(February 18, 2016 at 3:35 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:15 pm)AAA Wrote: [/hide]
When you start talking about how it may have happened this way or silicone molecules binding together, you have just left what the data shows, and entered into some wishful speculation. I don't know why you have this idea that molecules are constantly arranging themselves spontaneously to form more complex structures. Even the formation of a phosphodiester bond or an amide bond are not spontaneous reactions and are not thermodynamically favorable. Also once they form, there are enzymes that must constantly monitor and repair the DNA to make sure it doesn't spontaneously degrade. So you can't have this random molecules becoming more complex slowly, it just isn't what happens in chemistry. The more stable molecule is the most energetically favorable form, and DNA, proteins, or your mystery molecules are not the most stable form. You are getting WAY too speculative with your origin of life scenario, and deviating largely from the actual evidence. 

And yes natural selection does help the ones with the best genes survive. The question is are the best genes the ones that have been mutated or the ones that have avoided mutation? It can easily be viewed as a mechanism to remove the individuals with broken genes so that the broken genes don't pollute the population.

Well of course it's just hopelessly speculative, because without any data it just isn't possible!  Well at least the speculations of actual scientists don't write their own biased laws of physics and chemistry. The sum of all the statements which you have made here imply only one thing clearly, which is that you love nothing more than not knowing. If you had a good answer, that us one with a good and thorough explanation, then this would render your mysterious God useless, and you really, really don't want to do that, do you? Admit it, you're frightened of us!

Oh, Lawd, please save us from that big, bad evil-lootionist! Oh....why won't he just leave us alone and let us go back to being the humble and ignorant barbarians which we were the first time you led us to sack and burn the cities of the scientists?

(February 18, 2016 at 3:45 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:35 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Well of course it's just hopelessly speculative, because without any data it just isn't possible!  Well at least the speculations of actual scientists don't write their own biased laws of physics and chemistry. The sum of all the statements which you have made here imply only one thing clearly, which is that you love nothing more than not knowing. If you had a good answer, that us one with a good and thorough explanation, then this would render your mysterious God useless, and you really, really don't want to do that, do you? Admit it, you're frightened of us!

Oh, Lawd, please save us from that big, bad evil-lootionist! Oh....why won't he just leave us alone and let us go back to being the humble and ignorant barbarians which we were the first time you led us to sack and burn the cities of the scientists?

I'm not the one running from science. I bring in scientific phenomena every response, while you just put words in my mouth and act as though you are so high and mighty, yet you have said nothing to demonstrate that you've graduated from high school. And your speculations go against what we see with how these molecules are formed, so that's why I don't like them. I never said I had a thorough explanation for how it happened, just that your explanation is wrong.

(February 18, 2016 at 3:29 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote:

(February 17, 2016 at 1:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: One we've had recently is, "We'll see who is right when we're dead."

I would reply:

"OK, let's bet on it: You give me all your money now, then if you're right, I'll give you all your money back in the afterlife, plus all of mine."

(February 18, 2016 at 3:22 pm)AAA Wrote: I don't know how it happened, but I DO know that it wasn't just mutation and natural selection. I also think that intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining cellular biology, so that is my default conclusion until something else can explain it better. Do you want me to explain how the designer did it or what? It manually linked amino acids together and DNA to form a functional system. How's that?

Umm, actually, DNA can replicate itself. That's kinda the whole thing about DNA.

Meselson and Stahl demonstrated very elegantly how it does this way back in 1958. Worth looking up. Google "Semi-conservative replication". Or try this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meselson%E...experiment

You see how great science is? I can find out how things were done just by typing stuff into a computer. I can find out not just what we know, but how we know it.

But more's the point, you don't need to just take my word for it. You can do it yourself just by following the description in the link above. You'll need a centrifuge etc, but you can do it. If it wasn't possible to do it yourself with a semi-decent laboratory, none of the scientific community would have accepted it at all.

But if you think God set up the whole DNA thing, that is the end of your knowledge. You can only speculate on how, or why. And no one else can help either. Their guesses are no better than yours.

(February 18, 2016 at 2:13 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 12:52 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: So, pulling shit out of your ass is evidence these days? Go read a book, junior.

Everything in there is true. Don't argue with math. It is like the only thing about the world that is unarguable. If you're saying that it is wrong, then you might as well argue that 2+2= -12,113,534

(February 18, 2016 at 3:47 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:45 pm)AAA Wrote: I'm not the one running from science. I bring in scientific phenomena every response, while you just put words in my mouth and act as though you are so high and mighty, yet you have said nothing to demonstrate that you've graduated from high school. And your speculations go against what we see with how these molecules are formed, so that's why I don't like them. I never said I had a thorough explanation for how it happened, just that your explanation is wrong.

Please see my previous post, AAA. I did graduate from High School.

In fact, I went on to graduate from University. In chemistry.

I know how these molecules are formed. I don't need to speculate. I don't simply believe what I was told by my tutors. I verified what they told me in the laboratory.

(February 18, 2016 at 4:01 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 2:13 pm)AAA Wrote: Everything in there is true. Don't argue with math. It is like the only thing about the world that is unarguable. If you're saying that it is wrong, then you might as well argue that 2+2= -12,113,534

Never said your math was wrong, dumb-ass. It just doesn't support your lame-assed argument the way you think it does.

(February 18, 2016 at 2:22 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: argument from incredulity.

You are dismissing something based on your own inability to either believe or at least entertain the evidence as currently provided. Unfortunately this is not sufficient to form a counter hypothesis. You require some study or body of literature that explains an alternative proposal which has the verifiable and testable data behind it allowing it to be reproduced. If you could provide some that'd be swell, please.

No, actually I don't need to put forward an alternative in order to reject an explanation that doesn't hold up. I don't have to accept an inadequate cause just because it is the only choice. I can rather say I don't know. Better yet, I can use the cause that is adequate: designer. I don't have to prove the inability of gradual processes leading to thousands of specified nucleotides. That is the null hypothesis which we assume to be true. We must then try to support the alternative hypothesis (gradual processes are sufficient). That would be like me telling you to prove that God doesn't exist using repeatable and testable data, which we both agree isn't a fair request. Both theories about the past are impossible to investigate using the conventional scientific empiricism which you are talking about.

(February 18, 2016 at 4:02 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 4:01 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Never said your math was wrong, dumb-ass. It just doesn't support your lame-assed argument the way you think it does.

It certainly gives your argument problems