Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Son of Inigo]

~snip~

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

regards

Why should we be interested in YOUR beliefs? None of us are interested in beliefs, yours or others. We are interested in facts, evidence, science.

So far you have only given us your beliefs. When asked, repeatedly, to show your scientific facts, you give us philosophical logic word salad.

Your post remind me of FOTL adherents. They believe if they just say the correct legal sounding words in the correct manner, they will convince anyone that they are correct. They don't really know what the words mean, as they are not lawyers, but they got them from some Website that claims that they will work.

You spout scienc-y and logic-y sounding words, over and over, but it is becoming apparent that you don't really know what they mean. You don't even understand the concepts they are supposed to refute. You just keep throwing word salad out, hoping we will finally collectively smack our foreheads and exclaim "Eurika! he finally got the all the words in the correct order, he has won".

That is not how science works. If you cannot even acknowledge that TOE is science, then there really is no hope for you. Just like a judge faced with a FOTL crank, we just shake our heads, declare science as the truth, bang our gavels and go home.

I remain respectfully yours ect, ect ......

 

[Kid Eager]

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




Yes it was ...TEXTBOOK.





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

regards

Intriguing level of internal compartmentalisation you're showing there: you're *terribly* interested in the quoted author's words in one section of his paper, yet this has reverted to "I'm not interested in his beliefs" 2 sentences later, because he's talking about...

wait for it...

Evolution.

Does this amount of deflection and contradiction normally work well for you in your creationist apologetics?

 

[Daniel]

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

You have no evidence, you have a trainwreck. To refute, simply post this SCIENTIFIC Evidence...? This is accomplished by posting it in the Scientific Method Format; hence the word "Scientific'.

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.

When you figure out what Science is...it'll become clear.

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

This is your argument?? Oy Vey

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?

So post a small amount; then SPEAK TO IT!

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.

Sure

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

oh brother

You are arguing that the TOE is wrong.

No, I'm saying it DOESN'T EXIST!

You, so far as I, a layman, have not given one scientific reason why that is so.

Have you read through the thread? Perhaps because it's not Science and because you're a 'layman'... you didn't recognize this Immutable Fact.

regards

 

[ehcks]

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.

You demand evidence, then claim that providing that evidence is a fallacy.

You want the entire Theory of Evolution. This is hundreds of years of work over millions of pages of books and research documents and thesis papers. You would also call providing that a fallacy, wouldn't you?

 

[Reality Check]

The difference is I SPEAK to what I CITE...

The reality is that SPEAKING FANTASIES about your QUOTAIONS is what you are doing, Daniel.
Revealing your deep ignorance of much of physics through ignorant questions again and again is bad, e.g. "what are virtual particles".

 

[Reality Check]

No, I'm saying it DOESN'T EXIST!

We are saying that endlessly repeating an obvious lie does not make it true, Daniel.
A theory of evolution has existed since before Charles Darwin. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin suggested that species evolved in a 1803 poem! The theory of evolution has existed since On the Origin of Species was published on 24 November 1859.
You know that your statement is a lie became you must know about the many textbooks wirtittn on TOE and you have been supplied with resources about TOE in another thread:

Your request has been fulfilled. You have been cited resources such as Wikipedia and Talk Origins where you can learn abut the facts and the scientific theory of evolution.
ETA: In case we get more irrational demands for every bit of text ever written on the scientific theory ff evolution, here are some topics covered by Talk Origins
What is Evolution? All too often creationists spend their time arguing with a straw-man caricature of evolution. This brief essay presents a definition of evolution that is acceptable to evolutionists.
The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
The Origin of Species
Macroevolution
Random Genetic Drift
Punctuated Equilibria
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Fossil Hominids
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Piltdown Man (how science corrects itself by always testing its evidence)
The Archaeopteryx FAQs
Fossil Horse FAQs
The Natural History of Marsupials
The Evolution of Color Vision
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation

 

[Kid Eager]

You have no evidence, you have a trainwreck. To refute, simply post this SCIENTIFIC Evidence...? This is accomplished by posting it in the Scientific Method Format; hence the word "Scientific'.

When you figure out what Science is...it'll become clear.

This is your argument?? Oy Vey

So post a small amount; then SPEAK TO IT!

Sure

oh brother

No, I'm saying it DOESN'T EXIST!

Have you read through the thread? Perhaps because it's not Science and because you're a 'layman'... you didn't recognize this Immutable Fact.

regards

Ipse dixit

 

[Reality Check]

So post a small amount; then SPEAK TO IT!

I will do that, Daniel.
One piece of evidence that the Earth is > 6000 years old is Ice cores

The TAlos Dome Ice CorE Project is a new 1620 m deep ice core drilled at Talos Dome that provides a paleoclimate record covering at least the last 250,000 years.

Which is only one example - the Vostok core reached back 420,000 years.
SPEAKING FOR IT:
Anyone who can count will count that the Earth has existed more then 6000 summers. That is counting the visible to the eye layer of dust deposited in each summer. 1 layer = 1 summer, 2 layers = 2 summers, 3 layers = 3 summers, etc.
Can you count from 1 to 250,000, Daniel ?

 

[Daniel]

You demand evidence, then claim that providing that evidence is a fallacy.

It is a Fallacy, it's called Elephant Hurling.

You want the entire Theory of Evolution.

Yes. It should be like 1-2 short sentences, 3 tops.

This is hundreds of years of work over millions of pages of books and research documents and thesis papers. You would also call providing that a fallacy, wouldn't you?

Yes, Red Herring.

Please just post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? THEN we'll evaluate the EVIDENCE for " it ".

Ya see, before you provide evidence for something... you kinda have to define what that "something" is, First.

Like Bananas...

They grow on trees and are red, pink, purple, green, yellow; contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6. That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries. It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.

regards

 

[Daniel]

I will do that, Daniel.
One piece of evidence that the Earth is > 6000 years old is Ice cores

"Wiki", eh? Ok...

Which is only one example - the Vostok core reached back 420,000 years.
SPEAKING FOR IT:
Anyone who can count will count that the Earth has existed more then 6000 summers. That is counting the visible to the eye layer of dust deposited in each summer. 1 layer = 1 summer, 2 layers = 2 summers, 3 layers = 3 summers, etc.
Can you count from 1 to 250,000, Daniel ?

1. What's the Formal Scientific Hypothesis here then Experiment that Validates this claim...?
Highlight The Independent Variable used in the TEST...?


Are you familiar with the tenets of Quantum Mechanics...? ...

2. Who Observed this dust/ice 420,000 years ago and Recorded their Findings...?

regards

 

[Kid Eager]

"Wiki", eh? Ok...




1. What's the Formal Scientific Hypothesis here then Experiment that Validates this claim...?
Highlight The Independent Variable used in the TEST...?


Are you familiar with the tenets of Quantum Mechanics...? ...

2. Who Observed this dust/ice 420,000 years ago and Recorded their Findings...?

regards

Non-sequitur

Comprehension failure

 

[RussDill]

I never said the Laws of Thermodynamics Violated QM. I said your claim DID. Ha, sure it's incomplete.

Well since my claim was that things in the natural world occur without cause, you can see how I'd be confused when you keep mentioning something from nothing. There is only one of here claiming that something was created from nothing.

So now they're "Virtual" Particles, eh? Define Virtual...?

Again, I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics. If you wish to learn about topics such as quantum mechanics, you are free to do so. There are plenty of excellent resources, I could point you to them if you like.

BTW, have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/The-Unity-Truth-Solving-Religion/dp/1475930607 Or maybe something else by the Sweet coauthors?

 

[ehcks]

It is a Fallacy, it's called Elephant Hurling.

Don't ask for something if you won't accept it.

Yes. It should be like 1-2 short sentences, 3 tops.

Simply and completely wrong. One or two short sentences describes what evolution is: Life changes over time. Life adapts to its surroundings. The Theory of Evolution is not that. The ToE is the entirety of human knowledge of how life does those things, what changes life has made, how those changes caused other changes, and so on for more data than is capable of being stated in a lifetime.

Yes, Red Herring.

A red herring is an off-topic statement intended to change the subject. I am doing neither. You want the entire scientific Theory of Evolution, and I am telling you that that is impossible. Even if you were capable of understanding it, there isn't enough room in a single post for it. There most likely is not enough storage space on the entire forum server for all of it.

 

[Daniel]

Well since my claim was that things in the natural world occur without cause

Which is Ludicrous. Post One...? Please don't say Virtual Particles. (Which you didn't DEFINE btw.)

There is only one of here claiming that something was created from nothing.

There's a forum full that 'believe' it; every Materialist/Realist. It's possible they don't realize it yet, however.

Again, I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics. If you wish to learn about topics such as quantum mechanics, you are free to do so. There are plenty of excellent resources, I could point you to them if you like.

too funny; You keep thinking that.

BTW, have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/The-Unity-Truth-Solving-Religion/dp/1475930607 Or maybe something else by the Sweet coauthors?

Nope.

regards

 

[Daniel]

Don't ask for something if you won't accept it.

Accept what....?? You didn't 'provide' anything.

Simply and completely wrong.

How so...?

One or two short sentences describes what evolution is:

Well I didn't ask for that.

The ToE is the entirety of human knowledge of how life does those things, what changes life has made, how those changes caused other changes, and so on for more data than is capable of being stated in a lifetime.

This is a Story ("Just So" variety). Look up what a Scientific Theory is, then Re-Compute.

A red herring is an off-topic statement intended to change the subject. I am doing neither.

You floated this... "hundreds of years of work over millions of pages of books and research documents and thesis papers..."

It's a Red Herring (Fallacy), Argument to Age (Fallacy) and an Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy) to be precise and thorough. I asked for the Scientific Theory of evolution.

You want the entire scientific Theory of Evolution, and I am telling you that that is impossible.

Well then it's not "SCIENTIFIC".

Even if you were capable of understanding it, there isn't enough room in a single post for it. There most likely is not enough storage space on the entire forum server for all of it.

Again, look up what a Scientific Theory is; then try again

regards

 

[Kid Eager]

Accept what....?? You didn't 'provide' anything.





How so...?




Well I didn't ask for that.




This is a Story ("Just So" variety). Look up what a Scientific Theory is, then Re-Compute.





You floated this... "hundreds of years of work over millions of pages of books and research documents and thesis papers..."

It's a Red Herring (Fallacy), Argument to Age (Fallacy) and an Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy) to be precise and thorough. I asked for the Scientific Theory of evolution.





Well then it's not "SCIENTIFIC".





Again, look up what a Scientific Theory is; then try again

regards

Appeal to Ignorance

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Counting ice core layers shows that the Earth is more than 6000 years

1. What's the Formal Scientific Hypothesis here then Experiment that Validates this claim...?

Totally ignorant and irrelevant questions about ice cores Daniel, but what else can we expect from you ?
3 March 2016 Daniel: Counting the layers in ice cores shows that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.

There is the observation that in summer dust, etc. is deposited in snow that makes the snow darker than winter snow.
There is the observation that this snow becomes ice because the weight of the snow in following years compresses it. The dark layers are retained.

 

[RussDill]

Which is Ludicrous. Post One...? Please don't say Virtual Particles. (Which you didn't DEFINE btw.)

Heh, well I posted two. You already seem to have the virtual particles one, so I'll remind you of the other one, nuclear decay. Nuclear (and other particle decay) has no cause. In fact, we can do nothing to hasten or slow nuclear or particle decay.

Also, it is not my job to educate you on quantum mechanics, if you are not familiar with virtual particles, you are free to research them at your leisure. You had asked someone else about some very well understood scientific concepts, and they kindly provided you with the information you had asked for. Instead of being thankful, you actually responded with hostility. Since I'm not sure why, I'll hold off provided any pointers to the relevant info unless you request it.

There's a forum full that 'believe' it; every Materialist/Realist. It's possible they don't realize it yet, however.

Seems strange that you ridicule others who believe that something came from nothing when you declare that God created the universe from nothing. However, I think we can move past that issue as I've made no such claims.

too funny; You keep thinking that.

So on one hand, you want me to explain virtual particles, but on the other hand, you claim that my observation that you are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics. is "too funny". I'm not sure why I expected anything else. Yes I know exactly how cars work, now, if you could explain what a piston is....

Nope.

Ah, ok, it just had a lot of the phrases you use and additionally had a very close association between Einstein and thermodynamics being pillars of science.

 

[marplots]

I blame homeschooling.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Are you paraphrasing Ken Ham or some other deluded creationist

". Who Observed this dust/ice 420,000 years ago and Recorded their Findings...

Another totally ignorant question, Daniel. The counting of the ice core layers have been made in the last few decades!

3 March 2016 Daniel: Are you paraphrasing Ken Ham or some other deluded creationist?

Ken Ham's "Excuse me, were you there?" delusion:

Did you know you can ask very simple questions to the scientists who claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? You could say to them, in a very nice way of course, "Excuse me, were you there?" You are actually asking them, "Were you there to see the dinosaurs when they first came into existence? Were you there to see them alive? Were you there to see them die out?" Obviously, they weren't there, so how could they really know everything about them?