Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Timothy Spurlin]

ID and creationism are two different things.

There, better?

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Jose Fly]

Where did the DNA and its CODE come from?

The DNA in your body came from your parents. If you're talking about the origin of life, the answer is we don't know.

By the way, im a quarter the way through stevens journal so far.

That's good.

 

[Skwim]

Thank you for clearing that up.

Don't fall for it. Jollybear is flat out wrong.

The term intelligent design (ID), as it's presently used, sprung from the need to disguise the concept of creationism.

" 'Creation' terms replaced by 'intelligent design'
Textbook at heart of evolution trial revised after 1987 ruling,

References to creationism in drafts of a student biology book were replaced with the term “intelligent design” by the time it was published, a witness testified Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board’s decision to include the concept in its curriculum.

Drafts of the textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.
source
​

And here is the proof of the attempted switch from "creationists" to "intelligent design proponents" in Of Pandas and People, which was presented at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. A rather amusing typo, "cdesign proponentsists," that reveals their ill conceived ploy.

Interestingly enough, here is a chart showing how the publishers of Of Pandas and People replaced "creationism" with "intelligent Design." in those versions following the 1987 ruling.

​

So the ID camp can rant and holler all it wants that ID is not creationism, but we all know better. And so do they.

.

​

 

[Jollybear]

Thank you for clearing that up.

Absolutely.

Dont fall for what skwim said. His sources got him decieved.

 

[Jollybear]

Don't fall for it. Jollybear is flat out wrong.

The term intelligent design (ID), as it's presently used, sprung from the need to disguise the concept of creationism.

" 'Creation' terms replaced by 'intelligent design'
Textbook at heart of evolution trial revised after 1987 ruling,

References to creationism in drafts of a student biology book were replaced with the term “intelligent design” by the time it was published, a witness testified Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board’s decision to include the concept in its curriculum.

Drafts of the textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.
source
​

And here is the proof of the attempted switch from "creationists" to "intelligent design proponents" in Of Pandas and People, which was presented at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. A rather amusing typo, "cdesign proponentsists," that reveals their ill conceived ploy.

Interestingly enough, here is a chart showing how the publishers of Of Pandas and People replaced "creationism" with "intelligent Design." in those versions following the 1987 ruling.

​

So the ID camp can rant and holler all it wants that ID is not creationism, but we all know better. And so do they.

.

​

Define creationism then define ID?

 

[ecco]

Joe:
God created the universe
God designed it.

Tom:
God created the earth
God designed it.

The above are your exact words, copied and pasted.
The only slight difference is that in Joe's case you used the term "universe", in Tom's case you used "earth".

Are you suggesting, that Tom believes that God designed and created the earth, but some other entity created the universe?
Are you suggesting that is the difference between Creationism and ID?

Usually when people think of creationists, they think of bible believers or young earthers.

ID is not that.

Nonsense, there are people who read Genesis literally but just disagree with the meaning of the word "day". So, if you want to say there is a difference between young earth Creationists and old earth Creationists, OK.

Both believe everything was Created by an Intelligent Designer.

In your own words, shown above, you showed they were the same.

You failed to address:
Are you suggesting, that Tom believes that God designed and created the earth, but some other entity created the universe?
Are you suggesting that is the difference between Creationism and ID?

 

[ecco]

ecco previously said: ↑
Bad grammar and poor spelling are indicators of intelligence, education, and professionalism.​

Theres more to intelligence then being a good writer.

Thats only synthetic

​

I should have included that bad grammar and poor spelling are also a sign of laziness and rudeness.

 

[Jollybear]

Nonsense, there are people who read Genesis literally but just disagree with the meaning of the word "day". So, if you want to say there is a difference between young earth Creationists and old earth Creationists, OK.

Both believe everything was Created by an Intelligent Designer.

In your own words, shown above, you showed they were the same.

You failed to address:
Are you suggesting, that Tom believes that God designed and created the earth, but some other entity created the universe?
Are you suggesting that is the difference between Creationism and ID?

How do you define creationism and Intelligent design?

 

[Jollybear]

ecco previously said: ↑
Bad grammar and poor spelling are indicators of intelligence, education, and professionalism.​

​

I should have included that bad grammar and poor spelling are also a sign of laziness and rudeness.

Oh man come on, really?

 

[ecco]

Why cant you see the door swings both ways here?

Accusing religionists as stifling scientific knowledge by saying "God did it" ...

I didn't accuse "religionists as stifling scientific knowledge by saying "God did it". I said:

Having no concept of the true nature of nature, the only answer they could come up with was "GodDidIt".​

The stifling of science came much later and continues to this day. The ancients had an excuse, they didn't know better. Modern day people intentionally let their religious beliefs stand in the way of scientific knowledge.

well you atheistic naturalists stifle scientific knowledge by saying "undirected natural forces did it.".

Why are you afraid to admit that most scientists are not atheists?

That puts us no more near knowledge and understanding of how the world works then saying "God did it".

Nonsense. We have much more knowledge and understanding of how the world works than the people who told the stories in your Bible.



In any case, you originally stated ancient man came to believe in god because he saw a well-designed world. You did not address my comment: I doubt ancient man, seeing his crops destroyed by locusts, declared: "What a well-designed world we live in".

 

[ecco]

Yes, intelligence design that too. Because the water molecule consists of parts, and those parts also consist of other parts. God built the universe.

Person A: How do you know the universe is Intelligently Designed?
Person B: Because things consist of parts and those things consist of parts.

Bottom line from your response is that you believe that your God individually puts together every molecule of water. I guess that could explain why He doesn't have the time to make World Peace".

 

[ecco]

To say chance and time did it IS against naturalistic principles. We KNOW from controlled experiments that chance does not even exist. So how can chance do anything if its not even there?

The Not So Random Coin Toss

Your linked article does not support your allegation.

 

[Astrophile]

Cosmic 'DNA': Double Helix Spotted in Space

This is pretty cool. A DNA nebula.

Looks like DNA. What if all of this universe is one big body we are in, and all those miniature enzymes in our body are looking out seeing our DNA and calling it a nebula? Lol.

As the saying goes "as above, so below"

The nebula may look like DNA but, according to your link, its origin is quite different. The helical nebula was produced by the twisting of magnetic field lines in an interstellar gas disc that is in orbit around the Milky Way's central black hole; biological DNA is the product of chemical reactions. There is no analogy between the two.

 

[Jollybear]

I didn't accuse "religionists as stifling scientific knowledge by saying "God did it". I said:

Having no concept of the true nature of nature, the only answer they could come up with was "GodDidIt".​

The stifling of science came much later and continues to this day. The ancients had an excuse, they didn't know better. Modern day people intentionally let their religious beliefs stand in the way of scientific knowledge.

You let your naturalism stand in the way of scientific knowledge.

Why are you afraid to admit that most scientists are not atheists?

Im not afraid to admit that. I thought that would have been something you feared. But, apparently your not. But, ya, i gladly admit that.

Nonsense. We have much more knowledge and understanding of how the world works than the people who told the stories in your Bible.

Thats true, we do. But that dont make the stories false.

In any case, you originally stated ancient man came to believe in god because he saw a well-designed world. You did not address my comment: I doubt ancient man, seeing his crops destroyed by locusts, declared: "What a well-designed world we live in".

Actually, this is oversimplified. There wer atheists and theists back then as there is today. The theists back then would say they sinned against God and thats why problems are befalling us.

Person A: How do you know the universe is Intelligently Designed?
Person B: Because things consist of parts and those things consist of parts.

Bottom line from your response is that you believe that your God individually puts together every molecule of water. I guess that could explain why He doesn't have the time to make World Peace".

He gave humans freedom to do what they want. There own actions will judge them and be there downfall. That speaks nothing agaibst the evidence of design in the world.

Your linked article does not support your allegation.

How does the link that talks of the coin flippin machine not clearly show that chance does not exist?

The nebula may look like DNA but, according to your link, its origin is quite different. The helical nebula was produced by the twisting of magnetic field lines in an interstellar gas disc that is in orbit around the Milky Way's central black hole; biological DNA is the product of chemical reactions. There is no analogy between the two.

Fair enough. When i stated that, it was more of a fascination rather then a firm thing i was trying to hold too.

 

[tas8831]

I dont know, why does it have only 2? I dont know how to read DNA language. Im only learned in the english language.

Are you?

Well, here you are on this forum carrying on about "instructions" and "design" and all this - are you really saying that you are totally unfamiliar with the things you keep writing about?

I wonder if scientists can read DNA? i know they mapped it, but can they read it yet?

Much of it, yes.

So again - if you know so little about this stuff, how is it that you can bring yourself to write about it?

 

[tas8831]

All very true, but it makes me wonder.....what's their end game with all that? They're not advocating for ID creationism to be taught in schools, they're not trying to convince the scientific community, they're not doing any actual research into ID creationism, so what's their point? What are they trying to accomplish?

All I can figure is that at this point, they're just out to make money.

Probably so - I wonder where they send their bucks (I mean, besides their own pockets).

 

[tas8831]

Sometimes experts, in talking down to us who are not, over simplify reality.

And yet, those who are not LOVE pretending that they are - look at all the non-expert experts just in this thread!
In another thread, I had a guy that claims a chromosome looks like Adam's rib, and when I provided actual electron micrographs of a chromosome, he said I was ignorant of biology.

And on the other hand, Deeje the creationist claims that we MUST 'talk down' to over-simplify such that she can understand (because, all that science jargon is just a facade) and then upon having things dumbed down, rejects it because it does not have science words in it.

I agree that the DNA "code" is not like the label on a Wheat Chex box. It would be great fun to become a Genetic Scientist, but right now it all seems like smoke and mirrors to me.

Um...

 

[tas8831]

Can you cite one paper you have read published by scientists working on abiogenesis?

And weird that he had never heard of Hazen... Only heard of Shapiro, apparently, as is so often the case.

 

[tas8831]

Cr

crying victim, no. He could prove me wrong by simply posting research data counter to what I have posted.

You cannot be serious...

Standard desperate creationist tactic.

 

[tas8831]

Yeah, I got it. You post nothing to support abiogenesis. You want evidence, then when it is supplied, you ignore it. Classy

LOL!

Your "evidence" is a Shapiro quote?

I understand how RNA and DNA work. That is basic cellular chemistry. Your point is what ? Why is my understanding of RNA/DNA important to your support of abiogenesis ? If you want to refute a point, why not just refute it and provide evidence ?

Clean up your approach to discussing abiogenbesis, deal with factual refutation and citable evidence, then get back to me.

More irony.

Since you ¨ don´t care ¨ about what a notable abiogernesis researcher says on the issue, you must only care about me.

I am not interested in discussing me, and getting into a pissing contest with you, which is what you apparently want.

The issue is abiogenesis

No, the issue is your fanboydom of Shapiro in defense of not-abiogenesis at all costs.