Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[AV1611VET]

But if it turns out Christianity isn't the "true'" theology, then it becomes moot. At which point you'd best hope you haven't ticked off some other supreme deity for following the incorrect belief system.

Do you believe that's a possibility?

If not, mind if I don't either?

 

[HitchSlap]

Christianity is working so well for me that I can't imagine it being incorrect.

I'm glad it's working out for you.

 

[Clint Edwards]

First, you are begging the question; you are making statements about God without giving any reason why we should accept them. Second, whether the universe began naturally or supernaturally, and whether the first living things were created by a god or originated by a natural process from complex organic compounds, has no bearing on whether stars and planets were formed by the collapse of interstellar clouds, or on whether all primates, including ourselves, are descended from a common ancestor.

Of course, your statement is surely debatable. If you understand little cosmology, then you understand that galaxies in relation to one another are not homogeneous in distribution through the universe, you also would know that galaxies, and there are different types, have stars in different locations, for instance the earth is in a stellar arm from the center of the galaxy, which is probably a massive black hole.

The location of the earth, i.e. our solar system, is in a more advantageous position for the survival of life than millions and millions of stars located in a different position. You say it is by chance based upon existing physical laws, I can't prove you wrong, can you prove me wrong ?

My position is simple on the evolution issue, there is very little evidence, direct or genetic,m for evolutionary connections above the family or maybe even at the genus level. It is a bridge too far, and there little evidence a bridge ever existed at all.

 

[Clint Edwards]

If information were provided to you that satisfactorily proved there was no god, would you become atheist?

Absolute proof ? yes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you believe that's a possibility?

If not, mind if I don't either?

-_- of course it is a possibility. It is just as possible that Islam is the one true religion as Christianity, or Hinduism, or a religion yet to exist in human minds.

 

[Clint Edwards]

It's debatable, considering that said protocells don't regulate their own division, and as a result "daughter protocells" don't end up with consistent genetic material (RNA). That's why they are called protocells and not cells.


Viruses. There are also viruses capable of going back and forth between the two, and as a result these are thought to be the reason for the transition of the early living cells from being RNA based to being DNA based. Remnant viral genes for the transition remained in these surviving "cells" and converted them. Note that DNA and RNA are extremely similar in terms of chemical makeup, but that any cell that did transition to DNA would have an extreme advantage in the fact that DNA is far more stable.

That life on this planet started with RNA as the genetic material would explain why modern cells need to transcribe DNA segments into RNA in order to produce proteins rather than just using a DNA based system.


-_- in modern cells, no, but RNA has the capacity to run basic functions by itself. That is, it can produce proteins from itself (and even act as one) and replicate.

But again, the DNA instructs nothing. It's more like a template than a blueprint, since the complementary RNA bases get stuck to it until the catalysts separate when they hit a spot they can't stay bonded to, and since the RNA is partly "stuck" to the complex, it separates when it does. It's all chemistry.

All DNA exists for is to be transcribed. It doesn't directly do anything, it is all up to RNA and the proteins produced from the RNA. 100%, if DNA wasn't significantly more stable than RNA, living cells wouldn't use it. It just makes for more consistent RNA than RNA by itself would.


Why would they need to combine with each other necessarily? Most organelles in a cell are just additional lipid bilayer folds with differences in protein and RNA present, and in the case of bacteria, that would apply to all of them. Lipid bilayers fold in sometimes, and proteins would get caught in them. That's all there is to organelle formation. Fyi, ribosomes are made of RNA.

Considering how simple bacteria are, these protocells are just a more stable genome and cell wall away from being very simple bacteria.



Retroviruses, though they convert their RNA into DNA directly. These sorts of viruses often leave bits and pieces of themselves behind in the host genome.

To viruses, those without DNA must use a host with DNA to reproduce, correct ?

" All DNA exists for is to be transcribed". Thank you, that is my point. Transcribed for what reason ?

Because cellular "information" is communicated by chemical processes, that does;'t make it a lesser method than a computer using electricity for information distribution and direction. In fact it is infinitely more complicated.

Yes, it is all chemical reaction, but it is controlled chemical reaction, controlled by the transcribed "data" from the DNA, Correct ?

Please, how and where is this information transcribed ? Thanks !

 

[Clint Edwards]

No, it isn't; you have got things the wrong way round. The 'Big Bang' cosmology was deduced from the recession of the galaxies, the abundances of the isotopes of hydrogen, helium and lithium, and the cosmic microwave background, all of which provide evidence for the expansion of the universe from an early high-temperature, high-density state. The singularity is a mathematical fiction, not a physical reality; it exists because present knowledge of the laws of physics breaks down before the Planck time, not because there were no laws of physics before that time.

Uh, yes, sort of. The existence of any physical laws beyond, in retrograde, after known physical laws break down is not known and probably is unknowable.

The singularity is not a mathematical fiction, since mathematics also breaks down before it is ever reached.

It is the hypothesis of single point of infinite density wherein was all energy, thus matter that ever existed or could exist.

This single point existed in absolute nothing since everything was created when for an unknown reason it began it's rapid expansion.

If the universe began a rapid contraction it would reach a point of of infinite gravity and infinite density, once again

It won;'t happen because gravity can't do it, it is getting weaker and weaker as the universe continues to accelerate in expansion, propelled by an unknown force, labeled black energy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If information were provided to you that satisfactorily proved there was no god, would you become atheist?

.... reluctantly, yes I would. But, where is this wonderful information that will allow me to become a fulfilled and satisfied atheist?

 

[HitchSlap]

.... reluctantly, yes I would. But, where is this wonderful information that will allow me to become a fulfilled and satisfied atheist?

Reality is the truth, and fulfillment and satisfaction are up to you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To viruses, those without DNA must use a host with DNA to reproduce, correct ?

Well, in modern day, they have no choice, since all living cells have DNA. Realistically, there's no reason viruses need hosts that have DNA as their genetic material.

" All DNA exists for is to be transcribed". Thank you, that is my point. Transcribed for what reason ?

-_- because none of the processes in cells that produce proteins can do it directly from DNA, they have to use RNA intermediates. What translates the RNA into protein is other strands of RNA.

Because cellular "information" is communicated by chemical processes, that does;'t make it a lesser method than a computer using electricity for information distribution and direction. In fact it is infinitely more complicated.

-_- as complicated as the fact that molecules react predictably with each other, I suppose. Again, you were implying that they actually communicate, but they don't. RNA isn't given its properties by the DNA, its properties are the consequence of the chemical structure.

Also, more complicated doesn't mean more efficient, more intelligent, or more impressive. Cell processes are like a person needing a bigger house slapping on rooms haphazardly until something good enough exists. Yeah, it sure makes for a more complicated house than would normally be produced by a rationally thinking human being, but the house is inferior as a result, not superior.

Cellular functions would be way more efficient if the molecules actually organized themselves optimally. In reality, catalysts just move about mostly at random until their substrates come into contact with them. It'd be like turning a wood chipper on and filling the room it is in with wood until some eventually falls into the hole and becomes enough wood chips to satisfy demand, and then waiting for the extra, unchipped wood to just rot. It's horrifically inefficient and wasteful. Billions of years of evolution for the barely functioning hot mess that cells are.

Yes, it is all chemical reaction, but it is controlled chemical reaction, controlled by the transcribed "data" from the DNA, Correct ?

Nope. The RNA has entirely different properties from the DNA, and sections of it don't even get transcribed, which is why a single gene in DNA usually is used to produce around 3 different proteins in eukaryotes. Proteins and RNA control the transcription process itself, and in general, proteins and RNA are not particularly representative of the overall sequences used to make them.

Please, how and where is this information transcribed ? Thanks !

-_- transcription occurs in the nucleus, right on the DNA. RNA copies are produced by RNA nucleotides attaching to the DNA bases they are most chemically attracted to, which is why the system screws up so much. The only thing stopping the portions of DNA from being transcribed being totally random is that the catalysts are chemically unable to attach to locations without specific sequences. But every time DNA gets exposed for transcription, it does become more liable to be damaged.

The RNA and proteins that transcribe DNA are floating around everywhere in the nucleus such that when the DNA strands are exposed and separated, they'll collect together and start transcribing fairly quickly. They'll eventually reach a sequence of the DNA they cannot bind with and the whole thing falls apart, pulling the newly transcribed mRNA off of the DNA strand with it.

-_- then the mRNA has sections of it removed by proteins because it doesn't start out with the sequence that will result in the needed protein.

If those previous processes didn't screw up, the mRNA floats around and eventually leaves the nucleus, and is eventually translated into protein by a ribosome (with tRNA with attached amino acids being drawn in to make that amino acid chain) if it doesn't break down before it gets that far. The mRNA may be translated into protein multiple times before it inevitably breaks down. Sometimes the translation process also screws up and the malformed protein either falls apart, performs a subpar version of its function, or even does a bit of harm before it's broken down.

It might seem impossible for the system to rely on random molecular motion so much, but remember, a ridiculous amount of this crap exists within the cell. Sometimes proteins will transport the mRNA or another component to where they need to go faster, sometimes not, it varies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That’s it, there’s no other option for ID/creos. Arguments from incredulity are absurd, and don’t deserve acknowledgement. And considering the abject lack of ethics from which ID was born, it’s an embarrassment for anyone who uses it.

Cataracts run in my family and my right eye is showing signs. So I revisited the anatomy of the eye info with it's connection to the brain, and my incredulity concerning evolution is refreshed. There is no-way-no-how that stereoscopic vision 'just happened'.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The location of the earth, i.e. our solar system, is in a more advantageous position for the survival of life than millions and millions of stars located in a different position.

Only for the survival of the life that developed here. For all we know, we exist on the fringes of the conditions that allow life to form.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Reality is the truth, and fulfillment and satisfaction are up to you.

Well, I can see where we already divide in our epistemological appraisals. You apparently think 'reality' and 'truth' are of the same essence; I, on the other hand, do not equivocate or conflate these two terms. So, it looks like no satisfaction is forthcoming to me, no matter whether I'm a theist or an atheist.

Shucks! Darn it!

 

[AV1611VET]

From my point of view, I'm able to accept things as they are.

Are you glad that line of questioning is behind you now?

Kinda bluffed your way through that, didn't you?

Do you think I was fooled by your answers?

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you glad that line of questioning is behind you now?

Kinda bluffed your way through that, didn't you?

Do you think I was fooled by your answers?

I love questions!

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, I can see where we already divide in our epistemological appraisals. You apparently think 'reality' and 'truth' are of the same essence; I, on the other hand, do not equivocate or conflate these two terms. So, it looks like no satisfaction is forthcoming to me, no matter whether I'm a theist or an atheist.

Shucks! Darn it!

The choice is yours.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no-way-no-how that stereoscopic vision 'just happened'.

You're right! There is no way it just happened.

Now, on your way to see that designer about cataracts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The choice is yours.

Ok. I choose not to equivocate on Reality and Truth. (Whew! ...I feel so liberated now in saying that! )

 

[AV1611VET]

I love questions!

You're not alone.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[pitabread]

Do you believe that's a possibility?

Sure, why not?