The Power of Belief with James Randi

[yanong_banikanhon]

---

Here's that question, as originally worded:

Fair? I didn't change any wording of questioner. You'll notice the error of his line of questioning, once I answer them directly, instead of getting to the gist of it.

1) Question no. 1 asks for ANOTHER THING THAT EXIST IN NATURE THAT IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A SOPHISTICATED LANGUAGE. That's easy. ANSWER: Yes. Dolphins.

Oops, murag dagdag bawas ning imong gibuhat da. Akong i-post ang akong original question ha.

For that assertion to be true, the atheists should present:

1. A verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language.

Kita ka anang phrase nga akong gi-highlight og pula? Mao na ang imong gilikay-likayan. Ayaw ko ingna nga para nimo, wala'y conscious mind ang mga dolphin? Dugay na na gi-establish sa science.

Ang akong pangutana mao ni: GAWAS SA USA KA conscious (SELF-AWARE) mind, is there any other thing in nature that is is capable of producing a sophisticated language?

Basin ang sunod nimong itubag blue whale na pud, ha.

P.S.
Likay gyud, bay! Abi nimo nga makalusot ka sa imong lipat-lipat tactics, no? Nisamot na nuon og ka-klaro ang imong style.

[Elyu]

Ang akong pangutana mao ni: GAWAS SA USA KA conscious (SELF-AWARE) mind, is there any other thing in nature that is is capable of producing a sophisticated language?

[yanong_banikanhon]

2) Question no. 2 reveals a lack of comprehension about animal language and "language" employed as a metaphor for DNA. So, how shall we proceed with this question if we just take his wording as is? He's referring to the ORIGIN OF THE GENETIC LANGUAGE. What is this genetic language that he's referring to? What else but DNA.

I'm specifically referring to the sophisticated language that is used to encode the genetic instructions in the DNA, NOT the DNA itself. The DNA is just a container of these genetic instructions. Nagsugod na pud ka'g lubog sa question aron makaikyas na pud ka, no?

When it comes to the origin of DNA, science is essentially seeking DNA's natural pre-cursors. RNA is the best candidate, for the very reason that (like DNA) it too encodes genetic information and has a very similar structure. And if you want to push the question further and ask where RNA came from, then the scientific investigation will likewise search for simpler pre-cursors of RNA.

Again, I'm NOT asking what is the precursor of DNA. What I'm asking is a verifiable scientific evidence that the language that is used to encode the instructions in the DNA originates from a random, mindless process.

Ipakita na ang ebidensya, ayaw og likay-likay. Kun wala kay verifiable scientific evidence nga ikapakita, angkon na lang gud. Mas mobilib pa ang mga tawo sa imo kun dili ka magsige og cover sa usa ka bakak.

[yanong_banikanhon]

@Elyu, higher form of mammals (ex. dolphin, elephant, human) are capable of producing and understanding a sophisticated language because of their mind.

Simple ra gyud ang akong pangutana:

Can you give us a verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language AND this thing is the origin of the language used to encode the genetic instructions in the DNA?

[kenites]

hehe...nagbasa2x bitaw ko..ni comment ko kay mura man gudka correct......unsa gani to imo words....."positive claimant ra ang dapat mo hatag og ebidensya" .......unya mao ni pasabot sa imo scientific skeptism?

buslot kaayo imo argument bro...maypag akoy mo ingon nimo ayaw nalang og post2x para dili ka matawag og "piti"

Ah ok I know where i'm wrong,,my apology master....But the burden of proof is always on somebody making the assertion or claim,,dili man ta pwde mo ingon nga something is true unless proven otherwise
We can't say that kapre is real unless someone proves that they don't exist.

Anyway sige naman ni balik2x nga argument sa atheism thread, you can check there if you like and you can even have a good debate against some hardcore atheist..Me, I'm not good at this, so don't waste your time arguing with me coz I can't satisfy your intellect.

And bro would you mind presenting us your not buslot argument para naa pud mi makat onan bag-o ..

[hitch22]

Oops, murag dagdag bawas ning imong gibuhat da. Akong i-post ang akong original question ha.

Here's your original question from this link: https://www.istorya.net/forums/genera...in-god-18.html

@hitch22
My questions are very simple.
Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language?

Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence that the thing mentioned in point no. 1 is the origin of the genetic language ?

Here's your question as posted a while back:

My questions are very simple.

1) Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language?

2) Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence that the thing mentioned in point no. 1 is the origin of the genetic language ?

As you can see, there are no alterations to the questions. The claim that I took out and added in words from the original questions is a lie.

The only thing the questioner is complaining about is the interpretation of the question. When he says "conscious mind," he's introducing two terms that have philosophical connotations. The only creature that is undisputedly attributed as having a "conscious mind" is a human being. So when he asks for "another thing in nature," a dolphin is a valid answer. Aren't living things a subset of the set of things? And isn't a dolphin a living thing?

Now, he'll argue that the dolphin is conscious and has a mind and doesn't apply. He doesn't realize that attributing "mind" and "consciousness" to animals is still hotly debated (click here).

Therefore, my answer is valid. The questioner has to re-phrase that question in order to exclude animals from that thing he's referring to.

And then he says this:

I'm specifically referring to the sophisticated language that is used to encode the genetic instructions in the DNA, NOT the DNA itself. The DNA is just a container of these genetic instructions.

DNA is the language of life. That's how molecular biologists would describe DNA. It's not just the container. When you talk about DNA, you're talking about that twisted ladder-like structure (double-helix formation) which is composed of the backbone made up of molecules of phosphate and sugar and the "rungs" or bases made up of the adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine (A, T, C, G). The whole structure is that "book" called DNA.

The problem is that the questioner is mixing philosophical concepts with scientific concepts. He thinks that, just as an idea precedes a human-written book, there is also an idea behind the arrangement of the nucleobases (A, T, C, G). This is getting it all wrong.

Once again, my answer stands...and it's never changed and it has addressed the questions.

Here's what the questioner wants to happen. He wants me to admit that there's no evidence that DNA can come about through natural processes. As you can see, you can't answer that with a YES or NO, because the questioner will jump to the conclusion that science is also a belief without evidence. Yes, there has been no successful attempts to create DNA from early earth simulations. Because to prove that DNA can come about through natural processes, we have to test various assumptions and hypothesis. But that doesn't mean that this belief is a belief without evidence. On the contrary, there are lots of valid scientific reasons to believe this is so. Just ask yourself this: What's DNA made of? Chemicals. And how do chemicals behave? It observes natural laws. Does it need to have a conscious mind behind it? NO.

The questioner just wants an admission that we don't have evidence to account for DNA. And then he'll proceed finally with "Mag respetohay na lang atong mga tinuohan."

My answer to that is this. I've never disrespected people here, except for yanong...but that's because he provoked me. While it's true I've made jokes about religion, but they're jokes fit for public consumption. There's no need to raise hell over those. Religion, ideology, economic systems, philosophy...these are all ideas. We can make fun of another person's ideology or philosophy or favored economic systems...but not religion? There is a double standard here in that I've seen theists make fun of another theists' religion. I've seen one Christian sect posting videos showing Catholicism's pagan origins. I've seen theists making fun of pantheists or New Age belief systems. I've seen theists making fun of Soul Doctor who also believes in a God but who's not a Christian. Where's the relentless, abrasive attack on these people? How come the questioner's not attacking them relentlessly? Why single out the atheists?

IT SEEMS IT'S OKAY FOR CHRISTIANS TO ATTACK ANOTHER RELIGION. BUT WHEN ATHEISTS DO THAT TO THEIR RELIGION, THEY FEEL HYPOCRITICALLY FEEL RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.

GROW UP, YANONG.

[kryptocrap]

we live by faith, not by sight.

It's not like 'to see, is to believe'. It's the other way around for the believers.
I can smell that this thread will soon be locked.

[Norad-II]

Here is an interesting read for those who'd like to hear from one side of the argument. Make of it what you may:

Evolution of DNA-- First Protein Transcription

==================================================

"Once upon a time, on a planet right here in our own galaxy, there was a puddle on the shoreline of a primitive sea. It filled a depression in a rugged and rocky place, up above the high tide line. For centuries, sea water splashed into it at each high tide, and then centuries of evaporation filled it with salt crystals, along with a few tarry blobs, films, crystals and membranes of condensed organic matter. You might think of it as primordial soup that had evaporated into primordial slime, or primordial jerky, at least during dry spells (for more about the soup, see Appendix 1).

In fact, the whole neighborhood was that way, with every crack, cranny and crevasse filled with pools and puddles of salt water or evaporated salt, and various sorts of condensed organic goo. The tides rolled in three times a day , and splashed sea water into the puddle and its neighbors. Then the tides rolled out, and left it all to bake and dry in the sun (for more about the puddles and the concentration process, see Appendix 2).

It was not unlike, say, the coast of California or Maine. Except that it was four billion years ago, give or take a couple of hundred million, and none of that organic stuff was alive. Instead, it was just a mix of random organic chemicals that had flown in by comet over the past billion years, or that had synthesized on Earth via various natural processes.

Meet the Neighborhood

This particular neighborhood was a wee bit unusual, since it had experienced some interesting chemistry history that produced a high concentration of a few small, organic compounds.

That concentration may have resulted from simple crystallization of a few organic chemicals. Once a 'seed crystal' formed, it would have grown, bit by bit, as new soup washed into the local puddle and then evaporated .

There may have been a few organic crystals in the neighborhood, right from the beginning, formed in interstellar space and then brought in as part of some cometary debris, or washed in after forming in some other location on Earth.

Or the concentrations may have happened because some of the condensed bits of organic material were catalysts-- which means they could speed up the formation of specific chemicals, when presented with the right raw materials. In fact, in this particular neighborhood, there may have been several supercatalysts-- clusters of catalysts that were positioned just right so they produced a series of chemical reactions, much like a 'chemical factory'. Each of those catalytic clusters would have taken common raw materials, and created high concentrations of a specific organic chemical (for more about early catalysis, see Appendix 3)."

[yanong_banikanhon]

Therefore, my answer is valid.

Which one, the dolphin? For that answer to be valid, you should provide an undisputable scientific evidence that dolphins DON'T have conscious mind. So that they will qualify as 'a thing that exist in nature and is capable of producing a sophisticated language, gawas sa usa ka conscious mind'.

But you also said:

He doesn't realize that attributing "mind" and "consciousness" to animals is still hotly debated

Can't you see that you are actually contradicting yourself?

DNA is the language of life. That's how molecular biologists would describe DNA. It's not just the container.

Kana kun ang imong opinion ang sundon. But let's consult a reliable source. Here:

DNA is a nucleic acid that CONTAINS the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms

src: DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kita ka? DNA is a nucleic acid that CONTAINS the genetic instructions.

I'm not asking about the nucleic acid, I'm asking about the LANGUAGE that is used to encode the genetic instructions. Asa man ang verifiable scientific evidence that this LANGUAGE originates from a random, mindless process? ASA MAN?

[pinoy_09]

nah...ni suggest ka mag drugs unya karon mangambot ka.. ayaw nalang diay og suggest kun mangambot ka, ngutana pajud ka unsa ako tan-aw...

Hahayz