Hear why DNA Refutes Evolution

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
two words which they do not like to admit, unobserved phenomena!

That would be everything in your religion.

Nothing in your religion is observed.

There are no observations of souls (and plenty of evidence to contradict their existence).
There are no observations of god or gods (and plenty of evidence for the non-existence of god or gods).
There are no observations of any kind of afterlife (and plenty of evidence for the non-existence of an afterlife).
There are no observations of the supernatural of any kind (and plenty of evidence for the non-existence of the supernatural).
There is no convincing evidence that a person called Jesus ever actually existed or did any of the things he is claimed to have done.
There is no evidence of prayer working any better than random chance.
There is no evidence that the words in the bible were divinely inspired (and plenty of evidence that they were not divinely inspired)

You have nothing BUT blind faith in unobserved phenomena.

Science, Rationality, Skepticism and Atheism rely entirely and completely on observed phenomena.
On believing in what is demonstrated by evidence and nothing else.

We love observations.
We love evidence.
We love skepticism.
We love questions.
We love logic and reason.
We love experimentation.
We love discussions.

You don't.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. And in that very special soup the evo guys love to refer to this just happened?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmm6Pgh6Kl4&feature=related


My question to them is if this could happen on some hot, sulferic, acidic, ugly as a butt planet that they say it all started and which they say the earth was like then, why not now when we live on this ...[text shortened]... fancy form that "just evolved" or that is just starting to evolve. Where is it so all can see?

“...My question to them is if this could happen on some hot, sulferic, acidic, ugly as a butt planet that they say it all started and which they say the earth was like then, why not now when we live on this completely hospitable planet that would favor life so much to start as they think it did then, why do we not ever see this going on today? ..”

simple: the conductions needed to start life in the form of the first protocells are very different from the ideal conductions for modern life to thrive.

For starters, you need anaerobic conditions for RNA to form. And for microspheres to form and enclose the RNA as well as to make enough of the RNA itself, you need tidal pools with the moon being much nearer to the Earth (like it once was) to make massive tides with a cycle of wetting and drying on land. You also mustn’t have modern microbes already there else any protocell that forms will not have a chance against the well evolved and adapted modern microbes -they will be out-competed well before they could even start to adapt and evolve. That explains why it couldn't happen in the present day but could happen on the early Earth.

Indecently, the early environment wouldn't have been particularly 'acidic' as you implied -not that it would matter if it was.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I guess I just saw you announce as 'fact' something that was so obviously nonsense - and I didn't really expect it from you - and I lost it. If RJ says something like that, I just ignore it, because he knows hes talking nonsense and doesn't care. But you seem to actually think your making sense.

[b]A mutation is not "the creation of new information"; n tence is not a new sentence or at best, why that new sentence is not new information.[/b]

If you remove a word that could constitute a reduction in information content.

If you had a recipe for making a cake and you dropped a sentence that contained an instruction
to do something then that would be a reduction in information content.

Mutations can both increase and decrease the total information content of DNA.
Or they can leave the information content exactly the same.

If I take the sentence "the fat flabby cat" and remove either fat or flabby I don't change the meaning
or information content of the sentence because fat and flabby are redundant.

And I again recommend Richard Dawkins detailed discussion of information and mutation in DNA.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Originally posted by humy
“...My question to them is if this could happen on some hot, sulferic, acidic, ugly as a butt planet that they say it all started and which they say the earth was like then, why not now when we live on this completely hospitable planet that would favor life so much to start as they think it did then, why do we not ever see this going on today? ..”

simple: th ...[text shortened]... wouldn't have been particularly 'acidic' as you implied -not that it would matter if it was.

All true.

But the simplest response is that the early precursors of life that come together are food for
current life forms.

They don't get the chance to form new life forms today because already living things eat them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That would be everything in your religion.

Nothing in your religion is observed.

There are no observations of souls (and plenty of evidence to contradict their existence).
There are no observations of god or gods (and plenty of evidence for the non-existence of god or gods).
There are no observations of any kind of afterlife (and plenty of eviden ...[text shortened]... tions.
We love logic and reason.
We love experimentation.
We love discussions.

You don't.

I laugh at your tone and mock your assumptions, better check your variations
otherwise your gonna get mated, i dont profess belief in a soul, that is an element
which transcends death, I believe that when we die we remain dead until the
resurrection, which has not occurred, making your assertion of after life ludicrous, on
the contrary there is more evidence that Christ existed than Alexander the great again
making your feeble and mundane assertion double bogus for only an utter buffoon
would suggest that a mere fictional character could inspire so many throughout history,
having never studied the bible in ant great depth you are not in a position to state
anything with accuracy according to its content, are you? all in all spanky, you have
nothing but vain references to logic and reason and a whole lot of unobserved
phenomena!

Offer up incense to Darwin, all hail the God of science!

Originally posted by googlefudge
That would be everything in your religion.

Nothing in your religion is observed.

There are no observations of souls (and plenty of evidence to contradict their existence).
There are no observations of god or gods (and plenty of evidence for the non-existence of god or gods).
There are no observations of any kind of afterlife (and plenty of eviden ...[text shortened]... tions.
We love logic and reason.
We love experimentation.
We love discussions.

You don't.

I almost totally agree with everything in your post there but with one exception:

“..There is no convincing evidence that a person called Jesus ever actually existed ..”

This is only a trivial criticism but the problem I have with that is that, there once being a PERSON (not a god) called Jesus, unlike the other claims, isn't an absurd one. And because it isn't an absurd one, I would say it doesn't need nearly so much evidence to be convincing enough; merely two independent historical accounts would do.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Common sense is not all that common and even less often sensible.

That's why we invented logic, reason, and science, because we otherwise are far to good at deceiving ourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0MnBmSlhE

The whole thing is well worth watching but he talks about the bit I specifically chose this lecture for here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3U0MnBmSlhE#t=1357s

I totally agre with you that we all want to learn and we have that natural desire to learn. How is it made, how does it work, why are we here, what's over the next hill? Yes we all want answers but that does not mean we will ever know it all does it? Is it possible that only God knows certian things, things we will never comprehend? And that can apply to how God started life as we know it. Nothing to be ashamed of but maybe just a fact.
The Bible says that God's ways are different then ours and it will always be that way.
But the BIG point here is we do not know how life scientificially started and we may never know. But to say it just started somehow in some pond of goo which none of us were there to even start to guess what this pond had in it much less saying it is any kind of fact is so out there it's beyond reason, it's flat silly.
So yes science is good to a point as long as it's fact and can be proven and that is something that as time goes by, evolution is being more and more disproved.

Originally posted by humy
I almost totally agree with everything in your post there but with one exception:

“..There is no convincing evidence that a person called Jesus ever actually existed ..”

the problem I have with that is that, there once being a PERSON (not a god) called Jesus, unlike the other claims, isn't an absurd one. And because it isn't an absurd one, I would say it ...[text shortened]... o much evidence to be convincing enough; merely two independent historical accounts would do.

you had better check your variations as well otherwise your gonna be roasty toasty like our friend googly fudge!

Originally posted by humy
“...My question to them is if this could happen on some hot, sulferic, acidic, ugly as a butt planet that they say it all started and which they say the earth was like then, why not now when we live on this completely hospitable planet that would favor life so much to start as they think it did then, why do we not ever see this going on today? ..”

simple: th ...[text shortened]... wouldn't have been particularly 'acidic' as you implied -not that it would matter if it was.

Ok prove it happened just as you say...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I laugh at your tone and mock your assumptions, better check your variations
otherwise your gonna get mated, i dont profess belief in a soul, that is an element
which transcends death, I believe that when we die we remain dead until the
resurrection, which has not occurred, making your assertion of after life ludicrous, on
the contrary there ...[text shortened]... hole lot of unobserved
phenomena!

Offer up incense to Darwin, all hail the God of science!

“..I laugh at your tone and mock your assumptions ..”

he didn't state any 'assumptions'. With just one possible trivial exception, he just stated a list of irrefutable facts.

Originally posted by galveston75
Ok prove it happened just as you say...

no, not how I say; how SCIENCE says.
And it is probabilistic rather than 'proof'.

given all the available evidence, that is the way it probably happened. But, barring stupid superstition, we cannot rule out it happening in a different (physical) way.

Originally posted by humy
I almost totally agree with everything in your post there but with one exception:

“..There is no convincing evidence that a person called Jesus ever actually existed ..”

the problem I have with that is that, there once being a PERSON (not a god) called Jesus, unlike the other claims, isn't an absurd one. And because it isn't an absurd one, I would say it ...[text shortened]... o much evidence to be convincing enough; merely two independent historical accounts would do.

Ok I should have been clearer on that one.

I meant the person as described in the Bible as being the son of god.

I meant it in the same way that there is no compelling evidence that robin hood actually existed.

The legend is probably based on a number of people plus a lot of editing and exaggeration and embellishing.


But we have no decent evidence that the singular legendary robin hood actually existed.
Likewise the person as described in the bible as the son of god Jesus Christ has no decent evidentiary backing.
And as the person described in the bible is supernatural then that IS an extraordinary claim.

And I am not saying that there wasn't a singular guy called JC who did start this whole thing and did believe that
he was the son of god.
I am saying that there isn't any particularly convincing evidence that he did exist and there is certainly none that
he existed as described in the bible.

Originally posted by humy
no, not how I say; how SCIENCE says.

Ok, show me the proof from them. But no maybe, or could have, or we think, or we assume words allowed in their explinations.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I laugh at your tone and mock your assumptions, better check your variations
otherwise your gonna get mated, i dont profess belief in a soul, that is an element
which transcends death, I believe that when we die we remain dead until the
resurrection, which has not occurred, making your assertion of after life ludicrous, on
the contrary there ...[text shortened]... hole lot of unobserved
phenomena!

Offer up incense to Darwin, all hail the God of science!

I generalised to Christianity in general and more broadly to theism in general.

You only believe in god singular (as I understand it) but I talked about a lack of evidence
for god or gods.

Actually there is far less evidence for the existence of JC than Alexander the Great, but also
AtG is not postulated to be supernatural.
I also don't have any beliefs systems based on the existence or actions of AtG.

And people throughout history were not inspired by JC.
They were inspired by people telling them about JC.
They were inspired by reading about JC.
They were inspired by the myths about JC.

Just as people were inspired by myths about Odin and Thor, Zeus and Athena, Rah and Apophis,
Hercules and Perseus, Robin hood...

So yes people can and have been greatly moved by myths and legends.

It is ignorant and idiotic to suggest otherwise.
But then I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Originally posted by galveston75
Ok, show me the proof from them. But no maybe, or could have, or we think, or we assume words allowed in their explinations.

as I just siad; "it is probabilistic rather than 'proof'.


http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=814372

http://www.onrpg.com/boards/130715.html

and, best of all:

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/artikel.php?ID=197908

“..The following steps address this
question as well as other relevant details that describe how the first living cells
formed according to the EVIDENCE gathered so far. ...”(my emphasis)

we have the physical evidence on our side. What evidence do you have?