The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: neoholographic

Those questions were answered. You ignored them.

a reply to: neoholographic

This troll thread still going?

These creationists are a sad lot, getting paid to sit around all day and see all this evidence and try to refute it with your little delusions…

Careful Icarus, you break you faith.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: QuinnP
a reply to: Barcs

I've been reading your posts too long to take you seriously. You don't know that much. And at the same time you think you know so much. Your closed mind, while pleasing to ATS and its moderators is not very impressive beyond.

Good points and they couldn't answer simple questions about a TATA or CAATA box.

They know they can't and they won't.

But they did think about it.

So you made them think about their error.

a reply to: flyingfish
Try page 7 if it's getting too boring for ye now.

a reply to: peter vlar

First off, I know Yockey is an atheist and unlike you guys, I can quote atheist and Creationst when articulating an argument. As soon as you guys see Creationist, you shut down and stop thinking. When I posted something from a Creationist website, you guys spent two pages talking about a Creationist website instead of debating what was said.

Again, I'm not closed minded, so I can read things from both atheist and Creationist. Yockey acknowledges the Primary Axiom and as an athiest I expect him to have faith in his belief. Yockey even says atheism is a belief:

Theism and atheism both are irrelevant to science because they address problems of faith and belief.

I noticed you forgot to quote this part. Of course atheism is a belief but sadly atheist use evolution as a holy sacrament.

Secondly, Yockey admits in that same brief, that the origin of life or infrmation in the genome has to be an axiom of biology.

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT DR. SANFORD SAID IN MY OP!

Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

www.uncommondescent.com...

Here's what Yockey said:

Evolution and the origin of life are two separate problems. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established in science. However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

He said this:

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

This is the ballgame and it's exactly why I quoted Yockey. Yockey is an atheist but Yockey can't deny the truth. He's saying, the origin of life is unknowable through Science. He says it's unknowable because CHANCE AND SELF ORGANIZATION THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID!

I AGREE!!

He says this because there's zero evidence that nature can encode sequences of DNA with information and also make the machinery to decode this information. As an atheist, he says we can't know these things scientifically but what he means is, we can't know these things scientifically because materialism can't answer these questions so it has to be an axiom.

Exactly what Dr. Sanford said.

You can't separate the origin of life and evolution. I understand why Yockey wants to. It's because he has found a encoding/decoding system that can't be answered scientifically in a materialist manner. The only thing that "evolves" is organisms that come from this intelligently designed coding/decoding mechanism that Yockey admits is unknowable by the science of materialism.

originally posted by: QuinnP
a reply to: Barcs

I've been reading your posts too long to take you seriously. You don't know that much. And at the same time you think you know so much. Your closed mind, while pleasing to ATS and its moderators is not very impressive beyond.

My mind is far from closed, my friend. I don't claim to be an expert or authority on anything, however I do understand evolution. I'm always willing to change my position if evidence can be presented to suggest otherwise. Thus far I haven't seen it. Evidence I posted is ignored every time in virtually every anti evolution thread in here. My mind isn't closed, it's biased towards evidence. Appeals to ignorance are not evidence.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well first you seem confused evolution doesn't explain anything about how we got here its more like marking the journey. Science doesn't tell us how life was started we have a couple of theories but at least for now nothing has been ruled out. So even creation is still on the table. What science has shown is that all life on earthe has evolved from earlier species.

Anyone in genetics knows we can't deny evolution we see it in our DNA. Here let me give you an example. A human had about 3 billion base pairs in our DNA. Think of this as instructions for protein synthesis. Each protein instructs cells to act differently. So if I was to sample your DNA and both your parents I would find that 70 base pairs are different. If I had your sample and that of your great great grandfather I would find you have 210 base pairs different. Using this we can determine when chimpanzees anf humans had thr same ancestor since 99.9 percent of their DNA is the same. The answer came out to 6 million years if interested. The other thing DNA has what's called scars thus basically amounts to a huge block change in DNA sequences. We can use these as well to date meaning we can see in out code and that of other species these huge rewrites of DNA sequence. Take any species on the planet and humans will have some matching scars of redundant DNA strands. I will say from a genetic standpoint if their was a creator he was a very poor programmer junk DNA strands are all over in our genetic code. It be like you wanting to write a book for publication and inserting war and peace into your wrighting. The story would make little sense and you would have a really really big book.

Now there is other things we have found through DNA study such as synonyms which allows us to see changes that occurred in a species etc but you could write a book on this and many have. Now genetics aside we also see changes in fossil records you can attempt to deny it but it's just silly to do so. Then theread is lab work were we can actually watch evolution in progress Now reading through your posts you so badly want to tie evolution and creationism together as competing theories they are no such thing. In fact you can believe in evolution and creation since evolution tells us nothing about how life started or why.

As far as ambiogenisis science has found nothing yet showing that it happened and science can't prove it did or didn't at least not yet.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar

First off, I know Yockey is an atheist and unlike you guys, I can quote atheist and Creationst when articulating an argument. As soon as you guys see Creationist, you shut down and stop thinking. When I posted something from a Creationist website, you guys spent two pages talking about a Creationist website instead of debating what was said.

Again, I'm not closed minded, so I can read things from both atheist and Creationist. Yockey acknowledges the Primary Axiom and as an athiest I expect him to have faith in his belief. Yockey even says atheism is a belief:

Theism and atheism both are irrelevant to science because they address problems of faith and belief.

I noticed you forgot to quote this part. Of course atheism is a belief but sadly atheist use evolution as a holy sacrament.

Secondly, Yockey admits in that same brief, that the origin of life or infrmation in the genome has to be an axiom of biology.

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT DR. SANFORD SAID IN MY OP!

Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

www.uncommondescent.com...

Here's what Yockey said:

Evolution and the origin of life are two separate problems. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established in science. However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

He said this:

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

This is the ballgame and it's exactly why I quoted Yockey. Yockey is an atheist but Yockey can't deny the truth. He's saying, the origin of life is unknowable through Science. He says it's unknowable because CHANCE AND SELF ORGANIZATION THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID!

I AGREE!!

He says this because there's zero evidence that nature can encode sequences of DNA with information and also make the machinery to decode this information. As an atheist, he says we can't know these things scientifically but what he means is, we can't know these things scientifically because materialism can't answer these questions so it has to be an axiom.

Exactly what Dr. Sanford said.

You can't separate the origin of life and evolution. I understand why Yockey wants to. It's because he has found a encoding/decoding system that can't be answered scientifically in a materialist manner. The only thing that "evolves" is organisms that come from this intelligently designed coding/decoding mechanism that Yockey admits is unknowable by the science of materialism.

That doesn't read like a research paper. That reads like a diary entry. You mistake the ramblings of one man for the consensus of a community. Journalism is not science and nothing you quoted is proof of anything except that he once said that stuff.

a reply to: Phantom423

However, if the mutation is present in a broad population

Wait a minute. How did the mutation become 'present in a broad population'?

It started in ONE individual, and propagated through that individual's progeny. Yes that is how biology works.

and is persistent

Wait another minute. How did it become persistent? What does persistence mean in this context?

It means that the mutation either helped the mutated organism or it was neutral in its effect. If it had hindered the organism's reproduction capability it would not have remained in the gene pool. In other words persistence means that natural selection did not filter it out.

, then there's a possibility that it could become part of the germline and therefore a permanent mutation

Wait, wait, wait. You already said that it is in a significant portion of the population and it is persistent. That means, by definition, that your mutation is 'part of the germline' and therefore a permanent mutation.

So you are agreeing 100% with the basic principles of Evolution.

It is really a pleasure to know that our humble efforts have enabled you to see the light.

Thank you and welcome to the 'Light Side'.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Phantom423

However, if the mutation is present in a broad population

Wait a minute. How did the mutation become 'present in a broad population'?

It started in ONE individual, and propagated through that individual's progeny. Yes that is how biology works.

and is persistent

Wait another minute. How did it become persistent? What does persistence mean in this context?

It means that the mutation either helped the mutated organism or it was neutral in its effect. If it had hindered the organism's reproduction capability it would not have remained in the gene pool. In other words persistence means that natural selection did not filter it out.

, then there's a possibility that it could become part of the germline and therefore a permanent mutation

Wait, wait, wait. You already said that it is in a significant portion of the population and it is persistent. That means, by definition, that your mutation is 'part of the germline' and therefore a permanent mutation.

So you are agreeing 100% with the basic principles of Evolution.

It is really a pleasure to know that our humble efforts have enabled you to see the light.

Thank you and welcome to the 'Light Side'.

You really are exaggerating my post. And yes, I do agree with the basic principles of evolution.

"multicellular organisms with dedicated reproductive cells, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to descendants through their reproductive cells, and somatic mutations (also called acquired mutations),[69] which involve cells outside the dedicated reproductive group and which are not usually transmitted to descendants."
en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to learn molecular biology, buy a book or take a course. I'm not a molecular biologist but I can read and comprehend what I'm reading.

If I made an error, then I'm more than happy to be corrected by anyone on this board who is a molecular biologist or geneticist.

a reply to: Phantom423

Why are you trying to walk back from your enlightenment?

and somatic mutations (also called acquired mutations),[69] which involve cells outside the dedicated reproductive group and which are not usually transmitted to descendants."

Correct. For example Cancer is not a somatic mutation and not a player in evolution because it is not genetically transmitted. Of course if the cancer was transmitted in the father's semen to the child, then it might be, but natural selection would take that particular cancer out of the gene pool soon enough.

But you specifically said that the mutation was already in a 'broad population'. That means it started in an individual and spread in the population via reproduction. That specifically rules out the possibility of a somatic mutation because mutations happen to individuals and, if they are to spread to the 'broader population' then it must be genetically transmitted to following generations.

Sure, it is possible that there are conceivable paths for many individuals in the same generation to be struck by the same mutation - I can conceive of a disease that strikes a population doing that. But that mutation is still subject to natural selection, either it helps the individuals reproduce or it hinders their reproduction or it has no effect. Disease caused mutation would usually, in my opinion, be very beneficial and would soon be eliminated from the gene pool.

It is specifically this process that defines evolution: broad scale changes in a population over time, where time is defined as generations.

Thank you for your suggestion about learning about molecular biology, one can never know enough about any sufficiently complex subject, but if I want to learn more about it than I do already, I have a very good understanding about how to go about it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yockey even says atheism is a belief:

"Theism and atheism both are irrelevant to science because they address problems of faith and belief."

I am curious about what part of that sentence you failed to understand?

Yockey didn't say atheism was a belief. He said the ideas of Theism and of Atheism are irrelevant because they are points on a continuum that has to do with faith and belief. Science is nowhere on that continuum, so the concepts are irrelevant.

You seem to be making the mistake that those who understand Evolution, and Scientists in general are, perforce Atheists. Besides being trivially untrue, your own source, Yockey is telling you that the dichotomy you see is non-existent and irrelevant.

By the way, Atheism is NOT a belief - it is lack of belief (And for the purposes he is addressing, Yockey doesn't care one way or the other - it is irrelevant to science).

I tell people all the time that at least their worthless lottery tickets won zero and that has to be better than nothing, right? At least they know that its a joke. But you aren't joking are you? You think that somehow or the other zero really is better than nothing - lack of belief is actually belief.

a reply to: rnaa

For example Cancer is not a somatic mutation and not a player in evolution because it is not genetically transmitted.

How about BRCA1 and 2? That's an inherited gene.

Regarding broad population, I didn't mean to suggest that one person spread a specific mutation. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that in some populations, particularly ones that tend to interbreed, genes like BRCA1 and 2 become more prevalent. Rereading my post, I can see how it was misinterpreted. I was actually thinking of a BRCA-like situation.

If you're a molecular biologist, or anyone else on the board is, I have a question for you: taking the BRCA gene as an example, did the first person who had the mutation automatically develop it in the germline so that it was immediately inheritable? Or does the mutation occur in the somatic cells and then move to the germline i.e. crossover to become inheritable?

a reply to: neoholographic

I still don't think they understand your argument. Great point regarding them being incapable of understanding the other perspective, whereas we can always empathize with their perspective.

I was thinking about the brain this weekend and the intricate circuitry involved in the organization of this immensely complex organic computer... Realizing the impossibility of self-assembly being involved in its creation. Even us intelligent beings fail to completely understand the intelligence involved in the structure and function of the nervous system.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: neoholographic

I still don't think they understand your argument. Great point regarding them being incapable of understanding the other perspective, whereas we can always empathize with their perspective.

I was thinking about the brain this weekend and the intricate circuitry involved in the organization of this immensely complex organic computer... Realizing the impossibility of self-assembly being involved in its creation. Even us intelligent beings fail to completely understand the intelligence involved in the structure and function of the nervous system.

Self-assembly is an intrinsic aspect of chemistry, else there would be no molecules of any kind. All molecules seek the lowest energy state, and if combining yields a lower energy state than being separate, two atoms or molecules will combine spontaneously. Even when this is not the case, in the presence of external energy sources and catalysts, atoms and molecules may still combine, as long as the overall energy state (i.e. the total energy state of the sources and recipients combined) ends up lower. All of the organic molecules (amino acids, phosphates, lipids, etc) present in a cell have been demonstrated to spontaneously assemble, given the right conditions. Some have been discovered on meteors, indicating they can form in space. Even complex protein precursors such as polypeptides (strings of amino acids) have been demonstrated to spontaneously assemble in the right conditions.

So this is not a discussion of whether random atoms can combine to form a protein. This is a discussion of whether or not polypeptides (already demonstrated to spontaneously assemble from amino acids, which have been demonstrated to spontaneously assemble from molecules, which spontaneously assemble from individual atoms) can randomly assemble to form a protein. And while the answer is currently "no, this has not been demonstrated", it is nowhere near as unlikely as CMI is attempting to suggest. As current belief is that life emerged around 500 million years after the Earth was formed, this seems like plenty of time for a protein to spontaneously form.

So the claim is, even assuming the "supposed evolutionary age of the universe" (i.e. 13.8 billion years), functional proteins emerging from a primordial soup is so improbable that the only acceptable explanation is to assume a designer (goddidit). This is fundamentally an argument from ignorance premised on CMI's refusal or inability to honestly consider the evidence and likely explanations. It is also predicated on the logically unsound premise that highly improbable events do not occur, which is known to be false. Just because the odds of something occurring are too small for a creationist to conceive of they are not therefore zero. Improbable things happen all the time. People get struck by lightning. Someone will eventually win the lottery. Proteins are highly likely to form, given enough time.

rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yockey even says atheism is a belief:

"Theism and atheism both are irrelevant to science because they address problems of faith and belief."

I am curious about what part of that sentence you failed to understand?

Yockey didn't say atheism was a belief. He said the ideas of Theism and of Atheism are irrelevant because they are points on a continuum that has to do with faith and belief. Science is nowhere on that continuum, so the concepts are irrelevant.

You seem to be making the mistake that those who understand Evolution, and Scientists in general are, perforce Atheists. Besides being trivially untrue, your own source, Yockey is telling you that the dichotomy you see is non-existent and irrelevant.

By the way, Atheism is NOT a belief - it is lack of belief (And for the purposes he is addressing, Yockey doesn't care one way or the other - it is irrelevant to science).

I tell people all the time that at least their worthless lottery tickets won zero and that has to be better than nothing, right? At least they know that its a joke. But you aren't joking are you? You think that somehow or the other zero really is better than nothing - lack of belief is actually belief.

you are responding to a quote that i was addressing. i was not quoting myself. but i do agree, bald is not a hair color.

originally posted by: Barcs
Okay, so just to get this straight. You no longer consider evolution a lie? If this is the case, then yes I was off topic, although I could have sworn that statement was in the title. If you do still consider it a lie, you are going to need to define "evolution" and explain what exactly the lie is. "You can't answer question XYZ" isn't evidence against it for reasons I've already explained.

Notice how the OP selectively ignores posts that prove him wrong? It's getting a bit old now. Every time we ASK the OP a question or ask him to better explain his position, he doesn't even address it. I already know for a fact, that he'll be back to parroting "Evolution has no evidence" or "Evolution is a lie", something that has been conclusively debunked in this thread. This guy is definitely a troll. He thinks that not knowing everything about everything about DNA origins proves evolution wrong, which is one of the most absurd claims ever made.

If evolution is impossible without intelligence, why is it you can't answer a single question about this intelligent designer? It's a hypocritical double standard. He asks a loaded question about DNA origins that barely even makes sense in the context he's claiming, and thinks because we can't answer it, it proves evolution wrong. If that's the case, why doesn't his inability to answer our questions about the designer proof that ID is wrong?

If you want to believe in an intelligent designer, I have no problem with that. It's just that your methods for determining the validity of evolution and necessity of design are flat out illogical.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, I'm not closed minded, so I can read things from both atheist and Creationist. Yockey acknowledges the Primary Axiom and as an athiest I expect him to have faith in his belief. Yockey even says atheism is a belief:

Theism and atheism both are irrelevant to science because they address problems of faith and belief.

You refuse to read any evidence that counters your claim of evolution being a lie (something you still haven't even explained). YOU are the one arguing that evolution is atheistic, personal beliefs are irrelevant with evolution and other fields of science because it's based on scientific data and research.

I noticed you forgot to quote this part. Of course atheism is a belief but sadly atheist use evolution as a holy sacrament.

Then why do 50% of scientists believe in god? Sorry, your claim is unfounded, once again. In your paragraph above you argued that theism and atheism are irrelevant to science, yet here you are pigeonholing atheism and evolution as one and the same. Just stop with the dishonesty already.

www.uncommondescent.com...

Hey look, another unbiased, non creationist website with REAL science! NOT!

Evolution and the origin of life are two separate problems. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established in science. However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

Then why are you arguing against evolution? He just clearly explained how the origin of life is not the same as evolution itself.

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

Wrong. They aren't proven. They are indeed valid as numerous experiments can show parts of the process and no evidence has countered them as of yet.

This is the ballgame and it's exactly why I quoted Yockey. Yockey is an atheist but Yockey can't deny the truth. He's saying, the origin of life is unknowable through Science. He says it's unknowable because CHANCE AND SELF ORGANIZATION THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID!

LMAO. You are one of the most dishonest people I've ever dealt with on here. You think a quote mine or opinion proves something when you are arguing against what he says. Science doesn't know the answer, that doesn't mean it's completely unknowable and science will never figure it out.

He says this because there's zero evidence that nature can encode sequences of DNA with information and also make the machinery to decode this information.

There is also zero evidence that a higher intelligence designed DNA, so we are stuck on not knowing the complete answer. The problem is you won't admit you don't know, you take the lazy approach and just keep attributing anything we can't fully explain in science to ID.

As an atheist, he says we can't know these things scientifically but what he means is, we can't know these things scientifically because materialism can't answer these questions so it has to be an axiom.

So what are you arguing against? It changes in every post. First you say evolution is a lie, then you say that evolution is proven but DNA features require evolution and intelligence. If you are just arguing against materialism, you need to clarify this instead screaming about evolution. Nobody claims that atheism is a fact or that materialism is a fact. In fact most people will admit we don't know the answer as to whether or not there is a god.

You can't separate the origin of life and evolution. I understand why Yockey wants to. It's because he has found a encoding/decoding system that can't be answered scientifically in a materialist manner. The only thing that "evolves" is organisms that come from this intelligently designed coding/decoding mechanism that Yockey admits is unknowable by the science of materialism.

LMAO. You just argued against that very point, promoting an atheist's view of science because he offers his opinon on one thing you agree with but now you are suddenly saying he's wrong. Which is it? Origin of life and evolution via genetic mutations and natural selection are not the same thing. I understand why YOU want it to be that way. You obviously HATE the idea of common ancestry, but can't argue against it, so you move the goal posts and ask about DNA origins, which is not the same thing as common ancestry. Why can't you understand this very basic point?

a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you don't understand information theory and why Yockey is making this claim. Again, this isn't my claim it's coming from the atheist Yockey. Who is Hubert Yockey?

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

cosmicfingerprints.com...

Yockey realizes that information theory destroys any chance of this encoding/decoding system in DNA can arise by chance or self organization.

Evolution and the origin of life are two separate problems. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established in science. However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

When he wrote a blurb for a book, he said CHANCE AND SELF ORGANIZATION THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ARE INVALID!!

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

Again, that's the ballgame. Here's some images Yockey provides.





This isn't just my claim, this is also the claim of the atheist Yockey. It's exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread and it's exactly what Dr. Sanford said about the Primary Axiom.

There's NO WAY life or an encoding/decoding system that encodes sequences of DNA with information and also makes the machinery to decode this information can be constructed through chance and self organization!

Yockey's an atheist who says, we need to stop thinking at that point and just say it's an axiom, those who support intelligent design keep thinking because the answer Yockey and other atheist are scared of is intelligence. So he's saying bury your head in the sand an accept this axiom even though there no way chance and self organization can explain these things.

I suggest you run to your Geneticist friend and get simple answers about a TATA or CAAT box before you walk into the deep end of the pool.

a reply to: neoholographic

HAHAHAHAHA priceless!

Has it ever occurred to you to cite scientific literature to support your ludicrous claims?

Evidently not.