Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DNA The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Science apparently can't think beyond software and hardware.

Hardware can never originate from software.

Our body is made of DNA.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:31:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

As someone who has written code before, it's a time-consuming process. And drawing up a coding language even more-so. But if i were given 4.5 billion years to write a self-replicating piece of code with all of the features DNA has, i could do it. heck just about anyone could. I mean, look at what we've accomplished in a 100,000 year or so period. We have machines making our machines, our music, our schedules and projects. We can talk to them, and carry on a pseudo-conversation. In another 100,000 years, we'll probably be able to engineer synthetic DNA that does all the same things that real DNA does now. If we can do it in 200,000 years, what makes you think a process driven by nature (evolution) can't do it in a few billion?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 7:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Looks like no one read the article. The ignorance displayed here is proof. BTW, Abiogenesis is a part of evolution. It is simply the first step. Scientists have no clue how it could happen, so they created an artificial divide between the two so they wouldn't have to explain it. They are one and the same. Merely different stages. And even if they were separate, evolution is bound by the same laws of information theory as abiogenesis. Check mate.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:10:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 7:30:15 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Looks like no one read the article. The ignorance displayed here is proof. BTW, Abiogenesis is a part of evolution. It is simply the first step. Scientists have no clue how it could happen, so they created an artificial divide between the two so they wouldn't have to explain it. They are one and the same. Merely different stages. And even if they were separate, evolution is bound by the same laws of information theory as abiogenesis. Check mate.

Here is how you silly article refers to evolution:
"theory of evolution"
"Darwinian evolution"

Here are some definitions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution:
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection. Also called Darwinian theory.

(Biology) the theory of the origin of animal and plant species by evolution through a process of natural selection. Compare Lamarckism See also Neo-Darwinism

the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent with slight variation from parent forms through the natural selection of individuals best adapted for survival and reproduction.

the theory of evolution by natural selection of those species best adapted to survive the struggle for existence.

a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

None of these definitions include abiogenesis and Darwin never tried to figure out how abiogenesis happened. All he did was propose that all life forms were evolving and that all life is related. How can abiogenesis be part of Darwinian evolution when he never addressed it? You simply got the definition of Darwinian evolution wrong. Find me a dictionary or a quote from an evolutionist who claims that darwinian evolution includes abiogenesis. Find me a quote in the origin of "species" that shows that Darwin tried to use evolution to explain the origin of species.

The theory of evolution is about natural selection and mutations and it is impossible for evolution to explain the origin of life because natural selection and mutations require an original life to be naturally selected and DNA to be mutated. Without an original life there is nothing for evolution to work on. The theory was never ever used to try to explain abiogenesis because it simply can't just like the theory of gravity can't explain the origin of life and explains other things instead. There is a divide between evolution and abiogenesis because they explain different things and logically can't explain each other.

The theory of evolution only requires an original life and that life could have been created by God, abiogenesis, paspermia, or Darth Vader for all we know, natural selection and mutations don't care. In fact most evolutionists in the US are religious and believe that God made the first life-form and that evolution evolved modern life with God's guiding. So how can evolution include abiogenesis when millions of evolutionists don't believe in abiogenesis and can still consistently believe in the theory?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 12:18:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
LBoH, Denton argues for genetic design (which is fine scientifically, as long as he can falsify it.)

But are you aware that he also accepts common descent of species?

If so, are you endorsing his views, or just promoting a strawman that you don't actually support?
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 4:27:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 12:18:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
LBoH, Denton argues for genetic design (which is fine scientifically, as long as he can falsify it.)

But are you aware that he also accepts common descent of species?

If so, are you endorsing his views, or just promoting a strawman that you don't actually support?

What I'm saying is that evolution is impossible, in light of current scientific understanding. Did you read the entire article? If not, please do so. I hate reinventing the wheel. But I will direct your attention to what he said about high level languages, of which DNA is one. Our observations prove that language is the result of intelligence. No exceptions. So where did the language of DNA come from? There is only one logical explanation, however abhorrent it is to some people.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:20:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:31:01 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

As someone who has written code before, it's a time-consuming process. And drawing up a coding language even more-so. But if i were given 4.5 billion years to write a self-replicating piece of code with all of the features DNA has, i could do it. heck just about anyone could. I mean, look at what we've accomplished in a 100,000 year or so period. We have machines making our machines, our music, our schedules and projects. We can talk to them, and carry on a pseudo-conversation. In another 100,000 years, we'll probably be able to engineer synthetic DNA that does all the same things that real DNA does now. If we can do it in 200,000 years, what makes you think a process driven by nature (evolution) can't do it in a few billion?

DNA is not a computer program.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:22:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Evolution did create human DNA, that's what darwinists claim all the time.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:40:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 5:22:00 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Evolution did create human DNA, that's what darwinists claim all the time.

I was addressing the claim that evolution created DNA itself from more simple molecules.

I do claim that evolution evolved and duplicated existing DNA into different DNA. We see this happening all the time and have numerous examples.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:54:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 5:40:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:22:00 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Evolution did create human DNA, that's what darwinists claim all the time.

I was addressing the claim that evolution created DNA itself from more simple molecules.

I do claim that evolution evolved and duplicated existing DNA into different DNA. We see this happening all the time and have numerous examples.

Type stuff randomly anywhere in a functional program of your choice for ten years and see for yourself.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 6:23:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 4:27:56 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 12:18:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
LBoH, Denton argues for genetic design (which is fine scientifically, as long as he can falsify it.)

But are you aware that he also accepts common descent of species?

If so, are you endorsing his views, or just promoting a strawman that you don't actually support?

What I'm saying is that evolution is impossible, in light of current scientific understanding.
I understand what you said, and I've seen the argument before.

Yet you seem not to understand how science does validation and verification -- and you didn't answer my question.

So now, please answer my question. Do you accept his entire understanding of the origin of species, or just the parts that agree with your unevidenced theological beliefs?

And if it's okay for you to cherry-pick one scientist's unvalidated scientific opinion and claim it as truth, is that okay for everyone else too?
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 7:16:17 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 6:23:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2016 4:27:56 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 12:18:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
LBoH, Denton argues for genetic design (which is fine scientifically, as long as he can falsify it.)

But are you aware that he also accepts common descent of species?

If so, are you endorsing his views, or just promoting a strawman that you don't actually support?

What I'm saying is that evolution is impossible, in light of current scientific understanding.
I understand what you said, and I've seen the argument before.

Yet you seem not to understand how science does validation and verification -- and you didn't answer my question.

So now, please answer my question. Do you accept his entire understanding of the origin of species, or just the parts that agree with your unevidenced theological beliefs?

And if it's okay for you to cherry-pick one scientist's unvalidated scientific opinion and claim it as truth, is that okay for everyone else too?

I DO understand how science does validation and verification. That is the reason I do not believe in evolution. There is nothing to validate or verify. There are no experiments you can perform on evolution, and it is not falsifiable, which I believe is a requirement for any scientific theory. Evolution is not science. End of discussion.

And what's this about unevidenced theological beliefs? There is plenty of evidence. You simply refuse to see it. People like you believe that belief in God is nothing but blind faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in God because of the evidence. It is faith based on evidence. The evidence is there, if you look for it. End of discussion.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 7:22:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 7:16:17 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 6:23:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2016 4:27:56 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 12:18:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
LBoH, Denton argues for genetic design (which is fine scientifically, as long as he can falsify it.)

But are you aware that he also accepts common descent of species?

If so, are you endorsing his views, or just promoting a strawman that you don't actually support?

What I'm saying is that evolution is impossible, in light of current scientific understanding.
I understand what you said, and I've seen the argument before.

Yet you seem not to understand how science does validation and verification -- and you didn't answer my question.

So now, please answer my question. Do you accept his entire understanding of the origin of species, or just the parts that agree with your unevidenced theological beliefs?

And if it's okay for you to cherry-pick one scientist's unvalidated scientific opinion and claim it as truth, is that okay for everyone else too?

I DO understand how science does validation and verification.
Please explain the importance of falsification then to scientific hypothesis, and outline for us how Denton's claims could be falsified.

Please explain why upholding a scientist's conjecture as truth is both empirically invalid and academically dishonest.

Please explain a necessary and sufficient criterion for an accepted theory to be 'toppled' and why a lone scientist's conjecture alone falls short of this mark.

Finally, please explain how theological belief can be falsified, and why upholding a presuppositional assertion that revelation is knowledge is not an exercise in willful cognitive bias, at odds with all empirical investigation.

Thanks.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Looncall
Posts: 463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 3:16:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?

The guy who wrote that article has a Ph.D. in Geology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Now, would you care to try to refute what he said? Notice that I said try.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 3:40:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 3:16:02 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?

The guy who wrote that article has a Ph.D. in Geology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Now, would you care to try to refute what he said? Notice that I said try.

Austin is a geologist, do you know what that is?He doesn't actually say anything to refute, nor does he actually refute anything himself, he simply denies, like most other believers, science and how it works.

You seem to believe that just because someone has credentials in one field that they must know what they're talking about in another field. That isn't even remotely true.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 4:20:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:16:02 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?

The guy who wrote that article has a Ph.D. in Geology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Now, would you care to try to refute what he said? Notice that I said try.

Austin is a geologist, do you know what that is?He doesn't actually say anything to refute, nor does he actually refute anything himself, he simply denies, like most other believers, science and how it works.


You seem to believe that just because someone has credentials in one field that they must know what they're talking about in another field. That isn't even remotely true.

He made several statements about the geologic column and how evolution got it wrong. There is plenty there to TRY to refute. Go on. Let's see you try. It should be entertaining. LOL!
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 4:50:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 4:20:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:16:02 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?

The guy who wrote that article has a Ph.D. in Geology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Now, would you care to try to refute what he said? Notice that I said try.

Austin is a geologist, do you know what that is?He doesn't actually say anything to refute, nor does he actually refute anything himself, he simply denies, like most other believers, science and how it works.


You seem to believe that just because someone has credentials in one field that they must know what they're talking about in another field. That isn't even remotely true.

He made several statements about the geologic column and how evolution got it wrong. There is plenty there to TRY to refute. Go on. Let's see you try. It should be entertaining. LOL!

Funny, you simply put up a link of a geologist denying evolution and expect others to refute his ignorant denials.

This is the problem with science, idiots in denial of it who haven't got a clue.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:09:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 4:50:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/10/2016 4:20:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:16:02 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?

The guy who wrote that article has a Ph.D. in Geology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Now, would you care to try to refute what he said? Notice that I said try.

Austin is a geologist, do you know what that is?He doesn't actually say anything to refute, nor does he actually refute anything himself, he simply denies, like most other believers, science and how it works.


You seem to believe that just because someone has credentials in one field that they must know what they're talking about in another field. That isn't even remotely true.

He made several statements about the geologic column and how evolution got it wrong. There is plenty there to TRY to refute. Go on. Let's see you try. It should be entertaining. LOL!

Funny, you simply put up a link of a geologist denying evolution and expect others to refute his ignorant denials.

This is the problem with science, idiots in denial of it who haven't got a clue.

I would rather believe a geologist than you. What are your credentials? Who's really ignorant here? Since you declined to try to refute what was posted, I have no choice but assume that you can't. That's why you resort to using insults. Pathetic. If you could refute anything that I posted, you might have some credibility. Care to give it a try? Didn't think so. You've got nothing. No credibility at all.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory,
Sorry, LBOH, but given that your topic is a link to someone else's ideas, let's stick to topic.

You've declared this scientific conjecture to be toppling a theory scrutinised, investigated and evaluated by hundreds of thousands of scientists for some 150 years, near-universally accepted in the life sciences for the last 50, and in active use by tens of thousands of biologists today in areas as diverse as bioinformatics, epidemiology, parasitology, vaccine development, organic and industrial chemistry, conservation and fisheries management.

So I understand they'll all have to change what they're doing and how they're doing it. Big news indeed.

Now, you've already insisted you understand how scientific validation and verification work, so please talk us through it: how does a conjecture topple a theory? Which other widely-accepted theories have been toppled by conjectures before?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 5:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 5:54:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:40:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:22:00 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Evolution did create human DNA, that's what darwinists claim all the time.

I was addressing the claim that evolution created DNA itself from more simple molecules.

I do claim that evolution evolved and duplicated existing DNA into different DNA. We see this happening all the time and have numerous examples.

Type stuff randomly anywhere in a functional program of your choice for ten years and see for yourself.

Not a great analogy. Every person has about 100 mutations and the vast majority are neutral. So DNA is not like computer code and won't break because of random changes.

Also, random mutations alone won't build complex new features, that is why you need natural selection. We have many examples of selected mutations like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, the Lenski Experiment where bacteria evolved the ability to digest nitrate, the mutation where some people are immune to HIV, and many more including bacteria resistance and immunity to bacteria and viruses.

You guys claim that complex features and abilities are impossible because of "irreducable complexity" and "information theory" yet we have many examples of this happening right before our eyes.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 6:00:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 5:09:37 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 4:50:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/10/2016 4:20:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:16:02 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 2:56:36 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:31:40 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 7:29:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
For bonus points, LBoH, please explain how it is that you trust the expertise of a lone scientist with only conjecture and no new experimental results, to topple a theory supported for 50 years by tens of thousands of independent and highly-trained empiricsts...

...yet won't trust him to tell scientific laiety they're wrong to reject common descent?

In order for common descent to be a valid theory, one would need scientific evidence that validates the theory. There is no evidence. You can point to the fossil record and similar DNA all you want. It's not evidence. It never will be evidence. What is going on is scientists first developed a theory, then tried to fit the evidence to it. That's not how science works. Ask yourself this, and try to be honest. What does the fossil record really tell us? It tells us that there are a bunch of extinct species. Some of these fossils bear a passing resemblance to each other. It does not mean that they are related. Does it? Be honest. That is nothing but a supposition. A guess, with no other evidence to support it. The same is true of similar DNA. That is not evidence of common descent. It simply shows that all life uses the same building blocks. We have as much DNA in common with a tad pole as we do with apes. Does that mean we're related? No. And you might want to look into the fossil column. There have been many fossils that have been found in layers where they do not belong, according to evolutionary theory. Not just single fossils either. We're talking entire taxonomic groups. Take a look at this.

http://www.icr.org...

Then there is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? You can't. Oh, I know that someone proposed that iron in the creatures blood supposedly preserved it for all those years. Yeah, right. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Get a grip. Get rid of your preconceived notions and take a good look at the evidence. You would not be the first atheist to see the light.

ICR? You have the unmitigated gall to reference a gaggle of notorious liars?

The guy who wrote that article has a Ph.D. in Geology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Now, would you care to try to refute what he said? Notice that I said try.

Austin is a geologist, do you know what that is?He doesn't actually say anything to refute, nor does he actually refute anything himself, he simply denies, like most other believers, science and how it works.


You seem to believe that just because someone has credentials in one field that they must know what they're talking about in another field. That isn't even remotely true.

He made several statements about the geologic column and how evolution got it wrong. There is plenty there to TRY to refute. Go on. Let's see you try. It should be entertaining. LOL!

Funny, you simply put up a link of a geologist denying evolution and expect others to refute his ignorant denials.

This is the problem with science, idiots in denial of it who haven't got a clue.

I would rather believe a geologist than you.

No, you would rather believe another religious fundamentalist because they appeal to your beliefs by denying that which they don't understand.

What are your credentials? Who's really ignorant here?

You are, by far and away.

Since you declined to try to refute what was posted, I have no choice but assume that you can't.

There's nothing posted that you said. Putting up a link from someone who simply denies evolution is not an argument to refute.

That's why you resort to using insults.

And, you are resorting to lies, deceit, ignorance and dishonesty, you insult us all by posting this thread.

Pathetic. If you could refute anything that I posted,

You didn't actually post anything. Where are your words? Where is your argument? Where is your refutation to evolution?

you might have some credibility. Care to give it a try? Didn't think so. You've got nothing. No credibility at all.

The pot calling the kettle.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 9:16:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 5:28:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:54:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:40:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:22:00 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Evolution did create human DNA, that's what darwinists claim all the time.

I was addressing the claim that evolution created DNA itself from more simple molecules.

I do claim that evolution evolved and duplicated existing DNA into different DNA. We see this happening all the time and have numerous examples.

Type stuff randomly anywhere in a functional program of your choice for ten years and see for yourself.

Not a great analogy. Every person has about 100 mutations and the vast majority are neutral. So DNA is not like computer code and won't break because of random changes.

Also, random mutations alone won't build complex new features, that is why you need natural selection. We have many examples of selected mutations like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, the Lenski Experiment where bacteria evolved the ability to digest nitrate, the mutation where some people are immune to HIV, and many more including bacteria resistance and immunity to bacteria and viruses.

You guys claim that complex features and abilities are impossible because of "irreducable complexity" and "information theory" yet we have many examples of this happening right before our eyes.

First of all, evolution is not nearly as widely accepted as you portray. Besides, the majority of scientists are atheists, so naturally, there is a bias. Also, the examples you gave are not really evolution. I'll have to look some of them up, but the example of antibacterial resistance is actually devolution. The bacteria that survive and adapt are the ones who have lost the ability to ingest the antibiotics used against them. How does that equate to evolution? Finally, there is the simple fact that the theory of evolution has contributed NOTHING to science. There is not one single discovery that relied on the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, if the theory had never been developed, nothing would be any different in the fields of hard science. That's a fact.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:01:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 9:16:08 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:28:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:54:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:40:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:22:00 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:40:55 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

According to evolution we evolved from a common ancestor whether created by abiogenesis or by a creator. In order for this common ancestor to start evolving it would need DNA for the forces of natural selection and mutations to work.

So evolution didn't create DNA and no informed scientist is saying it did. Evolution is not about the creation of DNA but what happened after it was created.

Evolution did create human DNA, that's what darwinists claim all the time.

I was addressing the claim that evolution created DNA itself from more simple molecules.

I do claim that evolution evolved and duplicated existing DNA into different DNA. We see this happening all the time and have numerous examples.

Type stuff randomly anywhere in a functional program of your choice for ten years and see for yourself.

Not a great analogy. Every person has about 100 mutations and the vast majority are neutral. So DNA is not like computer code and won't break because of random changes.

Also, random mutations alone won't build complex new features, that is why you need natural selection. We have many examples of selected mutations like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, the Lenski Experiment where bacteria evolved the ability to digest nitrate, the mutation where some people are immune to HIV, and many more including bacteria resistance and immunity to bacteria and viruses.

You guys claim that complex features and abilities are impossible because of "irreducable complexity" and "information theory" yet we have many examples of this happening right before our eyes.

First of all, evolution is not nearly as widely accepted as you portray. Besides, the majority of scientists are atheists, so naturally, there is a bias. Also, the examples you gave are not really evolution. I'll have to look some of them up, but the example of antibacterial resistance is actually devolution. The bacteria that survive and adapt are the ones who have lost the ability to ingest the antibiotics used against them. How does that equate to evolution? Finally, there is the simple fact that the theory of evolution has contributed NOTHING to science. There is not one single discovery that relied on the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, if the theory had never been developed, nothing would be any different in the fields of hard science. That's a fact.

So few words, so much bs.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 1:52:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 9:16:08 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/10/2016 5:28:42 PM, distraff wrote:
Not a great analogy. Every person has about 100 mutations and the vast majority are neutral. So DNA is not like computer code and won't break because of random changes.

Also, random mutations alone won't build complex new features, that is why you need natural selection. We have many examples of selected mutations like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, the Lenski Experiment where bacteria evolved the ability to digest nitrate, the mutation where some people are immune to HIV, and many more including bacteria resistance and immunity to bacteria and viruses.

You guys claim that complex features and abilities are impossible because of "irreducable complexity" and "information theory" yet we have many examples of this happening right before our eyes.

First of all, evolution is not nearly as widely accepted as you portray.

The vast majority of scientists are evolutionist. According to surveys of scientific opinion 98% of scientists are evolutionist and 2% are creationist according to one Pew Research poll in 2014.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

According to another Pew Research poll in 2009 87% of scientists believe that life evolved over time purely by natural processes. Another 8% believe that life evolved over time guided by a supreme being which is theistic evolution. 2% believe that life evolved over time but don't know how. And only 2% are actually creationist. This means that 97% of scientists are some type of evolutionist and only 2% are creationist.
http://www.pewforum.org...

This is actually a drop from 5% of scientists who identified as creationist in a 1997 poll. 40% identified as theistic evolutionists, and 45% identified as purely naturalistic evolutionists. This still makes 95% of scientists evolutionists.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

There are hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world and in response to creationists touting lists of several hundred scientists who are creationist (the selection process for these lists is usually so poor that engineers and other non-scientists get on these lists), a signed list was created of all scientists named "Steve" who support evolution. So far there are 1400 signatures and keep in mind that a minority of scientists even know about this project so most Steves are not accounted for. Only a fraction of a percent of the population is named Steve and that only includes scientists in the US.
https://ncse.com...

Besides, the majority of scientists are atheists, so naturally, there is a bias.

Not true, only 17% of scientists are atheist and 51% believe in God.
http://www.pewforum.org...

Also, the examples you gave are not really evolution. I'll have to look some of them up,

Scientists have identified the mutated gene that is able to digest nylon in these bacteria and the mutations change the digesting protein so that it is able to break down nylon. The old version of the gene was able to break down other products but not nylon. The new version can only break down nylon and nothing else in nature.
http://link.springer.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The Lenski experiment involved scientists observing 10 colonies of bacteria. They would freeze of the bacteria so we would have a record of their evolution. They were placed in an environment with only very little glucose to eat. It was found that these bacteria evolved to be larger and better eat glucose.

There was a lot of citrate around but these bacteria could not digest it. After 20 years one colony evolved that ability and because it was plentiful its population went up by a factor of 10. This ability did not evolve in any of the other populations. This ability evolved through a series of lucky mutations and that is why it only happened to one population.
http://www.pnas.org...

Another example is the evolution of resistance to HIV in humans. HIV spreads by binding to CD4 immune cells and turning them into HIV cells. The mutation causes the cell's receptors to be smaller than usual and no long sit outside the cell making it inaccessible to HIV.
http://www.nature.com...

but the example of antibacterial resistance is actually devolution. The bacteria that survive and adapt are the ones who have lost the ability to ingest the antibiotics used against them. How does that equate to evolution?

There are many ways that bacteria evolve resistance and lacking the ability to digest something is only one way. Sometimes for example viruses will evolve a different appearance so that they aren't detected by antibodies. There are hundreds of ways viruses evolve resistance not just one.

Finally, there is the simple fact that the theory of evolution has contributed NOTHING to science. There is not one single discovery that relied on the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, if the theory had never been developed, nothing would be any different in the fields of hard science. That's a fact.

Actually the theory of evolution was used to look for and discover fossils. For example Darwin inspired a generation of scientists to look for hominid fossils in Africa since that is where apes are at. We have found thousands of them. We have also used the theory of make predictions about where fossils should be found and find them. We have also used it to understand bacterial resistance and save lives.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 3:39:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:08:47 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction " [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours

http://www.usmessageboard.com...

Yeah, that's not what DNA is.

If you over simplify, and over compare it to things humans have made, there are some similarities to some things humans have made; but that's not what it is, because DNA has major differences that make it not that.

If you wanted to describe it to an honest person, interested in understanding, rather than to leap to absurd straw men in order to justify their own apriori opinion and intellectual dishonesty, then i guess people may describe it like that, and it wouldn't be too inaccurate; but no it's not an accurate description for what you're trying to say.