Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Astrophile]

I question atheistic naturalism. I'm a skeptic of that.

Yes, we ought to be sceptical about everything. So what is your evidence against atheistic naturalism?

 

[Jollybear]

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.

Remember the source? The protein proofreads the DNA and selects or edits out mistakes. That looks intelligent.

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.

Yes, granted, there is chemical reactions. DNA is made of molecules and chemicals. But, there is a code in it.

Saying its all chemical reactions is like again, saying ink on paper is chemical reactions to the paper, therefore the ink letters arent a message.

Also how do you know the source is using the words "code of instructions" as analogy and not using it literally? In the article i gave from the human genome website, they did not say they wer using code to mean analogy. They also did not say it was not analogy. But they did say DNA IS a code of instructions. They did not say it was LIKE a code. They said it IS a code. Thats significant.

Also if atheistic naturalists get to use analogy, then there doing what they tell IDers not to do. They tell IDers they cant compare human engineering to the natural organic world to infer design. Thats not consistent on there part. It also proves that on a intuitive level they SEE design themselves.

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.

So this speculation, how is that anymore scientific then to posit intelligence?

Also, it begs the question of how the RNA got its code of instructions.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

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



I question atheistic naturalism. Im a skeptic of that.



Ok, sure.



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.



Ok, sure.

Either ID and creationism are the same thing, or there two separate things.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Remember the source? The protein proofreads the DNA and selects or edits out mistakes. That looks intelligent.



Yes, granted, there is chemical reactions. DNA is made of molecules and chemicals. But, there is a code in it.

Saying its all chemical reactions is like again, saying ink on paper is chemical reactions to the paper, therefore the ink letters arent a message.

Also how do you know the source is using the words "code of instructions" as analogy and not using it literally? In the article i gave from the human genome website, they did not say they wer using code to mean analogy. They also did not say it was not analogy. But they did say DNA IS a code of instructions. They did not say it was LIKE a code. They said it IS a code. Thats significant.

Also if atheistic naturalists get to use analogy, then there doing what they tell IDers not to do. They tell IDers they cant compare human engineering to the natural organic world to infer design. Thats not consistent on there part. It also proves that on a intuitive level they SEE design themselves.



So this speculation, how is that anymore scientific then to posit intelligence?

Also, it begs the question of how the RNA got its code of instructions.

What objective evidence do you have that a designer was behind RNA and DNA?

The only designer's for you was your parents, no god needed for that.

 

[Polymath257]

Remember the source? The protein proofreads the DNA and selects or edits out mistakes. That looks intelligent.

Except that the 'editing' is done by killing off those individuals that have the 'mistakes'. And you didn't address the issue of duplication and *new* function. that is new information, isn't it?

Where is the intelligence? In natural selection?

 

[Skwim]

Either ID and creationism are the same thing, or there two separate things.

It has already been explain to him that they're one and the same, the only difference being in their presentation.

.

 

[Jollybear]

Either ID and creationism are the same thing, or there two separate things.

Why cant people get past this simple concept?

Creationism adhere to ID, but ID dont need to adhere to creationism.

Ill break it down more. Joe believes in genesis in the bible. He interprets it to be a 6 thousand year old earth. This means joe believes God created the universe. This also means joe believes God designed it.

Now, tom believes in God, he dont believe in the bible though, or if he does, he interprets it different then joe. He sees the earth as 4.5 billion years old. But he believes God created it. This means tom believes God designed it.

See the slight difference?

Theres even more differences depending on how one defines God.

Heres another. Dave believes aliens made us. This means he believes in design.

Are you getting this?

This is more simple to get then understanding DNA.

 

[Jollybear]

Why do you think there's a creationist movement in the first place? Why do you think creationist attack evolution so vociferously? It's all in defending the truth of Genesis before those who are tempted by the evidence of evolution to find the Bible faulty.

Let me put it like this. Why do you think theres a genesis in the first place? Because people saw order and design in the world. Ancient people even saw it.

And no, theres some people who see problems with evolution who dont believe in the bible. The consistent problem is folks who persistently oversimplify things. The issues are ALL that MATTER. Nothing else matters.

I give up.

Have a nice day.

I know, i know, its frustrating. Hang in there. ​

 

[Jollybear]

What objective evidence do you have that a designer was behind RNA and DNA?

The only designer's for you was your parents, no god needed for that.

My parrents! Oh my goodness. This is not dealing with the issues. My parrents did not create or design me. They gave me birth, but the birth process is part of the created design program.

The issue is, where did the information come from?

Natural selection is simply the most fit survive, but were did the most fit come from in the first place in order to need survival? You see this?

 

[Jollybear]

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

My post, it comes from my mind, yes? Is that religion to say my post comes from me, or your post comes from you? No, its not. In the same way, to infer intelligence is not religion, its based on what we see.

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.

And why not teach the problems with it and say honestly where the assumptions are and say what is not known?

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..

Sure, id add that the repitition comes in the form of teaching. There is a curriculum. Its not just "evolution is true, evolution is true, evolution is true" or "id is true, id is true, id is true".

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.

Thats completely false. All the same data that Darwinism uses, ID uses, but explains it all from an ID paradigm. They would teach design. In otherwords they would teach how our bodies work, how the planet works, the purpose of each part, how DNA works and the list goes on.

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.

Oh my gosh. Thats not true at all. Thats just factually wrong.

One would only be able to say what is believed, with nothing offered in support of those claims.

Just simply false.

What would the test look like? I'd say one question: What is the belief that is called intelligent design.

How can you say ignorant stuff like this? Are you being serious or are you going hyperbole on me here?

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.

Yea, in a concise nutshell, order, complexity, information and the inference of actual design vs just the illusion of design. Thats the positive support of ID.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

It is both history and religion. It should be taught as philosophy and nothing more.

 

[Jollybear]

Except that the 'editing' is done by killing off those individuals that have the 'mistakes'.

Thats not what the source says 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."

Life’s deliberate typos

And you didn't address the issue of duplication and *new* function. that is new information, isn't it?

Yes, i responded to that..my analogy. I get 3 copies (duplication) of bill of ladens. The information on the bill of laden is the same for all three copies. Now, the information will be different at a different wearhouse. However, they could add information to the bills if they want too.

Where is the intelligence? In natural selection?

Its in both parts. Its in the origin of the information and its sometimes in the selection.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Why cant people get past this simple concept?

Creationism adhere to ID, but ID dont need to adhere to creationism.

Ill break it down more. Joe believes in genesis in the bible. He interprets it to be a 6 thousand year old earth. This means joe believes God created the universe. This also means joe believes God designed it.

Now, tom believes in God, he dont believe in the bible though, or if he does, he interprets it different then joe. He sees the earth as 4.5 billion years old. But he believes God created it. This means tom believes God designed it.

See the slight difference?

Theres even more differences depending on how one defines God.

Heres another. Dave believes aliens made us. This means he believes in design.

Are you getting this?

This is more simple to get then understanding DNA.

Now you are playing a word game. Either ID and creationism are the same thing or there two separate things. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Who'd they get shouty with?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

My parrents! Oh my goodness. This is not dealing with the issues. My parrents did not create or design me. They gave me birth, but the birth process is part of the created design program.

The issue is, where did the information come from?

Natural selection is simply the most fit survive, but were did the most fit come from in the first place in order to need survival? You see this?

This has been explained to you. Imperfect self replicating molecules in any environment with selection pressures.

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

Life's First Molecule Was Protein, Not RNA, New Model Suggests

 

[ecco]

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

Nonsense.

In Creationism there needs to be a Creator.
In ID there needs to be a Designer.

Can you explain the difference between a Creator and a Designer in the context of this discussion?

The only difference I see is that the Creator doesn't need to be Intelligent. Well, DUH!

 

[ecco]

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.

Bad grammar and poor spelling are indicators of intelligence, education, and professionalism.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

My parrents! Oh my goodness. This is not dealing with the issues. My parrents did not create or design me. They gave me birth, but the birth process is part of the created design program.

The issue is, where did the information come from?

Natural selection is simply the most fit survive, but were did the most fit come from in the first place in order to need survival? You see this?

Your parents had sex to make you. Your mom supplied the egg and your dad supplied the sperm.

No god or designer is needed to make babies.

You have failed to provide objective evidence for a god or designer. All you seem to have is subjective evidence from your mind.

 

[ecco]

if atheistic naturalists get to use analogy, then there doing what they tell IDers not to do.

What about when theistic naturalists use analogy?
Or don't theistic naturalists use analogy?
Or aren't there any theistic naturalists?

 

[Shad]

Your parents had sex to make you. Your mom supplied the egg and your dad supplied the sperm.

Jolly is use the First Cause argument as a basis without knowing or saying it. The "evidence" is claimed to be within the logic of the argument itself. If the logic is sound and valid there is a first cause. Here are objections to this arguments but here is an unbiased summary to get the idea.

First cause | philosophy