mjordan2nd said:
|
Coming from you, that sounds surprisingly accurate aside from the last statement. Yes, codons determine which amino acid is to be made, but that does not imply that some sort of intelligent being matched codons with amino acids. Codons match a particular amino acid due to a complex set of biological reactions. Exactly why a particular codon matches a particular amino acid is not well known yet, I believe, but that does not mean we can conclude that some supreme intelligence sat around one day and matched the two up. You're simply creating a god of gaps. Earlier, people did not know why there was lightning or thunder. They explained it by God. You're using the same methodology here. Once scientists figure out why one codon is code for creating a particular amino acid, god will simply go away again.
|
so tell me... how is it that the biological reactions in the codon know when to and how to react to a certain acid way back in the beginning... how is it that the DNA was able to be interpreted and read when it was just formed? Thats like comming up with the CD before the CD player or wrighter...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine are not random collections of acids. They are nitrogenous bases. And codons are translated into amino acids by ribosomes, as you already stated. I thought you would know that. It is not nearly as random as drawing letters and making a word. Every tri-nucleotide chain that is not responsible for determining the genotype of an organism codes the creation of a particular amino acid. There are only 64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations, and each of them are code for a particular amino acid.
|
I did not say the random letter drawing would make a word... I was merely stating the fact that randomly drawing any two letters would have no meaning unless it was predetermined....
Now, you say there are "64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations"... yet each combination stands for a certain amino acid.... what could have possibly read the DNA and understood what was going to happen if there was nothing but DNA and random collections of non-living matter floating around?
mjordan2nd said:
|
A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%.
|
But what determined that the random collections of three letter words stood for somthing? thats my point... you cannot have meaning unless something gives it meaning....
mjordan2nd said:
|
ROTFLOL!!! "We slowly corrupted our genetics." AHAHAHAHA. "Adam and Eve had perfect genetics." You crack me up. Sadly, I'm not sure you even understand why I'm laughing at you.
|
I understand why you laugh...
mjordan2nd said:
|
It's already been mentioned, but I think it's significant enough to reiterate that the Cold War was not a war with millions dying. Yes, it was a race to be more scientifically advanced, but that was it.
|
Yes, but in order for one group to dominate they had to have the bigger gun... in this case, the atomic bomb...
mjordan2nd said:
|
I have watched 28 seconds of the video and realized that this guy is a moron. First of all, he says evolution starts with the big bang. This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, biologists have vehemently denied that the origin of the universe, or even abiogenesis for that matter have anything to do with evolution. Evolution starts after abiogenesis.
|
Well, the earth had to be here in order for life to exist... all he was pointing to was that if there is no creator then this is the way it had to have started...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a doctor? THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG!
|
So why do they call it the BIG
BANG? If there was no bang, then why do they call it that?
mjordan2nd said:
Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss.
"Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life.
I'll get back to you when I feel like it.
I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it.
I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist.
I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods.
I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up.
|
Hey.. I googled it... all I could find were pages that supported creation using the beetle in their arguments... seriously, check it out for yourself....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Scientific theories aren't compiled because they seem nicest, they are compiled because they fit the evidence.
|
Really? I would like to see the evidence for evolution... oh wait, there isn't any.... sorry....
mjordan2nd said:
|
I disagree. If God exists, he is a horrible deity. How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws. If his standards are so fucking high, why would he make his vessels so flawed. And he holds them accountable. You're saying that a system without any intelligence that is only guided by the laws of the universe is less forgiving than an intelligent, omnipresent and omnipotent being who allows children and babies to die as the flood waters slowly rise over their heads? And what about the mothers who had to watch their babies die before they themselves were drowned. You're telling me that this guy who has control of everything is more forgiving than a system which can't control itself when he lets the first-born be slain by the pharoah? Hell no. This is a perfect being who controls everything. He allows and condemns his creation to suffer and die, when he made us flawed. Evolution does no such thing. If God does exist, I'd take my chances in hell rather than join a sadomasochistic, megalomaniacal asshole.
|
God does not blaim us for the flaws... we are responsible for it, not him...
Look, if the flood is your worry, blaim the parents for just sitting there and just watching the water
slowly rise around their child...
the pharoh knowingly and willingly killed innocent children, blame him for his actions not God...
as you said before, "he holds
them accountable", maening you are responsible for your own actions, not someone elts...
mjordan2nd said:
|
This is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
So your saying that Hitler was right? Twice? What are you trying to say?
mjordan2nd said:
|
The space race was part of the cold war, not the reason behind the cold war. The cold war was a war of ideological differences. And science makes the art of war more deadly and precise. It does not actually cause wars.
|
I said nothing about the space race...
You are right, science does make death quicker, but most people want that technology to blow up the enemy country, then the enemy country wants to stop them from using the technology, so they go over and try to stop them... thats how a war starts sometimes...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Science did not lead to WWII. Hitler's bogus ideologies did.
|
How did Hitler get his ideologies?
mjordan2nd said:
For the love of God, please be more coherent with your writing. I would like to respond to what you said, because from the little I could make out from that it seems like you are confused, but I can't make much out from that.
That's simply not true. Why do you say that?
1.) A toy poodle can be bigger than both of its parents.
2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle.
|
For someone who does not believe in God, you certainly use his name alot...
Anyway... the toy poodle would only have the genes of a toy poodle and its genetic variation... the genetic variation would only be that of a toy poodle, it would not have gained any new information... basically, the variation would not cause any differences in the dog that is not already there... the variation could cause the dog to have two different colors of fur(one color from each parent) or something of that nature, the dog would not gain something unless that trait it bred in...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Breeding isn't natural selection, is it. And even dogs that are bred to be tall or short can gain a gene which codes the opposite phenotype by genetic variation.
|
No, breeding is not natural selection...
The dog would already have that gene if the offspring were taller than it, the variation would be the different hights of the dogs...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Our ancestors have similar genomes to our ancestors.
|
Yeah, they were humans...