It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 25
18
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
BTW. All we have is speculation up to and including the first cell.

Blind evolution breaks down at the fundamental level of the protein. The combinatorial explosion is an unimaginable large number requiring more time and larger populations than have ever existed to produce even one single modest protein. This has been put to the test. And has been a serious concern for decades that has become very real.

The whole thing collapses here.

The other thing is singleton proteins, they have no known homology they sit in a family by themselves and are present in pretty much every species. The Cambrian would have required millions of new proteins.

Watch Meyers video, no reasonable person can deny the validity. The man is quite brilliant.

Till tomorrow.




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Wow Barcs. That is some bag of excuses you have their. Don't give me your citation bluffs.Want to be specific ? I am sure you don't know what you are talking about to be honest. It also has nothing to do with my claim for positive evidence.

If by "bag of excuses" you mean me pointing out the obvious logical fallacies in your argument, then sure.


But for now.

My claim is that mind is required in producing a semiotic system.
Your claim is that it isn't. I'm sure you don't know what I am talking about though.

My claim is actually that we don't know if it's required. You think it is, so you should provide the evidence. I'm not arguing the opposite side as you, I'm asking for evidence of your side. You are basing your claim on a very limited sample size (just 1 actually, humans).


We know mind can do it. This is my claim, it is not appealing to the unknown.
Your claim that it isn't, is appealing to the unknown.
This claim is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence as the skeptoids say.
It is also not an argument from complexity either, as I will show in time, if we want to.

You are quite proficient at twisting words around, I have to admit. We also know wind can create patterns in nature that appear as if they came from a mind. But they clearly did not. Your claim is a direct appeal to the unknown. Read it again, it doesn't work without the word "KNOWN". You are basing that claim on a very limited sample size, as I mentioned. A claim like that about intelligence would require a much larger knowledge of the universe. It's an old argument, and I've debunked it before.


I submit that my claim will never be falsified.
And your claim will never be substantiated.

Your claim will be falsified as soon as scientists learn the origin of DNA. Until they do, you are just guessing and appealing to the unknown. My claim is that we do not know, therefor it is a fact based on our knowledge of science at this point in time.


That is all I will have to say to you at this point. I would very much like to talk about some rigorous testing though, you set the precedent. I'm saying let us look at the actual science behind your version of evolution. It will of course stray away from the cosmological argument. Do we want to do that?

I'd be down for that. Lets look at the actual science instead of making hasty conclusions about it.


You have only give your opinions and cliché mantra like excuses deflections and evasions. Sorry for being harsh. But really, Just pulling out god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, argument from complexity etc.. which are all patently false, mixed in with a lot of denial is not a discussion. At least one I don't want to have and why I don't post here very much.

My bad. I thought you were actually going to present objective evidence of ID. If that was not your intention, then my response was not appropriate, as I was responding and pointing out logical fallacies that go against the notion of objective evidence in favor of ID. If that is not your intention, then we have no disagreement. I asked you for objective evidence, next time just say you don't have it or that it's based on philosophy and we'll call it a day and make it easier on both of us.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Barcs
 





The Cambrian explosion was a 20 million + year process.

Cosmologically, it's the blink of an eye.
Why would they call it an explosion if it was relatively slow?
edit on 31-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Because evolution deniers constantly throw the term around as if it all suddenly emerged out of nowhere. I stated the fact of the matter. It wasn't exactly sudden. 20 million years is almost 3 times longer than it took for humans to evolve from ancient apes. Many people consider the human body and intelligence much more complex than the various lifeforms that evolved during the 'explosion'. Just giving some perspective, that's all.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Please explain how horizontal gene transfer goes against common descent.
Please explain how endosymbiosis goes against common descent.


Ok real quick, this is easy. No not going against common descent, it goes against modification with descent.


They arise blindly? What does that even mean? Making generalizations about evolution is not helping your case.


The blind watchmaker. Blind search amid the functionality landscape.


And I'm sure you've got the evidence to back this one up. You are delving back into hypothesis.


Yes there is evidence. More to come.


Do you understand what a straw man is? How does any of that go against common ancestry?


You have been arguing with creationists so long you are stuck in something like a pre packaged argument. I have said a few times I have no problem with the concept of a common ancestor it is the mechanism that are in question.


explaining how it goes against common descent or shows ID.


You can't read.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I'm asking you to explain your side in detail and you are responding with generalizations and one liners. I await your objective evidence. I'm not going to go back and forth and bicker about details that you yourself refuse to explain. I'm not treating you like a creationist. I'm treating you like somebody who is speculating about intelligent design, which is appropriate considering you haven't posted anything objective yet.

The topic is "Intelligent first cause: why it must exist"

I still would like to know why it MUST exist without the speculation, the appeals and the fallacies.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
If a creator wanted to create massive amounts of original, unique, individually controlled entities, is there a more intelligent way of achieving this goal then evolution? hypothetically of course, any ideas on how an intelligence can create without evoultion?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I think the problem is the term intelligence. Also how it is related to the human experience, of being able to move, and store information, and change our environment and selves. The universe itself may not be an intelligence such as this, being able to dodge material, and make moment to moment personal free decisions, and create what ever it likes (though.. it does all those things lol, everything we have ever known and will know will have been created by the universe).

But there is certainly something sophisticated about the universes laws and potentials and creativity and genius of its physical material and interactions. If a human intelligence was to design a universe I wonder if it could/would be more fundamentally intelligently designed then our universe is. Also biology in general, but the brain and consciousness specifically. These are things that serve a purpose, are great, supply awareness (something necessary for any being...worthy of being) and this dumb ole universe figured it out, many times over, with such an ingeniously stupid design, our supreme intelligence (millions and millions) cant even figure it out.

Everyone who fails to take a moment and take in the astonishment of existence and the size and scope and potential of the universe, those people easily accept the fact that this is normal and expected, the belief there is no intelligent design comes from themselves, it is a subject judgement either way. It is the objective truth funneled through our subjective experience and intellect, which provides us with our calculations of belief regarding the true nature of the universe, we cant truly come to an objective conclusion because we do not truly know the truth.

So if in reality and truth, an intelligence did create this universe, or if people who would never give the possibility of intelligent design the light of day, were existing in a different universe, or a number of different universes, all created by intelligence, but all having the same "lack of objective evidence/no God holding their hands", wouldnt they still hold the same acceptance that they existed, and nothing was responsible for them existing.

I would like to know hypothetically what an intelligent designer could have included in their creation, to let you know that it was designed intelligently? Would the laws of physics have to be super better? the speed of light faster? Better graphics and resolution?

Say we created a universe exactly like this one in every single way, and eventually intelligent life arose within it, even though we intelligently designed it, those intelligent minds arising within our creation, would have more logical beliefs by stating that the creation they existed within was not intelligently designed? Even though in reality they would be wrong?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Good to know, Ill be looking out for his next, and hopefully more technical, release.

I can see why some consider him to be a bit of a sensationalist. My takeaway was different- I considered his "sensationalism" to be enthusiasm for whatever it was he experienced. I don't take offense to the spiritual spin that he put on it. How could you not tap into a deeper more spiritual side of yourself after an event like that? Does that line of thinking make me religious? Not so. Should we demean his experience and render his story as evangelical and utter nonsense? Absolutely not. But atheists will be atheists I guess.... (How dare an atheist like Harris declare that this guy has an agenda!)

Regardless of what the critics say, I'm looking forward to delving deeper into this phenomena, because if there is some legitimacy to what these people are experiencing, which seems to be the case IMO, then it could provide us some important clues as to what other forces could be at work here.

I have a hard time dismissing something that so many different folks, from all walks of life, especially from different religious backgrounds (even atheists), have experienced with such vividness and clarity. And their stories are remarkably similar despite their different beliefs and upbringings.

Am I digging down the wrong rabbit hole? Maybe, maybe not.

We're all searching for the same answer, just taking different roads... and I think that consciousness is the large neon sign pointing us right to it...
edit on 31-5-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


If a human intelligence was to design a universe I wonder if it could/would be more fundamentally intelligently designed then our universe is.


Interesting question, and if you are a proponent of ID then you'd have to admit that our universe is pretty spot on in it's design features, otherwise we wouldn't be here typing to each other.

I would offer this, that we may very well be on the brink of what some term "The Singularity". It's an interesting concept summed up like this:


Many of the most recognized writers on the singularity, such as Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, define the concept in terms of the technological creation of superintelligence, and argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what a post-singularity would be like, due to the difficulty of imagining the intentions and capabilities of superintelligent entities.[5][6][9] The term "technological singularity" was originally coined by Vinge, who made an analogy between the breakdown in our ability to predict what would happen after the development of superintelligence and the breakdown of the predictive ability of modern physics at the space-time singularity beyond the event horizon of a black hole.[9]


Link

Super-intelligence, the merging of man and machine, driven by molecular nano-technology. We're already cloning human stem cells . We may soon create new types of humans if we haven't done so already...

My point is this... Aren't we technically mini (intelligent/conscious) universes? I mean we're composed of trillions and trillions of tiny cells all working in tandem. If we were to imagine earth as a cell in our body (or perhaps an atom may be the proper scale) and we lived on this earth and were looking out into the vastness of our bodies from our little earth cell (or atom), couldn't it appear like an infinitely immense universe? (not an entirely ground breaking thought, I realize)

So to get back to your question; could we design a more intelligent universe? I'd say the technical answer could very well be yes, depending on what kind of universe we're talking about.
edit on 31-5-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


What do I think of that bit of speculation? Horrendous. With obvious signs of condescenion and dismissal.

Comparing Eben Alexander to Depak Chopra? Seriously?
Not relevant him being a neuroscientist? Who could be more qualified?

Very transparent, geez you don't need to say much more than that. He should have the common deceny to face Dr Alexander. He is a coward.

I stand by my run away sir Robin!


Dr Alexander has dealt with those critiques, Yes reading the book helps.

Even his survival and recovery alone is a medical miracle.
Critics always attempt to fall back on that maybe a glimmer of activity is enough to account for a experience that is commonly described as more real than this reality or hyper real. With vivid memory recall. He should not have been able to even form memories. His brain was not in a dream state it was in a critical coma state! He is but one of thousands and thousands. They have been reported since the time of ancient Greece.

Ascent of the Blessed by Hieronymus Bosch in the year 1491.




Kids draw Near Death Experiences.


edit on 31-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
You are quite proficient at twisting words around, I have to admit. We also know wind can create patterns in nature that appear as if they came from a mind. But they clearly did not. Your claim is a direct appeal to the unknown. Read it again, it doesn't work without the word "KNOWN". You are basing that claim on a very limited sample size, as I mentioned. A claim like that about intelligence would require a much larger knowledge of the universe. It's an old argument, and I've debunked it before.

The fact the you equate wind erosion to specified functional prescriptive and descriptive information, code and semantics proves that you do not understand the argument at all and all your posts are for nothing. You can't argue against something you don't understand.

Saying the word known is required because if I were to claim an absolute that would not be scientific would it? You would then be criticising me for making an unsubstantiated claim. Ha-ha.

It most certainly does not require a larger knowledge of the universe at all, it is quite self evident. What limited sample size? A code absolutely any and every code. What are you talking about? Semiosis exists in all life from translation through to the way the organism gathers and reacts to information in the environment there are literally hundreds of biological codes potentially thousands. You are fooling yourself claiming you have debunked what you do not understand. That is the same as saying you have solved the mystery of life. You could bring down Id in one swoop. You seem to be having delusions Barcs. Just stating the facts sorry to be rude.


Your claim will be falsified as soon as scientists learn the origin of DNA. Until they do, you are just guessing and appealing to the unknown. My claim is that we do not know, therefor it is a fact based on our knowledge of science at this point in time.


You have taken my words for yourself and shuffled them around in a fruitless way. We don't know with absolute certainty true. I have spoken about this and what I have been saying all along science does not deal in absolutes. Starting with Godels incompleteness theorem. We don't know for certain there are not pink unicorns either. And yes it is falsifiable as you state, it is scientific.

Another fact is that we do know of a cause that can produce the phenomena in question. And if you understood the problem you would see is that what you are saying is possible is that the four fundamental forces of nature can create a type of language, semantic and mathematic. That is absurd. equivalent to a pink unicorn. As it stands it remains the best and only casual cause for the phenomena in question.


I'd be down for that. Lets look at the actual science instead of making hasty conclusions about it.


You haven't so far. In fact you can not debunk this because You will not find an answer beyond mind anywhere online or else where, it does not exist.


My bad. I thought you were actually going to present objective evidence of ID. If that was not your intention, then my response was not appropriate, as I was responding and pointing out logical fallacies that go against the notion of objective evidence in favor of ID.


It is objective evidence, did you watch the video beyond 7 minutes? You did not grasp any of it if you did. My logical fallacies? At least when I have pointed out fallacies I have explained why they are. You have just pulled them out of you bag of excuses to deflect away from the issues or because you don't understand, as your post reveals.

It is not a gaps argument or an argument of ignorance or any of the other baseless cut and paste excuses. it is based on what we do know can cause the effect in question and why chance and necessity can not. It is self evident. It is falsifiable as you mention. No amount of chemistry or physics can do it. Because it is not chemistry or physics. What does that leave you with? These are facts. Like it or not.

Yep, the argument a empirical one based on facts. Compared to the null hypothesis which is self evidently resistant to materialism and hangs in the complete unknown. BECAUSE SEMIOSIS IS NOT PHYSICS. We have intangible information and intangible formal controls, you can not physically touch them. Rocks do not speak to each other. This requires no greater understanding of the universe beyond information. We already understand it. It is essentially the same way we transfer digital information. It is the same way we would determine an intelligent signal from the stars. In fact if the very same signal was coming from the stars, plans. Separate meaning above that of the medium carrying it, there would be no hesitation to assume a intelligent source.

DIGITAL CODE = POSITIVE EVIDENCE.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by squiz
 


I'm asking you to explain your side in detail and you are responding with generalizations and one liners. I await your objective evidence. I'm not going to go back and forth and bicker about details that you yourself refuse to explain. I'm not treating you like a creationist. I'm treating you like somebody who is speculating about intelligent design, which is appropriate considering you haven't posted anything objective yet.
.
The topic is "Intelligent first cause: why it must exist"

I still would like to know why it MUST exist without the speculation, the appeals and the fallacies.


Your mind or rather your brain won't let you see. Watch the Meyers video in full, he explains it much better than I do. Although I approach from a slightly different angle. Maybe even read a book or two. You clearly do not understand the concepts
.
There is no speculation in this case, detecting design does not mean identifying the designer. No appeals and no logical fallacies. These are just your deflective catch phrases. Why don't you try to explain to me what Meyers is actually saying? Let us see if you know what you are arguing against, because I don't think you do.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
BTW. All we have is speculation up to and including the first cell.

Blind evolution breaks down at the fundamental level of the protein. The combinatorial explosion is an unimaginable large number requiring more time and larger populations than have ever existed to produce even one single modest protein. This has been put to the test. And has been a serious concern for decades that has become very real.

The whole thing collapses here.

The other thing is singleton proteins, they have no known homology they sit in a family by themselves and are present in pretty much every species. The Cambrian would have required millions of new proteins.

Watch Meyers video, no reasonable person can deny the validity. The man is quite brilliant.

Till tomorrow.


Funny you mentioned this i was reading about computer simulations a while back about this. they were explaining in the 90s they used mathematics to explain protein evolution but the problem became the error values were just enormously high as we see above.With computer simulations this solved this problem because it shows the process not mathematical statistics. mathematical models of population genetics have largely failed to help us understand the distribution of gene frequencies in nature, because those models often make assumptions that are either incorrect or untestable.

So whoever this guy is he needs to get with his colleagues hes stuck in the 90s



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

Very well pointed out.


You often hear (Old Earth) creationists assert that there hasn't been enough time since the cooling of the Earth to allow random mutation and natural selection to produce the multiplication and diversity of biological forms we see today. That would probably be true if the selection was from truly random variations, which is how those early computer models of the process were set up.

However, as long as the surrounding environment remains reasonably stable, selection in every generation will be from forms of ever-greater average fitness. Natural selection starts by picking the best of a bad lot and letting them multiply, then picks the best from the resulting lot and lets them multiply, and so on down the generations. Every generation is fitter than the last; the adaptation of forms to conditions grows ever more perfect. Then along comes a change of climate, a natural disaster or the depletion of a favourite food source, and the whole cycle begins again.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Funny you mentioned this i was reading about computer simulations a while back about this. they were explaining in the 90s they used mathematics to explain protein evolution but the problem became the error values were just enormously high as we see above.With computer simulations this solved this problem because it shows the process not mathematical statistics. mathematical models of population genetics have largely failed to help us understand the distribution of gene frequencies in nature, because those models often make assumptions that are either incorrect or untestable.

So whoever this guy is he needs to get with his colleagues hes stuck in the 90s


Nothing could be further from the truth. Are you telling me computer models don't rely on statistics? And what you are saying is that Darwinaian population genetics is bull. Well I would agree with that.

Make assumptions that are either incorrect or untestable? ...That is just dripping with irony.

And this completely skips over semiosis, but lets look at this shall we. Because we really can nail this thing at the level of a protein. If you had watched Meyers video you'd know there have been experiments testing this.

Computer simulations of 20 years ago when not nearly as many proteins had been sequenced stand at complete odds with the empirical evidence. What you are hand waving away remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in biology.

So yes let us look at some real evidence. I can post the actual papers but I doubt people are going to bother investing the time in them.

First let us get some background.
www.chemguide.co.uk...

The basics.


Making a shift from one enzyme to another.


What Darwin didn't know.


What does Doug Axe have to say to the critics?


I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical. Having followed this debate for some time now, and having made several experimental contributions to it, Ann and I have become convinced that none of the current naturalistic ideas about the origin of protein folds or the functional diversification of existing folds actually works in any general sense.

But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to see the evidence that might prove us wrong.


The last line is key.

Why accumulation can lead to instability.
Breaking proteins with mutations: threads and thresholds in evolution

Some confirmation of Doug Axe's work.
www.nature.com...

More with a good summary of many studies into the same problem. We can discuss some of the other studies mentioned in here.
vixra.org...

Did I mention this jumps over the semiosis problem? But anyway lets see if Blind evolution has really been rigorously tested and is up to the task instead of relying on just so stories like the above.
edit on 1-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
More problems discovered empirically. As in rigourous testing.


Wide spread epistasis has been found, the more beneficial mutations the more they work against each other resulting in overwhelming negative returns.

A Serious Problem for Darwinists: Epistasis Decreases Chances of Beneficial Mutations - Evolution News & Views
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Evolution News & Views

Even Darwinian population genetics shows unacceptable amounts of time for for just two mutations to work in combination. As mentioned in one of the clips.
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

Excuses and denial in 3...2....1....
edit on 1-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
More problems discovered empirically. As in rigourous testing.


Wide spread epistasis has been found, the more beneficial mutations the more they work against each other resulting in overwhelming negative returns.

A Serious Problem for Darwinists: Epistasis Decreases Chances of Beneficial Mutations - Evolution News & Views
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Evolution News & Views

Even Darwinian population genetics shows unacceptable amounts of time for for just two mutations to work in combination. As mentioned in one of the clips.
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

Excuses and denial in 3...2....1....
edit on 1-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Ok im not sure if your intentionally misleading people or you just dont understand yourself. Abiogenesis Is not a random process by any means. Its set up to all ways have the strongest survive with this you skip several bad combinations. The other thing thats misleading is Your assuming probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. Nature doesn't work that way it can try millions of combinations at the same time no one said it has to wait for the last one to finnish.Think in prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.And look at the laboratory they had to use the earths oceans thats a huge amount of space for all those experiments.

Now theres another catch you apear to be unaware the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.So wait a minute you mean just chemistry alone limits the number of possibilities funny how you neglected to mention that.

Now in Abiogenesis the molecules were probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.So wait where not trying to design a living organism at first we set the stage to do so. Small hurdles are easier your being misleading but trying to say its statistically impossible to go from here to here true without steps in between.

Your biologist is a creationist nut job go look it up online hes not a genius hes just hawking books to people who want to believe god created the universe gave up on the bible story and now trying to create a new creationist theory.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Ok im not sure if your intentionally misleading people or you just dont understand yourself. Abiogenesis Is not a random process by any means. Its set up to all ways have the strongest survive with this you skip several bad combinations.


Before you get on that high horse you should know this is not necessarily concerning abiogenesis. And there is no working theory of abiogenesis. What you describe is a complete unsubstantiated fabrication. A just so story. There is no Darwinian style evolution and selection before semiosis and the first rellicating cell. I am misleading people?



The other thing thats misleading is Your assuming probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. Nature doesn't work that way it can try millions of combinations at the same time no one said it has to wait for the last one to finnish.


This is completely false. You are the one making assumptions.



Think in prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.And look at the laboratory they had to use the earths oceans thats a huge amount of space for all those experiments.


It is not concerning abiogenesis, and your story has no basis in fact anyway.




Now theres another catch you apear to be unaware the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.So wait a minute you mean just chemistry alone limits the number of possibilities funny how you neglected to mention that.


Here's a basic thing that most school kids should know that you seem to be unaware of. That it is the sequence of DNA nucleotides that determine the sequence of amino acids in a protein. And the sequence of nucleotides is not determined by chemistry.



Now in Abiogenesis the molecules were probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.So wait where not trying to design a living organism at first we set the stage to do so. Small hurdles are easier your being misleading but trying to say its statistically impossible to go from here to here true without steps in between.


Once again this is not concerning abiogenesis and this is nothing but a fairy tale. Superstition as you might say. Didn't think we could resist falling back on just so stories. What happened to empirical science.



Your biologist is a creationist nut job go look it up online hes not a genius hes just hawking books to people who want to believe god created the universe gave up on the bible story and now trying to create a new creationist theory.


Ah and we cap off the erroneous understanding, complete lack of the basics and just so stories with the typical baseless slander. Good job.

So much for empirical evidence and not falling back on just so stories. And you forgot to mention the links I posted that come from the mainstream which are the majority of them. All except one actually.


edit on 1-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


DIGITAL CODE = speculation! There is no proof whatsoever that DNA uses an actual digital software code. Again, you are confusing 'appears like' or 'functions like' with 'is'. It's like how people say the human body is a machine. Sure, it functions like one but we all know that we aren't man made pieces of technology. You are appealing to ignorance, the assumption being that DNA code is a digital software code. I've already gone through Meyer's speculative work, I'm not doing it again. Youtube videos are not objective evidence. I'd rather see the science he is referencing so I don't waste a hour on that guy again. It's 100% irrelevant that all all known codes come from humans. Every fallacy I pointed out was valid and explained.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


So your throwing out Abiogenesis because it explains all the things you say cant be explained. wow in science you dont set a goal and try to prove it this is the problem you let science lead you with facts peace those together and you get a theory. Science doesnt start with a presumption this leads you to cherry pick facts like you have been doing. So your out right dismissal just confirms your not seeking the truth or even debate on the facts. Your simple clouding an issue with what some website told you is true.

All your facts are based off a book Science and Human Origins this book has been destroyed by the scientific community for those that do not no a little back ground history.The book claims that humans dont share a common ancestor. And because we are intelligent we could not have evolved but were created to be so.Heres a question i have why do you feel the need to try to prove through science that god created adam and eve when by the very nature of god he can do whatever he wants and didnt require science?

Since i know we lost several people with this lets watch a video



One more question we discovered mars does indeed or more likely did have life. How do you explain this did god just decide to create some microbes on mars because he was bored?


edit on 6/1/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
18
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join