This is a relay synthesis they didn’t make the RNA from scratch.
1 Like
Well? That no answers are forthcoming certainly props up suspicions that you have embellished juuuussssttt a wee bit.
Evolution has had billions of years, humans have had a few decades of genetics, so that’s a glaring false equivalence right there.
Both words are in the dictionary? It implies that sufficient objective evidence is our criteria for belief, what else would it imply?
Oh and at least one poster linked the research of a scientific team that is in fact doing what you say humans cannot.
I get you think this isn’t going fast enough, what’s unclear is why? Science has increased our understanding of the natural physical world and universe exponentially in just a few hundred years, Genetics is only decades old, your objections make no sense, and none of this remotely evidences any deity. Why didn’t your deity give a detailed account of DNA or RNA in the bible or koran? Why use DNA at all, the varying amounts of DNA between all living things is very compelling and objective evidence for species shared ancestry, wouldn’t a deity be keen to avoid such confusion? What happens if science does replicate RNA, would you abandon your theistic belief, if not then why bring it up at all?
1 Like
Uh, just for clarification…
ARE you claiming you are a “trained scientist”?
1 Like
I’ll remind you then, here is the context in which I said that:
I asked for a theory and was handed a hypothesis.
I already have, several times. If the presence of the universe had a scientific explanation then that would mean the universe existed before it existed. The explanation for it (like all scientific explanations) would be in terms of matter, laws, energy, fields - yet the presence of these are what we seek to explain!
Basically science offers no prospect of explaining the origin of a material system, it can only ever describe how an already existing system changes. We must seek a non-scientific explanation or we must conclude that it has always existed and had no start, no beginning, take your pick.
I’m basing it on my 40 years of experience working with computer architecture, including designing and implementing several of them.
I’m talking about computers because I was originally replying to WhoAreYou’s comment: “The device used to send you this message does not even begin to compare to DNA.”
1 Like
But that isn’t an answer. The “complexity” of some data can be measured or described in different ways.
The information inherent in a DNA molecule - you said (if I recall) that it was “simple” tell me how you reach that view.
Yes, I do so with the hop of reducing the insinuations that I don’t know what “science” means or that I don’t understand the “scientific method” and so on. Frankly in a discussion like this we should be focusing on the strength of our opponents argument not their education, their job, their personality.
Read this, a comment made by Noam Chomsky once:
In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor’s degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible—the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.
@Sherlock-Holmes, please answer this honestly. Have you ever posted in the Atheist Republic forums under a different name?
2 Likes
lol he does remind me of 3 different users that had the very same arguments.
No. I have never even seen the site until a few days ago when searching on this subject.
You do know if you’re lying, the mods can look up your IP address and trace that back to your service provider.
That doesn’t look remotely like a proof. For example: what is the first premise?
2 Likes
In other words, you are not a credentialed scientist. You read some books and consider that to be sufficient to call yourself trained.
Correct?
2 Likes
Incorrect and irrelevant.
1 Like
They seem to be mass produced by dubious apologetic literature.
2 Likes
How is it incorrect? Irrelevant to whom?
1 Like
No, I didn’t say the information itself was simple, just how it’s represented.
Analogy: I can send very complex information using Morse code, but Morse code itself is very simple.
4 Likes
It is irrelevant to the subject, to the thread. Just as the color of a person’s skin is irrelevant in a discussion about racism or a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to a discussion about gay marriage.
Evaluate what the other person says without any reference to their personal traits, background, belief or prejudices.