Creationist argument about DNA and information

Scientific theories change with new evidence.


You're confused: Blind Conjectures change, "Actual" Scientific Theories don't change. They're either Validated or Falsified LONG BEFORE they ever become Scientific Theories...

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html


They must also be falsifiable, for example, the TOE...


"TOE", what's that??


oh, it's out there. Look up Gregor Mendel


There's nothing speaking to the Equation in this link. Please post Specifically what you're seeing here...?


regards
 


Another "WIKI" link, eh? :rolleyes:


Begging The Question: 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...?

Go ahead....?
 
And why the hell are you talking about that anyway in a thread about DNA, which has sweet FA to do with the origins of the universe?


Then....

Nah, god created the fossils at the same time as he created all the layers in the the ice caps, all the layers of seasonally deposited mud at the bottom of lakes, all the billions of tons of erosional material deposited as alluvium in river deltas, and of course all the trees with x number of annual growth rings, all the layered geology....


Can I ask, why the **** are you talking about this in a thread about DNA?? :D


Contradict yourself much? Pot meet Kettle.


regards
 
.........Can I ask, why the **** are you talking about this in a thread about DNA?? :D.....

Ah, I see. You can't understand the difference between creationist claims about a god creating all life and faking the evidence to make it look like that life underwent evolution over a long time scale, and god creating the universe. I see, got it.
 
Ah, I see. You can't understand the difference between creationist claims about a god creating all life and faking the evidence to make it look like that life underwent evolution over a long time scale, and god creating the universe. I see, got it.

Mike, I think you will find that Daniel's understanding of such matters is... conveniently elastic.
 
To both Daniel and his challengers ... has Daniel presented his views in a positive sense, or do these pages mainly consist of his contention that so-called experts are wrong, therefore he is right?

I don't know enough about the young-earth creationists to know how they explain fossils of creatures no longer extant. Were dinosaurs on the ark with Noah or were they all killed in the flood? Were they created on the same day as all the other animals but somehow fell out of favor with the creator?

From what I have read so far I am not sure Daniel is a young-earth creationist. Are you, Daniel? How old do you think Earth is?
Creationism is purely a reaction to (actual) science, a denial, through timidity, of where the evidence may take them. You'll note Daniel's admission here that Christianity (his version, at least) is rooted in fear-
...
If Consciousness doesn't end (Christian View) experiences will continue in some form, it MOST ASSUREDLY will lead to FEAR, even the most devout Christian (we are all merely human).
...
regards

(Shrug) Creationism is a one-car train afraid to leave the station- as long as they have the easy assurance of "the bible says so, I believe it, and that's all there is to it," there's no will to dare the unlimited territories beyond the faith.
 
You're confused: Blind Conjectures change, "Actual" Scientific Theories don't change. They're either Validated or Falsified LONG BEFORE they ever become Scientific Theories...

...

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/


...

Well, there's that quote-mining thing again- three sentences later from that same article-
Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either.
 
Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; unsupported assertions; and begging the question seems all we have from Daniel :jaw-dropp!

4 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what 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.
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?
8 March 2016 Daniel: Cite the value of DeltaG for reaction of Nucleosides forming from bases and sugars (and you need to learn what Gibbs free energy actually means!).
9 March 2016 Daniel: Who designed the designer?
9 March 2016 Daniel: An irrelevant delusion and lie by quote mining in reply to QM interpretations.
9 March 2016 Daniel: The same irrelevant delusion and lie by quote mining in reply to "Science often works that way, too--you discover the method, then find the instructions--in the mathematical modeling"
7 March 2016 Daniel: Why are the creationists at AIG and you, Daniel, allowed to use the fallacy of begging the question by assuming that information has to be designed and concluding that information in DNA is designed?
10 March 2016 Daniel: A video stating 95% of DNA is junk is supporting the existence of junk DNA :eek:!
10 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the scientific literature that shows that RNA Polymerase has a mind that KNOWS facts :D.
11 March 2016 Daniel: A delusion that abiogenesis is an "INVALID Scientific Inquiry" - we observe that abiogenesis happened and try to explain it :jaw-dropp!
11 March 2016 Daniel: It is a creationist lie that evidence for common ancestry assumes common ancestry so do not repeat it.
11 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what natural selection is before making up fairy stories
11 March 2016 Daniel: William Provine is a historian complaining about the language used about natural selection and the corruption of it by creationists.
11 March 2016 Daniel: An irrelevant "without merit" Provine quote from a 2005 conference presentation!
 
Last edited:
Creationism is purely a reaction to (actual) science, a denial, through timidity, of where the evidence may take them. You'll note Daniel's admission here that Christianity (his version, at least) is rooted in fear-


(Shrug) Creationism is a one-car train afraid to leave the station- as long as they have the easy assurance of "the bible says so, I believe it, and that's all there is to it," there's no will to dare the unlimited territories beyond the faith.

This is true of the sheep. The shepherds however, are mainly on a political mission. What they actually believe, or claim to, is irrelevant. Their agenda is to have superstitions outrank science when voting on legislation.

Creationism is not only threatening the understanding of past science, but also, the future of science and science education.

In the US especially, the partisan split on this issue is a bit too close for my tastes.
 
He held the same "Chair" as Sir Isaac Newton for ~ 20 years.
It's pretty amazing that Hawking has managed to fool so many universities, publishers, governments and even Christian organizations. I don't know how such a fraud could be taken seriously without some very large conspiracy at work. So many people would have to be in on it.

"Cosmology isn't Science..."

I was not able to see the whole article. When I Googled I got a "summary," then a paywall. I'd love to read the article. As a laywoman, I sympathize with your incredulity re: the Big Bang etc. However, I also admit to a conceptual handicap - I rely on words and analogies when I read cosmology-related books and articles. I'm not an idiot, mathematically, but neither am I informed enough to quibble with Einstein, Feynman, Hawking et al. Calculus is as far as I've gotten.

I have often wondered how to reconcile "something from nothing" with what you call 1LOT, but without further math study I don't think I could prove the "experts" wrong. My current conceptual limits keep me from rejecting the "theories" of so-called experts, who might be con artists hiding behind a fancy-looking wall of mathematical gibberish.

From the summary of the Science article I expect there might have been a bit of tongue in cheek:
Subtleties in the Big Bang afterglow could hint that the universe is arranged around an "axis of evil." Or they may be the products of random chance. With only one universe to study, researchers may be hard pressed to say one way or the other."

The magazine labels this a conundrum. I would agree. The land of paradox and conundrums is where I see room for belief in a higher power. But I can't similarly dismiss the fields of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology. Just as you can't get your head around spontaneous abiogenesis, I can't get mine around a trickster God and a global conspiracy to make the Earth appear to be much older than the bible indicates.

Yes, this may amount to my own argument from incredulity.
 
(Shrug) Creationism is a one-car train afraid to leave the station-


Coming from someone who has a Stage 5 Clinger, Kung Fu Death on quintessential attributes of their "Faith" (The Blind/Scientifically Falsified Variety)...

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

This gives a whole new meaning to "Crazy Train".



"the bible says so, I believe it, and that's all there is to it,"


This is expressly admonished against in Scripture (SEE: 1 Thess 5:21); Ergo..Straw Man Fallacy.


there's no will to dare the unlimited territories beyond the faith.


The Materialist/Realist's Mantra, and their inevitable undoing.


regards
 
You'll note Daniel's admission here that Christianity (his version, at least) is rooted in fear-

What I don't get is how someone is supposed to be certain they are subscribing to the right version of Christianity from so many competing views. The tradition I was raised in basically said that picking the wrong kind of Christianity would result in eternal damnation.

In a way I envy the adamant certainty some people find in religion. I don't really understand the process. Those parts of nature I can observe are awe-inspiring in and of themselves. If God did it, great, I'm in awe. If God didn't do it, I'm still in awe.
 
This is expressly admonished against in Scripture (SEE: 1 Thess 5:21); Ergo..Straw Man Fallacy.

But scripture has so many admonishments. How is frail Man supposed to know which ones to take at face value? That's assuming it's even possible to take them (all) at face value. Am I really only meant to pray secretly, in a closet? If Jesus turned water into wine, does that mean he endorsed wine-drinking? If so, why do major Christian denominations disapprove?

And there are actually billions of people working with completely different scriptures. God the trickster, again?
 
It's pretty amazing that Hawking has managed to fool so many universities, publishers, governments and even Christian organizations. I don't know how such a fraud could be taken seriously without some very large conspiracy at work. So many people would have to be in on it.


Not really, just a few Gate Keeper's @ the Top would do the trick. Throw some Tensor Calculus around and pretend it's "Science". :rolleyes:

Then have generations Indoctrinated with Propaganda...

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence. We drop the names of famous scientists and Nobel prizewinners to show that we are solidly on the side of the scientific establishment. All of this is designed to demonstrate the inevitability of the ideas we currently hold, so that if students reject what we say, they are declaring themselves to be unreasoning and illogical, unworthy of being considered as modern, thinking people.
Of course, we do all this with the best of intentions and complete sincerity. I have good reasons for employing propaganda techniques to achieve belief." ....
"So I, like all my colleagues, teach the way I do because I have little choice. But it is brainwashing nonetheless. When the dust settles, what I am asking my students to do is to accept what I say because I, as an accredited representative of my discipline, profession, and academia, say it. All the reason, logic, and evidence that I use simply disguise the fact that the students are not yet in a position to sift and weigh the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions."
Singham, Mano: "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54
https://donpartridge.wordpress.com/natural-health-resources-info-links/professor-admits-profs-brainwash-students-w-propaganda/

Voila!! Welcome to Shanri-La :eye-poppi


I was not able to see the whole article.


You really don't need to, just look @ 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

And understand how you form a Scientific Hypothesis, then Kablooie!!




I have often wondered how to reconcile "something from nothing" with what you call 1LOT


It's irreconcilable, it's tantamount to reconciling Married Bachelors.
Then Quantum Mechanics takes it to the Woodshed and Bludgeons it Senseless!


My current conceptual limits keep me from rejecting the "theories" of so-called experts


That's Blind Faith.


...who might be con artists hiding behind a fancy-looking wall of mathematical gibberish.


You got it :thumbsup:



But I can't similarly dismiss the fields of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology.


SEE: Apply the Scientific Method as above with these, and....Kablooie!!



Just as you can't get your head around spontaneous abiogenesis


Oh, I got my head around it alright love. Rest Assured.


I can't get mine around a trickster God


Huh? How so...?


and a global conspiracy to make the Earth appear to be much older than the bible indicates.


That's just Ignorance. Try and put any of those 'Dating Methods' in The Scientific Method :rolleyes: ...You'd have better luck putting the Space Shuttle into a Thimble.


regards
 
What I don't get is how someone is supposed to be certain they are subscribing to the right version of Christianity from so many competing views. The tradition I was raised in basically said that picking the wrong kind of Christianity would result in eternal damnation.

In a way I envy the adamant certainty some people find in religion. I don't really understand the process. Those parts of nature I can observe are awe-inspiring in and of themselves. If God did it, great, I'm in awe. If God didn't do it, I'm still in awe.

Well put, and pretty much my position- it's the thing itself that inspires the awe, and I don't need to invent a god to transfer the awe to.
 
What I don't get is how someone is supposed to be certain they are subscribing to the right version of Christianity from so many competing views. The tradition I was raised in basically said that picking the wrong kind of Christianity would result in eternal damnation.

In a way I envy the adamant certainty some people find in religion. I don't really understand the process. Those parts of nature I can observe are awe-inspiring in and of themselves. If God did it, great, I'm in awe. If God didn't do it, I'm still in awe.

But scripture has so many admonishments. How is frail Man supposed to know which ones to take at face value? That's assuming it's even possible to take them (all) at face value. Am I really only meant to pray secretly, in a closet? If Jesus turned water into wine, does that mean he endorsed wine-drinking? If so, why do major Christian denominations disapprove?

And there are actually billions of people working with completely different scriptures. God the trickster, again?


This is getting Off Topic but I would be more than happy to discuss these. Post a Topic and a Thread and let me know.


regards
 

Back
Top Bottom