Creationists

[Hollie]

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

ID is not theory, its a religious claim.

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

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

Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

What's to rebut?

You make claims wherein you hope to vilify science but you offer nothing but religious invocations.

Religion is not science. You talk "at" people about "real" science but you do so by thumping them with your bible.

I'm not impressed.

Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?

 

[UltimateReality]

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

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

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

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

What's to rebut?


You make claims wherein you hope to vilify science but you offer nothing but religious invocations.

Religion is not science. You talk "at" people about "real" science but you do so by thumping them with your bible.

I'm not impressed.

Typical. I knew you wouldn't present an argument to the stated hypothesis. You have effectively been silenced because you have no argument. You have nothing to say because the argument stands until you come up with some real evidence to discount it. So instead of wasting your time here. Get to the lab and get cracking!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Do they have any experiments now undergoing to test this, and come up with testable, repeatable results?

Sadly for you, no. The evo's haven't been able to even come up with a decent theory for the origin of dna by a non intelligent process, much less begin to perform experiments to support their hypothesis.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?

Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

What's to rebut?


You make claims wherein you hope to vilify science but you offer nothing but religious invocations.

Religion is not science. You talk "at" people about "real" science but you do so by thumping them with your bible.

I'm not impressed.

Typical. I knew you wouldn't present an argument to the stated hypothesis. You have effectively been silenced because you have no argument. You have nothing to say because the argument stands until you come up with some real evidence to discount it. So instead of wasting your time here. Get to the lab and get cracking!!!

You never presented an argument. You make silly statements demanding that your arguments are true while presenting no vidence to support them. You then rattle on that your claims are factual until others disprove them. No one is obligated to play the games of a 12 year old.

You made bellicose statements, totally unsupported that are simply boilerplate Christian creationist dogma.

You end your posts with silly challenges and name calling that make you appear to be a goofy 12 year old.

 

[UltimateReality]

ID is not theory, its a religious claim.

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

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

Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.

You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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

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

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists

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

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

Why such shoddy design?

Entropy is the method to how we pay for our sins,mutations are just one of many ways that God administered punishment to sinful man.

Good thing man has not been on the planet as long as evolutionist claim,we now have around 5,000 genetic disorders and counting in around 6,000 years.

 

[UltimateReality]

You made bellicose statements,

Bellicose. Isn't about the third time you've used this in the last 5 posts? Hollyman, it doesn't matter how many big words you look up in the dictionary, you still don't sound intelligent.

 

[Hollie]

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

Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.

You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.

Fall to the floor and kick and stomp your feet if you like. Using your religious views to try and inflict blunt force trauma on others is pointless.

Religion is not science. It's that simple. You can't bring yourself to understand that claims to "the gods did it" are meaningless in the real world of science, exploration and discovery.

 

[UltimateReality]

you never presented an argument.

All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


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

- Francis Crick



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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

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

I gave you the explanation of right and left handed amino acids,coincedence ?

 

[Hollie]

You made bellicose statements,

Bellicose. Isn't about the third time you've used this in the last 5 posts? Hollyman, it doesn't matter how many big words you look up in the dictionary, you still don't sound intelligent.

You're now reduced to blathering like a child who has been scolded.

 

[Hollie]

you never presented an argument.

All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.

That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.

That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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

Nicely done.

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

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

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

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

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists

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

Not at all,where did the genetic information originate from ? What language was not developed by a mind ?

 

[UltimateReality]

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

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

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

And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sounding scientific.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your claims to miracles are pointless.

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

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

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

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

Monty be real.

 

[Hollie]

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



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


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

- Francis Crick



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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

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

I gave you the explanation of right and left handed amino acids,coincedence ?

You posted an article of which you knew nothing of its content.

Are you suggesting that right and left handed amino acids prove your gods?

 

[UltimateReality]

Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules."

Please provide links to a few.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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

(wikipedia)

Another wiki soldier

Like UltimateReality?

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

I just don't care for wiki because anyone can be putting faulty information on the site. Maybe UR wants your guys to feel comfortable.