DNA Refute Evolution

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah yes, DNA is way too complex to have formed in such a short time span as billions of years.

ah yes, the atmosphere just happened to be reducing, another materialistic
coincidence. Technology cannot create life from non living matter in a controlled
environment yet nature and blind chance stumbled upon it, it is to laugh!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah yes, DNA is way too complex to have formed in such a short time span as billions of years.

Unfortunately, there was only a few thousand years for every thing to form and
DNA and RNA to appear and all life forms to evolve. Science has not proved
that million, billion, or trillions of years have past. One can not prove scientific
theories on assumptions. To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME. 😏

Originally posted by humy
“...Doesn't this make it clear to you that there is NO new information and that it is only
duplication of the same information that was already there. ...”(my emphasis)

there is not always distinction between the two. A duplication of some genes can result in a different expression of one of the copies.
Even when there initially is no difference in the e ...[text shortened]... Independent Hox gene
duplications in the hagsh lineage...”

...the evidence is just vast.

It is obvious to me, people like you and VoidSpirit are too ignorant to be posting
on the science forum. You can't understand simple concepts. So no wonder
you are totally lost when it comes to something complicated like DNA and RNA.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website.

Really? are you blind? It's clearly a Muslim creationist site. How about this at the end of the very page you pointed us at:

God has placed at your service countless atoms and molecules, from the biggest to the smallest, from the simplest to the most complex, so that you may live a e We the Creator? (Qur'an, 56:57-59)

Did you read the site at all?

--- Penguin[/b]

God is just as much a part of science as He is everything else in the universe,
regardless of your opinions. Your opinion is irrelevant and irrational and not science. 😏

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So this Intelligent Designer of yours, I take it he is far from perfect then, surely "an error in cell division" demands some element of chance. The only issue with 'Down syndrome' is that we percieve the resulting phenotype to be a disadvantage; the fact that we can discuss the existence/non-existence of god is due to previous chance/random errors in cell division.

Your opinion is irrelevant and irrational and not science. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your opinion is irrelevant and irrational and not science. HalleluYah !!! 🙄

your original premise has been fully refuted and you've come across as being both dishonest and irrational. the irony of you calling other people irrational in the wake of your absolute failure does not escape me. it's a common tactic used by those who have been utterly defeated but refuse to accept realty.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your original premise has been fully refuted and you've come across as being both dishonest and irrational. the irony of you calling other people irrational in the wake of your absolute failure does not escape me. it's a common tactic used by those who have been utterly defeated but refuse to accept realty.

You and googlefudge are at the top of the list of people who refuse to accept
realty. I don't know how many times I have told you guys that evolution is
just a theory and you numbnuts keep calling it a fact. You think theory means
fact. Theory is just an educated guess accompanied by some flowery words.
It is pure fiction, not fact.

There are some theories that are pretty close to fact, but evolution is not one of
them. Sorry fellow. 😏

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah yes, the atmosphere just happened to be reducing, another materialistic
coincidence. Technology cannot create life from non living matter in a controlled
environment yet nature and blind chance stumbled upon it, it is to laugh!

Blind chance? It is to laugh.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Unfortunately, there was only a few thousand years for every thing to form and
DNA and RNA to appear and all life forms to evolve. Science has not proved
that million, billion, or trillions of years have past. One can not prove scientific
theories on assumptions. To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME. 😏

“...Science has not proved
that million, billion, or trillions of years have past. ...”

wrong yet again.
here is just a sample of the vast evidence:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

try again.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obvious to me, people like you and VoidSpirit are too ignorant to be posting
on the science forum. You can't understand simple concepts. So no wonder
you are totally lost when it comes to something complicated like DNA and RNA.

I (along with some others) have debunked your claim with evidence and your response? -pretend it is others that are wrong.
Can you be a man and admit when you have been proven wrong?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You and googlefudge are at the top of the list of people who refuse to accept
realty. I don't know how many times I have told you guys that evolution is
just a theory and you numbnuts keep calling it a fact. You think theory means
fact. Theory is just an educated guess accompanied by some flowery words.
It is pure fiction, not fact.

There are some theories that are pretty close to fact, but evolution is not one of
them. Sorry fellow. 🙄

your absurd notions are nonsensical. both googlefudge and i know the limitation of theories. it's you who is patently ignorant of what theories are, but from the above statement, you seem to be getting closer to understanding after all this time.

however, you still have absolutely know understanding of evolution and have no qualifications whatsoever on proclaiming how close or far from fact it happens to be.

practical applications of evolution theory in technology today prove that it is far closer to fact than any theory you have been able to present thus far. so if you think you have a better practical theory, you are welcome to get your findings published. until then, you're just quack.

Originally posted by humy
“...Science has not proved
that million, billion, or trillions of years have past. ...”

wrong yet again.
here is just a sample of the vast evidence:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

try again.

I have also addressed this issue before. Some of the evidence is false, like it
takes long period of time to produce Petrified wood. Other information is true
but does not rule out the interpretation of the data to indicate a young Earth.
Next. 😏

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your absurd notions are nonsensical. both googlefudge and i know the limitation of theories. it's you who is patently ignorant of what theories are, but from the above statement, you seem to be getting closer to understanding after all this time.

however, you still have absolutely know understanding of evolution and have no qualifications whatsoever ...[text shortened]... ctical theory, you are welcome to get your findings published. until then, you're just quack.

The theory of relativity is much closer to fact than the theory of evolution will
ever be. That is because the theory of evolution is false. Something that is
false can not be proven true by true scientific methods.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The theory of relativity is much closer to fact than the theory of evolution will
ever be. That is because the theory of evolution is false. Something that is
false can not be proven true by true scientific methods.

you keep saying that but all you accomplish is a display of your own ignorance.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have also addressed this issue before. Some of the evidence is false, like it
takes long period of time to produce Petrified wood. Other information is true
but does not rule out the interpretation of the data to indicate a young Earth.
Next. 😏

that is false