Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Subduction Zone]

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

Bah,blah, blah

There would be no such "attacks" if you supported your claims. All you have been able to do is to wildly declaim that abiogenesis is impossible without offering any evidence. Though you may understand evidence in a crime scene it appears to all that you won't let yourself understand evidence in a scientific sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

You have that backwards. We have supplied evidence. You have not supplied one iota.

Scientific evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory of hypothesis. There is evidence for abiogenesis. If you ask for specifics I will gladly supply them. I will start out simple and move up from there. It will all fit the definition that I just gave, and that can be supported by references too. The only requirement would be that you admit the obvious before the next piece of evidence is given.

Meanwhile it would be nice if you could support your claims using the given definition.

 

[tas8831]

Robert Shapiro, a highly regarded chemist in abiogenesis, addressed a biochemistry hypothesis held by many, perhaps a majority, the DNA world in this way.

" The use of reaction sequences has long been an honored traditional field of organic chemistry". Speaking of the work of his PhD adviser, Nobel prize winner Dr. Robert B. Woodward, Shapiro states " Awarded the Nobel prize for his brilliant syntheses of ................................. it mattered little if kilograms of starting material were required to produce milligrams of the product. The point was that humans could produce, however inefficiently, substances found in nature. Unfortunately. neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early earth to produce RNA."

One hypothesis, that the chemical ingredients for life were able to combine and begin the life process in a shallow lagoon, he says " I calculated that a large lagoon would have to be evaporated to the size of a puddle, without loss of it's contents, to achieve the right concentration."

" The drying lagoon claim is not unique. In a similar spirit , other prebiotic chemists have invoked freezing glacial lakes, mountain side freshwater glacial ponds, flowing streams, beaches, dry deserts, volcanic aquifers, or the entire global ocean, frozen or warm as needed to support their requirement for a nucleotide soup for RNA synthesis to come into existence on the early earth".

All quotations were taken from Shapiro's article presenting his own hypothesis, the simple replicator. " The Sound of Miller-Urey and Prebiotic Chemistry Exploding :"

Ah - a guy wanting to go out with a bang, propping up his preferred hypothesis....

I wonder - do Old Earth Creationists automatically win when dissing Young Earth Creationism? Or is it vice versa?

 

[tas8831]

"As he points out, the RNA world is crumbling, and I could quote many in the bio chemical field to show it is so.

Ah, so you must support - given your frequent accolade-riddled references to him - Shapiro's preferred origin of life hypothesis. Got it.

BTW, you still aren't clear as to what biological information is. I could give you some references if you choose

I would prefer you just explain what you think it is and provide links to non-charlatans for support.

Given your understanding of biological information, do you think a change in, say, a structure or metabolism require 'new' information?

 

[tas8831]

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?

This is the genetic code:

Tell us about the "instructions", won't you? Tell us about the arbitrariness of the 'code.' Why does Leucine have 6 triplets yet poor Cysteine only 2?

 

[We Never Know]

.

"Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​

source

.​

If they want to teach creation in private schools, that's fine. There it's a choice of parents/students being around it..
It needs to stay out of public schools where it would be forced upon students.
If nothing else teach it as a philosophy class and not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they want to teach creation in private schools, that's fine. There it's a choice of parents/students being around it..
It needs to stay out of public schools where it would be forced upon students.
If nothing else teach it as a philosophy class and not science.

Or in a history of religion class. The problem is that literalists hate a properly taught class on religion, one that would pass constitutional muster, even more than they hate evolution.

 

[Ellen Brown]

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?

You got it cupcake.

 

[Jollybear]

This is the genetic code:

Tell us about the "instructions", won't you? Tell us about the arbitrariness of the 'code.' Why does Leucine have 6 triplets yet poor Cysteine only 2?

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

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

 

[Polymath257]

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

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

What do you mean by that? We have the code that translates a DNA sequence into a sequence of amino acids. In fact, that is precisely what you quoted.

What else do you think it required?

Maybe your problem is that you think that DNA is a book written in some language as opposed to a chemical that interacts with other chemicals in a complex tangle of interactions that is life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because the judge wont let it be taught.

But that's only in that court's jurisdiction. Like we discussed earlier, there's nothing preventing the Discovery Institute from trying again in another part of the country. Yet for some reason, they're maintaining that they're not advocating for it to be taught, even though they don't believe doing so would be unconstitutional.

And that brings us back to my question.....why don't they think it should 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.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

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

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Even if they somehow manged to falsify evolutionary theory, all that would mean is that evolutionary theory is wrong; it would not mean "therefore ID creationism is true".

I have not read them.

Then you can't say anything about them, can you?

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.

Great. Let us know what it says about ID creationism.

 

[Ellen Brown]

What do you mean by that? We have the code that translates a DNA sequence into a sequence of amino acids. In fact, that is precisely what you quoted.

What else do you think it required?

Maybe your problem is that you think that DNA is a book written in some language as opposed to a chemical that interacts with other chemicals in a complex tangle of interactions that is life.

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

 

[Jose Fly]

Yup.

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

Can't say that I've ever seen an ID creationist even try to make a positive case for it. But that's hardly surprising since it's nothing more than a failed political ploy to get religion into science classrooms. The good news however is that it failed.....spectacularly so.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

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.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

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?

I have to apply xenoview's razor to your claims that a god exist.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence

 

[Ellen Brown]

Can't say that I've ever seen an ID creationist even try to make a positive case for it. But that's hardly surprising since it's nothing more than a failed political ploy to get religion into science classrooms. The good news however is that it failed.....spectacularly so.

In my experience, from the inside, Creationists got all shouty and sperioristic and judgemental and that was a big turn off, even for a believer.

 

[ecco]

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

What you call talking down is really just learned people trying to pass information on to those with less education is a specified field.

 

[ecco]

All very true, but it makes me wonder.....what's their end game with all that?
...
All I can figure is that at this point, they're just out to make money.

Yep.

 

[Polymath257]

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

More commonly, even experts use simplified expressions most of the time. They usually know where the pitfalls are, but don't need to deal with them in every case. When the pitfalls become relevant, things can get technical fast. Attempting to bring someone not trained along at that point can get very tiring.

 

[Jollybear]

Creationism is a religious idea even when called ID.

Creationism can be ID, but ID dont need to be creationism.

A critical thinker is one who questions what he is told, that is, is a skeptic, and who validates or rejects the claims of others by engaging in a characteristic form of thinking that requires evaluating evidence dispassionately, making him also a rationalist and an empiricist.

I question atheistic naturalism. Im a skeptic of that.

His conclusions will be supported by his sound reasoning, which he will accept provisionally as correct. His beliefs and the strength with which he holds them are commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence. They are amenable to revision if new evidence arises making his earlier position seem more or less likely to be correct.

Merely addressing arguments and evidence is not critical thinking if the analysis is flawed, that is, addressed uncritically.

Ok, sure.

Frequent misspellings damage the ethos of the presenter, ethos being the collection of opinions that the presenter's audience holds about him apart from his actual argument, which affect the way that that argument is received. It addresses such matters as the degree to which the speaker seems qualified to discuss the topic at hand, any suspected ulterior motives, questions about the speaker's character, and the like. If we are reading a treatise on a scholarly topic that implies that the writer is careless or not well educated either in general or in the specific topic at hand, it undermines the presenter's credibility whatever the message is.

If i was writing a book to publish, i would make sure spelling was good.

Bad spelling dont make a view wrong. It just makes reading the view easyer. Depending also on how bad the spelling was too.

This is the case not only when written words are frequently spelled incorrectly, but also when the writer makes factual errors that reveal that he hasn't sufficiently studied the topic being discussed. Common examples of this are misunderstanding what a scientific theory is ("It's only a theory"), calling both justified and unjustified belief faith, or demanding proofs that are neither possible nor necessary.

Ok, sure.