Creationists

[Hollie]

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.

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

 

[Hollie]

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

Read through this thread and advise as to the number of your posts reference Silo.

Thanks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.

Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.

 

[bobgnote]

When ID is valid, an intelligent manipulator will come up with his religious believers, who can understand the greenhouse effect, AGW, resulting climate change, and related, impending climate disasters.

Until the manipulator can get his DDDs to understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute to global warming, I won't believe in ID.

Somebody is just fucking around, intelligent or not. In many cases, NOT. ID needs to back down. The human designer is CRIME, which pays. So crime will pay, for some, while others do TIME.

In the same way, Romanesque Christianity is buggering around, with media, designed of, for, and by Popes, who are long-dead. Can the Romanesque bastards listen, to Benedict, who claims people who don't believe in global warming are ATHEISTS?

If you are deep into ID, you need to find a smart Pope, if you are Christian.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.

Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.

So now you don't want to discuss the formation of the first cell.

Let's get back to the miller urey experiment.

If we granted you your wish that there was no oxygen on the early earth that was hypothesized by the miller urey experiment for a naturalistic origin of life. If the assumption that there was no oxygen in the origional atmosphere, this raises a problem for your assumption Was true ,The ozone is made of oxygen, it wouldn't exist, the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.

 

[Hollie]

Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.

Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.

So now you don't want to discuss the formation of the first cell.

Let's get back to the miller urey experiment.

If we granted you your wish that there was no oxygen on the early earth that was hypothesized by the miller urey experiment for a naturalistic origin of life. If the assumption that there was no oxygen in the origional atmosphere, this raises a problem for your assumption. The ozone is made of oxygen, it wouldn't exist, the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.

You're making a number of assumptions (predefining the conditions) to skew the data in the hope of predefining your conclusion.

You've learned well from the hacks at religious based websites.

 

[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...

Your claims to miracles are pointless. I

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.

Even I just said spark. It's a noun. Interesting!

 

[Hollie]

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.

So.... You have no clue and a feverish web search turned up nothing.

Oh the pain!

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

In brief, neither Miller’s experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.

So now you don't want to discuss the formation of the first cell.

Let's get back to the miller urey experiment.

If we granted you your wish that there was no oxygen on the early earth that was hypothesized by the miller urey experiment for a naturalistic origin of life. If the assumption that there was no oxygen in the origional atmosphere, this raises a problem for your assumption. The ozone is made of oxygen, it wouldn't exist, the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.

You're making a number of assumptions (predefining the conditions) to skew the data in the hope of predefining your conclusion.

You've learned well from the hacks at religious based websites.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

In brief, neither Miller’s experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance? Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen. Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen. So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.

 

[Montrovant]

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

If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally. This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'. Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle. What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Like UltimateReality?

Oh, wait, is it ok for him to use wiki because he called it anti-ID?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

In brief, neither Miller’s experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

I couldn't help but notice that the long quote appears prominately in all the expected Christian creationist websites and even Harun Yahya's site.

 

[Hollie]

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

If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally. This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'. Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.

IF DNA code was designed by a supernatural designer, why would he purposely design a code that was subject to damage?

Why such shoddy design?

 

[UltimateReality]

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

You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.

ID is not theory, its a religious claim.

Evolution is theory supported by fact and evidence. Thumping people with your bible doesn't validate your claims. They're false.

Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Duhhh, that is because we are not the same person. If you had been with this thread from the beginning you would have seen that YWC and I don't always see eye to eye. He is a young earth Creationists. I believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth. Just because you can't read doesn't make us the same poster so quit confusing the issue by responding to the wrong person.

 

[UltimateReality]

How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer?

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!