Audie
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.
Optimistic.... as in best case scenario?
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!
I guess your basic creo thinks that scientists
and others operate on the same dim level of
thought, study and understanding as they.
I guess your basic creo thinks that scientists
and others operate on the same dim level of
thought, study and understanding as they.
Could anybody provide a summary of all of the "reasonable facts" creationists have presented in this thread, so far?
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.
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}
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"
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
- Francqui Prize (1960)
- E. B. Wilson Medal (1989)
Fields
Institutions
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}
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"
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?
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.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}
Yes... as I said, you haven't given me any evidence that I am wrong.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....!
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.Yes... as I said, you haven't given me any evidence that I am wrong.
Kinda hard to do when your position is rooted in your own incredulity. Basically, you changing your own mind would be the only thing that would indicate that your position is wrong.Yes... as I said, you haven't given me any evidence that I am wrong.
Yes... as I said, you haven't given me any evidence that I am wrong.
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"
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.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.