Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Nope. Begging the question is where you assume the truth of your idea to generate evidence for your idea — like when evolutionists, when faced with the challenge, claimed that the squid's ability could have arisen by random mutations.
    Like when creationists say that the squid's ability to do this is evidence of a designer.


    Nope. It's a challenge to what you believe. If you cannot present a reasonable explanation for what you believe, I am justified in rejecting your ideas and sticking with what I believe.
    I haven't said one way or the other where I fall on this issue, just that your arguments are using logical fallacies. According to you, that means I can reject your argument.

    You're not very good at this, are you?
    That's question begging.
    "Auto correct has become my worst enema."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
      It's an important distinction.
      Not if you were willing to let it slide and just engage with what they plainly meant.

      That just isn't true.


      You've seen writing that had no author?

      And it begs the question.
      Nope. You guys really need to brush up on your critical thinking.

      We have perfectly reasonable mechanisms for chemical messaging to happen, which we can actually observe in action.
      And all those mechanisms will be analogous to the mechanisms that put the writing on the wall.

      You laid out a principle that isn't adopted by any of mainstream science. It's up to you to justify it. I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.
      Evolutionists love the appeal to popularity. They know they can win that game.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mocking You View Post
        Like when creationists say that the squid's ability to do this is evidence of a designer.
        That is not begging the question. A creature that recodes its RNA shows intent. Unless you think the recoding is done according to the will of the individual shrimp, you must concede that its genome gives it the ability to act with purpose.

        Quite the opposite of what evolution proposes when it comes to biological changes.

        That's question begging.
        Only after you've ignored the explanation showing why you're not good at critical thinking.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          Stripe,

          Still waiting for you to explain how "each animal was designed" follows from "squid can recode RNA".
          "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            That is not begging the question. A creature that recodes its RNA shows intent.
            Now you are confusing correlation with causation with an appeal to omniscience.
            "Auto correct has become my worst enema."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
              And I'm still waiting for any creationist to tell us what they mean by "information" in terms of genetics. How are you defining and measuring it? Nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes? Something else?
              "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                Still waiting for you to explain how "each animal was designed" follows from "squid can recode RNA"
                Put me down as well.
                "Auto correct has become my worst enema."

                Comment


                • RNA misapplications also happens in humans, does not make one a squidstick
                  So, what?

                  believe it!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mocking You View Post
                    Now you are confusing correlation with causation with an appeal to omniscience.
                    I don't think even you know what you are talking about any more.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
                      RNA misapplications also happens in humans, does not make one a squidstick
                      To be fair, we are talking about RNA recoding that is done for a purpose.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        Where we find meaning conveyed through writing — in every example — we automatically assume an author without ever thinking about it.
                        Based on prior experience. We know men write. We have seen men write before. We can ourselves write. Based on prior experience we know that writing comes from men, the same with clocks, or watches, or paintings, or whatever other analogy you wish to proffer.

                        These are based on prior experience. The argument is predicated on a false premise. We do not know intuitively whether something is intelligently designed. We only know this if we can see them being designed thus the analogy always relies on something that we already know is designed. We have not seen life being designed. We have no prior experience to rely on. Nor is there any objectively discernible characteristic that tells us if something is designed.

                        People used to think the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland was something that was built, but they were wrong. The Giant's causeway is a natural feature.

                        > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                        "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          To be fair, we are talking about RNA recoding that is done for a purpose.
                          <Reagan voice>: "There you go again...."
                          "Auto correct has become my worst enema."

                          Comment


                          • The watchmaker argument reminds me of age old pagan superstitions. Thunder? Must be the result of a thunder maker. Someone must be making a racket up in the clouds, must be a thunder god. To them, they did not understand the natural processes involved in thunder, it was a mystery that could not be explained except as a thunder god conjuring it up.
                            > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                            "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mocking You View Post
                              Put me down as well.
                              Don't hold your breath. Stripe isn't exactly famous for his question-answering abilities.
                              "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dennyg1 View Post
                                I will read your source and respond later. In the meantime I'd like you to take a look at the Views on Science, criticism, and controversies sections of this:
                                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

                                Once again AIG is maybe the most biased source that exists and I'll illustrate how the author [credentials?] makes simple mistakes about evolution and especially how mutations influence natural selection.

                                For a quick example of AIG using incorrect information: in the Moral and social issues section it mentions how AIG vehemently believes that Josef Stalin was heavily influenced by The Origin of Species, but one of the leading historians on Russian history says that this claim fails on "several obvious accounts."

                                It's imperative when talking science in a serious manner to use credible sources only, or you can use a questionable one if credible sources cited. An opinion means nothing. And even if a handful of credible studies did favor YEC, it means nothing until they can be retested again and again with the same results. The scientific method demands strict adherence if any conclusions are to be definitively drawn.
                                after reading up on the subject, I found the wiki editors are lying or merely copying and pasting from other deceptive sources. for clarity, here is a timeline of Stalin's education so you can understand how this wiki editor distorts the truth.
                                Gori Church School (1889-1894) age at the time 11 to 15
                                Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (1894–1899) age at the time 16 to 21
                                for reference here is the full statement by wiki
                                AiG also claim Joseph Stalin's reading of Darwin influenced his brutal leadership of the Soviet Union.[76] However, according to Robert Conquest, there is a consensus among historians that the later Soviet claim that Stalin read On the Origin of Species (1859) is not true as the story fails on "several obvious" accounts.[77]
                                Now here is the direct quote from the YEC source.
                                http://creation.com/what-happened-wh...charles-darwin
                                But early in his life Stalin experienced a dramatic change of career. While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, he began to read the works of Charles Darwin.....Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas thus powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder resulted from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin. And the most tragic aspect of all? That while Stalin was turning his back on his Creator, he was building his philosophy on a lie.
                                now the quote from Robert Conquest's book "Stalin: breaker of Nations" (the leading historian that was mentioned above)
                                though we need not believe one later Soviet claim that he read The Origin of Species at the age of thirteen while still at Gori, and told a fellow pupil that it proved the nonexistence of God. The story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin's remaining religious, even pious, for some years longer.
                                So right off the bat it's clear that this historian is refuting a narrow claim about Stalin's youth promoted by soviets and not making some broad statement that Stalin never read nor was influenced by Darwin's ideas. Secondly, the referenced refutation date is off by at least 3 years since what was mentioned in the YEC article was about his time in seminary school and not his time Gori. Lastly, Stalin did indeed read Darwin's works at his time at seminary. from the same source as above
                                other books more generally reported as in circulation among the students indicated that he indeed now read Darwin's Descent man, and also Charles Lyell's antiquity of man, the two books which revolutionized the world's view of the human situation in life and time
                                Now onto the "soviet claim" that this historian disputes, this comes from a biography published in Stalin's "Glory" years titled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
                                http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/
                                At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
                                G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:
                                "I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
                                "'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
                                "I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
                                "'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
                                "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
                                "'What book is that?' I enquired.
                                "'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me"
                                So in the mind of the soviets who created this false testimony, Darwin's works have a strong connection towards enlightenment towards Atheism and Marxism. So, in essence this allegedly false testimony only enhances the case that evolution was a fundamental building block of the atheistic soviet/marxist worldview.


                                conclusion: Never take wiki at face value and why are evolutionists so desperate that they would have to resort to quote mining to attack YEC?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X