Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you're playing the 'Deep Time' card here.

The 'deep time' card is relevant here, but more importantly, we don't know the 'specific conditions' that gave rise to life, mentioned in item 10.

We have a reasonable idea of how the composition of the atmosphere varied over the geological timescales within which life first appeared, and we know water would have been involved, but we don't know much more than that.

It might have been in one of a variety of deep-sea vents, where atmospheric composition would have little relevance; it might have been in volcanic pools with volcanic gases making the atmosphere very different from the average; it could have been in coastal pools with repeated cycles of wetting and drying; it could have been in subsurface clays, and so-on. There are a huge variety of possible static and dynamic environments to consider - and the possibility of exchanges between them - before we even get to the issue of 'deep time'.

As far as Darwin's 'warm pond' goes, if attacking Darwin's fledgeling speculations about the possible conditions for the origin of life is the best detractors can manage, they clearly have little of value to contribute.

 

[Smokie]

That's completely wrong.

There is no definitive explanation for the appearance of DNA. If there were then the arguments would stop. God is inferred because life is a complicated code and science can not show codes writing themselves. DNA mutates, however DNA that is not there does not mutate so until DNA is there evolution is a fantasy

 

[inquiring mind]

False. I thought I had made that clear.

You can bet they would be counted as wrong answers.

 

[Speedwell]

There have been no scientific advancements in the quest for creation since Darwin's time. In fact we know as much about where we really came from as a Neanderthal did. But you of course know everything which is why your thesis is presented here

So you reject evolutionary biology and molecular genetics as what? Imaginary? A conspiracy? What do you think that the practical applications of molecular genetics are based on?

 

[Speedwell]

You can bet they would be counted as wrong answers.

No, those to statements are false and attempts at right-wing propaganda, nothing more. It's the same old "evolution is presented as absolute truth which denies the existence of God" lie.

 

[pitabread]

There is no definitive explanation for the appearance of DNA. If there were then the arguments would stop.

In principle, there is no definitive explanation of anything in science.

However, that doesn't mean that we haven't learned a considerable amount about biology and in particular origin-of-life research since Darwin's time. DNA wasn't even known in Darwin's time.

God is inferred because life is a complicated code and science can not show codes writing themselves.

Life isn't really a "code" per se. Insofar as people invoking God, yes, people do that in absence of otherwise having knowledge of how things work. That's called "God of the gaps".

DNA mutates, however DNA that is not there does not mutate so until DNA is there evolution is a fantasy

This is just more gobblygook.

 

[pitabread]

You can bet they would be counted as wrong answers.

By who?

 

[Smokie]

So you reject evolutionary biology and molecular genetics as what? Imaginary? A conspiracy? What do you think that the practical applications of molecular genetics are based on?

No I do not reject biology and genetics, though less is known about genetics than is believed. Your mistake is believing that genetics is based on atoms and molecules as is molecular chemistry, when genetics is based upon a code that directs atoms and molecules to perform tasks that are impossible without the code.

 

[inquiring mind]

By who?

Most science teachers.

 

[pitabread]

when genetics is based upon a code that directs atoms and molecules to perform tasks that are impossible without the code.

DNA isn't really a "code" per se and it certainly doesn't direct anything. Unless you refer to biochemical reactions as "direction", in which all of chemistry falls under that umbrella.

 

[pitabread]

Most science teachers.

[citation needed]

 

[Speedwell]

There is no definitive explanation for the appearance of DNA. If there were then the arguments would stop. God is inferred because life is a complicated code and science can not show codes writing themselves. DNA mutates, however DNA that is not there does not mutate so until DNA is there evolution is a fantasy

That is completely off base. The absence of a natural explanation for the appearance of DNA does not justify the assumption of a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, a satisfactory natural explanation for DNA does not rule out divine causal involvement. If all you are on about is proving the existence of God then you are in the wrong forum. This is a science forum; the existence of God and His authorship of our being is not at issue here.

 

[inquiring mind]

[citation needed]

Why do you and about every other evolutionist here cry foul when a creationist gives a response based on the supernatural or making such a statement, which disgards the relevance of the scientific method?

 

[pitabread]

Why do you and about every other evolutionist here cry foul when a creationist gives a response based on the supernatural or making such a statement, which disgards the relevance of the scientific method?

That's not really what we're talking about here. This is more about how the specific phrasing in points #5 and #6 are worded.

For the record, I'd probably vote "true" for point #5 although I'm granting a bit of contextual leeway in that respect. The problem is that "supernatural involvement" in that statement is overly vague.

#6 could be considered as false, since the scientific method is clearly not defined by the American public school system.

 

[Speedwell]

Most science teachers.

You have no idea if that is true. You have no basis for saying that it is true, other than trying to justify right-wing propaganda. Those two theses are nothing but a versions of the "evolution is presented as absolute truth which denies the existence of God" lie.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL you on the other hand know everything.

Yupper dupper

So you are party to that same lie, "evolution is presented as absolute truth which denies the existence of God."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is no definitive explanation for the appearance of DNA. If there were then the arguments would stop. God is inferred because life is a complicated code and science can not show codes writing themselves. DNA mutates, however DNA that is not there does not mutate so until DNA is there evolution is a fantasy

It's true that we don't have a definitive explanation for the origins of DNA, but we have an increasing number of possible routes, e.g. the recent discovery of DNA/RNA cosynthesis. But how the inheritance 'code' develops is not really a problem - you don't need cells or even a single replicating molecule for a proto-evolutionary process to occur; cyclic sequences of reactions can do the job. The assembly of specific molecules of heredity might not occur for a considerable time, but once they do, any sequence that provides the slightest benefit to replication, e.g. RNA as an enzyme, will rapidly proliferate.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's not really what we're talking about here. This is more about how the specific phrasing in points #5 and #6 are worded.

For the record, I'd probably vote "true" for point #5 although I'm granting a bit of contextual leeway in that respect.

#6 could be considered as false, since the scientific method is clearly not defined by the American public school system.

'Define,' 'interpret'... whatever you want to call it, #s 7 & 8 go ahead to confirm that line of thinking in schools.

 

[pitabread]

'Define,' 'interpret'... whatever you want to call it, #s 7 & 8 go ahead to confirm that line of thinking in schools.

Again, #7 and #8 leave more room for interpretation at to the author's meaning.

For example, does #7 refer to all truth? Or just "truth" within the context of scientific inquiry? In which case the former is false, the latter would be true.

#8 is incomplete since hypothesis testing can involve more than just experimentation.

 

[Speedwell]

'Define,' 'interpret'... whatever you want to call it, #s 7 & 8 go ahead to confirm that line of thinking in schools.

As I already said about #7, science is not in the business of determining absolute truth.