DNA Was Designed By A Mind

get your head out from your ass hole spendi. Try adding something of substance or go back out and lay in the gutter with your buds. Laughing

0 Replies

Did I tweak a sensitive spot?

Good grief. And you a scientist and all.

0 Replies

Im sorry, when did you remove your head from your ass?

0 Replies

The argument should be over now. RL's own theory of the creation of the universe is much, much more susceptible to his own demands for a rigorous demonstration than evolutionary theory. This is, in fact, such a damning indictment of his logic that he simply avoids discussing it, without even attempting to counter it.

Once again, it's like saying, "You haven't proven the germ theory rigorously enough, so I believe in demonic posession."

His only defense is to claim immunity from his own logic. He'd like us to forget and stop talking about this collosal contradiction in his argument.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' )

of course that we know that it did, and the evidence is the life around us.

Then address the issue, as stated:

The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them.

Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

In the first place, i've already presented ample evidence that substrate clays not only provide an environment in which peptides and polypetides may exist, but that the silicate and aluminate substrate clays encourage the formation of long polypetitde chains.

In the second place, you are completely ignoring your boy Shapiro and his metaphor of the shopping list. I suspect, though, as with just about everything else in Shapiro's article, that one flew right over your head.

But i really should point out that Brandon has had the last, conclusive word. You wish to apply to scientific explanations a rigorous critique which you won't apply to the magic of your imaginary friend superstition.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' )

of course that we know that it did, and the evidence is the life around us.

Then address the issue, as stated:

The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them.

Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

Where Shapiro said is one possibility.

Oh.. that's right, you didn't really read Shapiro.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' )

of course that we know that it did, and the evidence is the life around us.

Then address the issue, as stated:

The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them.

Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

Where Shapiro said is one possibility.

Oh.. that's right, you didn't really read Shapiro.

Shapiro postulates that it developed within an already living organism, that's the whole point of his 'metabolism first' view of first life.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The argument should be over now. RL's own theory of the creation of the universe is much, much more susceptible to his own demands for a rigorous demonstration than evolutionary theory. This is, in fact, such a damning indictment of his logic that he simply avoids discussing it, without even attempting to counter it.

Once again, it's like saying, "You haven't proven the germ theory rigorously enough, so I believe in demonic posession."

His only defense is to claim immunity from his own logic. He'd like us to forget and stop talking about this collosal contradiction in his argument.

Brandon,

I think each explanation of origins should be examined on the basis of what it claims, not on the basis of what it doesn't.

Creation is a supernatural explanation. I've said it often enough. And it should be examined on that basis.

BB / Abiogenesis purport to be explanations with natural evidence. And they should be examined on that basis.

Mixing apples and oranges, as you do, only makes yourself look desperate.

I always love the 'argument is over' ploy when hyper-naturalists try to shut down discussion because they've run out of room to wiggle.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
I must say, since you have absolutely NO evidence that such 'multiverses' have ever existed, nor ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis for ANY living organism

As I said, we can get to within a few seconds of the BB initiation via leftover fragments of energy and the "domed" radial construction of the universe. Science works as far as the evidence takes it and then attempts to recontruct the rest. WE can get to a few percentages from the beginning and we work backward from there. Youve got NOTHING AT ALL TO EVEN BEGIN WITH.
As far as the origin of life, replication is but one of the several features of the living state. We have evidence of several of these features (such as respiration) , The increasing mass of C12 and chiral organic "fossil" crystals in isolate sediments can only be explained by the existence of something like "life". (I recall that your argument has always been for "fully formed" living state beings in existence without transitionals from simple to more complex. Therefore, If you are attempting to argue from a "Scientific Creationist " viewpoint, and are attempting to beat down real science, then you need to hone your "argument" based upon your interpretation of these fossil shelves and organic masses of the early Proterozoic. Saying that there is NO evidence is just some more of your selective ignorance ( and stubbornly retained ignorance at that)

Science merely attempts to apply natural explenations to the mix. Any idiot can make up myths and "creation tales" without evidence or , like you,by denying all the existing evidence and attempting to say that it doesnt exist when youy know that youre a liar on that point (I know youre not that dumb, so I can only assume that youre that devious).

Please dont deny us the way for the search for truth and discoveries of honest facts by attempting to deny evidence and defaulting to your story of a Great Being in the sky. It must be difficult to live in a world where there is NO train of evidence to back up any part of your bullshit. NO?

You used to argue from a standpoint of what you called "absence of evidence" and "a multiple interpretative methodology" . I think you made much moe sense in that time than you are with your total mythological ascription.

Can your worldview be tested as to its usefulness in applied science--ANSWER: HELL NO. (but ours can )

Does your worldview have anything to offer in the theoretical---ANSWER:HELL NO (again ours can)

Don't deny you the search for evidence?

That's what I'm encouraging you to do, because you haven't got any evidence of the 'multiverses' that you believe exist(ed), nor of the existence of ANY self replicating molecule other than dna/rna having EVER been the basis for a living organism.

None.

You claim, 'we're close'.

You are nowhere on both issues.

No evidence, only conjecture and wishful thinking.

That's why a stellar chemist like Shapiro has abandoned looking for a self replicating molecule that can pave the pathway to life, and has instead turned his hope to small molecules initiating metabolic activity and somehow developing a replicator in the protective environment of the already living critter.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote-

Quote:

The argument should be over now.

It would be if your side would stop arguing which is what I think should be happening.

You look a bit daft saying that the argument should be over and then starting up arguing again yourself. Are you asserting victory? Whilst looking that daft.

Quote:

Once again, it's like saying, "You haven't proven the germ theory rigorously enough, so I believe in demonic posession."

There's plenty of demonic posession about these days. It goes under another name now. We can afford to treat it and divide it up into empires.

You're being anachronistic. A Hallowen thing.

When those things were called demonic posession they were used to famine and plagues. A quick solution was a survival necessity.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The argument should be over now. RL's own theory of the creation of the universe is much, much more susceptible to his own demands for a rigorous demonstration than evolutionary theory. This is, in fact, such a damning indictment of his logic that he simply avoids discussing it, without even attempting to counter it.

Once again, it's like saying, "You haven't proven the germ theory rigorously enough, so I believe in demonic posession."

His only defense is to claim immunity from his own logic. He'd like us to forget and stop talking about this collosal contradiction in his argument.

Brandon,

I think each explanation of origins should be examined on the basis of what it claims, not on the basis of what it doesn't.

Creation is a supernatural explanation. I've said it often enough. And it should be examined on that basis.

BB / Abiogenesis purport to be explanations with natural evidence. And they should be examined on that basis.

Mixing apples and oranges, as you do, only makes yourself look desperate.

I always love the 'argument is over' ploy when hyper-naturalists try to shut down discussion because they've run out of room to wiggle.

I've run out of wiggle room? The argument is over only because you have refused to defend your position, but insist that we must defend ours. Refusing to justify your belief should effectively end your right to criticize ours for an insufficient defense. Your only defense for your theory of the origin of the life is to claim that it's immune to analysis - even your own analysis. While chiding us for applying insufficient rigor to demonstrate our theory of the origins of life, you simultaneously claim that your own theory is exempt from any examination.

It comes down to this. We have one theory of how life got here, and you have another. Ours is scientific, yours is supernatural, but they both purport to be accurate accounts of the origin of life on Earth which are actually true. Even a supernatural theory may be true or false. Either God did create life on Earth or he did not. You cannot chide us for not showing rigorously that our account is reasonable, and simultaneously claim that it's reasonable for a person to accept your belief with no evidence that it's true.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Brandon wrote-

Quote:
The argument should be over now.

It would be if your side would stop arguing which is what I think should be happening.

You look a bit daft saying that the argument should be over and then starting up arguing again yourself. Are you asserting victory? Whilst looking that daft.

Quote:
Once again, it's like saying, "You haven't proven the germ theory rigorously enough, so I believe in demonic posession."

There's plenty of demonic posession about these days. It goes under another name now. We can afford to treat it and divide it up into empires.

You're being anachronistic. A Hallowen thing.

When those things were called demonic posession they were used to famine and plagues. A quick solution was a survival necessity.

The debate should be over for the simple reason that it's unfair for you to demand that we justify our theory of the origin of life rigorously, but refuse to justify your theory whatever. You cannot simultaneously criticize alleged holes in the evolutionary argument, and claim that your belief is exempt from examination or the need for evidence.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It comes down to this. We have one theory of how life got here, and you have another. Ours is scientific, yours is supernatural

What I've pointed out is that the 'scientific' types often fudge and offer supernatural explanations while wearing the robes of science.

The 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe is a great example of this.

----NO evidence that it actually EVER existed

----described as NOT subject to the physical laws of our universe

IMHO it's supernatural by definition. (It certainly isn't scientific, is it?)

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Even a supernatural theory may be true or false. Either God did create life on Earth or he did not. You cannot chide us for not showing rigorously that our account is reasonable, and simultaneously claim that it's reasonable for a person to accept your belief with no evidence that it's true.

Yes even a supernatural theory may be true or false. So any theory should be examined on the ground it claims, not on what it doesn't claim.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shapiro postulates that it developed within an already living organism, that's the whole point of his 'metabolism first' view of first life.

No, he does not. Your reading comprehension skills are abominable. He is listing the different theories and hypotheses in his article.

However, if you are so adamant that Shapiro postulates that the first replicator was created in an already living organism, cite the exact part of the article where he states this.

None of which changes the fact that not a single shred of this is evidence that the DNA was designed by an intelligent mind. Shapiro never states this and you using it as evidence of it either speaks of dishonesty or stupidity on the highest degree.

real life wrote:

What I've pointed out is that the 'scientific' types often fudge and offer supernatural explanations while wearing the robes of science.

The 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe is a great example of this.

----NO evidence that it actually EVER existed

But it a testable hypothesis. I provided to you two research papers that actually give a way to test this, but of course, you ignored that. Because according to your little strawman, something is unscientific if there's no evidence for it.

Just like the concept of the Sun running on nuclear fusion was unscientific when there wasn't any proof that such a reaction was occuring inside it. And don't give me that BS about the Sun being observable. You can't observe a nuclear reaction in the Sun.

Quote:

----described as NOT subject to the physical laws of our universe

No, it is described as not being subject to the known physical laws of our universe. The fact that you insist, after multiple times of correcting you on this, to leave out the word known, clearly shows us and everyone who reads your posts that you are being dishonest. That is, because the word known makes a mockery out of your attempt to apply the word supernatural to the singularity as it would have therefore meant that the word also once applied to the Sun.

It doesn't matter if you can easily see it, because by your definition, if it appers to not be subject to the physical laws of our universe, then its supernatural.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It comes down to this. We have one theory of how life got here, and you have another. Ours is scientific, yours is supernatural

What I've pointed out is that the 'scientific' types often fudge and offer supernatural explanations while wearing the robes of science.

The 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe is a great example of this.

----NO evidence that it actually EVER existed

There is a difference between "no evidence" and "evidence that real life won't accept". Evidence does exist and has been presented to you. You continue to claim there is "no evidence." I would call that evidence that real life is disingenuous.

Quote:

----described as NOT subject to the physical laws of our universe

IMHO it's supernatural by definition. (It certainly isn't scientific, is it?)

Yes, and you have not explained how matter acts in a black hole. Failure to make that explanation means that black holes by your estimation must be supernatural. Yet we have visible evidence of black holes interacting with your universe. So, under your definition of "supernatural" it can be tested in this universe. Which raises the question of why you can't present the same evidence for your "supernatural being."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Even a supernatural theory may be true or false. Either God did create life on Earth or he did not. You cannot chide us for not showing rigorously that our account is reasonable, and simultaneously claim that it's reasonable for a person to accept your belief with no evidence that it's true.

Yes even a supernatural theory may be true or false. So any theory should be examined on the ground it claims, not on what it doesn't claim.

Yes, and that is what I am trying to do yet you won't answer the question about black holes. This isn't about you examining theories on the ground you claim. This is about you refusing to examine anything without constantly changing the ground.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Even a supernatural theory may be true or false. Either God did create life on Earth or he did not. You cannot chide us for not showing rigorously that our account is reasonable, and simultaneously claim that it's reasonable for a person to accept your belief with no evidence that it's true.

Yes even a supernatural theory may be true or false. So any theory should be examined on the ground it claims, not on what it doesn't claim.

I agree absolutely.

Your God theory claims that God created life on Earth. Please provide some evidence to support that belief. Since you are so highly critical of our arguments supporting the theory of evolution, you are obligated to meet the same high standard when demonstrating that there is enough grounds to accept your position. Please proceed.

0 Replies

There's nowhere to proceed to.

Except of course the functions (social consequences) of a belief, of which there are many competing to survive, and unbelief.

It is a mass psychology problem.

Does a society practicing a belief system have survival advantages over those not having one.

I think history teaches that all known societies have belief systems of some sort and that the Christian belief system is emerging holding all the aces.

From these two facts, as I maintain they are, the drive by a small minority to discredit our belief system is putting at risk our advantages and thus is fundamentally subversive unless those pushing that drive can show us what are the results of a collective unbelief. And this small minority runs away with some alacrity from even recognising that this is the crux of the matter let alone trying any tentative speculations regarding a society with our technology practicing mass atheism.

If they are pressing their case knowing that what they are aiming at simply won't happen then they are nothing but attention seekers who can't be bothered gaining the world's attention by honing some skill or other which is known to generate applause and admiration.

Their position is not unlike the equal share out for all idea. A pipe dream.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There's nowhere to proceed to.

Except of course the functions (social consequences) of a belief, of which there are many competing to survive, and unbelief.

It is a mass psychology problem.

Does a society practicing a belief system have survival advantages over those not having one.

I think history teaches that all known societies have belief systems of some sort and that the Christian belief system is emerging holding all the aces.

From these two facts, as I maintain they are, the drive by a small minority to discredit our belief system is putting at risk our advantages and thus is fundamentally subversive unless those pushing that drive can show us what are the results of a collective unbelief. And this small minority runs away with some alacrity from even recognising that this is the crux of the matter let alone trying any tentative speculations regarding a society with our technology practicing mass atheism.

If they are pressing their case knowing that what they are aiming at simply won't happen then they are nothing but attention seekers who can't be bothered gaining the world's attention by honing some skill or other which is known to generate applause and admiration.

Their position is not unlike the equal share out for all idea. A pipe dream.

You say, "there's nowhere to proceed to." You cannot maintain that our theory of the origins of life is insufficiently demonstrated while simultaneously claiming exemption from the need to show that there is evidence that your theory is the truth. You cannot demand that we provide a high standard of evidence that our belief is true while refusing to provide any evidence that your rival theory is true. If you can't, in fact, show evidence to suggest that your theory is correct, then you have no right to demand that we defend ours.

As to the effects of belief vs atheism on society, even if you could show that a belief in God was highly beneficial to society and atheism highly detrimental, it would have nothing to do with the question of whether a God does in fact exist and did in fact create life on Earth.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know