Creationists

[UltimateReality]

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.

Miller

Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!

 

[UltimateReality]

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who is the "your people" you refer to?

For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.

No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.

Nicely done.

Your argument is devoid of all logic. You are not even making sense anymore.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

Your claims to miracles are pointless.

There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.

No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.

Even you just said spark. Interesting.

 

[newpolitics]

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.

Miller

Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!

No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)

 

[UltimateReality]

That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.

How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
Data transmission

Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.

Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explain to us in your own words what that means.

Ad Hollimen, don't even go there. I took several computer science classes at the U of A and I don't need to school some child on Binary code or Quaternary code or bits and bytes or information retrieval systems. Go school your ignorant self.

 

[Hollie]

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who is the "your people" you refer to?

For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.

No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.

Nicely done.

Your argument is devoid of all logic. You are not even making sense anymore.

How is that? Your claim, under a different log in was that a designer would design natural things. Thus, a designer of natural things is irrelevant, superfluous and unnecessary in a natural world.

Read what you posted, a page or two back. You completely dismantled your own argument.

 

[newpolitics]

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.

(wikipedia)

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

"Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

(wikipedia.org)

You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

This! What good is it if you can't show it ocurred through a legitimate natural process!! You have just proven ID Theory my friend!!! An intelligent agent can come up with a process to produce amino acids in the lab but there is no mechanism for it to happen naturally.

Oh and funny how now one has even tried to come up with accurate conditions since 1952!!!! 60 years ago!!!, or if they have, hey haven't been successful!!!

 

[newpolitics]

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

"Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

(wikipedia.org)

You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.

How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer? Please, answer me this question. Do they have any experiments now undergoing to test this, and come up with testable, repeatable results?

 

[Hollie]

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

"Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

(wikipedia.org)

You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.

ID is the successor to creationism which was the failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christian dogma into the public school syllabus.

ID is a religious invocation.

Stop the lies.

 

[newpolitics]

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

This! What good is it if you can't show it didn't occur through a legitimate natural process!! You have just proven ID Theory my friend!!! An intelligent agent can come up with a process to produce amino acids in the lab but there is no mechanism for it to happen naturally.

Oh and funny how now one has even tried to come up with accurate conditions since 1952!!!! 60 years ago!!!, or if they have, hey haven't been successful!!!

Because he was wrong about the conditions on the earth 3.5 Billion years ago, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened naturally. How dishonest of you to jump to that conclusion.

If you actually read what is written, it says:

" There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules."

 

[Youwerecreated]

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

Digital code inside a cell.

That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.

Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.


It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.

Can you measure a thought?

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.

Miller

No he didn't do I Really have to waste time shooting this down again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.

Right back at you...

Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.

ID evidence is most certainly science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

Your claims to miracles are pointless.

There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.

No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.

Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.

Miller

Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!

No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)

No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.

 

[Hollie]

Right back at you...

Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.

ID evidence is most certainly science.

ID is actually a conspiracy among a very few fundie Christians who were humiliated under the "Creationist" label. These charlatans manufacture and manipulate data so as to further a religious agenda.

I posted the pre-qualifying agreement that the ICR requires its "scientists" to sign, that no findings or publication that is contrary to Christian dogma is allowed.

What a bunch of hacks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.

(wikipedia)

Another wiki soldier