ArborealDescendent
Posts: 29 Joined: Feb. 2015
|
Can someone help us with this creationists, named Recon4502, arguing right now on Yahoo Science News? The report is titled "20 - Foot Monster Shark Once Trolled Mesozoic Seas." The thread can be easily found under the "Most Replied" button. We evolutionists seem to be loosing the argument if you ask me. Here is his latest two posts in response to a guy named "LibItUp."
Recon4502’s 9th response @LibItUp
"Biological systems have mechanisms to counteract deadly UV rays….melanin being the major one in skin."---
Yes they do "ALREADY" have it (Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways) and DNA (The Information Program)..... How did "Nature" wicker these up?
I think you may be confused about what evolution is....
"I’m a little out of the loop on the subject of abiogenesis"---
Abiogenesis is evolution, it has to be:
From two of the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory...
‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
"and just because we haven’t explained or accounted for a completely “natural” cause yet, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist "---
Ahhh this isn't an argument for ignorance sir. I already told you that: 1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
To Refute......SHOW ONE "Functional" 30 mer RNA or Protein "Naturally" wicker itself up!! CITE SOURCE. You do understand that: The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.
And this is before INFORMATION/CODE/Software.
"Define “naturally?”---
Without Intelligent Manipulation.
"But this aside…you still seem to be synonymously equating evolution with atheism….fallacy!"---
I don't think so, evolution directly contradicts What GOD Said.
"doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist and science should stop trying."---
ahhh, this isn't science. The First Step in the Scientific Method is OBSERVE a Phenomenon not "Conjure" a Phenomenon. Has anyone seen Life come from Non-Life? If not, this is Pseudo-Science.
"We also know that viruses exist"---
Sir, ahh Viruses are Obligate Parasites that means they NEED LIFE FIRST ESTABLISHED to exist.
"2. How Did Stupid Atoms Create Their Own Software....? I’m not saying that and neither is evolutionary science."---
Yes, They MUST say that to VALIDATE the "alleged" Theory.
"but thus so far it can’t be rigorously and empirically verified."---
Say What?
Recon4502’s 10th response: @LibItUp
"First of all, I might take a slightly different stance that Mayr."---
Really, for what reason and by what Authority?
"evolution attempts to make real time empirical observations, which we have done and thoroughly documented with micro-evolution, speciation, etc."---
Equivocation Fallacy - "Micro" evolution/Speciation isn't evolution. All these are, is Change in Allele Frequency OR better stated: Genetic Variation.
"Would you deny that we have experimentally observed micro-evolution, or the change in the allele frequency of a population over time, or speciation for that matter."---
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations — is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading." Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.
"Why do people like you, many of whom have no problem with micro-evolution (don’t know if this pertains to you or not), make this, what seems to me an arbitrary cut off between micro-and macro-evolution?"---
This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT:
1. "Micro"-evolution: Change in Allele frequency, This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO). 2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"....
Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years = darwinian evolution
If evolution is TRUE, then show 1 PROOF of this! You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account. And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True.
It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM! “Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution. The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.
"What is macro-evolution but evolution on a micro scale over long periods of time?"--
Baloney....
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.
cont...
Does anyone have any ideas to rebut his arguments...
|