Evolution - Yes again.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Can someone please read this information, and Yes, it's a creationist site, but it explains the  life-from-nothing / evolution theory and how it is flawed..

I understand most of what he is saying, and the arguments seem very logical to me, but, I have no way of knowing whether the Science he is quoting is correct or has subsequently been debunked.

I would appreciate if someone with a bit more knowledge in DNA / RNA / proteins / cell regeneration / cell division etc could advise me.

By the way, he also quotes Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale and how, with recent developments at least some of the assumptions that Dawkins makes are impossible.

Can we PLEASE see if we can keep this thread civil and on-topic.

There is a lot more info on this site too, but first can we look at and discuss:

http://creation.com/genetic-code-intelligence

http://creation.com/meta-information

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

From your first link:

Not only must the committed materialist believe that a code system spontaneously generated, they must also believe that a translation device specific to that exact code must also have “evolved” through natural causes! (The coded information in the DNA of living things is only useful when translated and expressed in specific structures and functions).

If that were the case then it implies that something which did not yet exist would have to to translate a code that would tell it how to exist before it was able to exist - which is obviously rubbish.

DNA is not a blueprint for something which does not yet exist it is a detailed diagram of something that alreadydoes exist.  When lightning hits a dead tree it creates a fire - not because some code is instructing it that that is what it should do but because lightning is very hot and dead trees are very dry and when very hot meets very dry the result is usually fire.

---

God's pretty complex right? Explain to me how God could exist without a intelligent creator.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

OK. I've read the first article and these are my thoughts.

First the 'priming the pump' analogy is not very apt beccause it assumes that the information has to be in the form of words. If the instructions had been pictorial then anyone who was not blind would have been able to understand them regardless of what language they spoke or wht culture they came from.. Also it refers to a sophisticated exchange of information between two sophisticated beings - which has nothing to do with evolution.

Secondly there is this: "Aside from the fact that no one has observed a code system spontaneously generating, it is even beyond our imagination to concoct a story of how matter could formulate a code." As I understand it (and I admit I am not a scientist) nobody in the scientific world has ever suggested that a code system spontaneuosly generated. It evolved along with everything else via cause and effect. 

---

priming the pump - even a pictorial image would dictate that the receiver of the message could understand the messagers intent. What O think he is saying that the 'code' of the sender must convey the message to the receiver - which would neccesitate them both being abole to understand the code.

spontaneous code system - if the code were not in a complete form immedately - the sender could not get the message over to the receiver - surely a partially evolved message system would only CONFUSE the receiver of the intended message - ie the message would most probably be misinterpreted. And in the scenario of messages being passed and received he is referring to dna code being passed between splitting cells, which as we know, when those dna codes are corrupted what do we get? Certainly not advancement - we get regression / deformity etc.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

From your first link:

Not only must the committed materialist believe that a code system spontaneously generated, they must also believe that a translation device specific to that exact code must also have “evolved” through natural causes! (The coded information in the DNA of living things is only useful when translated and expressed in specific structures and functions).

If that were the case then it implies that something which did not yet exist would have to to translate a code that would tell it how to exist before it was able to exist - which is obviously rubbish.

DNA is not a blueprint for something which does not yet exist it is a detailed diagram of something that alreadydoes exist.  When lightning hits a dead tree it creates a fire - not because some code is instructing it that that is what it should do but because lightning is very hot and dead trees are very dry and when very hot meets very dry the result is usually fire.

---

Exactly, DNA is a blueprint of an alreay existing DNA string so 1) where does the original DNA come from and 2) if the largest part of the double helix DNA, which is 80% instructions on what to do with the other 20% and that 80% (ie the instructions) is corrupted or only partially evolved - the instructions are meaningless or even worse destructive.

I think it points fairy reasonably to SIMULTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT of both Message and Instructions and NOT a gradual evolution of both - because with a gradual evolution the new cells would be in error and the splitting process would end - ie die out.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Bob:"What evidence could I possibly provide to someone who doesn't value evidence?"

 I value evidence - that's why I KEEP asking for some.

---

THere're evidence from, biology, genetics/phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, direct observation, biogeography, fossil records, embryology, geographical distribution etc etc. Which one of these isn't evidence?

 You can say that all you like, it still does show me any, does it?

Give me one evidence showing creationism to be true without saying the bible or the Koran says so.  I thought we were going to examine evidence outside of Bible/Koran etc.

Bagging evolution doesn't prove creationism. Bagging creation doesn't prove evolution either.

I'm willing to change my mind if you have a better theory that explains the evidence. Please explain to me what mechanism is proposed by Creationism apart from God did it.  As far as I can see there are only two - Abiogenesis+Evolution or God did it. Perhaps between us we can come up with a third option??

---

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Now, those two links are just a small subset f the main body of discussion so, for those interested here is the link:

http://creation.com/15-questions

as you will see each question has some detail and then a link to follow up on more detail. Happy reading.

[curmu-curmu]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

Perhaps between us we can come up with a third option??

---

 All hail the pastaferian prince!  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is alive and well - and caused all that we see to exist!

In homage to him, I'm having spaghetti bolognese for dinner - with lashings of parmesan!

(Actually, it was Matilda - the purple hippo who lives in my garage. No, you can't see her - she's invisible, but she told me that she created mankind and everything else!)

She's as real as any god!

---

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@curmu-curmu wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

Perhaps between us we can come up with a third option??

---

 All hail the pastaferian prince!  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is alive and well - and caused all that we see to exist!

In homage to him, I'm having spaghetti bolognese for dinner - with lashings of parmesan!

(Actually, it was Matilda - the purple hippo who lives in my garage. No, you can't see her - she's invisible, but she told me that she created mankind and everything else!)

She's as real as any god!

---

---

I thought we were leaving our preconceived ideas on god-exists V god-does-not-exist  behind and just examining the scientific evidences??

[curmu-curmu]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Now, those two links are just a small subset f the main body of discussion so, for those interested here is the link:

http://creation.com/15-questions

as you will see each question has some detail and then a link to follow up on more detail. Happy reading.

---

Ok. Firstly, creation.com is a creationist site, whose agenda is to promote the literal bible. Can you honestly tell me that they do not have an agenda to further their own propaganda?

I've looked at all of their 15 questions, and have in the past, explored them all fully by seeking sites that do not have an agenda bias.

Not only that, but every question or statement to further their agenda is full of conjecture, supposition or deliberate misleading wordplay.

Take the following for example.

"How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—"

No, it's not. DNA is nothing more than chemicals interacting in ways that appear to be informational. Human scientists termed this interaction 'information', as to them, it best describes it's function. It's no more a language system, than an orange is a banana.

This is just one of the many and devious ways that creationists attempt to inject respectability into their arguments.

The proposition of DNA 'language' has been denounced and proven fallacial so many times over, it's just not worth discussing any more.

Now I'm not going to spend my valuable time, explaining every aspect of the site you supplied - you are as intelligent as the rest of us, and so, are more than capable of doing your own research. What you choose to do with that research, well - that's beyond our control.

When referring to creationists and their ludicrous arguments, I think this says it better than I can!

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@curmu-curmu wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Now, those two links are just a small subset f the main body of discussion so, for those interested here is the link:

http://creation.com/15-questions

as you will see each question has some detail and then a link to follow up on more detail. Happy reading.

---

Ok. Firstly, creation.com is a creationist site, whose agenda is to promote the literal bible. Can you honestly tell me that they do not have an agenda to further their own propaganda?

I've looked at all of their 15 questions, and have in the past, explored them all fully by seeking sites that do not have an agenda bias.

Not only that, but every question or statement to further their agenda is full of conjecture, supposition or deliberate misleading wordplay.

Take the following for example.

"How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—"

No, it's not. DNA is nothing more than chemicals interacting in ways that appear to be informational. Human scientists termed this interaction 'information', as to them, it best describes it's function. It's no more a language system, than an orange is a banana.

This is just one of the many and devious ways that creationists attempt to inject respectability into their arguments.

The proposition of DNA 'language' has been denounced and proven fallacial so many times over, it's just not worth discussing any more.

Now I'm not going to spend my valuable time, explaining every aspect of the site you supplied - you are as intelligent as the rest of us, and so, are more than capable of doing your own research. What you choose to do with that research, well - that's beyond our control.

When referring to creationists and their ludicrous arguments, I think this says it better than I can!

---

And yet again, you call me names.

[curmu-curmu]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

---

And yet again, you call me names.

---

No...I was having a go at creationists. You've already admitted that you're NOT a creationist, so why take offense?.