DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So is FM's opinion worthless, in your view?

So is Shapiro's opinion worthless in your view?

I've already stated that I agree with Shapiro on some points and disagree on others.

As I said, I've no interest in discussing black holes, I only answered because you had persistently shown an interest.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is interested in them.

You don't agree with any "evidence" that Shapiro presents.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So is FM's opinion worthless, in your view?

So is Shapiro's opinion worthless in your view?

I've already stated that I agree with Shapiro on some points and disagree on others.

As I said, I've no interest in discussing black holes, I only answered because you had persistently shown an interest. And it certainly doesnt relate to the topic here at all.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is interested in them.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So is FM's opinion worthless, in your view?

So is Shapiro's opinion worthless in your view?

I've already stated that I agree with Shapiro on some points and disagree on others.

As I said, I've no interest in discussing black holes, I only answered because you had persistently shown an interest.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is interested in them.

You don't agree with any "evidence" that Shapiro presents.

It sounds as if you don't think he's presented any.

Are you more qualified in chemistry than he?

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

You don't want to even to begin discussing dna, Set.

I know you don't, because you've avoided discussing the topic of the thread consistently.

I'm content to show that it didn't happen by chance, Set.

And assuming that natural (scientific) evidence is the only type of evidence is absurd as well.

Most events of history, indeed of ordinary life, cannot be 'scientifically' proven.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So is FM's opinion worthless, in your view?

So is Shapiro's opinion worthless in your view?

I've already stated that I agree with Shapiro on some points and disagree on others.

As I said, I've no interest in discussing black holes, I only answered because you had persistently shown an interest. And it certainly doesnt relate to the topic here at all.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is interested in them.

There is a reason you won't discuss black holes. If you admit they exist and you can't tell us how matter works in them then it destroys your argument about the singularity. If you claim they don't exist then you are forced to explain what happens with light in the universe and the only other possible explanation is dark matter which can't be explained by the physics you keep using to prove natural vs supernatural. No matter how you try to explain the observed phenomena it means your definition of "supernatural" and your claim that the supernatural can't be investigated by natural means comes into question.

You have become adept at changing the subject whenever your logic becomes flawed. One small problem. Your logic is still flawed. Your changing the subject doesn't rescue your flawed logic. It only means we have to run after you as you run away. Denial seems to be your only recourse real life.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So is FM's opinion worthless, in your view?

So is Shapiro's opinion worthless in your view?

I've already stated that I agree with Shapiro on some points and disagree on others.

As I said, I've no interest in discussing black holes, I only answered because you had persistently shown an interest.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is interested in them.

You don't agree with any "evidence" that Shapiro presents.

It sounds as if you don't think he's presented any.

Are you more qualified in chemistry than he?

you reject what you don't agree with which is EVERYTHING that he says about "chemistry."

real life wrote:

I've not claimed to have physical evidence of the existence of God. Never have.

Asking for natural evidence of the supernatural is absurd, IMHO.

That you personally are unable to reconcile your personal (and rhetorically convenient) definition of "supernatural" with naturalistic and empirical proof is not the fault of anyone other than you.

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

You don't want to even to begin discussing dna, Set.

I know you don't, because you've avoided discussing the topic of the thread consistently.

I'm content to show that it didn't happen by chance, Set.

You haven't shown any such thing. If you say that you have, it makes you a liar.

Well, this is really off topic but I'll respond briefly.

The 'singularity' preceding BB is commonly described as being of unknown composition (i.e. not composed of matter) and not subject to the physical laws of our universe.

Black holes are usually described as being composed of densely packed matter and subject to physical law.

So your comparison is not a good one.

Moreover, to say that :

'the only other possible explanation is (fill in the blank)....................'

is to assume omniscience.

How do you know that there is only one other possible explanation?

Quote:

you reject what you don't agree with which is EVERYTHING that he says about "chemistry."

This is incorrect.

real life wrote:

Moreover, to say that :

'the only other possible explanation is (fill in the blank)....................'

is to assume omniscience.

How do you know that there is only one other possible explanation?

I haven't done that. You do it all the time. Thanks for playing. Even you admit your arguments are crap.

If you claim they don't exist then you are forced to explain what happens with light in the universe and the only other possible explanation is dark matter which can't be explained by the physics you keep using to prove natural vs supernatural.

You sound like a broken record.

You can't reasonably discuss the origin of dna, so you simply say 'liar, liar, liar'

You're really getting pitiful.

DNA could not have originated in the open environment, even as a successor to earlier replicators.

So where do you think that it 'evolved' ? In an already living organism?

Shapiro has advanced some significant objections regarding the concentration and availability of the needed components of rna, before you even get to dna.

But you'll honestly face none of these issues. All you can due is deny, deny, deny.

Go ahead clap your hands over your ears and sing la la lala la la lala

Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution. (emphasis added)

real life wrote:

Quote:

you reject what you don't agree with which is EVERYTHING that he says about "chemistry."

This is incorrect.

yet when asked what you agreed with, you provided nothing.

Please provide some "chemistry" from Shapiro that you agree with.

You're really getting pitiful.

DNA could not have originated in the open environment, even as a successor to earlier replicators.

So where do you think that it 'evolved' ? In an already living organism?

Shapiro has advanced some significant objections regarding the concentration and availability of the needed components of rna, before you even get to dna. These become even more pronounced when you try to place them in a microorganism.

But you'll honestly face none of these issues. All you can due is deny, deny, deny.

Go ahead clap your hands over your ears and sing la la lala la la lala

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Quote:

you reject what you don't agree with which is EVERYTHING that he says about "chemistry."

This is incorrect.

yet when asked what you agreed with, you provided nothing.

Please provide some "chemistry" from Shapiro that you agree with.

Please provide some proof that you've followed the thread.

This is pitiful.

real life wrote:

You sound like a broken record.

You can't reasonably discuss the origin of dna, so you simply say 'liar, liar, liar'

You're really getting pitiful.

DNA could not have originated in the open environment, even as a successor to earlier replicators.

So where do you think that it 'evolved' ? In an already living organism?

Shapiro has advanced some significant objections regarding the concentration and availability of the needed components of rna, before you even get to dna.

But you'll honestly face none of these issues. All you can due is deny, deny, deny.

Go ahead clap your hands over your ears and sing la la lala la la lala

I have repeatedly pointed out that Shapiro does not at any time support your claim that (as you have most recently articulated it), ". . . it didn't happen by chance."

real life wrote:

You're really getting pitiful.

DNA could not have originated in the open environment, even as a successor to earlier replicators.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support your statement of it not possibly happening. Even Shapiro doesn't say that. He only states it is "improbable."