Question for a Creationist

[Tomk80]

As for giving the information I read, I suggest you spend your own time doing the research. You are asking me because you are implying that I am not being honest and I find that an insult. It's an old tactic of evolutionists which has become quite boring. It's like being back at school and being asked if you can copy my work. Do your own. I spent many months on this.

No, we are asking you because it is not our taks to try to find your sources. You made the claim, you are the one that should support it. What we are asking is normal, it is not an implication that you are not being honest.

However, the fact that you do not want to give any sources after being asked for them, does imply that you are just making it up as you go along, as far as I can tell.

 

[nuttypiglet]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what I'm trying to convey, let me try it another way. Let's say I have a computer program which operates a machine in a factory. Now, it carefully picks up an object, passes it to a machine for some shaping, it then takes the newly shaped object and places it in a box for shipping. The code for these very simple operations is a list of 1,000 lines. Now let's say that the code in the robot has its code randomly changed. There is one code which makes it more efficient, it will speed the robot up. The remaining codes will give no benefits at all, and some will cause the robot to break by smashing itself into the wall behind it. What are the odds of the right code being changed? and this is a very small code and a very simple example. What I'm saying is, when we look at say the evolution of Man, look how many mutations were right on the button. The bones in the body altered shape and density, the muscles lessened, the pelvis twisted, the curvature of the spine altered and repositioned itself at the back of the skull rather than the middle, the feet changed, all the organs changed. Absolutely everything changed including the brain to make us what we are today, and by some miracle, all those correct genes were aimed at. Rather than going extinct (which is far more probable) here we are. I know evolutionists will keep claiming the same old things, like "you're not smart enough to understand" or "it just happened because there were millions of years", but that doesn't wash with me. The odds are just so great that my mind simply won't accept it.

 

[USincognito]

As for giving the information I read, I suggest you spend your own time doing the research. You are asking me because you are implying that I am not being honest and I find that an insult. It's an old tactic of evolutionists which has become quite boring. It's like being back at school and being asked if you can copy my work. Do your own. I spent many months on this.

Many months? That's great.

I and Loudmouth have been participants in this subforum for nearly 10 years and Tomk80 has been here for 9 years.

There's a number of biologists and other scientists that have participated here over that time and there's even a physicist turned geneticist who worked on the Chimp genome project that posts here.

Forgive us if we're not impressed by your months of research.

 

[USincognito]

I have a degree in computer science, and that's how I can recognise DNA as designed code.

Oh brother. DNA is a molecular chemical that interacts with other molecular chemicals in different ways to physically form other chemicals. It's not a bunch of 1s and 0s representing abstract concepts.

If you are the expert on this code, then enlighten me to how it all started? how many proteins were needed for the first cell, and how did it develop reproduction?

What does abiogenesis have to do with whether mutations in existing life (like the chimp/human LCA) can lead to different beings like chimps and humans?

Or are you one of those who throw away responsibility and say it arrived on the back of a meteor?

Yep, more C/IDer strawmen and or PRATTs.

 

[nuttypiglet]

I didn't say that DNA was a bunch of 1's and 0's, did I? I simply said I can see it is code, which it is. Without a doubt, DNA is a set of instructions without which the cell would die.
If you really know anything about biology, then how is it you can't see the sheer complexity involved with tens of thousands of tiny protein machines keeping things in order. Heck, the inside of a cell is more complex than the average city. There are many things which are still a mystery so to claim it's all a natural thing is just bonkers. Well, I think that anyone who looks inside a cell and doesn't see deliberate design, must be very narrow minded. With all those tiny machines performing different tasks, it's so easy to just say "oh, it's just chemical reactions, nothing fantastic" but in reality it is more than fantastic. No one has come up with any explanation as to how these naturally occurring chemical reactions evolved. I think Abiogenesis and Evolution are very strongly linked and if one has no answers, then the other can never be verified. Life has never been started in a Lab, yet if it's just chemical reactions and nothing fantastic, it shouldn't be that difficult should it.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Many months? That's great.

I and Loudmouth have been participants in this subforum for nearly 10 years and Tomk80 has been here for 9 years.

There's a number of biologists and other scientists that have participated here over that time and there's even a physicist turned geneticist who worked on the Chimp genome project that posts here.

Forgive us if we're not impressed by your months of research.

You do make me laugh, and I'm beginning to see how the scientific mind actually works, so thanks for that. There simply is no logic or common sense involved is there, but then again I was always told at University that common sense is something which cannot be taught.
You laugh at the 'many months' but you have FAILED to include ANY details. Let's take a simple scenario to educate you. There are 2 students, both want to learn a particular subject. One student spends 12 hours every single day studying, the other spends 2-3 hours per day for three days a week. Who will finish the course first? Let me give you a clue, it's the one who puts in far more time. Perhaps this is how you accept evolution so readily, you FAIL to see detail.
Oh and when you say "forgive US" I assume then that you speak for everyone?

 

[Loudmouth]

pubmed? lmao I've probably been there far more than you to research my heart condition.

I strongly doubt that.

I have a degree in computer science, and that's how I can recognise DNA as designed code.

You are seeing what you want to see.

When was the last time you saw computer codes that fall into a nested hierarchy? When was the last time you calculated a Ka/Ks ratio for a comparison of two computer programs?

If you are the expert on this code, then enlighten me to how it all started? how many proteins were needed for the first cell, and how did it develop reproduction? Or are you one of those who throw away responsibility and say it arrived on the back of a meteor?

We don't need to know where the first life came from in order to know that species share a common ancestor.

Or are you going to claim that we can not use DNA parternity tests until we figure out how life originated on Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, I think that anyone who looks inside a cell and doesn't see deliberate design, must be very narrow minded.

Another irony meter explodes.

Until you can explain the nested hierarchy, you really aren't going to get anywhere. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason that any designer would force their designs to fall into a nested hierarchy. At the same time, a nested hierarchy is the only pattern that evolution can produce, and it is the pattern of shared and derived features that we observe in life.

So why do species fall into a nested hierarchy? Please explain.

With all those tiny machines performing different tasks, it's so easy to just say "oh, it's just chemical reactions, nothing fantastic" but in reality it is more than fantastic. No one has come up with any explanation as to how these naturally occurring chemical reactions evolved. I think Abiogenesis and Evolution are very strongly linked and if one has no answers, then the other can never be verified. Life has never been started in a Lab, yet if it's just chemical reactions and nothing fantastic, it shouldn't be that difficult should it.

How are abiogenesis and Evolution linked? If God created a simple replicator that then evolved over 4 billion years to produce the life we see today the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

 

[nuttypiglet]

I strongly doubt that.



You are seeing what you want to see.

When was the last time you saw computer codes that fall into a nested hierarchy? When was the last time you calculated a Ka/Ks ratio for a comparison of two computer programs?



We don't need to know where the first life came from in order to know that species share a common ancestor.

Or are you going to claim that we can not use DNA parternity tests until we figure out how life originated on Earth.

So how can you tell if life was created using a common tool, or whether it originated from a cell that came into existence by chance? If you cannot determine this, then you have no foundation for evolution as fact.

 

[Tomk80]

So how can you tell if life was created using a common tool, or whether it originated from a cell that came into existence by chance? If you cannot determine this, then you have no foundation for evolution as fact.

Determine whether it falls in a nested hierarchy. Things that are designed using common tools do not fall in nested hierarchies, as Loudmouth already pointed out. Things that derive from common ancestry do. Life falls in a nested hierarchy, ergo no common tool. QED.

By the way, please leave behind such strawmen as "came into existed by chance". It's a nonsense statement.

 

[nuttypiglet]

"By the way, please leave behind such strawmen as "came into existed by chance". It's a nonsense statement."

Again, prove it, enlighten me. How did the left handed amino acids align to create the right proteins, required to make those amino acids in the first place, and start life?
The sooner science becomes humble, the better. Start admitting the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

So how can you tell if life was created using a common tool, or whether it originated from a cell that came into existence by chance? If you cannot determine this, then you have no foundation for evolution as fact.

Why would a common tool produce a nested hierarchy? Please explain.

Cars are made with common tools. Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Computer programs are made with common tools. Computer programs do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

There is absolutely no reason that a designer using common tools would make his creations fall into a nested hierarchy. The only process we know of that consistently produces nested hierarchies is evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

"By the way, please leave behind such strawmen as "came into existed by chance". It's a nonsense statement."

Again, prove it, enlighten me. How did the left handed amino acids align to create the right proteins, required to make those amino acids in the first place, and start life?

If we don't know how life started does this mean that we can't use DNA paternity tests to determine who the father of a baby is?

The sooner science becomes humble, the better. Start admitting the truth.

What does the beginning of life have to do with the evolution of life once it was here?

 

[nuttypiglet]

"What does the beginning of life have to do with the evolution of life once it was here?"

common sense will answer that with ease

 

[nuttypiglet]

Why would a common tool produce a nested hierarchy? Please explain.

Cars are made with common tools. Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Computer programs are made with common tools. Computer programs do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

There is absolutely no reason that a designer using common tools would make his creations fall into a nested hierarchy. The only process we know of that consistently produces nested hierarchies is evolution.

really? and really? lack of knowledge of cars and computer coding noted.

 

[USincognito]

really? and really? lack of knowledge of cars and computer coding noted.

Really?

You honestly think that cars and computer codes form nested heirarchies? Could you explain to us how they do so?

 

[Tomk80]

really? and really? lack of knowledge of cars and computer coding noted.

Could you please explain in your own words what you think a nested hierarchy is, and why you think cars and computer code fall into them?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Now if you said twin nested hierarchy then maybe I would have agreed with you.

 

[Tomk80]

Now if you said twin nested hierarchy then maybe I would have agreed with you.

Let's start with nested.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Again don't try the tactic that you are the smartest person on the planet, and nobody else understands what a nested hierarchy is. I don't fall for such silly things.