Creationist argument about DNA and information

[MRC_Hans]

Because you have No viable "Independent Variables" which is the sine qua non of Scientific Hypotheses. Why?? Because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon.

Oh, so a phenomenon nobody present has observed cannot be established?

Interesting.

Out goes the Bible. Oh, well.

Hans

 

[The Greater Fool]

Because you have No viable "Independent Variables" which is the sine qua non of Scientific Hypotheses. Why?? Because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon.

And again, you're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur to use it to extrapolate "age".

Effect: Apparent layering of ice / soot in ice.
Cause: Annual cycles of snow fall and snow melt.

Observation: constant and careful observation of several years of snow fall / melt and comparing this to the pattern left in the ice over the same periods.

Extrapolation: Pulling deeper cores would reveal additional years of snow fall / melt cycles.

Test: Actual cores show the expected layers, counting back 250,000 layers.

Independent variables: Soot from Eruptions / Impacts show up at the appropriate layers in the ice core samples. Events known to happen 'x' years ago appear 'x' layers down in the ice core.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of much dissimilation>

Be so kind as to explain what viable, testable, "Independent Variables" led you to the superstitoon that your badly-(and baldly)-plagiarized 'god' "created" anything. Be so kind as to describe when that has been "observed".

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Do you deny the Phenomenon that in summer dust is blown into snow

This is not a Phenomenon, ....

That is ignorant, Daniel, this is multiple Phenomenon !
This is what rational people do

1. Observe the Phenomenon that every summer a dark layer is laid down in snow.
2. Observe the Phenomenon that the snow in glaciers and ice caps becomes ice.
3. Extrapolate that every dark layer in an ice core is a year.
   There are reasonable assumptions here, e.g. that summer happens once a year.
4. Count the layers and get that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.

Scientists verify the Phenomenon and extrapolation. For example, we know that volcanoes erupt during summer, blow dust into the atmosphere and this volcanic dust will form part of the ice core layer in that year. Recorded (by eyewitnesses in books much more reliable that a book of shepherd myths) eruptions appear in the ice core record.

4 March 2016 Daniel: Do you deny the Phenomenon that in summer dust is blown into snow forming a dark layer on glaciers and ice caps?

P.S.
4 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what the science and the scientific method actually are before making comments about them!
4 March 2016 Daniel: It is a lie to state that the scientific theory of evolution does not exist since textbooks on TOE exist, etc.!
4 March 2016 Daniel: Please show how the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) means that the world was created (in 7 days by a supernatural being)?
4 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the exact source of your Nesse quote.

 

[RussDill]

"evolution", what's that?? Can you post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Ah, exactly! This must be very frustrating for you!

Did you find that definition for Virtual Particles yet?[

Yes, I actually have an excellent text right here with me! I can send you an Amazon link if you'd like.

 

[steenkh]

Really, How so....?

I thought you were the expert on logical fallacies? If your logical reasoning contains special pleading then you have to think again. You can also look at it this way: if your creator needs to be an exception to your rules, you open up for the existence of other exceptions. If God does not need a creator, why does the universe need a creator?

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?

OK, you did not want to make an ad hominem, you merely made a logical fallacy. Hint: pointing out the errors in others does not support your own position.

So, since there was a beginning and Matter/Energy can't create itself (1LOT and Common Sense Violation)...then, GOD.

If Common Sense had been a law of nature, we would not have had relativity or quantum mechanics, so your argument is worthless even without pointing out the silliness of inventing a fictive entitity as the only solution to your false dichotomy.

List some and we'll evaluate their claims and see if they are products of the universe or The CAUSE of it.

Hinduism, aboriginal religions, Egyptian religion and so on. There are plenty of creation stories, and they are all as silly as the Christian ones, and as well supported.

btw, Christianity is NOT a 'religion'. The sine qua non of 'religion' is belief without evidence. Christians are admonished to do the EXACT Opposite...

Then why do Christians not follow this advice? There is after all no evidence for the Christian belief system, and it is contradicted by factual evidence, not to mention the Common Sense that you are so fond of.

 

[Daniel]

Independent variables: Soot from Eruptions / Impacts show up at the appropriate layers in the ice core samples. Events known to happen 'x' years ago appear 'x' layers down in the ice core.

Independent Variable -- "The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control..."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

"Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Independent-Variable-Definition.htm


So are "YOU" controlling the 'Soot from Eruptions' ??

You'd fail 5th Grade General Science.

regards

 

[marplots]

Sometimes when people ask questions I don't think they really want answers to those questions.

 

[Son of Inigo]

Independent variables

Because you have No viable "Independent Variables" which is the sine qua non of Scientific Hypotheses. Why?? Because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon.

Perhaps our understanding of independent variable is not matching

Question: What's an independent variable?

Answer: An independent variable is exactly what it sounds like. It is a variable that stands alone and isn't changed by the other variables you are trying to measure. For example, someone's age might be an independent variable. Other factors (such as what they eat, how much they go to school, how much television they watch) aren't going to change a person's age. In fact, when you are looking for some kind of relationship between variables you are trying to see if the independent variable causes some kind of change in the other variables, or dependent variables

From here: https://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/help/user_guide/graph/variables.asp

Tree rings are independent variables. They are the age of the tree, just like in the answer above,

For example, someone's age might be an independent variable

Dependent variables are these: (again from the quote above)

Other factors (such as what they eat, how much they go to school, how much television they watch) aren't going to change a person's age

So in the tree ring example, the following are dependent variables.

Each year, a tree adds to its girth, with the new growth being called a tree ring. Tree growth depends upon local environmental conditions. In some areas the limiting factor for growth is water availability, in other areas (especially at high latitudes) it is the length of the growing season. In areas where water is limited and the amount of water varies from year to year, scientists can use tree-ring patterns to reconstruct regional patterns of drought. In areas where the length of the growing season is the limiting factor, the thickness of tree rings can indicate when growing seasons were longer (during warmer times) and when growing seasons were shorter (cooler times).

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/CDcourses_treerings.html

In the cut down red wood tree, the independent variable are the rings. They are the age of the tree. The thickness of each ring are the dependent variables, and will result in the local climate experienced during that years growth. Scientifically, we can conclude that this particular tree was 214 years old.

No presupposing, no begging questions, no logical fallacy. Fact 214 rings equals a tree 214 years old.

The independent variable in the ice core hypothesis is that a layer of dust is deposited on the ice during the summer months, then covered by a layer of snow during the winter.

The dependent variable in the ice core hypothesis is the thickness of both the layer of dust and the ice, along with the compositions of both, as they are dependent on local conditions while being deposited.

Observationally yours, ect, ect....

 

[Reality Check]

A good refutation of the creationist Information theory argument

The information theory argument is often claimed to be an evidence based argument for the existence of a god. The argument is usually based on the claim that DNA, which occurs in almost all cells in living things, has "information" within it and information is something that can only be created by a mind. A variation of the argument claims that DNA is a language.

The argument is a variant of the argument from design and contains the same flaws. Among the arguments based on intelligent design, it is one of the more simplistic apologetics. It is also similar to the fine tuning argument in that it arbitrarily asserts an occurrence is significant.
...
If the first definition of information is used by apologists, that information is a message, they are asserting an intelligent mind in their axioms. They are therefore begging the question that a designer exists.

If apologists refer to the second definition, that information is raw data, then this information can clearly occur naturally, which also refutes the argument because a designer is no longer necessary.

What apologists hope is they can start with the "information is raw data" definition, claim DNA information is a code, and then use the implications of the "information is a message" definition to argue for the existence of God. This is equivocation over the meaning of information.

My emphasis added. That is what Answers in Genesis did. Begging the question is one of the things Daniel hates so we have to ask why he is doing it?

 

[sphenisc]

Sometimes when people ask questions I don't think they really want answers to those questions.

That's why it's fun to answer them.

 

[marplots]

That's why it's fun to answer them.

Someone once told me you can tell a college graduate because they so often answer a question with a question.

I don't think they meant it as a compliment.

 

[Reality Check]

Speaking of tree rings:
These contain information, e.g. the better a summer the wider a ring.
Information can only be a code according to creationists.
Only minds create codes according to creationists.
So there are aliens making trees grow more in good summers according to creationists (and probably Daniel) !

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Baseless Assertion: SUPPORT...?


Ipse Dixit, Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy. How so...?


Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get Genes? Start Here...

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?





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

2. "Common Descent"? Descent of what?



That would be Painfully Redundant for me personally.



Again, Painfully Redundant.


regards

You quote a paper from 1993, whereas research has shown that it IS possible to form self assembling , self replicating RNA giving you both gene and function from your 'dumb' atoms. You can search pubmed yourself for that.
Similar research has been done to show that RNA or RNA like molecules can form under pre-biotic circumstances. Again, since you claim to have a firm grip on the literature, go search pubmed yourself.

Once you have a single self-replicating molecule natural selection can explain the rise of the whole genome.
The switch to proteins is, currently, not fully understood yet, but it has been shown that clover like RNA structures (which it forms a lot) seem to have some affinity for amino acids, which have been shown to similarly form under abiotic and even interstellar conditions.

How that all got encased in the lipid bilayers, which also have been shown to form under abiotic circumstances, is again currently unknown.

However, there are two ways humanity can look at this. The scientific way, which means accepting that we may not know now, but it CAN be discovered. Or the creationist way, which says god did it, now stop thinking.

As I've said before to similar creationists. It is not that we have no idea how life could form, its that there are so many possible way that we just don't know what route it took on earth.

 

[Son of Inigo]

Speaking of tree rings:
These contain information, e.g. the better a summer the wider a ring.
Information can only be a code according to creationists.
Only minds create codes according to creationists.
So there are aliens making trees grow more in good summers according to creationists (and probably Daniel) !

~snort~ LOL I was just going to bring that up!

 

[rwguinn]

That's why it's fun to answer them.

"A question ain't really a question, if you know the answer too.../ John Prine...

 

[Perpetual Student]

Independent Variable -- "The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control..."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

"Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Independent-Variable-Definition.htm


So are "YOU" controlling the 'Soot from Eruptions' ??

You'd fail 5th Grade General Science.

regards

Utter nonsense! Will the sun rise tomorrow? What is the independent variable and dependent variable.
These concepts (dependent variable / independent variable) have meaning in mathematics and experimental science. They do not apply to simple observations of nature. You are using sciencey word salad in an attempt to befuddle your audience, which probably works quite well in bible class. You have completely failed here!
By the way, I'm still waiting for the scientific evidence for your "scriptures" and deities.

 

[sphenisc]

Utter nonsense! Will the sun rise tomorrow? What is the independent variable and dependent variable.
These concepts (dependent variable / independent variable) have meaning in mathematics and experimental science. They do not apply to simple observations of nature. You are using sciencey word salad in an attempt to befuddle your audience, which probably works quite well in bible class. You have completely failed here!
By the way, I'm still waiting for the scientific evidence for your "scriptures" and deities.

What he's looking for are Predictor Variables.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/predictor-variable-definition-example.html

 

[Reality Check]

...
You'd fail 5th Grade General Science.

Whoops, Daniel, a failure in both 5th Grade General Science and English!
In experiments, the variables that can be changed are called independent variables. They are the input to the experiment and are changed to produce the output. This term is borrowed from mathematical and statistical modelling where independent variables represent inputs or causes, i.e. potential reasons for variation.
In

Independent variables: Soot from Eruptions / Impacts show up at the appropriate layers in the ice core samples. Events known to happen 'x' years ago appear 'x' layers down in the ice core.

the records of the eruptions and impacts are the independent variables because this is statistical modelling to see if there is a match to the ice core data. This is not an experiment. No one is insane enough to thing that people went back in time and caused eruptions or impacts !

 

[Perpetual Student]

Whoops, Daniel, a failure in both 5th Grade General Science and English!
In experiments, the variables that can be changed are called independent variables. They are the input to the experiment and are changed to produce the output. This term is borrowed from mathematical and statistical modelling where independent variables represent inputs or causes, i.e. potential reasons for variation.
In

the records of the eruptions and impacts are the independent variables because this is statistical modelling to see if there is a match to the ice core data. This is not an experiment. No one is insane enough to thing that people went back in time and caused eruptions or impacts !

What are the dependent and independent variables in validating "scripture"?