Bible Discussion: Vicious Circles For Evolutionists

Vicious Circles For Evolutionists
Posts: 67

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-07-19 16:44:05 EST
Vicious Circles for Evolutionists

What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry:

1. The genictic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with
many different and highly specific enzymes, which are themselves encoded.
So the code cannot be translated except by products of translation. These
include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid(none of
which have every been synthesized by experiments using electrical sparks
in "original" earth atmospheres) is linked to the right tDNA. One sieve
rejects amino acids too large, while another rejects those too small.

2. The genetic code that's almost universal to life on earth is about the
best possible, for protecting against errors and is self correcting(never
random) to specific patterns.

3. The genetic code also has vital editing machinery that is itself
encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from
the beginning. This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.

4. The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine actually contains
histidine! No how did that happen?

So now we see that those who claim evolution(in any of its multiple
forms-athiestic or theistic) really have not been very well schooled in
organic chemistry. The foundational reason for the unreasonableness of
their beliefs is that they hate God and cannot accept the reality of His
supernatural creation of what they see around them everyday.

The worst ones are the so-called "Christians" who, by accepting the lie of
evolution, make God to be a liar. If they say God is lying about creation
perhaps He is also lying about their salvation? How do they know then if
they are saved? How do they even know if they are "Christian"?

Tom
2003-07-19 16:52:26 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1907031344050001@pm1-30.kalama.com...
> Vicious Circles for Evolutionists
>
> What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry:
<snip DNA talk that LeavinheresoonIhope deosn't understand in
the least>

Tom: What LeavingheresoonIhope knows about organic chemistry:





Yep, the above is the sum of all of his organic chemistry knowledge :-).



Elmer Bataitis
2003-07-19 17:01:43 EST
IknowHimDoYou wrote:

> Vicious Circles for Evolutionists

> What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry

You can see all these God hater's published work in the National
Institutes of Health National Medical Library:

www.pubmed.com

> 1. The genictic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with
> many different and highly specific enzymes, which are themselves encoded.
> So the code cannot be translated except by products of translation.

Explain *exactly* the process of translation.

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************

Zachriel
2003-07-19 18:49:56 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1907031344050001@pm1-30.kalama.com...
> Vicious Circles for Evolutionists
>
> What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry:
>
> 1. The genictic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with
> many different and highly specific enzymes, which are themselves encoded.
> So the code cannot be translated except by products of translation. These
> include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid(none of
> which have every been synthesized by experiments using electrical sparks
> in "original" earth atmospheres) is linked to the right tDNA. One sieve
> rejects amino acids too large, while another rejects those too small.
>
> 2. The genetic code that's almost universal to life on earth is about the
> best possible, for protecting against errors and is self correcting(never
> random) to specific patterns.
>
> 3. The genetic code also has vital editing machinery that is itself
> encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from
> the beginning. This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
> defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.
>
> 4. The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine actually contains
> histidine! No how did that happen?
>
> So now we see that those who claim evolution(in any of its multiple
> forms-athiestic or theistic) really have not been very well schooled in
> organic chemistry. The foundational reason for the unreasonableness of
> their beliefs is that they hate God and cannot accept the reality of His
> supernatural creation of what they see around them everyday.
>
> The worst ones are the so-called "Christians" who, by accepting the lie of
> evolution, make God to be a liar. If they say God is lying about creation
> perhaps He is also lying about their salvation? How do they know then if
> they are saved? How do they even know if they are "Christian"?

And you know this because . . .

You performed the experiments?
You are a biochemist?
You know a biochemist?
You read it in a biochemistry text?
You read a synopsis of a biochemistry text?
You read something on the Internet somewhere?

Did you know that without science, we wouldn't even know what an amino acid
was?







The Omniscient Blade
2003-07-19 19:21:06 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1907031344050001@pm1-30.kalama.com...
> Vicious Circles for Evolutionists
>
> What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry:
>
> 1. The genictic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with
> many different and highly specific enzymes, which are themselves encoded.
> So the code cannot be translated except by products of translation. These
> include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid(none of
> which have every been synthesized by experiments using electrical sparks
> in "original" earth atmospheres) is linked to the right tDNA. One sieve
> rejects amino acids too large, while another rejects those too small.

Translated into what? Proteins? It is translated by an RNA based catalytic
unit, the ribosome. Experiments have also been conducted whereby RNA strands
that autocatalyse their own replication have been developed. Thus you could
have a system where RNA makes more of itself just as enzymes make more DNA
now in a more complicated and efficient system that has developed over time.
Also, you are still failing to understand that this has NO impact on the
fact that all biodiversity came from a single lifeform that existed millenia
ago. This isn't organic chemistry either, it is biochemistry and molecular
biology.

>
> 2. The genetic code that's almost universal to life on earth is about the
> best possible, for protecting against errors and is self correcting(never
> random) to specific patterns.

The code that is used has NOTHING to do with protecting from errors, it has
likely been arbitrarily assigned for large parts over the course of its
development. The redundancy that exists within the code has to do with the
number of amino acids it codes for and the molecular ineractions between the
RNA mediators that convert it into proteins. The code is not self
correcting, it requires editors to scan it looking for errors (though random
errors can get in that fail to be detected and are then compounded on
subsequence replication).

>
> 3. The genetic code also has vital editing machinery that is itself
> encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from
> the beginning. This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
> defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.

The egg came first without question. As for the DNA, the first systems DID
NOT need to have the editing mechanisms and thus will have had higher
mutation rates that were compensated for by very short genomes.

>
> 4. The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine actually contains
> histidine! No how did that happen?

Which enzymes that make it? My understanding is that most amino acids now
are made by transamination from a few other amino acids. Also, does the
enzyme that makes it NEED the histidine residue for its catalytic activity
or could it be replaced by another amino acid and still work? BTW, the amino
acids don't have to be synthesised by biochemical means, they do get
produced in small quantities in the environment from inorganic precursors.
Thus early organisms could have made their proteins with histidine in them
without making it themselves as they took it from the environment. We can't
make lysine and yet we have proteins in our body that contain it.

>
> So now we see that those who claim evolution(in any of its multiple
> forms-athiestic or theistic) really have not been very well schooled in
> organic chemistry. The foundational reason for the unreasonableness of
> their beliefs is that they hate God and cannot accept the reality of His
> supernatural creation of what they see around them everyday.

What schooling have you had? You refer to tDNA and yet you don't get tDNA at
all, you get tRNA. Seems you weren't paying attention in lessons. Those of
us that have considerable education in biological matters don't see that
much problem with anything you have said as its all wrong.

--
Blade ICQ#27537648

Smart people can fake being stupid, but stupid people can't fake being
smart.

Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.



Lane Lewis
2003-07-19 19:46:57 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1907031344050001@pm1-30.kalama.com...
> Vicious Circles for Evolutionists
>
> What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry:
>
> 1. The genictic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with
> many different and highly specific enzymes, which are themselves encoded.
> So the code cannot be translated except by products of translation. These
> include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid(none of
> which have every been synthesized by experiments using electrical sparks
> in "original" earth atmospheres) is linked to the right tDNA. One sieve
> rejects amino acids too large, while another rejects those too small.
>

You said in another post that no new information could be added to DNA.

In this post you say only enzymes can translate the code, so how do you know
that the statement "no new information" is true.

You also said that mutations can only be harmful.

If you can't read the code how do you know that's true.

So which post is wrong.

Who are the real God haters, those that tell the truth or those that don't.

Lane

snip



The_Sage
2003-07-20 00:03:31 EST
>Reply to article by: "The Omniscient Blade" <blade@mysanctuary.con>
>Date written: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:21:06 +0100
>MsgID:<bfcjq3$ph2$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

>>This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
>>defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.

>The egg came first without question.

This is yet another example of Pascal's Wager. There are other
alternatives. My reply to which came first: The chicken or the egg
is...the sperm.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you still
exist, but you have cease to live" -- Mark Twain
=============================================================

David Jensen
2003-07-20 01:09:41 EST
In alt.talk.creationism, IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
in <IknowHim-1907031344050001@pm1-30.kalama.com>:

>Vicious Circles for Evolutionists
>
>What the God-haters don't know about organic chemistry:
>
>1. The genictic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with
>many different and highly specific enzymes, which are themselves encoded.

Not perfect, but I don't quite see that you have a point here anyway.

>So the code cannot be translated except by products of translation. These

That's what comes of changes over time.

>include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid(none of
>which have every been synthesized by experiments using electrical sparks
>in "original" earth atmospheres) is linked to the right tDNA. One sieve
>rejects amino acids too large, while another rejects those too small.

I think you just proved 'logically' that arches cannot be built, but I'm
not sure.

>2. The genetic code that's almost universal to life on earth is about the
>best possible, for protecting against errors and is self correcting(never
>random) to specific patterns.

No, it's good enough. It is not perfect.

>3. The genetic code also has vital editing machinery that is itself
>encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from
>the beginning.

No, that only shows that we inherited something that works that way.

>This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
>defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.

Actually, as you know, it says nothing about God, but a lot about your
assumptions and your knowledge, or lack thereof of biochemistry.

>4. The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine actually contains
>histidine! No how did that happen?

Does it work?

>So now we see that those who claim evolution(in any of its multiple
>forms-athiestic or theistic) really have not been very well schooled in
>organic chemistry. The foundational reason for the unreasonableness of
>their beliefs is that they hate God and cannot accept the reality of His
>supernatural creation of what they see around them everyday.

These conclusions are not based on any of the accurate comments you
made.

>The worst ones are the so-called "Christians" who, by accepting the lie of
>evolution, make God to be a liar. If they say God is lying about creation
>perhaps He is also lying about their salvation? How do they know then if
>they are saved? How do they even know if they are "Christian"?

So God lied to us, that is your claim.

The_Sage
2003-07-20 20:34:02 EST
>Reply to article by: IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
>Date written: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:30:28 -0700
>MsgID:<IknowHim-2007030930280001@pm6-30.kalama.com>

Beautiful! I'm going to love this one...

>>>>This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
>>>>defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.

>>>The egg came first without question.

>>This is yet another example of Pascal's Wager. There are other
>>alternatives. My reply to which came first: The chicken or the egg
>>is...the sperm.

>No, it is dust....

What the Buybull believers don't know about reality:

1. Humans are composed of 75% water, how did Gawd create man without
using any water? Your Gawd got His science wrong again.

2. There is no place in the world that is composed of dust that is of
the same composition as the remaining 25% of matter in humans.
Where did the alleged dust come from then? Imagination?

3. The make believe Adam of Buybull fame, supposedly was created with
a body, soul, and spirit. When Adam first sinned, which of these
parts of Adam was responsible for the sin? If it was the body then
why must our souls be saved and not our bodies? If it was soul or
spirit then why must the body suffer? When God spoke to Adam in
Gen. 3:17-19, was he speaking to "Adam the body" or "Adam the soul"
or "Adam the spirit"? If you say spirit or soul then why would God
mislead Adam by saying from dust YOU were made and to dust YOU will
return? Why didn't he truthfully say from dust only your body was
made and to dust only your body will return? Your Gawd lied.

4. Eventually there would come Jesus and he was to buy back what Adam
lost. This brings us to the question of what exactly did Adam lose?
If Adam was already in Heaven, then he didn't need Jesus to die for
him because he would already be where he would want to be. If Adam
was in Hell then it was too late! He was already where he deserved
to be. Wouldn't God have originally wanted Adam to have not sinned?
If you believe in foreordaination, you would have to say no,
because God had pre-planned for Adam's failure, therefore God
wanted Adam to sin. And you call this Gawd, an "intelligent
designer"? Haha!

So now we see that those who claim creationism (in any of its multiple
forms -- theistic or intelligent design) really have not been very
well schooled in common logical sense. The foundational reason for the
unreasonableness of their beliefs is that they are looking for reasons
to hate non-believers and cannot accept the reality as it is observed
to be all around us all the time, but must submit to some ridiculous
unprovable poorly thought out fantasy of how they merely wish it were
like.

The worst ones are the one who claim to know Gawd, who by accepting
the blind faith stupidity of creationism, deny themselves of ever
knowing what actual reality is. If they cannot even prove that their
Gawd exists outside of their imagination, why would they want to
blindly believe without reason or thought? They are making fools of
themselves and don't even know they are making fools of themselves,
just like the blind leading the blind.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you still
exist, but you have cease to live" -- Mark Twain
=============================================================

John W
2003-07-20 21:55:28 EST
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:34:02 -0700, thesage@az.rmci.net (The_Sage)
wrote:

>>Reply to article by: IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
>>Date written: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:30:28 -0700
>>MsgID:<IknowHim-2007030930280001@pm6-30.kalama.com>
>
>Beautiful! I'm going to love this one...
>
>>>>>This is the chicken and egg story all over again-and
>>>>>defies all the speculations and assumptions of the God-haters.
>
>>>>The egg came first without question.
>
>>>This is yet another example of Pascal's Wager. There are other
>>>alternatives. My reply to which came first: The chicken or the egg
>>>is...the sperm.
>
>>No, it is dust....
>
>What the Buybull believers don't know about reality:
>
>1. Humans are composed of 75% water, how did Gawd create man without
> using any water? Your Gawd got His science wrong again.

Before God created the universe, there were no elements. Where did
your scientists come up with the water? It didn't exist.

And you forgot the one about the scientist who confronts Yhwh on His
throne, and the scientist says, "You can retire now, God. We don't
need you anymore!"
God says, "wonderful! I appreciate that! What are you talking about?"
The scientist says, "We've learned how to create life. We have no
further need of you."
God says, "Wonderful, suppose you give me a demonstration."
The scientist says, "You bet! I brought the machine with me." He
produces a human sized metal box. He explains, "I'll just take a
fistful of dirt, here," and he reaches down to Earth for a fistful of
dirt.
God says, "Whoa! Hold on! You leave that dirt alone! I created that
dirt! Go get your own dirt!"

John W

>
>2. There is no place in the world that is composed of dust that is of
> the same composition as the remaining 25% of matter in humans.
> Where did the alleged dust come from then? Imagination?
>
>3. The make believe Adam of Buybull fame, supposedly was created with
> a body, soul, and spirit. When Adam first sinned, which of these
> parts of Adam was responsible for the sin? If it was the body then
> why must our souls be saved and not our bodies? If it was soul or
> spirit then why must the body suffer? When God spoke to Adam in
> Gen. 3:17-19, was he speaking to "Adam the body" or "Adam the soul"
> or "Adam the spirit"? If you say spirit or soul then why would God
> mislead Adam by saying from dust YOU were made and to dust YOU will
> return? Why didn't he truthfully say from dust only your body was
> made and to dust only your body will return? Your Gawd lied.
>
>4. Eventually there would come Jesus and he was to buy back what Adam
> lost. This brings us to the question of what exactly did Adam lose?
> If Adam was already in Heaven, then he didn't need Jesus to die for
> him because he would already be where he would want to be. If Adam
> was in Hell then it was too late! He was already where he deserved
> to be. Wouldn't God have originally wanted Adam to have not sinned?
> If you believe in foreordaination, you would have to say no,
> because God had pre-planned for Adam's failure, therefore God
> wanted Adam to sin. And you call this Gawd, an "intelligent
> designer"? Haha!
>
>So now we see that those who claim creationism (in any of its multiple
>forms -- theistic or intelligent design) really have not been very
>well schooled in common logical sense. The foundational reason for the
>unreasonableness of their beliefs is that they are looking for reasons
>to hate non-believers and cannot accept the reality as it is observed
>to be all around us all the time, but must submit to some ridiculous
>unprovable poorly thought out fantasy of how they merely wish it were
>like.
>
>The worst ones are the one who claim to know Gawd, who by accepting
>the blind faith stupidity of creationism, deny themselves of ever
>knowing what actual reality is. If they cannot even prove that their
>Gawd exists outside of their imagination, why would they want to
>blindly believe without reason or thought? They are making fools of
>themselves and don't even know they are making fools of themselves,
>just like the blind leading the blind.
>
>The Sage
>
>=============================================================
>My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
>
>"Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you still
>exist, but you have cease to live" -- Mark Twain
>=============================================================


______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron