R
ricmat
Guest
I don’t know. Do you?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Believe me, if the materialists are interested in what it has to say they will get their hands on it any way they can. They simply are better knocking it down without reading it with the typical rhetoric.
I believe I just recently referenced a paper that shows the odds in one of these threads complete with all the math.
R
ricmat
Guest
So where are the critiques right now, now that the book is available? For those with valid counter-arguments, there is no “window of opportunity” outside of which they will be unable to respond. Why don’t they respond now, instead of complaining about possible motives that they didn’t get their free books. Is the only motive of a possible critique to prevent further sales of the book? How strange.
But if that’s not the case, and they just want to set the record straight, RTFB!!!
T
tjm190
Guest
Please reproduce it- this could be interesting.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
I’ve tried to be as clear as I can. In post #29 I wrote, “All my comments (as opposed to the blog I quoted) have strictly related to the sleazy tactics of the Discovery Institute.” (Emphasis added now.)
Additionally, the topic of this thread is about the lack of scientific reviews of Signature in the Cell, not the content of Signature in the Cell itself.
Sorry for any confusion.
R
reggieM
Guest
I appreciate the clarification.
As for the lack of scientific reviews, I think this book is opposed in principle by virtually all scientific-atheists (with a few noble exceptions) - and therefore the majority of the scientific establishment. There has been hostility towards the Discovery Institute from the very same sources for the past 10 years also.
It’s like the case where Richard Dawkins refused to debate Stephen Meyer. He did not want to give an ID scholar any credibility, so he believes it’s better to ignore him.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
But surely, Reggie, the whole business with the global warming scientists has demonstrated that reputable scientists would never use such tactics…
R
ricmat
Guest
Random mutations destroy rather than create. A decline in the complexity of DNA.…the whole business with the global warming scientists has demonstrated that reputable scientists would never use such tactics…
The darwinists can use the same “hide the decline” motto as the global warming fraud deniers.
G
grannymh
Guest
Do odds depend on (name removed by moderator)ut???
How about checking the 151 page book,
Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God
by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker
ISBN: 978-1-931018-48-7
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you, ricmat,
I’ve been posting that the bottleneck theory is non-informative about the point of origin of the fully complete human being. My sources of information are the two papers Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origin, and The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins by Francisco J. Ayala. Ayala and others on CAF claim that the genetic bottleneck theory precludes the possibility of two sole parents of the human race.
I would like to know if Signature in the Cell has genetic information which would counter Ayala’s claims.
The following interchange is a sample of what is being discussed on CAF.
As far back as January, 2009, the following was posted in the thread “Evolution: A Catholic Solution?” in Apologetics. (Post 273) Thread is now closed due to post limit.
The reply was post 327.
Please avoid the reference to eight Noachians. At this point, I only want to demonstrate the literal existence of Adam and Eve or Mr. and Mrs. John Doe or whatever names one chooses for the real two parents of the human species.
If *Signature of the Cell *successfully counters the two main points in post 327 regarding the possibility of Adam and Eve, then it is totally understandable why materialist Darwinists would not want to read the book.
In my opinion the following points are important.
Christmas blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
G
grannymh
Guest
Clarification: Post 327, mentioned in the above post 51, was written by an evolutionist.
Christmas blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the toils of the journey.
K
karoleck
Guest
Dear Grannymh,I have been thinking about Darwinists,the therory of evolution and those who sort of try to put God into Darwins’ therory.I believe that Darwin wanted from the start to put God out of creation, as written in The Bible;the account of the first man & woman --Adam and Eve,the story of the flood etc.I believe that Bible Christians who support that God created the world and the wonderful scientific discoveries on the complexity of cells have a head start in this debate.You were always right in your fundament beliefs of the Biblical account of creation-at least this time around! Even Our Lord Jesus,telling his followers that every hair on our head is known by God the Father, seems an exaggeration,until the modern science of cell DNA confirms that one piece of a strand of hair, has Gods’creative individual signature!
I believe that the time of Darwinism is coming to a close,why? because the science is not there,Darwin believed that simple cells,evolved into complex things–modern cell discoveries disproves this first premise of his.(as the song of my wasted youth used to go “'The simple things you see are all complicated–”!) In years to come,all this therory of evolution will be put to bed,similar to the passionate debates about our solar system regarding the Sun revolving around the Earth or that the world was flat that “science” taught our hundred years ago.
Also that the Atom could not be split as it was the smallest particle(until 1930something) !!Oh yes,they were wrong!
What I see as a stumbling block for Catholics ( of which through the mercy of God I belong to) is that for about 100 years The Church has accepted that a Catholic can believe in Theistic Evolution, if they like and still remain a Catholic,basically that God sort of made one man and one woman from which the human race started from a lower animal (using a good imagination— of puting a human soul-intellect and will, into one ape and apess!, so here we are- very clever to think that!!)So over the years in the Catholic School System,this concept was given as a viable "scientific"alternative to the literal biblical account of creation.I certainly was given this option in my religion class—(I personally never believed in evolution)-well catholics don’t want to be against science do they-- and Darwinists proved that science beyond doubt ,as it now being taught as a fact.To me it is like saying that I can believe in a flat earth and still be a catholic–well and good but it is not a reality!!
So in the Catholic Church we have four generations of scientists, Priests,Religious,teachers etc,imbueded with an evolutionary mind set and re-enforced in this teaching by the secular ,materialistic and aethiestic world around them.So suddenly they are told THE SCIENCE IS NOT THERE,it is like telling little children that Santa is not real–no cannot be–the child would say and will hang onto this fact until reality confirms this ,like finding the presents in mums’ hiding place.So this is why Darwinists are the same as little children.One posting I read once said, well there has to be a separation between Darwinistic therories and Theistic Evolution(put God in the picture)–this is where the problem lies.The same statement cannot be made of the Teachings of Carl Marks(Communist Manifesto), whose therories are Darwinian based-a pagan anthropological view of man and its’“children” that it sporned,some priests tried to do it in South America which was called Liberation Theology–totally evil.Yet for some reason a lot of people have swallowed the premise that one can adopt a pagan view of man under the guise of "science "and squeeze God in there.The final point I wish to make is that many catholic scientists are at the forefront of Creation or Intelligent Design and as well as a lot of thinking followers in my church.But I would say that at the moment our voices are not being heard generally, but truth always has the final say.The Bible not only tells of the creation of the world , but through the Book of Revelation it tells of the end times,Darwinists are scared to read this—man made global warming is their end times therory!!“When I see The Heavens–and all you made–what is man that you keep him in mind----yet you have made him a little less than a god–with glory and honour You have crowned him”
I believe that the time of Darwinism is coming to a close,why? because the science is not there,Darwin believed that simple cells,evolved into complex things–modern cell discoveries disproves this first premise of his.(as the song of my wasted youth used to go “'The simple things you see are all complicated–”!) In years to come,all this therory of evolution will be put to bed,similar to the passionate debates about our solar system regarding the Sun revolving around the Earth or that the world was flat that “science” taught our hundred years ago.
Also that the Atom could not be split as it was the smallest particle(until 1930something) !!Oh yes,they were wrong!
What I see as a stumbling block for Catholics ( of which through the mercy of God I belong to) is that for about 100 years The Church has accepted that a Catholic can believe in Theistic Evolution, if they like and still remain a Catholic,basically that God sort of made one man and one woman from which the human race started from a lower animal (using a good imagination— of puting a human soul-intellect and will, into one ape and apess!, so here we are- very clever to think that!!)So over the years in the Catholic School System,this concept was given as a viable "scientific"alternative to the literal biblical account of creation.I certainly was given this option in my religion class—(I personally never believed in evolution)-well catholics don’t want to be against science do they-- and Darwinists proved that science beyond doubt ,as it now being taught as a fact.To me it is like saying that I can believe in a flat earth and still be a catholic–well and good but it is not a reality!!
So in the Catholic Church we have four generations of scientists, Priests,Religious,teachers etc,imbueded with an evolutionary mind set and re-enforced in this teaching by the secular ,materialistic and aethiestic world around them.So suddenly they are told THE SCIENCE IS NOT THERE,it is like telling little children that Santa is not real–no cannot be–the child would say and will hang onto this fact until reality confirms this ,like finding the presents in mums’ hiding place.So this is why Darwinists are the same as little children.One posting I read once said, well there has to be a separation between Darwinistic therories and Theistic Evolution(put God in the picture)–this is where the problem lies.The same statement cannot be made of the Teachings of Carl Marks(Communist Manifesto), whose therories are Darwinian based-a pagan anthropological view of man and its’“children” that it sporned,some priests tried to do it in South America which was called Liberation Theology–totally evil.Yet for some reason a lot of people have swallowed the premise that one can adopt a pagan view of man under the guise of "science "and squeeze God in there.The final point I wish to make is that many catholic scientists are at the forefront of Creation or Intelligent Design and as well as a lot of thinking followers in my church.But I would say that at the moment our voices are not being heard generally, but truth always has the final say.The Bible not only tells of the creation of the world , but through the Book of Revelation it tells of the end times,Darwinists are scared to read this—man made global warming is their end times therory!!“When I see The Heavens–and all you made–what is man that you keep him in mind----yet you have made him a little less than a god–with glory and honour You have crowned him”
R
ricmat
Guest
You can ask your library to obtain it. They do those sorts of things you know.
Actually, the calculations are quite thorough but refer to footnotes of previously published articles.
In addition to the thread which holds the book together ("Signature in the Cell), the book provides a good historical overview (unbiased) regarding the events leading up to Darwin, and beyond him. In terms of how life originated and evolved. It also offers a good description of the different types of scientific exploration - e.g. some require predictability of future events, some look at past events and try to reconstruct them. There are a few chapters on information & specified information, And a lot of the book has to do with exactly what DNA is, what RNA is, what amino acids are, etc. There is a chapter or 2 on “chemical evolution”.
In addition, there is an appendix titled “Some predictions of Intelligent Design”, and another appendix which is somewhat off topic titled “Multiverse Cosmology and the Origin of Life.”
Frankly, I don’t think you would find anything in the book objectionable. I think the word “God” appears only a few times - probably less than Darwin mentioned it in Origin of Species.
This is a science book.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
It clearly can’t.
I have been educating myself (if it can be called that) on evolution and was appalled at what I learned. To think, this **** is being pushed in schools, but prayer is not allowed.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Thanks for contributing to this discussion. Your insight is invaluable.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
No problem
L
Leela
Guest
I’ve also enjoyed listening in on a discussion with so many people who claim to know as much about evolutionary biology and climatology as any scientist in their respective fields. It is about time that someone put those arrogant scientists in their place. Just because they have spent their careers reading all the technical journals on a subject doesn’t mean that those of us who have read a book written for a popular audience don’t have an opinion too. It’s all just opinion, right? Those liberal moral relativists have really missed the boat. It’s is much more convenient to be intellectual relativists. Dumb people are just as smart as smart people! The intelligencia must be put in the service of the state or religious dogma or whatever brand of totalitarianism we want. Who are these scientists to deny what we believe so faithfully to be true? Don’t give up. If we really really really believe hard enough that evolutionary theory is false, then it just must be false. Those scientists need to start consulting the Bible when doing their taxonomies. They should start by dividing animals into two groups–clean and unclean–and go from there.
Regards,
Thumper
T
tjm190
Guest
That’s the odds of the current outcome- if our current protein make up is the ONLY one possible for life, then the article would have a good point.
T
tjm190
Guest
Are the articles online? To predict the odds of the chemical compounds necessary to form life occurring in nature, you would have to-
A. Discover the rate at which similar compounds were forming
B. Discover the various types of compounds that were forming
C. Discern the frequencies of these various compounds
D. Determine which compounds were suitable for life.
E. Fun and exciting calculations ensue.
The biggest failure of the ID side is generally at step D- they will claim “the odds of these forming is soooooo low, so something unnatural must have occurred” however, they do not even attempt to prove that life would not have manifested had the compound in question had not arisen.
- Status