• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I guess your basic creo thinks that scientists
and others operate on the same dim level of
thought, study and understanding as they.

Sad to say but that seriously seems to be the case. They will claim that evolution cannot be tested, even though people can cite endless tests that would refute evolution and of course the laughable "there is no scientific evidence for evolution". By the way, I have noticed the same behavior from many climate deniers. They have no idea how to measure the temperature of the Earth so they assume that no scientist can do this either.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Could anybody provide a summary of all of the "reasonable facts" creationists have presented in this thread, so far?

Then again, no-one has really given me any "reasonable facts" that says I'm wrong.

IMV it just is too complex to be "random". Intelligent Design is still the best hypothesis.

IBM writes:

“To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.” {November 2001, IBM Research News October 1, 2001}

“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” {IBM100 - Blue Gene}
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Who gave cells the understanding?

The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If it kept making more and more copies of any given protein, it would completely use up some of its raw materials. Also, if there were even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would soon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is and must be turned on and off at just the right moments. {Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The story of genes and genetic engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 47-53}

Even the statement of "genetic engineering" agrees with "intelligent design"
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
De Duve,
“In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins.”{Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430}

Where does information come from?


Christian René Marie Joseph, Viscount de Duve (2 October 1917 – 4 May 2013) was a Nobel Prize-winning English-born Belgiancytologist and biochemist.


Christian René Marie Joseph de Duve

Known for Cell organelles

Awards
Scientific career
Fields

Institutions
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sad to say but that seriously seems to be the case. They will claim that evolution cannot be tested, even though people can cite endless tests that would refute evolution and of course the laughable "there is no scientific evidence for evolution". By the way, I have noticed the same behavior from many climate deniers. They have no idea how to measure the temperature of the Earth so they assume that no scientist can do this either.

A current example is with our perennial
flash froze mammoth discussion.

I guess....he thinks he has not merely
thought as deeply and studied as hard
as any, but, actually knows more than
the world scientific community.

The mammoths are all kind of rotten, and
mostly heavily scavenged?

Facile explanation-of course, they are thawing out
and foxes etc come chew on them.

No notice taken of the fact that when they
are dug out of permafrost by researchers,
they are already stinking and chewed on.

Maybe it is these guys?

Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer - Wikipedia
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Then again, no-one has really given me any "reasonable facts" that says I'm wrong.

IMV it just is too complex to be "random". Intelligent Design is still the best hypothesis.

IBM writes:

“To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.” {November 2001, IBM Research News October 1, 2001}

“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” {IBM100 - Blue Gene}


Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy. "too complex to be random"

Also: Straw Man logical fallacy: Evolution is not random, it's selected.

Also: False Dichotomy Logical fallacy: "I believe evolution is wrong--therefore god"

Also: False claims-- assumes it's possible to calculate the odds, but has no basis for such a claim.

Finally? Quoting a literal 20 year old bit? Is so out of date it's laughable. May as well complain about Windows 95....!
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Who gave cells the understanding?

The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If it kept making more and more copies of any given protein, it would completely use up some of its raw materials. Also, if there were even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would soon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is and must be turned on and off at just the right moments. {Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The story of genes and genetic engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 47-53}

Even the statement of "genetic engineering" agrees with "intelligent design"

False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy: if evolution is wrong, it MUST be god

Argument from personal incredulity Logical Fallacy: you don't understand things, therefore "god".
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
De Duve,
“In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins.”{Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430}

Where does information come from?


Christian René Marie Joseph, Viscount de Duve (2 October 1917 – 4 May 2013) was a Nobel Prize-winning English-born Belgiancytologist and biochemist.


Christian René Marie Joseph de Duve

Known for Cell organelles

Awards

Scientific career
Fields


Institutions


Argument From Ignorance Logical Fallacy.

False Claim too-- "where does information come from"

I can destroy the entire post above? With one example: Ice crystals.

*BOOM*
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Then again, no-one has really given me any "reasonable facts" that says I'm wrong.

IMV it just is too complex to be "random". Intelligent Design is still the best hypothesis.

IBM writes:

“To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.” {November 2001, IBM Research News October 1, 2001}

“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” {IBM100 - Blue Gene}

And yet, those proteins *spontaneously* fold into the correct form. They do this because of the ways the individual amino acids interact with water. Some amino acids are repelled by water and others are attracted to it. Those that are repelled tend to get folded into the center of the proteins.

This requires no intelligence at all: it is simply a matter of the physics of how amino acids interact with water

Try again.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Who gave cells the understanding?

The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If it kept making more and more copies of any given protein, it would completely use up some of its raw materials. Also, if there were even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would soon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is and must be turned on and off at just the right moments. {Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The story of genes and genetic engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 47-53}

Even the statement of "genetic engineering" agrees with "intelligent design"

Nope. There are feedback mechanisms that will 'turn off' production of a protein when that protein becomes overly concentrated. But this is precisely the sort of feedback expected under natural selection.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
De Duve,
“In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins.”{Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430}

Where does information come from?

Simple answer: interaction of ancestors with the environment.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then again, no-one has really given me any "reasonable facts" that says I'm wrong.

IMV it just is too complex to be "random". Intelligent Design is still the best hypothesis.

IBM writes:

“To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.” {November 2001, IBM Research News October 1, 2001}

“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” {IBM100 - Blue Gene}
I see that you still do not understand the scientific method. No one has to "prove you wrong". For an idea to be taken seriously a person must find scientific evidence for it. And if you do not have a reasonable test for your concept you cannot claim to have any scientific evidence for your concept.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy. "too complex to be random"

Also: Straw Man logical fallacy: Evolution is not random, it's selected.

Also: False Dichotomy Logical fallacy: "I believe evolution is wrong--therefore god"

Also: False claims-- assumes it's possible to calculate the odds, but has no basis for such a claim.

Finally? Quoting a literal 20 year old bit? Is so out of date it's laughable. May as well complain about Windows 95....!
Yes... as I said, you haven't given me any evidence that I am wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes... as I said, you haven't given me any evidence that I am wrong.
Once again you do not seem to understand how work is done in the sciences. It is up to the person making a positive claim to provide evidence that he is right. Until you can support your claims your concepts are correctly treated as if they were wrong. There is no evidence that Pink Pixelated Pixies are not responsible for life either. If you are comfortable with your beliefs being on the same level as beliefs in Pink Pixealated Pixies that is fine with me.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The whole point of this thread is to see if there is any reliable evidence for creationism. So far the universal answer by creationists has been "No".
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Who gave cells the understanding?

The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If it kept making more and more copies of any given protein, it would completely use up some of its raw materials. Also, if there were even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would soon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is and must be turned on and off at just the right moments. {Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The story of genes and genetic engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 47-53}

Even the statement of "genetic engineering" agrees with "intelligent design"


Still no "more reasonable tests", I see, just the usual creationist quote mongering and topic changes and burden shifts.

Classic!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Once again you do not seem to understand how work is done in the sciences. It is up to the person making a positive claim to provide evidence that he is right. Until you can support your claims your concepts are correctly treated as if they were wrong. There is no evidence that Pink Pixelated Pixies are not responsible for life either. If you are comfortable with your beliefs being on the same level as beliefs in Pink Pixealated Pixies that is fine with me.
He is employing the Mike Behe gambit - knowing that actually looking into his own claims would be disastrous, he engages in burden shifting fallacies, requiring others to prove him wrong rather than presenting actual evidence that his is right.

Sad, but this is what they do. Even the professionals.
 
Top