DNA Was Designed By A Mind

I guess real life feels if he repeats something often enough it will become true.

Let me restate this again for you real life. NO ONE has claimed that DNA formed in the open. Not Brandon, not I, not Farmerman, Not Set and certainly not award winning chemists like Shapiro. What Shapiro talked about where containers that kept the process from its environment. He discusses several different types of containers. You ignored all but one of those container types mentioned by Shapiro because you felt you could make an argument to dispute lipid membranes.

You also ignored an award winning Chemist when you laughed about how they would "reproduce."

Sorry real life, but when you base your entire argument on "award winning chemists disagree with you" you open yourself up to ridicule when the same award winning chemists disagree with you. Only in your case, its the actual science that they disagree with you about.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Whether something "actually exists" IS a scientific question. That has been debated by scientists for a long time.

The Who had a song Who Are You?

We all behave rather oddly as purely biological creatures. Chomping our way through the nutrient bed has become a fine art. One glance at a lingerie shop makes it obvious that copulation is on a similar flight path.

What is the something?

Whether something actually exists isn't a scientific question, it's simply a question. If someone asserts that something is true, I will believe him only of he shows me that it is likely that that thing is true. Otherwise one might end up believing all sorts of false things.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

...Absent any scientific evidence that life arose naturally....

The mere fact that you don't agree with purported explanations of natural processes that might have resulted in life is certainly not much evidence that it was created by a single, omnipotent supernatural being. You wouldn't let us get away with this kind of speculation and guesswork to show the plausibility of our theory, therefore, you don't have any right to use it either.

real life wrote:

....and the likelihood that it COULD not, I happen to think that a supernatural explanation is at least a 50/50 proposition just coming out of the gate.

Show me how you arrive at the conclusion that because you don't know of a natural mechanism, a magical explanation is 50% probable. In so guessing, you're adhering to a far, far less rigorous standard than you grant us.

real life wrote:

In addition, evidence that cannot be considered scientific can still be weighed and evaluated by each individual, but is generally non-repeatable and non-testable.

Things in this category would include one's own experience while following God, including answers to prayer, one's evaluation of how accurately the Bible describes one's own human nature, etc.

Does this negate the nature of faith? Not at all. Nothing is a 'sure thing'.

If you say that you have personally witnessed evidence you cannot demonstrate that God exists, that's fine. But this is hardly grounds for anyone else to conclude that there is evidence that God exists and created life on Earth. In fact, there is no demonstrable evidence around which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that God created life on Earth. At least we can show evidence for the existence of natural selection, and our hypothesis of a first molecule that replicated is, whether true or false, less remarkable than simply assuming that a magical creature, who is never demonstrably seen, is creating things with his mind. For that kind of explanation, you definitely need some evidence if you want others to accept it, and you have none except "the Bible says so."

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

spendius wrote:
Whether something "actually exists" IS a scientific question. That has been debated by scientists for a long time.

The Who had a song Who Are You?

We all behave rather oddly as purely biological creatures. Chomping our way through the nutrient bed has become a fine art. One glance at a lingerie shop makes it obvious that copulation is on a similar flight path.

What is the something?

Whether something actually exists isn't a scientific question, it's simply a question. If someone asserts that something is true, I will believe him only of he shows me that it is likely that that thing is true. Otherwise one might end up believing all sorts of false things.

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I guess real life feels if he repeats something often enough it will become true.

Let me restate this again for you real life. NO ONE has claimed that DNA formed in the open. Not Brandon, not I, not Farmerman, Not Set and certainly not award winning chemists like Shapiro. What Shapiro talked about where containers that kept the process from its environment. He discusses several different types of containers. You ignored all but one of those container types mentioned by Shapiro because you felt you could make an argument to dispute lipid membranes.

You also ignored an award winning Chemist when you laughed about how they would "reproduce."

Sorry real life, but when you base your entire argument on "award winning chemists disagree with you" you open yourself up to ridicule when the same award winning chemists disagree with you. Only in your case, its the actual science that they disagree with you about.

Yes I laughed at the 'garbage bag' hypothesis of reproduction.

A living organism with no replicative ability of its own, but which relies on physical forces to split it, is unlikely IMHO to have a long family line.

Its my opinion. You have yours.

You believe that its family line could've extended for millions of generations or even millions of years, I suppose, until a self replicating molecule developed within it.

This self replicating molecule would have along the way somehow 'learned' how to reconstruct the very environment in which it was birthed, coded instructions for doing so, and developed a chemical method of accomplishing it and replicating itself AT THE SAME TIME.

All in generations of a few minutes each.

ok , you've got great faith.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Nowhere in the Bible are there any discussions re the mechanisms and detailed occurences of any of your favorite subjects herein.

And where have I said there was?

I've never said that I reject the popular naturalistic theories of origins based solely on Bible texts.

I've said they don't stand on their own. The lack of logic and lack of evidence when viewed thru the standard claimed for them,(i.e. the scientific method), condemns them.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
...Absent any scientific evidence that life arose naturally....

The mere fact that you don't agree with purported explanations of natural processes that might have resulted in life is certainly not much evidence that it was created by a single, omnipotent supernatural being.

I've not said that eliminating naturalistic explanations of origins allows a default to Christian theology.

It doesn't get you all the way there.

But one need not first reach a conclusive position on origins before investigating other aspects of theology.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
spendius wrote:
Whether something "actually exists" IS a scientific question. That has been debated by scientists for a long time.

The Who had a song Who Are You?

We all behave rather oddly as purely biological creatures. Chomping our way through the nutrient bed has become a fine art. One glance at a lingerie shop makes it obvious that copulation is on a similar flight path.

What is the something?

Whether something actually exists isn't a scientific question, it's simply a question. If someone asserts that something is true, I will believe him only of he shows me that it is likely that that thing is true. Otherwise one might end up believing all sorts of false things.

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

For the millionth time, give me some evidence that the God theory is the truth. Just a little particle of evidence, please.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

That's nice real life. Since you think science has to show that something "actually exists" before it can predict its behavior please prove that the following "actually exist" using the same standards you apply to the singularity.

Prove that nuclear reaction "actually exists" on the sun and is the reason for its energy.

Prove that "gravity" actually exists.

In the above proofs you can NOT use any "results" to try to prove the existence of something. You must show me that you have directly observed what I asked about "actually existing."

0 Replies

Brandon,

You'll have to try it on your own, like I did.

Nobody else can investigate this for you.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

That's nice real life. Since you think science has to show that something "actually exists" before it can predict its behavior please prove that the following "actually exist" using the same standards you apply to the singularity.

Prove that nuclear reaction "actually exists" on the sun and is the reason for its energy.

Prove that "gravity" actually exists.

In the above proofs you can NOT use any "results" to try to prove the existence of something. You must show me that you have directly observed what I asked about "actually existing."

Lame examples parados.

The sun is directly and repeatedly observable and gravity's effect is easily demonstratable.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
I guess real life feels if he repeats something often enough it will become true.

Let me restate this again for you real life. NO ONE has claimed that DNA formed in the open. Not Brandon, not I, not Farmerman, Not Set and certainly not award winning chemists like Shapiro. What Shapiro talked about where containers that kept the process from its environment. He discusses several different types of containers. You ignored all but one of those container types mentioned by Shapiro because you felt you could make an argument to dispute lipid membranes.

You also ignored an award winning Chemist when you laughed about how they would "reproduce."

Sorry real life, but when you base your entire argument on "award winning chemists disagree with you" you open yourself up to ridicule when the same award winning chemists disagree with you. Only in your case, its the actual science that they disagree with you about.

Yes I laughed at the 'garbage bag' hypothesis of reproduction.

A living organism with no replicative ability of its own, but which relies on physical forces to split it, is unlikely IMHO to have a long family line.

Its my opinion. You have yours.

Yes, and award winning chemists have opinions based on their knowledge. Who's opinion is most likely to be correct? Someone that has spent 30 years studying the problem or someone that has spent 3 or more years arguing against it without evidence but only their belief in a book that contradicts itself.

Quote:

You believe that its family line could've extended for millions of generations or even millions of years, I suppose, until a self replicating molecule developed within it.

This self replicating molecule would have along the way somehow 'learned' how to reconstruct the very environment in which it was birthed, coded instructions for doing so, and developed a chemical method of accomplishing it and replicating itself AT THE SAME TIME.

All in generations of a few minutes each.

ok , you've got great faith.

Nope. I have science on my side. Chemicals do things that are predictable. As was pointed out earlier here there is a simple life form that chemically creates a product that when it interacts with the environment chemically creates the food the life form needs to make the product that creates the food that makes the product that creates the food, etc, etc. It is a self sustaining chemical reaction that only requires the right environment.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

That's nice real life. Since you think science has to show that something "actually exists" before it can predict its behavior please prove that the following "actually exist" using the same standards you apply to the singularity.

Prove that nuclear reaction "actually exists" on the sun and is the reason for its energy.

Prove that "gravity" actually exists.

In the above proofs you can NOT use any "results" to try to prove the existence of something. You must show me that you have directly observed what I asked about "actually existing."

Lame examples parados.

The sun is directly and repeatedly observable and gravity's effect is easily demonstratable.

I see you have provided NO evidence that gravity "actually exists" or that nuclear reactions on the sun "actually exist." The visible sun is not proof that the nuclear reactions "actually exist" unless you are willing to admit that visible results can be used to infer what caused them.

We see the universe today which would be the result of the singularity. The red shift, the homogenuos nature of the universe are all evidence of a singularity just as the glowing ball we see in the sky is evidence of nuclear reactions in the sun. 100 years ago, people didn't think the sun was the result of nuclear reactions. Does that mean that the nuclear reactions didn't exist then?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon,

You'll have to try it on your own, like I did.

Nobody else can investigate this for you.

I could claim any bizarre false idea. For instance, I could claim that:

1. Life was created by a council of 12 Gods
2. I am exempt from defending this thesis.

I'd almost certainly be incorrect. If, on the other hand, I were required to provide some evidence for my theory, it would quickly become evident that there was no reason to believe it.

According to you, we have to present a very high standard of evidence to show that there is reason to believe our theory, but you propose a rival, very specific explanation for the creation of life, and exempt yourself utterly from any need to show that a reasonable person should accept it. Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon,

You'll have to try it on your own, like I did.

Nobody else can investigate this for you.

I could claim any bizarre false idea.

I'm not saying you should claim anything or that you should believe anything that you think I have claimed.

If you want to investigate, do so.

I have set forth this method, for instance:

When investigating the subject of prayer (from the Christian perspective), it is a very simple issue to investigate.

1. Determine from the Bible the conditions under which the God of the Bible says prayer will be answered.

2. Be very sure you meet those conditions.

3. Pray.

You don't have to believe anything that I claim, investigate it for yourself.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

That's nice real life. Since you think science has to show that something "actually exists" before it can predict its behavior please prove that the following "actually exist" using the same standards you apply to the singularity.

Prove that nuclear reaction "actually exists" on the sun and is the reason for its energy.

Prove that "gravity" actually exists.

In the above proofs you can NOT use any "results" to try to prove the existence of something. You must show me that you have directly observed what I asked about "actually existing."

Lame examples parados.

The sun is directly and repeatedly observable and gravity's effect is easily demonstratable.

I see you have provided NO evidence that gravity "actually exists"

stop

not again

really parados, unless you are going to claim that the actual existence of a 'singularity' that preceded the origin of the universe is as easily verifiable as gravity, your posts are just getting more ridiculous

Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

the homogenuos nature of the universe are all evidence of a singularity

Aside from the fact that the universe is not homogenous, such would not be any more than circumstantial evidence subject to inference.

More than one inference could be drawn from a homogenous universe. A singularity is far from the only possibility.

But since we don't have a homogenous universe, such discussion is rather pointless.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

there is a simple life form that chemically creates a product that when it interacts with the environment chemically creates the food the life form needs to make the product that creates the food that makes the product that creates the food, etc, etc. It is a self sustaining chemical reaction that only requires the right environment.

And that proves the original organism put itself together how?

0 Replies

RL , why cant we get a straight answer from you as to why you labor under the assumption that DNA was thunk up by a Sentient being (Implies "mind")?

Youve danced and danced around without any satisfaction. IS that your entire purpose in this discussion to only sow doubt on others research or inquiries? or do you have some equivalent basis from which your world derives. Please, dont give up the usual stuff

Here , Ill start it for You.

I, Real Life, believe that DNA was creted by a mind because of the following reasons....
________________________________________________

On the other hand Science labors under the presumptive "menu of options" that, since weve gotten detailed evidence of the types of life that once occupied the earth at several relatively early time events, and these "chemical fossils" show actual (delta)chemical morphological development within a 300 million year period . Then projecting backward from there, , several hypotheses exist to be investigated as to whether these could duplicate life based upon a number of suggested chemistries and energy budgets, residual chemical environments , and climatological inferences from the fossil strata . These are each valid and not mutually exclusive furcula through which "the living state" may have originated. Included wwithin these are more than several sub furcula that specific lab scientists are taking and applying to their research. EVen should one of them produce life, we have no idea whether that that was the actual path that occured in deep time. We can only infer, based upon the fact that wed been able to reproduce it with elements and chemical processes at hand , that it could have happened. Does that negate a GOD, of course not, it just renders him a lesser credible explanation since his spoken orders can in no way be tested. You may find a God terribly comforting, I find him a cop-out to the complexity of your brain. Why stand around like some good chimp and accept some revealed "Truth", when , with a little more effort, you can better vest your story and base it upon testable facts

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Whether a 'singularity' actually existed or not is certainly a pertinent question to ask those who claim it to be part of a 'scientific' theory.

If you cannot show that something has existed, and if you state that it was not subject to the physical laws of our universe, and if you cannot show of what it would've been composed had it existed, and if you cannot show what its properties were had it existed........

....then how can you reasonably predict its behavior?

That's nice real life. Since you think science has to show that something "actually exists" before it can predict its behavior please prove that the following "actually exist" using the same standards you apply to the singularity.

Prove that nuclear reaction "actually exists" on the sun and is the reason for its energy.

Prove that "gravity" actually exists.

In the above proofs you can NOT use any "results" to try to prove the existence of something. You must show me that you have directly observed what I asked about "actually existing."

Lame examples parados.

The sun is directly and repeatedly observable and gravity's effect is easily demonstratable.

I see you have provided NO evidence that gravity "actually exists"

stop

not again

really parados, unless you are going to claim that the actual existence of a 'singularity' that preceded the origin of the universe is as easily verifiable as gravity, your posts are just getting more ridiculous

I guess you missed this in on of my previous posts.

Quote:

Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty. Up near the top end we have our theory of gravitation based on a staggering amount of evidence; down at the bottom we have the theory that the Earth is flat. In the middle we have our theory of the origin of the moons of Uranus. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.

Now if you would be so kind to prove that nuclear reactions "actually exist" on the sun we could see what you mean by "actually exists." If you can't show that those nuclear reactions "actually exist" then we have an example of how unscientific your requirements are for evidence. Or use gravity and prove it "actually exists".

So far we are seeing your disingenuous nature in not answering the questions because you know you can't without revealing your true nature in refusing to accept "evidence."

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know