Jollybear
Hey
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?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you have no objective evidence for a god. All you have is subjective evidence from your mind that a god exist.
Yes.
Reproduction.
Except DNA doesn't "look like a code of instructions".
Is DNA a code of instructions, yes or no?
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.I don't know if DNA is a code.
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?
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?
Which paper about ID creationism did Meyer submit?
Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.
I don't know if DNA is a code.
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.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.
Ok, and i can fix my post or i can add another point to my post. Still comes from my mind.
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.
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.
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.
Because it's helpful to translate a complex, biological concept into a form that humans find easier to understand and relate to.It dont look like a code, why is it called a code of instructions then?
Yup.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.
I am discussing abiogenesis to show that it is a scientific impossibility.
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
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
I'm sure you did - let's see you analysis.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.
This isn't the issue. The issue is, how does all of the work being done effect the idea 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.There are seven primary hypotheses extant on the subject of abiogenesis.
How does this research advance any of the seven hypotheses, and the critical question, how far ?
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!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.
And that is my point. I have read scientists on abiogenesis till I am sick to death of it.
A lame attempt at well poisoning, maybe?Atheist scientists.
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.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.
Most ironic...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.
Right...I know nothing about ICR, I have never read anything from them or gone to their site.
Right... Creationists have written books purporting to 'prove' evolution false by doing what you are doing. Yeah... didn't work for them, either.I don´t quote creationist scientists, it is an much stronger case to quote those who believe like you.
See above, but again, cool well poisoning.I sure am glad that no atheist scientist has ever lied and been censured for bogus science and research. ( LOL )
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.
Yes, the idea that information and DNA can be chemically created is testable. However, it has never happened
Wow, you sound like an expert!This is a bit of misinformation regarding biological information.
Tell us more!Biological information is not simply the result of natural chemical reaction.
Oh, I see - so by 'communicating the information to RNA' you actually mean that the properties of the chemicals involved allow for interactions.Chemical reaction is the method by which the DNA communicates the information to RNA which activates the proteins which cause the cell to respond.
WOW - CAPS. You MUST be right.There is absolutely no research that has demonstrated the chemical process that would create and organize information in long strands of coded DNA, NONE.
Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design?
Its about not indoctrinating.
they're about ID if they're posing problems to evolution.