Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
...and Fen what happens?
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
...and Fen what happens?
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Oooooo...you will get your just deserts, for that.
Last edited:
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
It is now.
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
Really - you never said it was?
Sheesh! Seems that you're being a little economical with the truthIt be tantamount to showing the Physico-Chemical link between C A T and...
Care to comment on this set of incoherent gibberish:
It's whoa, sonny.
So for the umpteenth time, are you suggesting that the process of DNA transcription and translation has a step or steps which cannot occur naturally and so there are billions of tiny supernatural miracles going on in our bodies every second of every day? Because if that's not what you are suggesting, then I don't know what the hell you are suggesting and you are doing a dreadful job of explaining yourself. If it is what you are suggesting, could you explain exactly which of the processes cannot occur naturally, in your view?1. Copied...Why? Please post the Physical Law for Copying...?
2. Where'd you get the Motor Proteins...Helicases ("Functional Proteins"), Topoisomerases ("Functional Proteins") and RNA Polymerase (RNA + "Functional Proteins") Complex....??
You're attempting to make "Functional Proteins" when you need "Functional Proteins" to make "Functional Proteins"!!
Is this like the Space Shuttle birthing the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?
3. And how on Earth do these Stupid atoms/molecules "KNOW" where to begin Transcribing, pray tell? Post that Physical Law...?
1. Your attention to excruciating detail is OCD like. Where'd you get the tRNA's (mRNA is dealt with above)..it's NOT DNA? Do you recall my argument, by chance?
2. Where are the tRNA's in relation to mRNA just prior to starting Translation...? Where is mRNA...?
3. What Physical Law adds 17-20 AA's per second to the growing peptide chain?
4. Where'd you get the Two-Part/Subunit Ribosome (Another RNA + "Functional Protein" Complex)...?
5. Explain the process to get that "Appropriate Amino Acid" to BIND to tRNAand watch your World-View Implode!! Sorry this is redundant, it already did above (SEE everything after: Copied...Why?)
I mean if you don't understand how a tRNA binds its appropriate amino acid (and not other amino acids), this isn't a subject that you are competent to discuss.
I see. So you are to molecular biology as Tiger Woods is to golf. Got it - On reflection, Tiger Woods would probably benefit with some coaching from Mr Magoo, given his recent form.
The problem you are having is that despite obviously thinking you are making a point, no-one else on the forum has the slightest idea what point you are trying to make, as a result of your incoherent, self-contradictory ranting. And
that's your problem, not ours.
Son of Inigo
Thinker
Daniel,
I know how you can shut up all your critics in the thread.
They, the critics, espouse evolution by natural selection as the mechanism that explains how the organisms we see today, including plants, animals, humans, and all other life, came about. Their entire theory rests on one fact: evolution by natural selection has had billions of years to do its work.
So, you want to refute them? Put them in their rightful place? Shut them up forever? Scientifically validate that the earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old. Show them conclusively and scientifically that evolution by natural selection cannot be the mechanism given that the age of the earth is not nearly old enough for it to work.
Destroy the notion that the earth is old enough for evolution by natural selection to work, and you win. It would really be the only logical conclusion. By logical reasoning, if the earth is not old enough for evolution by natural selection to have had the time to be the mechanism, then it cant be the mechanism.
Prove the age of the earth is much younger than the billions of years required for evolution by natural selection. Knock that one down, and the rest of their theories come tumbling down with it.
I await your replay,
Regards, ect...
ETA: edited the age of the earth to be the correct 4.5 billion years, not the 13.5 million I had stated previously.
I know how you can shut up all your critics in the thread.
They, the critics, espouse evolution by natural selection as the mechanism that explains how the organisms we see today, including plants, animals, humans, and all other life, came about. Their entire theory rests on one fact: evolution by natural selection has had billions of years to do its work.
So, you want to refute them? Put them in their rightful place? Shut them up forever? Scientifically validate that the earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old. Show them conclusively and scientifically that evolution by natural selection cannot be the mechanism given that the age of the earth is not nearly old enough for it to work.
Destroy the notion that the earth is old enough for evolution by natural selection to work, and you win. It would really be the only logical conclusion. By logical reasoning, if the earth is not old enough for evolution by natural selection to have had the time to be the mechanism, then it cant be the mechanism.
Prove the age of the earth is much younger than the billions of years required for evolution by natural selection. Knock that one down, and the rest of their theories come tumbling down with it.
I await your replay,
Regards, ect...
ETA: edited the age of the earth to be the correct 4.5 billion years, not the 13.5 million I had stated previously.
Last edited:
Son of Inigo
Thinker
It's not.
It's about 4.5 billion years old.
~Face palm~
Yes, you are correct, was confusing age of earth with age of universe. Thank you for the correction. Will edit my post accordingly.
ETA: I think the basic premise holds though.
Last edited:
Haven't I already accomplished this? ad hominems and appeals to ridicule aren't actual responses.
1. "espousing" isn't Science, it's "espousing".
2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
3. Natural Selection as the Mechanism??
a. Mechanism for what??
b. "Natural Selection":
Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??
Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't mechanisms.
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism." [emphasis mine}
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
4. "came about"??
Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)
Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."
C. de Duve., Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life (Burling-ton, N.C.: Neil Patterson, 1991), p. 187.
aka: Begging The Question (Fallacy).
"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)
1. Say what?? Doesn't something have to have @ least an "alleged" modicum of validation to even avail the opportunity to be Invalidated ?? OR...
Do you think it is scientific or logical for people to imagine things and then demand others who do not believe in their imaginings to demonstrate how their imaginings are false, BEFORE they give evidence for their imaginings?
2. Ahhh, you can't "Disprove" Arguments from Complete Ignorance (Millions/Billions of Years et al). e.g., "3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula create dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole". Disprove It...?
3. Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "DATING METHODS" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to even formulate a Valid Scientific Hypothesis let alone TEST then Validate the Prediction. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !
1. Show how any "Dating Method" is Scientifically VALID, first!! Please Post the Formal Hypothesis THEN Highlight the Independent Variable used to Confirm...? I mean, this is Science, right??
2. Also, if nobody was there to OBSERVE these "rocks/tree rings/ice cores, ect" and RECORD what/when they saw, then please provide...
the "Decay Rate, Deposition Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities....?
Why?? Well...
According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of Experiments without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :
Independent of Observation/Measurement/"A KNOWER"... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.
So, go ahead...?
You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!
regards
Well done
Really, How so....?
Really, How so...? Do you understand the concept of SUPPORTING your claims?
ad hominems are attacking the person in lieu of their argument/position. I was attacking your position of "Something from Nothing"; ergo...it's not an ad hominem. follow?
1. So no reasoning, eh?
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.
If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end — the ‘heat death’ of the universe.
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176
So, since there was a beginning and Matter/Energy can't create itself (1LOT and Common Sense Violation)...then, GOD.
2. Natural Processes involve Space and Matter/Energy, right? Where'd you get them?
In the "context" of the claim postulated to me, the answer was appropriate.
List some and we'll evaluate their claims and see if they are products of the universe or The CAUSE of it.
btw, Christianity is NOT a 'religion'. The sine qua non of 'religion' is belief without evidence. Christians are admonished to do the EXACT Opposite...
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
We could discuss "your" religion: Materialism/Realism, if you wish....?
regards
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
Chat-bot. But not a very intelligent one with a limited repertoire.Haven't I already accomplished this? ad hominems and appeals to ridicule aren't actual responses.
1. "espousing" isn't Science, it's "espousing".
2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
3. Natural Selection as the Mechanism??
a. Mechanism for what??
b. "Natural Selection":
Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??
Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't mechanisms.
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism." [emphasis mine}
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
4. "came about"??
Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)
Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."
C. de Duve., Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life (Burling-ton, N.C.: Neil Patterson, 1991), p. 187.
aka: Begging The Question (Fallacy).
"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)
1. Say what?? Doesn't something have to have @ least an "alleged" modicum of validation to even avail the opportunity to be Invalidated ?? OR...
Do you think it is scientific or logical for people to imagine things and then demand others who do not believe in their imaginings to demonstrate how their imaginings are false, BEFORE they give evidence for their imaginings?
2. Ahhh, you can't "Disprove" Arguments from Complete Ignorance (Millions/Billions of Years et al). e.g., "3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula create dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole". Disprove It...?
3. Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "DATING METHODS" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to even formulate a Valid Scientific Hypothesis let alone TEST then Validate the Prediction. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !
1. Show how any "Dating Method" is Scientifically VALID, first!! Please Post the Formal Hypothesis THEN Highlight the Independent Variable used to Confirm...? I mean, this is Science, right??
2. Also, if nobody was there to OBSERVE these "rocks/tree rings/ice cores, ect" and RECORD what/when they saw, then please provide...
the "Decay Rate, Deposition Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities....?
Why?? Well...
According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of Experiments without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :
Independent of Observation/Measurement/"A KNOWER"... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.
So, go ahead...?
You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!
regards
RussDill
Philosopher
See, and I was thinking straw man since I'd never mentioned anything about something from nothing.
RussDill
Philosopher
Why bother with the other stuff if you can't answer a simple question. You've been using this phrase for over a year. I've asked you once already. What does it mean?
Yea, this week.
Please Scientifically Validate your claim here; post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment confirming your claim...?
Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TEST...?
If you can't Scientifically Validate this claim, then what is your claim here...
1. Ipse Dixit.
2. Propaganda to support an "a priori" adherence to a fairytale World-View.
3. Blind Faith.
4. All the above.
??
Do you even know what a Scientific Hypothesis is?? (It's Rhetorical, cause if you did you wouldn't have posted this nonsense)
Please list the tenets and provide an example of one for us...?? You know, so we can be assured that you have a scosh of a clue/acumen of what you're talking about. Fair?
regards
Son of Inigo
Thinker
Haven't I already accomplished this? ad hominems and appeals to ridicule aren't actual responses.
1. "espousing" isn't Science, it's "espousing".
2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
3. Natural Selection as the Mechanism??
a. Mechanism for what??
b. "Natural Selection":
Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??
Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't mechanisms.
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism." [emphasis mine}
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
4. "came about"??
Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)
Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."
C. de Duve., Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life (Burling-ton, N.C.: Neil Patterson, 1991), p. 187.
aka: Begging The Question (Fallacy).
"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)
1. Say what?? Doesn't something have to have @ least an "alleged" modicum of validation to even avail the opportunity to be Invalidated ?? OR...
Do you think it is scientific or logical for people to imagine things and then demand others who do not believe in their imaginings to demonstrate how their imaginings are false, BEFORE they give evidence for their imaginings?
2. Ahhh, you can't "Disprove" Arguments from Complete Ignorance (Millions/Billions of Years et al). e.g., "3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula create dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole". Disprove It...?
3. Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "DATING METHODS" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to even formulate a Valid Scientific Hypothesis let alone TEST then Validate the Prediction. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !
1. Show how any "Dating Method" is Scientifically VALID, first!! Please Post the Formal Hypothesis THEN Highlight the Independent Variable used to Confirm...? I mean, this is Science, right??
2. Also, if nobody was there to OBSERVE these "rocks/tree rings/ice cores, ect" and RECORD what/when they saw, then please provide...
the "Decay Rate, Deposition Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities....?
Why?? Well...
According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of Experiments without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :
Independent of Observation/Measurement/"A KNOWER"... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.
So, go ahead...?
You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!
regards
So, that would be a no? You got nothing.
My dear David. I was you not too many years ago. I was raised in a Christian household, attended a Christian school that used the ACE curriculum. I was a born again believer. I was on forums such as this one, preaching the gospel according to Genesis. I knew, KNEW, that evolution was wrong, cause my bible told me so.
Age of the earth was what moved me from being a Young Earth Creationist to believing in Intelligent Design. I could no longer ignore scientific evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth. But I still held on to my bible beliefs. In fact it was reasons.org that helped convince me to accept the 4.5 billion age for earth.
I now no longer believe in ID. I no longer believe in the bible. Science is what I believe in. I see you making all the same crappy arguments that I did, and I see they are still as wrong now, as they were when I made them myself.
Your logic is wrong. Your analogies are wrong. Your 'science' is wrong.
Do as your bible says, and prove all things. Prove scientifically that evolutionists are wrong. The entire theory of evolution can be discredited by proving one thing. Prove that the earth is much younger than 4.5 billions years, and you have destroyed Darwin and all that come after him.
Prove it.
Your former fellow traveler,
Son of Inigo
Thinker
Sorry, double post
1. Sir you said in post # 170... "For instance, we know that many events have no cause. Pairs of particles pop into and out of existence without cause."
My answer was: Really?? Please post 1LOT's "Pillar of Science" Obituary...?
Ya see sir, 1LOT "Pillar of Science" states: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy they can just change form.
You said that "Particles" Matter Pop in and out of existence without cause".
ERGO... for your claim to be TRUE, 1LOT would need to be Falsified. So please, to not Violate the Law of Non-Contradiction show 1LOT's Obituary....?
Follow??
2. "over a year"?? Sir, I've been here for about a week. and btw, I've been making this claim for much much longer than a year.
regards
You don't have to explicitly mention it sir... it's called reasoning, there are only 2 choices for HOW we (Universe/us) are here:
Nature (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided).
Your position is clear, "No GOD"; ERGO...."Nature" is your god.
So to remain logically consistent with your World-View, "Nature" MUST HAVE created itself from absolutely nothing. Voila
regards
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I love threads like this. I always end up learning more about the item in question. Evolution is a fascinating subject, as is DNA.
I've been tempted to take university level courses on the subject just to understand it better. When the creationists show up, and start ranting about how it can't be true, I find there is always more to learn about what they don't understand. And never will.
I've been tempted to take university level courses on the subject just to understand it better. When the creationists show up, and start ranting about how it can't be true, I find there is always more to learn about what they don't understand. And never will.