Why evolution fails when compared to Inteligent Design

Discussion in 'Politics' started by gastropod, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. Evolution fails when compared to Intelligent Design....I will go a step further and say, "Yes, there is a God!" Here is the logic...

    "Rule #1: The evolutionist says to him/herself: I am mentally able to discern whether there is a god or not and I am able to determine how I arrived here in space/time."

    Here is the problem...

    If we give the "best" group of scientists the "best" tools known today...they could not replicate the DNA...no, for the morons jumping to conclusions...I am NOT saying can we "replicate" DNA in the sense of can we do cell multiplication. Yes, we can do cell multiplication. I am speaking of a scenario more like this: We give the "best" scientists and engineers in the world the "best" scanning tunneling microscopes and whatever they feel they will need to take elemental carbon, elemental hydrogen, elemental nitrogen, elemental phosphorus, etc. ...whatever elements they will need to make DNA...can they make DNA...can they replicate one single DNA molecule? The answer is a resounding NO!!!! With present technology we can place a few atoms here and there...we may make a carbon nanotube or a "transistor" or two...but, do we presently have the technology to move into place all of the atoms that make up DNA into a SINGLE STRAND OF DNA...NOT A CHANCE!!!

    The evolutionists cry out...it was "time" and "energy" and "random chance" that created the DNA in some "primordial sludge/soup"....the evolutionists thereby declare that "random chance" and "time" and "energy" are more capable than human science and human engineering.

    OH OH!!!! Rule #1 was violated!!! The evolutionist started off thinking they were able to determine whether there was a god and that they could determine how they arrived at there present place in space/time. This was OBVIOUSLY incorrect....they do NOT have the capability to replicate what is noticed in nature. Science is reproducible....evolution...even for a group of humans to create a one cell creature...is NOT reproducible - it has NOT been done!

    Side note: Some dumb ass with faith in evolution will chime in here..."Oh, but we create species in labs all over the place!" Let me correct this nonsense bullshit right here! I work with computers. I can easily take a motherboard, some RAM DIMMS, some hard drives, cables and whatever and "make" a computer. Me cobbling together some computer parts is NOT the same as me "making" a computer. By "making a computer" I mean...did I design the CPU, memory controllers, IO controllers, disk interfaces, network cards, etc.? Hell NO! Jackasses who sit in "bio labs" and "make species" today are REALLY pulling pieces of DNA from different species or specimens...and putting them back together in a cell. That is NOT the same thing as placing atoms into a configuration that is "artificial DNA" or "man made DNA."

    Why believe in a higher power? Well, I am made up of DNA...some being far smarter and wiser than me or all of mankind made my DNA. I call my creator - God!

  2. You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. If you're going to rant about something, make sure you're ranting about the right thing.
  3. I do not need to argue abiogenesis or evolution. My stance is that man cannot create DNA. It is that simple. Science is the reproducible...and yet humans with present knowledge and technology cannot create DNA. The atheist or agnostic evolution believer believes that species evolve...over time, by random chance and with random materials and energy. DNA is so complex that we cannot replicate it. One has to have FAITH that random chance, energy and time can create something more complex and orderly than man can with present technology and knowledge.

  4. Well they're two different theories about two different subjects. One is the study of the origin of life, on is the study/theory of how living organisms change over time. Also, man can create DNA in a lab setting...a simple google search would tell you that...
  5. I understand the difference...but, the underlying principles are the same - at least in terms of order and entropy. One was the primordial soup theory...where order comes from chaos...over time...and with "some" energy...and by chance...out pops DNA and a one cell creature. Evolution is supposed to deal with the changes in that one cell creature...but, there again lies the "mystery elements" - the time...the energy..and some mystery forces that realign the DNA of the one cell creature...and voila...out pops...multi-celled creatures....and over time...and with these more random energies and mystery forces...out pops...intelligence and reason.

    Man has NOT created DNA in the lab. Like I said before...putting different pieces of DNA together...that is not creating DNA. I am talking about creating DNA from carbon black, a canister of hydrogen, a canister of nitrogen, etc. Man cannot do that. Our best scanning tunneling microscopes or whatever you would like to use cannot presently be used to create a strand of DNA. I will say what I was saying before...but, in a different manner: It takes faith to believe that random energy, materials and time can create something more orderly than man can create in a lab.

  6. One need not know every detail about how the car moves to see it moving.
  7. Man has created DNA in the lab. They probably don't break it down to the elementary levels you're referring to, but that's because they don't need to. The main elements of DNA and RNA are amino acids/organic chemicals, which man can make and do on the industrial scale. From there all it takes is structuring those acids along a ribose or deoxyribose backbone, usually done through some sort of titration process (yes, it's slightly more complex than that). Hell, they have machines that synthesize DNA from these basic organic elements that are used in labs everyday.
  8. Sorry...it is like me saying I "build" computers...when all I am doing is putting components together. If it could be done now...IBM is wasting a LOT of money with supercomputers that are dedicated to SIMPLE protein folding. I am not talking about the more complex proteins...so called simple proteins. Again...if it can be done in the lab....please show me the scanning tunneling microscope they used to do so? It cannot be done by humans at the present time. Go back and look at the "experiments"...they are all of the variety of "well, ummm, we think we could put DNA together with this..." They have NOT constructed DNA from scratch. Look, if it is so simple....somebody should have done it by now, no?

  9. Yeah, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Protein folding is not "simple", not matter how simple the protein in question may be. The various elements within a protein contribute to its bonding properties which can be difficult to model. Also, they don't use your go-to "scanning tunneling microscope" tool, there's no need. Additionally, you don't build the components of the computer yourself do you? No, you have another company do that for you then you put the pieces together. Synthesizing from scratch would be too labor intensive, which is why labs generally have other companies create the components, buy from them, then synthesize the DNA.
  10. LOL - no, I agree a "simple" protein is VERY complex - hence the use of supercomputers!

    Labor intensive - lol - it can't be done! Even from your example of the mixing of the amino acids...how many enzymes are they using when they synthesize amino acids on the industrial scale? Where do they get the enzymes? Some amino acid production uses fermentation...ah ah...try that without using something that already has DNA ;-)

    #10     Sep 4, 2012