Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.

Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life. Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.

Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.

Absolutely what he is inferring

 

[Youwerecreated]

Once again.

Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.

I don't see how this demonstrates a designer at all. All you are doing is describing something. A description is not evidence.

With this little gem you just crushed all of the pseudoscience of darwinism.

Absolutely

They just don't know when to be silent.

 

[pjnlsn]

The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.

Maybe you should get out of the house more often:

"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It’s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it’s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it’s incredibly stable — where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.

It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn’t to say that Church and Kosuri’s DNA storage is fast — but it’s fast enough for very-long-term archival.

Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.

Nice try. But you just got owned.

Again:

[None of it contradicted what it was posted as a response to]. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.

But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.

You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.

And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.

Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.

Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.

The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.

 

[Hollie]

You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?


Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.

What are Enzymes?

New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children’s illness

So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?

Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?

The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.

You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.

My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.

You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.

 

[Hollie]

"God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."

That's an irrational statement.

Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'. That, and there is no "ID theory".

Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.

Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.

I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.

At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.

You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.

My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.

You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.

You're free to remain ignorant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.

I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.

At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

 

[pjnlsn]

Funny, the first cell didn't evolve they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.

What I wrote above is true.

And if, by calls into question, you mean to reference some kind of dependancy that one has on the other, not in terms of the passage of time, but of what can and cannot be known, that is false, and also is exactly what I wrote above, which you've quoted.

It is not known that the origin cannot be explained by any possible explanation which does not involve some kind of intelligent being.

You appear to be projecting, what with all the accusations of dogma and religious furor which you've interspersed with false statements, which if you had some emotional or habitual reason for clinging to them would not surprise me.

 

[Hollie]

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.

Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.

Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.

The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.

A boilerplate creationist analogy that ignore many relevant differences that separate science from religious dogma.

 

[pjnlsn]

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.

No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.

You can say and believe this if you wish but you are just wrong. Ever heard of chemical evolution ?

You knew when you read it that such was not what he meant, i'm sure, but for the sake of record keeping, and again (you've even quoted it):

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

 

[Hollie]

You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.

My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.

You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.

You're free to remain ignorant.

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.

 

[Hollie]

I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.

At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

 

[Youwerecreated]

At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Are you knocking the scientific community hollie for having a hypothesis and putting it to the test. In this situation the programmer Hypothesis has credibility added because it has been confirmed that Enzymes are important in their functions and they can have their functions altered by intelligent beings. Enzymes are engineered with particular functions in mind. This shows two things they can be engineered,designed for a purpose by intelligence. It gives credibility to the theory of design.

You have offered no explanation to how life began except through theories filled with conjecture because there is no evidence to support the theories.,conjecture is all you have on your side.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.

You're free to remain ignorant.

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

 

[Hollie]

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Are you knocking the scientific community hollie for having a hypothesis and putting it to the test. In this situation the programmer Hypothesis has credibility added because it has been confirmed that Enzymes are important in their functions and they can have their functions altered by intelligent beings. Enzymes are engineered with particular functions in mind. This shows two things they can be engineered,designed for a purpose by intelligence. It gives credibility to the theory of design.

You have offered no explanation to how life began except through theories filled with conjecture because there is no evidence to support the theories.,conjecture is all you have on your side.

Your sweaty, panting diatribe is an embarrassment.

And still, you offer nothing to support your frantic claim of biological "programming" by some imagined "designer programmer".

 

[Hollie]

You're free to remain ignorant.

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?

 

[Hollie]

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?