Prove it or remove it challenge

Shemjaza · Feb 19, 2016

The problem I have with the "specified information" canard is that there has never been a method proposed to objectively measure it.

The chin thing is weird too. Sure only homo sapiens have them, but I'm not seeing any biological problem with having them, so I don't see any reason to not just lump it in with the other random neutral mutations in humans that separate us from other apes.

Paterfamilia · Feb 20, 2016

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet
https://www.genome.gov › ...
To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies. Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene.
------------------

DNA is a double helix, while RNA is a single helix. Both have sets of nucleotides that contain genetic information. Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA is a molecule that contains the instructions an organism needs to develop, live and reproduce.Jun 6, 2013
DNA: Definition, Structure & Discovery | What Is DNA? - ...
www.livescience.com › 37247-dna

------------------

What DNA Does - How DNA Works | HowStuffWorks
science.howstuffworks.com › life › dna4
DNA contains the information to make proteins, which carry out all the functions and characteristics of living organisms.

-----------------

These are just a few of the hundreds of available resources. I found it impossible to find any that didn't mention "information" or "instructions" in their definition of DNA.

Maybe you could cite your differing sources?

I said you wouldn't treat me disrespectfully if I was in the same room with you because of my past experience with cowards. I'm not calling you a coward. I am saying that your reasons that you gave for not debating are logically incoherent. I could list the syllogism, but why would I want to do your homework, right?

So, if you are a good person and you have a good reason, you wouldn't be disrespectful in person. If you're a coward, again, you would keep your mouth shut.

The last reason, which I suspect is the real reason, is that you have no idea who I am yet. I am not someone to be cowed by the insults of an elitist naturalist - I have probably heard hundreds of them over the years. That's why it was so easy for me to emulate the speech patterns.

And you have no idea of my education, history or passion for the subject material.

Most of all, you hate the idea (however unlikely) of getting schooled by someone who hasn't earned your respect yet.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

When a term such as "information" is used colloquially, as it was in your quotes, that does not support your use of the term "information", Paterfamilia.

Again, you are making an equivocation error. If you want to claim that it is "information" in the sense that it had to be written by an intelligence you are going to need a lot more evidence than that.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

By the way Pater, you started out being acting dishonestly, being rude, and of course wrong so why do you think that I would be afraid of you? Are you the sort that threatens people with violence when your flaws are made obvious? I don't debate with people that I do not trust. You lost out on that almost immediately. I have seen far too many dishonest creationists over my time spent debating them. Why would I go debate one in a site where they would feel no qualms about breaking the Ninth Commandment, where I actually follow that rule of the Bible.

Paterfamilia · Feb 20, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
By the way Pater, you started out being acting dishonestly, being rude, and of course wrong so why do you think that I would be afraid of you? Are you the sort that threatens people with violence when your flaws are made obvious? I don't debate with people that I do not trust. You lost out on that almost immediately. I have seen far too many dishonest creationists over my time spent debating them. Why would I go debate one in a site where they would feel no qualms about breaking the Ninth Commandment, where I actually follow that rule of the Bible.

Again I don't see the slightest shred of dishonesty. Not one shred. If you are talking about my missing one of your posts, that is not dishonesty and I apologized for missing it. An honest mistake.

I have not threatened violence, and none of my flaws have been made obvious.

And again, I am not a "creationist". Any rudeness on my part was tit for tat; not my normal mode of operation but I take your rudeness and disrespect seriously. You don't even know what my claims are yet or what I believe, other than that I don't believe that the accepted causal mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism (mutation and natural selection) are NOT sufficient to account for the diversity of life that we see on planet earth.

If you can prove any of your accusations, go ahead. I haven't edited anything.

Paterfamilia · Feb 20, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
When a term such as "information" is used colloquially, as it was in your quotes, that does not support your use of the term "information", Paterfamilia.

Again, you are making an equivocation error. If you want to claim that it is "information" in the sense that it had to be written by an intelligence you are going to need a lot more evidence than that.

Why would you say I was using "information" colloquially? What do you even mean by that?

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

Paterfamilia said:
Again I don't see the slightest shred of dishonesty. Not one shred. If you are talking about my missing one of your posts, that is not dishonesty and I apologized for missing it. An honest mistake.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

I have not threatened violence, and none of my flaws have been made obvious.

It sounded like you were. After all you are obviously wrong and won't own up to your mistakes. How would you treat such a person?

And again, I am not a "creationist". Any rudeness on my part was tit for tat; not my normal mode of operation but I take your rudeness and disrespect seriously. You don't even know what my claims are yet or what I believe, other than that I don't believe that the accepted causal mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism (mutation and natural selection) are NOT sufficient to account for the diversity of life that we see on planet earth.

Really, then hat are your beliefs? You make creationist arguments, you have a creationist attitude, it is walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

If you can prove any of your accusations, go ahead. I haven't edited anything.

Did you reread my post? You won't understand your flaw unless you do that.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

Paterfamilia said:
Why would you say I was using "information" colloquially? What do you even mean by that?

The people that wrote the articles that you quoted were not using the word "information" in the same sense that you are. You are trying to use "information" to mean something made by an intelligence, they weren't.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

Pater, I will give you another shot. Drop the attitude and we may be able to have a discussion. But at this point I have no interest in a formal debate with you. Explain what your beliefs are. It seems that you want to go the route of intelligent design, but as the saying goes, that is only creationism in a cheap suit. There was a reason that your side lost the Dover Trial where they tried to rely on ID>

JonFromMinnesota · Feb 20, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
There was a reason that your side lost the Dover Trial where they tried to rely on ID>

My favorite part of that trial is when one of the ID witnesses tries to claim that evolution can't explain the immune system and then had multiple books and papers piled up in front of him addressing the immune system. Also, when Kenneth Miller wore a mouse trap as a tie clip.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
My favorite part of that trial is when one of the ID witnesses tries to claim that evolution can't explain the immune system and then had multiple books and papers piled up in front of him addressing the immune system. Also, when Kenneth Miller wore a mouse trap as a tie clip.

Sadly it looks like Pater has not been exactly honest with us. He tried to claim that he was not a creationist but you can see from this post that he believes the Adam and Eve myth:

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-with-my-beliefs.7933349/page-5#post-69284035">My recent struggle with my beliefs</a>

Since at no time in man's history were there only two people that pretty much eliminates all possibilities but being a creationist.

JonFromMinnesota · Feb 20, 2016

Extraneous said:
I didnt say they have no idea, i only said their understanding is not complete.

That doesn't falsify evolution, nor does it threaten it.

What do they have then as far as evidence?

Where would you like to start? Perhaps the human genome project, which was 13 year study and was lead by Francis Collins, who by the way, is a devout Christian. http://www.genome.gov/10001772

Human's and other apes share some DNA.

Humans and chimp DNA is 98% similar. I wouldn't consider that "some".
Would you like to talk about endogenous retroviruses?

God made Humans and other apes similar.

Nested hierarchy is a prediction for evolution, not God.

They found a couple fossils which are hardly conclusive.

Is making an accurate prediction for what type of species we'd find and where we'd find it based on the theory of evolution not conclusive?

Nithavela · Feb 20, 2016

Paterfamilia said:
Ha ha right. I agree. "BAM!" is pretty fancy.

Sounds like you're challenging me?

I challenge you to show some restraint and manners.

Nithavela · Feb 20, 2016

Paterfamilia said:
[...]
These are just a few of the hundreds of available resources. I found it impossible to find any that didn't mention "information" or "instructions" in their definition of DNA.

Maybe you could cite your differing sources?

I said you wouldn't treat me disrespectfully if I was in the same room with you because of my past experience with cowards. I'm not calling you a coward. I am saying that your reasons that you gave for not debating are logically incoherent. I could list the syllogism, but why would I want to do your homework, right?

So, if you are a good person and you have a good reason, you wouldn't be disrespectful in person. If you're a coward, again, you would keep your mouth shut.

The last reason, which I suspect is the real reason, is that you have no idea who I am yet. I am not someone to be cowed by the insults of an elitist naturalist - I have probably heard hundreds of them over the years. That's why it was so easy for me to emulate the speech patterns.

And you have no idea of my education, history or passion for the subject material.

Most of all, you hate the idea (however unlikely) of getting schooled by someone who hasn't earned your respect yet.

News flash, nobody on this forum waited for you to turn up, and nobody is sitting on the edge of their seats to go and find out what the thought patterns of "this mysterious new masked hero in our forum" are.

Extraneous · Feb 20, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
Humans and chimp DNA is 98% similar. I wouldn't consider that "some".
Would you like to talk about endogenous retroviruses?

Is that noncoding DNA?

How is that even relevant? .Humans and mice share 90% DNA.

It looks to me like science has absolutely no idea how to understand DNA properly, and they are like neanderthals trying to understand binary code. However i'll reserve judgment for a bit and maybe learn more about DNA first. This seems to be interesting actually.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

Extraneous said:
Is that noncoding DNA?

How is that even relevant? .Humans and mice share 90% DNA.

It looks to me like science has absolutely no idea how to understand DNA properly, and they are like neanderthals trying to understand binary code. However i'll reserve judgment for a bit and maybe learn more about DNA first. This seems to be interesting actually.

And humans and reptiles share a bit less, and humans and fish share less yet, please note that we are getting into larger and large clades with less and less of a degree of relationship. It is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts and creationism has no explanation.

Thank you for pointing out the errors of those that read Genesis literally.

Extraneous · Feb 20, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
And humans and reptiles share a bit less, and humans and fish share less yet, please note that we are getting into larger and large clades with less and less of a degree of relationship. It is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts and creationism has no explanation.

Thank you for pointing out the errors of those that read Genesis literally.

The only errors i see are with ToE. Toe science seems to be based on assumptions rather than actual scientific understanding. They claim to have DNA evidence, yet they dont even understand what 80% of DNA is even used for. It seems unlikely that they can, at this time, use DNA to build theory on mans origin. I think perhaps it might be wishful thinking rather than actual science.

VirOptimus · Feb 20, 2016

Extraneous said:
The only errors i see are with ToE. Toe science seems to be based on assumptions rather than actual scientific understanding. They claim to have DNA evidence, yet they dont even understand what 80% of DNA is even used for. It seems unlikely that they can, at this time, use DNA to build theory on mans origin. I think perhaps it might be wishful thinking rather than actual science.

Stop thinking and start studying! You are only showing your ignorance with posts like this.

Subduction Zone · Feb 20, 2016

Extraneous said:
The only errors i see are with ToE. Toe science seems to be based on assumptions rather than actual scientific understanding. They claim to have DNA evidence, yet they dont even understand what 80% of DNA is even used for. It seems unlikely that they can, at this time, use DNA to build theory on mans origin. I think perhaps it might be wishful thinking rather than actual science.

Then you simply don't understand the nature of evidence.

Why do you have a hard time understanding that there is such a thing as "Junk DNA". You want to deny that concept because that alone shows creationism to be wrong.

Here is a simple question for you that should lead to you understanding that there is such a thing as DNA that is not needed. Sadly to date every creationist has been afraid to answer it honestly:

What is more complex, you or an amoeba?

Extraneous · Feb 20, 2016

VirOptimus said:
Stop thinking and start studying! You are only showing your ignorance with posts like this.

How so? please enlighten me.

Prove it or remove it challenge

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency