Question regarding evolution and creation?

[iNow]

In fairness, that's not an appropriate attack in this particular situation (though does apply more broadly and is something we see far too frequently): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=972134

[DrP]

OK - thanks... That kind of explains it. I still doubt she would have accepted the stuff about the Laryngeal nerve... although that was a defining point in my 'conversion'... which is kind of why I harp on about it so much. I was genuinely interested in what she had to say about it.

 

 

Actually - even though she was banned, she had plenty of time to read about that Laryngeal nerve... I asked her 3 times to research it as I was genuinely interested to see what she had to say about it.

Edited February 23, 2017 by DrP

[Velocity_Boy]

Well, one strips of religious belief that is decidedly not able to be reconciled with science is the Young Earth woo. Where a 6000 instead of 4.6 byo earth is posited. Admittedly, only a small percentage of fundamentalist Christian are still deluded enough to believe that, but still.

 

And I'd hazard to guess that the entire Genesis Creation Mythology....Both of them...Are completely contradictive of true science. Ken Hamm dogma aside. LOL. And that but about Eve bring formed from Adams rib probably won't be ever taught in medical school, eh?

Edited March 15, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Daecon]

Or he could have just counted the list of names in the geneology of Jesus (41 in Matthew and 77 in Luke) and averaged them with expected birth-to-fathering lifespans.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Daecon

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

"In the beginning, God created the heaven (atmosphere) and the earth."

 

When the earth cooled down enough so water could stand on it, the circus began.

 

Under certain conditions, amino acids form spontaneously.

 

The earth is large, the oceans are wide and eternity is long.

 

Those necessary conditions are certain to exist here and there from time to time.

 

Amino acids are almost famous for joining up with other amino acids to form proteins.

 

Useless, worthless, nondescript, miscellaneous, no-account, stinking proteins.

 

Only, among the kazillions of different useless proteins, one happens by pure chance that can replicate.

 

Behold, a DNA molecule. A protein that can crank off a copy of itself.

 

It is not good for anything. It can't do anything. It's too short to carry a single gene. But it's DNA.

 

It isn't alive. It's just there. It doesn't do anything -- much.

 

Oh, look! Now there're two. No. Four. No. Eight. No. Sixteen. Um, ah, I lost count.

 

A million years later, the whole ocean is full of that stupid, worthless protein and the seven seas "gel" like that old-time Mad Magazine spoof about "Dormant Gookum".

 

There are occasional mutations among so many individual molecules.

 

A million years after that, there are a hundred billion varieties of the same useless gunk.

 

One or two of each. No new ones can form until the needed amino acids are turned loose.

 

But, among so many, by chance, there is one that digests the others.

 

And the race is on, Survival of the Fittest comes to the forefront. It's Darwin to the inside. Evolution eats all, and then Itself is eaten by an Improved Variety which then Multiplies and fills up the Seven Seas.

 

Still nothing alive here. Just useless random protein.

 

Well, um, not all THAT random.

 

" . . . and God saw that it was good."

Edited April 27, 2017 by frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

[Bender]

Still nothing alive here. Just useless random protein.

Depends on the definition of "alive". It eats and procreates.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

I was hoping someone would pick up on those details.

[swansont]

Behold, a DNA molecule. A protein that can crank off a copy of itself.

 

It is not good for anything. It can't do anything. It's too short to carry a single gene. But it's DNA.

 

It isn't alive. It's just there. It doesn't do anything -- much.

 

Oh, look! Now there're two. No. Four. No. Eight. No. Sixteen. Um, ah, I lost count.

 

 

...

 

Still nothing alive here. Just useless random protein.

How did these molecules replicate?

[Argent]

Amino acids are almost famous for joining up with other amino acids to form proteins.

 

Useless, worthless, nondescript, miscellaneous, no-account, stinking proteins.

 

Only, among the kazillions of different useless proteins, one happens by pure chance that can replicate.

 

Behold, a DNA molecule. A protein that can crank off a copy of itself.

 

 

Since when have DNA molecules been proteins? That's a rhetorical question. DNA molecules are assuredly not proteins.

 

That leaves me with a non-rhetorical question. If your knowledge level in regard to basic biochemistry is so low you are unaware that DNA is not a protein, should you be implicitly pontificating about biochemical matters? It seems a bit presumptuous.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Apology. Apology.

 

DNA is composed of amino acids. It is an array of amino acids. The information it carries is in its layout of amino acids. That had me fooled. DNA is not a protein, anyway.

 

Man, oh MAN! I really thought I had lucked into something here.

 

Thank you, Argent, for stopping me from being an idiot -- just after I fell into it.

 

DNA is not a protein. DNA is not a protein. DNA is not a protein.

 

I take it DNA is not the sort of thing that would come together spontaneously?

 

 

I tried to edit that piece of foolishness. Too late. It's set in concrete.

 

I tried to report it and remove it entirely. No answer. Hey, Everyone! DNA is NOT protein!

Edited April 29, 2017 by frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

[Moontanman]

Let me elaborate. The claim is that the virgin birth is not contradicted by observable evidence. So what I ask is, the idea of the story of adam contradicted by observational evidence?

 

 

Yes it is, a virgin birth would result in a female not a male so unless Jesus was a crossdresser your assertion holds no weight...

[Thorham]

a virgin birth would result in a female not a male

Except that god did it. Easy, huh?

Edited April 29, 2017 by Thorham

[Argent]

Apology. Apology.

 

DNA is composed of amino acids. It is an array of amino acids.

There is no need to apologise. I simple acknowledgement of your error would have been sufficient, but thank you.

 

However, you still don't have it. DNA is not composed of amino acids. The four nucleobases, thymine, adenine, guanine and cytosine (plus uracil in RNA) all have ring structures. While this is true of a handful of amino acids, none of the nucleobases have the amine and carboxyl groupings found in those.

 

I repeat my concern. Given this very weak grasp of some basic biochemical ideas it is presumptuous to question basics in the critical manner you seem to have adopted so far.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

I stand properly admonished. DNA is not a protein.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

My questions about the origin of DNA/RNA are continued in a Speculation Thread by that name. (I have no answers there, either.)