Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Shalamar]

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

Nope. One: Evolution says nothing about the origins or life, or the universe.

Two: The answer to the origin of the Universe and life happens to be 'We don't know. But we're hoping to find out'.

I'd rather investigate the 'I don't know', than decide I know the answer, and ignore anything that doesn't fit.

 

[Daniel]

So, that would be a no? You got nothing.

That's why you painfully, with excruciating detail... supported your claims.

My dear David.

It's Daniel, not David.

Your logic is wrong. Your analogies are wrong. Your 'science' is wrong.

Ipse Dixit Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Color Commentary One Liner Assertions (fallacy) are not cogent arguments or positions.


regards

 

[Son of Inigo]

I am truly sorry Daniel, please forgive my error.

hat's why you painfully, with excruciating detail... supported your claims.

I will show you mine, if you show me yours

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/?no-ist

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/measuring.html

Your turn.

Show me your scientific evidence that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

Respectfully, etc, etc.....

 

[Slowvehicle]

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).

This is, in fact, a false dichotomy. Not only that, you are offering up, as an alternative to observable reality, your version of the superstiton(s) to which you are in thrall. It does not help that you apply different standards to reality and to your superstition(s). It does not help at all that there is not, and never has been, objective evidence for any 'god', much less your 'god'.

Your position is clear, "No GOD"; ERGO...."Nature" is your god.

This is, in fact, a person of straw. You make an incorrect and dishonest statement (you must confess a sect that is...lax...on the whole "false witness" proscription); no one here has said, or implied, that "nature" is a 'god'.

You should consider correcting this mendacity.

So to remain logically consistent with your World-View, "Nature" MUST HAVE created itself from absolutely nothing. Voila

Ummmm...no. Read my sig.

Do also be honest enough to admit you own "oopsie dixit" about simply declaring a unique property for your 'god'; without ever bothering to demonstrate it. Keep trying...

regards

You should probably regard your words more straitly...

 

[Daniel]

One: Evolution says nothing about the origins or life, or the universe.

1. Reification Fallacy: Does "evolution" have vocal chords?

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. LIFE is a product of the evolution of INORGANIC NATURE, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Gratuitous - Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.--oxford dict.

2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Two: The answer to the origin of the Universe and life happens to be 'We don't know. But we're hoping to find out.

1. Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy): 'we don't know'.
2. Appeal to the Future (Fallacy): 'we're hoping to find out'.

We sure Know HOW it didn't !! Ergo... GOD.

regards

 

[Daniel]

I am truly sorry Daniel, please forgive my error.
I will show you mine, if you show me yours

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/?no-ist

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/measuring.html

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy): a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument. http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

An 8 year old can type anything in a search engine then post "Links".

fyi: Are you aware... on actual "Science" Forums just providing "Links" is a Banning Offense ??

Show me your scientific evidence that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

unbelievable. Can't let go of the narrative, eh? I've already explain this nonsense to you in explicit detail just a few minutes ago. You're "Whistl'n Past The Graveyard".


regards

 

[Trebuchet]

If it's a small enough elephant, I'll hurl it.

 

[Daniel]

This is, in fact, a false dichotomy.

And...? SUPPORT...? Provide the 3rd/4th/5th category besides "Nature (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided)....?

Not only that, you are offering up, as an alternative to observable reality, your version of the superstiton(s) to which you are in thrall. It does not help that you apply different standards to reality and to your superstition(s).

It's not "Mine", it's called Quantum Mechanics.

It does not help at all that there is not, and never has been, objective evidence for any 'god', much less your 'god'.

Jesus Christ.

Information.
Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Laws of Quantum Mechanics.
Law of Biogenesis.

What more do you need?

There's no Objective Evidence for the cause of the Great Pyramids, but it's reasonable to conclude the: Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity/Laws of Motion ect didn't create them.

Ummmm...no. Read my sig.

Do you reckon with The CREATOR...GOD?? If so, why are you arguing with me?

Do also be honest enough to admit you own "oopsie dixit" about simply declaring a unique property for your 'god'; without ever bothering to demonstrate it. Keep trying...

Have you read through this thread? This is tantamount to walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming, "What Ocean??".


regards

 

[Shalamar]

1. Reification Fallacy: Does "evolution" have vocal chords?

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. LIFE is a product of the evolution of INORGANIC NATURE, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Gratuitous - Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.--oxford dict.

Cute. The Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection is concerned with Life only. And existing life at that.
Want to talk about Stellar evolution? Ask an astronomer.
Origins of Life? A Biologist.
Origins of the Universe? Cosmologist.

There is no overarching theory of everything.

2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Nope! Not gonna do it!

For two reasons:

1: I am a layperson. I am not qualified to discuss, or teach it in any depth. And a true full discussion takes up entire university courses.

2: You don't want to know. Putting evolution in Scare quotes doesn't make it any less true. As well, many many others on this forum have tried to explain the Theory of Evolution as best they can to someone who is ignorant of it, and you reject it. This tells me that you have a conclusion, and are not interested in discussion.

1. Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy): 'we don't know'.

Nope! You're wrong here. This isn't an argument of ANYTHING. It's simply stating 'We don't know'. 'What came before the big bang?' 'We don't know' is perfectly valid. Trying to find out is how we drive innovation and knowledge.

2. Appeal to the Future (Fallacy): 'we're hoping to find out'.

Again, No. It means what it means. We want to find out. Could be anything. Could be nothing. Could even be your god. But we don't know! And we won't know unless we investigate!

We sure Know HOW it didn't !! Ergo... GOD.

Argument from incredulity. You don't like the answers, therefor your assumed answer must be the correct one. That isn't how any of this works.

I've met your type. You've decided that your conclusion is the correct one (god) and that anything else that leads to a different answer MUST be wrong.

Want to know something? Everything we know could be wrong. Life, and universe and everything. We could find new information tomorrow that overturns it all. We'll never find out if we stop investigating.

You want us to stop. You claim to have the answers. Science doesn't necessarily claim to know the answers. That we state is 'Based on what we have learned to this point, these are the conclusions we make'. This is why textbooks are constantly needing updating. This is why scientists do what they do. To find out what they don't know.


You are the person in the cave, telling others that the lightning and thunder happen because god is angry. The rest of us? We looking outside, and wondering 'What causes that to happen'.

We stare at the horizon and ask 'What's over the hill? Lets go find out'.

You are there, yelling the answer is god. Always god.

That is a shame. Because you don't want to learn, or understand. You want your self imposed ignorance.

regards

 

[stanfr]

We sure Know HOW it didn't !! Ergo... GOD.

God o' the Gaps...turtles, all the wayyyy down!

 

[stanfr]

Cute. The Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection is concerned with Life only. And existing life at that.
Want to talk about Stellar evolution? Ask an astronomer.
Origins of Life? A Biologist.
Origins of the Universe? Cosmologist.

There is no overarching theory of everything.



Nope! Not gonna do it!

For two reasons:

1: I am a layperson. I am not qualified to discuss, or teach it in any depth. And a true full discussion takes up entire university courses.

2: You don't want to know. Putting evolution in Scare quotes doesn't make it any less true. As well, many many others on this forum have tried to explain the Theory of Evolution as best they can to someone who is ignorant of it, and you reject it. This tells me that you have a conclusion, and are not interested in discussion.







Nope! You're wrong here. This isn't an argument of ANYTHING. It's simply stating 'We don't know'. 'What came before the big bang?' 'We don't know' is perfectly valid. Trying to find out is how we drive innovation and knowledge.



Again, No. It means what it means. We want to find out. Could be anything. Could be nothing. Could even be your god. But we don't know! And we won't know unless we investigate!



Argument from incredulity. You don't like the answers, therefor your assumed answer must be the correct one. That isn't how any of this works.

I've met your type. You've decided that your conclusion is the correct one (god) and that anything else that leads to a different answer MUST be wrong.

Want to know something? Everything we know could be wrong. Life, and universe and everything. We could find new information tomorrow that overturns it all. We'll never find out if we stop investigating.

You want us to stop. You claim to have the answers. Science doesn't necessarily claim to know the answers. That we state is 'Based on what we have learned to this point, these are the conclusions we make'. This is why textbooks are constantly needing updating. This is why scientists do what they do. To find out what they don't know.


You are the person in the cave, telling others that the lightning and thunder happen because god is angry. The rest of us? We looking outside, and wondering 'What causes that to happen'.

We stare at the horizon and ask 'What's over the hill? Lets go find out'.

You are there, yelling the answer is god. Always god.

That is a shame. Because you don't want to learn, or understand. You want your self imposed ignorance.

^

 

[stanfr]

And...? SUPPORT...? Provide the 3rd/4th/5th category besides "Nature (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided)....?

Sure: Nature(Guided), GOD(Unguided), something else(Unguided/Guided). Your protestations to the contrary....

 

[Reality Check]

Haven't I already accomplished this? ad hominems and appeals to ridicule aren't actual responses.

Pointing that your posts are full of gibberish and irrational demands (like this post) is not an ad hominem, Daniel. That are actual real responses to posts full of gibberish !

Son of Inigo was being sarcastic abut your posts, not science.
Repeating an irrational demand to write an evolution textbook for you is inane.
Faking? an inability to understand English really bad, Daniel: natural selection is the simple fact that individuals vary and their environments "select" for a population that best fits the environment. Duh!

 

[Son of Inigo]

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy): a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument. http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

Sooooo, you ask me for my scientific evidence, then reject it because it wasn't supplied in the manner you wanted, but never specified?

Refute the evidence supplied. You are a Young Earth Creationist. You are claiming against all rational scientific evidence that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old. Prove it, with science, not logic. Science wins this battle, not philosophy.

An 8 year old can type anything in a search engine then post "Links"

You are absolutely correct my dear Daniel. So, what is stopping you?

Refute the science Daniel. That is all I ask. Show me the science that refutes the 4.5 billion year age of the earth.

Providing links would be acceptable to me.

fyi: Are you aware... on actual "Science" Forums just providing "Links" is a Banning Offense ??

fyi: Are you aware that we are not posting on actual "Science" Forums? We are posting on the International Skeptics Forum.

Also fyi: Are you aware that according to the membership agreement we all agreed to before posting here, that there is a rule AGAINST copying and pasting large amounts of copyrighted text in the forums?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5669795#post5669795

Please, if you think I did something that I should be banned for, report my posts.

unbelievable. Can't let go of the narrative, eh? I've already explain this nonsense to you in explicit detail just a few minutes ago. You're "Whistl'n Past The Graveyard".

You have explained nothing. You produce a large word salad, then expect me to just blindly accept it as the truth, you know, just like I am supposed to believe your bible.

I respectfully decline to do so. Use science, not your sacred texts.

You are arguing that the TOE is wrong. You, so far as I, a layman, can tell, have not given one scientific reason why that is so. It is up to you to upset the apple cart, not mine to prove there is an apple cart.

Wishing you a great day, with regards, respect, ect, ect......

 

[Reality Check]

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy): ...

Lying is the act of stating that a person is using the Elephant Hurling Fallacy when they are not, Daniel. An eight year old can click on links. Obviously you cannot !
Son of Inigo's list of specific web pages containing scientific evidence that the Earth is billions of years old.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/?no-ist

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/measuring.html

The Elephant Hurling Fallacy would be to cite the Smithsonian Magazine expecting people to scan through it for the evidence.

 

[Kid Eager]

Am i detecting a double standard here Enoch...er Daniel?

On one hand somebody provides specific links providing the information to establish a claim.

On the other hand, it's entirely okay to cite a paragraph(?) in a paper as proof of something, without providing any context or demonstrating why that actually supports your assertion/claim. Elephant hurling indeed...

Mind you, I supposed it makes it easier to copy the more-or-less matching thread from one of your prior fora....

ETA - and quite ironically, if one were to read a few sentences further on from the quote, you would find the next section of the article: "Man Continues to Evolve."

Linky for your edification: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-bJ6_IujW_IC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Evolution+comprises+all+the+stages+of+the+development+of+the+universe:+the+cosmic,+biological,+and+human+or+cultural+developments.+Attempts+to+restrict+the+concept+of+evolution+to+biology+are+gratuitous.+LIFE+is+a+product+of+the+evolution+of+INORGANIC+NATURE,+and+man+is+a+product+of+the+evolution+of+life&source=bl&ots=-C8kinXcG-&sig=KCOq6FqK_Dq-8XE26sZrDvsOdFc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm5bCmgqPLAhXDF5QKHbaIC4gQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Evolution%20comprises%20all%20the%20stages%20of%20the%20development%20of%20the%20universe%3A%20the%20cosmic%2C%20biological%2C%20and%20human%20or%20cultural%20developments.%20Attempts%20to%20restrict%20the%20concept%20of%20evolution%20to%20biology%20are%20gratuitous.%20LIFE%20is%20a%20product%20of%20the%20evolution%20of%20INORGANIC%20NATURE%2C%20and%20man%20is%20a%20product%20of%20the%20evolution%20of%20life&f=false

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy): a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument. http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

An 8 year old can type anything in a search engine then post "Links".

fyi: Are you aware... on actual "Science" Forums just providing "Links" is a Banning Offense ??




unbelievable. Can't let go of the narrative, eh? I've already explain this nonsense to you in explicit detail just a few minutes ago. You're "Whistl'n Past The Graveyard".


regards

1. Reification Fallacy: Does "evolution" have vocal chords?

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. LIFE is a product of the evolution of INORGANIC NATURE, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Gratuitous - Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.--oxford dict.

2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?





1. Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy): 'we don't know'.
2. Appeal to the Future (Fallacy): 'we're hoping to find out'.

We sure Know HOW it didn't !! Ergo... GOD.

regards

 

[RussDill]

Ya see sir, 1LOT "Pillar of Science" states: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy they can just change form.

So many things to address here, but seriously, this 1LOT "Pillar of Science" thing. I've checked even further back and you've actually been using it for over 2 years. Yes, I know you've only been here a week, but it only takes a few seconds to see the other places you've used this phase as you are the only one to use it.

Since you are unwilling to answer a simple question, I finally found a post from more than 2 years ago where you explain what you mean. You are using 1LOT to mean "1st law of thermodynamics". There are a few people that use 1LoT, but it's still really uncommon. The usage of 1LOT all caps seems to be only you and a few other creationists that could also be you, or material you've read.

Additionally, I've never heard the 1st law of thermodynamics referred to as "Pillar of Science". So just stating 1LOT "Pillar of Science" over and over expecting people will know what you mean is a bit crazy, unless of course they also read the same creationist arguments you do.

I'm sorry if your understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, but it does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. When virtual particles appear, they essentially borrow energy from the surrounding vacuum. When they annihilate, that energy is returned. In fact, the higher the surrounding energy level, the higher the number of virtual particles present.

It is in fact quite exciting that not only have all the laws of thermodynamics survived the experimental data returned from quantum experiments, but that the laws of thermodynamics can actually be derived from quantum theory.

And while many refer to this theory or that theory as a "Pillar of Science", there is no such thing. The only "Pillar of Science" is the scientific method. The ability to call into question any scientific knowledge or theory with contradicting evidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So many things to address here, but seriously, this 1LOT "Pillar of Science" thing. I've checked even further back and you've actually been using it for over 2 years. Yes, I know you've only been here a week, but it only takes a few seconds to see the other places you've used this phase as you are the only one to use it.

Since you are unwilling to answer a simple question, I finally found a post from more than 2 years ago where you explain what you mean. You are using 1LOT to mean "1st law of thermodynamics". There are a few people that use 1LoT, but it's still really uncommon. The usage of 1LOT all caps seems to be only you and a few other creationists that could also be you, or material you've read.

Additionally, I've never heard the 1st law of thermodynamics referred to as "Pillar of Science". So just stating 1LOT "Pillar of Science" over and over expecting people will know what you mean is a bit crazy, unless of course they also read the same creationist arguments you do.

I'm sorry if your understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, but it does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. When virtual particles appear, they essentially borrow energy from the surrounding vacuum. When they annihilate, that energy is returned. In fact, the higher the surrounding energy level, the higher the number of virtual particles present.

It is in fact quite exciting that not only have all the laws of thermodynamics survived the experimental data returned from quantum experiments, but that the laws of thermodynamics can actually be derived from quantum theory.

And while many refer to this theory or that theory as a "Pillar of Science", there is no such thing. The only "Pillar of Science" is the scientific method. The ability to call into question any scientific knowledge or theory with contradicting evidence.

Thank you for this. Well said!

 

[Daniel]

Am i detecting a double standard here Enoch...er Daniel?

On one hand somebody provides specific links providing the information to establish a claim.

On the other hand, it's entirely okay to cite a paragraph(?) in a paper as proof of something, without providing any context or demonstrating why that actually supports your assertion/claim.

The difference is I SPEAK to what I CITE and can so @ great length/depth... showing @ the minimum, a familiarity with the subject matter.

Elephant hurling indeed...

Yes it was ...TEXTBOOK.

ETA - and quite ironically, if one were to read a few sentences further on from the quote, you would find the next section of the article: "Man Continues to Evolve."

I'm not interested in his 'beliefs' they are irrelevant to the topic.

regards

 

[Daniel]

So many things to address here, but seriously, this 1LOT "Pillar of Science" thing. I've checked even further back and you've actually been using it for over 2 years. Yes, I know you've only been here a week, but it only takes a few seconds to see the other places you've used this phase as you are the only one to use it.

Good to know. How about spending the same amount of time and effort on SUPPORTING 'cogently' your position?

Since you are unwilling to answer a simple question, I finally found a post from more than 2 years ago where you explain what you mean. You are using 1LOT to mean "1st law of thermodynamics". There are a few people that use 1LoT, but it's still really uncommon. The usage of 1LOT all caps seems to be only you and a few other creationists that could also be you, or material you've read.

Sorry my mistake, I thought I wrote it out a couple of times before I used the acronym.

I'm sorry if your understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, but it does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. When virtual particles appear, they essentially borrow energy from the surrounding vacuum.

I never said the Laws of Thermodynamics Violated QM. I said your claim DID.
Ha, sure it's incomplete.
So now they're "Virtual" Particles, eh? Define Virtual...?

Have you seen this ??...

"The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."
Albert, D PhD (Quantum Physics): On the Origin of Everything: review of A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, 23 March 2012

And Where'd you get the Vacuum (No, not a sweeper)...??

And while many refer to this theory or that theory as a "Pillar of Science", there is no such thing. The only "Pillar of Science" is the scientific method. The ability to call into question any scientific knowledge or theory with contradicting evidence.

Hung up on "pillars of science" eh? I think Einstein made the comment, I'll try and track it down when I get a chance.


regards