When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?

[Ringtone]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

 

[Ringtone]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.

Actually, ChemEngineer's understanding of the matter is even more advanced than mine, but, then, you don't grasp the realities of the matter and, no doubt, unwittingly conflate the biochemical engineering of the laboratory and abiogenesis. The latter could never be observed in the first place, let alone demonstrated. LOL! We're talking about abiogenesis, Hollie.

 

[Ringtone]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"? And what precisely don't I understand about biology? Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?

 

[surada]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"? And what precisely don't I understand about biology? Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?

Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the Levant.

 

[Hollie]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.

Actually, ChemEngineer's understanding of the matter is even more advanced than mine, but, then, you don't grasp the realities of the matter and, no doubt, unwittingly conflate the biochemical engineering of the laboratory and abiogenesis. The latter could never be observed in the first place, let alone demonstrated. LOL! We're talking about abiogenesis, Hollie.

Actually, you're wrong about your understanding of the biological sciences as well as the christian-splaining of the other religious extremist. You folks all get your ''science'l from hacks at fundie ministries.

When you litter threads with such nonsense as ''irreducible necessity'', you're simply stealing ID'iot creationer slogans from Michael Behe and various ID'iot creationer ministries. There's a reason why charlatans who represent ID'iot creationer ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

 

[Ringtone]

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

Okay, ReinyDays, ChemEngineer rightly corrected me. I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms proper are not assumptions as such. They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true. They're always verified, never falsified. The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested. In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

a + b = b + a is a mathematical axiom. It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity: A = A.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem: If a and b are consecutive integers, the sum of a + b is necessarily an odd number.​

​

Assume that a and b are consecutive integers. We know then that b = a + 1. a + b can be re-written as a + a + 1 or as 2a + 1. Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since 1 added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that a + b = 2y + 1; that is to say, there exists a number y such that a + b = 2y + 1 wherein the sum of a + b is always an odd number.​

Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms).

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

False. The English term science, ultimately derived from the Latin word scientia via Old French, literally means knowledge or wisdom. The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science. In common parlance, the term science merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation. The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences. The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former. Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by warmongering.

 

[Ringtone]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.

Actually, ChemEngineer's understanding of the matter is even more advanced than mine, but, then, you don't grasp the realities of the matter and, no doubt, unwittingly conflate the biochemical engineering of the laboratory and abiogenesis. The latter could never be observed in the first place, let alone demonstrated. LOL! We're talking about abiogenesis, Hollie.

Actually, you're wrong about your understanding of the biological sciences as well as the christian-splaining of the other religious extremist. You folks all get your ''science'l from hacks at fundie ministries.

When you litter threads with such nonsense as ''irreducible necessity'', you're simply stealing ID'iot creationer slogans from Michael Behe and various ID'iot creationer ministries. There's a reason why charlatans who represent ID'iot creationer ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

 

[Hollie]

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

Okay, ReinyDays, ChemEngineer rightly corrected me. I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms proper are not assumptions as such. They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true. They're always verified, never falsified. The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested. In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

a + b = b + a is a mathematical axiom. It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity: A = A.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem: If a and b are consecutive integers, the sum of a + b is necessarily an odd number.​

​

Assume that a and b are consecutive integers. We know then that b = a + 1. a + b can be re-written as a + a + 1 or as 2a + 1. Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since 1 added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that a + b = 2y + 1; that is to say, there exists a number y such that a + b = 2y + 1 wherein the sum of a + b is always an odd number.​

Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms).

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

False. The English term science, ultimately derived from the Latin word scientia via Old French, literally means knowledge or wisdom. The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science. In common parlance, the term science merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation. The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences. The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former. Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by warmongering.

Actually, the four major divisions of science include mathematics and logic, biological science, social science and physical science.

You identified science as one branch of the four sciences. That doesnt make sense. Neither does your list.

 

[Ringtone]

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

Okay, ReinyDays, ChemEngineer rightly corrected me. I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms proper are not assumptions as such. They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true. They're always verified, never falsified. The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested. In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

a + b = b + a is a mathematical axiom. It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity: A = A.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem: If a and b are consecutive integers, the sum of a + b is necessarily an odd number.​

​

Assume that a and b are consecutive integers. We know then that b = a + 1. a + b can be re-written as a + a + 1 or as 2a + 1. Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since 1 added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that a + b = 2y + 1; that is to say, there exists a number y such that a + b = 2y + 1 wherein the sum of a + b is always an odd number.​

Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms).

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

False. The English term science, ultimately derived from the Latin word scientia via Old French, literally means knowledge or wisdom. The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science. In common parlance, the term science merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation. The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences. The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former. Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by warmongering.

Actually, the four major divisions of science include mathematics and logic, biological science, social science and physical science.

You identified science as one branch of the four sciences. That doesnt make sense. Neither does your list.

 

[Hollie]

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

Okay, ReinyDays, ChemEngineer rightly corrected me. I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms proper are not assumptions as such. They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true. They're always verified, never falsified. The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested. In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

a + b = b + a is a mathematical axiom. It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity: A = A.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem: If a and b are consecutive integers, the sum of a + b is necessarily an odd number.​

​

Assume that a and b are consecutive integers. We know then that b = a + 1. a + b can be re-written as a + a + 1 or as 2a + 1. Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since 1 added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that a + b = 2y + 1; that is to say, there exists a number y such that a + b = 2y + 1 wherein the sum of a + b is always an odd number.​

Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms).

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

False. The English term science, ultimately derived from the Latin word scientia via Old French, literally means knowledge or wisdom. The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science. In common parlance, the term science merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation. The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences. The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former. Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by warmongering.

Actually, the four major divisions of science include mathematics and logic, biological science, social science and physical science.

You identified science as one branch of the four sciences. That doesnt make sense. Neither does your list.

View attachment 442927

Don’t feel such shame. You’re here to learn.

When was theology ever a branch of science?

 

[Ringtone]

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

Okay, ReinyDays, ChemEngineer rightly corrected me. I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms proper are not assumptions as such. They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true. They're always verified, never falsified. The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested. In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

a + b = b + a is a mathematical axiom. It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity: A = A.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem: If a and b are consecutive integers, the sum of a + b is necessarily an odd number.​

​

Assume that a and b are consecutive integers. We know then that b = a + 1. a + b can be re-written as a + a + 1 or as 2a + 1. Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since 1 added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that a + b = 2y + 1; that is to say, there exists a number y such that a + b = 2y + 1 wherein the sum of a + b is always an odd number.​

Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms).

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

False. The English term science, ultimately derived from the Latin word scientia via Old French, literally means knowledge or wisdom. The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science. In common parlance, the term science merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation. The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences. The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former. Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by warmongering.

Actually, the four major divisions of science include mathematics and logic, biological science, social science and physical science.

You identified science as one branch of the four sciences. That doesnt make sense. Neither does your list.

View attachment 442927

Don’t feel such shame. You’re here to learn.

When was theology ever a branch of science?

Biblical theology is still the queen of the sciences. Only the illiterate and reprobates don't know that.

 

[Hollie]

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

Okay, ReinyDays, ChemEngineer rightly corrected me. I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms proper are not assumptions as such. They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true. They're always verified, never falsified. The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested. In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

a + b = b + a is a mathematical axiom. It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity: A = A.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem: If a and b are consecutive integers, the sum of a + b is necessarily an odd number.​

​

Assume that a and b are consecutive integers. We know then that b = a + 1. a + b can be re-written as a + a + 1 or as 2a + 1. Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since 1 added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that a + b = 2y + 1; that is to say, there exists a number y such that a + b = 2y + 1 wherein the sum of a + b is always an odd number.​

Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms).

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

False. The English term science, ultimately derived from the Latin word scientia via Old French, literally means knowledge or wisdom. The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science. In common parlance, the term science merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation. The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences. The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former. Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by warmongering.

Actually, the four major divisions of science include mathematics and logic, biological science, social science and physical science.

You identified science as one branch of the four sciences. That doesnt make sense. Neither does your list.

View attachment 442927

Don’t feel such shame. You’re here to learn.

When was theology ever a branch of science?

Biblical theology is still the queen of the sciences. Only the illiterate and reprobates don't know that.

Biblical theology is queen of no science.

Theology is not science. Only the illiterate, reprobates and the hyper-religious believe that theology approaches a science discipline .

 

[Ringtone]

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

In a nutshell, any naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
Let's examine just one protein, viz., titin, in human muscles.

It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues, precisely folded.

Selecting each of 20 different L-amino acids in the precise sequence of titin necessitates a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, just for starters.
How is the folding of the protein so precisely determined? At random?
1/20 to the 33,450th power is ridiculously improbable. Reasonable men would call it impossible. But that is just for ONE protein. Humans have at least 5,000 of them.

You'll burn up your scientific calculator counting the number of zeroes.

Oh, one final consideration. Peptide bonds versus non-peptide bonds. They are roughly equally probable. So take 1/2 to the 33,450 and multiply that by 1/20 to the 33,450th.... before taking folding into account.

 

[Ringtone]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"? And what precisely don't I understand about biology? Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?

Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the Levant.

My question was rhetorical. Of course the earth is much older than the book of Genesis. As for the rest, you just presuppose historical naturalism like Kramer and Finkelstein. Other historical naturalists, for example, held that the biblical account of Abraham's life was the stuff of fiction because the city of Ur obviously never existed.

Then in 1922 the archaeologist C. Leonard Woolley began excavating the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. LOL!

 

[surada]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"? And what precisely don't I understand about biology? Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?

Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the Levant.

My question was rhetorical. Of course the earth is much older than the book of Genesis. As for the rest, you just presuppose historical naturalism like Kramer and Finkelstein. Other historical naturalists, for example, held that the biblical account of Abraham's life was the stuff of fiction because the city of Ur obviously never existed.

Then in 1922 the archaeologist C. Leonard Woolley began excavating the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. LOL!

Ur couldn't have existed unless it was under water.. The river changed course..

Kramer spent his life translating cuneiform tablets. I love History Begins at Sumer.

I think Abraham is probably a literary device or perhaps representative of a number of legendary tribal warlords. There's no support for the Exodus story to be historical.. Egypt controlled Sinai and the Canaanite towns there paid tribute to Pharaoh. They were successful in mining, metallurgy and pottery making. Everybody walked to the Nile Delta during drought and hard times.

The stories are fabulous and their messages are important, but a million people didn't leave Egypt for Palestine. I mean Sinai is only 135 miles across.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...

A Biblical Altar on Mt. Ebal and Other Israelite Footprints in the Jordan Valley?

Foot-shaped sites have been found throughout the Jordan Valley, including an extraordinary cultic site on Mt. Ebal. Is this the Israelite altar described in Joshua

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

...
Oct 17, 2020 · In the Byzantine period (fourth–seventh centuries C.E.), Jerusalem was a Christian city. a Estimates of the city’s population are as high as 100,000 and then go down gradually to 70,000 to 60,000 to 50,000 to 25,000. Geva’s estimate: 15,000. In 637 C.E. the Muslims besieged Jerusalem; the period of Islamic Jerusalem commenced.

 

[Hollie]

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

In a nutshell, any naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
Let's examine just one protein, viz., titin, in human muscles.

It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues, precisely folded.

Selecting each of 20 different L-amino acids in the precise sequence of titin necessitates a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, just for starters.
How is the folding of the protein so precisely determined? At random?
1/20 to the 33,450th power is ridiculously improbable. Reasonable men would call it impossible. But that is just for ONE protein. Humans have at least 5,000 of them.

You'll burn up your scientific calculator counting the number of zeroes.

Oh, one final consideration. Peptide bonds versus non-peptide bonds. They are roughly equally probable. So take 1/2 to the 33,450 and multiply that by 1/20 to the 33,450th.... before taking folding into account.

View attachment 442955

Gullibility is a religion.

 

[Ringtone]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"? And what precisely don't I understand about biology? Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?

Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the Levant.

My question was rhetorical. Of course the earth is much older than the book of Genesis. As for the rest, you just presuppose historical naturalism like Kramer and Finkelstein. Other historical naturalists, for example, held that the biblical account of Abraham's life was the stuff of fiction because the city of Ur obviously never existed.

Then in 1922 the archaeologist C. Leonard Woolley began excavating the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. LOL!

Ur couldn't have existed unless it was under water.. The river changed course..

Inexplicably confounding the population of Jerusalem, which did not even exist at the time, with the pre-invasion population of the Israeli tribe, you previously claimed that Joshua's army couldn't have had as many as 600.000 men of fighting age. (By the way, you have yet to acknowledge this glaringly obvious error.) Just to be clear, are you now claiming that the ancient coastal city of Ur near the mouth of the Euphrates never existed?

By the way, you have yet to explain why you gave Hollie's silly post regarding biology, abiogenesis and my supposed ignorance a thumbs up.

 

[Hollie]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"? And what precisely don't I understand about biology? Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?

Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the Levant.

My question was rhetorical. Of course the earth is much older than the book of Genesis. As for the rest, you just presuppose historical naturalism like Kramer and Finkelstein. Other historical naturalists, for example, held that the biblical account of Abraham's life was the stuff of fiction because the city of Ur obviously never existed.

Then in 1922 the archaeologist C. Leonard Woolley began excavating the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. LOL!

Ur couldn't have existed unless it was under water.. The river changed course..

Inexplicably confounding the population of Jerusalem, which did not even exist at the time, with the pre-invasion population of the Israeli tribe, you previously claimed that Joshua's army couldn't have had as many as 600.000 men of fighting age. (By the way, you have yet to acknowledge this glaringly obvious error.) Just to be clear, are you now claiming that the ancient coastal city of Ur near the mouth of the Euphrates never existed?

By the way, you have yet to explain why you gave Hollie's silly post regarding biology, abiogenesis and my supposed ignorance a thumbs up.

Expressing to the board your hurt feelings?

You delicate flower.

 

[22lcidw]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.

Actually, ChemEngineer's understanding of the matter is even more advanced than mine, but, then, you don't grasp the realities of the matter and, no doubt, unwittingly conflate the biochemical engineering of the laboratory and abiogenesis. The latter could never be observed in the first place, let alone demonstrated. LOL! We're talking about abiogenesis, Hollie.

Actually, you're wrong about your understanding of the biological sciences as well as the christian-splaining of the other religious extremist. You folks all get your ''science'l from hacks at fundie ministries.

When you litter threads with such nonsense as ''irreducible necessity'', you're simply stealing ID'iot creationer slogans from Michael Behe and various ID'iot creationer ministries. There's a reason why charlatans who represent ID'iot creationer ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

Why the hell are you more screwed up then the fundies then?

 

[Hollie]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.

Actually, ChemEngineer's understanding of the matter is even more advanced than mine, but, then, you don't grasp the realities of the matter and, no doubt, unwittingly conflate the biochemical engineering of the laboratory and abiogenesis. The latter could never be observed in the first place, let alone demonstrated. LOL! We're talking about abiogenesis, Hollie.

Actually, you're wrong about your understanding of the biological sciences as well as the christian-splaining of the other religious extremist. You folks all get your ''science'l from hacks at fundie ministries.

When you litter threads with such nonsense as ''irreducible necessity'', you're simply stealing ID'iot creationer slogans from Michael Behe and various ID'iot creationer ministries. There's a reason why charlatans who represent ID'iot creationer ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

Why the hell are you more screwed up then the fundies then?

"...than...''