Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[mark kennedy]

I am pretty sure the world is real. As a construction worker I do believe in mind over matter.

Like Buddism, Hinduism is a mystical faith. It doesnt make sense unless or until your enlightened.

 

[Speedwell]

how do you know if they were manufactured or not?

You examine and analyze them carefully.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like Buddism, Hinduism is a mystical faith. It doesnt make sense unless or until your enlightened.

Pfft, depends on what you mean by "make sense". As in, in terms of story and sentence structure, sure, the texts related to Hinduism make for a strange read, but one could say they make "sense". As for them representing reality in any accurate way... no, just, no. Not at all. There's a reason why educated Hindus generally don't suggest that these texts are to be taken literally.

 

[mark kennedy]

Pfft, depends on what you mean by "make sense". As in, in terms of story and sentence structure, sure, the texts related to Hinduism make for a strange read, but one could say they make "sense". As for them representing reality in any accurate way... no, just, no. Not at all. There's a reason why educated Hindus generally don't suggest that these texts are to be taken literally.

They suggest a lot of things not be taken literally, mysticism is like that. Not that it's a bad thing, a lot of Christians are mystics, they just have another way of looking at things.

 

[pitabread]

That's another impossibility. Miller-Urey proved that.

No, no it didn't.

Even the simplest of life forms has complex DNA which could not self assemble.

The earliest life on Earth would not be the same as the current 'simplest' life on Earth. Remember, life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution.

All you have to do is read this forum and you'll find 25 people who had personal experiences with angels, demons or both. Such experiences are only uncommon with the unsaved. In addition, there are thousands of images captured on film and electronic media that can't be explained by faulty equipment or tampering. Even if 99.9999% were fake, the presence of one destroys your argument.

Like I said, I believe that people have real experiences that they ascribe to demons or angels or other supernatural causes. That doesn't mean they are supernatural in nature.

I've read a lot of these accounts and a lot of them involve sleep-related phenoma, of which I have loads of experience with. I've seen demons and things too, but they are not real, just a product of a dreaming state created by the mind.

Insofar as video or photos, I've never seen anything remotely convincing. It's not a case of 99.9999% fake. It's a case of 100% misattribution.

If God is real then angels are real.
If angels are real then demons are real.
If demons are real then the devil and his influence is real.
If these entities are real, why would they not be seen?

That's a lot of unsupported assertions right there.

How would you know what a billion year old planet looked like? I'm quite sure you're not that old.

Even the Institute for Creation Research during their RATE project admits that there are hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity to account for. Think about that: even a YEC organization found evidence the world is a lot older than YECs say it is. Of course ICR is now stuck trying to fit that evidence into their YECist framework by coming up with ad-hoc rationalizations.

The Revelation is a pretty scary doomsday prediction, and all the precursers have been fulfilled.

It's boring. Again, people have predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and they've never been right. So why would people predicting the end of the world right now be any different?

There are real ways the Earth as we know it could end. The Book of Revelation doesn't appear to be one of them.

 

[mark kennedy]

The earliest life on Earth would not be the same as the current 'simplest' life on Earth. Remember, life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution...


...That's a lot of unsupported assertions right there.

Your making an unsupported statement followed by a statement about what you call an unsupported statement. A bit ironic I would think.

 

[pitabread]

Your making an unsupported statement followed by a statement about what you call an unsupported statement. A bit ironic I would think.

How is my statement 'unsupported'? The current life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution (based on all available evidence) and we know that the earliest form of life would not contain fully evolved DNA, but would need to arise from simpler precursors.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, no it didn't.

Did too.
"Equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life." source

Even with perfect conditions which would have never existed on earth, the experiment was unable to deny the insurmountable issue of chirality.

The earliest life on Earth would not be the same as the current 'simplest' life on Earth.

Unsupportable assertion. "Must have been, so it was" doesn't work here.

Remember, life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution.

That's YOUR lie, not mine.

Like I said, I believe that people have real experiences that they ascribe to demons or angels or other supernatural causes. That doesn't mean they are supernatural in nature.

So which should I believe, my own senses or the unsupported claims of an unbeliever?
Sorry. Your claims out of ignorance can't overcome the testimony of a world of believers.

I've seen demons and things too, but they are not real, just a product of a dreaming state created by the mind.

Try seeing them when you're wide awake. Try seeing pool balls rolling around on a table struck by an unseen force. Try hearing perfectly timed footsteps where nobody is there or seeing demonic images that perfectly math the images others have seen. The supernatural exists in the real world. You denying it changes nothing.

It's a case of 100% misattribution.

Says you. Experts can't explain them.

That's a lot of unsupported assertions right there.

It's called logical conclusions. You should try it sometime.
[/quote]Even the Institute for Creation Research during their RATE project admits that there are hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity to account for. [/quote]
It surprises you that man doesn't have all the answers??
Where were you when God spoke the universe into existence?

Again, people have predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and they've never been right.

The end could not come until the Jews had returned to Israel.
God has no intention of letting us know when Christ will return, but it will happen. Even if that doesn't happen in your lifetime, you WILL die and you WILL give an accounting for your life in front of God. If you have accepted Christ into your life you may be saved. If not, you will know the reason for your eternal separation from the Father. That's YOUR choice, not His. He sent people like me to warn you, so that in the end you will be without excuse.

 

[Astrophile]

It's boring. Again, people have predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and they've never been right. So why would people predicting the end of the world right now be any different?

There are real ways the Earth as we know it could end. The Book of Revelation doesn't appear to be one of them.

One of the curious things about the Book of Revelation and other prophetic books is that they did not predict any of the real events of the last 1800 years or so. Revelation doesn't say anything about the emperor Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, or about the rise of Islam, or the discovery of the Americas, or the scientific revolution of the last 500 years. A successful prediction of any of these events would have been much more impressive than any of the fantastic but unfulfilled prophecies contained in the book.

 

[mark kennedy]

How is my statement 'unsupported'? The current life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution (based on all available evidence) and we know that the earliest form of life would not contain fully evolved DNA, but would need to arise from simpler precursors.

Because all you have done is state it, you offered no proof. Nothing is based on all the evidence unless it's an assumption.

 

[pitabread]

Because all you have done is state it, you offered no proof. Nothing is based on all the evidence unless it's an assumption.

So go hit up Google scholar. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

 

[mark kennedy]

So go hit up Google scholar. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

That's begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. I've done the background reading, you obviously haven't otherwise you would have an actual argument rather then a fallacious rant.

 

[USincognito]

Did too.
"Equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life." source

Even with perfect conditions which would have never existed on earth, the experiment was unable to deny the insurmountable issue of chirality.

Sigh. I really wish Creationists would actually keep with the science rather than spamming outdated AIG/CMI/ICR garbage.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-discovery-demystifies-life-chirality-phenomenon.html

 

[mark kennedy]

Sigh. I really wish Creationists would actually keep with the science rather than spamming outdated AIG/CMI/ICR garbage.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-discovery-demystifies-life-chirality-phenomenon.html

The obvious naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians are obvious in this statement:

Understanding of how homochirality occured at the onset of life remains a mystery (Discovery demystifies origin of life chirality phenomenon)
​

To this day, recapitulation is all this amounts to:

In the formulation of origin-of-life scenarios, self-assembly is often invoked as the only available mechanism to bridge the ‘insurmountable kinetic barrier’ connecting simple carbon-based molecules available on the early Earth and the simplest structures capable of enzymatic activity, which in a RNA world scenario would be ribozymes (Abiotic ligation of DNA oligomers templated by their liquid crystal ordering)
​

Sure you can have an RNA self-assmply structure capable of making an enzyme. If and only if you have an RNA enzyme that catalyzes a chemical reaction.

The RNA world hypothesis has been criticized because of the belief that long RNA sequences are needed for catalytic activity, and for the enormous numbers of randomized sequences required to isolate catalytic and binding functions using in vitro selection. For example, the best ribozyme replicase created so far able to replicate an impressive 95-nucleotide stretch of RNA – is ~190 nucleotides in length , far too long a sequence to have arisen through any conceivable process of random assembly. (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others, NCBI)
​

Yea those hard headed creationists that won't simply assume all of this happened at random in spite of the fact it's impossible. Of course, like all peer reviewed scientific literature it's subject to the scrutiny of the reviewers. Check out what this one had to say Ucog:

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (reviewer's report in [5]).
​

Bottom line, just a popular fantasy. That speaks volumes for the audacity of Darwinian evolution assuming something that can neither be directly observed or empirically demonstrated. Yet, they insist, we should all assume what they have never been able to prove. Most importantly, they know that for a fact. How is this, 'popular fantasy', supposed to be anything other then a modern mythology? The modern mythographers while extremely esoteric and profoundly well educated, it's the same thing as ancient pagan mythology that traced the origin of even the gods back to pagan elementals. Nothing new under the sun. Thanks for the yarn Ucog, I do enjoy a good story from time to time. I just don't confuse that as a substitute for faith in God, who is the true the author of life. It's called the law of biogenesis, life only comes from life. The only viable source of life on this planet is the living God and the only legitimate history of the origin of life is recorded in Genesis 1. Call me incredulous if you will, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Have a nice day
Mark

​

​

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because all you have done is state it, you offered no proof. Nothing is based on all the evidence unless it's an assumption.

New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far This makes for a decent read, and provides some good links to sources at the bottom.

Basically, abiogenesis experiments have already resulted in the formation of very simple cells, so we have decent evidence that the first cells on this planet were much simpler than modern ones. They don't have any organelles and their genetic material is RNA instead of DNA.

 

[pitabread]

I've done the background reading

Good. Then we're done here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Good. Then we're done here.

There never is when you start getting into the specifics.

 

[mark kennedy]

New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far This makes for a decent read, and provides some good links to sources at the bottom.

Basically, abiogenesis experiments have already resulted in the formation of very simple cells, so we have decent evidence that the first cells on this planet were much simpler than modern ones. They don't have any organelles and their genetic material is RNA instead of DNA.

That machinery would not be available in the RNA-world. However, RNA combines the properties of an enzyme and an information carrier (ribozymes).​

There's the problem, you don't have ribozymes. Bottom line:

A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting.​

 

[PsychoSarah]

That machinery would not be available in the RNA-world. However, RNA combines the properties of an enzyme and an information carrier (ribozymes).​

There's the problem, you don't have ribozymes. Bottom line:

A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting.​

Uh, what? Do you not know what that sentence says? RNA COMBINES the properties of an enzyme and information carrier. I can only assume that you don't know that even in modern cells, ribosomes are made of two different segments of RNA. That is, RNA can function like DNA as a template for genes AND make up the enzymes which react to the gene to produce protein.

 

[pitabread]

Even with perfect conditions which would have never existed on earth, the experiment was unable to deny the insurmountable issue of chirality.

Not insurmountable: The Origin of Life

(Personally, I wouldn't recommend getting one's science information from Answers in Genesis. They tend to lie given their agenda.)

Unsupportable assertion. "Must have been, so it was" doesn't work here.

I suggest familiarizing yourself with origins of life research. Nobody thinks that the first life would have had complex strings of DNA.

That's YOUR lie, not mine.

No, this is the conclusion of various branches of science from the last couple hundred years of scientific investigation of the Earth. If you want to deny all of science, that's your problem, not mine.

So which should I believe, my own senses or the unsupported claims of an unbeliever?

There are two things to consider here.

First, senses lie. Or rather, the brain is capable of replicating experiences that appear to be derived from external stimuli that may not be. Hallucinations are a perfect example, where a person may see and hear things that aren't real.

I myself experience hypnopompic hallucinations, which is when one wakes up but is still in a dream-state. I have woken up in the middle of the night and seen things in my room (sometimes creepy things like ghosts and monsters) that aren't actually there. Even weirder is how this dream imagery overlays real imagery (i.e. my room) and can look vividly real at the time. Yet ultimately it's just a product of the mind.

The second consideration is that as I said, I do believe people experience real phenomena and this can include hallucinogenic experiences. However, it's the attribution of the experience that I question. Just because a person sees a ghost in their bedroom at night doesn't mean that it's necessarily supernatural in nature.

Try seeing them when you're wide awake. Try seeing pool balls rolling around on a table struck by an unseen force. Try hearing perfectly timed footsteps where nobody is there or seeing demonic images that perfectly math the images others have seen. The supernatural exists in the real world. You denying it changes nothing.

I certainly can't speak to the specific experiences everyone else has had. However, again just because people experience a particular phenomena doesn't automatically equate to a supernatural experience. There is a certain standard of evidence needed to truly corroborate such experiences with the supernatural and in my experience of reading such accounts, the evidence is sorely lacking.

And when you really think about it, ascribing some of these things to the supernatural seems a bit silly. Like the pool balls. Do ghosts and demons really fancy a game of billiards?

Says you. Experts can't explain them.

That's quite a generalist statement, so forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. Second, lack of explanation for something is not the same thing as something being supernatural.

There was a time when people couldn't explain the weather and indeed ascribed supernatural origins to it, but that didn't make it supernatural.

It surprises you that man doesn't have all the answers??
Where were you when God spoke the universe into existence?

You're missing the point. It's case where the evidence points to one thing (an Earth much older than 6000 years), but they are trying to explain away what they found with ad hoc explanations including possibly invoking arbitrary supernaturalism.

That's not science.

He sent people like me to warn you, so that in the end you will be without excuse.

If God really wanted to warn me, they'd send someone more convincing than you.