Here's part 2 of my audience participation exercise. This is a continuation of my audience participation/open thread set of posts for today. It's called "list the creationist fallacies." This post is part 2 of this endeavor. This short video, called Which came first, the DNA or the protein?, is the target. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to answer the questions contained therein and/or demonstrate why they represent nothing more than the typical creationist canard. It's pretty easy, but it's also depressing that this crap persists. If that's not entertaining enough, feel free to have some fun at this hapless creationist's expense.
do they not believe in an all rna world?
This looks like the same video to me, which me3ans I sat through it twice. You owe me 01:19 of my life.
...Didn't I already do this one?
Or haven't heard of it, more likely.
Hey, it's complex! It's got fancy diagrams, so it MUST be complex.
And irreducible! If you remove the organism and all of history and any idea of pre-existing conditions, they can't function alone. QED.
And it all specifies something - well, it does, doesn't it? - so it must be specified. Which brings us back to complex...
Irreducible specified complexity - gee, God must exist! And apparently, that S/He exists is sufficient justification (in someone's mind, somewhere)for that gawd-awful music.
Except that there is self-evidently NO possible justification for that mind-numbing travesty of gawd-awful alleged music, so I have identified a logical impossibility, and have proven the non-existence of gawd.
My ears are bleeding from having to hear that god damn song.
Fortunately, YouTube allows you to kill the audio.
And is it just me, or is it the exact same video from the post just before this one?
- JS
Alright, alright already!
I screwed up. What can I say, other than to point out that I did say that I was really busy, which is why I posted YouTube videos. Mea culpa.
Maybe I'll post the one that was supposed to be up tomorrow.