• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists: Here's your chance

RedOne77

Active Member
I disagree, some of these are verified. I remember one, this girl was BORN BLIND, then had a near death experience and SAW the doctor and what he was doing. Then told what she saw when she came back to her body. But when she came back to her body, she could not see again. And there are other such experiences.


Interesting, but I'm still not inclined to give astro-projection any more weight, sorry. There just isn't enough hard evidence to convince me, but remember I'm skeptical of near death experiences too.

Well it certainly don’t teach much if that is not what DNA IS. It would only teach a misleading teaching and confuse people. And if they are going to use it, they should attach to it that they don’t really mean that it’s literally a blue print or whatever.

Think of it more as a sound bite that you would hear on the media. Rarely are sound bites all there is too it, but for getting an idea across quickly and easy to remember, they are good at doing that.

And usually people add in words like "like" or "as" to tell the audience that it is a simile/metaphor.

As I said, I am just going to keep asking more questions. What is a alpha helix?

It is a shape characterized by smooth curves, the two rails of the DNA ladder are twisted into this shape.

What is a sugar-phosphate backbone?

The backbone of DNA is the "rail" part if you think of DNA as a ladder. It is composed of an alternating sugar and a phosphate group, called the sugar-phosphate backbone of DNA.

What are nitrogenous bases?

That would be the "A, C, T, G" part that most people refer to when they talk about DNA. It is the sequence of these bases that is important when talking about heredity, mutations, and what determines which proteins get produced in an organism.

Yes if you don’t mind.

When it comes to the structure of DNA, the most famous part about it is the famous Watson and Crick paper of 1953 where
Rosalind Franklin used X-Ray Crystallography on DNA and found that it was an alpha helix. Based on the data they were able to deduce the basic structure; a sugar-phosphate backbone with the bases in the middle. As far as I know they basically used different models and saw which one fitted the data the best. One of the harder parts was determining the rules of how the bases fit together (they are not the same size). Eventually they were able to determine that each rung of the DNA ladder had to consist of one purine (A or G) and one pyrimidine (C or T).

As far as the experiments showing that DNA is the molecule of inheritance, the big experiments were done by Griffith, Avery and Hershey-Chase.
Just a quick summery, Griffith used bacteria, "S" and "R" strains, and injected it with mice. If the mouse was injected with the pathogenic "S" strain it died, however it lived if it was injected with the benign "R" strain. When he killed the S strain through heat, and injected it into the mouse with a living R strain, the R strain changed into the S strain and killed the mouse.
Avery took this experiment one step further by tracing which molecule was inherited by the R strain to turn it into the S strain. He looked at lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and DNA. And it turned out that the molecule inherited was the DNA.
Hershey-Chase did a similar experiment to Avery only with T2 phages and E. coli. Basically the T2 phages are made up of only protein and DNA, they inject something (DNA) into the E. coli to reproduce. You tag the DNA with radioactive phosphorus and proteins with radioactive sulfur, see which one was injected and that is the molecule of inheritance. The data showed that it was indeed DNA that is the molecule of inheritance.

You can probably google any of these things and come up with a lot more info.

Ok, so what I hear you saying is similar to me saying a blue print IS paper and ink, that is what a blue print IS, but that is not it’s FUNCTION or PURPOSE. The PURPOSE of the blue print is to give information on building the house.
Is this similar to what you’re saying about the DNA? Because it CERTAINLY sounds like it.


You're reading too much into the purpose idea. Science is riddled with analogies, and sometimes it is hard to separate them. Technically, DNA doesn't have a "purpose", we just assign a 'purpose' to it for our convenience. DNA does have function, and through its functionality it can do certain things.

You say the DNA is responsible for the organisms structure and chemistry. How is it responsible if it’s not a blueprint or information? I just don’t get it?

DNA is what is called an 'informational molecule'. It has information in it, but the information is not a laymens term. And DNA isn't the only factor in a persons structure or chemistry - there are other factors that don't rely on the sequence of the DNA.


Ok, how is a enzyme like a lock? Also what is an enzyme?
How is a substrate like a key? Also what is a substrate?


An enzyme is a biological catalyst. Every single chemical reaction that goes on inside an organism is carried out by an enzyme. Enzymes either break down, or build up molecules by lowering the amount of energy needed to start the reaction. Enzymes have something called an "active site" where the molecules (reactants) bind to the enzyme. These reactants are called the substrate. However, the enzyme is substrate-specific, meaning that only the substrate with the right shape (and right chemical properties) will bind to the active site. That is what is meant by the enzyme being a lock and the substrate being a key.

What do you mean by induced fit?

The enzyme is not a static structure, and the binding site (active site) is continually being re-shaped. What happens when the substrate starts to bind, is that the active site structurally changes and can wrap around the substrate.

You can read about enzymes on the wiki page too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme
 

RedOne77

Active Member
1: why would the questions I have not be sincere?

Just a precaution I like to take when talking to creationists.
2: what is appropriate and what is not?
It's more a tautology than anything else, just keep it sincere.

Here is a question for you, if a biology book is dated to be around 2009 (out of date) what HUGE differences would there be in the 2010 one?

For an intro book, I would think very little if any. I was once told that anything more than 10 years old is too old as a general rule, but it really depends on what field and at what level.


10 or 12, ok. I noticed in the biology book they also talk about chemistry.

You need to know a little chemistry to understand biology, especially at the molecular level. But the book should go over all the chem you need to understand the rest of of the book.

So there is nothing stopping me from going into the college and picking up the book and reading it? I am by their rule allowed to do that? Just not allowed to take it home, right?

As far as I know you can do that; I've never seen anyone check someones ID unless they were trying to check out a book.
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
Just because there our energies unmeasurable like gravity does not make it supernatural.
Out of curiosity, when people stuff their feelings and emotions, what exactly do you think is going on?Since you believe a chemical reaction is all that is happening I am curious as to why stuffing emotions(whatever that is) has so much effect even 50,60,70 years down the road?
force of gravity on Earth = 9.8 m/s^2 (approx)
how on earth did we come up with that number...oh that's right, it was measured.
hmmmm...stuff their feelings and emotions( now we are getting somewhere) ? well, for the time being i'd have to assume that a stimuli is being denied its effect by another stimuli. just a guess though...please, wild me with your fantastic theories. BTW: where did that number come from?
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
force of gravity on Earth = 9.8 m/s^2 (approx)
how on earth did we come up with that number...oh that's right, it was measured.
hmmmm...stuff their feelings and emotions( now we are getting somewhere) ? well, for the time being i'd have to assume that a stimuli is being denied its effect by another stimuli. just a guess though...please, wild me with your fantastic theories. BTW: where did that number come from?

So even for ones lifetime there would be an issue with someone because one stimuli did not act with another at a particular point of time in their life and until they respond to each other the issue remains. What keeps them from responding?
Maybe you should think about this.
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
So even for ones lifetime there would be an issue with someone because one stimuli did not act with another at a particular point of time in their life and until they respond to each other the issue remains. What keeps them from responding?
Maybe you should think about this.
what? no, how about i get my phisiology book and give you some free education cover to cover? :sarcastic
this would make you appear as a fool and it would seriously waste my time and possible profits... unless you'd like to explain what exacly you are asking in the above post.
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
what? no, how about i get my phisiology book and give you some free education cover to cover?
this would make you appear as a fool ad it would seriously waste my time and possible profits... unless you'd like to explain what exacly you are asking in the above post.
I am sure there is more then enough info in the link on post 769 then in your book.I want to know exactly how you conclude adults are effected by painful childhood memories?Why do they need counselling and why do the memories still carry pain? What is it about fear that makes the subconscious grab a hold and become paralysing?Why is a persons actions dictated by a fear until they let go of the fear?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
How about you all take this obscure new-agey conversation to a fresh new thread, just in case some YEC ever does want to show up and offer evidence for their hypothesis. [Judy Tenuta mode] IT COULD HAPPEN. [/Judy Tenuta mode]
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
Anyway; I'll continue with the assumption that i know what exactly you're talking about...
i have the assumption that "stuffing emotions" such as anger and such is one stimuli being denied its effect by another. If i was anysort of inquisitive person my question for myself would be: really? what stimuli?
i would have to say a past experience that turned into a long-term memory...or something along those lines.

Stuffed Feelings

in anycase, my Physiology book agrees:
"To a large extent emotion is produced in response to external stimuli. The emotion experienced depends on the nature of stimuli [external] and the individual's interpretation of those stimuli [internal]." ~ Physiology: All you need to know about how your body works, with gen. editor: Proffesor Peter Abrahams
btw: stuffing emotions in no way contradicts the fact that emotions are controled by stimuli: such as chemicals.
 
Last edited:

Luminous

non-existential luminary
I am sure there is more then enough info in the link on post 769 then in your book.
wow. no. and those three "experiments" are not really conclusive. infact, that conclusion is not really conclusive.
Walkntune; and edited into a different format by Luminous;2054513 said:
1. I want to know exactly how you conclude adults are effected by painful childhood memories?
2. (a) Why do they need counselling and (b) why do the memories still carry pain?
3. What is it about fear that makes the subconscious grab a hold and become paralysing?
4. Why is a persons actions dictated by a fear until they let go of the fear?
i dont know, it must have something to do with how things work.

1. memories are stored in the long-term area of the brain, then are stimulated by something to come back to the conscious current thought process.
2. (a) counselling might help with how to properly react to the memories, or introduce stimuli to cause some more proper interpretation of them. (b) the memories are still stimulating.
3. the flight or fight responce becomes confused because the stimuli are too hard to process.
4. because "fear" is a stimulus. (individual's interpretation of stimuli)

those are just my thoughts though, thismight help more: FEAR
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
wow. no. and those three "experiments" are not really conclusive. infact, that conclusion is not really conclusive.

i dont know, it must have something to do with how things work.

1. memories are stored in the long-term area of the brain, then are stimulated by something to come back to the conscious current thought process.
2. (a) counselling might help with how to properly react to the memories, or introduce stimuli to cause some more proper interpretation of them. (b) the memories are still stimulating.
3. the flight or fight responce becomes confused because the stimuli are too hard to process.
4. because "fear" is a stimulus. (individual's interpretation of stimuli)

those are just my thoughts though, thismight help more: FEAR

Well i respect your time and studies you are putting in but from personal experience I am not in agreement with some of the least recent theories.I tie it in with the subtle energies but I also believe physics ties into the process.
We are not just here observing and figuring out the universe, the very fact we are doing this is part of the universe and its creation.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Well i respect your time and studies you are putting in but from personal experience I am not in agreement with some of the least recent theories.I tie it in with the subtle energies but I also believe physics ties into the process.
We are not just here observing and figuring out the universe, the very fact we are doing this is part of the universe and its creation.
So I take it no one has anything whatsoever that would have anything to do with evidence for creationism? Shall we give that up as a lost cause--there just isn't any?
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
So I take it no one has anything whatsoever that would have anything to do with evidence for creationism? Shall we give that up as a lost cause--there just isn't any?
So do you deny energy as a creative force changing in and out of form?
I think I already know our views are going to vary on whether it is deterministic or not?
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
So do you deny energy as a creative force changing in and out of form?
I think I already know our views are going to vary on whether it is deterministic or not?

I have no idea what you're talking about or what you think it has to do with this thread, and I couldn't care less. Please start a thread to discuss it, whatever it is.
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
Well i respect your time and studies you are putting in but from personal experience I am not in agreement with some of the least recent theories.I tie it in with the subtle energies but I also believe physics ties into the process.
We are not just here observing and figuring out the universe, the very fact we are doing this is part of the universe and its creation.
that's just not fair...how am i supposed to learn anything from your personal experience?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Seriously, you two, this thread was created to give creationists a chance to bring forth their evidence, should they have any, not to explore your personal woo-woo, 'k?
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
Seriously, you two, this thread was created to give creationists a chance to bring forth their evidence, should they have any, not to explore your personal woo-woo, 'k?
actually it obviously ties in. as creationist theory assums a sort of metaphysical energy. my pal here and me were talking about how there are some things that can't be measured. such as gravity. then we went into the explination of how many of the things that people think have no explanation really do. and we settled it at the fact that he doesn't believe my view of it is as valid as his, from personal experience. But other than that, i would ask you to not go throwing around wild accusations if you have nothing of significance to add to an argument.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
actually it obviously ties in. as creationist theory assums a sort of metaphysical energy. my pal here and me were talking about how there are some things that can't be measured. such as gravity. then we went into the explination of how many of the things that people think have no explanation really do. and we settled it at the fact that he doesn't believe my view of it is as valid as his, from personal experience. But other than that, i would ask you to not go throwing around wild accusations if you have nothing of significance to add to an argument.
Well obviously if Autodidact can't control someone by calling them ignorant or stupid, then she tries to just run them out of the thread with accusations of being off subject.Either way it is about control and manipulation for her and the point in hand never even seems to have meaning with her.She wants a situation where she can control. She wants someone to say a man in the sky did it so she can prove them wrong and call them stupid.If she can't argue against it then she calls it off subject and says start a new thread. Even though she is wrong.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
that's just not fair...how am i supposed to learn anything from your personal experience?
My personal experience has led me into the discovery that there are scientists way more intelligent then myself doing research in metaphysics and string junkies and whatnot.
They study this day in and day out and for me its just thoughts that pass through my mind as I sit on the front porch with my acoustic guitar.
Sometimes I believe that metaphysics will be like religion and only found and used through intuition. I believe it is part of the intuitive process.
I believe science will always be standing in the face of uncertainty between intuition and logic.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Boys, it's fascinating, really, but look at the thread title, please. Ev is asking for something very specific. He created a space for YECs and other creationists to present their evidence. You're more than welcome to discuss the limits of science in the face of metaphysics, or whatever it is, and it deserves its own special thread to do that. It's just not this thread, which is for something else.
 
Top