Creationist argument about DNA and information

[annnnoid]

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.

…sort of like everyone here constantly insisting that there is no evidence of intelligence in this (one of your claims)…or that there is absolutely no relationship (beyond metaphorical poetry) between mathematics (Fibonacci or otherwise) and whatever it is that is the reason this thing occurs as it does.

https://deae89a72d2f97fc67dc-851283...d24bf&theme=Five Seven Five&imageFilter=false

Edited by Agatha: 

Please do not hotlink unless the originating site specifically and explicitly allows it. See rule 5. Also, when posting pictures (not hotlinked), ensure that they do not stretch the page.

 

[jimbob]

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




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





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.





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


regards

Why do you claim no interest in studying the evidence that the creator left about the history of the Earth? Are you afraid if the answer?

Why did Cain need to be marked - who else was there apart from his parents and siblings?

Where did the water go after the flood?


Biblical literalism had problems that were obvious centuries ago.

 

[Daniel]

You definite it (science) only as that which is directly reproducible in a laboratory, pretty much.

Well that's the Scientific Method: "Science"...

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

It's not mine, I didn't establish it. See: Sir Francis Bacon et al.

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).

Well I keep Quoting 'alleged' Scientists:

1. You (and your cohorts) think they are Scientists. So I use them against you.

2. Hostile Witnesses are the BEST!

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.

Oy Vey. Define Incoherent Minutia...?

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

Huh?

And Most of the water came from the Fountains of the Great Deep (SEE: Genesis 7:11)

I interpolated.

Well don't "Interpolate" and then say: "According to me...". Thanks

T-rex was not allowed on the Ark, for whatever reason

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.

I would go 1,000 to 6,000 but I'm splitting hairs.

Now that can get you slaughtered in debate fairly quickly.

Go ahead, Make My Day

The people you quote are expressing amazement. They talk about what has been "long accepted," not "long known."

Yes because of "a priori" assumptions; The Antithesis of Science.

And why emphasize the word "enigmatic"?

Well I would state it as a "Paradox". It's tantamount to a finding a Married Bachelor.

So not a Christian, according to you.

That's not My Call.

Shouldn't you be resting?

Why?

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.

What Water...and from Where?

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

Well how else do you Validate Viable Scientific Hypotheses, pray tell??


regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't care if you want to call what is done science or not. Can air accident investigators build useful narratives about unobserved past events?

 

[Daniel]

Daniel. I'm not unsympathetic that you have a faith in God as traditionally portrayed by the Christian religion

Christianity is NOT a religion, since the sine qua non of 'religion' is....Belief without Evidence. Christians are admonished to do the EXACT opposite...

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

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.

1. The Jews are/were HYPER-Meticulous when it comes to the WORD of GOD.

2. It's not a parable, there is no Rhetorical Language in the passage or anywhere close; Ergo... Historical Documentation (Literal Rendering).

3. To see this as an evolutionary parable (lol, btw) would be tantamount to concluding the Bill of Rights is a Recipe for Pineapple Upside Down Cake.


regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

You believe a literal interpretation of Genesis as earth history in spite of evidence. That's faith.

 

[turingtest]

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.

Yup; there's just no getting through to someone who thinks his basis for believing literally what he reads in his bible isn't just faith, but "is based on Substance and Evidence"- because it says so in the bible. Daniel makes Ken Ham look like the voice of reason by comparison.

(BTW, Daniel- you all set to watch that comet tonight? For everyone else- click on Daniel's link there, the punch line is in the date of it. A perfect example of just how carefully Daniel pays attention to "substance and evidence." And very funny- there's no better comedian than the unintentional one)

As for annnnoid- well. What can you say about someone who insists on both the picture and the thousand words?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

You believe a literal interpretation of Genesis as earth history in spite of evidence. That's faith.

Geology is not a science and christianity is not a religion. Anything goes from here.

 

[Daniel]

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.

Well the first step is recognizing there is a problem. Kudos to you

Now, what are you gonna do to correct it?

regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well the first step is recognizing there is a problem. Kudos to you

Now, what are you gonna do to correct it?

regards

Are you 10?

 

[RussDill]

Yup; there's just no getting through to someone who thinks his basis for believing literally what he reads in his bible isn't just faith, but "is based on Substance and Evidence"- because it says so in the bible. Daniel makes Ken Ham look like the voice of reason by comparison.

I remember when I was a young teen and they pulled a TV and VCR into our Sunday school classroom and started playing some YEC videos that used science to prove God. This was actually a major turning point for me. Before I had just gone along with the YEC beliefs of that church because it didn't conflict directly with anything else. But these were direct contradictions with everything else I was learning. And this was pretty early YEC material, it was quite bad.

I'm curious if the realization would have happened much later had I been home schooled, or not been curious about science and technology and not gobbled up every single book I could find.

 

[annnnoid]

Yup; there's just no getting through to someone who thinks his basis for believing literally what he reads in his bible isn't just faith, but "is based on Substance and Evidence"- because it says so in the bible. Daniel makes Ken Ham look like the voice of reason by comparison.

(BTW, Daniel- you all set to watch that comet tonight? For everyone else- click on Daniel's link there, the punch line is in the date of it. A perfect example of just how carefully Daniel pays attention to "substance and evidence." And very funny- there's no better comedian than the unintentional one)

As for annnnoid- well. What can you say about someone who insists on both the picture and the thousand words?

“Mockery is the weapon of those who have no other.”

How many times do I have to remind you…it is SKEPTICS who have made the claim that within what-is-represented-in that picture are instantiated the laws of nature.

And don’t waste your breath comparing Daniel and I. I don’t even begin to regard the bible as a science textbook. Creationism simply misses the point entirely (does it make the slightest difference to the central message of Christianity whether the earth is 6 thousand or six billion years old?....nope).

 

[Daniel]

Why do you claim no interest in studying the evidence that the creator left about the history of the Earth?

Well because I already established the existence of The Creator long ago. Do you want me to establish it MORE??

Are you afraid if the answer?

Pseudo-Science has no answers.

Why did Cain need to be marked

So he wouldn't be killed.

who else was there apart from his parents and siblings?

I don't know. The Holy Bible doesn't mention anyone else...but it also doesn't mention all the stars that were existing either, but I'm sure they were there.

Where did the water go after the flood?

Back from Whence it came I reckon...

"Other research has suggested that a zone between the mantle and the crust also contain a great deal of water, the Japanese researchers noted. If so, there could be more than ten times the amount of water inside the planet as there is on its surface."
- National Geographic, "Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas"
http://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden-ocean-locked-in-earth-mantle.html

"Scientists have discovered evidence of a vast water reservoir trapped hundreds of miles beneath the surface, capable of filling Earth's oceans three times over."
Jenna Iacurci; Vast Underwater Ocean Trapped Beneath Earth's Crust. SEE Also: Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle, Science; 13 June 2014.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7560/20140613/vast-underwater-ocean-trapped-beneath-earths-crust.htm

Biblical literalism had problems that were obvious centuries ago.

Sure. And Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes are creating dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the crab nebula.

regards

 

[turingtest]

...
Huh?

And Most of the water came from the Fountains of the Great Deep (SEE: Genesis 7:11)
...

And there ya go...another example, as if another were needed, of what a waste of time it is to debate committed YEC's. This is Daniel being either dishonest, or just not very bright. Minoosh asked (here):

I've never said there wasn't a worldwide flood - why do you think one is necessary for fossils to form?

Daniel's response:

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

And Minoosh asks, quite reasonably-

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

Now it seems to me pretty obvious that Minoosh was asking Daniel if the water he says is needed for fossilization could have only come from his flood- has there never been water enough for the purpose from any other source in the history of the planet?
And Daniel's tactic is to take this question, feign confusion ("huh?"), and talk about the source of the water for the flood instead of the fossilization-

Huh?

And Most of the water came from the Fountains of the Great Deep (SEE: Genesis 7:11)

So which is it, Daniel? Is the "huh?" not feigned, you really are unable to follow the actual discussion (the "not very bright" option)- or is that a tactic to avoid answering what was really and obviously being asked (the "dishonest" option)?

(Though, TBF, it's not so completely a true dichotomy. It's always possible that Daniel is just having us all on, satirizing YECs. There used to be a poster here named DOC who Daniel reminds me of in this respect- it's just really hard to believe that anyone could actually be so dense unless it was deliberate)

 

[RussDill]

Heh, Daniel once again responding by citing scientists he belies to be frauds.

 

[Daniel]

And there ya go...another example, as if another were needed, of what a waste of time it is to debate committed YEC's. This is Daniel being either dishonest, or just not very bright. Minoosh asked (here):

Daniel's response:

And Minoosh asks, quite reasonably-

Now it seems to me pretty obvious that Minoosh was asking Daniel if the water he says is needed for fossilization could have only come from his flood- has there never been water enough for the purpose from any other source in the history of the planet?
And Daniel's tactic is to take this question, feign confusion ("huh?"), and talk about the source of the water for the flood instead of the fossilization-

So which is it, Daniel? Is the "hiuh?" not feigned, you really are unable to follow the actual discussion (the "not very bright" option)- or is that a tactic to avoid answering what was really and obviously being asked (the "dishonest" option)?

(Though, TBF, it's not so completely a true dichotomy. It's always possible that Daniel is just having us all on, satirizing YECs. There used to be a poster here named DOC who Daniel reminds me of in this respect- it's just really hard to believe that anyone could actually be so dense unless it was deliberate)

What on Earth sir??

 

[turingtest]

“Mockery is the weapon of those who have need no other.”
How many times do I have to remind you…it is SKEPTICS who have made the claim that within what-is-represented-in that picture are instantiated the laws of nature.

And don’t waste your breath comparing Daniel and I. I don’t even begin to regard the bible as a science textbook. Creationism simply misses the point entirely (does it make the slightest difference to the central message of Christianity whether the earth is 6 thousand or six billion years old?....nope).

There, FTFY; why in the world would I use a thousand-word bludgeon to puncture pretension when a rapier works better? Not being able to get over yourself is no way to go through life, son.

 

[turingtest]

What on Earth sir??

Good tactic- when in doubt, double down.

ETA- BTW, got your comet-watching gear ready? I don't care who you are- that right there is funny.

 

[Minoosh]

(more later)

I'll look forward to it.

If I spent half as much time doing math as I do noodling around the Internet ... well.

 

[annnnoid]

There, FTFY; why in the world would I use a thousand-word bludgeon to puncture pretension when a rapier works better? Not being able to get over yourself is no way to go through life, son.

Helluva debating style you’ve got there son: Ignore what you can’t deal with. Get back to me when you actually want to deal with the issues rather than the author.