| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 12:43:09 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:366r01lmqlophb1s3dtf6po01bd1fnu835@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the same
reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that it takes a whole
lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of years. Is this correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 12:51:48 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:375mrqF57k4heU1@individual.net:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:366r01lmqlophb1s3dtf6po01bd1fnu835@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common
ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the same
reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that it
takes a whole lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of
years. Is this correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
No. You don't understand the concepts involved in the theory of
evolution well enough to be wrong. You have a lot more to learn if you
want to work up to "wrong". Now, *you* are simply incoherent.
"So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common ancestor."
That statement is not even wrong.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 12:45:40 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:366r01lmqlophb1s3dtf6po01bd1fnu835@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common
ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the same
reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that it
takes a whole
lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of years. Is this
correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
Andrew
your assertions hold no weight here andrew. why havent you learned this
yet?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:13:05 AM |
|
|
In article <375mrqF57k4heU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:366r01lmqlophb1s3dtf6po01bd1fnu835@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the same
reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that it takes a
whole
lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of years. Is this correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
Andrew
Actually cars have been modified into airplanes. Back when theaters
showed newsreels there were one or two a year showing up in those
newsreels, except during WWII, of course. So it did happen, and Andrew
is wrong again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 03:18:39 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the same reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that it takes a whole
lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of years. Is this correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
Andrew
Actually cars have been modified into airplanes. Back when theaters
showed newsreels there were one or two a year showing up in those
newsreels, except during WWII, of course. So it did happen....
True, and how did such come about? -----> by the application
of design and intelligent engineering, not by random processes.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:44:22 PM |
|
|
In article <375vvcF55mhkiU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the same
reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that it takes
a whole
lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of years. Is this
correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
Andrew
Actually cars have been modified into airplanes. Back when theaters
showed newsreels there were one or two a year showing up in those
newsreels, except during WWII, of course. So it did happen....
True, and how did such come about? -----> by the application
of design and intelligent engineering, not by random processes.
Random processes may require eons to produce major changes, since they
work incrementally, and may require an enormous number of generations
for even an incremental change to become dominant.
Humans, by selective breeding, have been able to speed up the process,
When Percival Lowell was proclaiming that his observations of the
cannali of Mars provided evidence of the existence of intelligence,
someone commented that the only question was "At which end of the
telescope?"
When people declare that their observations of nature provide evidence
of intelligence, I am prone to ask a similar question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 09:00:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:18:39 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Actually cars have been modified into airplanes. Back when theaters
showed newsreels there were one or two a year showing up in those
newsreels, except during WWII, of course. So it did happen....
True, and how did such come about? -----> by the application
of design and intelligent engineering, not by random processes.
Again - cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they can't
"become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures don't need a
factory to produce them.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 12:21:44 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com...
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they can't
"become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures don't need a
factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it through!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 07:24:10 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:21:44 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com...
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they can't
"become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures don't need a
factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design. It's only
evidence of intelligent design if you don't think at all.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 09:11:52 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they can't
"become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures don't need a
factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no designer?
Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or, both? No
designer..and you believe that!!!
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 12:50:05 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37metkF5dnt2oU1@individual.net:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures don't
need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no designer?
Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or, both? No
designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:09:48 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures don't
need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no designer?
Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or, both? No
designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each generation.
Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of intelligent planning.
Biological creatures are already intelligently programmed for reproduction and mass
production in the DNA, which is clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes
opened to see it.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 07:25:37 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37nsg7F5g6abeU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures
don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already intelligently
programmed for reproduction and mass production in the DNA, which is
clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 09:29:41 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures
don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already intelligently
programmed for reproduction and mass production in the DNA, which is
clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the higher
Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject. The DNA
could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes as easily as
a technical computer program could have programmed itself..which is
clearly impossible.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 09:54:54 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37qeh6F5f8ec9U1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so
they can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological
creatures don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think
it through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex?
Or, both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already
intelligently programmed for reproduction and mass production in
the DNA, which is clear evidence of ID for those who have their
eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the higher
Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject.
I haven't chosen to reject anything. I have no reason to believe that an
intelligence was required to "make" DNA.
The DNA
could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes as easily
as a technical computer program could have programmed itself..which is
clearly impossible.
In fact a number of self-programming computer systems are well known.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 08:35:01 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns96036F14AEE2Efstone69@205.188.138.161...
I have no reason to believe that an intelligence was required to "make" DNA.
To accept the premise that the highly complex code as we see in the
DNA molecule came to be without intelligent design, would be either
ignorance of the latest information that we now know about DNA, or
the acceptance of a belief system contrary to evidence and common
sense.
Information technologists tell us that you cannot have a code without
a code-maker. Therefore the DNA with its complex code that sends
instructions, information and commands to the cell is incontrovertible
evidence that there is a higher intelligence behind the existence of life.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 09:10:20 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37svmoF5ernlnU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns96036F14AEE2Efstone69@205.188.138.161...
I have no reason to believe that an intelligence was required to
"make" DNA.
To accept the premise that the highly complex code as we see in the
DNA molecule came to be without intelligent design, would be either
ignorance of the latest information that we now know about DNA, or
the acceptance of a belief system contrary to evidence and common
sense.
That isn't a premise, it's a conclusion. The acceptance of that
conclusion requires a basic understanding about the process of natural
selection.
Information technologists tell us that you cannot have a code without
a code-maker.
That would be a mightily stupid information technologist who lacks a
basic understanding of the principles of genetic programming and natural
selection.
Therefore the DNA with its complex code that sends
instructions, information and commands to the cell is incontrovertible
evidence that there is a higher intelligence behind the existence of
life.
The DNA with its "complex code" in fact contains within itself evidence
that it was *not* designed by any higher intelligence, but was evolved
over time through a process of random mutations culled by natural
selection.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 09:49:12 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns9603E19C78F2Bfstone69@205.188.138.161...
The DNA with its "complex code" in fact contains within itself evidence
that it was *not* designed by any higher intelligence, but was evolved
over time through a process of random mutations culled by natural
selection.
That is the idea or hypothesis that you were taught. But it could not
possibly have "evolved" as you said "through a process of random
mutations" because mutations can destroy or rearrange information,
but they can not add 'new' information which would be required for
the theory to work.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 07:03:15 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37t41qF5gh0b5U1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns9603E19C78F2Bfstone69@205.188.138.161...
The DNA with its "complex code" in fact contains within itself
evidence that it was *not* designed by any higher intelligence, but
was evolved over time through a process of random mutations culled by
natural selection.
That is the idea or hypothesis that you were taught. But it could not
possibly have "evolved" as you said "through a process of random
mutations" because mutations can destroy or rearrange information,
but they can not add 'new' information which would be required for
the theory to work.
Mutations can and do add "new" information, as has been explained to you
already.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:07:21 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns9603E19C78F2Bfstone69@205.188.138.161...
The DNA with its "complex code" in fact contains within itself
evidence
that it was *not* designed by any higher intelligence, but was
evolved
over time through a process of random mutations culled by natural
selection.
That is the idea or hypothesis that you were taught. But it could not
possibly have "evolved" as you said "through a process of random
mutations" because mutations can destroy or rearrange information,
but they can not add 'new' information which would be required for
the theory to work.
Andrew
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:16:55 PM |
|
|
"snex" wrote in message news:1108958841.444785.78840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:38:27 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108958841.444785.78840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium. you are now LYING andrew. isnt that a sin
in your gods eyes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 12:47:51 AM |
|
|
"snex" wrote in message news:1108960707.718998.326970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium.
Rearranged information may appear to be new information, but mutations
could not have been a mechanism for the construction of a complex DNA
molecule as stated by Fred. Furthermore, the DNA does not function by
itself, but within the complexity of a living cell having all of its functioning
parts. A cell has to have its DNA -before- it can live, and the DNA has to
be fully assembled in all of its wonderous complexity -before- functioning
within the cell.
Therefore, these supposed eons of time where "mutations" brought every
thing together never happened. It is an adult fairy tale - it is indeed a hoax.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 07:07:42 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37tegoF5hon9pU1@individual.net:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108960707.718998.326970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with
real examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium.
Rearranged information may appear to be new information, but mutations
could not have been a mechanism for the construction of a complex DNA
molecule
False. Rearrangement and alteration are two mechanisms by which "new"
information is introduced into the DNA genome. Coupled with natural
selection to cull the "beneficial" from the "harmful" we get the full
panoply of modern life.
as stated by Fred. Furthermore, the DNA does not function by
itself, but within the complexity of a living cell having all of its
functioning parts.
Again false. DNA can reproduce itself in a test tube with only a few
other chemicals.
A cell has to have its DNA -before- it can live,
and the DNA has to be fully assembled in all of its wonderous
complexity -before- functioning within the cell.
Also false. There is no requirement for life to have begun with DNA and
"all the wondrous complexity" that we see now.
Therefore, these supposed eons of time where "mutations" brought every
thing together never happened. It is an adult fairy tale - it is
indeed a hoax.
Those eons of time are well evidenced, as opposed to your fairy tale
"designer".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 08:56:41 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108960707.718998.326970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with
real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not
add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium.
Rearranged information may appear to be new information, but
mutations
could not have been a mechanism for the construction of a complex DNA
molecule as stated by Fred. Furthermore, the DNA does not function
by
itself, but within the complexity of a living cell having all of its
functioning
parts. A cell has to have its DNA -before- it can live, and the DNA
has to
be fully assembled in all of its wonderous complexity -before-
functioning
within the cell.
Therefore, these supposed eons of time where "mutations" brought
every
thing together never happened. It is an adult fairy tale - it is
indeed a hoax.
Andrew
andrew a protein that can degrade nylon oligomers is new information,
not already present information, unless you want to accuse your
designer of deceiving us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 07:14:27 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:47:51 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"snex" wrote in message news:1108960707.718998.326970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium.
Rearranged information may appear to be new information,
It is. And Dembski is an idiot.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 02:32:25 PM |
|
|
In article <37tegoF5hon9pU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108960707.718998.326970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Andrew
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium.
Rearranged information may appear to be new information, but mutations
could not have been a mechanism for the construction of a complex DNA
molecule as stated by Fred.
Why not? A short DNA molecule has an end which attachs neatly to the end
of other short DNA molecules, or can adsorb more of its building blocks,
unless there is a specific blockage at that end to prevent it happening.
After all, that is a part of the mechanism which is required for
replication.
Furthermore, the DNA does not function by
itself, but within the complexity of a living cell
Why? The environment in which DNA can exist and replicate is known to
include cells but is not known to exclude everything else.
Therefore, these supposed eons of time where "mutations" brought every
thing together never happened. It is an adult fairy tale - it is indeed a
hoax.
As contrasted with the childish fairy tale and hoax that Andrew tries to
spin.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 10:19:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:47:51 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"snex" wrote in message news:1108960707.718998.326970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
andrew ive already given you an example of a mutation that added
information to a bacterium.
Rearranged information may appear to be new information, but mutations
could not have been a mechanism for the construction of a complex DNA
molecule as stated by Fred.
Since inserted information isn't mutation, your "argument" is
non-responsive.
Furthermore, the DNA does not function by
itself, but within the complexity of a living cell having all of its functioning
parts. A cell has to have its DNA -before- it can live
No it doesn't. Life doesn't have to be cellular at all. Life can be
based on RNS, not DNA - or even simpler forms. Your entire argument
is nonsense.
Therefore
Therefore nothing. You can't draw a valid conclusion from a couple of
totally incorrect assumptions.
these supposed eons of time where "mutations" brought every
thing together
No one but you is claiming that it's all due to mutations. So, yes,
you're correct - it couldn't all have happened due to mutations. Now
tell us why it couldn't have happened if there were many other
mechanisms also involved.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 07:14:06 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:16:55 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"snex" wrote in message news:1108958841.444785.78840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
1. False.
2. You don't know what you're talking about.
3. Educate yourself.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 11:40:09 PM |
|
|
In article <37t5lpF5hv3s6U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108958841.444785.78840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
This is only Andrew's opinion, and assumes facts not in evidence.
There is nothing that prevents a change in information from being
beneficial, and enough changes compounded becomes "new" information.
Thus Andrew's presumptions are flawed and thus his "conclusions" are
really only his personal opinions with no scientific evidence to back
them up.
One also notes that Andrew is remarkable shy about disputing with those
who can show precisely how his arguments fail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
