Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
I don't see the word abiogenesis in the quoted piece.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
RussDill
Philosopher
I don't see how Daniel can even attempt to make such arguments. He wasn't there. The arguments he is trying to make have no basis whatsoever in danielscience.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: A fantasy of abiogenesis = cancer biology
Paul Davies is a physicist with an interest in astrobiology - a part of which is abiogenesis. He does not seem to have published any papers on abiogenesis: Research Papers in Peer-Reviewed Professional Journals
Usual inability to understand English and "quote mining" from Daniel.
- Abiogenesis is not spelt cancer biology
! - Argument from authority is the fallacy of citing someone because you, Daniel, think they are an authority whether the authority is knowledgeable about the subject or not.
Paul Davies is a physicist with an interest in astrobiology - a part of which is abiogenesis. He does not seem to have published any papers on abiogenesis: Research Papers in Peer-Reviewed Professional Journals
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: Cherry picks Paul Davies' opinion that life cannot be created bottom-up
!
How we could create life (11 December 2002) is Paul Davies stating his opinion about how we could create "life in a test-tube"!
If Paul Davies had a time machine in 2002 to read the above and current science then it is possible that he would not have stated that opinion
.
It is actually cherry picking an old news article while denying the real world, Daniel, where Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water exists
!How we could create life (11 December 2002) is Paul Davies stating his opinion about how we could create "life in a test-tube"
!27 April 2016 Daniel: Cherry picks Paul Davies stating his opinion that artificial life can be created - just not by the bottom-up approach of organic chemistry.
If Paul Davies had a time machine in 2002 to read the above and current science then it is possible that he would not have stated that opinion
.
Last edited:
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
Wrong-o-Rama...
"If you want to see my work as PI of ASU’s Center for Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology, it’s here.
My profession is theoretical physics, especially applied to quantum physics, astrophysics and cosmology. In the last 20 years I have also worked in astrobiology, a subject that addresses the origin and evolution of life, and the possibility of life beyond Earth. In 2009 I embarked on something completely different – applying concepts from physics and astrobiology to the problem of cancer. Although these research topics seem very disparate, in my own mind they link up deep down."
http://cosmos.asu.edu/about
Anything on the other (90% of the post) that preceded your failed appeal to argument from authority?
regards
Richard Dawkins once said, and I agree with him, that you should never go to a physician that doesn't accept the theory of evolution. The reason for that is because the contradiction in belief versus evidence indicates an intellectual disconnect. I think this would also apply to an astrophysicist that still believes the world is only 6000 years old despite evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Unfortunately this is the problem with a person that still believes the world is only 6000 years old despite evidence to the contrary (Daniel) citing a respectable scientist like Paul Davies. The creationist craziness can be confused with the scientist.
The really crazy part of Daniel citing Paul Davies is this is a astrophysicist who has studied astrobiology and believes in a ~14 billon year old universe where life began naturally but on other worlds. Maybe even before the Earth existed!
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Remember when I asked which creation story I should believe and why it was preferable to all others?
Still waiting for you to have the decency to answer this question.
I see we're back round to the start of this whole thing.
Daniel used that Davies quote waaaaay back near the beginning of this thread, where I pointed out he had carved out the quote (some might say 'mined') from an article where he was merely saying he thought a top down approach would make more sense.
I see RealityCheck has posted the extra bits that show what he was getting at.
Daniel used that Davies quote waaaaay back near the beginning of this thread, where I pointed out he had carved out the quote (some might say 'mined') from an article where he was merely saying he thought a top down approach would make more sense.
I see RealityCheck has posted the extra bits that show what he was getting at.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Well, Daniel has his stock comeback for that, something along the lines of "I'm not interested in his opinions!" Of course, it's not a little ironic that Daniel is appealing to an opinion about abiogenesis from an authority whose expertise isn't in that field, while his expertise in his specialized field bearing on the actual age of the universe would be "that's just, like, his opinion, man!"
1. "evolution", what's that? Post the Scientific Theory of evolution....?
2. My son was pretty sick (ICU) a few years ago, and I asked the Attending: "So, what do you think about evolution??" He Laughed Out Loud... I could hear him snickering down the Hallway.
3. They would have to "ACCEPT" it because it's not Defined let alone TESTED. "Acceptance" is for: Propaganda States, 2nd Grade Story Time, Politics, and 'religion'.
And (rotflol), have you seen this: Intelligent Design Aside, from Templeton Foundation to the Royal Society, Darwinism Is Under Siege
http://firstnewsalert.com/intelligent-design-aside-from-templeton-foundation-to-the-royal-society-darwinism-is-under-siege/
I suppose it's time for yet another ad-hoc "Rescue" hypothesis: #1875.
Really?? Well we're gonna see when you post the Scientific Theory of evolution. I'd be shocked if you even knew what an "Actual" Scientific Theory was to begin with.
1. Why would somebody need to 'Believe" something...if it's Validated by Experiment??
Do you "believe" that... Unless it is hindered purposely, in Nature....
Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!).
Do you "believe" that or is it VALIDATED Experiment?
Do you believe that...
Vitamin C deficiency in humans results in Scurvy.
Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.
Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.
Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.
Are these in the "Believe" Category or the "Validated Experiment" Category?
2. You have Scientific Evidence of "The World" being older than 6,000 years?? If so, Please post the Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that validate it...?
Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in each of the TESTS...?
Of course, you would have to know what Scientific Hypotheses are and what The Scientific Method is to begin with. Just by your comments, it's abundantly clear that's a "Bridge WAY Too Far" for you.
regards
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Avoiding my question again, I see.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Is anyone surprised that a doctor's reaction to someone who questioned evolution was to laugh, and then leave the room snickering?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
I'm certainly not surprised that Daniel would assume the doctor was laughing with him instead of at him.
ETA- I'm also (sadly) not surprised to hear that someone like Daniel, with a son sick enough to need an ICU, would still find time and feel the need to pursue his obsession- "say, Doc, whaddya think of evolution? Oh, and how's my son?"
Last edited:
It's worth remembering that, in Danielscience, the scientific proof that DNA is/has information, code, etc does not exist!
Huh?
Recall his dozens of posts about the Scientific Method, Dependent and Independent Variables, etc. Has Daniel cited "Danielscience consistent" sources reporting that DNA has (or contains) code? No.
Could he do so? I'd love to see him try!
Huh?
Recall his dozens of posts about the Scientific Method, Dependent and Independent Variables, etc. Has Daniel cited "Danielscience consistent" sources reporting that DNA has (or contains) code? No.
Could he do so? I'd love to see him try!
RussDill
Philosopher
You always sidestep ration discussion with pedantic diversions into the definitions of words. There are two definitions of believe. The second is "hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose." The first is "accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of." I find it very difficult to believe that it never occurred to you that someone can believe something is true *because* it is supported by experiment.
Yes, it's a pity that humans can't make their own vitamin C. Apparently God saw fit to bestow a gene on humans that can create Vitamin C, but then broke that gene so that the enzyme it produces is no longer functional.
Plenty of people have explained it, all using slightly different phrasing, but all covering the same (very simple ideas). Here's one.
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
And astonishingly He saw fit to break the same gene in exactly the same way in all Haplorhini (tarsiers, monkeys and apes).
If only there was a simpler explanation. Why was the creator so dull with their basic forms for animals? I want fish with hands. I want monkeys with feathers. I want rabbits that fluoresce in UV with jellyfish proteins.
There is evidence of intelligent design but the intelligence is well documented.
1) Was the Attending laughing with you or at you?
2) Do you have the metacognitive skills necessary to recognize the difference?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
1) Was the Attending laughing with you or at you?
2) Do you have the metacognitive skills necessary to recognize the difference?
Better are they operant or do they need a torq?