1.6% of the North American population says, . . . .
. Replication happens only AFTER specified complexity is in place.
. Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins.
. We have every reason to reject protein-first theories, DNA-first theories, RNA-first theories, none of these are able to explain the origin of the information that is needed for living cells to emerge and evolve.
. No living molecule is self-reproducing. Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, but it is incapable of “making” anything else. The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.
. If all of these systems evolved, then proteins with a decoding ability evolved before the protein with the decoding system itself evolved.
. The synthesis of proteins requires a tightly integrated sequence of reactions, most of which are themselves performed by the synthesis of proteins.”
. The (DNA) code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are THEMSELVES coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated other than by products of translation.
. If proteins must have arisen first then how did they do so, since all extant cells construct proteins from assembly instructions in DNA. How did either arise without the other?
Oh, my bad. This 1.6% of the population doesn’t say this, nor do they even ask about this. In fact, this 1.6% of the population tries to not even think about this because if they did they have to give up all hope of believing that time plus chance brought about the arrival of life from non life.
Even though these people say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed, these people must maintain their hopelessly ignorant position or their belief system will collapse.
This is the way these people are. It’s how they think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you cut and paste or are you always making the same mistakes?
ReplyDelete@Ben
ReplyDeleteYa I am always wondering as well, but it's not exactly the same sentences each time so it must be a combination of both copy/paste and random ordering of thoughts.
I'll still try to point out what's wrong anyway but I am no biologist...
I picked a sentence randomly:
ReplyDelete"The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made."
Google searched it by date.
The earliest time that complete sentence appears is in Harun Yahya's page.
Yahya made the page because:
"Ever since his university years, he has dedicated his life to telling of the existence and oneness of Almighty Allah, to disseminating the moral values of the Qur’an, to the intellectual defeat of materialist and atheist ideologies"
And whats wrong with these arguments. Well, have you heard of "argument from lack of imagination"?
Lol, so Thesauros is actually using the same argument Muslims use as an argument for Allah; not that it's surprising but just ironic since he despise Muslims just as much as Atheists.
ReplyDeleteOk I came back because I had said I would try to answer...
Replication happens only AFTER specified complexity is in place.
Ignoring the fact that this is not related to atheism (the silly 1.6%...), I will still tell you that you are wrong. Actually, what I should say is that you and I don't know how the first replication took place, so what you wrote is pointless... Unless you DO know how the first replication took place?
Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins.
Pointless, you just assert your conclusion. You see complexity, therefore, itmust be designed.
We have every reason to reject protein-first theories, DNA-first theories, RNA-first theories...
Same as above, no one knows what the first cells looked like. Not sure we can even call the first living things 'cells'...?
...none of these are able to explain the origin of the information that is needed for living cells to emerge and evolve.
As usualy when you approach the subject of biology, you display your ignorance on what information means with respect to living things.
No living molecule is self-reproducing...
I understand what you mean, but obviously you don't understand it yourself, because that's in no way an argument against the emergence of life from non-life. Why? Because it's obvious that when the first chemical compounds started to replicate themselves, they did use other chemical components that were next to them... so nothing surprising here.
If all of these systems evolved, then proteins with a decoding ability evolved before the protein with the decoding system itself evolved.
Pointless as that's far from the non-life to life transition... probably millions of year more recent.
So, the question is, What makes you think that it's impossible for them to evolve? The eye and the brain used to be systems considered impossible to have evolved; it's not a complete mystery anymore... even though there are still questions of course but that's why science is fun!!
[The next 3 points are exactly the same as that one...]
Oh, my bad. This 1.6% of the population doesn’t say this
Well at least you got that right...
If design is so obviously supported by scientific knowledge, then where are the peer reviewed papers? Why isn't intelligent design a respected theory in science? Afterall you have so much so called "evidence", why cant creationists get their "theory" accepted by science?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that odd?
Both atheists and theists make speculation about reality, however atheist speculation is NOTHING like theist speculation. This is where you get confused. There is no church of string theory, no congregation of quantum gravity, and no priests of general relativity. Scientists don't dress nice to speculate about theory every Sunday nor shape their families around things said by max Planck. And yet YOU CRITICIZE the atheist for speculation. It's YOU who takes speculation TOO far. It's YOU who shapes lives out of the gaps in scientific knowledge.
Atheists don't claim to know All the answers, they're just reserved from singing every Sunday about "theories" that feed solely on the food of scientific gaps. You bet that if their was a universally respected peer reviewed scientific paper on intelligent design, atheists would take it serious. But there isn't, why? Because your confusing science with wishful thinking.
And the bottom line is that you don't actually care what science says. If you did, you wouldn't maintain the absurdities of christian dogma fueled that can only be fueled by FAITH ALONE. Because the Christian myth is NOT supported by scientific fact. Afterall, how many peer reviewed scientific papers have been published advancing a theory that the events of the scripture ACTUALLY took place? That's right, ZERO. And zero it will remain, because at the end of the day, the cold hard truth about religion remains; no truth.
So why try to bring up science? We all know that your own personal experience with Jesus Christ trancends all other evidence for you, right?
How can someone who believes that their experience with an invisible man is the best possible type of evidence, then turn around and criticize atheists about being SPECULATIVE?
This is how we think? At least there's indication that we do think. An indication we have yet to experience as it pertains to the likes of you,
our worldview will collapse? Let me tell you, we intentionally collapse our world view all the time and rebuild, it's how progress is made, but you wouldn't know anything about that. So stop talking as if you understand atheists. Stop talking as if science has published papers on intelligent design.
I said: "Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins."
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Unless you DO know how the first replication took place?"
I know that there is NO reason to think that the first cell would replicate in a different manner than EVERY SINGLE CELL AFTER THAT.
Well, not unless you have a vested interest in protecting a certain world-view. But then, that's how atheists think. It's how they are.
========
I said: "Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins."
You disagree - So give me an example where this isn't the case.
=============
"atheist speculation is NOTHING like theist speculation."
What I wrote in this post isn't speculation, son. It's what we know about how things work - from observation, testing and verification - it's science.
Now, if you want to take what we know from science, as is documented in this post and draw the conclution that "Chance did it!" well, that's your choice to make.
But it certainly isn't an inference that can be drawn from the evidence - is it?
Well, not unless you have a vested interest in protecting a certain world-view. But then, that's how atheists think. It's how they are.
--------------
Nature did it! or
ReplyDeleteMagic did it!
And we know nature exists.
What I wrote in this post isn't speculation, son. It's what we know about how things work - from observation, testing and verification - it's science.
ReplyDeleteThat's arrogant.
You know nothing about biology. Your claim are ridiculous, and I am trying to be nice so that you could at least not make a fool of yourself concerning that subject. It has NO impact on your belief in a god but for some reason you refuse to accept the facts.
There's nothing more I can do than to tell you to simply read scientific magazines... what you write contradicts everything I have learned for all my life about biology.
You keep insisting on what 'Atheists believe' but you never present it correctly, and now, you also do it for biology and chemistry. It shows that you're the one who has a world view to defend at all cost.
Now, this sounds just like bare assertions and ad hominem attacks so I will just give one example and I am done with that one. You said:
I know that there is NO reason to think that the first cell would replicate in a different manner than EVERY SINGLE CELL AFTER THAT.
The first replicating MOLECULE was not a freaking cell. Drop it. It's more complex than that. You like complexity so listen up...
-I don't know how life started on Earth. That's my belief.
-You claim that it could not be natural. I don't believe that.
-You ask why I don't believe.
-I just don't believe the 'magic did it'. You don't explain anything, you don't say how the first replication occurred, what it was made of, and where did God had to intervene exactly to make it possible. You fill gaps. Even though I don't have to provide examples, here's one anyway, which makes more sens than 'chance did it', or 'magic did it'.
One POSSIBILITY is the RNA world you so much despise for no reason. It's not a belief; it's just a reply to your claim of it being impossible.
ReplyDeleteAn article about it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120373.900
Video clearly explaining it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
"Jack Szostak, a biochemist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, set out to prove the sceptics wrong. He reasoned that the first RNA molecules on the prebiotic Earth were assembled randomly from nucleotides dissolved in rock pools. Among the trillions of short RNA molecules, there would have been one or two that could copy themselves – an ability that soon made them the dominant RNA on the planet.
To mimic this in the lab, Szostak and his colleagues took between 100 and 1000 trillion different RNA molecules, each around 200 nucleotides long, and tested their ability to perform one of the simplest catalytic tasks possible: cleaving another RNA molecule. They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection. They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to "evolve" some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes.
In the past few months, David Bartel, a biochemist at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research near Boston and a former member of Szostak's team, has gone one better. He has evolved RNAs that are as efficient as some modern protein enzymes. The problem with most ribozymes is that they are as likely to snip an RNA molecule apart as stitch one together, which makes copying a molecule fifty nucleotides long (the minimum size necessary to catalyse a chemical reaction) a Sisyphean task. Bartel's new ribozymes, on the other hand, can stitch small pieces of RNA together without breaking larger molecules apart. What is more, his ribozymes use high-energy triphosphate bonds similar to ATP as their fuel, speeding the reaction up several million-fold.
"We've got ribozymes doing the right kind of chemistry to copy long molecules," says Szostak. "We haven't achieved self-replication from single nucleotides yet, but it is definitely within sight."
Asserting that an all powerful invisible man created self replicating molecules is not speculation? Oh, my bad. I must have missed the published, peer reviewed, scientific paper on that one.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many debates that occured so long ago were built on the foundation of "magic force" causing the planets to move exactly as they do. Would theists say..
"dull of mind atheist, do you really think the planets could maintain the exact orbits they do by chance?"
gravity must have seemed like the hand of god. Was it reasonable to assume that it was? It seemed like it, I'm sure. Afterall, an invisible force that magically moves the planets can really appear like the force of god. But it turned out not to be the case, and the answer was not intuitive. General relativity is not intuitive.
But the answers are always natural, always have been. If gravity is not supernatural, why should anything else be? Why would god create natural reasons for the some of the mechanics of the universe and not others.
What reason do we have to think that the unexplained areas of science now, will not be answered the same way as they have always been? How can you continually criticize atheists for making assumptions from natural causes when no answer in physics has EVER been supernatural. Who makes the bigger leap of faith? Who really has the agenda?
So where are the papers?
That was a great essay, 'snackbar.
ReplyDeleteI said: "Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins."
ReplyDeleteYou disagree - So give me an example where this isn't the case.
Whatever - What great essay? snacker says that God has been pushed back and pushed back.
ReplyDeleteA Creator God who brought the universe into being out of nothing, who set the constants and quantities in place at Planck Time, who set the very laws that govern nature can hardly have been pushed out of nature.
Just like how god wasn't pushed back when the hand of god moved planets.
ReplyDeleteSo where are the published peer reviewed papers advocating the theory of intelligent design?
"So where are the published peer reviewed papers advocating the theory of intelligent design?"
ReplyDeleteThere will never be any and Hugo has showed you why. Atheist world-view says, "I don't know what caused it, but I know that it wasn't supernatural. I know that it couldn't have arisen by natural means, but natural means is all that I believe in. - So there!"
There will never be any and Hugo has showed you why. Atheist world-view says, "I don't know what caused it, but I know that it wasn't supernatural. I know that it couldn't have arisen by natural means, but natural means is all that I believe in. - So there!"
ReplyDeleteLOL, I had not seen that before posting my comment earlier on the other post.
So there is indeed an Atheist conspiracy that have taken over the scientific world!
OMG run for your lives, Atheists are trying to force their world-view down your throat by studying the natural world!
You're the only one who says 'I know that it couldn't have arisen by natural means' by the way. It's so stupid of you to pretend that scientists KNOW that it could NOT have arisen by natural means.
You claim both at the same time to KNOW how life started, i.e. God did it, somehow, but you also claim that there is NO paper to support this because of the Atheist world-view polluting science.
So in other words, science is science only if it agrees with YOUR world view, which includes an intelligent Creator God. The fact that people posit other explanations is then seen as an attack on your God, not science, even when they happen to believe the same God as you. That's pathetic. Grow up and learn about how science works. You look like a fool.
... and again, abiogenesis theories have absolute NOTHING to do with a belief in the Christian God. The fact of evolution is already a much big contradiction itself (Original sin, Adam and Eve anyone?).
"So there is indeed an Atheist conspiracy that have taken over the scientific world!"
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying there's a conspiracy. It's just the way atheists are. It's the way they think. They say they follow the evidence but that's a flat out lie. It's like for athesits, the answer is 5 regardless of what the question is.
Consider, Thesauros, that Christians outnumber atheists in America. Do you really think the minority would be able to systematically suppress the bedrock of the majority's world view?
ReplyDeleteBy maintaining this very blog, you validate and support the materialistic paradigm; you're perhaps simply too blind to see this. Without naturalistic science, you would have no monitors, no internet, no network connections, no spell checker - none of it.
The supernatural paradigm FAILS to explain anything. Cry about this, if you wish, but if you really were concerned about your problem, you'd stop taking medicine or using your computer.
Copernicus, Kepler, Loyola, Galileo, Brahe, Calvin, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Mersenne, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Pasteur, Gassendi, Christians have NEVER had a problem with science. Christians started the whole thing. Our problem is the conclusion, based solely on speculation that atheists SAY they have drawn from the findings of science, i.e. that the mateial is all that exists.
ReplyDeleteDid you say this with a straight face?
ReplyDelete"Christians have NEVER had a problem with science."
Good luck with your belief in magic, kid. Maybe when you grow up you'll know better.
Our problem is the conclusion, based solely on speculation that atheists SAY they have drawn from the findings of science, i.e. that the mate[r]ial is all that exists.
ReplyDeleteStop pretending you know how people think, atheist especially. You don't.
If you want to argue Materialism, go for it; that will never prove your god exists.
Personally I could not care less if Materialism is true or not, so I would not bother discussing it...
Mak said.." Atheist world-view says, "I don't know what caused it, but I know that it wasn't supernatural. I know that it couldn't have arisen by natural means, but natural means is all that I believe in. - So there!"
ReplyDeleteNo many atheists including myself dont say we know for sure it wasnt supernatural,what we say is we dont yet see evidence it was supernatural.If anything at present we have seen more evidence it was likely a natural process.
But you misjudge many atheists by saying they simply have some special agenda to refuse to accept the supernatural no matter what.Thats simply injust, when the real reasons are there is not yet good evidence to prove it.
Many atheist attitude is we are not quite sure yet what caused it,and we are not willing to assert a answer until we know for sure.
Whats so wrong with that Mak?.It cant be any worse can it?, than doing such wrong things such asserting things like some people did, such as human sacrifice was supposed to please supernatural gods,that people dreamed that it would.And people accused and killed as witches,where killed only because people with FAITH said they were dangerous.Did you considder that sad aspect Mak?
Why the need to condemn so much, those who only seek factual evidence and total proof?
Because its no longer matches a matter of faith?.
Mak before you judge so harshly those without faith, first think about what has been the total cost of faith in our past history,think about all those still suffering today through peoples faith.
By the way...
ReplyDeleteAlthough the lines aren't cut and dry, the Egyptians generally get credit for the origins of science (as we understand it today: observation --> hypothesis --> testing <--> theory.
Like many things, Christians adopted science, and then called it their own. History reveals this to be a lie.