The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: neoholographic
Basically you said, evolution is false but I'm going to believe it anyway.

I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I was talking about abiogenesis, which is unproven. Evolution IS proven. You don't understand the difference between the 2. Maybe watch the video I posted instead of making up BS and acting like you are some authority on the truth when you are not.

So it's a big deal that we can't fully explain the exact origins of DNA functionality from RNA.

That's the ballgame. That's my point and your longwinded posts where you obfuscate around this are meaningles. This is why I asked these questions for 4-5 posts and you haven't even attempted to respond. This is because it's impssible for nature to do these things. Nature can give you order like a snowflake but that snowflake isn't encoded with information on how to make other snowflakes or information on how to make the machinary to build other snowflakes.

LMAO! Pure load of crap and how convenient that you totally cut off the rest of my paragraph to quote mine one single line out of context. Surely you have a better argument than THAT. Your belief requires a being much more complicated than DNA, arising completely from nothing. Until you explain that, you have no right to criticize our scientific progression of knowledge on DNA that is growing each year.

Your questions are irrelevant. They don't prove anything. They don't prove evolution is impossible, I have posted direct evidence that counters that claim and you keep ignoring it. Why? Why not address the evidence? What are you afraid of? You are super confident that you are right, yet are afraid to do any research whatsoever on the topic and you pretend evidence was not posted. Sorry but it's right up there in the thread for anybody to read, even a blind denier like yourself can't deny that.

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences.

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence GGCCAATCT and gave this sequence the ability to signal the binding site for the RNA transcription factor.

I don't know and neither do you. Your problem is that you are treating gene sequences themselves the same as the basic functionality of DNA. It is deceptive and dishonest. I bet a geneticist can answer that question and explain exactly where all of your misunderstandings are. Why don't you ask one instead of acting like your supreme knowledge trumps all of science from the past 50 years. Problem is you can't admit that your opinion is an opinion. You have to attribute everything unknown to a magical god, when it is just your opinion and not fact.

There's a reason why you dodge these question and why every Darwinist I've debated dodges these questions, it's because this is impossible for evolution without intelligent agency.

LMAO. You dodged every piece of evidence that anybody has posted. I didn't dodge anything, I'm not a geneticist, I don't know the answer to your ridiculous questions. Just because I personally don't know, doesn't make evolution wrong or god right. You are appealing to ignorance and nothing more. Give it up already you are like a broken record. You don't know the answer either, stop pretending like you do.

Now you're trying to debate things I never said. This is another faulty tactic employed by Darwinists. Where did I say a more complex being arised COMPLETELY out of nothing? LOL, I emphasize COMPLETELY because it simply shows how far you're stretching this lie to try to make a point against an argument that I never made.

OH! So you CAN'T answer my question huh? That means you are dodging it and that proves evolution is fact and materialism is the truth. Typical creationist argument tactics. Claim that because I can't answer a question it proves ID, while when you can't answer mine or address any evidence at all it's just "Darwinist" (whatever the # that means) faulty tactics. LMAO at your obvious double standards.

So first, quote me where I made this claim. Secondly, why does this intelligence have to ARISE. Another claim you make that I'm sure you will not back.

ID is your claim not mine. You need to explain this, otherwise you are asking me to prove a negative. Sorry but this is hilariously hypocritical.

Quote mines prove nothing. Stop the lies and blatant dishonesty. ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE I POSTED INSTEAD OF REPEATEDLY dodging it. Sorry but your logic is downright hilarious. You can't address the evidence because you don't understand a lick of it and then you try to hold all of us to ridiculous standards but won't even show the same respect to the folks that have actually done the research.

a reply to: neoholographic

And seriously, calling somebody a "Darwinist" when they are talking about DNA is absolutely nonsensical. Darwin didn't even know DNA existed in his time. The term Darwinism is from the 1800s, it doesn't apply anymore. Only dishonest science deniers actually use that term, not scientists. Darwin started the theory of evolution, but he isn't the be all end all. We have learned a crap load about evolution since that time. You are essentially name calling when you use that term or "evolutionist".

Address the posted evidence or prove yourself to be a troll. The choice is yours.

FYI I just submitted your question to a geneticist, as soon as I get a response I will post it here.

a reply to: Barcs

Oh Barcs you and your semantics (joke).

There are plenty of Darwinist's out there these days ..... social Darwinist's that is

It is as if they think that scientists pick and choose what theories they will follow. It would be like a mechanic deciding they were not going to follow the instruction manual for fixing your car, because "it did not work". Or perhaps more acutely, the mechanic deciding the electrical system is against gods will, and refusing to believe in it

a reply to: Barcs

Basically, you can't answer the question so you have to phone a friend LOL. I will wait for their response but I can tell you what it will be in response. They don't know either. This is because there isn't any answer to the question. Evolution without intelligent agency is nonsense. It's a belief system. You said:

I didn't dodge anything, I'm not a geneticist, I don't know the answer to your ridiculous questions.

Again, an example that you have a belief in evolution. You don't know the answers yet the questions are ridiculous LOL. Are you serious? How can you deem the questions ridiculous if you don't know the answer? They're so ridiculous, you're running to a Geneticist to try and get some answers. Why would you send this Geneticist ridiculous questions?

a reply to: neoholographic

I agree with the science behind evolution because of the evidence I posted earlier. It doesn't hinge on how DNA emerged from RNA. It hinges on common ancestry from the first replicating organism to today, something that is undeniable in the fossil record and is shown to happen in the lab as well. It is indisputable right now in science. You aren't referring to evolution when you talk about the emergence of DNA features.

Again, you don't have an answer, either, you have an opinion. You can't even explain how intelligent design works or the mechanics behind it. If you truly wish to figure it out, you need to find the answer to your own question. The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis does not hinge upon your questions, nor does it need any validation from you or anyone in this thread including myself. It stands on it's own merit based on mountains of evidence that repeatedly holds up to scrutiny. It's up to you to show otherwise if you are actually talking about evolution and not just materialism in general.

a reply to: Barcs

I think it's obvious that you have a blind, misguided belief in evolution. There's no evidence to support it. It's a house of cards. This is why you have phoned a friend to try to answer these questions. In the face of these questions, evolution without intelligent agency crumbles.

When your phone a friend gets back to you, let me know.

The fact is, the genome is complex even at the smallest levels. The Nasuia deltocephalinicola has a genome of 112,000 base pairs which 137 code for proteins. With humans it's 3.2 billion base pairs and about 21,000 genes that encode proteins.

It's plain to see, there isn't a simple something that magically became a complex something that encodes DNA sequences with information and also makes the machinary to decode this information.

Evolution without intelligent agency is impossible. The fact that you can't answer simple questions about a TATA box or a CAAT box and you have to phone a friend shows how weak your position is.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

It hinges on common ancestry from the first replicating organism to today, something that is undeniable in the fossil record and is shown to happen in the lab as well.

The fossil record and lab proves that my greatest grandfather was a unicellular prokaryote? "They" do not have such proof.

You can't even explain how intelligent design works or the mechanics behind it.

He has though... It is the genetic code. Code is created by intelligent beings. Furthermore, all biological, chemical, and physical laws demonstrate this intelligence. Mathematics are intelligent; mathematical patterns and proofs are ubiquitous in nature: phi, pi, E = mc^2, etc. If you don't understand by now perhaps its too early in your development to be shown these concepts.

a reply to: cooperton

So you are saying you do not understand phylogenetics, molecular clocks or how you sequence genetic materials?

a reply to: neoholographic

If I don't understand something, I reach out to an expert on the subject, so I don't look like a completely ignorant fool when discussing the topic as you have. I don't let pride or ego get in the way as you guys do with your religious faith. I have no problem admitting I'm not an expert in genetics. You are not an expert either, but you pretend to be an authority on the subject when your overall knowledge is laughable and you don't even know the difference between genetic code changes and the emergence of new DNA features.

The main issue is your inability to even consider that a non religious answer could be valid, no matter how much proof there is. What's the point of even making the thread, if you won't even consider the evidence or offer rebuttals to the evidence people have posted? Do you actually even want an answer? Based on the history of this thread, I'd say you do not. You just crave personal validation of your belief system and want a pulpit to preach your faith.

And please stop the lie that there is no evidence. I already posted it and you ignored it. THAT IS ON YOU. How can you be that blatantly dishonest when you intentionally decided to ignore my evidence link and pretend it wasn't posted. I'd bet the farm that whatever answer the geneticist gives will be ignored as well, just like everyone else who has answered your questions.

a reply to: Barcs

Ahh but here is the rub, if they stopped using the Big Lie Technique logical fallacy they would have to admit they may not be right. So they dip into Goebbels tool box

Lets ignore that there is fossil evidence, genetic evidence etc. Lets ignore that we have observed evolution. Anyone dares to post evidence you either refuse to read it (if you acknowledge it) or you say it is biased. You see the problem is these "atheist" scientist (because if one is a scientist, and acknowledges evolution they are atheists right? See another Big Lie to try out).

Then when you need to quote something back at evidence you foolishly said you had read, you did out Dr Dino, Ken Ham, Creation.com, or something from the Watchtower. Then you throw in some flack out to try and deflect that those are like putting O J Simpson up as a poster boy for preventing domestic violence.

a reply to: Noinden

Hilarious, right? They are basically arm chair scientists. They sit at home, play on the internet and read biased websites and think that they have discovered some crazy unknown flaw in evolution that all of the other experts have somehow mysteriously overlooked. They pretend they know more than scientific experts that have been working and studying in that field for decades. Something is seriously wrong with that level of dishonesty.

a reply to: Noinden

You just remember it's all the scientists over the past 150 years have been involved in a big lie cover-up. That's logical. I'm pretty sure any scientist who found actual evidence that evolution is false would want to make it public. Why? Because it would be the biggest discovery of the century. If they had solid proof it would put them in the history books.

But people like Hovind and Ham and creation ministries international aren't biased at all they are just presenting facts (cough cough). Where if the logic here.

a reply to: Barcs

It really blew my mind that the OP had the balls to try to call you out for engaging in proper due diligence. It just shows how very little these people actually want to learn something and better understand the natural world they are a part of when they mock people who are honest regarding subject matter they are able to comment on and then compound it by mocking your attempt to get the proper answer. The whole thing is a pathetic joke to them. I honestly can't tell anymore which ones are deluded and which ones are trolling.

a reply to: cooperton

He has though... It is the genetic code. Code is created by intelligent beings. Furthermore, all biological, chemical, and physical laws demonstrate this intelligence. Mathematics are intelligent; mathematical patterns and proofs are ubiquitous in nature: phi, pi, E = mc^2, etc. If you don't understand by now perhaps its too early in your development to be shown these concepts. edit on 21-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

You have no evidence for any of that. All you have is speculative opinions with no substantiating evidence. You can believe what you want, but don't expect scientists to stop in their tracks because your crowd "knows" how it all works and "who did it".

I would also point out that, heaven forbid, your crowd was in charge, none of the research which you and Neo purport to understand would have been done. Neo's TATA box, of which he has absolutely zero understanding, is a case in point. Your crowd would never have known about the TATA box or any "box" or genetic sequence or anything about science whatsoever without scientists who went into the lab objectively, open to discovery, whatever the results reveal. Creationists and ID proponents would shut down all research. Ken Ham and his crowd of deviants even suggest that parents NOT allow their children to explore modern science. Out of sight - out of mind. Your crowd actively engages in willful ignorance.

You folks need an honesty lesson. Why don't you just admit that whatever REAL science reveals, you'll always have a come-back to refute the evidence, even if you yourselves have none! Because if you didn't, you would be forced to understand how science works - and doesn't work. Thirty five pages of garbage posts from the crowd who never shows up with supporting evidence is NOT how science works.

You can thank real scientists for providing the data that you so willingly corrupt, disseminate into crap and throw out to the public as though you knew what the hell you were doing.

And as they say in the Marines: "Stronger message to follow".

a reply to: Phantom423

they have their "science" book that has all the answers...

Why would they want to look any further?

a reply to: Joecanada11

Yah see I am one of those shills, worse I work for Big Pharma (actually little to medium Pharma but ....) so I am in on it. We sit around at our meetings, sipping single malt whisky going "Mahook Mahook" and plot to squash religion flat..... /sarc

a reply to: Barcs

When I was doing my research into synthetic lethals for a certain type of breast cancer, I spent dayswaiting for the computer to spit out their results to me from the Next Gen sequencer data I had acquired. Its gone from weeks to months to get the data, and weeks to months to crunch it, to hours to get the data and days to crunch it.

So if they were not so transparently trolling, and cutting and pasting from creationist sources, I'd be insulted But I do love to see them yap like Chihuahua's at our ankles.

They are basically arm chair scientists.

I doubt that VERY much.

a reply to: rnaa

Oh probably in the same way in which arm chair quaterbacks "know" the sport they profess a love for. They don't they just shout at the screen and annoy people

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

So you are saying you do not understand phylogenetics

No you aren't getting out of this one by your ignorant mockery. The theory of evolution, including the phylogenetic tree, indicates that our greatest grandfather (the stem of the theoretical tree) is a unicellular prokaryotic organism - all species are theorized to have this germ as their oldest ancestor.

So, do YOU understand the implications of phylogenetics and your theory of meaninglessness?