Creationist argument about DNA and information

RussDill said:
Heh, well I posted two. You already seem to have the virtual particles one
Click to expand...


You did, and I Imploded it.


so I'll remind you of the other one, nuclear decay.
Click to expand...


I imploded this one also...Where'd you get Radioactive Isotopes? Did they Cause themseves? If so, please....?


Seems strange that you ridicule others who believe that something came from nothing when you declare that God created the universe from nothing.
Click to expand...


GOD'S not nothing.

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".
Click to expand...


Well "YOU" made the claim, eh? I want you to OFFICIALLY define "Virtual Particles", so I can Implode this one last time.

Your continued attempts @ "dodging it" is speaking volumes, btw.

regards
 
Shalamar said:
Closer to an appeal to Incredulity. He doesn't like it, therefor it cannot be true.
Click to expand...

It's a tough call: doesn't like it, doesn't understand it, or both?

In either case, it's fairly rudimentary paint-by-numbers trollery with copious direct copypasta from his threads in other fora.

I mean, look at this for laziness:

Daniel said:
Accept what....?? You didn't 'provide' anything. :rolleyes:

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
Click to expand...

or this.....

Daniel said:
You did, and I Imploded it.

I imploded this one also...Where'd you get Radioactive Isotopes? Did they Cause themseves? If so, please....?

GOD'S not nothing.

Well "YOU" made the claim, eh? I want you to OFFICIALLY define "Virtual Particles", so I can Implode this one last time.

Your continued attempts @ "dodging it" is speaking volumes, btw.

regards
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
It's a tough call: doesn't like it, doesn't understand it, or both?

In either case, it's fairly rudimentary paint-by-numbers trollery with copious direct copypasta from his threads in other fora.

I mean, look at this for laziness:
Click to expand...

I think it is both.

He has his conclusion: Goddidit.

It's the answer he wants for everything. Goddidit.

I think he doesn't understand what he's pretending to argue against, and if he did, he doesn't like it, because it doesn't give the conclusion he wants.
 
Daniel said:
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."
Click to expand...
Sir, you remain ignorant throughout today about the existence of virtual particles.
They are the quantum field theory explanation of many interactions (including the fundamental forces) as exchanges of virtual particles.
 
Reality Check said:
I will do that, Daniel.
One piece of evidence that the Earth is > 6000 years old is Ice cores

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 :p?
Click to expand...

Daniel said:
"Wiki", eh? :rolleyes: 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
Click to expand...
This exchange says it all. Daniel will not accept even the simplest and most straightforward scientifically based argument. "Who observed this dust/'ice 420,000 years ago...?" -- how absurd!
 
Daniel said:
You did, and I Imploded it. I imploded this one also...Where'd you get Radioactive Isotopes? Did they Cause themseves? If so, please....?
Click to expand...

So you are saying that their mere existence causes them to decay? Then they would decay the instant of their creation. No, their creation cannot be the cause of their decay.

GOD'S not nothing.
Click to expand...

...and he created the universe out of...


Well "YOU" made the claim, eh? I want you to OFFICIALLY define "Virtual Particles", so I can Implode this one last time.

Your continued attempts @ "dodging it" is speaking volumes, btw.
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm really sorry that you don't have enough of an understanding of quantum mechanics or virtual particles to address the argument. If you'd like, we can make things easier and steer clear of areas of quantum mechanics that take more study. How about we just concentrate on particle decay, such as the decay of a muon?

If you'd like though, I'm patient, we can walk though a study of quantum mechanics together. I have many resources at hand that I'd be happy to share with you. I assure you, quantum mechanics is a really exciting area of study and you'll be happy you did :)
 
Daniel said:
GOD'S not nothing.
Click to expand...

So then, what is God? Matter? Energy?? A figment of your imagination???
Have you observed "God"? If one cannot deduce something without personal observation (your argument about ice layers) then how does God exist without your personal (and mine, and every scientist out there...) observation??
 
Daniel said:
Yea, this week.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously going to argue against improving accuracy of the measurements? Would you say the same about the speed of light? Is it only 299792.458 km/s "this week"?

Daniel said:
<snip more word games>
Click to expand...

Go and dig up how the measurements were made and come back when you have more refutation than an over-wordy "I don't believe you, la la la la".
 
ehcks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really. The ToE can be summarised in a few short sentences as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. What you're describing is evolutionary theory, the Modern Synthesis, which combines numerous theories, such as the theory of Common Descent, Mendelism, paleontology theories, population genetics,neutralism etc.
The simplicity of ToE is what caused Huxley to comment, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!"
 
Daniel,

I know you want to flit around like a gad-fly pretending to "disprove" every theory of modern physics and biology, but please don't forget the exchange we were having about the DNA translation process (last on my post 205).

1. Would you like to comment on the contradiction between these two statements of yours:
Daniel said:
For the 2nd Time, No I'm not suggesting that. The Process/Mechanism is well known.
For the 3rd Time, I said there are NO Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and the Amino Acid or Instruction.
Click to expand...

2. Please confirm whether your claim is that the DNA transcription and translation process from DNA to amino acid cannot occur naturally, and that therefore there are billions of small supernatural miracles occurring in each of us in every second. If so, please tell us exactly which step or steps in the process you believe cannot occur naturally.

On the other hand, if this is isn't your claim, then what is it? A clear and unambiguous statement of your point, without rhetoric or ranting, would be greatly appreciated by all on the forum.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
What is science?

My dear Daniel,

You have stated in this thread that TOE is not science. As you might imagine, that comes as quite a shock to not only laypersons such as myself, but also the persons that have actual science degrees, and are either employed teaching science to others, or are practicing scientists themselves.

So, please my dear Daniel, would you tell us exactly what science is? I am sure all the persons that thought they were real scientists would like to make the proper adjustments.

Patiently, I am yours, ect, ect.....
 
Daniel said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Uhh, Daniel, You are the one making a claim. YOU are the one who must provide evidence.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom