Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

Are you saying this to me ... or to yourself.

Im saying it to you. I already know that this is the case. Maybe you should read more

Quote:

If this is the bad news, do you know what is the ugly news: you cannot make amino acids and DNA just so, from any inorganic matter ... without having an idea what you are doing.

I see, before it was emphatically that you could not make amino acids from inorganic stuff. You've come a far way pilgrim. BTW-I don't think Miller and Urey hd any idea what they were doing when they zapped ammonia, methane, phosphate , water, and CO2 in an evacuated reaction flask and then did analyses of the results after a few days of on and off zapping.
DID you know that? or are you just pulling more untruths out of your ass

Quote:

There are a large number of fossils with perfectly preserved DNA (in the teeth, in the bones, etc.), some have even well preserved tissues (like the mammoths from Alaska & from Siberia). You can always find perfectly preserved DNA

DNA degrde rather quickly. The DNA from animals is less than 30K yers old and we hve a few neanderthl teeth in which Svante Paabo and his guys from MAx Planck hve extracted and done DNA reconstruction. Most of the degrded DNA yields osteocalcin which can be jiggered into some DNA like material that can be read via electrophoresis.

Quote:

You can always find perfectly preserved DNA in a large number of extinct species ... and how many of them have you revived so far.

You know, you cant bluff people into believing that you know of what you are speaking when you yourself don't have a clue. The number of "fossils" where DNA can be extracted is very very limite. Even the insects in amber crp from Chricton's book is untrue. Weve got some DNA from frozen mammoths (usually ,15k years old and one or two of the high 20K), Two Neanderthals, a couple of dire wolves and cave bears from the late pleistocene that were crushed in cave deposits.
Ill look em up from my Paleogenetics journal and see wht the latest tlly is, but its not too many, SO you should modify the ""many mny" statement

Quote:

Do you know what I am thinking:

A bit of advice, never EVER lead with a line like that. Im relatively kind and Im not interested in coring gotcha points. My only desire here is tht kids don't jump on line nd think thqt guys like you are giving rel information when youre not at all.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Are you saying this to me ... or to yourself.

Im saying it to you. I already know that this is the case. Maybe you should read more

Quote:

If this is the bad news, do you know what is the ugly news: you cannot make amino acids and DNA just so, from any inorganic matter ... without having an idea what you are doing.

I see, before it was said by you- emphatically -that you could not make amino acids from inorganic stuff -period. You've come a far way pilgrim. BTW-I don't think Miller and Urey had any idea what they were doing when they zapped ammonia, methane, phosphate , water, and CO2 in an evacuated reaction flask and then did analyses of the results after a few days of on and off zapping.
DID you know that? or are you just pulling more untruths out of the ir?

Quote:

There are a large number of fossils with perfectly preserved DNA (in the teeth, in the bones, etc.), some have even well preserved tissues (like the mammoths from Alaska & from Siberia). You can always find perfectly preserved DNA

DNA degrde rather quickly. The DNA from animals is less than 30K yers old and we hve a few neanderthl teeth in which Svante Paabo and his guys from MAx Planck hve extracted and done DNA reconstruction. Most of the degrded DNA yields osteocalcin which can be jiggered into some DNA like material that can be read via electrophoresis.

Quote:

You can always find perfectly preserved DNA in a large number of extinct species ... and how many of them have you revived so far.

You know, you cant bluff people into believing that you know of what you are speaking when you yourself don't have a clue. The number of "fossils" where DNA can be extracted is very very limite. Even the insects in amber crp from Chricton's book is untrue. Weve got some DNA from frozen mammoths (usually ,15k years old and one or two of the high 20K), Two Neanderthals, a couple of dire wolves and cave bears from the late pleistocene that were crushed in cave deposits.
Ill look em up from my Paleogenetics journal and see wht the latest tlly is, but its not too many, SO you should modify the ""many mny" statement

Quote:

Do you know what I am thinking:

A bit of advice, never EVER lead with a line like that. Im relatively kind and Im not interested in coring gotcha points. My only desire here is tht kids don't jump on line nd think thqt guys like you are giving rel information when youre not at all.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

How mny PhDs and years of experience in evolutionary biology do you hve under your belt so tht you cn find anything "technically deficient" in Dawkins.

2 Replies

Not only does Romeo have no credentials, he has no clue. What he does have is the url for "Creation-dot-com." He can relax and let those clowns do all of his "thinking" for him.

0 Replies

When Dawks criticises God for wiring up the eye wrongly, he forgets one thing- the eye works beautifully!
As any biologist knows, the eye only appears to be wired up wrongly to the casual observer.. Smile

Biologist Dr. George Marshall says- "The notion that the eye was wired backward occurred to me as a 13-year-old when studying eye anatomy in a school science class. It took me two years of lecturing on human eye anatomy to realize why the eye is wired the way it is. The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy"
http://creation.com/an-eye-for-creation-george-marshall-interview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romeo: College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science, 1963

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/swag80_zps72962e87.gif~original

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You fm. and that trolling clown Setanta, have no idea what is going on.

"Something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Meeestah Jooooooooooones?"

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Dr Marshall is well known as is Mr Berlinski(two major ID proponents re: ocular "CREATIONISM")
If what Dr Mrashall says is true, have him xplain how his "beautiful eye design" accounts for the blind spot in vertebrate fields of vision where the ocular nerve passes through the center of the retina
Thats a sign of "tinkering" not ID

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

How mny PhDs and years of experience in evolutionary biology do you hve under your belt so tht you cn find anything "technically deficient" in Dawkins.

Quote:

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees. Their ancestors might have looked a little like colugos. Birds could be another matter. … Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds. … Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees."
(Dawkins: Climbing Mt Improbable pp. 113–4, emphases added)

It doesn't come much more technically deficient than that. Assuming Romeo quoted correctly and hadn't made it up to smear the silly ******.

Did Dawkins actually write that and a publisher put it out? I couldn't read half a page of his drivel.

And I did try. I once read a full page of Martin Amis.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Enjoying your beverages spendi? what is it on tonites list of libation.

PS, Im quite confident that I can easily deal with the new Creation twins without breaking a sweat

0 Replies

I don't like pasting big chunks of text, the scientific explanation for why the eye only appears to be wired backwards can be found here-
http://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/

Basically if it was wired "properly", we'd be blind as bats.. Smile

-------------------------------------

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

In that case we would have had no choice but to evolve radar or sonar. Only women can do that.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Yes i've known some right batty women in my time
--------------------------

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

actually, our eyes are examples of "tinkering " with a preexisting structure. Its what evolution does. EVolution does not "Fix" things for the emergent ocular lobe in vertebrqtes, it does with what it already hs and makes it work for a new function.

It appears you don't like reading anything that IS NOT crapped out by the ICR or Discovery Institute.

"Scientific Creationism", its like "jumbo Shrimp"

0 Replies

Farmerman said:

Quote:

actually, our eyes are examples of "tinkering " with a preexisting structure. Its what evolution does

Oh yeah? Jesus said- "My Father is always working" (John 5:17)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/god-dna.gif

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

That's interesting how you seem to equate Biblical verse with scientific truth. You should also know that the Discovery Institute tried to lose that Sistine Chapel painting of god touching a double helix. The reason? Discovery Institute was in the throws of a major trial in which they were asserting that ID was actually not a religious movement.
So they changed their logo just before the big Dover Pa trial.

If you want to believe all that stuff, I have no arguments with your beliefs. Just don't put on a lab coat and try to spread the bullshit from John or Mark or Genesis as science. Its a nice bunch of myths with some moral lessons behind it. It has no direct evidence . You seem to be spending all your time trying to make up tales that borrow a little phrase here and there from creationist preachers
(who, in many cases have gained advanced degrees just to add phony credibility to their preaching). Guy like berlinski, Demski, Behe, Gish, Austen

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The microscope doesn't lie.. Smile

People look through it at the retina and say "Aha! Now we see why the eye is wired up that way, Dawks was wrong to think it's flawed!"
I think Dawks may be operating under some kind of self-delusion in which he sees things that aren't there!
--------------

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

I gree that the scope doesn't lie. Thts why we can easily see the stages of evolutionary development from three significant eras from the Devonin plcoderm fish through dawn reptiles and into early mammals. The phases pf evolution trace the back to ront "wiring" of the ocular nerves directly atop the ocular tissues in placoderms (these fish, like later sharks have their eyes affixed to cartilage an thus the "wiring" makes absolute sense . s the ocular lobes enlarged in subsequent species, the ocular nerve wound up passing through the central core of the retina.
We have fossil evidence of this and Dr Marshall , (who's agenda is clearly known) is flat wrong. Several scientists, including Ken Miller an anatomist nd pleoontologist , and a devout Ctholic has written about the "flap over the eye".

Thousands of scientists hve it right, Dr Marshall, bless his heart, is just preaching to please his Creationist and IDer "clients"

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

what's with the weird dude pictured in your posts?

and if it is you, why don't you ask someone how to make it an avatar?

(I have an old fly fishing rod for sale...)

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

I was asking how does the first unicellular living organism arose ...

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different processes. Granted the demonstrated functionality and mathematical inevitability of evolution once the three basic components (Reproduction, Variation and Natural Selection) are in place makes it a virtual certainty that replicative molecules evolve much like other organisms do. But Abiogenesis deals with understanding of how replicative molecules arise in the first place.

Of the three processes required for biological evolution (Replication, Variation and Natural Selection), Replication is the primary key. Because even though Selection and Variation can occur in collections of spontaneously occurring molecules it isn't until the forces of selection and variation are focused on the Replication process itself that biological evolution begins.

So the question for Abiogenesis is: How do the first Replicative molecules form? If your answer to that question is *Poof* God did it, then you can pat yourself on the back and go have lunch, because you are satisfied with not knowing how Abiogenesis (and probably a lot of stuff) works. But that answer isn't good enough for me. I'm never satisfied with *Poofism* and I never will be.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... after a few days of on and off zapping.

So your claim is that they have created life, after that killed it, and after that revived it again ... is that what you are claiming?
BTW the emotional exclamations like for example 'or are you just pulling more untruths out of your ass' do not add any semantics to the statement (just in case if you think they are adding).

further wrote:

DNA degrade rather quickly.

Death tissue can be revived to life by our personal intelligence ... and no evidences for this to have happened by the big bang theory. BTW the big bang is still in operation - why is it not doing the things that are attributed to it.
The Japanese are cultivating the Reishi fungi on the stem of dried beech trees and revive them to life the next year. The aloe vera gel can revive frozen tissue (if it has not gone beyond recovery), etc. ... but all this is done by means of intelligent design. Even the experiment of the lab your are citing herein above is a result of intelligent design (there is a whole experimental setting up, including theories and hypothesis and logical inferences) before conducting the experiment. The experiment is carried out in a controlled (by our intelligent design) environment and nothing there is a result of any odds, nothing there is just happening.

further wrote:

... and think that guys like you are giving real information

So I am giving fake information by saying that things do not just happen as you are trying to present them.
You cannot read a fiction book (with plain text) and a thunder strikes the book and the text from there (the inorganic matter) goes somehow through the electric cable into the memory of the computer (the organic matter) and somehow becomes executable machine code. Is this the real information that we are supposed to believe?
If your information is so real why don't you tell the public that the 'Man of Java' (presented as a stage in the development of the human) is actually with a human femur and a skull of a huge monkey (with different DNA). Why don't you explain to us how can we have two types of DNA in our body? How does that happen ... as real scientific data?
What about Piltdown Man ... with the digitally remastered teeth ... on a laser grinding?
Yes, the data have to be verified and validated, before one starts believing in them, no matter whether they are Biblical or scientific ... pseudoprophetic or pseudoscientific, whether they are probability theory ... or poker scam presented as probability theory.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know