Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Perpetual Student]

Only some bronze age nomads. Bronze age nomads from the Middle East are obviously more credible than bronze age nomads from the Far East, or the Bronze Age myths of Egypt, or the bronze age of South America that came much later.

Anyway, how do you know that the Creation story in Genesis was written in the Bronze age? Some of these stories may have originated in the Stone Age. Maybe it was written in Babylon during the Iron Age! Also how do you know they were always nomads?

There is no chain of custody that enables us to trace the origins of myths and superstitions. The stories were probably shaped by multiple sources!

Quite true.

 

[hecd2]

SEE this post (That you "Wholesale Dodged", btw): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11153799&postcount=191

That crushed your cap'n kangaroo knowledge of the topic. Your Post, #205... CONFIRMED it.

Black Knight, sonny.

Ahhh, there is no contradiction... Whatsoever. Ya see, 'the process' of how we arrived @ C A T is well known and @ the SAME TIME there are no Physico-Chemical links. Voila

regards

Nope we are not talking about cats, C A Ts or little felines. We are talking about DNA translation. There is a contradiction and everyone can see it except you:

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.

Would you answer this question about your beliefs regarding DNA translation, now being asked for the umpteenth time: 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 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.

Or shall we just assume you are deliberately obfuscating.

Thank you.

 

[Daniel]

It's quite laughable...

Appeal to Ridicule (Fallacy)

Sir, you can't answer a simple query: Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? For goodness sakes

Face it Mr. Daniel, you have been caught with your intellectual pants down!

oh brother. Feel free to stop back when you have some semblance of a cogent SUBSTANTIVE argument in lieu of fallacy filled 'Color Commentaries'.

regards

 

[Slowvehicle]

Scripture says HE is Spirit. What that exactly is, I don't know. <snip of much more superstition>

Wait.

I thought you were asking for answers in "SCIENCE".

You are aware that your "Scripture"[sic] is not science, right?

If not, you should become so.

It wold make your arguments seem...a bit...less dishonest.

You're welcome.

 

[Slowvehicle]

well that's a beach.

Shore thing!

 

[Son of Inigo]

Still awaiting your answer Daniel

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, I am sincerely awaiting your answer to this.

Anticipatingly yours, ect, ect......

 

[Daniel]

Would you answer this question about your beliefs regarding DNA translation, now being asked for the umpteenth time:

I've already answered your mind numbing Straw Man Umpteen Times, this is the last, READ it SLOWLY, Ready??...

Please confirm whether your claim is that the DNA transcription and translation process from DNA to amino acid cannot occur naturally,

1. That's not my claim, it's your substituted Straw Man.

2. You can't get "Functional" DNA....."NATURALLY" spontaneously from it's Building Blocks to form outside Living Cells!!
Not even speaking to Transcription/Translation. So basically, you're "Whistl'n Past the Begging The Question Graveyard".

THEN...

3. There are no Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and Amino Acids or Instruction.


regards

 

[Slowvehicle]

Modern Scientific Evidences, like the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Can you post that please...?

Can you validate that they are ACTUALLY superstitions and myths, in lieu of your 'Opinion'...?


regards

Let's see:

1. The "creation" myths disagree with each other, to say nothing of disagreeing with observable reality (talking snake, anyone?). Even with special pleading, the whole start of your "Scripture"[sic] is patent superstition. (Not to mention, how do you intend to validate that any of it happened? Were you there?)

2. The whole "Exodus" myth is demonstrably invented; that many people leaving Egypt (carrying her treasure) would have left her vulnerable to all of her enemies. No evidence of the "fall" of Egypt exists; no evidence of the "40 years wandering" exists. (Not to mention, how do you intend to validate that any of it happened? Were you there?) Nor is there any evidence of the "invasion" and "conquest" of the "holy land".

Start there....

You're welcome.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Only some bronze age nomads. Bronze age nomads from the Middle East are obviously more credible than bronze age nomads from the Far East, or the Bronze Age myths of Egypt, or the bronze age of South America that came much later.

What is your support for this bald assertion?

Anyway, how do you know that the Creation story in Genesis was written in the Bronze age? Some of these stories may have originated in the Stone Age. Maybe it was written in Babylon during the Iron Age! Also how do you know they were always nomads?

Got it. You, personally, are soft on the demonstrable provenance of your "Scripture"[sic]. You have much self-education to accomplish.

There is no chain of custody that enables us to trace the origins of myths and superstitions. The stories were probably shaped by multiple sources!

Actually, they were demonstrably collected from at least four different sets of sources into at least two different traditions, then poorly and inconsistently edited, sectarially redacted, and contentiously canonized. (To avoid being accused of a "Pachyderm Put", I will let you look it up.)

You're welcome.

 

[Daniel]

Daniel, I am sincerely awaiting your answer to this.

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.

Anticipatingly yours, ect, ect......

Sure. Science is a Method of Inquiry; The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry."
Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005)

regards

 

[hecd2]

So, your argument is as follows in your words:

You can't get "Functional" DNA....."NATURALLY" spontaneously from it's Building Blocks to form outside Living Cells!!
Not even speaking to Transcription/Translation. So basically, you're "Whistl'n Past the Begging The Question Graveyard".

THEN...

There are no Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and Amino Acids or Instruction.

Are you sure you don't want to revise that, or add something to it? Because as it stands, it's what's called a non-sequitur.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Appeal to Ridicule (Fallacy)

Sir, you can't answer a simple query: Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? For goodness sakes





oh brother. Feel free to stop back when you have some semblance of a cogent SUBSTANTIVE argument in lieu of fallacy filled 'Color Commentaries'.

regards

Your intellectual dishonesty has been exposed. Your position is found to be absurd. On the one hand, you demand excruciatingly detailed scientific evidence for evolution but you blindly and naively accept so called "scripture."

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which claim might that be, specifically...?

Hans

You don't know? Well ....

It seems to be something about intelligent design, but if you don't know, I can't really help you. Perhaps you should think it through.

Hans

 

[Perpetual Student]

Your intellectual dishonesty has been exposed. Your position is found to be absurd. On the one hand, you demand excruciatingly detailed scientific evidence for evolution but you blindly and naively accept so called "scripture."

How about providing us with all the scientific evidence for the Bronze Age myths and superstitions you call "scripture."

 

[Daniel]

Only some bronze age nomads. Bronze age nomads from the Middle East are obviously more credible than bronze age nomads from the Far East, or the Bronze Age myths of Egypt, or the bronze age of South America that came much later.
What is your support for this bald assertion?

Ahhh, it's not my claim; ask whoever made it for support.

(talking snake, anyone?)

Who said it was a snake??


So how many different ways are we gonna Divert away from....

Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? Pray Tell ??

regards

 

[Daniel]

How about providing us with all the scientific evidence for the Bronze Age myths and superstitions you call "scripture."

How on Earth can I provide "Scientific Evidence" of Past Events without a Time Machine?
Do you realize you're asking me to validate Married Bachelors? (It's Rhetorical @ this point)

Go learn what "Science" is first; THEN...stop back.

Why don't you start providing "Scientific Evidence" of what is (purportedly) the most validated 'theory' in the history of Science forever and ever and ever...

Simply, What is the Scientific Theory of evolution....?

regards

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Daniel, lets say you manage to convince the world (unlikely, but hey lets assume) that the theory of evolution is wrong.
And that everything is created.

How then would you like medicine to proceed from then on? Nowadays new medication is tested and designed using the theory of evolution using the assumption that all organisms on earth are related. But since under creationism that assumption is no longer valid, should we go back to the power of prayer?

And of course, how do you explain that new medications designed this way actually work, when according to you they should not?

 

[Perpetual Student]

How on Earth can I provide "Scientific Evidence" of Past Events without a Time Machine?
Do you realize you're asking me to validate Married Bachelors? (It's Rhetorical @ this point)

Go learn what "Science" is first; THEN...stop back.

Why don't you start providing "Scientific Evidence" of what is (purportedly) the most validated 'theory' in the history of Science forever and ever and ever...

Simply, What is the Scientific Theory of evolution....?

regards

Your inability to provide scientific evidence for "scripture" is noted and the untenable position that puts you in is manifest for all to see. You have been exposed!
I am sure you are well aware of the wealth of geological, genetic, morphological, experimental, embryological, etc. evidence for evolution. In contrast, there is not one single shred of evidence for your deities or the validity your "scriptures."
Maybe these arguments work for your naïve fellow travelers, but in a science oriented forum like this you are dead in the water!

 

[elbe]

Does this mean that the earth was made from a part of a giant lotus flower by Brahma and that I don't have to defend that position because it's really old and I'd rather believe it's true than anything science has to say?

 

[Daniel]

Daniel, lets say you manage to convince the world (unlikely, but hey lets assume) that the theory of evolution is wrong.

No, it's not that it's wrong...it's that, it Doesn't Exist !!

And that everything is created.

They already know; SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and others.

How then would you like medicine to proceed from then on? Nowadays new medication is tested and designed using the theory of evolution

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

2. Really?? ...

"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q1t8jeG8hc

What's the Mechanism they use, Telekinesis?

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

...using the assumption that all organisms on earth are related.

It's not only an 'assumption', it's an Affirming The Consequent Fallacy.

But since under creationism that assumption is no longer valid, should we go back to the power of prayer?

Just because there is no "Common Ancestor" doesn't have anything WHATSOEVER to do with the efficacy of Medicine; It's Non-Sequitur.


regards