Creation Science House Bill 3826

[shmogie]

Wow, you sound like an expert!

Tell us more!

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!).

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.

Here we go, attack the messenger with subtle ad hominems. Always the secret weapon of threatened atheists.

Bah,blah, blah

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here we go, attack the messenger with subtle ad hominems. Always the secret weapon of threatened atheists.

Bah,blah, blah

I'm a Christian, and I agree with his overall gist. How about responding to his points rather than crying victim?

 

[ecco]

Who has the power to prevent the IDers from publishing their papers in their journals, or to prevent them from being read,

There is a lot of money to be made by writing Creo/ID books.

 

[ecco]

I do read the published material of those scientists working on abiogenesis.

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

 

[tas8831]

They have since then revised their list and greatly extended it, so the time is now right for a return visit to this bastion of creationist “peer-reviewed” fodder.

I remember when this happened.

Their pub list was initially only a handful of self-pubs, and once they had churned out "official" versions of their web essays, their "publications" basically petered out, and it got embarrassing for them.

So, they opened it up to any and all pubs by anyone associated with the DI /ID, even if the pubs had NOTHING to do with ID.

How.... honest of them.

 

[tas8831]

Here we go, attack the messenger with subtle ad hominems. Always the secret weapon of threatened atheists.

Bah,blah, blah

Another creationist that does nto seem to understand what "ad hominem" means.

Please, go ahead:

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!).

I'm betting the sad attempt at martyrdom was just a ruse - because asking you to support an assertion, even if the request was done in a sarcastic way, is NOT an 'ad hominem.'

 

[ecco]

I am reminded of the five blind men encountering an elephant. They each had li evidence to support their conclusions, yet their conclusions were wrong.

It's not surprising that you need to turn to religious fables to try to make a point. In religion, people, Creos and IDers, read one book and claim knowledge. Just like your blind men. You touch an elephant's trunk and think it is a (talking) snake.

Scientists, on the other hand, expand their horizons. If five scientists came to five different conclusions they would work to resolve the issue by continuing the research. In the case of your elephant analogy, the man touching the elephant's ear would have soon gotten to the eye and then to the trunk. The man touching the elephant's tusk would have soon gotten to the trunk. With diligent, thorough research all five would have come to a consensus on the shape of the elephant.

In the meantime, the one book Creo/IDers would still be yelling "It's a snake".

 

[ecco]

From all your posts it is obvious that your "research" begins and ends with the Bible and Creationist writers.

From all your posts it is probable that your journey began with very early age indoctrination.

Did your views begin with an early age of indoctrination?

My views began in a Cristian Sunday school around age nine. All the pretty pictures of apples and snakes and especially the giraffes with the heads sticking out of the top of the ark was enough to convince me that God/Religion were just as real as all the other characters that were in my comic books. No indoctrination, just common sense.

However, I see that you don't deny that you were indoctrinated from an early age.

 

[ecco]

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

Why do people call it a sunrise? The sun isn't rising.
Why do people call it the Big Bang? There is no sound.

People, often PopSci writers, make up words and phrases that may loosely resemble reality or have a catchy sound.

So what.

 

[ecco]

I've not understood why some Atheists have such a negative opinion of Intelligent Design (Creationism) when they have little knowledge of scripture?

Which Scripture? Which Creation/ID story? This one...

People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.
​

All ID/Creation stories are just that - stories.

However, it is not just atheists that disbelieve Genesis. A great number of theists disbelieve Genesis. It is only a very small minority of people who take Genesis literally. That you would single out atheists is silly. It is equally silly to assume that atheists have little knowledge of scripture.

 

[ecco]

But, there are scientists that say theres evidence of ID.

Aside from a small handful of people like Behe, who are all Biblical fundamentalists, can you name any?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

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?

I can say I don't know, because I don't know about genetics.
You say god did it, without objective evidence.

 

[shmogie]

Cr

I'm a Christian, and I agree with his overall gist. How about responding to his points rather than crying victim?

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

When the "you" statements start flying about the issue isn't idea's, hypotheses, or theories, it is personal. Impeach the argument by discrediting the poster. I don't play that game.

I in this thread have rarely even mentioned God, or His creation.I have steadfastly concentrated on abiogenesis.

Nevertheless, Deism and speculation about my beliefs have been sarcastically addressed in a juvenile fashion in an attempt to defend abiogenesis by comparison.

Why they simply cannot deal with the points of the post, I can speculate, but discussions on abiogenesis almost always reaches the point of you, you, you and your god ( non capitalized) is .................................

This is not true of all believers in abiogenesis, but many.

I simply choose not to get into these food fights by using the same tactics. If one does not sink to the level personal attack then you get rolled over.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Here we go, attack the messenger with subtle ad hominems. Always the secret weapon of threatened atheists.

Bah,blah, blah

Respond to him, instead of crying victim.
You say god did it, please provide objective evidence for a god.

 

[shmogie]

Another creationist that does nto seem to understand what "ad hominem" means.

Please, go ahead:

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!).

I'm betting the sad attempt at martyrdom was just a ruse - because asking you to support an assertion, even if the request was done in a sarcastic way, is NOT an 'ad hominem.'

You haven't read the quotation from Dr. Shapiro I posted on the RNA world in this thread. Read it, and your question will be answered. Then you can prove a premier chemist in the field of abiogenesis research in error.

A subtle ad hominem is not a direct ad hominem. It is constructed to not break the forum rules, yet attack the poster. You sir, employ this tactic.

 

[shmogie]

Respond to him, instead of crying victim.
You say god did it, please provide objective evidence for a god.

Uh, I never said God did it. I have been posting about abiogenesis, not God.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Uh, I never said God did it. I have been posting about abiogenesis, not God.

My bad. So do you think god created Adam and Eve?

 

[ecco]

You haven't read the quotation from Dr. Shapiro I posted on the RNA world in this thread.

I must have missed it. Care to post it again.

Read it, and your question will be answered.

I promise to read it.

 

[tas8831]

You haven't read the quotation from Dr. Shapiro I posted on the RNA world in this thread. Read it, and your question will be answered. Then you can prove a premier chemist in the field of abiogenesis research in error.

Why do you embellish Shapiro's relevance? I don't care what he said about the RNA world I care even less what you think of it.

A subtle ad hominem is not a direct ad hominem. It is constructed to not break the forum rules, yet attack the poster. You sir, employ this tactic.

So another admission that you do not understand what "ad hominem" means.

Here you go, fella:

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

Examples:

1. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
2. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.
3. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one marriage she's broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything, much less morality?
4. Of course Marx' theories about the ideal society are bunk. The guy spent all his time in the library.
5. We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos.
6. There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.
7. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.
8. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses.

It is NOT irrelevant that you do not seem to understand how DNA works, etc. That inability is quite likely why you find yourself drawn to the claims of Shapiro and the like, and to hold anti-science views generally.

Had I made fun of your appearance or affiliations or something like that as my argument against your positions, then that would clearly have been ad hominem.

Got it?

 

[shmogie]

Why do you embellish Shapiro's relevance? I don't care what he said about the RNA world I care even less what you think of it.

So another admission that you do not understand what "ad hominem" means.

Here you go, fella:

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

Examples:

1. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
2. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.
3. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one marriage she's broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything, much less morality?
4. Of course Marx' theories about the ideal society are bunk. The guy spent all his time in the library.
5. We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos.
6. There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.
7. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.
8. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses.

It is NOT irrelevant that you do not seem to understand how DNA works, etc. That inability is quite likely why you find yourself drawn to the claims of Shapiro and the like, and to hold anti-science views generally.

Had I made fun of your appearance or affiliations or something like that as my argument against your positions, then that would clearly have been ad hominem.

Got it?

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

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.

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