Creation Science House Bill 3826

[shmogie]

Of course, there is no research demonstrating your underlined claim either.
But the theory that info can be created in DNA is testable, unlike claims of
divine origin.

Well, in fact there is a vast amount of research supporting the claim. The literature is rife with it. It is proven by all of the experiments and failed hypotheses which have NOT produced information by chemical reaction.

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

 

[shmogie]

Science could simplify the process to where a 10-year-old could replicate it at home and the Fundies still would not believe it.

God could reach down and create a new continent, yet the atheist worshippers of science would say it was the result of natural causes.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Oh so you think because newton died before darwin he would not believe in God if he died after darwin? I dont think thats feasable to believe at all due to the fact there wer atheists even in newtons day.

I think newton if alive today would support stephen myers ID movement.



No, evidence was given and evidence is given still today.

Some court judgements are stupid rullings, look at all the innocents that go to jail as an example.



Ya, you can barry your head in the sand if you want.



The name is samantics. Created, designed, engineered, architecture, it dont matter. What matters is there evidence? Yes. Constantly nitpicking over samantics and motives does not give respect to ID scientists that do real science. And, frankly, thats wrong.

Why haven't these ID scientist work been peer reviewed and published in a journal?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, in fact there is a vast amount of research supporting the claim. The literature is rife with it. It is proven by all of the experiments and failed hypotheses which have NOT produced information by chemical reaction.

That still doesn't support certainty of your underlined claim.

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

Aye, so interesting research will continue.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a bit of misinformation regarding biological information.

Biological information is not simply the result of natural chemical reaction. Chemical reaction is the method by which the DNA communicates the information to RNA which activates the proteins which cause the cell to respond.

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

Yes, actually, it *is* the result of natural chemical reactions. The feedback from genotype to phenotype and back via natural selection is what produces the specific information in DNA. But the information *is* in the chemical properties of the DNA, mRNA, rRNA, tRNA, etc. It is chemical.

 

[Polymath257]

Producing synthetic diamonds is simply the replication of a known natural force.

Producing life from non living matter is vastly, vastly more complicated.

There is no current understanding of the alleged process. There is no current understanding of how chance combinations of chemicals produced the extremely complex and detailed information to operate a living organism with all the capabilities to read the information and activate the machinery of the organism based upon the information.,

There is no *detailed* understanding, but there *is* a general understanding. The detailed information is produced via the feedback mechanism of natural selection.

 

[ecco]

I am answering this post a second time. This time with a video that compares creation scientists to others:

The Indy clip was hilarious.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

God could reach down and create a new continent, yet the atheist worshippers of science would say it was the result of natural causes.

First, what objective evidence do you have that your god is real?
Second, I don't worship science.

 

[ecco]

The problem is the politics in science, certain people having unrational bias who are in power making the rules.

Can you name some of these people who are in power?
Can you name some of these rules?

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but you apparently unaware of what biological information is and how it operates at the cellular level.

Quite the contrary, i am quite aware of it.

Chemical A in environment Y reacts in one way. Chemical A in environment Z reacts in a different way. This is an inherent chemical reaction, and has nothing to do with information, but is simply based in the property's of the chemical.

Those properties are a type of information.

Water freezing or vaporizing depending upon the environment has nothing to do with information.

The freezing of water gives information about the temperature and pressure of the environment.

Biological information is an encoded symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose with two or more possible responses.

Sorry, there are no 'expectations' or 'intended purpose' given the the DNA. There are sequences of nucleotides.

Computers convey information via electricity, the information is not electricity. The information is based in the software.

The information is the specific pattern of electrical or magnetic fields in the computer.

A living cell uses chemicals to convey information, the chemicals are not information.

Incorrect, as i have explained.

The information is stored and relayed from encoded bits of information in DNA in a long chain of these bits. They are in the exact right place in the chain so the cell functions properly.
The DNA sends the information to RNA which initiates the proper action.

The DNA doesn't 'send' any thing. Some proteins interact with the DNA, producing the messenger RNA. That RNA diffuses (not directed) across the nuclear membrane and interacts with a ribosome. That ribosome interacts with both the mRNA and the transfer RNA to link up amino acids connected to the tRNA.

Your 'exact right place in the chain' is simply saying that the end proteins do some reactions in the cell that keep it alive (i.e, doing certain reactions of metabolism).

The cell cannot function without RNA, yet the RNA is made by the cells DNA, The DNA must be copied from another cells DNA

The RNA is NOT made *just* by the DNA. It is made by the interaction of DNA and proteins called transcriptases. This is a chemical process.

But, we *know* that RNA can self-catalyze its own formation in certain circumstances relevant to abiogenesis. this breaks the cycle since RNA can stand as a genetic agent as well as being an active agent.

The evolving chemical reaction supporters have primarily adopted the concept of the RNA world, simply put, this idea envisions chemicals evolving through extremely complicated stages by reaction to the point where RNA is made, which somehow develops DNA

" It's nice to talk about self replicating DNA arising, in a soupy sea but in modern cells this replication requires suitable enzymes. The link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA on a DNA template. ribosomes, enzymes to activate amino acids and transfer RNA molecules. How, in the absence of the final ,enzyme could selection act upon upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it ? It is as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment" Frank B. Salisbury " Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution" American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 ( September, 1971). I have used this quotation because in the intervening 48 years there have been no substantial "ways out of this dilemma" found.

That's the whole point of the RNA world. We *know* that RNA can self-assemble. We also know it can catalyze relevant biological reactions. We know it is central to the DNA->RNA->protein cycle.

This is why the whole system does NOT have to come into existence all at once: most of the heavy lifting can be done by RNA alone.

 

[tas8831]

... they have DNA, the dreaded code of information that is your BIGGEST nightmare come true, lol.

What does the bolded part actually mean?

 

[ecco]

God could reach down and create a new continent, yet the atheist worshippers of science would say it was the result of natural causes.

Genesis says there was a worldwide flood that covered the highest mountains caused by God. Back then He used rain and upspringing wells.

I guess He could make another worldwide flood by plopping a new continent in the middle of some ocean somewhere and causing 5 mile high tsunamis.

There are two problems...

1. God already said He wouldn't flood the whole earth again.
2. However, if He did do this, I'd hardly have enough time to get on this forum and tell you that you were right.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, in fact there is a vast amount of research supporting the claim. The literature is rife with it. It is proven by all of the experiments and failed hypotheses which have NOT produced information by chemical reaction.

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

Yes it has happened on the planet Earth. No evidence yet on other planets but no reason to believe it could not happen somewhere else. Can you give one example of testable evidence that there is a Creator? Start with the best one you know to understand what evidence you are speaking of.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I made a statement regarding abiogenesis and intelligent design, i'e. the intelligent design of science.

I made no statement re intelligent design by God

So you don't believe that ID was done by a god?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If i remember correctly, i think the video said they wer not permitted to repeal. But my memory may be cloudy on that.




Hes trying to make his case to the most relavent people he possibly can. I know he appeared on the news and debate platforms debating with naturalists who are PHD scientists.

Everyone else, ill reply to your posts soon. I got a mountain of backlog of posts, its hard to keep up.

He needs to make his case in the scientific journals, where every other scientist presents evidence and makes their case.

 

[Bear Wild]

God could reach down and create a new continent, yet the atheist worshippers of science would say it was the result of natural causes.

If a god or goddess created a new continent instantly as evidence of their power then I think you would find that most scientists would take notice. If a continent forms over millions of years there is no need for a god to explain since that is predicted with natural forces.

 

[tas8831]

If a living organism is produced in a lab after over a century of work, a lab with the most up to date equipment, by researcher/s with the highest level of education, isn´t that intelligent design ?

It certainly would not be representative of chance combinations of chemicals, in an environment not clearly understood.

Therein lies the rub.

Creationists like to ask if life has been created in a lab, then caution that if this happens, it is really design.

This is not a new tactic - the first iteration of this that I am personally aware of is in Randy Wysong's "The Creation Controversy" which came out in the early 1970s. One of the first creationist books I read. He, oddly, believed that life HAD been created in a lab, but he dismissed it as having to have been the product of "KNOW-HOW" (caps in original).

A pretty lame tactic, if you ask me.

 

[tas8831]

Hes trying to make his case to the most relavent people he possibly can.

Other creationists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Im certainly not aware of that. From speaches ive heard stephen make they want the controversy taught. Where did you hear the oposite?



He did do this. But due to the strong bias, he can only acheive so much.



Stephen in his speaches addressed this question. He said all great ideas in the past went through the fire of resistence before being accepted.

Darwin published his ideas, despite the strong bias that existed against them. His ideas won out over time because they were supported by EVIDENCE that emerged from multiple other fields of science.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Have you not read about Kitzmiller v Dover.

You should do, as a matter of urgency, it's even on YouTube

(video)

Even if this were anti-ID, they still managed to use Christian origin terms like "Judgement Day."

To me, William Lane Craig is always a good source for clear logic, having watched him pick apart one of Hawking's books. Here.

He event has thirty minutes to spare for questions!

Let's see what he has to say about intelligent design. He says it could be viable, but he doesn't need it to be true.

But he does say that many of the critics of ID tend to caricature design. He also says that most ID types might agree in evolution, and might agree in common evolutionary ancestry. What they don't agree with is "Darwinism" or Darwin's specific theory of random selection. Also that complexity is not the only model of design (crappy car and Mercedes are both designed). Nor is there any requirement that the designer be good or even all-powerful.