DNA Was Designed By A Mind

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Interesting phrase: 'began to cause' . . .

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Interesting phrase: 'began to cause' . . .

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Interesting phrase: 'began to cause' . . .

As usual, you guys are afraid to give an actual argument or engage in one. Substitute the phrase "caused" and stop debating irrelevant technicalities as a distraction. Do you have some actual, coherent objection to the typical explanation I just gave?

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Interesting phrase: 'began to cause' . . .

As usual, you guys are afraid to give an actual argument or engage in one. Substitute the phrase "caused" and stop debating irrelevant technicalities as a distraction. Do you have some actual, coherent objection to the typical explanation I just gave?

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Interesting phrase: 'began to cause' . . .

Why, because it happens to sound like "causes to become"? What are you suggesting exactly?

I am as well aware of the logical insufficiencies of the design argument as I am of the shortfalls in the evolution approach.

Hey, I'm just a catcalling spectator here. I don't expect to prove anything. I just want to see who I can rile up. :wink:

DNA is designed by a mind? And you probably hold that the mind is a reflection of a brain which is an expression of DNA (which is also made by a mind)? Does circularity and infinite regression fit in here on purpose?

He thinks of a god as a white haired old man, doing feats of magic.

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

But award winning chemists, who have studied the problem for years, do.

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

But award winning chemists, who have studied the problem for years, do.

There are two things that must be said here:

1. Giving a testimonial ("he said it and he's smart") is not an argument. Reproduce a bit of their argument or stop referring to it. I am not surprised in the least that you attempt to argue science by listing smart people who agree with your thesis.

2. If the theory of evolution is, according to you, flawed, because one step seems improbable, then you certainly dare not advance magical creation by a supernatural creature as an alternative. It is bizarre to criticize a scientific theory on the grounds that one step seems questionable, and then state that a magical theory, advanced with the lowest imaginable standards of evidence and deduction is preferrable. I dare you to give an argument in favor of Creation that satisfies the standards of logic and documentation you hold evolution to.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Do you know what happens to DNA left out in the open? It degrades and is destroyed.

It doesn't keepa chuggin, gettin' better ever' day.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

But award winning chemists, who have studied the problem for years, do.

There are two things that must be said here:

1. Giving a testimonial ("he said it and he's smart") is not an argument. Reproduce a bit of their argument or stop referring to it. I am not surprised in the least that you attempt to argue science by listing smart people who agree with your thesis.

2. If the theory of evolution is, according to you, flawed, because one step seems improbable, then you certainly dare not advance magical creation by a supernatural creature as an alternative. It is bizarre to criticize a scientific theory on the grounds that one step seems questionable, and then state that a magical theory, advanced with the lowest imaginable standards of evidence and deduction is preferrable. I dare you to give an argument in favor of Creation that satisfies the standards of logic and documentation you hold evolution to.

Great post, Brandon.

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

But award winning chemists, who have studied the problem for years, do.

.....Giving a testimonial ("he said it and he's smart") is not an argument. Reproduce a bit of their argument or stop referring to it. I am not surprised in the least that you attempt to argue science by listing smart people who agree with your thesis.......

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Do you know what happens to DNA left out in the open? It degrades and is destroyed.

It doesn't keepa chuggin, gettin' better ever' day.

Who's talking about DNA left out in the open??? I'm not. I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type, formed in the ocean, which developed over the eons into a single celled organism.......