Believing what you know ain't so

a reply to: intrptr

No, I mean that Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time. Adaptation is just one of those ways, but it isn't the only way.

originally posted by: intrptr
Neither can you prove DNA just "happened". Or is it the electric mud puddle theory again?

I never claimed to know one way or another, but look at you changing the subject AGAIN. Design is YOUR claim not mine. If you think you know the answer, then prove it. I don't make such claims but it's hilarious how you would demean the position and say "just happened" with no evidence or facts or anything else.

You just called it 'code' too, lol.

Learn how to debate. You ignored the majority of my response in favor of nit picking terminology that doesn't make a bit of difference in the discussion. I don't care if it is considered code. It is arrangements of various types of atoms. It isn't computer code, so again, prove that somebody wrote DNA code without assumptions. If you can do this, you'll win a nobel prize. Good luck. Sorry but "OMG, you called it code" isn't going to cut it.

I was referring to the mutations that gave rise to life, not ongoing adaptation within an genome. I am fully aware of the adaptability of ongoing life.

Mutations didn't give rise to life as genetic mutations cannot exist without genes. Why would you make something up like that? You apparently are not aware of adaptability because you keep criticizing things that are WRONG. That's called a strawman fallacy.

In the end, one can not explain how chemistry goes to biochemistry.

No kidding. We all know this, but you are the one claiming to have advanced knowledge that none of us do when claiming it was designed. Just because it cannot yet be explained fully, does not make it wrong, or mean that god did it. Sorry.

a reply to: Barcs

It is arrangements of various types of atoms. It isn't computer code, so again, prove that somebody wrote DNA code without assumptions.

Prove how it began. Without that any discussion is impossible. I don't know who encoded DNA. But unlike you I know this. I don't care how many times over a million years you dump the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle out of a box, they will never land in a complete picture.

Good luck trying to mind meld me otherwise. You will never win the lottery either and thats only six numbers, but you already know that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I mean that Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time. Adaptation is just one of those ways, but it isn't the only way.

However many different ways you spell it, same thing.

Life adapts, it doesn't "evolve".

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I mean that Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time. Adaptation is just one of those ways, but it isn't the only way.

However many different ways you spell it, same thing.

Life adapts, it doesn't "evolve".

No it isn't the same thing. Adaption would be a sub-set of the larger set that is Evolution. Another way to look at it is that adaptation is evolution, but evolution isn't necessarily adaptation.

Don't just arbitrarily change the definitions of words just because you don't like what the concepts say.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I mean that Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time. Adaptation is just one of those ways, but it isn't the only way.

However many different ways you spell it, same thing.

Life adapts, it doesn't "evolve".

Where's your evidence for that? Is that some kind of semantical gymnastic - adapts but doesn't evolve????

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

It is arrangements of various types of atoms. It isn't computer code, so again, prove that somebody wrote DNA code without assumptions.

Prove how it began. Without that any discussion is impossible. I don't know who encoded DNA. But unlike you I know this. I don't care how many times over a million years you dump the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle out of a box, they will never land in a complete picture.

Good luck trying to mind meld me otherwise. You will never win the lottery either and thats only six numbers, but you already know that.

Where's your evidence? Research articles on self assembly have been posted here numerous times. That you don't read them says everything about YOU, not the issue. Jigsaw puzzle in a box? Did you know that in quantum theory, given enough time, that jigsaw puzzle would assemble itself. But getting back to DNA, it can SELF ASSEMBLE. That means the nucleic acids can coordinate themselves into the structure without any outside intervention.

Prove that wrong.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I mean that Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time. Adaptation is just one of those ways, but it isn't the only way.

However many different ways you spell it, same thing.

Life adapts, it doesn't "evolve".

You Creationist crap shooters have to start posting some hard evidence - i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - that what you are throwing around has some experimental data behind it. Your philosophical opinion isn't science. It's just your opinion - an opinion that has no roots.

originally posted by: intrptr
Prove how it began. Without that any discussion is impossible. I don't know who encoded DNA. But unlike you I know this. I don't care how many times over a million years you dump the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle out of a box, they will never land in a complete picture.

Good luck trying to mind meld me otherwise. You will never win the lottery either and thats only six numbers, but you already know that.

More irrelevant metaphors and hogwash.

Neither you nor I can prove how DNA began, so speculation about it is useless. You were arguing for design, I was not arguing for naturalism / materialism. If you claim it is designed, the burden of proof is on you to show this. It's not on me to prove that it wasn't. I admit that we do not know the answer as to how exactly DNA emerged, but you may want to read up on RNA world hypothesis. Obviously it's a hypothesis like abiogenesis, not a solid verified scientific theory like evolution, but it explains how RNA could have come first and eventually become more complex over time leading to DNA. There are plenty of ideas on how it could have happened, but right now we don't know, and admitting that is the only honest answer.

And once again you claim the odds are ridiculously low without knowing the numbers or presenting anything tangible. You don't know that I'll never win the lottery. You don't know the odds for the emergence of life. It's hilarious how you think you know, but haven't presented a single fact to suggest you actually do.

However many different ways you spell it, same thing.

Life adapts, it doesn't "evolve".

Just stop. That's like saying, "It is a car, not an automobile, you are wrong!"

Both definitions of evolution go against your statement.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't just arbitrarily change the definitions of words just because you don't like what the concepts say.

I didn't, you did. Thats my point. Before evolution it was called adaptation. Evolution wanted to add the dimension of life beginning from ionized muck. Now you say that wasn't so, but I remember grade school.

Save it for someone younger, you ain't fooling me.

This is why I gave up arguing with creationists. They either don't understand the science involved in the Theory of Evolution or they wilfully misunderstand it. Or, in the case of BornToWatch, they deny that they've ever been shown any science whatsoever at any time, least of all on any silly past threads where they were made to look ridiculous by denying that they were shown the proof that they asked for.

a reply to: Phantom423

You Creationist crap shooters have to start posting some hard evidence - i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - that what you are throwing around has some experimental data behind it. Your philosophical opinion isn't science. It's just your opinion - an opinion that has no roots.

And your constant problem with my opinion is your problem. Like you been all over the Universe and know where life comes from. I don't mean atoms and molecules either dinkums, I mean where_life_comes_from.

How could you possibly know that?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423
Like you been all over the Universe and know where life comes from. I don't mean atoms and molecules either dinkums, I mean where_life_comes_from.

How could you possibly know that?

We don't. Nor do you. But we're not the ones claiming we DO know.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't just arbitrarily change the definitions of words just because you don't like what the concepts say.

I didn't, you did. Thats my point. Before evolution it was called adaptation. Evolution wanted to add the dimension of life beginning from ionized muck. Now you say that wasn't so, but I remember grade school.

Unless you went to school in the mid-1800's, evolution never replaced any definitions for adaptation. Evolution also says nothing about life originating from "ionized muck". Evolution just says that all life comes from a singular source and branched out from there. Please don't confuse the Abiogenesis hypothesis with the theory of evolution...

Save it for someone younger, you ain't fooling me.

Lol. Translation: "I'm too old to care about new facts, I'm just going to believe my confirmation biases instead."

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423
Like you been all over the Universe and know where life comes from. I don't mean atoms and molecules either dinkums, I mean where_life_comes_from.

How could you possibly know that?

We don't. Nor do you. But we're not the ones claiming we DO know.

Every post I started here with I began, imo. The ones I'm addressing are the ones claiming scientific proof, not me.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423
Like you been all over the Universe and know where life comes from. I don't mean atoms and molecules either dinkums, I mean where_life_comes_from.

How could you possibly know that?

We don't. Nor do you. But we're not the ones claiming we DO know.

Every post I started here with I began, imo. The ones I'm addressing are the ones claiming scientific proof, not me.

There's a difference between someone saying "I know how life began" and "I have evidence that supports a theory of how life began". Both of those statements reflects perfectly a side in the argument between creationism and science.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423

You Creationist crap shooters have to start posting some hard evidence - i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - that what you are throwing around has some experimental data behind it. Your philosophical opinion isn't science. It's just your opinion - an opinion that has no roots.

And your constant problem with my opinion is your problem. Like you been all over the Universe and know where life comes from. I don't mean atoms and molecules either dinkums, I mean where_life_comes_from.

How could you possibly know that?

Evolution science has nothing to do with origins or "where life comes from". Unless there's a way to obtain hard evidence i.e. experimental data, science doesn't care about it.

And I never said that I knew anything about "origins". Origins are a philosophical question - that is until some evidence presents itself like life on Earth originally came from another planet or star system - which is entirely possible. And if that turned out to be the case, then you can ask THEM where life originated

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution just says that all life comes from a singular source and branched out from there.

So we do agree then. Glad thats settled.

a reply to: Phantom423

Origins are a philosophical question - that is until some evidence presents itself like life on Earth originally came from another planet or star system - which is entirely possible.

Well I guess its okay if you say it…

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423

Origins are a philosophical question - that is until some evidence presents itself like life on Earth originally came from another planet or star system - which is entirely possible.

Well I guess its okay if you say it…

And as long as we can already create life in the lab, there's no reason NOT to consider that life may have started on Earth - it's a probability with no hard evidence.