Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Jollybear]

So you have no objective evidence for a god. All you have is subjective evidence from your mind that a god exist.

Is DNA a code of instructions, yes or no?

 

[Jollybear]

Yes.


Reproduction.


Except DNA doesn't "look like a code of instructions".

It dont look like a code, why is it called a code of instructions then?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Is DNA a code of instructions, yes or no?

I don't know if DNA is a code.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if DNA is a code.

It is most definitely not a code in the sense that creationists use. A code of that sort is used to communicate from one intelligent being to another. That is not what happens in the cell.

 

[Jollybear]

Yep, and the additional material raises an interesting question. If the Discovery Institute feels that teaching ID creationism isn't unconstitutional, why don't they advocate for it to be taught?

Because the judge wont let it be taught. So, there next stradegy is let the problems with evolution be taught and the gaps be honestly told.

This still works because theres only 1 view that is right, atheistic naturalism or God. If children see the problems, then they will wonder. Its about not indoctrinating.

They do a bit of bait and switch there. It starts off with "Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?" But then their answer is about people who believe in ID creationism publishing papers, which is an entirely different question.

If a scientist believed in a flat earth and published papers, but none of them were about the earth being flat, you couldn't say he had published papers about a flat earth, right? So here, the question at hand isn't whether ID creationists publish papers; we all know they do. The question is, are any of those paper actually about ID creationism?

One could say yes, there about ID if there posing problems to evolution.

Also, they may be directly about ID too. I have not read them. But, im going to be reading stephen myers journal and then read the "refutation" to it that another poster gave me and see how that goes and respond on here about it.

Which paper about ID creationism did Meyer submit?

This is the one by stephen, which is the one i plan on reading once i get the chance. Then i gotta scroll back and get that "refutation" of it from the other poster.

https://www.discovery.org/a/2177/

 

[Ellen Brown]

Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.

Um, so, not to be snotty, just asking, you have substantial knowledge base to form that opinion of the Sciences? I've not understood why some Atheists have such a negative opinion of Intelligent Design (Creationism) when they have little knowledge of scripture? It is my opinion that Religionists are not any more conciliatory than Evolutionists. I think that eventually both sides will spend time under the willow switch until they are willing to kiss and make up. Forget this sending all the bad folk to hell, because there'd be no one left.

 

[Jollybear]

I don't know if DNA is a code.

From the human genome project itself website

Human Genome Project Completion: Frequently Asked Questions

"A genome is an organism's complete set of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a chemical compound that contains the genetic instructions needed to develop and direct the activities of every organism. DNA molecules are made of two twisting, paired strands. Each strand is made of four chemical units, called nucleotide bases. The bases are adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). Bases on opposite strands pair specifically; an A always pairs with a T, and a C always with a G."

And

"Each chromosome contains hundreds to thousands of genes, which carry the instructions for making proteins."

And

"The primary method used by the HGP to produce the finished version of the human genetic code is map-based, or BAC-based, sequencing."

And

"As a result, research involving other genome-related projects (e.g., the International HapMap Project to study human genetic variation and the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, or ENCODE, project)"

And

"Another example is the ENCODE project, which aims to create a comprehensive encyclopedia of the functional elements encoded in the DNA sequence, by cataloging the identity and precise location of all of the protein-encoding and non-protein-encoding genes within the genome."

There is so many other webpages that also call it a code of instructions as well.

Why should we say we dont know?

 

[Jollybear]

Um, so, not to be snotty, just asking, you have substantial knowledge base to form that opinion of the Sciences?

Ive listened to many debates amongs the experts (scientists). Ive read a good bit.

And i know what the issues are. Im not a scientist, but that dont mean i dont know anything. But, there are scientists that say theres evidence of ID.

Plus, i see evidence of ID by myself.

I've not understood why some Atheists have such a negative opinion of Intelligent Design (Creationism) when they have little knowledge of scripture? It is my opinion that Religionists are not any more conciliatory than Evolutionists. I think that eventually both sides will spend time under the willow switch until they are willing to kiss and make up. Forget this sending all the bad folk to hell, because there'd be no one left.

I think this statement is a bit oversimplified. The reality is there ARE some atheists who are knowledgeable of scripture and there are some religious folk who are knowledgeable of science.

What i dont understand is why so many people waste so much time on stuff like that instead of banging away at the issues or the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, so, not to be snotty, just asking, you have substantial knowledge base to form that opinion of the Sciences? I've not understood why some Atheists have such a negative opinion of Intelligent Design (Creationism) when they have little knowledge of scripture? It is my opinion that Religionists are not any more conciliatory than Evolutionists. I think that eventually both sides will spend time under the willow switch until they are willing to kiss and make up. Forget this sending all the bad folk to hell, because there'd be no one left.

ID is simply not science. Proponents of it refuse to follow the scientific method. As a result there is no evidence for it by definition. You will not find it in the peer reviewed journals because they know it would fail.

And atheists quite often have a very good understanding of the Bible. On average better than most Christians. That is one of the reasons that they are atheists in the first place.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, and i can fix my post or i can add another point to my post. Still comes from my mind.

Except that in the case of DNA there is no intelligence doing the selection. It is *natural* selection, based on whether the overall organism survives to reproduce or not.

From the source i gave you.

"Typos creep into the transcripts. Some of these are genuine errors where the wrong letter is put in place – proofreading proteins usually fix these mistakes. Other typos are deliberate edits – for example, proteins called deaminases will often convert some As into Gs, and (more rarely) some Cs into Us."

Letter, typos, edits, proofreading, all that sounds like intelligence, not chemical reactions.

And yet, it actually is chemical reactions. Humans like to make analogies so we can understand better. The reactions are not directed: they happen or fail to happen based on diffusion.

The origin of life depends on DNA. So, what is the origin of DNA information? Saying the origin comes from duplication is like saying the origin of my bill of laden papers comes from a photocopier.

Well, at one level we don't know. But there is a strong case that before DNA became the primarily genetic material, RNA was in that place. So the information for DNA came from that for RNA.

Now, the neat thing about RNA is that is can be both 'information' and 'structure'. it is like the blueprint and the building are the same thing. And guess what? The information is all chemistry. The RNA can catalyze biologically relevant reactions as well as its own reproduction. Once we get a self-replicator and mutation (which an RNA world would provide), the rest is simply natural selection, ultimately giving DNA as a more stable replacement for the earlier RNA.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Ive listened to many debates amongs the experts (scientists). Ive read a good bit.

And i know what the issues are. Im not a scientist, but that dont mean i dont know anything. But, there are scientists that say theres evidence of ID.

Plus, i see evidence of ID by myself.



I think this statement is a bit oversimplified. The reality is there ARE some atheists who are knowledgeable of scripture and there are some religious folk who are knowledgeable of science.

What i dont understand is why so many people waste so much time on stuff like that instead of banging away at the issues or the evidence.

I believe that the Sciences are largely correct, and that God, or an intelligence operates it. There never was an Intelligent design because what we see being produced is constantly changing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It dont look like a code, why is it called a code of instructions then?

Because it's helpful to translate a complex, biological concept into a form that humans find easier to understand and relate to.

 

[tas8831]

That's kind of what I thought, and of course since the paper wasn't actually about ID creationism, it can't be described as Meyer making a case for ID creationism to the scientific community.

Yup.

Do they even TRY to make a case for ID, other than 'evolution cannot explain THIS (strawman)!' or analogies to human activity?

 

[tas8831]

I am discussing abiogenesis to show that it is a scientific impossibility.

Ok, so abiogenesis is totally impossible. Creationist math (but no actual evidence) proves it.

great.

Now provide an alternative that BETTER explains what we see, along with the evidence that you claim abiogenesis lacks - and you can start with probability calculations and improbability and the like, since you folks seem very impressed with those sorts of things.

 

[tas8831]

So research in essential backwaters that bring an understanding of abiogenesis no closer to being understood is de facto evidence that it is understood ? Not hardly

LOL!

"Carnegie Institution’s Geophysical Laboratory and George Mason University" - such 'backwaters.'

Which hypothesis is the winner because of this flurry of reserach ? Electricity, hot water vents at the bottom of the ocean, inevitability, sub surface clay particles, the DNA world, prebiotic primordial sea/lagoons or any other you would care to name ?

You are trying the old shell game, hide the pea under the shell marked "tons of research", yet, when you lift the shell, the pea has migrated under the shell marked, "no substantive conclusions drawn re the abiogenesis process"

You believe it because you have to, your guise of objectivity is no better than mine.

Nice try though

And you yet again (in a different post) reiterate the creationist cop-out re: the creation of life in a lab is really Intelligent Design!

You people are just disingenuous, hypocritical jokesters.

No wonder nobody takes you people seriously.

 

[tas8831]

Regarding research into abiogenesis, I present the following...
I have never doubted that there is a plethora of research being done. I have read some abstracts from your citations.

I'm sure you did - let's see you analysis.

This isn't the issue. The issue is, how does all of the work being done effect the idea of abiogenesis ?

Seeing as how creationists like to pull their "what about?'s regarding things like chirality, I'd say that Hazen's work is germane to the topic.

Or are you admitting that creationist "what about x?" 'arguments' are just lame distractions?

There are seven primary hypotheses extant on the subject of abiogenesis.

And only 1 for creation/ID, for which there is not only NO evidence or research, but for which what evidence we do have contradicts the beliefs of its adherents.

How does this research advance any of the seven hypotheses, and the critical question, how far ?

Oh, I get it - the old 'this research was not exactly what I expect to see based on my limited understanding of the subject, therefore, it is not relevant' dodge.

I might state that I am going to build an automobile from scratch, then find the iron ore and forge it into a lug nut.

I worked very hard at it, and the lug nut is perfect, but as to the stated end product, it means little.

You forgot the part where your detractors had been declaring for years that there was no such thing as "iron ore" - how crazy! "Iron ore" - right, whatever. You just reject the Genie that makes magic carpets! You HATE the GENIE!
And that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get even a lug nut from this fake "iron ore" , much less an automobile, whatever that is!

And that is my point. I have read scientists on abiogenesis till I am sick to death of it.

Have you? I find that hard to believe.

Atheist scientists.

A lame attempt at well poisoning, maybe?

How about the creation scientists that get caught fudging their data, like Jeff Tomkins? Or the ID scientists that take pictures of themselves in front of green screen so they can swap in stock footage of a real lab to make it look like they are actually doing research?

I have followed the research as closely as a layman can by reading abstracts, synopses, and articles.

Using my analogy, they have buckets of nuts and bolts, electrical wire, yet no semblance of a car can be seen.

And again, using your own analogy, you are ignoring the naysayers and pro-magic carpet Genie-worshipers that had claimed for decades that even buckets of nuts and bolts and electrical wire were impossibilities and that the only TRUE answer to personal transportation was to BELIEVE that Genie would give us magic carpets.

As is the scientific method, the RNA world supporter takes shots at the panspermia supporter, who takes shots at the deep vent or clay molecule supporter.

It is a field where true believers say it happened, they just don't know how.

Most ironic...

I know nothing about ICR, I have never read anything from them or gone to their site.

Right...

I don´t quote creationist scientists, it is an much stronger case to quote those who believe like you.

Right... Creationists have written books purporting to 'prove' evolution false by doing what you are doing. Yeah... didn't work for them, either.

I sure am glad that no atheist scientist has ever lied and been censured for bogus science and research. ( LOL )

See above, but again, cool well poisoning.

 

[Jollybear]

I believe that the Sciences are largely correct, and that God, or an intelligence operates it. There never was an Intelligent design because what we see being produced is constantly changing.

Say what?

An intelligence operates it, but no intelligence design?

If it changes, would that not mean God modifies the design or programs the change of adaptation within?

 

[tas8831]

Yes, the idea that information and DNA can be chemically created is testable. However, it has never happened

Then surely you can provide citations?

Define "information" in a biologically relevant way, please. And then explain what, 'DNA cannot be chemically created' means.

 

[tas8831]

This is a bit of misinformation regarding biological information.

Wow, you sound like an expert!

Biological information is not simply the result of natural chemical reaction.

Tell us more!

Chemical reaction is the method by which the DNA communicates the information to RNA which activates the proteins which cause the cell to respond.

Oh, I see - so by 'communicating the information to RNA' you actually mean that the properties of the chemicals involved allow for interactions.

Maybe you can tell us all exactly how this 'communication' between DNA and RNA works, such that it is impossible to have arisen naturally and that your preferred deity had to have made it thus (such a coincidence!).

There is absolutely no research that has demonstrated the chemical process that would create and organize information in long strands of coded DNA, NONE.

WOW - CAPS. You MUST be right.

Say - any research showing that ancient middle eastern tribal deities actually had the ability to do this, and actually did it?
Thanks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design?

In public schools? You know the reason. Creationism / ID has been deemed religion. The state doesn't teach religious ideas.

Its about not indoctrinating.

With religion it is. Evolution is taught, not indoctrinated.The difference is the method and the intent. With teaching, one is taught the dominant position(s) held today in the field being taught, and provides the evidence and arguments that its adherents offer in support. One is tested to see if he has learned the presented facts, not if he believes them.

Indoctrination is repetition of what is to be believed by faith, with a strong interest in what the indoctrinee believes, including social sanctions for not accepting the doctrine being indoctrinated..

After all, what is there to teach about ID analogous to the ideas Darwin promulgated and the fossil, finch beak, and other physical evidence available to him from which he derived those ideas? There is nothing to show with ID. There is no argument for it, only arguments against naturalistic alternatives, mostly incredulity fallacies.

If only the teachings of ID and not its indoctrination were allowed into the classroom, the ID unit could be finished in less than an hour. One would only be able to say what is believed, with nothing offered in support of those claims. What would the test look like? I'd say one question: What is the belief that is called intelligent design.

they're about ID if they're posing problems to evolution.

No, they're about evolution if they're about evolution. There is no positive argument for ID, just criticisms of the scientific alternative. If you disagree, perhaps you can present the argument for ID that doesn't mention the scientific theory with which it competes. The scientists can present their position without reference to religious alternatives.