|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Duplicate post
Edited by Pressie, : Duplicate post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Nope. No such thing. Nothing about three elements.
Life
quote: Please try to use standard language and meanings of words on this forum. That's the only way we will be able to effectively communicate. Making up meanings for what you want words to mean won't help anyone. Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
quote: Actually, you're the one jumping ahead. We're still looking at your first statement on this thread. It was:
quote: You made a statement. That's it. We're still trying to get you to provide evidence for that statement. You're jumping the gun. Who, when, where did anyone got it 'scientifically proven'? Provide references to those studies. To me you sound so much like the washing powder adverts we see on tv everyday . They all claim that their products are 'scientifically proven' to wash 'the cleanest'. Complete with some random guy in a white coat; and with thick Harry Potter glasses covering their eyes; putting washing powder into some machine. Yet, they never produce those studies when asked for them... So, return to your first claim. Provide reliable sources so that we can investigate them. You are jumping the gun. Without those studies you're just doing another Gish Gallop. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling, amongst others Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Not a good way to start off by insulting people.
All I asked for is: 1. We use words with their accepted meanings. This enables effective communication. Without that you might as well try to communicate with me in Fanagalo. A language both you and I can neither speak, nor understand.2. Provide references and evidence for your wild claims. We are in the science forums here, after all. To me it seems as if you're just here for preaching purposes. Not debate. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
You're jumping the gun, again.
First provide references for your first claim you made on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
quote: Luckily your beliefs don't count for anything on science forums. Those references for your wild claims, please. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ed67 writes: I followed the arguments on this thread and the guys who presented the arguments against 'specified, precision code' presented much more compelling evidence than those presented by the Creationist guys. At least the scientists presented peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. The anti-science brigade only presented arguments from incredubility and essays from religious sources.
Sorry, I assumed the argument for the specified, precision code that is found in the DNA/RNA of even the simplest forms of life was already covered. Ed67 writes: Really? Please present the data. I've seen none from your side. How can you guys honestly account for that happening in a completely non-intelligent way? There's more software packed into the nucleus of a cell than, well, I don't know. But lots. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Ed67 writes: Err, actually, the occurrence DNA is common knowledge. Everything else about DNA is not common knowledge. The guys who know much about it are the geneticists who actually study DNA. What is common knowledge is that creationists make up their own meanings of words and then pretend that it's 'scientific'.
"Please present the data."I thought, at this stage of the game, that you would have granted this as common knowledge. Ed67 writes: Well, according to the specialists, it depends on the species.
How many base-pair combinations are there in all the DNA in one single cell? Ed67 writes:
Well, according to the specialists, it depends on the species.
Well, how long is the 'character string' (the DNA in a nucleus straightened out and put in a line)? Surely someone on this thread remembers about how long scientists say the DNA molecule is... Ed67 writes:
Digital signals from DNA? This doesn't make any sense.
So, how many digital 'signals' can be sent in the DNA molecules of a cell?Ed67 writes: This doesn't make any sense. How do you measure the amount of signals stored per unit lenght? What units do you use to measure those?
Well, we'd have to know how many signals can be stored per unit length. But let me give you a clue; they're SMALLER than microscopic. Ed67 writes: This sounds like an essay. How do you meaure the amount of 'specified information'?
So, there's the 'data' that supports my claim that there is "LOTS" of specified information stored in the DNA molecules. Ed67 writes: Well, you should start reading peer-reviewed biological journals. And the responses.
As for your comment:"At least the scientists presented peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.", ok I'm too lazy to read through this thread, but we'll see about that. Ed67 writes: So far it seems as if you're the only drama queen around on this thread.
This is a cool forum, guys, I'm glad I found it. But I see it's going to take a lot more work than I'm used to so bear with me...btw, what's with the drama queen? lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ed67 writes: Exactly like salt crystals can do. Just get a bit of rain water, dissolve a bit of the salt crystal, and depending on the temperature and pressure, they can replicate. All by themselves.
What I mean is that DNA contains detailed instructions on how to REPLICATE,.. Ed67 writes: Or salt crystals.
...or 're-create' an organism. Ed67 writes:
Causes. Chemistry.
These instructions must have originally come from some cause... Ed67 writes: Well, if you think that all those Na and Cl ions need something intelligent to form salt crystals, you don't know much about chemistry.
...they could have come from an intelligent source Ed67 writes: ...as intelligence is known to be sufficient cause for the kind of instructions contained in the 'recipe' of DNA. Really? Any evidence for that 'intelligence'? DNA is chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
mram10 writes: How so? Some unicellar organisms have both sexual and asexual reproduction. Doesn't show any design. They just show what's more advantageous to the survival and reproduction of those organisms in the environment they live in. Sexual v asexual reproduction shows design more-so than evolution. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024