Challenge to Creationists/IDers

[konradv]

Genetics: no friend of evolution
A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.

Don't JUST give us a cite. That's just as bad as posting without a cite. Most people aren't going to have the time to read the whole article, so at least give us a synopsis and your understanding of what the writer is saying.

 

[manifold]

Challenge to Creationists/IDers?

When I read this title I half expected the OP to ask them to solve for X in the following equation: 2 + X = 4


That would be challenging enough for a few creationists here.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me help you guys out here. When dealing with those who believe in something that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are dealing with faith. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven or disproven. So when arguing over faith there is no point or end to the debate. People believe or not based on faith, and there is no ammount of facts or evidence that will ever change their mind.

Then there are those who need facts and evidence to belive something to be true. Since there are none in a faith based arguement they cannot believe in something they can't prove. This is the very nature of faith, and why it is called faith. Faith cannot be proven or disproven.

When it comes to the creation of everything, you are dealing with faith on both sides. One side has probability on it's side as evidence, and the other says just believe, and offers a fantastical story by an unknonwn author as evidence. The real question is where do you want to put your faith? I prefer likelyhood and probability over blind faith. Yet I still might be wrong, and such is the nature of faith.

Does that mean you reject the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Because you just defined the belief in them as faith and stated that no one who believes in either of those will ever accept any factual evidence to the contrary. You obviously do not understand enough about science to opine on it in a cogent matter.

Dark energy and matter aren't matters of faith, but theory. Observed SCIENTIFIC facts leading to the assembling of a story linking them together becomes a theory. That's totally dofferent than saying that evolution was guided by something other than the Laws of Chemistry and Physics that we can't see or measure. THAT'S FAITH. Using the word in the context of science by spectrum, I consider unfortunate and untrue.

There is 0 actual evidence for either dark matter or dark energy, yet modern cosmology is based on the assumption they exist. That is because our observations of the actual universe tells us that there is not enough mass in existence to make the universe work the way it does based on our understanding of the laws of physics. Scientist thus, according to you, theorized something that cannot be seen or detected by any known method to keep their theories from blowing apart and having to start over.

That is not theory, it is either faith, or desperation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, if they didn't evolve and were created or designed, why does there appear to be randomness as shown in the OP? So far, NO ONE has satisfactorily answered the question. You can talk all yopu want about fossil, but it's the DNA the PROVES we're all related.

The only reasonable explanation for all the information in DNA is that a Designer put all the information in the original genes—e.g. the ‘kinds’ that He made during the six days of Creation.

If that's true, why do we see randomness instead of indications of design? Are you saying God plays with our minds? It would seem to me that a just God that designed Nature would have left signs of the design, instead of making things appear to be random and undesigned.

God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Genetics: no friend of evolution
A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.

Don't JUST give us a cite. That's just as bad as posting without a cite. Most people aren't going to have the time to read the whole article, so at least give us a synopsis and your understanding of what the writer is saying.

He's saying that genetics doesn't help the evolutionists cause, it actually strengthens that of ID.

 

[konradv]

The only reasonable explanation for all the information in DNA is that a Designer put all the information in the original genes—e.g. the ‘kinds’ that He made during the six days of Creation.

If that's true, why do we see randomness instead of indications of design? Are you saying God plays with our minds? It would seem to me that a just God that designed Nature would have left signs of the design, instead of making things appear to be random and undesigned.

God works in mysterious ways.

True, but HE doesn't belong in a science class. Science demands that things be repeatable. How would creationists/IDers have anything to say in a science class, if consistency isn't a given?

 

[konradv]

Genetics: no friend of evolution
A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.

Don't JUST give us a cite. That's just as bad as posting without a cite. Most people aren't going to have the time to read the whole article, so at least give us a synopsis and your understanding of what the writer is saying.

He's saying that genetics doesn't help the evolutionists cause, it actually strengthens that of ID.

Well, that's definitely untrue. DNA proves we're all related and can tell us how far back that relationship goes. I think you need to read up some on the other side before swallowing what this guy is serving up.

 

[konradv]

Don't JUST give us a cite. That's just as bad as posting without a cite. Most people aren't going to have the time to read the whole article, so at least give us a synopsis and your understanding of what the writer is saying.

He's saying that genetics doesn't help the evolutionists cause, it actually strengthens that of ID.

Well, that's definitely untrue. DNA proves we're all related and can tell us how far back that relationship goes. I think you need to read up some on the other side before swallowing what this guy is serving up.

Actually read a bit of the article and it's a "straw man" argument! We're told what Darwin said, as if he was the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary theory. The author picked an easy target, someone who's dead and didn't have the advantage of knowing about modern genetics and molecular biology. How about arguing with an actual modern scientist?

 

[del]

He's saying that genetics doesn't help the evolutionists cause, it actually strengthens that of ID.

Well, that's definitely untrue. DNA proves we're all related and can tell us how far back that relationship goes. I think you need to read up some on the other side before swallowing what this guy is serving up.

Actually read a bit of the article and it's a "straw man" argument! We're told what Darwin said, as if he was the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary theory. The author picked an easy target, someone who's dead and didn't have the advantage of knowing about modern genetics and molecular biology. How about arguing with an actual modern scientist?

sure, go get one

 

[konradv]

Well, that's definitely untrue. DNA proves we're all related and can tell us how far back that relationship goes. I think you need to read up some on the other side before swallowing what this guy is serving up.

Actually read a bit of the article and it's a "straw man" argument! We're told what Darwin said, as if he was the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary theory. The author picked an easy target, someone who's dead and didn't have the advantage of knowing about modern genetics and molecular biology. How about arguing with an actual modern scientist?

sure, go get one

That's the IDers problem. They're the ones that contend they have something relevant to say. But what do we get treated too, an argument with a dead man!!! That's a sleight of hand that belies their contention of being actual scientists.

 

[del]

Actually read a bit of the article and it's a "straw man" argument! We're told what Darwin said, as if he was the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary theory. The author picked an easy target, someone who's dead and didn't have the advantage of knowing about modern genetics and molecular biology. How about arguing with an actual modern scientist?

sure, go get one

That's the IDers problem. They're the ones that contend they have something relevant to say. But what do we get treated too, an argument with a dead man!!! That's a sleight of hand that belies their contention of being actual scientists.

well, i guess you win then!

 

[konradv]

sure, go get one

That's the IDers problem. They're the ones that contend they have something relevant to say. But what do we get treated too, an argument with a dead man!!! That's a sleight of hand that belies their contention of being actual scientists.

well, i guess you win then!

Thanks, Loser.

 

[Mr Natural]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

That's way to sciency for the creationist/ID crowd.

If you want to make your point, you're going to have to dumb it way down for that bunch.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If that's true, why do we see randomness instead of indications of design? Are you saying God plays with our minds? It would seem to me that a just God that designed Nature would have left signs of the design, instead of making things appear to be random and undesigned.

God works in mysterious ways.

True, but HE doesn't belong in a science class. Science demands that things be repeatable. How would creationists/IDers have anything to say in a science class, if consistency isn't a given?

I never said He did. Evolutionary science is about as bogus as it gets. The so-called scientist keep repeating experiments until they reach a conclusion they like.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Don't JUST give us a cite. That's just as bad as posting without a cite. Most people aren't going to have the time to read the whole article, so at least give us a synopsis and your understanding of what the writer is saying.

He's saying that genetics doesn't help the evolutionists cause, it actually strengthens that of ID.

Well, that's definitely untrue. DNA proves we're all related and can tell us how far back that relationship goes. I think you need to read up some on the other side before swallowing what this guy is serving up.

I think you're ful of shit. O course show your lineage going back to a slug then you may have a point.

 

[Gadawg73]

God works in mysterious ways.

True, but HE doesn't belong in a science class. Science demands that things be repeatable. How would creationists/IDers have anything to say in a science class, if consistency isn't a given?

I never said He did. Evolutionary science is about as bogus as it gets. The so-called scientist keep repeating experiments until they reach a conclusion they like.

As usual you have done zero research and read no court rulings and have no clue what the scientific method is.
The Dover case proved without a doubt that the ID creationist crowd came into court, lied with their "evidence" and were run out of town by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge. The plaintiff's put up weeks and weeks of evidence proving their case that evolution should be taught as scientific fact and that there is no evidence anywhere proving anything to do scientifically creationism or ID.
Beliefs are not science. Read the Dover case and enroll in your local community college in Texas where they teach evolution correctly as fact. You have excellent higher education in Texas.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

True, but HE doesn't belong in a science class. Science demands that things be repeatable. How would creationists/IDers have anything to say in a science class, if consistency isn't a given?

I never said He did. Evolutionary science is about as bogus as it gets. The so-called scientist keep repeating experiments until they reach a conclusion they like.

As usual you have done zero research and read no court rulings and have no clue what the scientific method is.
The Dover case proved without a doubt that the ID creationist crowd came into court, lied with their "evidence" and were run out of town by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge. The plaintiff's put up weeks and weeks of evidence proving their case that evolution should be taught as scientific fact and that there is no evidence anywhere proving anything to do scientifically creationism or ID.
Beliefs are not science. Read the Dover case and enroll in your local community college in Texas where they teach evolution correctly as fact. You have excellent higher education in Texas.

And that has what to do with my comment?

Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Always has been and always will be.

 

[Gadawg73]

I never said He did. Evolutionary science is about as bogus as it gets. The so-called scientist keep repeating experiments until they reach a conclusion they like.

As usual you have done zero research and read no court rulings and have no clue what the scientific method is.
The Dover case proved without a doubt that the ID creationist crowd came into court, lied with their "evidence" and were run out of town by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge. The plaintiff's put up weeks and weeks of evidence proving their case that evolution should be taught as scientific fact and that there is no evidence anywhere proving anything to do scientifically creationism or ID.
Beliefs are not science. Read the Dover case and enroll in your local community college in Texas where they teach evolution correctly as fact. You have excellent higher education in Texas.

And that has what to do with my comment?

Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Always has been and always will be.

Not what EVERY university in Texas states Lonestar:
Baylor University || Department of Biology || Statement of Evolution

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As usual you have done zero research and read no court rulings and have no clue what the scientific method is.
The Dover case proved without a doubt that the ID creationist crowd came into court, lied with their "evidence" and were run out of town by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge. The plaintiff's put up weeks and weeks of evidence proving their case that evolution should be taught as scientific fact and that there is no evidence anywhere proving anything to do scientifically creationism or ID.
Beliefs are not science. Read the Dover case and enroll in your local community college in Texas where they teach evolution correctly as fact. You have excellent higher education in Texas.

And that has what to do with my comment?

Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Always has been and always will be.

Not what EVERY university in Texas states Lonestar:
Baylor University || Department of Biology || Statement of Evolution

I should care what a liberal college says?

Fact is evolution is a theory, prove that it's not.

 

[Gadawg73]

And that has what to do with my comment?

Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Always has been and always will be.

Not what EVERY university in Texas states Lonestar:
Baylor University || Department of Biology || Statement of Evolution

I should care what a liberal college says?

Fact is evolution is a theory, prove that it's not.

UT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Are they a liberal "college"?
Are ALL the colleges in Texas "liberal"?
As usual, you have nothing other than BELIEFS to stand on.
Baylor is a university Lonestar. You need to get out more often. There is not ONE college, university or community college in your entire state that does not teach evolution AS FACT.
But facts do not matter to you. You are an ideologue. Your religous ideology forces you to go by your beliefs and ignore all science that may conflict with it.
YOUR STATE university biology professors, 100 OF THEM FROM EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN YOUR STATE, wrote a letter complaining of "slipping into scientific illiteracy" when the head of the science curriclum for public schools was forced to resign for not remaining "neutral" on the question of evolution.
Lonestar would have us believe that EVERY science teacher in Texas is a liberal for believing evoultion is fact.