The Argument Clinic

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

I don’t claim to.

Good. But that leaves you in an odd position. Since your motive, based on years of reading your posts, is obviously to explain the origin of life without assigning any role in that origin to God,

That is an absolute lie, Eddie.

@Eddie

…then you have to provide at least a rough-sketch account of how it might have been done, or you won’t convince a living soul that intelligence wasn’t involved.

No, since your premise is a lie. But that’s all you’ve got.

@Eddie

or you won’t convince a living soul that intelligence wasn’t involved.

Meyer had to lie about the objective evidence to convince his readers that RNA did not precede protein, or his book would be less convincing.

I’m not out to convince anyone of anything other than the fact that IDcreationists like you and Meyer lie about the evidence itself.

@Eddie

@Mercer

I do, however, note that the fact that the enzyme at the center of protein synthesis is a ribozyme is the strongest evidence that RNA preceded protein.

Even if it’s “evidence”, it’s not proof.

Eddie, could you possibly be more lame than that? Science doesn’t deal in proof. Hypotheses don’t make claims. Yet you’ve tried both of these falsehoods in your mendacious campaign.

@Eddie

And I doubt it’s even strong “evidence”; “evidence” gains its strength only from context,

Which you don’t have, if you repeatedly show that you can’t distinguish ribozymes from enzymes and protein from RNA. Your quotation marks are yet another attempt to deceive.

In real science, evidence that is predicted by a hypothesis is the gold standard. Even Meyer knows this. That’s why he simply lied about it.

@Eddie

you’re assuming that life originated by some sort of unguided chemical evolutionary process.

And you’re repeatedly lying about my beliefs and assumptions, supporting the conclusion that the DI has no integrity.

@Eddie

The ID explanation for the origin of life is of course that the DNA-RNA-protein setup that we observe in life today was envisioned as a working whole prior to its actualization,

But unless your hypothesis both:

1. Explains something that others don’t, or
2. makes empirical predictions,

it’s not science.

So, if that’s the ID explanation, how do you reconcile that with:

p. 304:
Problem 2: Ribozymes Are Poor Substitutes for Proteins

@Eddie

To an IDer, trying to figure out which molecule (DNA, RNA, or some protein) appeared first in the primeval ocean (or pond, or vent, or whatever) would be a waste of time, since it would presume that life originated by an unintelligent process.

No, it wouldn’t. A curious IDcreationist would be testing hypotheses regarding the time when the intelligent design occurred. A curious IDcreationist would be testing hypotheses regarding the actualization of the design and when it occurred.

@Eddie

Why not treat both intelligent and non-intelligent explanations on a level playing field, and decide via an “inference to the best explanation”?

Because Meyer’s (and your) mendacity does not suggest that it is such an inference.

@Eddie

Or, if one cannot decide, why not just say that we don’t know how life arose, and we don’t know whether unguided, unplanned processes would have been adequate to bring it about?

I do say that we don’t know. I do say that we have two hypotheses (not theories) about the first or early steps.

I say that you are lying about my motives, what I say, what I believe, and what I assume.

I oppose the lies scammers use to dupe innocent people, as well as those who try to defend scammers with more lies about me.

@Eddie

@Mercer

The central enzyme in protein synthesis is a ribozyme.

Did I ever deny this?

Yes, repeatedly, when you argued for months that Meyer wasn’t lying. You further denied it when you claimed that ribozymes are proteins. You even lied about Meyer’s lie!

@Eddie

Meyer does make an error (which I admitted as soon as I realized it was an error) in calling peptidyl transferase an “enzyme” instead of a “ribozyme”, but that error hardly affects his argument.

You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and you are clearly desperate to keep it that way.

Why don’t you come up with an analogy that illustrates either the complete idiocy (or for you, the complete innocence) of misrepresenting objective evidence in a book claiming that Biblical scholars are all wrong.

My analogy is that an integral part of a major chapter of this published argument is not knowing the difference between John the Baptist and John the Apostle, or between Mary and Mary Magdalene. When someone points out the dishonesty and/or idiocy of these falsehoods, you’d argue that it doesn’t affect anything else in the book.

There would have to be some hypothetical, concrete evidence thrown in that would have to be lied about many years after its publication, of course.

What’s yours? That’s might give you a better idea of the magnitude of the mendacity you are trying to defend in this case.

@Eddie

(Nor is it clear why you so ferociously want to believe that blind chemical accident produced the first life, as that would not be a natural position for a Christian to adopt.)

It’s not so clear because you need to lie about my motives to defend Meyer’s lying.