Creationist argument about DNA and information

Garrette said:
You appear to be under the misapprehensions that I fall for your obfuscation, .....
Click to expand...


So the answer to:

"Do you have a coherent substantive argument by chance or are you gonna stick with floating Op-Ed's "from the rail"??"

is most certainly a.... NOPE. Since you floated another "Wholesale" Op-Ed...from the rail. Don't worry, as you can CLEARLY see, you have a Whole Lotta Company (Practically everyone of your cohorts employing the same). So you thought you'd just join in?? Get consumed by the NOISE yourself, right?

Thanks, I already knew. The question was rhetorical ;)

regards
 
Daniel said:
So the answer to:

"Do you have a coherent substantive argument by chance or are you gonna stick with floating Op-Ed's "from the rail"??"

is most certainly a.... NOPE. Since you floated another "Wholesale" Op-Ed...from the rail. Don't worry, as you can CLEARLY see, you have a Whole Lotta Company (Practically everyone of your cohorts employing the same). So you thought you'd just join in?? Get consumed by the NOISE yourself, right?

Thanks, I already knew. The question was rhetorical ;)

regards
Click to expand...

Daniel, you are failing, and flailing. You seem to know nothing about what you are trying to speak of.

Your biggest failure, is that you have come to a conclusion, without considering all the evidence.

Go take a college entry level course on science. Or read something that isn't a creationist quote mine.
 
Daniel: The lie of this "Scientific Method" is to do with "Sir Francis Bacon et al"

Daniel said:
1. It isn't "My Definition"; SEE: Sir Francis Bacon et al. It's quite simple, "Science" is it's Method, The Scientific Method...
Click to expand...
It's extremely simple.
1 April 2016 Daniel: It is a lie that that this "Scientific Method" is anything to do with "Sir Francis Bacon et al".
Sir Francis Bacon is the father of the modern scientific method that includes scientific theory and other features missing from your list :jaw-dropp. From 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
4 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what the science and the scientific method actually are before making comments about them!
The scientific method is not a linear series of steps.
The scientific method contains scientific theories (not just hypothesizes).
There is no "Lit Review" in science (that is literature!). There is peer review.
Results are reported throughout the method.
Click to expand...


1 April 2016 Daniel: That nonsensical "Scientific Method" needs an actual source rather than what looks like a lie about it not being your definition.
 
Last edited:
Daniel: Asking Christian de Duve (died 4 May 2013) questions is really ignorant

Daniel said:
Yea yea sure. ...
Click to expand...
Lots of Danielrant about the podcast transcript Science Legend Christian de Duve
Christian de Duve, 1974 Nobel laureate for physiology or medicine, talks about going from a cell biologist to a theorist on evolution and the origin of life
Click to expand...

The transcript is in plain English without Danielrant and lies by quote mining so I encourage people to read it.

To emphasize how ranting the Danielrant is:
1 April 2016 Daniel: Asking Christian de Duve (2 October 1917 – 4 May 2013) idiotic questions is really ignorant.
1 April 2016 Daniel: "Bio" does not mean just DNA or RNA or elephants :p!
Biochemistry
Biochemistry, sometimes called biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms. ...
Much of biochemistry deals with the structures, functions and interactions of biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and lipids, which provide the structure of cells and perform many of the functions associated with life.
Click to expand...
 
In the podcast transcript Science Legend Christian de Duve de Duve does say "Once you have it, it can reproduce itself, but how do you get it together?" where it is RNA. While modern RNA does not reproduce itself (AFAIK), we have found self-replicating RNA molecules: Biologists create [another] self-replicating RNA molecule.
Ribozyme
Investigators studying the origin of life have produced ribozymes in the laboratory that are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis from activated monomers under very specific conditions, such as an RNA polymerase ribozyme.[2] Mutagenesis and selection has been performed resulting in isolation of improved variants of the "Round-18" polymerase ribozyme from 2001. "B6.61" is able to add up to 20 nucleotides to a primer template in 24 hours, until it decomposes by cleavage of its phosphodiester bonds.[3] The "tC19Z" ribozyme can add up to 95 nucleotides with a fidelity of 0.0083 mutations/nucleotide.[4]
Click to expand...
 
Daniel said:
"It put's the lotion in the basket"... how may kJ/mol is that? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Is what? the ink particles that make up that phrase? The molecules on my LCD? The proteins storing that phrase in my brain?? Be more specific, man! :boggled:
 
Daniel said:
Sure Sure. You forgot to mention: I was on the Grassy Knoll, slipped a message to the radio controller on the USS Maddox in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin, and convinced Napoleon that the Guerrilla Warfare Tactics (adopted from the Scythians) were no big deal, and he should attack Russia IN FORCE!!





Do you have a coherent substantive argument by chance or are you gonna stick with floating Op-Ed's "from the rail"??



How bout, What is Information...?? Show how it's Matter/Energy and put some in a jar and paint it red for us...?



"It put's the lotion in the basket"... how may kJ/mol is that? :boggled:





regards
Click to expand...

You were - again - caught in misrepresenting your sources, in other words, lying. And this incoherent rant is your defence?
 
Daniel, please post the Scientific Law of Biogenesis. (5th time of asking).
 
steenkh said:
You were - again - caught in misrepresenting your sources, in other words, lying. And this incoherent rant is your defence?
Click to expand...


I do wonder whether Daniel's approach ever works. Even in places where people are less knowledgeable about evolution and the scientific method as most posters here are, the wilful ignorance and unwarranted arrogance must surely be obvious and offputting.
 
As Daniel is (unsurprisingly) ignoring my repeated question, I will answer it myself.

Daniel asked me to show who or what made the sand. He indicated that the First Law of Thermodynamics would result in my answer leading to him checkmating me.

I replied that Parrot Fish make sand, with a link by way of evidence.

I then asked how Parrot Fish violate the FLoT, a question to which Daniel has not replied.

Here it is:
The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.
Click to expand...

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

Parrot Fish eat coral and excrete sand. A perfect example of transformation, as specified by the FLoT.

Daniel's god, on the other hand, appears to be in direct and obvious violation of this law, by supposedly creating everything from nothing.

I will add "checkmate" to the ever-expanding list of terms Daniel appears to completely misunderstand.
 
Daniel said:
Yea yea sure. I hope everybody reads it!! Understanding it (with this crowd)....Not Bloody Likely. So lets have a go, shall we...

Steve: That the early biological world was an RNA-based world.

[...Many insults and accusations of ignorance and stupidity directed at de Duve snipped]

My suggestion, Take the Next 3 days off....then Quit.

Oy Vey, de Duve
Click to expand...
Well, this should tell anyone who is still not convinced about Daniel's style all they need to know. Daniel directs his misplaced arrogance, hectoring and delusions of grandeur even at someone with the track record of Nobel prize winning biochemist Christian de Duve.
A Nobel Prize winning Biochemist and doesn't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis is!!! Priceless. Hey Christian what's your "Independent Variable"...your Imagination? Eyelids? Other??
Click to expand...
That kind of school yard bullying is completely misplaced and totally self-defeating. Oh and the interview still makes excellent reading. It's here.
 
Daniel said:
Well I had to stop with your IN-coherent "De-coherence" Begging The Question Fallacy Implosion on the QM Thread. There's only so many times I can refute 1 + 3 doesn't = 245,675.335.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean that time you blocked me because you had no answer to being comprehensively whupped? By being shown that the article you yourself cited demonstrates how interaction with the environment decoheres quantum states.
1. It isn't "My Definition"; SEE: Sir Francis Bacon et al. It's quite simple, "Science" is it's Method, The Scientific Method...
Click to expand...
Still waiting for a citation to a text where Francis Bacon defines science in such a way that it excludes the subject areas in question.

hecd2 said:
the scientists themselves, the administrators of the universities and government science laboratories and bodies, the philosophers of science and the people and organisations who fund science? You see, everyone who matters includes these subject areas in their definition of science and you don't: geology and astronomy and cosmology and evolutionary biology and astrophysics and palaeontology and General Relativity and... well, you get the picture.
Click to expand...
Well apparently, they have a Serious Case of Utter Ignorance and/or been hanging out around Power Lines. Post a Formal Scientific Hypothesis from each of those disciplines...?
Click to expand...
Ok - the whole global scientific community is utterly ignorant about what constitutes science but Daniel knows better. We get it.

1. Argument to Popularity (Fallacy).
Click to expand...
Not at all. Words mean what people take them to mean. In this case everyone who matters, thousands of institutions and millions of scientists, agree that science includes the subject areas in question. And poor little Daniel disagrees. Poor little Daniel - whupped again.
2. It's not my 'Opinion', it's what SCIENCE is for goodness sakes.
Click to expand...
Except that it's your private definition and everyone who matters disagrees with you
3. When are you gonna start posting these tens of thousands and MILLIONS (lol, btw) of "Scientists"--- VIEWS?? You know, to SUPPORT your Fairytale Claims here....?
Click to expand...
OK - here's a challenge. The top 25 universities in the world according to the annual prestigious Times Higher Educational Supplement can be found here: See if you can find one of these universities that clearly defines the subject areas in question (geology, astrophysics, astronomy, evolutionary biology, palaeontology, General Relativity, theoretical physics, etc) outside science - say by having the subject in a department alongside English literature or crochet or theology.

For a bonus, tell us which of these universities awarded you your science degree.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
English teacher, eh? Reading Daniel's stuff must be exquisitely painful for you.
Click to expand...

I teach English as a foreign language, just to clarify what kind of English teacher I am.
When I grade writing, I use these criteria:
Task Achievement. Did you answer the question? Did you use the appropriate register ( style of language, e.g. formal/ informal/ neutral)? Do you demonstrate coherence and cohesion?

My mark for Daniel: needs development. Too many unanswered questions and a confrontational, mocking tone, with an occasional use of inappropriate use of metaphor ( "I will take your argument outside and bludgeon it to death" sticks out).

Language: Grammar, spelling and vocabulary.

My mark for Daniel: Needs development. To be fair, his grammar and spelling are fine. However, his insistence on trying to redefine words to suit his arguments displays a rather cavalier attitude to vocabulary. If everyone was to do the same, meaningful communication would be all but impossible.

Organisation: Punctuation, capitalisation, sentence length, paragraphing.

My mark for Daniel: Weak for level/ fail. Incorrect capitalisation, highlighting and excessive punctuation are scattered like confetti over his posts. This adds confusion rather than added meaning or emphasis.

I have no doubt that Daniel will write this off as 'colour commentary'. ( I am expecting a response to this, as he has so far avoided my more pertinent posts like the plague.)
I have no problem with this at all: if Daniel won't engage seriously, then neither will I. No harm in a bit of fun now and then!
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I have no doubt that Daniel will write this off as 'colour commentary'. ( I am expecting a response to this, as he has so far avoided my more pertinent posts like the plague.)
I have no problem with this at all: if Daniel won't engage seriously, then neither will I. No harm in a bit of fun now and then!
Click to expand...
Quite my view, also. Although I am torn between the fun part of watching his antics, in particular how he thinks he can dismiss all of science by inventing his own version, and my sadness at seeing how he knowingly uses dishonest methods to "win" the argument. Is this "lying for Jesus" really true?

At first I thought he did not know better, but I am quite sure that it is a calculated method in order to reach his political goal of dismantling science, and that he thinks that he can win street credit with his fellow fanatics by doing it here on our turf.
 
steenkh said:
Quite my view, also. Although I am torn between the fun part of watching his antics, in particular how he thinks he can dismiss all of science by inventing his own version, and my sadness at seeing how he knowingly uses dishonest methods to "win" the argument. Is this "lying for Jesus" really true?
At first I thought he did not know better, but I am quite sure that it is a calculated method in order to reach his political goal of dismantling science, and that he thinks that he can win street credit with his fellow fanatics by doing it here on our turf.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, though it is usually not so blatant, and frequently there is sufficient internal denial for the lying person to rationalize the lying away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom