Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Scientific Challenge To Darwinists

polypeptide synthesis impossible intermediaries Richard Dawkins hemoglobin 574 amino accids

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#69 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Members
  • 2351 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 03:04 AM

Not ONE atheist has so much as attempted to rise to the challenge to explain the original synthesis of even one, much less 100,000 polypeptides by naturalistic means.  Not  ONE.  They call those of us they hate "nutters" and other petty pejoratives.  How superficial and petty of them.

 

Try explaining to me the selection of each individual chiral amino acid, 574 of them in all, in human hemoglobin.
There are 20 amino acids.  1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 574 times.  

Richard Dawkins has defined "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power or less.  The space of human hemoglobin dwarfs Dawkins definition, and that's just one of the more than 100,000 proteins in our bodies.

 

The arrogance of atheists is dishonest and misplaced.

Not one True believer of countless religions has managed to call down an allmighty God to smite the heretics.

 

The arrogance of adults with imaginary friends is dishonest and misplaced.



#70 TooMuchFun

TooMuchFun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 07:27 AM

Not one True (sic)  believer of countless religions has managed to call down an allmighty  (sic) God to smite the heretics.

 

The arrogance of adults with imaginary friends is dishonest and misplaced.

 

Sometimes a Hypography Forum Administrator

"With a big enough engine, even a brick will fly." -Law of Aerospace

 

There are pathetically few people who post on this boring website that even the "Forum Administrator" has to chime in with his trite talking points.

 

1. You can't spell.

2.  You can't respond to the scientific challenge presented.

3.  All you can do is trot out your tired talking points handed to you by Richard Dawkins and other "brights" (sic), a one-word oxymoron.

4. No, a brick can't fly under any circumstances, and your inane quote is NOT a law of aerospace.

5.  Trying to have a rational discussion with irrational atheists such as you is impossible and unproductive.

6. I see no point in returning to this sad home of yours.

 

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

 

 

Sometimes a Hypography Forum Administrator

"With a big enough engine, even a brick will fly." -Law of Aerospace


#71 SP2

SP2

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 12:10 PM

Try explaining to me the selection of each individual chiral amino acid, 574 of them in all, in human hemoglobin.

Things like that are simply the result of humans being the newest product of evolution. That's where the term "Lizard Brain" comes from. It's also why some humans can be slaves incapable of raising a finger against their masters, while others can be cold-blooded killers. As it is known the Annunaki where described as having reptilian characteristics. 

 

A stronger case for super-intelligent ET intervention of terrestrial evolution (creationism) is the fact that the 4 million year selection of perpetually balding-bodied proto-homini traits increased, despite the persisting recurrence of ice ages throughout that specific period, while also 19 of the earliest and hairiest of these species died while 1 survived (homo/neo sapien hybrids), which just happened to be the final product of this strange 4 million year long Darwinian anomaly, along with their primate ancestors. 


Edited by SP2, 08 December 2018 - 12:28 PM.


#72 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Members
  • 2351 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 05:53 PM

 

There are pathetically few people who post on this boring website that even the "Forum Administrator" has to chime in with his trite talking points.

 

1. You can't spell.

2.  You can't respond to the scientific challenge presented.

3.  All you can do is trot out your tired talking points handed to you by Richard Dawkins and other "brights" (sic), a one-word oxymoron.

4. No, a brick can't fly under any circumstances, and your inane quote is NOT a law of aerospace.

5.  Trying to have a rational discussion with irrational atheists such as you is impossible and unproductive.

6. I see no point in returning to this sad home of yours.

 

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

 

 

Sometimes a Hypography Forum Administrator

"With a big enough engine, even a brick will fly." -Law of Aerospace

 

1. certainly can. but ok. as usual the mind of a religious zealot must cling to anything they can, even if it's made up. one might say especially if it's made up. i've confirmed that petty Capitalization bothers you i'm going to go out of my way to do it. also colour. enjoy.

2. there was none. you don't understand science. that's why you're a zealot. your mind is missing certain critical thinking tools and it shows.

3. as above. though replaced with king james. or whichever sumarian penned the isis religion, the one all abrahamic religions rip off nearly word for word.

4. you don't understand engineering. i do. this is another reason to view you as beneath me. you poor ignorant individual. what a waste of a mind.
5. pot, meet kettle.

6. no doubt you will go refuel in some religious echo chamber. do try to learn a bit. even if you are a fool duped by manipulators above your class. if there's a god, and they made your mind, it is a terrible sin to waste the effort they put into making it. i fear that you have show just how much you have wasted it.

 

toodles



#73 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 930 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 06:06 PM

From a utilitarian perspective, it doesn't matter if we exist because of evolution or creation, because evolution is a useful tool.  https://www.technolo...ting-evolution/



#74 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 116 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 11:29 AM

pascal #66;

 

Animal behavior is mostly programmed for each species, with some ability to adapt to its environment. This includes their diet to varying degrees. Their activities repeat seasonally. Typically after birth, they receive sufficient parenting skills to survive on their own. The greatest risk to survival is a drastic change in environment, like fires, floods, disease, ... human intervention. Post 65 was an overview intended to show, all species are 'fit' to 'survive' where they are, in their original form. The tiny paramecium is still in the oceans after 1000's of years as a food source. Did you miss Darwin's 1902 quote where even he questioned the lack of gradations necessary for his theory. The supposed transitions of species don't exist. The why is simple, there is no need for them.

 

For those who defend science over religion, science is a religion. It too requires a faith in its theoretical foundations of invisible forces and imaginary objects.

Religion states, the stone falls to the ground.

Science states, the force of gravity accelerates the stone to the ground.

Both statements are true, the difference, one has more detail than the other.



#75 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 116 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 11:30 AM

A-wal #67;

Only because it's competing with birds with fully developed eyes. This is an example of a disadvantage being taken out of the gene pool in favour of better genes.

---
"If its eyes aren't fully developed as a mature bird, it will not survive."
Meaning it is born with the vision necessary to survive.

 

You're posting 'what if' scenarios.
If you lost an arm in an accident, you wouldn't be able to play basketball as well as someone with both arms.

Impaired vision doesn't have to be a genetic defect, it may be an injury.

 

The predator-prey aspect of the animal habitat would appear to be a form of population control, which may occasionally include the elimination of defective animals. We also have scavengers like vultures who clean up the environment. If you consider the big picture, the ecosystem is well organized.

 

Society attempts to understand the world in terms of what they think they already know.

(Why does science keep saying, "it's more complicated than we originally thought.")

Imperfect humans developing a robot, would require refining and tweaking, and possible recalls, until it performs as specified. That same society says "if we can't do it perfectly, then no one else can."

Now when a new scientific fact is discovered, I don't see it as an increase in human knowledge, but a demonstration emphasizing the degree of ignorance.

This would be supported by evolution, since the inanimate elements produce life forms. I.e., human intelligence is less than that of a stone. All those awards should be taken back!

My question of the day:
What is the origin of genetic code?



#76 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Members
  • 2351 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 12:40 PM

You'd kinda think snake thermal-pits are a good way to show in-between steps of vision evolution, but oh-well. Creationists always take it to Zeno's Paradox levels of "smaller intermediate steps needed." At least I stay consistent with the "bring your God down here to have a chat with me, and fix some stuff."


Edited by GAHD, 10 December 2018 - 12:41 PM.


#77 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1750 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 01:39 PM

I'd like to make it clear, I am not in the traditional ''creationist arguments'' as my view is rooted from science. In physics there is a well-known problem of fine tuning parameters, there are well over sixty of them in literature and these parameters are so exact that if they differed from their value only slightly, then the universe as we know it could not exist. Now while you might think that a superintelligence could not be behind this, it has in fact been recognized by Susskind as a real phenomenon; and as wild as it may sound, a god, or superintellect could be behind it. The fact it, our entire basis of existence relies on a very exact science based within the constants found in fundamental physics - how this could have happened to such a fine degree, is uncertain. I think this is the strongest evidence to support that our universe at least isn't as accidental as we might think. 

 

 

I also believe that a cosmic consciousness should exist. Apparently ''dead matter'' comes together to form mobile living matter and at our level of consciousness, it involves a great degree of flexibility giving rise to all sorts of experiences, deep emotions and complex thought processes. The ability for matter to come together and do this, suggests that perhaps consciousness is not as localized as we think and could very well be a property of the entire cosmos that wishes to express itself in any form of life. 



#78 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Members
  • 2351 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 03:06 PM

I'd like to make it clear, I am not in the traditional ''creationist arguments'' as my view is rooted from science. In physics there is a well-known problem of fine tuning parameters, there are well over sixty of them in literature and these parameters are so exact that if they differed from their value only slightly, then the universe as we know it could not exist. Now while you might think that a superintelligence could not be behind this, it has in fact been recognized by Susskind as a real phenomenon; and as wild as it may sound, a god, or superintellect could be behind it. The fact it, our entire basis of existence relies on a very exact science based within the constants found in fundamental physics - how this could have happened to such a fine degree, is uncertain. I think this is the strongest evidence to support that our universe at least isn't as accidental as we might think. 

 

 

I also believe that a cosmic consciousness should exist. Apparently ''dead matter'' comes together to form mobile living matter and at our level of consciousness, it involves a great degree of flexibility giving rise to all sorts of experiences, deep emotions and complex thought processes. The ability for matter to come together and do this, suggests that perhaps consciousness is not as localized as we think and could very well be a property of the entire cosmos that wishes to express itself in any form of life. 

Or, it just IS...because the only other option is that it isn't. Since it is instead of isn't, obviously the possibility of it happening is large enough that it did...

There's also an interesting thing about that "fine tuning" argument: a LOT of basic values are so inter-dependent that if one changed most of the others would probably just compensate. EG if C was a smaller value, Everything would be the same, but smaller. However, since EVERYTHING would be smaller you wouldn't notice, because ratios. Sort of the same thing with a most of the fundamental forces AFAIK.

Now there are some forces that do fall outside this, but even those have a kinda large margin. EG dark energy, which depending on it's actual power could lead to either closed, open, or flat universe. It's only recently that we've measured reliably enough to make a call on the universe being "flat."



#79 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 04:40 PM

I'd like to make it clear, I am not in the traditional ''creationist arguments'' as my view is rooted from science. In physics there is a well-known problem of fine tuning parameters, there are well over sixty of them in literature and these parameters are so exact that if they differed from their value only slightly, then the universe as we know it could not exist. Now while you might think that a superintelligence could not be behind this, it has in fact been recognized by Susskind as a real phenomenon; and as wild as it may sound, a god, or superintellect could be behind it. The fact it, our entire basis of existence relies on a very exact science based within the constants found in fundamental physics - how this could have happened to such a fine degree, is uncertain. I think this is the strongest evidence to support that our universe at least isn't as accidental as we might think. 

 

 

I also believe that a cosmic consciousness should exist. Apparently ''dead matter'' comes together to form mobile living matter and at our level of consciousness, it involves a great degree of flexibility giving rise to all sorts of experiences, deep emotions and complex thought processes. The ability for matter to come together and do this, suggests that perhaps consciousness is not as localized as we think and could very well be a property of the entire cosmos that wishes to express itself in any form of life. 

 

Belief or disbelief does not constitute proof.

 

I have a couple of Susskind's books and nowhere does he indicate God did it. It is more likely the universe just evolved from space because it could, like everything else in the universe. It exists because it can. 

 

Not serious > :) If you want cosmic consciousness try entanglement all things are connected to a certain extent, by gravity :) 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: polypeptide synthesis, impossible, intermediaries, Richard Dawkins, hemoglobin 574 amino accids