revolution’ is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle:
“The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”
boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/?page=1

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Podcast on peer reviewed paper

 

[buffalo]

Show me an example of bifurcation cascade in design.

I asked for your source citation about cascading nested hiearchies. I did not get a reply.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I asked for your source citation about cascading nested hiearchies. I did not get a reply.

I have given you all the information you need. I’m not going to spoon feed it to you as well, you have everything you need to understand exactly what I’m talking about here.

Now,

Go to google.

Look up period doubling cascades.

Go to google.

Look up nested sets

Go to google.

Look up branched heirarchies.

It’s elementary…

 

[Moonstruck888]

The properties of the ammino acids. One key factor is whether the amino acid is hydrophilic or hydrophobic.

How early in life was folding present? I’m not a paleontologist, but if I had to guess I’d say very early.

Now consider the combination of possible 3D folds.

A ‘scientific revolution’ is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle:
“The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”
boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/?page=1

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Podcast on peer reviewed paper

I’m not sitting through a podcast on Intelligent Design. I don’t give a damn whether the paper they’re butchering is peer reviewed or not.

You’ll be telling me about crocoducks next. This is getting really quite insulting. You’re wasting my time.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sitting through a podcast on Intelligent Design. I don’t give a damn whether the paper they’re butchering is peer reviewed or not.

You’ll be telling me about crocoducks next. This is getting really quite insulting. You’re wasting my time.

Then hit the road. Otherwise be open to learning. Or is your a priori bias preventing you?

 

[buffalo]

I have given you all the information you need. I’m not going to spoon feed it to you as well, you have everything you need to understand exactly what I’m talking about here.

Now,

Go to google.

Look up period doubling cascades.

Go to google.

Look up nested sets

Go to google.

Look up branched heirarchies.

It’s elementary…

Just one citation that puts your claim together? Just one??

 

[Cristiano]

I’m not a philosopher. Your petty attacks on verbal intent mean nothing to me. Only empirical proof matters to me or impresses me.

You’re just like every Asperger’s suffering philospher I’ve ever met. I would love to clamp your head tightly in a vice and keep it there until you admit, in writing in front of witnesses, that having your head clamped in a vice was distinctly different from not having it clamped in a vice.

I am not a philosopher, I am a scientist. I am a physicist that believes in rational argumentation to make a point and not in logical or psychological fallacies. I have not seen you providing any empirical evidence and/or reference but just hand waiving.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Then hit the road. Otherwise be open to learning. Or is your a priori bias preventing you?

I’ve got a better idea, why don’t I just ignore your inane drivel?

Just one citation that puts your claim together? Just one??

Why should I? No matter what I give you, you’re just going to spout a load of meaningless balls.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am not a philosopher, I am a scientist. I am a physicist that believes in rational argumentation to make a point and not in logical or psychological fallacies. I have not seen you providing any empirical evidence and/or reference but just hand waiving.

I don’t know what you are apart from a jobbernowl, but you sure as hell aren’t a scientist. Only philosophers deal in fallacies.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am not a philosopher, I am a scientist. I am a physicist that believes in rational argumentation to make a point and not in logical or psychological fallacies. I have not seen you providing any empirical evidence and/or reference but just hand waiving.

If you cannot see that orthologus gene matching in genomics is evidence, then you are most definitely not a scientist.

You are nothing more than a despicable liar and a vulgar fraud.

ROTFL!!! A scientist!

 

[Cristiano]

…Only philosophers deal in fallacies.

I guess that you never had to review scientific papers for publication or proposals to funding agencies. Fallacies are not unusual in the scientific community, especially among young graduate student that try to make a point at any cost, or among professors that try to obtain grants.

 

[Cristiano]

If you cannot see that orthologus gene matching in genomics is evidence, then you are most definitely not a scientist.

You are nothing more than a despicable liar and a vulgar fraud.

ROTFL!!! A scientist!

Please show me how I lied or where I tried to con someone. That would be a good starting point for an intelligent discussion about my lack of ethics.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I guess that you never had to review scientific papers for publication or proposals to funding agencies. Fallacies are not unusual in the scientific community, especially among young graduate student that try to make a point at any cost, or among professors that try to obtain grants.

Oh, I’m not disputing that. Scientists wouldn’t know a fallacy if they fell over one, as they do all the time. A philosopher who for some reason was trying to pose as a scientist would though.

As I said sir, you are a despicable liar and a vulgar fraud. You can’t even see that genomic matching is evidence.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Please show me how I lied or where I tried to con someone. That would be a good starting point for an intelligent discussion about my lack of ethics.

I am not interested in discussing your ethics in a reasonable manner. You have revealed yourself to me and I intend to enjoy this moment to the full.

You are a despicable liar, a jobbernowl, and a vulgar fraud.

 

[Cristiano]

Oh, I’m not disputing that. Scientists wouldn’t know a fallacy if they fell over one, as they do all the time. A philosopher who for some reason was trying to pose as a scientist would though.

As I said sir, you are a despicable liar and a vulgar fraud. You can’t even see that genomic matching is evidence.

So are you basing all of your argumentation on results originated from a community that does use fallacies all the time? If I understand correctly you are saying that your source (the scientific community) is unreliable (because they use fallacies all the time) but then you use their data as reliable to make your point! Talking about logical fallacies, this is one.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve got a better idea, why don’t I just ignore your inane drivel?

Why should I? No matter what I give you, you’re just going to spout a load of meaningless balls.

OK - put me on ignore.

I give you scientific refutations. I do not make them up.

I see your position:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

All you have to do is answer the points I make.

Question still on the table:

Show me a code, symbol or language nature produced.

 

[Moonstruck888]

OK - put me on ignore.

I give you scientific refutations. I do not make them up.

I see your position:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

All you have to do is answer the points I make.

Question still on the table:

Show me a code, symbol or language nature produced.

You don’t know one end of a science text book from the other. No one here does. You could be holding a science paper upside down and you wouldn’t notice…

I know what you’re trying to trick me into. I’m not stupid and I’m not playing.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So are you basing all of your argumentation on results originated from a community that does use fallacies all the time? If I understand correctly you are saying that your source (the scientific community) is unreliable (because they use fallacies all the time) but then you use their data as reliable to make your point! Talking about logical fallacies, this is one.

Spoken like a true philosopher.

I don’t doubt that you can trick me into making semantical errors and I don’t doubt that you can out argue me. I don’t doubt that you are more logical than I am.

What I can do, and do well, is understand and employ the scientific method. I would rather have that capability than yours.

You can play dumb all you want. We both know why I’m calling you a liar and a fraud, and we both know why I am taking satisfaction from you at the moment.

 

[buffalo]

You don’t know one end of a science text book from the other. No one here does. You could be holding a science paper upside down and you wouldn’t notice…

That settles it then. This is typical when I ask pressing questions. Can’t show the science so name calling, you don’t know anything - just what the banner shows.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That settles it then. This is typical when I ask pressing questions. Can’t show the science so name calling, you don’t know anything - just what the banner shows.

You’re trying to trick me into either saying the nucleic acids are a naturally occurring code or else denying that they are naturally occurring code. No matter which way I go, you’re going to tie me up in semantic knots and claim evidence of design by a third party…

I’m not playing that game with you. It’s childish and stupid…

Why is it that philosophers have to turn interesting conversations into verbal chess games?