Ancient ALIEN Creationism - science or new age RELIGION?

Micawber said:
I did not need to answer that part of your loaded question to disprove your conclusion. Here is yet another problem with the loaded language you are using, by using the term information, you might appear to the uninitiated or someone inclined to magical thinking (read Republican religious goofball) to be saying that natural force or forces contain sentience. As to why things in a complex system are arranged the way they are, you can not draw a distinction between a dbl helix and a snowflake, a crystal, a leaf or anything else which are also infinitely complex and yet contain some uniformity. Gee what's holding all that snow together? It must be Jesus.
Click to expand...

Why are you determined to disprove a conclusion when I have yet to make one lol?

You're also determined to conflate complexity with information. Biological information can only be understood for what it is---information. And this information is utilized by cells and higher organisms to metabolize, reproduce, take part in pointless protests and etc.

The question is how did it come to exist. Snowflake formation can be understood in terms of the effect of temperature on hydrogen bonding between water molecules; in other words, their formation is compelled and/or constrained by well known physical forces and natural laws.

But there are no such laws which govern the formation of biological information: The existence of DNA can't be explained by hydrogen bonding, covalent bonding, temperature, oxidation or reduction, chemical affinities, gravity or any other known physical force or law.

And if there is no governing law, there is no scientific explanation for it.

Yet, it exists.
 
Darth Omar said:
Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
Gee what's holding all that snow together? It must be Jesus.
Click to expand...
Why are you determined to disprove a conclusion when I have yet to make one lol?

You're also determined to conflate complexity with information. Biological information can only be understood for what it is---information. And this information is utilized by cells and higher organisms to metabolize, reproduce, take part in pointless protests and etc.

The question is how did it come to exist. Snowflake formation can be understood in terms of the effect of temperature on hydrogen bonding between water molecules; in other words, their formation is compelled and/or constrained by well known physical forces and natural laws.
Click to expand...

what a wonderful system Jesus put in place to hold the snow together......
 
Darth Omar said:
Why are you determined to disprove a conclusion when I have yet to make one lol?

You're also determined to conflate complexity with information. Biological information can only be understood for what it is---information. And this information is utilized by cells and higher organisms to metabolize, reproduce, take part in pointless protests and etc.

The question is how did it come to exist. Snowflake formation can be understood in terms of the effect of temperature on hydrogen bonding between water molecules; in other words, their formation is compelled and/or constrained by well known physical forces and natural laws.

But there are no such laws which govern the formation of biological information: The existence of DNA can't be explained by hydrogen bonding, covalent bonding, temperature, oxidation or reduction, chemical affinities, gravity or any other known physical force or law.

And if there is no governing law, there is no scientific explanation for it.

Yet, it exists.
Click to expand...

"The DNA double helix is held together by two main forces: hydrogen bonds between complementary base pairs inside the helix and the Van der Waals base-stacking interaction."

Wiki books

Took ten seconds for a definitive scientific answer.
 
Micawber said:
"The DNA double helix is held together by two main forces: hydrogen bonds between complementary base pairs inside the helix and the Van der Waals base-stacking interaction."

Wiki books

Took ten seconds for a definitive scientific answer.
Click to expand...

You need Wiki for that lol?

The reason the helix is held together by hydrogen bonds is because they are relatively easy to break: Which makes sense, since the two strands have to come apart before transcription can take place. If the covalent bonds holding the nucleotides together started to break during transcription, everything falls apart.

At any rate, I don't need you or Wiki to know all that about DNA. I'm interested in the origin of biological information.

Do you concede that it exists?
 
Darth Omar said:
You need Wiki for that lol?

The reason the helix is held together by hydrogen bonds is because they are relatively easy to break: Which makes sense, since the two strands have to come apart before transcription can take place. If the covalent bonds holding the nucleotides together started to break during transcription, everything falls apart.

At any rate, I don't need you or Wiki to know all that about DNA. I'm interested in the origin of biological information.

Do you concede that it exists?
Click to expand...

Define information as you are using the word.

Science does not disprove a creator, but the scientific case for god is nonexistent. Religion offers no knowledge at all. As a matter of history, science has forced religion to scurry for cover. Every former mystery religious nuts exploit gets upended with a rational explanation. This ID stuff is just the latest iteration of the same.
 
Micawber said:
Define information as you are using the word.

Science does not disprove a creator, but the scientific case for god is nonexistent. Religion offers no knowledge at all. As a matter of history, science has forced religion to scurry for cover. Every former mystery religious nuts exploit gets upended with a rational explanation. This ID stuff is just the latest iteration of the same.
Click to expand...

You can try and dispense with the information problem as 'ID stuff' all you like, but that means being content with your ignorance; and/or accepting implausible explanations [which ironically, border on the miraculous] for the origin of DNA.

There is 'information' in a rock, because any arrangement of atoms contains information in one sense. Which is fine, but that form of information couldn't be any more useless in a biological sense.

Living things are reliant on a code that stores another kind of information. It's called a code because it is a code lol. EVERYTHING that happens on the cellular level is determined by this code. It's quite a bit, but not exactly like computer code. The biggest distinction is that the DNA code is insanely more sophisticated.

Centuries after Galileo, it's time to let the evidence lead where it may in science.
 
Darth Omar said:
You can try and dispense with the information problem as 'ID stuff' all you like, but that means being content with your ignorance; and/or accepting implausible explanations [which ironically, border on the miraculous] for the origin of DNA.

There is 'information' in a rock, because any arrangement of atoms contains information in one sense. Which is fine, but that form of information couldn't be any more useless in a biological sense.

Living things are reliant on a code that stores another kind of information. It's called a code because it is a code lol. EVERYTHING that happens on the cellular level is determined by this code. It's quite a bit, but not exactly like computer code. The biggest distinction is that the DNA code is insanely more sophisticated.

Centuries after Galileo, it's time to let the evidence lead where it may in science.
Click to expand...

You are wrong that everything that happens on the cellular level is determined by dna code, (again please read posts 302 and 332) but my points stand that religion offers nothing to forward scientific knowledge, ID is not science, Behe is an outlier disavowed by his own University (Jesuit), nobody is "shutting down" research as you conspiratorially insinuate. Information or code is correct so long as you aren't loading it with God or sentient creator. Until you ID goofballs have a scientific theory, I'll thank you to keep the faith, and keep it in your churches and the heck out of science classes. The burden is on you to prove your theory, whatever it may be.
 
Micawber said:
You are wrong that everything that happens on the cellular level is determined by dna code, (again please read posts 302 and 332) but my points stand that religion offers nothing to forward scientific knowledge, ID is not science, Behe is an outlier disavowed by his own University (Jesuit), nobody is "shutting down" research as you conspiratorially insinuate. Information or code is correct so long as you aren't loading it with God or sentient creator. Until you ID goofballs have a scientific theory, I'll thank you to keep the faith, and keep it in your churches and the heck out of science classes. The burden is on you to prove your theory, whatever it may be.
Click to expand...

I don't have a theory at this point and I'm pretty much open to anything.

My point is science may have reached an endpoint when it comes to the origin of DNA: it's entirely possible, if not highly likely, that its origin is not explainable in strictly materialist terms. DNA was discovered in the 50's but we're no closer to discovery about its origin 60 years later.

Hopeful speculations, notwithstanding.
 
Darth Omar said:
I don't have a theory at this point and I'm pretty much open to anything.

My point is science may have reached an endpoint when it comes to the origin of DNA: it's entirely possible, if not highly likely, that its origin is not explainable in strictly materialist terms. DNA was discovered in the 50's but we're no closer to discovery about its origin 60 years later.

Hopeful speculations, notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

We are no closer to discovery about the origins of everything since the big bang evidence of the 60s. So again, it's no different. You could be making the same argument about that instead of DNA, with some intelligent cloud man behind the bang poofing it into existence. Further, you could do the same by subjecting every scientific ultimate force like magnetism, electromagnetic radiation, gravity, to wit "gee wiz, we can describe what it does, but why is it here?" "Why? Why anything? They have no answers, so endeth the lesson, let us pray."
 
Micawber said:
We are no closer to discovery about the origins of everything since the big bang evidence of the 60s. So again, it's no different. You could be making the same argument about that instead of DNA, with some intelligent cloud man behind the bang poofing it into existence. Further, you could do the same by subjecting every scientific ultimate force like magnetism, electromagnetic radiation, gravity, to wit "gee wiz, we can describe what it does, but why is it here?" "Why? Why anything? They have no answers, so endeth the lesson, let us pray."
Click to expand...

You are admitting quite clearly that you have no reliable answers either. It is all a crapshoot. So why the uppity attitude when you could be as wrong as the next guy?
 
Sailor said:
You are admitting quite clearly that you have no reliable answers either. It is all a crapshoot. So why the uppity attitude when you could be as wrong as the next guy?
Click to expand...

That was basically my point a couple of pages ago lol.

It bespeaks a certain lack of humility to be certain of *anything* when the subject is origins.
 
Micawber said:
You are wrong that everything that happens on the cellular level is determined by dna code, (again please read posts 302 and 332) but my points stand that religion offers nothing to forward scientific knowledge, ID is not science, Behe is an outlier disavowed by his own University (Jesuit), nobody is "shutting down" research as you conspiratorially insinuate. Information or code is correct so long as you aren't loading it with God or sentient creator. Until you ID goofballs have a scientific theory, I'll thank you to keep the faith, and keep it in your churches and the heck out of science classes. The burden is on you to prove your theory, whatever it may be.
Click to expand...

Then how were the origins of the first DNA started?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then how were the origins of the first DNA started?
Click to expand...

It's a paradox.

Even if you could coax a string of nucleotides together [no small feat in of itself] it would code for biological gibberish.

There's two fundamental problems with it: the first is getting the molecule to form; the second problem is the code itself. Neither problem is an easy one but the second is nearly prohibitive.

Crick realized this back in the 50's, when he conjured the notion of Directed Panspermia, where aliens seeded the planet with DNA then natural selection took over. He was mocked for it. It seems a little far-fetched [but all theories for the origin of DNA are far-fetched and are easily mocked lol] but it got around the problem of the origin of DNA.

On our planet, anyway.
 
Sailor said:
You are admitting quite clearly that you have no reliable answers either. It is all a crapshoot. So why the uppity attitude when you could be as wrong as the next guy?
Click to expand...

Uppity because science and religion are not on equal footing. Trying to create the impression that they are is dishonest. Religious people playing this game are inherently dishonest. I am better than people who are dishonest about this subject.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then how were the origins of the first DNA started?
Click to expand...


Not interested in getting into a semantic do loop with you on this or your proxy Omar. Asked and answered. My thoughts are already set forth. If you are interested in my thoughts, reread all my posts in this thread. Further I sayeth not. Saying aliens does not solve your problem, because that just kicks the issue down the road. If alien jizz was spewed on mother earth, that doesn't say how the alien life started.
 
Last edited:
Darth Omar said:
It's a paradox.

Even if you could coax a string of nucleotides together [no small feat in of itself] it would code for biological gibberish.

There's two fundamental problems with it: the first is getting the molecule to form; the second problem is the code itself. Neither problem is an easy one but the second is nearly prohibitive.

Crick realized this back in the 50's, when he conjured the notion of Directed Panspermia, where aliens seeded the planet with DNA then natural selection took over. He was mocked for it. It seems a little far-fetched [but all theories for the origin of DNA are far-fetched and are easily mocked lol] but it got around the problem of the origin of DNA.

On our planet, anyway.
Click to expand...

We have been able to create nucleic acid in experiments replicating primordial soup, without aliens, freaks. PS I met Sir Francis Crick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top