Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

Given that you haven't actually presented an argument, yes.

If you wish a more detailed response, post something that merits one.

Sure, No Problem (for the 35th time in this thread alone)...

The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Software/Code.

If you can't Falsify the Null, then your position and World-View are circling the drain @ light speed...

The Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/Software/Code.

The Null or 'Default Position' is accepted unless you can Validate the Alternative Hypothesis. Savvy?? Go ahead...?
You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!!

That is not a law.

It is until you Falsify it . (SEE: The Null Hypothesis Above )

Re-read what I said. The term "spontaneous generation" is outdated and carries erroneous connotations having nothing to do with the modern theory of abiogenesis, such as "mice are generated by grain stores".

Factually Incorrect. Email 'Biology Online' and petition them to change their definitions.

Even your own source makes note of this, though you conveniently snipped that piece out.

Really, show where...?

The modern theory of abiogenesis has little to do with the idea of spontaneous generation, and the "law" of biogenesis is no longer considered one.

1. There are no actual Scientific Theories of Abiogeneis, you can't even formulate a Viable Scientific Hypothesis for goodness sakes.

2. So The Law of Biogenesis has been falsified, eh? Ok, show Life from Non-Life...?

A rule of thumb: if you are going to try and present a quote from a notable name, do not attempt to do it out of context, as you have done here. The posters on this forum have seen that enough times to know the game, and it is just a waste of everyone's time.

As a rule of thumb: please don't attempt to float Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacies and expect them to carry any veracity whatsoever.

The above sound bite is only a small portion of an interview with Susskind (who is, by the way, an atheist)

Yes I am well aware on both counts.

from the short documentary "Are We Real?". You can watch the entire thing here, and you will note that a solution to the problem is given just after the bit that you presented out of context: multiverse theory. Susskind himself says "we don't need a fine tuner" at 25:22.

1. That doesn't prove your feebly contrived 'out of context' previously and still Baseless claim above, AND...

2. Postulating the Most: Un-Parsimonious, Occam's Razor Bludgeoning, Complete and Utter Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) ever presented in the History of Reason...isn't a solution; it's a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher.

Note that I am not personally arguing for multiverse theory here. I am not a theoretical physicist, and there are many different ideas as to why the universal constants are what they are. What there is not, however, is any evidence whatsoever that a fine-tuner is required.

Yes, besides the 'Fine-Tuning' itself

Sorry, no. That is another accusation of a fallacy that you got wrong.

Sorry yes, it's right on point as illustrated. And "Na'ahh" isn't a rebuttal, save for on a 2nd grade playground.

All the thing that you are responding to does is point out that a great many people commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in arguing for the existence of a fine-tuner. This is hardly irrelevant.

Well Fine-Tuning does Implicate someone doing the 'TUNING'... it's like the "Necessary Condition" (Antecedent).


Texas Sharpshooter, eh ? I suppose one of your Texas Ranger's was the 'multiverse' implosion, right? We can knock that on off the Firing Line.


regards

 

[Jodie]

1. What do you mean by "Updated"?

Recent research regarding DNA as information and how we can replicate that to treat diseases. The sources you have previously quoted were severely outdated.

2. It makes no mention of a Creator?? So...? Is there any mention that there isn't a Creator?
It makes no mention of a Creator in my references either.

Then how can you discuss the Scientific Method to disavow the theory of evolution in one statement and then parade research to back up your belief that there is a creator?

I didn't ask you what change was. I said "Change" is not a Mechanism.

Yes, you asked " What's change?" and then quoted Aretha Franklin except you changed chain to change.

Begging the Question (Fallacy): where'd you get DNA??

There are several speculative theories out there that drew their conclusions from experimentation using the scientific method.

This isn't a Scientific Theory.

It looks like it is to me:

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/mutation-research-fundamental-and-molecular-mechanisms-of-mutagenesis/

The research regarding Neanderthal's contribution to the modern genome:

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html

Autism is a form of evolutionary change that is currently happening:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/297844.php

Sickle Cell and it's relationship with Malaria:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html

1. The disconnect is there is no Scientific Theory of evolution and there is a CREATOR.

How would you use the scientific method to prove that? I don't think making leaps of assumption about DNA is the way to go. It would be better if you just claimed the belief as a belief and went about your business rather than bending your concept of what scientific evidence does or doesn't indicate.

2. The Philosophical "Just So" Story of evolution held by Realists/Materialists most assuredly holds that "The Cause" for the Universe and Us is Nature/Natural Law; As opposed to the Idealist/Christian who holds (with Literal 'Mountains of Scientific Evidence') that "The Cause" is The CREATOR.
They look Diametrically Opposed to me, you?


regards

The entire Bible, Koran, and Torah are "Just So" stories so how do you differentiate the theory of evolution from these cumulative works? Could what we observe in Nature not be the essence of creation? Why would you take primitive goat herder's POV over what you yourself observe in your own field of work?

 

[Jodie]

How do you feel about the theories for parallel universes and other dimensions? How does that work out with your belief in Christianity? Is thinking sinful thoughts equal to actually committing the deed? The only reason I ask is that you have mentioned physics several times in past posts.

 

[Nonpareil]

Sure, No Problem (for the 35th time in this thread alone)...

The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Software/Code.

Not the null hypothesis.

Believe it or not, there actually is such a field as information theory. There are scientists who study information, where it comes from, how it arises, how it can be quantified, and so on. There is no requirement for an intelligent agency behind the creation of information.

Of course, creationists will immediately answer this by saying "so you think computer software just writes itself, huh?", which just goes to show that they don't actually know what the word "information" means, on top of all that stuff about failing to understand the genetic algorithm that was already in play.

It is until you Falsify it

Sorry, no. That's not how this would work even if you weren't entirely wrong about how information works.

Factually Incorrect.

And again, no, though I didn't really expect you to actually listen to the correction regardless. It's standard behavior among creationists to simply dismiss any information that contradicts their preconceived beliefs.

If it weren't, there wouldn't be any creationists left at this point.

Really, show where...?

"It was a popular belief that mice occur spontaneously from stored grain, or maggots spontaneously appear in meat."

1. There are no actual Scientific Theories of Abiogeneis, you can't even formulate a Viable Scientific Hypothesis for goodness sakes.

I am not interested in semantic games. I wouldn't care about this even if you did understand what the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" actually meant.

2. So The Law of Biogenesis has been falsified, eh? Ok, show Life from Non-Life...?

Literally all evidence we have points towards abiogenesis not only being possible, but having actually happened. The fact that I cannot reach out and produce a living organism in a lab is entirely irrelevant.

As a rule of thumb: please don't attempt to float Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacies and expect them to carry any veracity whatsoever.

That isn't what the bare assertion fallacy is, either.

Do you understand what any of the fallacies you go about accusing people of actually are, or are you just trying to bury your opponents under a tide of meaningless nonsense and hope they give up?

1. That doesn't prove your feebly contrived 'out of context' previously

Yes, it does. That is rather what "out of context" means.

2. Postulating the Most: Un-Parsimonious, Occam's Razor Bludgeoning, Complete and Utter Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) ever presented in the History of Reason...isn't a solution; it's a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument. You are not a theoretical physicist. While I am not personally convinced of the truth of multiverse theory either, the fact remains that there is no evidence for the universe requiring a fine-tuner, and there are multiple explanations being explored which do not require one - which was rather the entire point of this whole aside.

Yes, besides the 'Fine-Tuning' itself

Begging the question is not a particularly compelling form of argumentation.

Well Fine-Tuning does Implicate someone doing the 'TUNING'... it's like the "Necessary Condition" (Antecedent).

Ah, the argument from silly name. Truly, the height of logic and reason.

Texas Sharpshooter, eh ? I suppose one of your Texas Ranger's was the 'multiverse' implosion, right? We can knock that on off the Firing Line.

So we can add the Texas sharpshooter fallacy to the list of logical fallacies you don't actually know the definition of, then?

 

[Border Reiver]

1. What do you mean by "Updated"?



2. It makes no mention of a Creator?? So...? Is there any mention that there isn't a Creator?

It makes no mention of a Creator in my references either.











I didn't ask you what change was. I said "Change" is not a Mechanism.













Begging the Question (Fallacy): where'd you get DNA??











This isn't a Scientific Theory.











1. The disconnect is there is no Scientific Theory of evolution and there is a CREATOR.

What "creator" are you talking about? Allah? Woden? Amiratsu? Raven? The God-Emperor? Gork (or is it Mork)?

And other than the "just so" stories of the religiously inclined, where is the evidence that supports one set of stories over the other Side?

2. The Philosophical "Just So" Story of evolution held by Realists/Materialists most assuredly holds that "The Cause" for the Universe and Us is Nature/Natural Law; As opposed to the Idealist/Christian who holds (with Literal 'Mountains of Scientific Evidence') that "The Cause" is The CREATOR.

They look Diametrically Opposed to me, you?





regards

I see no such mountains of evidence that support the existence of the Christian diety. I see no evidence that supports the existence of any diety.

I see evidence of evolution.

So yeah, the two positions are diametrically opposed - one has evidence, the other is supported by stories from Bronze Age pastoralists.

 

[Daniel]

Recent research regarding DNA as information and how we can replicate that to treat diseases. The sources you have previously quoted were severely outdated.

1. Huh?? Replicate what? Just because you can "replicate" information doesn't preclude that Information Exists? Your argument is 'severely' Incoherent.

2. How on Earth are they outdated?? Dr. Venter's article was October 24, 2013; Dr Hood's 2003, and Abel et al 2005. You have to FALSIFY THEM.

The Laws of Thermodynamics were codified in the late 1800's, are they "severely outdated", Old Hat?

It's also an Appeal to Age (Fallacy).

Then how can you discuss the Scientific Method to disavow the theory of evolution in one statement and then parade research to back up your belief that there is a creator?

Well because we Experience "INFORMATION" it can be TESTED as to "The Cause" of it.
There is no "theory" of evolution.

There are several speculative theories out there that drew their conclusions from experimentation using the scientific method.

Well "Speculation" and "Scientific Theories" are Married Bachelors as previously Illustrated.

Would you like to post some of these "theories" you're referring to here?

It looks like it is to me:

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/mutation-research-fundamental-and-molecular-mechanisms-of-mutagenesis/

The research regarding Neanderthal's contribution to the modern genome:

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html

Autism is a form of evolutionary change that is currently happening:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/297844.php

Sickle Cell and it's relationship with Malaria:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html

It "looks like it" to you? I'm sorry, we don't really care what it 'looks like' to you.

Post the Scientific Theory of evolution.....? (for well over the 80th time in this thread alone!).

How would you use the scientific method to prove that?

Easy...

Observe a Phenomenon: Information Exists and it appears to only come from Intelligent Agency.

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Software/CODE.

Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/Software/CODE.

If you can't Falsify The Null 'The Default Position' via the Alternative...then, the Null is Accepted. So, when you're ready...?

Got about 10 more after we're done with this.

I don't think making leaps of assumption about DNA is the way to go.

There are no 'Leaps of Assumptions' being made. You can't get the Physical Molecules: Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins (Hardware) "Naturally" from their respective Building Blocks AND you're sure not getting The "Information" content "Naturally"; because Information is neither Matter or Energy.

So your Position is "Up a Creek" in a Big Way, Just Here !

It would be better if you just claimed the belief as a belief and went about your business rather than bending your concept of what scientific evidence does or doesn't indicate.

Better for you maybe . Sorry, I don't "BELIEVE" without Evidence (which is 'religion'). I'm admonished to do the EXACT Opposite...

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

I'll leave the Blind 'Scientifically Falsified' faith to evolutionists/Materialists/ Realists.

The entire Bible, Koran, and Torah are "Just So" stories.

1. Isn't the Torah the first 5 Books of The Holy Bible? If so, your postulate here is redundant.

2. If the entire Bible is a "Just So" Story, then to remain logically consistent, using the same tenets to validate the veracity of each via 'Historical Documentation', these are Myths of Epic Proportions...

1. Alexander The Great
2. Julius Caesar
3. Plato
4. Socrates
5. Homer
The Holy Bible dwarfs these "COMBINED"!!

so how do you differentiate the theory of evolution from these cumulative works?

Well The Holy Bible is judged via 'Historical Documentation'. The "alleged" theory of evolution is judged via The Scientific Method...which it contains NONE OF; Ergo...The Difference.

However, the Quintessential Attributes of A CREATOR (Information) can Be TESTED via the Scientific Method a Number of Ways...I posted one above.

Could what we observe in Nature not be the essence of creation?

Don't know exactly what you mean, can you elaborate and clarify?

Why would you take primitive goat herder's POV over what you yourself observe in your own field of work?

There are a number of reasons...One of which, those "Goat Herders" merely wrote what they were instructed to write; but this is well Off Topic. Maybe another time and thread.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Not the null hypothesis.

Errr.. yea, The Null.... It's your Huckleberry

Believe it or not, there actually is such a field as information theory.

Really, that's astonishing!!! Whoda thunk it?

There are scientists who study information, where it comes from, how it arises, how it can be quantified, and so on.

Quantify this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsqrefd tgofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskz

First Elucidate the Information THEN...Please post the units of measure?? Thanks

There is no requirement for an intelligent agency behind the creation of information.

So another in a long list of "Na'ahhs", eh?

Of course, creationists will immediately answer...

Stereotype Fallacy. So I suppose since Daniel Shenton (evolutionist) is President of The Flat Earth Society, all evolutionists will immediately answer... "the Earth is Flat"?

...on top of all that stuff about failing to understand the genetic algorithm that was already in play.

Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get Genes?

Sorry, no. That's not how this would work even if you weren't entirely wrong about how information works.

So another "Na'ahh" . Yes, it's exactly how it works...

"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/ECON309lect7Bhypotesting.doc

"It was a popular belief that mice occur spontaneously from stored grain, or maggots spontaneously appear in meat."

And...

Abiogenesis -- The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Abiogenesis

Same thing.

Literally all evidence we have points towards abiogenesis not only being possible, but having actually happened. The fact that I cannot reach out and produce a living organism in a lab is entirely irrelevant.

Literally all evidence we have points towards Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons not only being possible, but having actually happened. The fact that I cannot reach out and produce an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon in a lab is entirely irrelevant.

You can't produce a single 30 mer Functional DNA/RNA/Protein Molecule "Naturally" from their respective building blocks, Let alone getting in the Galactic Zip-Code of Life!

That isn't what the bare assertion fallacy is, either.

This is and that was.

the fact remains that there is no evidence for the universe requiring a fine-tuner, and there are multiple explanations being explored which do not require one - which was rather the entire point of this whole aside.

Yes, except for the "Fine-Tuning".

Well go ahead and grace us with these other 'explanations'...? Sure hope it's better than that trainwreck Watermelon sized Hang'n Curve Ball 'multiverse' you served up last time.

Begging the question is not a particularly compelling form of argumentation.

Then please stop employing it then.


regards

 

[Nonpareil]

Errr.. yea, The Null.... It's your Huckleberry

No, it's really not.

Quantify this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsqrefd tgofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskz

First Elucidate the Information THEN...Please post the units of measure?? Thanks

There is nothing to elucidate. The string is gibberish. There are, however, ninety-six bytes of information included in it.

Information content is a concrete mathematical value, Daniel. It is determined by the number of possible states of a given entity (such as an ASCII character, as above, or a chemical in a DNA strand), versus the actual state.

You may find these videos informative.

So another in a long list of "Na'ahhs", eh?

Again, you have not actually produced an argument. You have simply erroneously asserted that all information requires an intelligent agency behind it. This is demonstrably false.

Stereotype Fallacy.

Not a fallacy, no. It isn't part of an argument. It is simply my personal experience.

Stop trying to play the gotcha game, Daniel. You aren't very good at it.

Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get Genes?

That is not what begging the question means (and wouldn't be even if the genetic algorithm does apply explicitly to genetics), and the genetic algorithm is not exclusive to literal genes. It just gets its name from them. You have failed on both counts.

So another "Na'ahh" . Yes, it's exactly how it works...

Once again, you have utterly failed to grasp the actual argument being made.

I am not arguing against the existence of the null hypothesis. However, a null hypothesis is not equivalent to a law.

I would go into why, but again, I don't care about semantic games.

And...

Abiogenesis -- The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Abiogenesis

Same thing.

Save the errant connotations of "spontaneous generation" which have already been pointed out to you.

But again, you don't care, and that isn't going to change, so I don't know why I'm bothering to repeat myself.

Literally all evidence we have points towards Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons not only being possible, but having actually happened. The fact that I cannot reach out and produce an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon in a lab is entirely irrelevant.

Hyperbolic false comparison is also not a convincing form of argumentation.

You can't produce a single 30 mer Functional DNA/RNA/Protein Molecule "Naturally" from their respective building blocks, Let alone getting in the Galactic Zip-Code of Life!

This is because chemistry is complicated, Daniel, not because it is impossible. Flight was not impossible prior to the Wright brothers' experiments.

This is and that was.

Yes, except for the "Fine-Tuning".

Well go ahead and grace us with these other 'explanations'...? Sure hope it's better than that trainwreck Watermelon sized Hang'n Curve Ball 'multiverse' you served up last time.

Then please stop employing it then.

"I'm rubber and you're glue" is still not a particularly convincing form of argumentation, and simply denying that you were wrong does not make you any less so. Surprisingly, doubling down on your wrongness only makes you more wrong.

 

[Jodie]

1. Huh?? Replicate what? Just because you can "replicate" information doesn't preclude that Information Exists? Your argument is 'severely' Incoherent.

No, I think I'm right on target with my argument, I'm trying to understand your incoherent argument. Doesn't what you just posted contradict your opinion that DNA is information and information has to come from an intelligent source? If we can replicate and make changes to it artificially then why would environmental factors affecting change not be considered evolutionary change?

2. How on Earth are they outdated?? Dr. Venter's article was October 24, 2013; Dr Hood's 2003, and Abel et al 2005. You have to FALSIFY THEM.

Because science is an evolving field, usually one doesn't choose sources over 5 or 6 years old to cite. So far you haven't falsified the theory of evolution.

The Laws of Thermodynamics were codified in the late 1800's, are they "severely outdated", Old Hat?

It's also an Appeal to Age (Fallacy).

I think you have the appeal to fallacy claim backwards, no the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed but they don't contradict the theory of evolution in anyway that I can see.

Well because we Experience "INFORMATION" it can be TESTED as to "The Cause" of it.
There is no "theory" of evolution.

I just linked you several articles about genetics and what mutations resulted in what affects on the human genome. What didn't you understand?

Well "Speculation" and "Scientific Theories" are Married Bachelors as previously Illustrated.

Would you like to post some of these "theories" you're referring to here?

As soon as you show me the algorithm that proves we have a creator as described in the Christian bible.

It "looks like it" to you? I'm sorry, we don't really care what it 'looks like' to you.

Post the Scientific Theory of evolution.....? (for well over the 80th time in this thread alone!).

I think I've done that at least 8 times already in this thread that I can remember, very recently 3 times. Was there a literacy problem on your part?

Easy...

Observe a Phenomenon: Information Exists and it appears to only come from Intelligent Agency.

I'm still waiting on your evidence for this.

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Software/CODE.

Please provide your evidence for this.

Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/Software/CODE.

Please provide your evidence for this.

If you can't Falsify The Null 'The Default Position' via the Alternative...then, the Null is Accepted. So, when you're ready...?

Got about 10 more after we're done with this.

No one accepts your Null Hypothesis as true, it should be the other way around since natural causes can alter genes. I have provided evidence but you didn't do me the courtesy of bothering to read it.

There are no 'Leaps of Assumptions' being made. You can't get the Physical Molecules: Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins (Hardware) "Naturally" from their respective Building Blocks AND you're sure not getting The "Information" content "Naturally"; because Information is neither Matter or Energy.

So your Position is "Up a Creek" in a Big Way, Just Here !

I believe I'm swimming just fine, thank you. Evidently it is conceptually possible to get DNA/RNA/proteins naturally, the efficiency of early forms of protein synthesis would be increased dramatically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation. Since we see this reaction catalyzed by rRNA in present-day cells that shouldn't be hard to understand. Say you start with a crude peptidyl transferase ribozyme, over time this grows larger. It then acquires the ability to position charged tRNAs accurately on RNA templates. That would eventually lead to the development of the ribosome. Instead of utilizing just 4 amino acids, the ribosome can now use 20 making it more versatile and suitable as a mechanism for carbon based life forms to flourish here on Earth. This is why your Null Hypothesis fails.

Better for you maybe . Sorry, I don't "BELIEVE" without Evidence (which is 'religion'). I'm admonished to do the EXACT Opposite...

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

I'll leave the Blind 'Scientifically Falsified' faith to evolutionists/Materialists/ Realists.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa 55:8-9)

So according to this scripture neither one of us can falsify any hypothesis regarding DNA.

1. Isn't the Torah the first 5 Books of The Holy Bible? If so, your postulate here is redundant.

2. If the entire Bible is a "Just So" Story, then to remain logically consistent, using the same tenets to validate the veracity of each via 'Historical Documentation', these are Myths of Epic Proportions...

1. Alexander The Great
2. Julius Caesar
3. Plato
4. Socrates
5. Homer
The Holy Bible dwarfs these "COMBINED"!!

Not really, why do you think so? You do realize Christianity borrowed themes from pagans and Zoroastrianism right?

Well The Holy Bible is judged via 'Historical Documentation'. The "alleged" theory of evolution is judged via The Scientific Method...which it contains NONE OF; Ergo...The Difference.

I wouldn't compare Historical Documentation with the Scientific Method since the first is based on subjective reasoning as evidenced by the apocrypha being edited out of the bible. Whereas the theory of evolution has been verified numerous upon numerous times via the Scientific Method, which is a method designed to try to eliminate bias.

However, the Quintessential Attributes of A CREATOR (Information) can Be TESTED via the Scientific Method a Number of Ways...I posted one above.

Where?

Don't know exactly what you mean, can you elaborate and clarify?

So you've spoken of physics, the bible, god's will, natural laws, etc... as if these things are all separate entities when in my mind they aren't. We are the whole of creation all rolled into one big ball of enfolded dimensions. I think we are all of one being living under the illusion that we are separate beings. If that is the case then we create ourselves making evolution simply a process for growth and not in contradiction with the concept of WE or US as creators. And if the many worlds theory is correct we actually live all of our potential choices and consequences at once making the concept of redemption rather pointless. L. Ron Hubbard and Aleister Crowley both said that the quickest way to make money, gain power, control, ets... is to create religion, which is not to be confused with spirituality. I believe what we see going on in the world today is living proof of that.

There are a number of reasons...One of which, those "Goat Herders" merely wrote what they were instructed to write; but this is well Off Topic. Maybe another time and thread.

Or they could have simply been schizophrenics.

 

[steenkh]

Information/Software/Code is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception.

A while ago you were reckless enough to give a link to a dictionary definition of code, and this definition clearly stated that code has more than one meaning. Most importantly, the meaning you are giving these words is not applicable to DNA. In other words, your argument is busted.

Or you can prove that DNA is information in your sense. Your quotes are worthless if you cannot prove that they use information and code in your sense. So you have to show that DNA is coded by God, and that it has a receiver. Good luck.

 

[Border Reiver]

1. Isn't the Torah the first 5 Books of The Holy Bible? If so, your postulate here is redundant.

No. It is not. It includes the first 5 books of the Old Testament, but also includes other works, such as the perushim or rabbinic commentaries.

2. If the entire Bible is a "Just So" Story, then to remain logically consistent, using the same tenets to validate the veracity of each via 'Historical Documentation', these are Myths of Epic Proportions...



1. Alexander The Great

2. Julius Caesar

3. Plato

4. Socrates

5. Homer

The Holy Bible dwarfs these "COMBINED"!!

Search the historical records and you will find multiple contemporary references to everyone on the above list save Homer. Most of the characters in the Bible stories, including David, Soloman, and Paul are only found in the Bible, and there is a lack of physical evidence that would allow us to conclude that the Bible stories of creation (there are two, and they do not agree) happened.

 

[Reality Check]

Nothing but the usual irrelevant rants from Daniel so: Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; unsupported assertions; and begging the question is all we have from Daniel since he started posting. 68 items in the list !

1. 9 March 2016 Daniel: A lie by quote mining Mayr 1988: 162 (he provides his definition of evolution in the next sentence that you mined out)
2. 27 April 2016 Daniel: A fantasy of abiogenesis = cancer biology where Daniel highlights the biology part of Paul Davies CV.
3. 27 April 2016 Daniel: Cherry picks Paul Davies (again!) stating his opinion that artificial life can be created - just not by the bottom-up approach of organic chemistry.
4. 8 March 2016: Tolls points out the actual subject of the Paul Davies article to Daniel which is a proposal to create life from the top-down.
5. 28 April 2016 Daniel: Repeats a lie abut the theory of evolution not being defined or tested when he has been supplied with the definition and evidence many times in several threads.
6. 28 April 2016 Daniel: Links to a deluded web site rather than science - the use of "Darwinism" is a hint!
7. 28 April 2016 Daniel: An implied lie by linking to "First News" which has reposted a blog entry from an intelligent design idiot, thus hiding the ignorance behind the link.
8. 28 April 2016 Daniel: The repeated (and insane since he has the answer) demand for a definition of the scientific theory of evolution dates from at least 28 September 2014 in another forum.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: The stupidity of biology is chemistry, physics, or experiments

Scientific Theories are...

not your total ignorance about what a scientific theory is
2 May 2016 Daniel: The stupidity of thinking that biology is chemistry, physics, or experiments by cherry picking quotes!

A scientific theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses supported by experimental results (like evolution!) and observations (like evolution!).

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel : A lie about no support for abiogenesis

There is no evidence that supports spontaneous generation/abiogenesis.

2 May 2016 Daniel: A lie about no support for abiogenesis.
4.6 billion years ago Earth did not exist, then Earth formed, then life began.
The several theories for abiogenesis use existing biochemistry.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Ignorance of or lying about the Law of Biogenesis

You heard of the Law of Biogenesis?

2 May 2016 Daniel: Ignorance of or lying about the Law of Biogenesis!
Here is the law of biogenesis

The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]
...
The term biogenesis was coined by Henry Charlton Bastian to mean the generation of a life form from nonliving materials, however, Thomas Henry Huxley chose the term abiogenesis and redefined biogenesis for life arising from preexisting life.[3] The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and occurred at least once in the history of the Earth,[4][5] or in the history of the Universe (see panspermia), when life first arose.[6][7][8]

The law of biogenesis is about life arising from preexisting life .

 

[Reality Check]

1. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

p.s. There is no Viable Scientific Theory of Gravity.

28 April 2016 Daniel: The repeated (and insane since he has the answer) demand for a definition of the scientific theory of evolution dates from at least 28 September 2014 in another forum.

P.S. GR is the Viable Scientific Theory of Gravity (even with a !)

 

[Reality Check]

Does Lenski have an actual Scientific Theory of evolution...?

No, Daniel, Richard Lenski is a biologist who has been for the last 30 years and still is running an experiment that is testing the scientific theory of evolution - part of the real world that you deny exists !

E. coli long-term evolution experiment

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in April 2014.[2]

 

[Reality Check]

So "what is a Scientific Theory" and "what is the theory of evolution" ...

The same old rant: 28 April 2016 Daniel: The repeated (and insane since he has the answer) demand for a definition of the scientific theory of evolution dates from at least 28 September 2014 in another forum.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: A list of lies and delusions for "the evidence for his creation fairy"

Well...

2 May 2016 Daniel: A list of lies, fantasies and delusions about "the evidence for his creation fairy"!

1. The laws of thermodynamics do not state that a creation fairy exists.
2. The laws of physics ad chemistry do not include a creation fairy.
3. The "laws of information" are a delusion. Information theory is a big area that has no creation fairy.
4. Quantum Mechanics does not include any creation fairy.
5. 2 May 2016 Daniel: Ignorance of or lying about the Law of Biogenesis
6. If fine tuning exists then it is not evidence for a creation fairy.
7. A delusion about imaginary "Irreducible and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity" is not evidence for a creation fairy.
8. An imaginary "Law of Cause and Effect" is not evidence for a creation fairy.
9. The existence of random things (truth, mathematics, etc.) is not evidence for a creation fairy.
10/ Common sense tells a rational, knowledgeable person that there is no evidence for a creation fairy.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: A delusion about abiogenesis and spontaneous generation being synonymous

Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are "Synonymous", clearly.

2 May 2016 Daniel: A delusion about abiogenesis and spontaneous generation being synonymous
Abiogenesis is an existing, current area of scientific research about the origin of life.
Spontaneous generation is an obsolete idea about the birth of current living beings. It was invalidated by what Daniel has cited several times - the law of biogenesis.
2 May 2016 Daniel: Ignorance of or lying about the Law of Biogenesis!