Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you understand that there can be different meanings for words?
-
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!
Do creationists accept biology?
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
Yerda
Veteran Member
Aye. Not actually as daft as I look.
Audie
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It is a code from one particular (figurative) perspective, and not a code from all other perspectives.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Can you elaborate? I mean the triplets literally code for specific amino acids.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If you read that sentence, you'll note that "code" there is a verbe, not a noun. That is a first hint.
The terminology says it "codes for this or that", because the proceedings are similar to how decryption works or alike.
At bottom though, it is a deterministic chemical process.
It is not a "code" like the alphabet is a code or like c# is a code, or like morse code is a code.
It is not a means of communication either.
Yerda
Veteran Member
You could rewrite the sentence and use code as a noun without losing meaning. It's often called "the triplet code".
Of course it is deterministic. The examples you listed are all different but have certain things in common, I'm suggesting the genetic code shares these features.
Have a read at this wiki and see what you think: Code - Wikipedia
Jacques de Molay
Member
No. It isn't.
Not even close.
Evolution is NOT a Law; it's a hypothesis.
If you think it's a proven fact, well...You really haven't been paying attention. Or you've been fed a bunch of lies.
Jacques de Molay
Member
It most certainly IS a "means of communication."
Ribosomes create new strands of DNA by specifically "reading" pre-existing strands first, then creating the new strand based on the amino acid sequences.
If the ribosome reads a "C" (cytosine), it ALWAYS pairs the cytosine with a "G" (guanine) amino acid. If it reads a "T" (thymine), it ALWAYS pairs it with an "A" (adenosine) amino acid.
So tell me again...HOW is DNA not a "means of communication"?
THEN tell me HOW this could ever arise by random chance and mutation?
I'll wait.
Jacques de Molay
Member
What do you think you "busted"?
I provided actual facts. Yes...I have a BS (Cum laude) in Biology.
You're inability to debate this issue is crystal clear. You merely reply in the contrary, and hope that your lack of substance is not noticed.
Don't feel bad...The Dept. of Evolutionary Science at Harvard works exactly the same way.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Absolutely false. It is classified as a "scientific theory", although "theory" means something different in scientific circles than it does in lay terminology:
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, "evolution" stands to even the most basic common sense, namely that all material objects appear ton change over time, and genes and life forms are material objects.
Religion is mean to be enlightening, but it's not at all enlightening if it obscures basic facts that are testable:
Speciation - Wikipedia [one can use the links there to see some of the specific examples]
Religion is mean to be enlightening, but it's not at all enlightening if it obscures basic facts that are testable:
Speciation - Wikipedia [one can use the links there to see some of the specific examples]
Audie
Veteran Member
You are correct that the theory of evolution
has not been proven. There's a kind of baseline
ignorance in saying it is, that pretty much
disqualifies the author's opinions from then on.
As for your post, anyone possessing
the education you claim knows that
evolution as a law makes no sense at all,
and that while evolution was a hypothesis
at one time, say, 150 years ago, it has since
passed every test, remained consistent with
every relevant datum point, and long long
since graduated to the status of theory.
We don't find your baseless opinion
supercedes that findings of the world scientific
community.
If of course you woul care to offer
datum point or two such as disprove the
theory, we would be ever so interested.
Jacques de Molay
Member
I think you're missing the point.
Evolutionists can claim ANTHING they want about their pet hypothesis. It doesn't matter, because PER SCIENCE (in "scientific circles"), evolution does NOT rise to the level of a "theory."
Period.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It is not. Communication is the sending of messages from one agent to another and it involves interpretation of said message.
In DNA, no agent is involved on either end. Nore is there any interpretation going on
Your use of quotes reveals that it is a metaphor.
As expected from a deterministic chemical process.
You just explained it.............
It's just chemistry.........................................
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's no way you have credentials in formal education in biology as you claim, if that is what you believe.
To say that in scientific circles, evolution isn't seen at the level of "theory" is laughable at best.
Audie
Veteran Member
Such a transparent fake.
Its obvious as it would be if I tried to
do the after game wrap- up for a football game.
I don't even know how they score a goal or
what to call anything.
Audie
Veteran Member
Just chemistry-
Reminds me of professor in organic 1 who
told us the Einstein quote about the definition
if insanity isn't something Eindtein or any experimenter would say.
So don't expect to get exactly what you
expect no matter how careful you are.
BECAUSE, anything that can happen, will
happen.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
My link clearly showed you that it the basic ToE is not just a hypothesis if you actually had bothered to read it. I also linked you to a source that shows studies on how species have evolved under observation that also includes links to those studies.
So, it's obvious you'd rather use your religious beliefs as a set of blinders rather than enlightenment. Jesus said we would know the Truth, but what you are doing is to virtually ignore some the Truth.
I grew up in a church that taught that evolution was "evilution", but I knew that couldn't be right even back in high school because of all the museums I'd visited with my parents that showed otherwise. I went on to college, eventually getting a graduate degree in anthropology, and then I taught it for 30 years. I left my church in my mid-20's because of it's anti-science bent, and I now belong to a church that actually accepts science, including the ToE, as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.
Again, evolution is just plain old common sense, thus one needs not have a graduate degree to appreciate its reality as part of God's Truth.