15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Ah, once again, the very living avatar of invincible ignorance. The Italian astronomer, Giovanni Schiaparelli, observed and named many of the surface features of Mars in the late 19th century. He saw many linear structures, which he thought resembled channels from flowing water (in fact, these features do resemble the channels formed by water or by flowing glacial ice--which has been confirmed by closer observation). He called them canali--which is the Italian word for channels.

Then a pack of dimwitted putzes, much like you, decided that he had seen canals on Mars--something he had never said.

We've had a pack of religious net bags like you here, but you seem to take the cake when it comes to ignorance.

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

The lines on Mars were hypothesized to be canals, Einstein hypothesized in his grand theory of relativity that the Universe was static and constant. Billions of lines of DNA are however quite real, and needed for replication, thus DNA is no hypothesis.

True. DNA is a self-replicating molecule. Evolution is a theory. And ID is a hypothesis that lacks supporting evidence.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I do not have to present evidence that their is no first replicator, the weight of evidence falls on the presenter of a theory to present evidence in support of that theory. So if and when you find a first replicator, get back to me, though you will be on every TV channel simultaneously, and not have time for this.

So keep dreaming.

1 Reply

Ah, of course, then, you must recognize the burden of evidence your have for your Big Magic Sky Daddy thesis.

0 Replies

@FBM,

And since DNA is a highly advanced code, that allows for replication, just as computer operating systems allow for these post, a higher intelligence was clearly needed to write the DNA code.

Except in the minds of people who believe that warm ponds write bio-codes of millions to billions of lines.

3 Replies

Are you alleging that your Big Magic Sky Daddy is that intelligence?

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

I do not have to present evidence that their is no first replicator, the weight of evidence falls on the presenter of a theory to present evidence in support of that theory. So if and when you find a first replicator, get back to me, though you will be on every TV channel simultaneously, and not have time for this.

So keep dreaming.

You're the one who made the claim; you're the one burdened with providing evidence to support it. You said there was no first replicator, yet we have replicators today, so back up your claim.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

And since DNA is a highly advanced code, that allows for replication, just as computer operating systems allow for these post, a higher intelligence was clearly needed to write the DNA code.

Except in the minds of people who believe that warm ponds write bio-codes of millions to billions of lines.

Science has some pretty robust evidence to support its claim that given the primordial conditions, a few billion years and an open system, complexity will naturally increase. All you have to do is come up with better evidence. Got any?

1 Reply

@FBM,

All of that is speculation, nothing more. Can you please elaborate on this quote "Science has some pretty robust evidence to support its claim that given the primordial conditions"

Try listing the evidence by number, see if you can get past zero.

0 Replies

@FBM,

There are no replicators today that are not controlled by DNA, it is just that simple. DNA is a chemical hard drive, this is proven as DNA is now storing binary code, all hard drives are built by intelligence. Can you prove otherwise?

Yawning

2 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

There are no replicators today that are not controlled by DNA, it is just that simple. DNA is a chemical hard drive, this is proven as DNA is now storing binary code, all hard drives are built by intelligence. Can you prove otherwise?

Yawning

So now you're saying that there was a first replicator? You've been caught out in yet another self-contradiction. Do work on that. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

The lines on Mars were hypothesized to be canals, Einstein hypothesized in his grand theory of relativity that the Universe was static and constant. Billions of lines of DNA are however quite real, and needed for replication, thus DNA is no hypothesis.

DNA is not a hypothesis. A first replicator is. You do understand the difference don't you? Because you are acting like you don't.

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

And since DNA is a highly advanced code, that allows for replication, just as computer operating systems allow for these post, a higher intelligence was clearly needed to write the DNA code.

Our understanding of biological evolution disproves the logic you propose above even though biological evolution is not the same as abiogenesis.

Besides, if you don't come up with a hypothesis which is naturally occurring, then all you are left with is some form of poofism. And people have been hypothesizing poofism since the dawn of time and they've been proven wrong every single time right down the line.

1 Reply

@FBM,

There are binary computers today as well, none of them function without written code, there was also a first binary computer. It did not fall out of a warm pond, it was created along with the code to run it, this is the pattern of creation.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Billions of lines of chemical code can not form at random without being created. Your computers operating system contains no more than fifty million lines of code, could it form in a warm pond?

You have no clue how intricate DNA is, this is evident.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

There are binary computers today as well, none of them function without written code, there was also a first binary computer. It did not fall out of a warm pond, it was created along with the code to run it, this is the pattern of creation.

All you have to do is provide evidence for your creator. Science has provided buttloads for the natural explanation. Bring something stronger than what they have and I'll be on board.

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

There are no replicators today that are not controlled by DNA, it is just that simple.

So what. Just because simpler replicative molecules are not found today does not mean that they might not have existed back when environmental conditions were ripe for them.

Here, don't read this, you won't understand it anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#RNA_synthesis_and_replication

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

And since DNA is a highly advanced code, that allows for replication, just as computer operating systems allow for these post, a higher intelligence was clearly needed to write the DNA code.

This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone else remember that story about the zealously religious robot in I, Robot? It was called QT1.

Anyway, I think the robot argues at some point that since it is more intelligent than humans, they cannot have created it.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

There are binary computers today as well, none of them function without written code, there was also a first binary computer. It did not fall out of a warm pond, it was created along with the code to run it, this is the pattern of creation.

This analogy you keep proposing is specious. Mechanical computers do not replicate themselves, and if they did they would need variation and natural selection in order to begin any process of evolution which as we already know, produces complex adapted forms.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Billions of lines of chemical code can not form at random without being created.

That is incorrect. First of all, DNA evolved, it was NOT the first replicator, so you can't keep referring to it to make your argument. And secondly the hypothesized first replicator would by necessity be something which could form naturally, otherwise it wouldn't fit it's own requirements.

1 Reply

15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know