Junk DNA Disproves Creationist Claims
Budikka666
"It all happens very quickly. Genes called transposons in the single-
celled pond-dwelling organism Oxytricha produce cell proteins known as
transposases. During development, the transposons appear to first
influence hundreds of thousands of DNA pieces to regroup. Then, when
no longer needed, the organism cleverly erases the transposases from
its genetic material, paring its genome to a slim 5 percent of its
original load."
So according to creationists, we're supposed to believe that their god
is such an appallingly inept designer that he cannot think of a less
wasteful way to create an organism!
So let's face the facts here. In the dichotomy the creationists
insist upon, either there's no designer and there's just evolution, or
there's a designer who is a moron. Is your god a moron?
Budikka
ilbe...@gmail.com
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140408.htmreveals:
> "It all happens very quickly. Genes called transposons in the single-
> celled pond-dwelling organism Oxytricha produce cell proteins known as
> transposases. During development, the transposons appear to first
> influence hundreds of thousands of DNA pieces to regroup. Then, when
> no longer needed, the organism cleverly erases the transposases from
> its genetic material, paring its genome to a slim 5 percent of its
> original load."
>
> So according to creationists, we're supposed to believe that their god
> is such an appallingly inept designer that he cannot think of a less
> wasteful way to create an organism!
>
> So let's face the facts here. In the dichotomy the creationists
> there's a designer who is a moron. Is your god a moron?
>
> Budikka
Maybe you can tell us how the FIRST DNA arrived spontaneously out of
the atmosphere so further DNA could be had ? The worlds foremost
expert on DNA, Dr. Francis Crick (Biologist AND ATHEIST) wrote in
his book that the probability is 10x40,000 th power . You dont have
that much faith im afraid . So, how come its imperative that God not
exist in your personal life then ? Any by the way, there is no such
thing as 'junk DNA' --- what you call 'junk' has a purpose too .
Stop playing the charade of not wanting God to exist...youre playing a
very dangerous game with yourself.
haiku jones
> On Nov 24, 3:20 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140408.htmreveals:
> > "It all happens very quickly. Genes called transposons in the single-
> > celled pond-dwelling organism Oxytricha produce cell proteins known as
> > transposases. During development, the transposons appear to first
> > influence hundreds of thousands of DNA pieces to regroup. Then, when
> > no longer needed, the organism cleverly erases the transposases from
> > its genetic material, paring its genome to a slim 5 percent of its
> > original load."
>
> > So according to creationists, we're supposed to believe that their god
> > is such an appallingly inept designer that he cannot think of a less
> > wasteful way to create an organism!
>
> > So let's face the facts here. In the dichotomy the creationists
> > cinsist upon, either there's no designer and there's just evolution, or
> > there's a designer who is a moron. Is your god a moron?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Maybe you can tell us how the FIRST DNA arrived spontaneously
Well, THERE you are. I was wondering where you had gotten to..
Because, as you remember, you owe me an answer: which
physical constant is it that you claim we know to 120 decimal
places?
You may place your answer here:
Or, cowardly, you may flee the question once again,
for the fourth or fifth time.
It's up to you...
Haiku Jones
Conan the bacterium
Fascinating! "IllBeBauck" knows the answer
to this most puzzling genetic conundrum.
So tell us, what IS the purpose of so-called
"junk" DNA?:
Conan
ilbe...@gmail.com
> You may place your answer here:
>
> Or, cowardly, you may flee the question once again,
> for the fourth or fifth time.
>
> It's up to you...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its the Cosmological Constant which is to 120 decimal places critical
tolerance . Heres another by Prof. Stephen Hawkins : The Universe
expansion rate is to within a 1/1,000,000 critical tolerance . Your
faith in no personal Creator is tremendous...in fact, impossible .
How come you want God to exist ?
ilbe...@gmail.com
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140408.htmreveals:
Evolutionists explain that life started from non-living matter in some
sort of "primeval soup." Over the years, they have presented several
scenarios of how this might have happened. They have suggested
isolated ponds, pools of water on the sides of volcanoes, and in the
oceans. Let's consider the general mathematical principles involved in
any of these scenarios.
In science, the person who proposes a theory is supposed to present
the evidence for that theory. Yet, for the incredible claim that life
sprang into being out of non living materials, no evidence is offered.
Just how incredible are evolution's claims about the origin of life?
Given the conditions evolutionists claim existed at the origin of
life, the chance of evolving the simple, common, iso 1 cytochrome "c"
protein is one chance out of one followed by 75 zeros. But that's not
a living, reproducing thing. Given the same conditions, the chance of
getting a DNA molecule with the ability to reproduce is 100 billion,
billion to one. The chance of getting a minimal cell works out to one
chance out of a 1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros!
Rigorous examination of evolution's claims about the origin of life
shows that every evolutionary claim about how life started is just as
fanciful. As every believer has testified, God is the source of all
life, including yours and mine. It has always been so and will always
be so.
Prayer: Dear Father in heaven, I thank You for the gift of life and
eternal life. Amen.
References: Joseph Mastropaolo, "Evolution Is Biologically
Impossible," Impact #137, November 1999.
haiku jones
WHAT?
BWAHAHAHAHAHaHaHahahaha...<wheeze> <gasp> <glurgle>
The value of the Cosmological Constant is NOT KNOWN
AT ALLl, let alone known to 120 decimal places. It is currently
a matter of great debate -- and great interest -- in
cosmology, but so far therre is only speculation
and attempts at setting limits.
The value of the cosmological constant is an
empirical issue which will ultimately be settled
by observation; meanwhile, physicists would
like to develop an understanding of why the energy
density of the vacuum has this value, whether it is zero
or not.
-- http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/encyc/
This is by Sean M. Carroll, by the way, so you can
pretty much take it to the bank.
> Heres another by Prof. Stephen Hawkins : The Universe
> expansion rate is to within a 1/1,000,000 critical tolerance .
Know something? I don't believe you (in the light of
the above, I'm sure you can understand why). I suspect
you read something somewhere, sort of remembered
it, but really have no idea what it was about.
Here: prove me wrong -- show me, using Hawking's
exact words, what he said:
Haiku Jones
Dan Listermann
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f8a5540-f069-4a24...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
You seem to have a lot of undocumented numbers. We suspect that you might
be one of those "liars for Jesus."
haiku jones
And, given this "logic", we can prove you do not exist: your
DNA contains three billion base pairs; if one of these
were different, you would not be you. Therefore, the
chance that you actually exist is 1 followed by 3,000,000,000
zeroes. Clearly, you do not exist.
Does this give you any clue as to what might be
wrong with the above 'logic"?
Haiku Jones
Ken
you have to be the dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in
that time"
Budikka666
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story. End of You.
Budikka
Budikka666
Budikka666
Ken
Not to mention his being too prideful to admit he's EVER
wrong....being duped by The Onion's, his Nitrogen fusion throry, the
moon being 836,000 miles from the Earth, his ABORTION,
From: DaveinIllin...@webtv.net
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.atheism.holysmoke
Date: 2004-01-07 10:15:05 PST
Ok... the moon is located some 865,000 miles from earth, yet provides
just the right tides EVERYWHERE on earth to prevent stagnation of
large
bodies of water which would lead to a high unacceptable level of
bacteria and parasites detrimental to our health. Its gravitational
pull on the earth is just right even though its nearly a million
miles
away. Its orbit thru space is just right for its actions to
continually
benefit earth and its inhabitants. ANd, its size is just right to
provide the right sustaining condiitons on earth.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> Evolutionists explain that life started from
Get your terms right, idiot. Evolution does not attempt to explain the
origin of life.
There are beliefs, backed up by a recent meteor strike in Australia, that
the building blocks of life came to us via an asteroid. The meteorite
found in Australia contained amino acids. Although this is far from being
proven, it's way more believable than your creation bullshit story.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Budikka666
LoL! It's hard to imagine anyone more stupid or ill-informed than
Dopey Duke, but we do have a serious candidate in "I'll Be Bauck"
don't we?!
Budikka
Erwin Moller
JESUS CHRIST!
WHAHAHA!
I read a lot of shit from Dave, but I somehow missed this pearl. ;-)
Thanks for the laughs, Ken. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: Hey MrI'llBeBauck, After postings like this it is highly adviced to
change your name online.
Oh wait... you did.
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Ken
>
> LoL! It's hard to imagine anyone more stupid or ill-informed than
> Dopey Duke, but we do have a serious candidate in "I'll Be Bauck"
> don't we?!
>
> Budikka-
Didn't Albert E, say somehting to the effect that both the Universe
and human stupidity are infinite..
I offer up Freaky Lee, Puke, Gabriel, and Dimwit Dave as proof
positive of that statement
His actual quote: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe"
johnbee
Just in case anyone is interested in this scientific topic, (the 10^-120)
Einstein produced equations which seemed to suggest that the universe would
expand for ever. At the time, that was thought to be daft so he put a
constant into the equations so that they calculated a steady universe.
After a few years, it seemed that the universe was actually getting bigger,
so the constant was removed. More recently it enjoyed a rebirth and they
put it back in again, but there is a lot of argument about how big it is.
It's actual value, and whether it is positive or negative, affects whether
the whole universe will expand faster and faster for ever, or whether it
will slow down and collapse into a big crunch or whether it will expand
slower and slower and stop after an infinite time.
However as more becomes known by observations, and more theory is produced,
it was becoming to look as though it is an extremely small negative number,
only just not zero.
The 10^-120 refers to a value in Planck units which are so small as to equal
the smallest possible number which is not actually zero, so do not bother
too much about the actual value.
Now it is fairly plain that a constant which keeps changing is not very
constant and it is dangerous to conclude that it proves God exists as non
scientists claim. But there is more.
Firstly a lot of people remember their physics lessons and know how hard is
is to measure things accurately. They reckon that the measured value is so
close to zero that it might actually be zero. That of course is accurate to
an infinite number of decimal places, much more accurate than a mere 120
decimal places, yet by the non scientists' argument (which is garbage
anyway) disproves God entirely.
Secondly, it is an unfortunate fact that string theory requires a constant
of zero, so all bets would be off if anyone could think up an experiment to
falsify it, and it failed. So the latest is that the constant is looking a
bit likely to be zero. It is a bit dodgy to place faith upon. Don't worry
though. The non scientists will come up with yet more nonsense, because the
human imagination and stupidity knows no bounds and of course there is money
to collect in the plate next sunday.
For anyone who can not be bothered to get all that, I will make it simpler.
The fine tuning point is the current version of the original proof that God
must exist:
because the world can not possibly be old enough to evolve animals because
if it were old enough it would be frozen solid.
Alan Ford
> The fine tuning point is the current version of the original proof that God
> must exist:
>
> because the world can not possibly be old enough to evolve animals because
> if it were old enough it would be frozen solid.
Wow! What a solid, scientific and bullet-proof argument! I am literally
running to the nearest church to offer burnt sacrifices to your god
before he smites me for being a former atheist.
This clinches any debate and removes any doubt once and for all. Next
stop: Nobel prize.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Budikka666
> Just in case anyone is interested in this scientific topic, (the 10^-120)
> Einstein produced equations which seemed to suggest that the universe would
> expand for ever. At the time, that was thought to be daft so he put a
> constant into the equations so that they calculated a steady universe.
And then when it was discovered that the universe is actually
expanding, Einstein described this as the biggest blunder he ever
made:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
> After a few years, it seemed that the universe was actually getting bigger,
> so the constant was removed. More recently it enjoyed a rebirth and they
> put it back in again, but there is a lot of argument about how big it is.
And you support for this is? Oh, that's right, you have none. You
just pulled this right out of your dumb ass.
> It's actual value, and whether it is positive or negative, affects whether
> the whole universe will expand faster and faster for ever, or whether it
> will slow down and collapse into a big crunch or whether it will expand
> slower and slower and stop after an infinite time.
The constant was a pure invention to make the equations work you
ignorant jackass. It "controls" nothing. Get an education before you
have people laughing themselves into a hernia.
> However as more becomes known by observations, and more theory is produced,
> it was becoming to look as though it is an extremely small negative number,
> only just not zero.
Totally unsupported bullshit. Why isn't that a surprise?
> The 10^-120 refers to a value in Planck units which are so small as to equal
> the smallest possible number which is not actually zero, so do not bother
> too much about the actual value.
So what about 10^-121? That's a smaller number. I guess you've just
been proven a LIAR. Why isn't *that* a surprise?
Are you tALking about Planck length:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
or the Planck constant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
neither of which makes any mention of 10^-120 from a quick glance, so
why don't you go get an education then come back when you actually
have something evenr emotely interesting or original to say?
Rest of your inane bullshit flushed where it belongs.
Budikka
johnbee
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e304ec52-3cd7-4c8e...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Budikka >
Oh dear, several people seem to have completely misunderstood my comments.
It is as expected of course because the subject is quite beyond, say, O
level physics.
Incidentally, you refer to my comments as bullshit. Another respondent, who
I suspect understood even less of my post than yourself quoted the old
favourite of non-scientific people about 'Einstein's great mistake' which
appears to be about the only thing they actually know about science.
If you and other respondents would actually like to know something about
this subject I can point you to a decent aricle about it. However I should
warn any readers that it assumes a high school knowledge of mathematics -
which is sorely lacking around here. You will be able to see from the URL
that it is not an idiot's site. If you do not bother, remember in future
that it's value determines exctly what I said it determines, and is not
bullshit. Do not swear and give abuse in future when you do not know what
the Dickens you are talking about. I would suggest that religious people
look at it as well because it is interesting, but not creationists - nothing
there for them.
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/lambda.html