RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
January 23, 2019 at 5:57 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2019 at 6:05 pm by Peebothuhlu.)
(January 23, 2019 at 4:39 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally. I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.Is this your level of understanding of the theory M4X?
Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution. I'm very aware of what it is considered. I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it. If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually. That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.
I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus. Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something. IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science. The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms. For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous. Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation. Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed. Like having a fly grow a third wing. It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape. Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring. Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased. Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile. Like when you cross a horse and a donkey. You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it. So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.
(January 23, 2019 at 5:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Regarding life outside this planet, so far the only intelligent life we have found is on Earth. That may turn out to be the case in this universe. We've been searching for a long time. Not sure what we will find on those moons.
Also, trying to change my position. My position is related to DNA, not the ID movement. I know you have that confused on purpose but just thought I'd remind you again.
So... you're not even claiming your ideas have a modicum of... 'Science' behind them?
They're just your own 'I think this is right' kind of thing?
OKay... how might your idea be falsifed CDF47?
What might show that your idea that DNA is some how designed be falsifeid?
Heck... what might show that DNA is designed instead of it just being a long chemical (Polymer?) chain?
(January 23, 2019 at 3:23 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Has nothing to do with me. I just want the "facts." If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them. Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them. If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest. Either something is or isn't. If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.
I don't favor him over you, if that's what you're suggesting. I favor what is understood. If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.
When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.
- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore
If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more. As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing. Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.
[/quote]
No M4X, I was complementing you for helping support CDF47.
Again CDF47 is making claims. I am not.
Even if my position were nothing but pixie farts that does not mean that CDF47's position automatically becomes 'Right'.
I am not telling him he is wrong. I am asking him how his ideas are right.
And the missquoting thing is happening again.