DNA Was Designed By A Mind

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.

I can't resist.

Sperm is a chemical. Tell us all about that Mr Chemical and Biology Professor.

We know about CO2 turning lime water milky. And we know about saying that somebody knows nothing about chemistry and biology is intended to imply that the asserter is an expert.

So explain about sperm and give us the benifit of your wisdom. It is a substance at the nexus of the subjects and it's reasonable for us to assume you "majored" in them otherwise you wouldn't be able to assess, as a peer-reviewer, that rl knows nothing about them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

RL would have been a great citizen of England in 1859, ignorant and contented.

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

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Brandon.

Applying the scientific method is appropriate in the limited circumstances to which it applies.

Applying the scientific method where not appropriate just clouds legitimate scientific issues.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But it's not.

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.

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Brandon.

Applying the scientific method is appropriate in the limited circumstances to which it applies.

Applying the scientific method where not appropriate just clouds legitimate scientific issues.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But it's not.

I submit that it is unreasonable to believe something which little or no evidence suggests is true. You appear to wish to attack our theory on the basis that we cannot demonstrate it's the truth, but then claim blanket exemption from demonstrating the reasonableness of your own rival theory. It's dishonest.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Brandon.

Applying the scientific method is appropriate in the limited circumstances to which it applies.

Applying the scientific method where not appropriate just clouds legitimate scientific issues.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But it's not.

I submit that it is unreasonable to believe something which little or no evidence suggests is true. You appear to wish to attack our theory on the basis that we cannot demonstrate it's the truth, but then claim blanket exemption from demonstrating the reasonableness of your own rival theory. It's dishonest.

'evidence suggests'

a phrase I've always thought humorous.

It indicates inferential treatment of evidence, but a desire to regard it as much weightier.

I've questioned your theory (something you've said that science welcomes) and pointed out where evidence is lacking. If that's 'an attack' , well ok .

I haven't claimed any type of exemption, I've simply pointed out that an explanation which posits a natural cause and an explanation that posits a supernatural cause are not the same thing .

But if we regard a naturalistic theory for which there is no evidence to be a 'scientific theory' , then perhaps a supernatural theory is scientific too.

As for 'my rival theory', let me remind you that I am not the one who claimed to have the exact mechanics of my theory down. That was someone else.

I've said that I don't pretend to know what methods were used to create the cosmos , the earth, living creatures, etc

'evidence suggests'

a phrase I've always thought humorous.

It indicates inferential treatment of evidence, but a desire to regard it as much weightier.

I've questioned your theory (something you've said that science welcomes) and pointed out where evidence is lacking. If that's 'an attack' , well ok .

I haven't claimed any type of exemption, I've simply pointed out that an explanation which posits a natural cause and an explanation that posits a supernatural cause are not the same thing .

But if we regard a naturalistic theory for which there is no evidence to be a 'scientific theory' , then perhaps a supernatural theory is scientific too.

real life wrote:

I've questioned your theory (something you've said that science welcomes) and pointed out where evidence is lacking. If that's 'an attack' , well ok .

You deny evidence is evidence. This isn't a case of you pointing out lack of evidence. It is a case of you claiming there is no evidence and then ignoring any evidence that is presented.

Setanta wrote:

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

If you were not describing a scenario in which aerobic organisms displaced anaerobic organisms as the dominant life form on earth, then what are you talking about?

Setanta wrote:

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

Keep pretending that you have a large internet audience , Set.

Just don't say that I didn't tell you that it wasn't so.

I've specifically said there isn't , so for you to try to imply that I 'hope there is' is simply nonsense.

You appear to wish to attack our theory on the basis that we cannot demonstrate it's the truth, but then claim blanket exemption from demonstrating the reasonableness of your own rival theory. It's dishonest. (emphasis added)

You do espouse the idea that God created life on Earth. You consider it to be the truth. You consider it a reasonable thing to believe. In order for it to be a reasonable thing to believe, there has to be some evidence to suggest that it's true.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You do espouse the idea that God created life on Earth. You consider it to be the truth. You consider it a reasonable thing to believe. In order for it to be a reasonable thing to believe, there has to be some evidence to suggest that it's true.

Believing in God (and that God is the creator) is not dependent on being able to show physical evidence of His existence.