Christianity For Morons

Thank you for the correction. The original miller experiment only produced 6 or 7 amino acids, but later experiments have produced all 20 amino acids necessary for life. (Campbell, Reece, Simon, Essential Biology, 300)Still doesn't change the fact that laboratory testings have shown that organic molecules can form without divine intervention.

---

The Laminator

​

you are right,I need to find better information about Darwin,and
I'll look at the link you posted.
If Darwin didn't mean for those statements to seem as though he,
was not sure of what he believed in,or that he just didn't care,
to want to know the truth,then it is wrong for people to accuse him-
of such a thing.

---

Desdamona*

I am trying to tell you that something like DNA cannot happen by,
chance.DNA contains so much information that it cannot be accidental,
that it came into being.
It's like a detailed map,and all life forms have it.
a cell cannot be created and niether can it come into existence,
by itself.

---

Desdamona*

For one thing, I'd like to see some kind of source for this information. Further more, RNA came before DNA, so you already got that information wrong.You are still making a pretty big assertion there without any supporting premise. Simply say "this can't come from that" isn't sufficient enough in a debate forum like this. You need to provide more explanations and examples of past experiments.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-20-2004]

---

The Laminator

​

Your message structure stinks.Moose

Well, I think she is just trying
to make her messages look like poems.
This could look cool in the first few posts,
but it very quickly become an annoyance to read.
Why follow the crowd?
Why give in to the crowd?
Consideration for others is the way,
For others provide what you cannot say.
Knowledge is usually attained
only by opening your mind to other domains.

---

The Laminator

​

Edited{Your fired! - Ad(the Donald)minnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-20-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-20-2004]

---

The Laminator

​

Huh, I go do my thing for a few days and before I know it the conclusion at message 160-170 or so was anything but a conclusion!

Unless you have an old computer, it can probably contain the entire diploid human genome. The raw information content of a human diploid genome is about 13 Gigabits. My computer has an onboard disk capacity of over 400 Gigabits.Many people could fit the diploid genome into their RAM. A computer with 2GB or more of RAM (reasonably common for a high end PC) has over 16 Gigabits of RAM. I've got 512 MB A letter of the alphabet is about 4.7 bits (26 letters) or maybe 6 bits if we allow for punctuation and case distinctions. The genome is thus around 2.5 billion letters, and so our putative million page encyclopaedia would have around 2500 letters on a page. That is a small page; this post has 3549 characters.Reading this amount in a lifetime is easy for a dedicated reader. An addict of Mills and Boon, who reads a small paperback romance every day, can expect to read roughly 40000 words a day, or roughly a Megabit. Thirty years could do it. This is a trivial point, but it serves to show, again, that your sources are low quality. Your factoid on DNA was taken from our old friend Harun Yahya. It's well polished and professionally presented pseudoscientific technobabble, more likely to provoke gales of laughter than detailed refutations with people who know a bit about the stuff he pontificates upon. If you want to pick some other specific substantive claim from that source, we can discuss it. A new thread would be appropriate. I guess it is because they want to, or because they are trusting of sources that say what they want to hear. That seems to have been the case for you. It would not surprise me to find minor contradictions in Darwin's writing. They are not unusual in anyone writing a lot of material over many years, and changes of mind on some issues are also common. Major internal inconsistency in a single publication or book is a problem; but Darwin was a very careful and thorough writer. I truly believe that there is no God. I came to this conclusion reluctantly; I had previously been an active Christian. However, I am not really interested in persuading others to share my perspective. My loss of faith had nothing to do with evolution or with a desire to be irresponsible or free of authority.I truly consider evolution is a solidly established scientific theory, confirmed as strongly as any scientific theory can be confirmed. My understanding of evolutionary biology is informed by scientists including Christians, atheists, agnostics, and mostly just undeclared. Evolution does not require or imply atheism.Cheers -- Sylas

There's that smile! I knew you could do it! Anyway, that is the nicest thing you've said to me so far, thank you. As far as one can speak of 'purpose', that's not quite true, I'm afraid. For example, genetic disorders are the result of 'incomplete' DNA, yet people born with them are often capable of living their life in a relatively normal way. Another example would be 'junk' DNA. There are long stretches in the DNA molecule that do not code for anything. If some of it gets warbled somehow, it doesn't make a difference at all. To top it all, during the copying of DNA there are also mechanisms at work that can repair faulty DNA. In conclusion, if the ultimate 'purpose' of DNA is to propagate itself (as in "the chicken is just the egg's way of making another egg") then it can be shown that 'incomplete' DNA can do the job just as well. Whoa! That's a small step for Des, but a giant leap for the rest of us. How did consciousness wiggle itself into the equation all of a sudden? It is rather... unusual, to say the least. Either you are way ahead of me, skipping some fifty steps in a train of thought I can never hope to follow, or you are repeating something you've read on some disreputable site. Care to enlighten me? {giggly voice} I'd be right there with you, rolling on the floor holding my aching belly, {suddenly turning grave} if it weren't for (non-random) natural selection.[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 04-20-2004]

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Desdamona, I would like you to read through that webpage you posted, think about what it says, and reflect over how reliable it actually is. It shows serious signs of not really being interested in an objective and fair view. As an example:

quote:

---

8. Abortion
Main Entry: a-bor-tion
Pronunciation: 'a-bor-shun
Function: noun
1a: Murder of an unborn human child for convenience of parents b: extermination of unborn child on pretense that child may have a birth defect c: genocide of unborn child on pretense that child is result of rape or incest. Note: example 3 only occurs in 1/10th of one percent of abortion cases.

---

then at the end of the page:

quote:

---

Some definitions above from search on Merriam Webster Online, except for the abortion definition which I defined because the Webster definition was too politically correct and bias.

---

Does this seem like a good page to base your knowledge on?

Caution: your extracts are not from the webpage that Desdamona cited in the post to which you are replying. They are from a different page on the same site entitled "Evolution: Foundation and Fruits".One thing struck me immediately... the poor spelling and grammar in your quoted extracts.This is also a feature of desdamona's writing. Minniemoose noted succinctly in Message 275 that her "message structure stinks". The same could be said for her grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Her posts here are not a good advertisement for home schooling.This is intended as a serious observation, not a personal attack.

desdemona,You still have to respond to this post, where you were called on lying. You were called on three counts of hypocrisy in this post, which were inconsistensies in your response to the presented evidence in favour of evolution in this post.AS yet you have presented no scientifically acceptable evidence for God, & I HAVE presented said evidence in favour of evolution.YOU said: Now I am waiting for you to, in a logically consistent manner either, 1/ refute my evidence (your three hypocricies fatally flaw your argument), or 2/ provide evidence to the same standard to support your claim.You probably haven't responded to my last post because you didn't like being called on hypocrisy & lying. You probably even in some wierd & wonderful way see it as my flaw that I've done this! It isn't, this is your bad, no one elses. Saying you do something you do not meets the standard that everyone understands as lying, & holding yourself to a different standard as your opponent meets the standard for hypocrisy. Either defend yourself or retract the offending arguments & claims. Successfully doing either gives you a clean sheet on which to respond to the above.Alternatively, you can admit you have no scientific evidence for God, & there is scientific evidence for evolution.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have used website instead. My point was that she should study the whole site because I do not think it's a very reliable source.

Mark, forget it. I think it was Ned that once told me that some creationists often come in here and start tossing around random words that, to them, appear to be scientific and impressive until they realize that some of us actually know what we're talking about.I just had a long talk with my philosophy prof, and he adviced me to let it go, because you can't really argue with these people using evidence. These people will completely ignore our evidence and avoid at all cost having to answer to us about it.Unless desdemona have questions or start giving us some real evidence for her claims, I am done.

---

The Laminator

​