Darwin vs DNA

[The Irish Ram]

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

 

[LOki]

What is your proof ?

Proof of what?

That Dna arose from natural processes.

Did I claim to have proof?

No.

What did I actually claim then?

Oh yeah, that's right -- The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Since you disagree so strongly, explain the supernatural process by which DNA arose that you have proof of.

 

[LOki]

Here is a debate on the information theory that you brought please answer Mr. Marshall's questions and watch him answer your questions.

----WALL OF TEXT CUT & PASTED LIKE A RETARD SNIPPED----

No.

If you have a point you wish me to address, present it.

I'm not going to respond to your C/P vomit piles.

That debate has been going on for several years and not one person was able show a code of any sort that came about absent of intelligence.

So what?

DNA is not a code in the precise sense that Morse Code (for instance) is a code. In genetics, the term "code" is applied as shorthand for an observed process--The DNA sequences that constitute genes are not literally symbols representing the proteins that they "code" for. The fact that the ID crowd insists upon asserting they are without producing their coder is not an indictment of evolutionary theory.

 

[LOki]

What evidence ?

The lack of verifiable evidence that God exists.

That evidence precisely.

What evidence is there that suggests there is no God ?

I'm quoting your comments.

The lack of verifiable evidence that God exists.

That evidence precisely.

 

[LOki]

Look at your assertion. Now look what the Doctor said to Perry Marshall.

Perry, your hypothesis invokes a complicated designer whose origin is not known. Such a designer would appear to be more complex than either humans or DNA. And how do you propose that your designer was created? An infinite regress of designers?

I have already addressed this question – re-quoting an earlier post: Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes. In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder. Which is why a human designer (re: HRG’s question earlier) is not a plausible explanation. Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. (This is also the limit of my syllogism’s ability to identify God.) Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.

We do not assert that we know DNA arose naturally;

If you make no assertion that DNA arose naturally, then you are off the hook! Others in this forum make precisely that assertion. All I ask for is some proof.

It’s just that we have no evidence that it did not arise naturally.

100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. The evidence we do have is that, without exception, all codes come from a mind.


Loki Do you know something the Doctor does not know ?

Yes.

I know that appeals to ignorance and strawmen are not valid arguments.

The Doctor asking the questions or presenting arguments believes as you do but he was honest enough to answer Perry Marshall's questions and admitted they know of no way Dna could come in to existence through natural processes they know of. He also admitted all forms of communication were the result of intelligence.

And your point is?

 

[LOki]

I don't think you want to try if this is what you believe, that precision in nature is the result of chaos. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Stop being willfully ignorant. I didn't say chaos caused anything. I said the possibility exists. I said that what you consider evidence pointing toward intelligent design is actually evidence that could support any number of different theories, chaos included.

When I said I'm agnostic, what I meant was that I'm agnostic. Look it up, genius.

The fact that you could read what I posted and come to the conclusion regarding my beliefs that you did tells me all I need to know about you

Then what produced the precision in nature ? your argument is random chance over time.sorry but the big bang produced chaos if the big bang produced chaos then chaos produced order and precision. Willfully ignorant not I.

I know you said you were agnostic.

Precision in nature points to design not random chance nor chaos.

What "precision in nature"?

Like how the vale of 1+1 is always and precisely 2? That nature expresses the logical law of identity? Is that what you are now hanging your dunce cap upon?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The arguments get really weak and the rhetoric ramps up when one side can't answer straight honest questions.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I seen a recent example on this very thread, when I identified myself as an agnostic and then said that happen chance is a -possible- explanation, then had some guy on the creation side of the argument tell me that I'm an idiot for being (get this!) a proponent of chaos theory!

You know how people redefine your argument for you to discredit you so that they don't have to address anything you've actually said? Lol, don't you hate that?

Then why respond if you are not willing to answer questions or present a viable argument ?

I absolutely am willing to answer questions and argue. That's why I post here. What I'm not willing to do is let your misconceptions regarding what I've said pass without acknowledgement.

If you notice, you haven't said anything to actually discount the argument that I made. You simply misrepresented my lack of faith in any particular explanation as my having faith in the potential explanation that I offered up, then you made sarcastic, incredulous remarks about chaos causing precision. Not actual arguments, mind you.

Even iff I wanted to duck out of an argument with you, I'd have to be presented with an argument first.

 

[LOki]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I seen a recent example on this very thread, when I identified myself as an agnostic and then said that happen chance is a -possible- explanation, then had some guy on the creation side of the argument tell me that I'm an idiot for being (get this!) a proponent of chaos theory!

You know how people redefine your argument for you to discredit you so that they don't have to address anything you've actually said? Lol, don't you hate that?

Then why respond if you are not willing to answer questions or present a viable argument ?

I absolutely am willing to answer questions and argue. That's why I post here. What I'm not willing to do is let your misconceptions regarding what I've said pass without acknowledgement.

If you notice, you haven't said anything to actually discount the argument that I made. You simply misrepresented my lack of faith in any particular explanation as my having faith in the potential explanation that I offered up, then you made sarcastic, incredulous remarks about chaos causing precision. Not actual arguments, mind you.

Even iff I wanted to duck out of an argument with you, I'd have to be presented with an argument first.

The Strawman is a favorite among the superstitious; they literally have to ... ahem ... design the arguments of their opponents to the purpose of being refutable by their dopey question-begging and/or special-pleading rejoinders.

In this regard, Youwerecreated is no different than any member of the tribe of superstitious retards that run around here saying things like, "My poppa aint no monkey! My granpappy aint no monkey!", etc.

 

[Hollie]

Here is a debate on the information theory that you brought please answer Mr. Marshall's questions and watch him answer your questions.

----WALL OF TEXT CUT & PASTED LIKE A RETARD SNIPPED----

No.

If you have a point you wish me to address, present it.

I'm not going to respond to your C/P vomit piles.

That debate has been going on for several years and not one person was able show a code of any sort that came about absent of intelligence.

A part of the problem you have is that the creationist ministries have attached the label of “code” to the structure of DNA as though the term suggests a manufacturing or assembly such as computer code. Of course it doesn’t, but the creationist ministries will invent these silly analogies fully expecting the gullible to accept false comparisons.

As is so often the case, your appalling lack of study in the biological sciences leaves you at a disadvantage when addressing these issues.

 

[editec]

Please explain everything one needs to understand about cosmology and the nature of biochemistry here such that somebody who knows nothing about these sujects can understand the nature of life?

Oh yeah, that wouldn't be a real exercise in futility or anything, would it?​

Bad Piggie...no pearls for you today!​

​

 

[Hollie]

So in other words your faith is based on random chance.

I said everything is definitely random? Holy shit, you might be too dumb to argue with.

I don't think you want to try if this is what you believe, that precision in nature is the result of chaos. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Precision in nature™ is yet another cliché furthered by the creationist ministries.
With regard to planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc. and with regard to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, etc., etc., just where is this Precision in nature™ that the creationist ministries blather on about?

 

[Hollie]

What evidence ?

The lack of verifiable evidence that God exists.

That evidence precisely.

What evidence is there that suggests there is no God ?

The same evidence to suggest there are no Leprechauns, Easter Bunnies and a host of Greek gods.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

 

[ima]

I don't think you want to try if this is what you believe, that precision in nature is the result of chaos. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Stop being willfully ignorant. I didn't say chaos caused anything. I said the possibility exists. I said that what you consider evidence pointing toward intelligent design is actually evidence that could support any number of different theories, chaos included.

When I said I'm agnostic, what I meant was that I'm agnostic. Look it up, genius.

The fact that you could read what I posted and come to the conclusion regarding my beliefs that you did tells me all I need to know about you

Then what produced the precision in nature ? your argument is random chance over time.sorry but the big bang produced chaos if the big bang produced chaos then chaos produced order and precision. Willfully ignorant not I.

I know you said you were agnostic.

Precision in nature points to design not random chance nor chaos.

Youw, read this from Scientific American about random mutations and evolution, you'll learn something:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that organ be concentrated in the right places?: Scientific Ameri

 

[Youwerecreated]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

 

[Hollie]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Did you somehow miss that your questions have been addressed on multiple occasions?

Did you somehow miss that the framing of your questions calls into question your understanding of some very basic concepts of biology and the natural sciences?

You really need to limit the amount of time you spend at Harun Yahya's website.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Did you somehow miss that your questions have been addressed on multiple occasions?

Did you somehow miss that the framing of your questions calls into question your understanding of some very basic concepts of biology and the natural sciences?

You really need to limit the amount of time you spend at Harun Yahya's website.

Did you miss that if the questions were addressed they were answered with conjecture filled theories many that are not accepted by scientists.

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

 

[Hollie]

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Did you somehow miss that your questions have been addressed on multiple occasions?

Did you somehow miss that the framing of your questions calls into question your understanding of some very basic concepts of biology and the natural sciences?

You really need to limit the amount of time you spend at Harun Yahya's website.

Did you miss that if the questions were addressed they were answered with conjecture filled theories many that are not accepted by scientists.

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

You speak of conjecture filled theories not being accepted by scientists. I'm not clear what that means. You provide no indication of what theories were rejected and by which scientists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you somehow miss that your questions have been addressed on multiple occasions?

Did you somehow miss that the framing of your questions calls into question your understanding of some very basic concepts of biology and the natural sciences?

You really need to limit the amount of time you spend at Harun Yahya's website.

Did you miss that if the questions were addressed they were answered with conjecture filled theories many that are not accepted by scientists.

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

You speak of conjecture filled theories not being accepted by scientists. I'm not clear what that means. You provide no indication of what theories were rejected and by which scientists.

Many don't accept macroevolution. Many don't accept the theory of Abiogenesis. Many don't accept the information theory that Dna came in to existence through natural processes. Many know that mutations destroy the origional genetic information not add to it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you somehow miss that your questions have been addressed on multiple occasions?

Did you somehow miss that the framing of your questions calls into question your understanding of some very basic concepts of biology and the natural sciences?

You really need to limit the amount of time you spend at Harun Yahya's website.

Did you miss that if the questions were addressed they were answered with conjecture filled theories many that are not accepted by scientists.

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

You speak of conjecture filled theories not being accepted by scientists. I'm not clear what that means. You provide no indication of what theories were rejected and by which scientists.

I imagine if I asked you for a list theories you believe I could point out contradictions between the theories.

Give me a list of theories you believe in Hollie.