Conversations with a dying Creationist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2018, 04:19 AM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(02-02-2018 08:10 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  DNA proves it.

DNA proves God exists. It is too complex to have come into existence by chance.

> Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

> There are, in fact, several viable abiogenesis hypotheses. There are presently no viable hypotheses for the existence of God(s).

References:

1. Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
2. Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
3. Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
4. Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
5. Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
6. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflif...ticles.htm
7. Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/as...tuffof.jsp

Further Reading:
RESA. n.d. Origins of life. http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Wächtershäuser, Günter. 2000. Life as we don't know it. Science 289: 1307-1308.

Deamer, D. W. and J. Ferris. 1999. The origins and early evolution of life. [the table of contents of the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere and related information] http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Gwaithmir's post
03-02-2018, 06:13 AM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(02-02-2018 08:10 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  DNA proves it.

DNA proves God exists. It is too complex to have come into existence by chance.
Döner proves god exists. Too tasty to have been cooked by mere humans.
[Image: D%C3%B6ner-Krankenhaus-1024x683.jpg]

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
03-02-2018, 06:19 AM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(03-02-2018 06:13 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 08:10 AM)theophilus Wrote:  DNA proves God exists. It is too complex to have come into existence by chance.
Döner proves god exists. Too tasty to have been cooked by mere humans.
[Image: D%C3%B6ner-Krankenhaus-1024x683.jpg]

That looks like a scene from The Little Shop of Horrors
[Image: little-shop-of-horrors-watching-videoSix...600-v2.jpg]

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
03-02-2018, 03:48 PM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(02-02-2018 08:10 AM)theophilus Wrote:  DNA proves God exists. It is too complex to have come into existence by chance.

It can't be all that complex. It makes itself without any human intervention every time a cell divides. The process isn't perfect and that helps to explain the process of evolution. Imperfections in DNA are also the source of many horrible genetic diseases. I doubt that a truly intelligent designer couldn't have come up with something better. Check out XNA for starters.

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2018, 12:07 PM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(03-02-2018 03:48 PM)brunumb Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 08:10 AM)theophilus Wrote:  DNA proves God exists. It is too complex to have come into existence by chance.

It can't be all that complex. It makes itself without any human intervention every time a cell divides. The process isn't perfect and that helps to explain the process of evolution. Imperfections in DNA are also the source of many horrible genetic diseases. I doubt that a truly intelligent designer couldn't have come up with something better. Check out XNA for starters.

The bible explains humans were created from clay in a day without any DNA replication. It's so pretentious when believers just infer all of this ID stuff into their book of ignorance, when it is clearly not in there as well as ignoring the blatant theological problems that an ID god creates for them. Their god's entire creative capability is predicated on a messy biological process that works because of it's imperfect replication as well as creating suffering, death and disease due to this imperfect process. A mindless process that clearly does not regard humans as anything special, a bacterium, virus or worm has the exact same mindless process churning away inside them.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
04-02-2018, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2018 06:22 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(02-02-2018 08:10 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  DNA proves it.

DNA proves God exists. It is too complex to have come into existence by chance.

BS. "Too complex" is nothing but a subjective judgement from someone who has no clue how replication happens. You have no standard : "With "X" amount of complexity, a system requires a god. With less than "Y" complexity, no god is required. Face facts, dumbass. There is NO amount of complexity which you would accept, as occuring without your gods.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2018, 09:52 PM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(01-02-2018 08:33 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(31-01-2018 10:26 AM)unfogged Wrote:  They aren't opposites. Natural selection is the process that directs evolution. The derivation of dogs from wolves is an example of artificial selection which takes the tool of natural selection and applies it with intention.

Natural selection takes place when some characteristics are eliminated so that others can be emphasized.

No, that is utterly incorrect. Natural selection is the differential survival of individual organisms due to some genetically based attribute(s). There is no 'emphasizing'. Facepalm
It is purely mechanistic and statistical. Genes that provide beneficial characteristics will tend to spread through succeeding generations, while those that do not (or provide deleterious ones) will tend to become rare or be eliminated.

Quote:All of the genes found in all kinds of dogs exist in wolves.

No, they don't. Dogs are a different species than wolves and, while sharing most genes, do not share all.

Quote:Each breed of dog retains only a small part of that genetic information.

What does that even mean? Consider

Quote:Evolution requires that organisms develop new information that isn't found in any of their ancestors.

No, it does not. It may only require a different mix of existing alleles. New information comes from mutations and from combining or separating chromosomes.

Quote:Natural selection is the opposite of evolution.

No, natural selection is the major driving mechanism of evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
05-02-2018, 06:23 AM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(04-02-2018 09:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 08:33 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Natural selection takes place when some characteristics are eliminated so that others can be emphasized.

No, that is utterly incorrect. Natural selection is the differential survival of individual organisms due to some genetically based attribute(s). There is no 'emphasizing'. Facepalm
It is purely mechanistic and statistical. Genes that provide beneficial characteristics will tend to spread through succeeding generations, while those that do not (or provide deleterious ones) will tend to become rare or be eliminated.

Quote:All of the genes found in all kinds of dogs exist in wolves.

No, they don't. Dogs are a different species than wolves and, while sharing most genes, do not share all.

Quote:Each breed of dog retains only a small part of that genetic information.

What does that even mean? Consider

Quote:Evolution requires that organisms develop new information that isn't found in any of their ancestors.

No, it does not. It may only require a different mix of existing alleles. New information comes from mutations and from combining or separating chromosomes.

Quote:Natural selection is the opposite of evolution.

No, natural selection is the major driving mechanism of evolution.

Once again, he proves he has no clue how evolution works, (therefore insert a gawd).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2018, 08:28 AM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(02-02-2018 08:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @ theophilus - dude, stop hijacking a thread asking for personal advice and turning it into an evolution discussion. Go start you own thread.

I'm not hijacking the thread. Grejens asked for advice and I advised him to consider the possibility that what his friend said was right.

(04-02-2018 09:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, that is utterly incorrect. Natural selection is the differential survival of individual organisms due to some genetically based attribute(s). There is no 'emphasizing'. Facepalm
It is purely mechanistic and statistical. Genes that provide beneficial characteristics will tend to spread through succeeding generations, while those that do not (or provide deleterious ones) will tend to become rare or be eliminated.

Natural selection determines which genes survive. It provides no explanation as to how those genes came to exist in the first place and it can't provide any genetic information that didn't already exist. It has nothing whatever to do with evolution.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Charles Darwin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2018, 11:07 AM
RE: Conversations with a dying Creationist
(06-02-2018 08:28 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Natural selection determines which genes survive. It provides no explanation as to how those genes came to exist in the first place and it can't provide any genetic information that didn't already exist. It has nothing whatever to do with evolution.
Reading, dude it helps. However what we cant help you with is:
#1 dishonesty
#2 (beyond a certian limit) stupidity

Mutation provides genetical changes (thats the random part, for all mentally challenged reading this), natural selection filters out (thats the non-random part, because environment systematically filters out how many individuals with a certain mutation "a" survive and how many with mutation "b"). Random mutation in combination with natural selection is called "evolution". What is so difficult about this concept that it has to be explained literally a gazzillion times and you still (pretend to) dont get it? Consider

Its like making coffe:
Random mutation provides coffe (random brand), the filter (environment) determines how much passes into your cup. By this comparison you are literally too stupid to understand how to brew coffee. Facepalm

Wiki Wrote:In biology, a mutation is the permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.

Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome. When mutations occur, they may alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning, or have no effect. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.

The weakly beneficial part (amongst other things like fucking mass extinctions) is why it took 3,5bio years and not 6k. Rolleyes

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: