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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Dennyg1 View Post
    No evidence doesn't work. But somehow the Sumerian creation and flood story adapted by the Jews to fit monotheism is your "infallible source."
    Wake us up when you're done ranting.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by 6days View Post
      Jesus and other Bible authors refer to Moses writings and other scripture as the ultimate source of truth
      Yet another problem with your belief

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by 6days View Post
        Jesus and other Bible authors refer to Moses writings and other scripture as the ultimate source of truth
        And you dismiss anything that contradicts your exegesis of that a priori.
        > 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


        • #79
          Originally posted by User Name View Post
          What you are doing here is making a "God of the gaps" argument. Essentially, you are saying, "I don't understand how this process could have evolved naturally; therefore, God did it." If you want to believe that this phenomenon is not the result of natural processes and was supernaturally created as-is, that is up to you. However, "God did it," is not a scientific statement because science deals only with the study of natural processes.
          Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.
          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by 6days View Post
            Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.
            Something looks designed when it _______ ?
            > 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


            • #81
              Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
              One fact I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny is that creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.
              Sorry we have been so hard on you..... we didn't understand why you denied the evidence.
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by 6days View Post
                Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.
                Given that squid can recode their RNA, it is sensible to believe that the code that leads to the development of each animal was designed. It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

                To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author.
                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by 6days View Post
                  Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.
                  A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Most biologists support the idea of evolution by means of natural selection. They therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Biologists therefore commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.

                  http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Given that squid can recode their RNA, it is sensible to believe that the code that leads to the development of each animal was designed.
                    Why?

                    And, does "unable to recode its RNA = not designed"?
                    "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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by 6days View Post
                      Sorry we have been so hard on you..... we didn't understand why you denied the evidence.
                      ?????????????? You're not even making sense. The fact remains, creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.
                      "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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        Given that squid can recode their RNA, it is sensible to believe that the code that leads to the development of each animal was designed. It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

                        To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author.
                        Maybe you haven't caught onto this but everyone knows you are devoid of value to any scientific discussion

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author.
                          Umm....that is a 98% accurate description of your idea of the Bible

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Dennyg1 View Post
                            Maybe you haven't caught onto this but everyone knows you are devoid of value to any scientific discussion
                            Well to be fair, that's pretty much true for creationism as a whole. Creationism is contributing absolutely nothing to science at all. Their primary function is to shout "Nuh uh....BIBLE!!!" whenever scientists advance our understanding of the universe.

                            On one hand it's an intellectually safe and easy spot to be in because you don't have to actually do any work beyond armchair criticism while telling yourself that the Bible has all the answers you need. But OTOH, their absolute irrelevance to science has to gnaw at them on some level. That, and how people are increasingly laughing at them....
                            "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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by 6days View Post
                              Zeros and ones inside a computer is nothing....unless someone assigns a value and creates a code.
                              You're conflating meaning and information. Believe it or not, they are not the same thing.
                              http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/200...on-vs-meaning/

                              In the context of genetic information, what meaning it can be said to have is defined by the chemical mechanisms that operate upon it. You could think of it as essentially a language for chemical process to communicate.
                              Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I simply can't believe that Evolutionists continue to insist that DNA doesn't contain meaning simply because "information theory" doesn't deal with meaning. Especially since Warner Weaver the co-creator of information theory already refuted such notions before they were even brought up.
                                http://pages.uoregon.edu/felsing/virtual_asia/info.html
                                The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular information must not be confused with meaning.

                                In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information. It is this, undoubtedly, that Shannon means when he says that the semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects. But this does not mean that the engineering aspects are necessarily irrelevant to the semantic aspects.

                                To be sure, this word information in communication theory relates not so much to what you do say, as to what you could say.
                                Here is another source that explains the error that most evolutionists seem to be making in clearer terms.
                                http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946
                                To me, the subject of “information theory” is badly named. That discipline is devoted to finding ideal compression schemes for messages to be sent quickly and accurately across a noisy channel. It deliberately does not pay any attention to what the messages mean. To my mind this should be called compression theory or redundancy theory. Information is inherently meaningful—that is its purpose— any theory that is unconcerned with the meaning is not really studying information per se. The people who decide on speed limits for roads and highways may care about human health, but a study limited to deciding ideal speed limits should not be called “human health theory”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X