Creationism = Dark Ages?

[Handrail_Screw]

Did you realize that there are codes within codes in DNA? For example, if you take a length of DNA which produces a significant result in the cell, and offset the starting point for the replication by 1 “byte”, then sometimes it produces ANOTHER different but significant result. This is not something that comes together as a working unit without some sort of intelligent guidance.

Read the book.

Could you stop asking me to read your silly book, go do a post grad. You will then learn the power of science and understand why evolution is as much of a fact as the earth is round.

I’m not interested in pseudo science, and the beauty of perr review is i don’t need to see the book, as everyone knows ID is just creationism which is not science.

 

[ricmat]

I wasn’t aware a simple protein was an example of a self replicating molecule. It seems you lack a basic understanding of abiogenesis, i suggest next time you read a book that you read a real science book instead of the creationist pseudo-science.

I was up the night before at 1:30am taking my daughter to the airport, and I wrote in haste. You are correct, a protein is not a self replicating molecule.

So do what I suggested. Calculate the odds of coming up with a self replicating module - pick even the simplest one.

So you know that the book I recommended is pseudo-science without reading it. Amazing. Truly an open mind and the way science should be done, and discussed.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

Can you provide a peer reviewed, scientific reference that supports this claim?

Peace,
Ed

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=abiogenesis&hl=en

fill your boots…

 

[ricmat]

You do realise that scientist have recreated RNA? Oh and please don’t say that the proves intelligence is needed, for that would just make you look more uneducated in science than you already do.

No I wasn’t aware that scientists have created RNA (from basic elements, not already pre-existing, self replicating material).

Please provide a link or reference to that.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

That is exactly the over simplified calculation I expect to find- they make assumptions they shouldn’t, and do not state them. For example “the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule”, when they mean “a particular sequence of amino acids.” Every particular sequence is very unlikely- but just because the cells we see today happen to have developed a particular way does not mean that was the only possible outcome. Let’s say I flip a fair coin a million times and get a particular outcome. That particular outcome had exactly a 1/2^1000000 chance of occurring. Can I therefore conclude that an intelligent force guided the coin, since the odds of the given outcome are nil?

I admit, the odds of things turning out the exact way they are now are slim- if it was all truly random, then I doubt if we rewound and started over then I would still be typing this particular message at this exact point in time.

Also, the odds they compute are more along the lines of “what are the odds of any given outcome, given that all outcomes are equally likely.” They can not make any meaningful assumptions with respect to the probability of individual outcomes without knowledge conditions of the early Earth.

Exactly,

this is very basic stuff but you can’t run stats like those suggested by creationsits backwords.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

I was up the night before at 1:30am taking my daughter to the airport, and I wrote in haste. You are correct, a protein is not a self replicating molecule.

So do what I suggested. Calculate the odds of coming up with a self replicating module - pick even the simplest one.

So you know that the book I recommended is pseudo-science without reading it. Amazing. Truly an open mind and the way science should be done, and discussed.

I know becuase i trust peer review. I trust peer review based it’s proven results.

 

[ricmat]

Could you stop asking me to read your silly book, go do a post grad. You will then learn the power of science and understand why evolution is as much of a fact as the earth is round.

I’m not interested in pseudo science, and the beauty of perr review is i don’t need to see the book, as everyone knows ID is just creationism which is not science.

There are several peer reviewed articles referenced in the book, and at the Discovery.org web sites I provided links to.

You are apparently confusing evolution and abiogenesis. We were talking about abiogenesis, and you brought evolution into the picture. As I mentioned previously, the book I’m recommending does not go into evolution in detail and rather it goes more into the abiogenesis issue. Personally, I think that evolution by random processes can explain much - but not all - of the “single cell” to complex life form process.

I understand the power of science, thank you. I actually used science everyday for 35 years or so to design electronic modules and write software. That actually worked according to my theories of operation, which were written before the fact.

Tell me, have you ever used science to actually DO something?

Or do you theorize on paper, and never have any actual results to show for it?

I’m curious.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

No I wasn’t aware that scientists have created RNA (from basic elements, not already pre-existing, self replicating material).

Please provide a link or reference to that.

sciencenews.net.au/scientists-create-artificial-selfreplicating-rna/

 

[prodigalson12]

But wait, handrail screw knows all about science, we should all stand in awe of his powerful mind, his total and complete insight into how all things were created through him and how we should just bow down to his God, the world of science. Let’s take it further in this reasoning, since there is no God, we don’t have to worry about the repercusions of our actions, so let’s be sure to move the human race forward by eliminating undesirables from our midths. We have an oil crisis as well, I think since we are on a godless tangent here, we should take over all countries that have resources we desire, why not, we have the power to do so. Also, we have countless prisoners which will make a good target for medical experiements, afterall, the research will help others so it’s justified. Then wait, we have these kookoo Christian based books, they should be burned, they aren’t true science.

Tell us what to do next all powerful handrail. I thank you so much for saving all of us, praise be your name…we are just so ignorant, we need your guidance and all powerful wisdom, we hope some day we become as smart as you, knowing all there is to know about all things…

 

[ricmat]

I know becuase i trust peer review. I trust peer review based it’s proven results.

You should study up on the history of peer review, and how effective it is. Peer review benefits those who have vested interests in the status quo.

But despite that, as I mentioned, there are several peer reviewed ID articles which you could read if you wished. So do you trust peer review, or not?

 

[ricmat]

sciencenews.net.au/scientists-create-artificial-selfreplicating-rna/

Yes, the title of the article was very impressive. But this is hardly proof of anything.

The book goes into MUCH more detail even on this particular issue.

But here are some excerpts from the article. LOL.

Joyce’s chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes, much like the ones we have in our bodies, but they don’t behave anything like those in living creatures.

“More fundamentally, to mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team’s RNA molecule. “It doesn’t have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution.””

 

[Handrail_Screw]

There are several peer reviewed articles referenced in the book, and at the Discovery.org web sites I provided links to.

You are apparently confusing evolution and abiogenesis. We were talking about abiogenesis, and you brought evolution into the picture. As I mentioned previously, the book I’m recommending does not go into evolution in detail and rather it goes more into the abiogenesis issue. Personally, I think that evolution by random processes can explain much - but not all - of the “single cell” to complex life form process.

I understand the power of science, thank you. I actually used science everyday for 35 years or so to design electronic modules and write software. That actually worked according to my theories of operation, which were written before the fact.

Tell me, have you ever used science to actually DO something?

Or do you theorize on paper, and never have any actual results to show for it?

I’m curious.

I am not confusing evolution and abiogenesis thank you.

I am currently doing a post grad, i am using a develop and test method for my project. I am not trying to be rude, but the fact is people are not actually taught how to “do” science until after degree level.

It’s great to get a degree as it gives one a basic knowledge in a field, however there is a big different between that and carrying out real reseach. Once one understands how this is a achieved it becomes obvious why all the great theories (like evolution) are accepted fact. It does matter what area yours taking about, the method is the same, and it works.

We did evolve, this is fact.

 

[a_priori]

With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses…

Or if you prefer Greek to Latin, “a generation of agnostics…” Just kidding…

 

[Handrail_Screw]

Yes, the title of the article was very impressive. But this is hardly proof of anything.

The book goes into MUCH more detail even on this particular issue.

But here are some excerpts from the article. LOL.

Joyce’s chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes, much like the ones we have in our bodies, but they don’t behave anything like those in living creatures.

“More fundamentally, to mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team’s RNA molecule. “It doesn’t have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution.””

Ah so its god of the gaps?

Ok instead of this why don’t we discuss the evidence for evolution?

 

[ricmat]

We did evolve, this is fact.

That is quite an arrogant statement. The best-in-the-world evolutionists do not even go so far as to say that with certainty. They might say that in their opinions, the TOE has the most explanatory power of the available theories on the subject. That would be a reasonable contention (although I would personally disagree with it).

Certainly you understand that evolutionary science is based on circumstantial evidence, gathered well after the fact. There was no actual observer to watch it happen. There are different ways to interpret the data (although as I said, you might believe that TOE is the best explanation).

You have no clear picture of how A evolved to B which evolved to C. DNA mutations are the working mechanism of the TOE. Can you even say, with certainty, that e.g. “Lucy” had DNA version A, which evolved to B and C and D with the following sequence of mutations which result in modern man? No, you can’t. You have no DNA. You have no proof of your theory. You have circumstantial evidence. Which can be explained in many ways.

Your hubris is quite impressive. But unfortunately, hubris is not good for scientific inquiry. Neither is it good for your soul.

 

[buffalo]

I am not confusing evolution and abiogenesis thank you.

I am currently doing a post grad, i am using a develop and test method for my project. I am not trying to be rude, but the fact is people are not actually taught how to “do” science until after degree level.

It’s great to get a degree as it gives one a basic knowledge in a field, however there is a big different between that and carrying out real reseach. Once one understands how this is a achieved it becomes obvious why all the great theories (like evolution) are accepted fact. It does matter what area yours taking about, the method is the same, and it works.

We did evolve, this is fact.

Hilarious!:whacky:

 

[Handrail_Screw]

That is quite an arrogant statement. The best-in-the-world evolutionists do not even go so far as to say that with certainty. They might say that in their opinions, the TOE has the most explanatory power of the available theories on the subject. That would be a reasonable contention (although I would personally disagree with it).

Certainly you understand that evolutionary science is based on circumstantial evidence, gathered well after the fact. There was no actual observer to watch it happen. There are different ways to interpret the data (although as I said, you might believe that TOE is the best explanation).

You have no clear picture of how A evolved to B which evolved to C. DNA mutations are the working mechanism of the TOE. Can you even say, with certainty, that e.g. “Lucy” had DNA version A, which evolved to B and C and D with the following sequence of mutations which result in modern man? No, you can’t. You have no DNA. You have no proof of your theory. You have circumstantial evidence. Which can be explained in many ways.

Your hubris is quite impressive. But unfortunately, hubris is not good for scientific inquiry. Neither is it good for your soul.

You might want to carry out a little research, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Also I’m not so sure what you mean by DNA version A? The DNA does not evolve into a new version of DNA.

Oh and evolution is both a fact and a theory. However most people don’t even know what the word theory means in regard to science. So i tend to stay away from it, it just confuses the uneducated (I’m not referring to you).

I’m curious does anyone here that has a degree or above in a science deny evolution?

 

[Handrail_Screw]

Hilarious!:whacky:

Well I’m sure your academic credentials are going to overwhelm me. So much so i might reject the combined knowledge the greatest minds at every seat of learning in the world for the last 150 years.

Then again maybe not. Call me whacky but I’m of the opinion one should actually learn something about a subject (in this case science) before the can be taken seriously.

It no coincidence that ID is not taken seriously by the academic community, ID is NOT science.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I have run across the comment that if Intelligent Design/Creation proponents win their chance to return to public schools, the Dark Ages will follow. In some undefined way, teaching evolutionary theory somehow propels science, while teaching ID/Creation would bring the country to a grinding halt scientifically. In an article first published in 1981, Isaac Asimov writes a critique of Creationism, and with the last two paragraphs, outlines what he thinks will happen.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html

My view is that he is not thinking clearly and has forgotten the history of science, especially the 1800s when much of the groundwork for modern science was laid.

Peace,
ED

Most scientific research has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. When researchers are developing new drugs, working out ways to explore distant planets, testing new technical products, trying to advance mathematics or physics, the techniques they use have nothing to do with either Theory of Creationism or Evolution.

Asimov was a bit arrogant in some ways. Just because he was a brilliant populariser of science through his SF (which is what his influence boiled down to), with the usual distorted understanding of the Dark Ages and the Galileo affair, he thought science was the measure of all things. He failed of course to see the Dark Ages had more to do with the result of barbarian invasions, Moslem invasions, Viking invasions, Genghis Khan, and the Black Death than Church recalcitrance.

Provided Creationism was taught from a scientific perspective, with arguments shown for and against it with evidence to boot, and not enforced by fundamentalist perspectives, then science in America would be just as vibrant as it is now, perhaps even more so.

 

[edwest2]

Most scientific research has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. When researchers are developing new drugs, working out ways to explore distant planets, testing new technical products, trying to advance mathematics or physics, the techniques they use have nothing to do with either Theory of Creationism or Evolution.

Asimov was a bit arrogant in some ways. Just because he was a brilliant populariser of science through his SF (which is what his influence boiled down to), with the usual distorted understanding of the Dark Ages and the Galileo affair, he thought science was the measure of all things. He failed of course to see the Dark Ages had more to do with the result of barbarian invasions, Moslem invasions, Viking invasions, Genghis Khan, and the Black Death than Church recalcitrance.

Provided Creationism was taught from a scientific perspective, with arguments shown for and against it with evidence to boot, and not enforced by fundamentalist perspectives, then science in America would be just as vibrant as it is now, perhaps even more so.

I agree with your first sentence. It appears that evolutionary theory has no identified practical scientific use.

Doctor Asmov is only one example. Those protesting outside of the Creation Museum were only a bit less obvious about the danger opening such a place would create. Their only concern was that people would go in, believe what they saw and attempt to put it into schools. One Rally for Reason participant simply said, “I’ll sue.” Not much of a critique but such is the solution for some.

“Fundamentalist” is a bad word to use since it is identifyed with physical harm today. America would be aided by recognizing the observable fact that the complex code in DNA could not arise on its own and that life does not spring from non-life. However, the current Dictatorship of Relativism coupled with a Culture of Death prefers a Dictatorship of Science. As history shows, all human enterprises are subject to corruption. Today, science is the blunt weapon being used against Christians who simply disagree. The word disagree has been replaced by ignorance. If you disagree with the current trends you are simply ignorant and education will give you what you lack. But without absolutes and with a ‘death is the answer’ motto, little dialogue can be expected. It explains the constant, desperate attempts here to get those who disagree to just ‘say yes to evolution,’ textbook evolution. It’s a fact, you are an animal, and nothing happens after you die.

It is a fact that a small group of leading men can impose a worldview on all those who pass through their institutions. That is what is happening to science today.

Peace,
Ed