Creationists

[InDoctriNation]

I have faith that air exists.

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

 

[ilia25]

I have faith that air exists.

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

[Well, I don't And neither should you.]
To achieve faith, hold your breath.
I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died.

What I meant to say is that you do not know whether that unfortunate incident really happened. You cannot tell the difference between what you really see and your dreams. So everything around you can be a figment of your imagination, and you can never tell whether it is, or it isn't.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

 

[ilia25]

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Can you tell the difference between the reality and dream if everything in the dream is not different from reality? Can you imagine yourself dreaming such a dream right now, and if not -- why not? Actually, that question is beside the point -- the point is that science allows such a possibility.

Also, what you call "laws" are really theories. For example, a theory of gravity explains how objects should attract each other, but it does not say that they actually will behave like it prescribes. It is still useful as long as you expect it to hold.

 

[newpolitics]

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.

Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself, and not scientific inquiry and TOE. If one looks at comparative religion and mythology, this is not difficult to do. I don't want to get into it, but lets just say, one COULD look at comparative religion studies and easily conclude that the bible is not the word of god. I am not trying to challenge your faith, but to those unmarried to religious notions, it is easy to come to this conclusion, that the bible is not divine, by looking at and comparing mythologies in and around the time the bible was written.

 

[Montrovant]

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

As I understand things, it is both. There is a law of gravity, which is basically, 'gravity happens'. Then there is the theory of gravity, which tries to explain why it happens.

I'm sure someone else in the thread can either better explain it or show why I am wrong.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

As I understand things, it is both. There is a law of gravity, which is basically, 'gravity happens'. Then there is the theory of gravity, which tries to explain why it happens.

I'm sure someone else in the thread can either better explain it or show why I am wrong.

That is very interesting. I'd like to know more.

 

[UltimateReality]

I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.

Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.

The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".

And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.

Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above. What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

[Well, I don't And neither should you.]
To achieve faith, hold your breath.
I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died.

What I meant to say is that you do not know whether that unfortunate incident really happened. You cannot tell the difference between what you really see and your dreams. So everything around you can be a figment of your imagination, and you can never tell whether it is, or it isn't.

Can't you pinch yourself??

 

[UltimateReality]

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Either that, or the Intelligent Designer used common parts in the assembly of the wide range of species we see today. Not unlike the commonality of parts that make up Toyota's, Chevy's, and BMW's.

Funny you claim this is part of Evolutionary theory, because this is the very assertion I made that Loki said he was too pompous to answer because I was strawmanning. So which is it, do me, the Monkey's and Watermelons share a common ancestor or not?

 

[UltimateReality]

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

Gravity is no longer law because it can't explain the observed movement of the galaxies. It ALWAYS applies here on earth, but out in space, not so much, that is, if we aren't trapped in some simulation like The Truman Show.

Here you go. We make up Invisible Forces that we see the effects of but can no more prove than we can prove there is a God. But we still believe in these invisible forces more than God. This force is Dark Vade... I mean, Dark Matter.

Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.

Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself

Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

"TMRCA of all living humans

Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.

Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."

Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.

"The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]

An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."



Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.

 

[ilia25]

I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.

Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.

The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".

And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.

Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.

It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.

What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?

Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.

 

[UltimateReality]

Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.

The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".

And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.

Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.

It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.

What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?

Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.

I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened. You have presented a circular argument so here is your strawman, if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA? Come on people!!! Are you really falling for this stuff??

A little about RNA from Professor Walton...

■ Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
■ The complexity of the first self-replicating system, and the information needed to build it, imply intelligent design.
■ Hope of beating the colossal odds against random formation of replicating RNA is based on ideology rather than science.
■ As lab experiments on model replicators become more complex they demonstrate the need for input from intelligent mind(s).
■ Acceptance of an early earth atmosphere free of oxygen atoms strains belief beyond breaking point!
■ No chemically or geologically plausible routes to nucleotides or RNA strands have been developed.
■ Geological field work shows no support for a “prebiotic soup.” It favors little change in the atmosphere over time. Living things have been present since the first crustal rocks.

And I ask again.... who believes in Fairytales??

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-big-picture-56-minutes-that-may-change-your-life/

"Alonso and Szostak’s origin-of-life scenario: a brilliant example of Intelligent Design

But wait, there’s more! Apparently results obtained by (human) Intellligent Design also count automatically as evidence for unguided evolution on the primordial Earth, four billion years ago! How can methodological naturalists possibly lose, with a strategy like that? To quote Alonso and Szostak:

We started with trillions of random RNA sequences. Then we selected the ones that had catalytic properties, and we made copies of those. At each round of copying some of the new RNA strands underwent mutations that turned them into more efficient catalysts, and once again we singled those out for the next round of copying. By this directed evolution we were able to produce ribozymes that can catalyze the copying of relatively short strands of other RNAs, although they fall far short of being able to copy polymers with their own sequences into progeny RNAs. (pp. 58-59) (Emphases mine – VJT.)

I would like to commend the authors for their honesty in this passage. Lesser scientists than they might have glossed over these awkward facts, but Alonso and Szostak were decent enough to acknowledge that nothing short of Intelligent Design can make their favored scenario work, at this point in time."

 

[newpolitics]

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

Gravity is no longer law because it can't explain the observed movement of the galaxies. It ALWAYS applies here on earth, but out in space, not so much, that is, if we aren't trapped in some simulation like The Truman Show.

Here you go. We make up Invisible Forces that we see the effects of but can no more prove than we can prove there is a God. But we still believe in these invisible forces more than God. This force is Dark Vade... I mean, Dark Matter.

Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually its dark energy, and it is not the first time a theory has been made before it can be directly observed, and been found to be correct.

To say that Dark energy affects the gravity as 'law' or theory is quite idiotic. It is another force, simply, that is stronger than gravity, and counter-acts it. People with so little understanding of such basic things are in no position to judge something they know nothing about.

 

[LOki]

Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...

I'll get back to you on those Berlinski videos, but what I understand of his position already, he operates from faulty premises.

Of course he does.

Well then. No point in wasting time on those videos then.

 

[LOki]

Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...

Ah. So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition. By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion. It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.

So you're the definition Nazi now??? The TOE is baseless in any real science.

Another lie.

It is a religion and you know it and it is full of intellectual dishonesty at every level, just like Loki.

Another lie, and ... bearing false witness.