DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Notice how your 'Extinction Argument' makes your earlier 'Numerical Argument' rather useless?

The reason anaerobic life forms were extinguished (although not entirely, evolved versions survive to this day in environments in which they are not exposed to free oxygen) is because life forms which respired free oxygen and weren't poisoned by it took over.

You have proposed two groups of critters that can survive under two separate scenarios which are mutually exclusive.

If the environment changed gradually over many years then you must admit that both groups must have had to live on Earth at the same time.

Just as they do today.

So where is the case that one must have evolved from the other (and one completely displaced the other) if both can (and do) live on the planet at the same time? It is simply an assumption, and no evidence requires such a conclusion.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
...Of course, ludicrous explanations like this are based on NO evidence that they actually happened, but we're expected to take them on faith.

Doesn't this describe your theory of the origins of life exactly?

Nice.

I find that so called 'scientific' explanations of origins often have no more 'scientific evidence' to them than religious ones.

And I think I've pointed this out on more than one occasion.

Often a so-called 'scientific theory' is nothing more than supernaturalism dressed in a lab coat.

A fundamental question about any theory regarding facts is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe it's the truth. It is exactly on this basis that you challenge the theory of evolution. Since this is a valid question for any theory purporting to give facts, it's also valid for religious theories. You are afraid to have your theory of the origins of life tested by the same standards of evidence you apply to others.

I have candidly said (more than once) that creation is a supernatural explanation of origins.

What part of that do you find hard to understand?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Notice how your 'Extinction Argument' makes your earlier 'Numerical Argument' rather useless?

The reason anaerobic life forms were extinguished (although not entirely, evolved versions survive to this day in environments in which they are not exposed to free oxygen) is because life forms which respired free oxygen and weren't poisoned by it took over.

You have proposed two groups of critters that can survive under two separate scenarios which are mutually exclusive.

You mean like fish and mammals?

Quote:

If the environment changed gradually over many years then you must admit that both groups must have had to live on Earth at the same time.

Just as they do today.

Sure, and???

Quote:

So where is the case that one must have evolved from the other (and one completely displaced the other) if both can (and do) live on the planet at the same time? It is simply an assumption, and no evidence requires such a conclusion.

Actually, fossil evidence would reveal the likelihood of it happening that way. Oh.. that's right. It seems award winning palaeontologists disagree with real life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I have candidly said (more than once) that creation is a supernatural explanation of origins.

What part of that do you find hard to understand?

Yes, at the same time claiming a "singularity" is supernatural and telling us that black holes are not supernatural even though there is no evidence that matter and energy act the same way there as in normal space. We get all that real life. What you don't seem to get is that award winning physicists disagree with you.

0 Replies

I don't think we are in Kansas anymore ....

0 Replies

Since RL has grounded hi worldview in its realm of supernatural, he cant allow there to be any explanations or evidence for something else. It would be deadly to CReationist thought.

Also, his inability to carry out a discussion without false exegsis and "by quote mining" of reasonable documents and articles is fraud . He hasnt a way to discuss science so he tries to reword the questions and misrepresent many of the answers just to be deceitful and (he hopes) cunning.

Hes a trip and to continue doing anything but yelling at his open fly does not satisfy me enough anymore. Theres no purpose or pathway in continuing. Its almost become childish and I am as responsible as anyone including RL. SO,

0 Replies

There are many scientists (about 40% at last count) who hold a supernatural worldview (you'd know them as 'theistic evolutionists'). I just don't happen to be one of them. But there is no inherent contradiction between a supernatural worldview and the use of the scientific method in the limited realm to which it applies.

Unfortunately, the typical 'scientific type' on A2K seems to carry a veiled (or not-so-veiled) hostility toward anyone who dares not to share their opinion.

The typical 'youre just crazy/youre just stupid/youre just lying' responses form the basis of their attacks on anyone who doesnt share their interpretation of evidence. That's the childish portion of it, IMHO.

0 Replies

If youd go to a real science symposium where youd want to introuce a radical new idea with evidence, you could be shouted down and made a fool among colleagues who have the same data as you. So dont be dissin anybody for failing to go along with your lame worldview until you get some evidence.
MAny religious scientists dont really accept a strict theistic "evolution" becaues theyve decideed that their god is somewaht transcendent and not involved in the nuts n bolts of life and evolution/ Where you relly fall down is your belief in phenomena that just arent so, and then try to discuss minutae (like whether DNA was a "first replicator). Meanwhile you belive ina Biblical Flood in a world thats less than 10K years old. How can you expect us to even have a rationale conversation with that crap on the table?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

How can you expect us to even have a rationale conversation with that crap on the table?

Exactly.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

..... dont be dissin anybody for failing to go along with your lame worldview until you get some evidence.....

Where you relly fall down is your belief in phenomena that just arent so, and then try to discuss minutae (like whether DNA was a "first replicator).

If you have ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule OTHER than dna/rna has EVER actually been the basis for a living organism, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Until then , don't lecture me about 'you've got no evidence, rl'. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life wrote:

There are many scientists (about 45% at last count) who hold a supernatural worldview (you'd know them as 'theistic evolutionists'). I just don't happen to be one of them. But there is no inherent contradiction between a supernatural worldview and the use of the scientific method in the limited realm to which it applies.

Here we go with another of real life's oft repeated canards. He interprets surveys to mean more than they do. "Supernatural" has quite the meaning for you real life. It is whatever you want it to mean.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the typical 'scientific type' on A2K seems to carry a veiled (or not-so-veiled) hostility toward anyone who dares not to share their opinion.

Hostility? Oh.. that's right, you would never say anything against anyone on this thread. Please real life, you shouldn't accuse others of being hostile when this thread is filled with your personal attacks against others.

Quote:

The typical 'youre just crazy/youre just stupid/youre just lying' responses form the basis of their attacks on anyone who doesnt share their interpretation of evidence. That's the childish portion of it, IMHO.

That would be opposed to "
Don't waste my time any longer until you can read and understand what I and others have said" or "You're really getting pitiful." or "But you'll honestly face none of these issues. All you can due is deny, deny, deny." or "(ja devu means 'your jaw is making the same noise as I recall from previous encounters')" or "Maybe it doesn't seem unlikely to you because you aren't the chemist that he is." or "Perhaps the article is too difficult for you"

For you to accuse others of veiled hostility because they don't share your opinion is laughable. You are as guilty as anyone.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

If you have ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule OTHER than dna/rna has EVER actually been the basis for a living organism, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Until then , don't lecture me about 'you've got no evidence, rl'.

That comment, besides not even making any sense, cannot be attributed to me. Ive stipulated that the fist living molecule is not known and is merely presented in mental syntheses (you seem to willfully forget these points when you quote mine someone). I admit to having discussed the rNA world concept over the years, but as an interested observer, not a buyer of goods.

NOW, as for what Ive stipulated to, is up on the table, why dont you, as you state, begin to "discuss it", since that would be something entirely new with you.

Three years and we may now hear some wisdom of science from RL.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote-

Quote:

You are afraid to have your theory of the origins of life tested by the same standards of evidence you apply to others.

No--you are--that is why you are imitating a snow machine on my earlier question about sperm which is, as even 8 year olds know now under the scientific biologicallisms taught in schools, at the coal-face when it comes to the origins of your own post.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Notice how your 'Extinction Argument' makes your earlier 'Numerical Argument' rather useless?
The reason anaerobic life forms were extinguished (although not entirely, evolved versions survive to this day in environments in which they are not exposed to free oxygen) is because life forms which respired free oxygen and weren't poisoned by it took over.

You have proposed two groups of critters that can survive under two separate scenarios which are mutually exclusive.

If the environment changed gradually over many years then you must admit that both groups must have had to live on Earth at the same time.

Just as they do today.

So where is the case that one must have evolved from the other (and one completely displaced the other) if both can (and do) live on the planet at the same time? It is simply an assumption, and no evidence requires such a conclusion.

Jesus, what an idiot you are--either an idiot, or a willfully deceiver.

In the first place, i am not "proposing" any "critters" at all. Both aerobic and anaerobic life forms exist today. None of them are "critters," which is a corruption of creatures, and there is no plausible reason to assume that they were created--and obviously i don't buy that load of horseshit.

I have not proposed two "scenarios which are mutually exclusive." I pointed out that free oxygen was almost unknown (i did not say entirely unknown) in the early environment, but that the rise of cyanobacteria (aerobes) began to fill the environment with free oxygen, which was eventually fatal to almost all, but not all anaerobes. You can read that in the portion of what i wrote which you quoted.

At no time did i state or imply that one form "completely displaced the other."

This is exactly why people call you a liar, an idiot, and any other of a number of names you so richly deserve. You completely distort what people say, or blatantly lie about what they say--and in this case you were so stupid that you even quoted me saying something which you afterwards lie about in the post in which you quoted it.

You are a moron and a liar.

0 Replies

The really funny thing about RL is hes supposed to represent a Christian viewpoint with which hes always taking a moral highpoint. I guess being a big fat liar and a dishonest person means nada to the Xtians.

0 Replies

I've read too much history to ever buy any bullshit about christians and morality. What is incredible to me is that he can lie in a post in which he has quoted the evidence of his lie.

As i've said so many times recently, it's either incredible stupidity or incredible deceit. If the latter, he certainly must be hoping that somebody really dense will read and believe his bullshit, despite the number of times he insists that nobody reads this but the people who immediately participate. If that were true, he'd have no reason to show his face around here, knowing of the contempt for him which the participants consistently express.

0 Replies

Im saying its the second. Hes on a mission fo Jesus.

0 Replies

That's what i suspect, as well. The odds are pretty good that he's hoping to sucker the credulous who might be wavering in their faith in the bobble by seeming to argue plausibly, and he probably feels that the personal remarks made about him only help his case.

Of course, there's just more evidence of deceit in that he has in the past quoted material from creationist sites, and regularly presents arguments from creationist sites, but then (as he did recently in this thread) denies that he visits creations sites. He said he "rarely" visits them. You don't have to go to the well too often, though, when you trot out the same lame tripe over and over and over and over and over again.

There's also evidence of his deceit in his claim that nobody reads these threads but the participants, and yet he persists, while knowing that nobody here is buying his bullshit song and dance. He's playing to an audience, or at least hopes he is.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
...Of course, ludicrous explanations like this are based on NO evidence that they actually happened, but we're expected to take them on faith.

Doesn't this describe your theory of the origins of life exactly?

Nice.

I find that so called 'scientific' explanations of origins often have no more 'scientific evidence' to them than religious ones.

And I think I've pointed this out on more than one occasion.

Often a so-called 'scientific theory' is nothing more than supernaturalism dressed in a lab coat.

A fundamental question about any theory regarding facts is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe it's the truth. It is exactly on this basis that you challenge the theory of evolution. Since this is a valid question for any theory purporting to give facts, it's also valid for religious theories. You are afraid to have your theory of the origins of life tested by the same standards of evidence you apply to others.

I have candidly said (more than once) that creation is a supernatural explanation of origins.

What part of that do you find hard to understand?

The part I find hard to understand is why you think there is enough evidence that it's true to justify a reasonable person in believing it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
..... dont be dissin anybody for failing to go along with your lame worldview until you get some evidence.....

Where you relly fall down is your belief in phenomena that just arent so, and then try to discuss minutae (like whether DNA was a "first replicator).

If you have ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule OTHER than dna/rna has EVER actually been the basis for a living organism, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Until then , don't lecture me about 'you've got no evidence, rl'.

You who have a theory of the origins of life for which there is hardly a speck of evidence.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know