Creationist argument about DNA and information

[jimbob]

no, literally roast and then eat.

I'll play the straight man for this exchange...

 

[Daniel]

It doesn't perform (many) experiments, being mostly observation and application of reason and known science to explain the observations* but there are plenty of observations that show how the story unfolded. We can now measure the East and West of the Atlantic moving apart at about the speed that fingernails grow. We can see similar rocks either side of the Atlantic in Africa and South America. We can see the thin layer of iridium-rich rock in the K-g boundary, and find the remains of the crater with geophysical imaging in the Gulf of Mexico. We can see evidence of other meteor impacts in the rocks and shocked quartz, and can see that the craters have been almost totally eroded. This must have taken time.

Admittedly, geology isn't one of my interests. Personally, I'd rather watch paint dry. However, The same general principles apply....

It doesn't perform (many) experiments, being mostly observation and application of reason and known science to explain the observations*

This is the Elephant in the Room. Claims can never be Validated; ergo...it's not Science. Observations are not TESTS.

None of this fits with a global flood as described in the bible - which also only works as an explanation if the teller believed the Earth was flat, so the water could fall off. It makes no sense with the Earth being a planet.

Yes well, that's your 'Opinion'; Everybody has one.

Of course, the Billions of Fossils and 'Sedimentary' Rock covering most of the Globe have to be thrown out initially to begin the "Just So" Story.

I could talk about isotope dating, but that is unnecessary to establish the age of the Earth and life as many millions of years old at least.

Yes and I've Pummeled those Divination's/'Dating Games' more than once in this thread.


regards

 

[Jodie]

Then who?

Us in the future after we've evolved to a point where we no longer need a body to be conscious. Read up on the technological singularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Say What?

As above

This is merely a Punt. Same Questions (who created them?, et al), different Genesis Location.
And show an Alien....?

I don't think anyone knows the answer to that but a personal God is not the only possibility.

What do you mean by 'Plastic'?

As in malleable. You have the basic components with infinite potential.

What do you mean by "evolution"? Can you post the Scientific Theory of evolution....?

Evolution is a derivative of evolve which means change moving from a simplistic form to something more complex.

I can post you a couple of links and there are several threads here on the forum that discuss that topic.

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Here is a nice you tube video that explains it and gives some history of Darwin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQp2lFcDEbw

Google Scholar has a multitude of research articles on the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Minoosh]

The way I define it How do you define it....?

You definite it (science) only as that which is directly reproducible in a laboratory, pretty much. Which I find odd given that you keep quoting people who, in your opinion, aren't scientists. Such as a "distinguished astrophysicist" (your words, unless you pasted from another source).

You said...a vast egghead conspiracy to hoodwink schoolchildren by showing them fossils and going on field trips to the Grand Canyon."

OK, "they" in that instance could be talking about the schoolchildren, since they have just been referred to as "them." "A vast egghead conspiracy" is an it, not a they.

So what you really mean by "they" are people who buy in to the vast egghead conspiracy theory to cover up the true age of the Earth. And it would have to be vast, instead of relying on only a few gatekeepers. Researchers in many disciplines would have to collude for it to work.

Because "Water" is a principle ingredient in the Fossilization Process.

And "Water" exists only during worldwide floods caused by 40 years of rain?

Huh? Please Quote the post specifically where I said this...?

I interpolated. T-rex was not allowed on the Ark, for whatever reason, and you say most dinos died in the flood. So, it appears to be your contention that the dinosaur bones in question must be more than 2,000 years old and younger than 6,000 years old. If I allow for further antiquity (10,000 years per your guesstimate) then they might be older than 4,000 years.

1. Common Sense.

Now that can get you slaughtered in debate fairly quickly.

2"I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out the ground after 68 million years and then getting intact protein sequences?" said lead author John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. "That's just mind boggling how much preservation there is in these bones."---LiveScience Interview ... <similar quotes snipped for brevity>

The people you quote are expressing amazement. They talk about what has been "long accepted," not "long known." And why emphasize the word "enigmatic"? There are often enigmas in various fields of research.

Mary is a Theistic evolutionist (aka: Married Bachelor)

So not a Christian, according to you.

Shouldn't you be resting?

No, I'm asking what "They" tell the school children for how it was formed.

Those hoodwinked by the vast worldwide conspiracy to fabricate evidence of an ancient Earth say (this may be slightly off, but not 3 orders of magnitude) that the chasm was formed by water eroding sedimentary rock over something like 6 million years.

Yea, but of course that's Begging The Question. Show the Scientific Validation of it being older 160 million years old in the first place.

You already know you won't accept validation that is not generated by a controlled laboratory experiment, so why ask ?

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is the Elephant in the Room. Claims can never be Validated; ergo...it's not Science. Observations are not TESTS

It's the early 1950s (pre black boxes) and air accident investigators come to remote crash site. There are no surviving witnesses to the crash.

Can they build any kind of useful account of the unobserved past events or should they simply bury the bodies and go home? If not, what kinds of things could they determine and how? Could they test any of their hypotheses by scientific experiment? Could narratives about these unobserved events improve design and aircraft safety or are they just useless stabs in the dark? Can geologists take the same broad principles and apply them to field observation and lab work?

 

[steenkh]

Sir by proxy of your belief system, you MUST 'BELIEVE'…

Are you trying to argue with me, or your misconceived image of me?

Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....

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.

You seem to have got into a rut. This has all been dealt with before, go back and read the replies.

1. Argument from Ignorance.

Ignorance of what? Do you deny that in the past lots of things have been attributed to God, but have since been explained without the supernatural?

2. More like "evolution of the Gaps"…

Sneering does not help you.

a. How Did Stupid Atoms Write There Own Software.....?

They did not. This has been covered adequately by other posters.

b. How did you get Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins when they NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively??
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

A claim you cannot prove, and you know it, so why do you still use it?

Furthermore, to answer these questions by some "Naturalistic" process, you will Directly VIOLATE:

1. The Laws of Thermodynamics
2. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
3. Laws of Information
4. Tenets of Functional Sequence/Specific Complexity and Irreducible Complexity
5. Laws of Logic
5. Law of Cause and Effect

You are just making yourself look silly, because you cannot prove any of them. Not only are they ridiculous claims, but you also have to believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving millions of scientists who suppress this knowledge, or, even more serious, utter incompetence of science.

And The Capper... Nobody, and I mean NOBODY.... can even state what the Scientific Theory of evolution is!!

Evolution cannot be expressed in Danielscience which is the only science you seem to understand. Your inability and unwillingness to know what you are arguing against is your greatest weaknes

And then you're reduced to this Nonsensical Blather.

It turns out however, that I was right: you did in fact misrepresent Orgel, as RussDill has informed us. How do you plead?

Then top it off with vicarious Past Delusions of Grandeur

Evasion noted.

Have you ever heard: Lack of evidence is not proof that the contrary is true. However, if evidence can reasonably be expected to be found, then lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary.

You have made a claim that proteins cannot be produced without DNA, and you cannot prove it. Now you claim that examples can reasonably be expected to be found, how on Earth do you determine that?

Do you think it is scientific or logical for you to imagine things and then demand people who do not believe in your imaginings to demonstrate how your imaginings are false, BEFORE you give evidence for your imaginings?

Abiogenesis is not in a state to claim anything, it is being researched on the basis that no known physical law prevents it (although you claim otherwise). You, however, expressly make the claim that it is not possible,. And you should be able to back that claim up with more than a demand that abiogenesis is shown to be possible.

This is a Court of Public Opinion, however.

Your aim may be political, but my aim is to find the truth.

I already have it; it's called The 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics


Here's a taste...

"How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? ....
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10¹²³."
Prof. Roger Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind; p 343, 1989

You are switching target. Stay focused on abiogenesis. We can discuss fine-tuning in another thread.

Got: Quantum Mechanics, Laws of Information, Law of Biogenesis, Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Law of Cause and Effect....just hanging out in the Bull Pen!

Ok, let us see you demonstrating them, then. Or just pick one, if you want. (Hint, you can go back in the thread, and see how each of your claims have been demolished, so you can save yourself the effort).

 

[Jodie]

Whether there is a personal God or not Daniel, you're still here, I'm still here , we are all here typing on a forum. If DNA is God's method to express his creation how do you explain the many times when DNA fails creating genetic diseases and Down's Syndrome?

Proteins can be assembled without DNA/ RNA:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/24390/20150103/amino-acids-in-protein-can-be-assembled-without-dna-and-mrna-study.htm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251-300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/

 

[jimbob]

Daniel, did the flood cover Everest? Where did it go afterwards?

How big was the ark to hold two of every kind of animal - except those which there were seven of?

Why did all the kangaroos go to Australia? How did the Kiwi get to New Zealand?

 

[Sideroxylon]

No, I take it on HIS WORD.

And Biblical "Faith" (which you are attempting to Equivocate with your fairytale belief system: "Blind Scientifically Falsified Faith") is based on Substance and Evidence...

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."





I don't do: Philosophies, Cake Decorating, and Who's Favorite Color is the Best threads. Which is where Divining "Ages" and playing the "Dating Game" belongs.


regards

Right, your belief springs from the authority in a 20th century American evangelical literal interpretation of the Bible. You hold the beliefs in spite of the evidence through the wilful ignorance you express above. That is faith and of a tragic variety,

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

It's the early 1950s (pre black boxes) and air accident investigators come to remote crash site. There are no surviving witnesses to the crash.

Can they build any kind of useful account of the unobserved past events or should they simply bury the bodies and go home? If not, what kinds of things could they determine and how? Could they test any of their hypotheses by scientific experiment? Could narratives about these unobserved events improve design and aircraft safety or are they just useless stabs in the dark? Can geologists take the same broad principles and apply them to field observation and lab work?

How can you determine what happened at the site without information?

 

[Sideroxylon]

How can you determine what happened at the site without information?

It's like cake decorating I am told.

 

[Jodie]

Daniel. I'm not unsympathetic that you have a faith in God as traditionally portrayed by the Christian religion, but faith in a creator has absolutely nothing to do with religious dogma.

Think about it, the bible is a conglomeration of stories handed down through the generations. Writing was invented around 3200 BC, that doesn't mean the world was created in that moment. The story about the fall in the Garden of Eden could easily be a parable describing our own evolutionary change as seen from prehistoric man's perspective.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

My Argument is GOD; Intelligent Agency is the Necessary Condition for the Existence of Life and The Universe.

Your Argument is: "Nature"/Natural Law is the Necessary Condition for the Existence of Life and The Universe.


Following? Ya see the 2 choices?
<snip>

Perhaps I've been reading too many of annnnoid's posts, ...

Fallacy of False Dichotomy ([expletive]! now I'm Capitalizing Like Daniel! ).

Let's look at some alternatives which Danielscience has, apparently, not considered ("the Necessary Condition for the Existence of Life", the Universe can wait a bit):

* FSM, .... an Intelligent Agency

* long ago aliens, .... as part of a (failed) experiment

* AIs from the future which went ... rogue, and created/discovered/built/produced/made/... (I think they're synonyms, in anol) time travel, and seeded life on Earth, ~3 billion years' ago (Note: per anol, AIs are not ... Intelligent Agents)

* present-day aliens; we are in a giant Petri Dish (these aliens are not Intelligent, merely Very Clever)

* ~4 billion years' ago, Earth was an interstellar garbage dump; we are the spawn of the equivalent of maggots (most certainly not an Intelligent Agent)

* as the Universe is infinite, anything which is not forbidden is compulsory (ergodic principle), no matter how improbable; we are the result of one such astonishingly improbable event (pace Daniel, DNA can form spontaneously^) (in fact, as the universe is infinite, there are an infinite number of "Earths", and on an infinite number of them, an infinite number of Daniels and annnnoids exist)

Anyone want to join me in a late-night session (in a college dorm room? Nah, we need to get out under the stars!), to hash (wine?) this out? Sure would be more interesting that try to understand Danielscience, right?

^ OBVIOUSLY ... how else could we have been created/excreted/42-ed/... ?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Daniel. I'm not unsympathetic that you have a faith in God as traditionally portrayed by the Christian religion, but faith in a creator has absolutely nothing to do with religious dogma.

Think about it, the bible is a conglomeration of stories handed down through the generations. Writing was invented around 3200 BC, that doesn't mean the world was created in that moment. The story about the fall in the Garden of Eden could easily be a parable describing our own evolutionary change.

Bronze age shepherds had no idea about our evolution. That's why they wrote creation myths.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sometimes, there are no arguments; there is no evidence; there is no logic that can penetrate a mind that has been totally damaged by religious dogma and zealotry.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Bronze age shepherds had no idea about our evolution. That's why they wrote creation myths.

If they had been more diligent observers of living creatures they might have more fully noticed the nested hierarchies of forms that Liannaeus did and not crudely grouped bats and birds together. Would have been well on the road to recognition of the fact of common ancestry.

 

[jimbob]

Bronze age shepherds had no idea about our evolution. That's why they wrotetold creation myths.

They didn't write them down for a long time afterwards.

Nor did they have any idea about the size or shape of the Earth, so Noah's ark wasn't obviously ridiculous to them, ditto for the idea of water covering the entire Earth.

I am also always somewhat confused as to why Cain needed a mark to identify him as a murderer, when the only remaining people alive at the time were Adam and Eve, who presumably knew who he was.

It's almost as if it was a myth of the origin of a tribe and not of all people.

 

[RussDill]

This is the Elephant in the Room. Claims can never be Validated; ergo...it's not Science. Observations are not TESTS.

Except every time they exactly are. Like if I wanted to know the probability that a roulette wheel lands on green. I could go to a casino and watch a roulette wheel for hours on end. Or I could pull the security tapes and save myself a lot of time. Or if I had a scientific theory about a meteorite, and I thought it would produce a world wide layer of iridium, and went around the world to test for that.

Seriously, he's trying so hard to ignore reality, it's painful to watch. Course, being on the growing list of individuals on ignore, I get to sit back and watch him dig himself deeper and deeper.

 

[Daniel]

Us in the future after we've evolved to a point where we no longer need a body to be conscious. Read up on the technological singularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

1. So us in the Future we designed our DNA in the now? Forgive me, but this is beyond Ludicrous.

2. You have yet to post what the Scientific Theory of evolution is yet.

I don't do "WIKI Links"...

Harvard Guide to Using Sources:

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays."
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.dokeyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

As above

As above.

I don't think anyone knows the answer to that but a personal God is not the only possibility.

List the others (besides "Us in the Future")...?

As in malleable. You have the basic components with infinite potential.

Where'd you get DNA to begin with?

And, you can't get an Elephant's Trunk from Amoeba DNA.

Evolution is a derivative of evolve which means change moving from a simplistic form to something more complex.

I can post you a couple of links and there are several threads here on the forum that discuss that topic.

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Here is a nice you tube video that explains it and gives some history of Darwin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQp2lFcDEbw

Google Scholar has a multitude of research articles on the Theory of Evolution.

I asked you to Post the Scientific Theory of evolution; a simple request...NOT post 'links'. It's not my job to rummage through "links' to SUPPORT/Prove your claims.


regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

A young earth, global flood, and a recent repopulation of land creatures from a point in the Middle East is rendered ludicrous by easy to understand observations.