Comments by "VColossalV" (@VColossalV) on "New Atheism's most polarising figure?" video.

  1. "DNA contains a digital language code of instructions" Actually, it doesn't, not in the way you are saying - it's still just chemical reactions, there is no "information" as such. Ask a Geneticist about this.
    1
  2. "Never seen a star form though, and that's a fact." Maybe not, but we have never observed Atom's either - but we know everything about them. We know exactly how stars form - but like I said, this is completely missing the point, you said that everything that exists must be created, when that's clearly not true when there are so many things we know form naturally.
    1
  3. It's important to understand the context of the use of the words "information" and "instructions" - Nothing you quoted there disagree's with me, far from it, it's still chemical interactions that follow natural laws - No geneticist, I repeat, NO GENETICIST, would disagree with me there - and they CERTAINLY would not agree with your opinions.
    1
  4. Except there have been quite a few experiments showing that the building blocks for life can indeed form under natural conditions - living materials coming from non-living materials--- The Miller-Urey experiment was one, but there have been many, many more, demonstrating this. Go and read some peer-reviewed journals on Abiogenesis,
    1
  5. Search "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss So yes, they have - However, the scientific definition of "nothing" is probably different from yours.
    1
  6. "that is just an atheistic mantra and an outright lie." What am I lying about? Everything I said there is accurate, and describes how DNA works. Are you serious about the link? Steven Meyer? He isn't a Geneticist. I think you'll find that pretty much EVERY credible Geneticist will disagree with you.
    1
  7. hundreds of billions of galaxies*
    1
  8. "Here's a geneticists scientific opinion" Where? I don't see any. Is it in a peer-reviewed Science journal? Wait, no, it isn't. Newsflash - Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Until creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas. Your novel prize awaits you.
    1
  9. "My point exactly!" Only because I realised what tripe it actually was, I had already read criticisms on it, before watching the 20 minutes. "How do you know what has been debunked" Like I said, I've seen people on Science forums talking about it before, a couple refutations. Again, Science does not agree with you. "There was hard scientific evidence" Why has none of it's contents been submitted for peer-review? Cite one CREDIBLE Scientists involved with that youtube documentary.
    1
  10. "If that's the case, then why isn't DNA creating itself everyday?" DNA is just chemical interactions that follow the laws of nature (that's not up for debate) - just because that's how DNA works does not mean it should be "creating itself" every day. "Why can't scientists create life in the lab from non-life?" You're way behind the times, They've already done that. Search "scientists create life from non life" or something - there have been numerous successful experiments.
    1
  11. is* with*
    1
  12. It's funny that you say that, actually, according the the law of large numbers, life is an inevitability - there are likely millions of other civilisations, and earth-like planets capable of sustaining life. The formation of life may be unlikely, but so are many other things - but given enough time, they can't not happen. There are billions, sometimes trillions of stars per GALAXY, and there are hundreds of billions of stars in the observable universe - life is an inevitability.
    1
  13. "a chemical process of transferring information" Again, read any Science journals on this - it's not an actual code as you are imagining it - We label them and yes they arrange themselves like a code, but it's purely chemical. Information in the sense that you are imagining cannot physically exist in reality. You are extremely confused. "saying an encyclopedia is just paper and ink" But it isn't paper and ink - DNA IS a chemical process - The way they interact is what we call the code.
    1
  14. "Random mutations, time, and blind chance are what evolutionists claim caused fish to morph into human beings." Are you ever going to learn? Random Mutations and NATURAL SELECTION - Mutations may be random, but Natural Selection makes the process non-random by giving selective pressure on those beneficial Mutations. "fish to morph into human beings" Another straw-man? Nobody claimed a fish would morph into a Human in a single generation, which is what you are implying.
    1
  15. "but have you ever considered the possibility that you could be mistaken?" All the time, mate, all the time - that's why you should ALWAYS question your beliefs, something religious people tend not to do. That's why I don't believe in things without evidence, because somebody who does that isn't interested in truth. Let me ask you something, have YOU ever considered the possibility that you are wrong? Is it not possible that your God, along with all other God's, are inventions of men?
    1
  16. "doesn't cause evolution!" Mutations are the driving mechanism, if environmental pressure selects the beneficial mutations from the harmful ones - the population will become better adapted to its surroundings. This is what you might call "Micro-evolution", but obviously Macro is just many smaller changes over longer periods of time. "NO new information A change in fur colour, for example, would be new information - that's a Mutation that could be beneficial depending on the environment.
    1
  17. First of all, I'm not using it as an argument, I'm correcting you when you REJECT that 99.9% of Biologists accept the ToE. Creationism isn't a Science, what did you expect? According to Newsweek in 1987-- "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." You can look it up if you want, again though, you can find many other polls you can search for.
    1
  18. "If you believe in atheism or evolution you are religious by definition." All Atheism means if lack of belief in God's. There are many Atheists will vastly different views. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, and does not propose any supernatural agency - It described a completely natural process that is NON-random (Natural Selection). You couldn't be any more dishonest.
    1
  19. "there is no creator" No Atheist that I know has ever claimed for certainty, but unlike you - I don't believe in things when there is no evidence to support them, I'm not proclaiming that there is no God, rather I reject the claim that there are any God's on the basis that there is no sufficient evidence for any.
    1
  20. "actually watched the damn thing!" It was hardly relevant. It proposes a bunch of fringe idea's, I know exactly what it is, I've heard a few criticisms of it, from other site's and forums, but never actually watched more than 20 minutes of it, the crack-pottery (as PhysicsForum people say) was too much to handle. It has already been debunked several times. If you've 'had your eyes' opened by them then your gullibility is beyond imagination.
    1
  21. It isn't irrelevant - you claim that everything needs a creator, and then say that God does not - that's called Special Pleading. Don't pretend that you know anything about logic. "otherwise you get sucked into an infinite regress" It's possible, the Big Bang theory doesn't say that anything came from nothing - it only explains the development of the early universe, "stuff" could have existed prior. You get sucked into an infinite regress with your God concept, too.
    1
  22. The structure of the universe is completely governed by the natural laws - Now, you can obviously yield once again to the 'God of the gaps' fallacy, and assume that since we don't know something yet, it MUST be supernatural- and say that the laws themselves were created by Zeus, but unless you can justify such a bold assertion, it is inherently meaningless, and no Scientist will ever take it seriously. I can just as easily assert any made-up-magical-nonsense without justification.
    1
  23. "So you're still insisting that DNA does not contain actual digital codes" I told you before - in a sense yes, but not in the way you are imagining it. In that link I showed you before, with Matt D explaining it, he puts it quite eloquently - The organization of the chemicals are purely chemical, and he explained how. Every description you can search for on the Genetic Code will tell you exactly what it is, and how it works, chemically. "I have cited geneticists" Who?
    1
  24. "if you duplicate and mutate the letter codes in the word THAT, you will never end up with the word THIS." There is such thing as gene duplications, insertions, deletions, etc etc- yes, if you are using that as an analogy - it would be possible, that's how Mutations work.
    1
  25. What the hell does that documentary have to do with this? That's about ancient civilisations (which believed in different God's and creation myths) and how they knew more than we give them credit for... Again, why did you link that? /watch?v=XdddbYILel0 Go to the link above to INFORM yourself.
    1
  26. "You BELIEVE that there is not sufficient evidence" If you can put forth evidence for the existence of a deity, please, be my guest - all you can provide are Argument from ignorance fallacies, or God of the gaps fallacies. They are not evidence. If there is something we don't know, that doesn't mean there is anything supernatural about it - Science does indeed have its limits, I will not dispute that - but what it doesn't know remains unknown.
    1
  27. "I don't think so, that's just propaganda" I'm very surprised that you are ignorant of this - every single poll shows that the vast majority of Scientists do not believe in a God - the top scientists in the country - the American Academy of Science - identify as more than 95% atheist. There are far more polls that confirm this though, as simple search would suffice.
    1
  28. Everything is digital in the sense that all changes in all systems are quantifiable DNA is information in the same way that any constituent molecule of a chemical reaction is information. DNA is a molecule that facilitates specific chemical reactions that result in the working of a biological system. To bring in notions of code/information/language is only useful for analogy.
    1
  29. "I cited a computer programmer and a geneticist" You did not cite a Geneticist I assure you. "go ask any geneticist if DNA contains a literal digital language code" Like I said, it's digital in a sense, so I can't entirely disagree with you there - but DNA is still just chemical interactions, again, that isn't up for debate. No credible Geneticist would ever say that the information is literal, like a language, these words are used for analogous purposes only.
    1
  30. "That's a lie, almost all scientists are not atheists" Actually, yes they are, not ALL of them, but the vast majority of them - not to mention almost all of them accept Evolution by Natural Selection.
    1
  31. I'd like to see that episode ;)
    1
  32. Only if you assume that there must have been a beginning to existence, the idea that existence and "stuff" has always existed is not illogical at all. But let's assume that an infinite regress is illogical, you've just nullified your own argument of an eternal infinite being.
    1
  33. "Fallacious propaganda" Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists - but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. There are other polls estimating around this figure. If we are talking about Biologists alone, that figure would be even higher.
    1
  34. Exactly.
    1
  35. DNA isn't a language in the way that you imply, it's chemical interactions that follow the physical laws of nature - That's how it works! You should know this if you truly did study Genetics. Maybe you should stop getting misinformation for Creationists, then maybe you wouldn't be so fucking confused. /watch?v=sQIWvd3LhC0
    1
  36. "therefore right off the bat it is reasonable to assume that they were created." The Sun exists, do therefore it was created - don't you see the flaw there? Can't stars for naturally? Heard of the well understood phenomena known as star formation? Yes, stars form naturally - but using your line of "logic" apparently because it exists it must be created! By Zeus no less!
    1
  37. "Ok, then cite just one!" Dude, do you not know that's how we understand DNA? It's a chemical process - THAT'S WHAT IT IS! A, T, G, and C are the 'letters' of the DNA code and represent the chemicals adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, respectively. These make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code COMBINES these four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter 'words' that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein. It's a chemical process.
    1
  38. "Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator" If you actually knew anything about Science, you would know that we know how many complex things form under natural conditions - Star formation for example. I think you'll find that we have a firm understanding on how things in the universe form - Our universe is subject the PHYSICAL laws of the universe, THEY are what governs it. "Allah is far above" No, Zeus is the true God.
    1
  39. "Mutations are BELIEVED to be the mechanism but science says it's not" SCIENCE SAYS IT'S NOT? Are you actually making that claim? Have you ever studied Biology? Your clear ignorance of even BASIC principles (not knowing what NS was?) is STAGGERING, to the point where I have to literally tell you what it is, and I'm not a Scientist. Science does NOT agree with you, so stop pretending that it does. It is Mutations which allow these traits to rise, there is no other way.
    1