Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

It doesn't seem fair to me. If you want to come here, spouting bullshit with no supporting evidence that's fine but don't just try and dodge the arguments you struggle with.

Cheers

Sam

Whiner. It's easy for you to reply to one poster, it takes way more time for me to reply to ten different posters. If I was truly trying to avoid any particular topics why would I leave it up to you to decide what I respond to? If you want me to, I can respond to your misunderstandings about information theory, or I can respond to some other point you brought up, but I am not going through your post line by line, just like I am not going through the other eight responses I received today line by line. Give me a break. So you can either choose which argument is best for me to respond to, or I will just choose one to respond to.

---

Ok, I am not replying to every point in every poster's response. There are way too many, and not enough hours in the day. Does anyone have any one particular point they want addressed? If not, then I will just pick one or two from each post and I will address them. Seems fair to me.

Seems fair.
The topic of the thread is YEC vs. Science, so focusing the topic where YEC disputes the scientific claims seems more prudent than discussions on atheism, morality, and so on.

My points regarding evolution and genetics seems most prudent in regards to this topic.

Ok, I completely agree. So I will address the Mitochondrial Eve discussion we were having. Thanks for understanding.

---

---

You didn’t know what I meant by “message sender”, yes bacteria “move” information around but this does not make them “message senders”, just like a post man is not the creator of the information he moves from point A to point B. Furthermore, the bacteria only “move” this information around because their DNA tells them too. So the information created by a message sender tells them to move their own information around.

Citation needed on supposition of information needs to be "created" and that DNA is created by a message sender.

Actually the possibility of RNA sequences in early Earth’s history is not real, and in fact it is a statistical impossibility. RNA is even more instable than DNA and both would break down immediately if Oxygen were present. The only problem is, there would need to be oxygen (in the form of water and/or ozone) present in order for anything to be sequenced.

RNA is stabilized by boron. There was a lot of dissolved boron in early Earth's oceans. But you would've known that had you bothered to read up on the RNA world hypothesis.

There is also the huge problem of homochirality of biochemicals, which is something that has never been duplicated in the lab. The first cell would also have had to have been self-replicating from the get-go, which is something we humans cannot even build (no self-replicating machine has ever been built). Abiogenists is unobservable and un-testable under even the most controlled circumstances so therefore it is un-scientific. It is just a blind-faith system, why would I want your faith when I already have my own?

Because no self replicating machine has been built, it is impossible? And your argument again from ignorance does little to support your blind faith.

Abiogenesis is unobservable because we don't know the full parameters of testing it - we're learning more of why and how things fit together, but to test it fully requires more research. Abiogenesis is more defensible, as the Miller-Urey experiment has far more evidence (look! it formed twenty two amino acids!) than your goat fucker book of prayers (has it formed anything in a lab?). Oh wait - I see your modus operandi!

On one hand, we have a mystery about life, with numerous experiments yielding nuggets of information in a vast field of the yet-to-be-discovered. On the other, we have a book that simply says "I created life, the universe and everything".

As to your “Big Bang” point, now you are the one arguing from ignorance. The reason we don’t know for sure if the big bang is the beginning is because the big bang never actually happened.

Riiiiigght

It is an un-scientific (not observable or repeatable) theory that violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. So to say it happened by naturalistic means is just a matter of blind-faith, why would I need your faith when I already have my own?

You don't understand anything about thermodynamics and the big bang, do you?

Arguing the same I see.

Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation.

And yet all your "evidence" against evolution seems to be based on misrepresentations, misinterpretations and questionable research.

---

Ahh I see how this game works. You don't provide any sources, but then after I refute your claims you ask for sources. Special pleading yay!!

Oh you pulled the old blind-faith argument, "just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't happen". I guess I can just use Dawkins to refute you, "well I have never seen a giant teapot either, does that mean it exists?" How about we stick to Science and not your little "God of the Gaps" known as Abiogenesis.

Yes, the Miller-Urey experiment produced Amino Acids, but it did not produce homochiralious amino acids, which would be necessary for life. So it really just demonstrated even more just how impossible Abiogenesis is. Producing the wrong parts under very controlled circumstances does nothing to demonstrate how the right parts could be generated spontaneously.

Even Scientists who are not Creationists realize just how ridiculous the RNA World Hypothesis is.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

On the contrary, I know enough about natural laws to know that they cannot be broken naturalistically by definition, so the fact that your naturalistic theory of a big bang breaks both laws of thermodynamics means by definition it could not have happened.

---

Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation.

No. You provide what you consider evidence against Evolution through Natural Selection and it is successfully refuted. So far, that is all I've seen. If one of your points of 'Evidence', were not successfully refuted, then the 'evidence' you provided would only indicate that the theory of evolution may be wrong. It would be just plain stupid to leap directly to the conclusion that the bible is true and god is love, Praise Jayzus!!

Asserting I have been refuted means nothing, give an example. Well obviously you are not a fan of basic logic. I am however, like I said before it's a form of disjunctive argumentation and it is completely valid, so you really can't argue against it (logically at least).

---

Still spouting that second law of thermodynamics nonsense? I must have missed it at first glance. Must creationists always skip over the words "closed system"?

Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation.

False dichotomy much?



No more ridiculous than "a sky wizard did it".

Kind of funny how Evolutionists always forget that without a guiding mechanism, energy increases entropy. So you can talk all you want about the Earth being an "open" system, but a bull running around in a china shop is also an open system, but there's a lot of entropy going on in there because there is not a mechanism to direct the energy. It's kind of funny though, the mechanism that guides the energy is also constructed by energy guided by the same mechanism in other cells. So it is impossible to derive that first mechanism by naturalistic means..