You clearly also don't understand how strongly genetics and evolution plays into all aspects of modern biology and medicine. You'd be very hard pressed to find any biological research that wasn't dependant in some way on evolution being fact. And guess what? They work.



I challenge you to defend this statement. I am accusing you of making a knowing falsehood. I am formally accusing you of lying. There is not ONE genetic or biological discovery or medical treatment or study dependent of evolution. Not ONE. Just because the people studying it believes in this religion does not make their discoveries dependent upon that belief. As a matter of fact if evolution were true we would all have never been born because life would have ground to a halt according to modern theory. All these scientific areas are NOT dependent on evolution. Only the ability of an organism to change within limits. IE the ALREADY existing ability of our body to fight disease. One doctor I know says he is nothing more then a helper for our own immune systems. That is NOT evolution theory. If you claim it is then you do not know evolution theory.

I know you think making a general accusation like this makes you look cool and all smart and stuff but as a debate tactic it is worthless. I have taken what you have given me and refuted it. There is not one shred of bad science in what I have written. You on the other hand only refute what I put forward as impossible because it is different then what you believe the world to consist of. Not on any scientific or logical basis but simply making broad statements like this. If you really believe you know more about science then me then stop using childish, assinine debate tactics like this.

And you use the exact tactic that you incorrectly accuse me of using. Nice.

walkingtall: How about EVERY scientific discovery before 1850 or so. Are you really so arrogant that only evolution believing scientists move science forward at all? Is that what you are really saying?

I think you misinterpreted my question: "Scientific discoveries made by people who believe in God" does not equal "Proof for creationism"

There's not one scientific discovery before or after 1850 which provides evidence for a creator. Anyway, many of the people believed in a different God or Gods than you do. Ever heard of Aristotle?

2005-02-17 01:55:20 PM walkingtall
whatshisname
Please provide one example of good creationist science.

How about EVERY scientific discovery before 1850 or so. Do you think what we have today just sprung up suddenly after evolution was put forward as a theory. Are you really so arrogant that only evolution believing scientists move science forward at all? Is that what you are really saying?

And a very good book on that subject is Greene's "The Death of Adam". He shows that early scientists studying natural history wanted to show science as the glory of God. As they dug deeper and became more aware of scientific law and observations they came to realize that the story of Genesis was incompatible with the real world.

walkingtall

I don't think it's going to do any good to say I'm missing your point, because I could just respond that you're missing mine.

Again you are conflating evolution, a theory to explain various natural processes, with Social Darwinism, an ideology that advocates certain human behavior. I said that SD misuses evolution because it takes concepts like "survival of the fittest" and applies them to human conduct, such as the oppression of certain minorities. However, evolutionary theory does not advocate any sort of behavior whatsoever. It merely explains how traits passed on through reproduction can result in the development of new species over time. This process is completely ideologically neutral; it would take effect if everyone on earth was a fundamentalist Christian, atheist, Nazi, or what have you. It occurs, and has occurred, regardless of how one lives his life. And it occurs in all forms of life, no matter what its capacity for moral reasoning.

In other words, your argument is a non sequitur: belief that evolution explains how life has developed to its current state does not even suggest that one should live his life in a certain way. Like a plant or animal, we cannot choose whether to be part of the evolutionary process, we simply are.

Social Darwinism draws much of its appeal from its tenuous connection to evolutionary theory. However, as FloydA has argued, saying that SD somehow disproves gravity because it is an immoral ideology makes no sense. An analogy: say there is a group called Social Newtonians, who believe that all things that cannot survive the effects of gravity should be wiped out. They proceed to round people up and drop them off buildings to see who survives. While such a practice would be immoral, it would have nothing to do with whether the law of gravity is a feasible means of explaining why things fall down.

You seem to say belief in evolution practically necessitates a belief in Social Darwinism. But neither Darwin nor any legitimate evolutionary theorist has ever argued that evolution is a "good thing" that people should "help out" through their behavior. Evolution is not good or bad, it just is. "Evolution" is just the name scientists have given to the combination of effects that occur when parents grant new traits to their offspring, and that process is repeated over long periods of time. Yes, an understanding of evolution can affect the way one thinks about his life. But again, evolution is a constant presence in the world whether one understands it, doesn't know about it, loves it, hates it, or refuses to believe in it. Whether one chooses to live his life in a different way based on his understanding of evolution has nothing to do with evolution itself.

The_Devil's_Due

No, it is a code.
Please tell me about another code that has been scientifically proven to have written itself.

sharkroy:

whatshisname
One of many [good pieces of science derived from creationism] would be the Wright Brothers. Using ideas found in birds and other flying animals of God's creation they invented the airplane.

Now, that's funny. I flew in one of those flapping airplanes the other day. If I looked out the window, I could clearly see the hand of God in the wing design.

If you are trolling, you obviously intended it to be and I will refrain from asking you any more questions.

If you are not a troll, then I will refrain from asking you any more questions, lest your head explode.

whatshisname,

Don't make fun of Sharkroy, he's got a good point, The god-created birds fly much more similarly to planes than the evolved birds. The right brothers clearly modeled their planes after the created birds.

Is it true that to have a book you need an author?
If so, then how did the most complex code (DNA) write itself?
According to evolution it did, and that is more of a fantasy than any religion.

YOU IGNORANT TOOL.
Simple forms of DNA can be observed in bacteria. You can also observe genetic recombination on this scale. This is akin to (but not the same as) observing evolution in real time. DNA become more complicated as the complexity of the life form increases. Evolution is the evolution of DNA strands, the building blocks of life. I can't say I know how the first DNA strand came into being, however your argument is like saying "which came first the chicken or the egg", is really stupid and baseless

Sharkroy:

Neither theory fully proves anything, but at least science has tests and data to rely on. I don't know of any scientific tests you can run to prove the existence of God. If you God and Science go hand in hand, why is there such great amounts of evidence for science and not for God?

His he that humble?

sean007

This isn't a debate, it's people trying to talk some sense into you, while you plug your ears and yell "LALALALALA". I can't beleive people as close minded and stubborn as you still exist. You're like a f*cking beta VCR, completely obsolete and only good as an example of how primitive we used to be. You're so selective in your arugments that it basically discounts anything you have to say. Grow up and read a book.
The only reassurance I get from this is that, in 40 years, you and all your ilk will be dead and rotting, and then maybe the US will be able to continue progressing.

This is a debate and a rational discussion among the adults in this thread who enjoy opening their mind up and exploring other trains of thought. Many of the individuals here that believe as you do can put forth their opinion in a concise and rational manner. I fail to see why someone so close-minded would even login to what is obviously a strong discussion from two opposing viewpoints. All you have managed to do is damage your position's credibility by resorting to name-calling and other childish frustration tactics. I'm glad that you aren't arguing in favor of creationism and behaving so immaturely.

sean007


YOU IGNORANT TOOL.
Simple forms of DNA can be observed in bacteria. You can also observe genetic recombination on this scale. This is akin to (but not the same as) observing evolution in real time. DNA become more complicated as the complexity of the life form increases. Evolution is the evolution of DNA strands, the building blocks of life. I can't say I know how the first DNA strand came into being, however your argument is like saying "which came first the chicken or the egg", is really stupid and baseless


You ignorant tool?

What do you think calling someone names does to your credibility?

I don't care how complex the dna is
I want to hear about a code writing itself.
Lets hear your best example.

No, it is a code.
Please tell me about another code that has been scientifically proven to have written itself.


I don't disagree that the creation of DNA and the code is a tough nut to crack. I don't know what the current thinking is on the subject is, but I'm pretty sure that it is not "GOD did it". I doubt that it is even that it "wrote itself", as that makes no logical sense. However, I do believe that there is a natural (not miraculous) cause for the existence of DNA and the code. Someday, I believe we will understand what it is, if we (they) don't already.

The_Devil's_Due

Then you have Faith in your religion

Sharkroy, the code doesn't write itself, mutations, mistakes that occur when copying the code, appear. These mutations might be beneficial or harmful, but generally have no consequence. When they are beneficial (i.e., it helps them to survive or produce more viable offspring), and the organism has an advantage over its peers (it's more fit), then it will produce more offspring. Its offspring who inherit the new gene will also produce more offspring, and, statistically, over the course of many, many years, their genes will make up more of the population than the non-mutated genes.

That's evolution.

The_Devil's_Due

I don't disagree that the creation of DNA and the code is a tough nut to crack. I don't know what the current thinking is on the subject is, but I'm pretty sure that it is not "GOD did it". I doubt that it is even that it "wrote itself", as that makes no logical sense. However, I do believe that there is a natural (not miraculous) cause for the existence of DNA and the code. Someday, I believe we will understand what it is, if we (they) don't already.


My gosh that sounds an AWFUL lot like "I believe God created the world. I do not have all the answers how He did it but I believe He did". My gosh is that FAITH you could be spouting off.

This is why I'm glad I live in Md, and not some bible belt cowtown.

Well, walking tall, I explained it.

sharkroy:

Please tell me about another code that has been scientifically proven to have written itself.

How about RNA? RNA can be created artificially and is self-replicating.

The author of a book must be human, as we have created books. The author of DNA could be something as simple as the combination of certain elements, forming to make DNA. No one being had to put those things in place in for them to exist.

barjockey

For me, the proof is in the pudding as it were. Let's just examine the human eye for example. Whether you believe that it was created by some cosmic fart or by an omnipotent creator, it is certainly an intelligent design.

[image of human eye]

How a gelatinous object could take on the ability to perceive light, objects, and textures and report them to the brain for processing is amazing. How you can look at things like this and compare the notion of intelligent design to a fat man that travels around once a year on a cart pulled by glorified flying donkeys is beyond me.

The evolution of the eye is the talisman of the IDers yet its an argument based in ignorance (much of ID arguements are). The did evolve and there are plenty of examples in nature of the transitional varients

Then you have Faith in your religion

Faith? Yes. Religion? No. Unless you want to define religion so broadly that it encompasses all of human understanding and the human capacity for reason. If so, then fine. That's not what I'm arguing about. I am arguing about the specific claims made by creationists.

RNA can be what???

I don't care how complex the dna is
I want to hear about a code writing itself.
Lets hear your best example.

GENETIC RECOMBINATION

Look it up, buddy. it is DNA rewriting itself.

JC Superstar

Sharkroy, the code doesn't write itself, mutations, mistakes that occur when copying the code, appear. These mutations might be beneficial or harmful, but generally have no consequence. When they are beneficial (i.e., it helps them to survive or produce more viable offspring), and the organism has an advantage over its peers (it's more fit), then it will produce more offspring. Its offspring who inherit the new gene will also produce more offspring, and, statistically, over the course of many, many years, their genes will make up more of the population than the non-mutated genes.

That's evolution.


That paragraph is exactly why evolution theory is false. Mutations do not CREATE anything. They simply scramble what is already existing. To have new traits, code must be CREATED at some point. Like has been pointed out how does nature write code? There has never been an example of new code being written. I know all about the bacteria experiments both with being antibiotic resistance and the ability to use plastic but we are unable to prove this ability is new. We do not know enough about genetics to say this for a fact. It may be a new trait showing itself but that is a far cry for the code needed for this trait to manifest itself being written completely from scratch or even as an offshoot of existing code.

barjockey, thanks for the reply. I'm unfortunately compelled to finish some work now, although it appears that no life defining conclusions are going to come out this afternoon anyway.

JackBach

Yeah, I see your point.
Kind of like a print shop exploding and the explosion writes the most complex book ever written.
Is that what you are getting at?

My gosh that sounds an AWFUL lot like "I believe God created the world. I do not have all the answers how He did it but I believe He did". My gosh is that FAITH you could be spouting off.

Think what you want. Belief in science is not the belief that we understand every detail of how the universe works. If it was, there would be no science (why bother?). Belief in science is the belief in the process by which we come to understand the truth of the world, and belief in the application of reason that allows us to reveal those truths. There is no inconsistency, nor necessity for divine influence or miracles, in what I said. Basically, I said, we don't know everything. But we do know a hell of a lot more than we knew 100 years ago, and will undoubtedly know much more 100 years from now.

Or are you simply making the argument that science depends on faith and thus, other "faith based" world views are equally valid in explaining the truth of the world?

sharkroy

You're restating one of the fundamental creationist arguments: "X is too complex to have come into being by itself." It becomes quite persuasive once one does as you have and equates DNA to a book, watch, or other man-made object. Since we all know books and watches are made by people, DNA was therefore made by an intelligent creator too. It's just too complicated to exist otherwise.

The problem is that DNA is different than a book because it is a chemical substance that can change due to biological factors and be passed down to descendants through reproduction. Evolutionary theory essentially explains that the first single-celled organisms were born from fortuitous combinations of chemicals, and additional fortuitous combinations led to multi-celled organisms and ultimately to life as we know it today. DNA is simply part of those combinations. This argument may be unappealing to some, but that doesn't affect its legitimacy.

Summary of creationist position: "I can point to several flaws in your theory, therefore I must be correct."

Can't stand that kind of crap.

sharkroy: RNA can be what???

Artificially created. Nucleic acid can be combined with ribose and phosphate to create nucleotides, which combine together to form short chains of RNA.

And I hope you do realize that DNA does, in fact, write itself, and rewrite itself, over and over again. That's how it works.

Addressing his question is pointless. Any kid who's dropped acid nows his point.

Who made the DNA? God. We get it.

Have you ever considered that something can simply exist and that was not created? To me, creation means there was a purpose, and yet we seemingly have no purpose except to exist. We establish phony and weak objectives to define our short existence but we have no purpose, at least none that we've discovered and come to accept universally.

Of course, if we do all of our searching in religious books written by men, we can easily answer the question of purpose. However, no religious book I have read has addressed the things that science has proven time and time again.

Believe_It_Or_Not_I'm_Not_Home

There is a scientific defenition for a "code"
DNA falls into this definition.
Codes need a sender and a reciever.
Has anyone ever known of DNA gaining information?

just curious.

Mordant

Well we certainly agree there. Take care.

sharkroy:

There is a scientific defenition for a "code"
DNA falls into this definition.
Codes need a sender and a reciever.
Has anyone ever known of DNA gaining information?

just curious.

Do you even know what DNA is? Do you know where babies come from?

For the last time "god did it" isn't an acceptable answer for anything.

Hah... now there's an article about "The top 10 most useless limbs in the animal kingdom."

It is blatantly clear that those arguing against evolutionary processes haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about. I'm leaving...Everytime you discredit them they move on to other talking points without addressing your previous argument that ripped them to shreds.....

Backward F*cking imbeciles

There is a scientific defenition for a "code"
DNA falls into this definition.
Codes need a sender and a reciever.
Has anyone ever known of DNA gaining information?

If God made DNA, why did he make it so needlessly complicated? Why all the redundancy?

Yes, first off, your claim is based on the assumption that DNA was the first self-replicator. That is almost certainly mistaken, and no current researcher believes it. Second, your criticisms are really directed towards abiogenesis, which is a specialty in the larger field of organic chemistry, and is quite seperate from evolutionary biology. Evolution is a process that happens to lineages of organisms once they already exist. It does not deal with the beginning of life (or the origins of planets, stars, the universe, etc.) so your critique is misguided in any case. Third, your "book" metaphor is extremely misleading. DNA is a complex chemical, and I agree with you in your implication that it is really amazing. But it is not a "book", so it doesn't "require an author". Further, even if one does say it was "deliberately designed", where does that get us? How does that claim advance scientific understanding in any way? I say it doesn't. In fact, it's a non-explanation and inspires people to simply "give up". "We've found the answer, God did it, no more research is necessary." If we accepted "God did it by magic" it would be the end of science altogether.


You know I could almost go with this except for one fact. Let us say DNA did ride the back of RNA in the beginning. (which is insanity by the way if you learn a little biochemistry). OK I give you that. That does not alter the fact that there is no mechanism for higher organisms to spontaneosly create traits. The first fish that crawled out of the water had to have evolved all the mechanisms necessary to breathe air. Not one at a time but fully functioning. I could even go with having both if you want to claim that but the trait had to come about before he could go on land. How was that code written? What combination of mutations could have made that come around. All evolutionists talk in terms of "fortuitous". That means that there was just plain luck involved. Luck is not scientific.

God was an asshole, The_Devil's_Due. Everyone knows that.

And his son was a terrorist.

/sarcasm

Who needs scientific evidence when we've got rhetoric and religious dogma?

Yeah, dinosaurs were on Noah's ark 4000 years ago. Sure buddy.

"I'm telling you people the earth revolves around the sun."
"Burn him!"

sharkroy

Your argument isn't even persuasive on its face this time around because it's dependent on you making up definitions. So you're saying DNA is a "code," and a "code" is something that can't be altered due to natural processes. Well based on those criteria, sure, you win. But you made all of that up!

Chemical changes take place in living things all the time. Some of those changes affect our DNA. Birth, to use your terminology, involves DNA "gaining information" because the parents' genetic information is combined. Evolution occurs as new organisms are born generation after generation, over long periods of time.

Your arguments are dependent on likening DNA to man-made objects and concepts, in this case a "code" like troops use in wars. DNA and other biochemical components of living things work on a level that humans typically have no immediate control over. Sure DNA "writes itself;" if it didn't, we wouldn't be able to have offspring. It's not like writing a book.

If God made DNA, why did he make it so needlessly complicated? Why all the redundancy?

For someone that claims to know so much about science to ask awfully silly questions to make your case. 99.9% of all the species that has ever lived are gone. Even with all this redundancy death wants to destroy every living thing. Without all the redundancy built into living things we would not survive one generation much less thousands of years with all the obstacles life faces just to exist. That is a very silly question and I think you are smarter then that.

Walkingtall:

Nor is luck religious or creationist.

For someone that claims to know so much about science to ask awfully silly questions to make your case. 99.9% of all the species that has ever lived are gone. Even with all this redundancy death wants to destroy every living thing. Without all the redundancy built into living things we would not survive one generation much less thousands of years with all the obstacles life faces just to exist. That is a very silly question and I think you are smarter then that.

I'm talking about redundancy in the genetic code.

As we have discussed before, true science must be based on observations. Yet some scientists claim to be able to tell what happened on the earth long before there were any people to make observations...Rather than actual observations in the past, those who claim to be dating the rocks have only present observations of what the rocks contain and assumptions (guesswork) about what led to this composition. p251

An example of a dating method that gives a young age for the earth has been researched by Dr. Thomas Barnes, an authority on electricity and magnetism...When we project this trend backward in time, we find that the earth's magnetism was extremely great in the not-too-distant past. p252

---Earth Science for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University Press 1979


It is clear that the "Creationists" are not interested in scientific truth at all, they want everyone to believe the same lie that they believe - otherwise they might have to admit that they are stupid as well as being liars.

BRILLIANT headline!