LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
It is
Besides your reveled revelations, what evidence do you have of this. Or are you just speculating?
Nothing wrong with speculation. It is the thing accepted theories are fabricatied from.
-
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!
For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?
- Thread starter MSizer
- Start date
Nothing wrong with speculation. It is the thing accepted theories are fabricatied from.
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
Any data and by anyone or group. It all depends in what basket such are placing their bets.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
OK, so you are speculating. Thank you.
As for accepted theories, they are backed by facts and observation.(Germ Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution) Speculation is reserved for an uniformed guess.
For your further education on Laws, Theories, and Hypothesis...
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They dont really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Source
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Last night, I watched a program put on by Answers in Genesis. It was all about how to debate "evolutionists" and what mistakes to avoid when doing so. One of the first slides in the presentation was something like their statement of faith, i.e. "The Bible is unquestionable and infallible".
The speaker then went on to all manner of subjects, but one thing struck me as rather funny. He reiterated what seems to be AIG's theme now: Same data, different starting points. By that, they mean "evolutionists" and YEC's have the same data, they just interpret it differently based on their starting point. "Evolutionists" start with "billions of years" and evolution, whereas YEC's start with the Bible.
Then he spoke about transitional fossils and told the audience they should avoid blanket statements like "there are no transitional fossils" and should instead say things like "despite hundreds of years of fossil collecting, evolutionists have only managed to find a handful of disputed so-called transitional forms".
The reason this struck me as funny is the use of the term "disputed". Disputed by who? By YEC's of course! And why do they dispute them? Because their "starting point" is "transitional forms can't exist because it goes against the Bible".
IOW, their logic is...
--Nothing can contradict the Bible
--Transitional forms contradict the Bible
--Therefore, transitional forms cannot exist
--Therefore, we dispute the existence of any transitional forms
--Therefore, all evolutionists have found are disputed transitional forms
Brilliant! What amazes me the most is how people just go right along with this sort of twisted, circular logic.
The speaker then went on to all manner of subjects, but one thing struck me as rather funny. He reiterated what seems to be AIG's theme now: Same data, different starting points. By that, they mean "evolutionists" and YEC's have the same data, they just interpret it differently based on their starting point. "Evolutionists" start with "billions of years" and evolution, whereas YEC's start with the Bible.
Then he spoke about transitional fossils and told the audience they should avoid blanket statements like "there are no transitional fossils" and should instead say things like "despite hundreds of years of fossil collecting, evolutionists have only managed to find a handful of disputed so-called transitional forms".
The reason this struck me as funny is the use of the term "disputed". Disputed by who? By YEC's of course! And why do they dispute them? Because their "starting point" is "transitional forms can't exist because it goes against the Bible".
IOW, their logic is...
--Nothing can contradict the Bible
--Transitional forms contradict the Bible
--Therefore, transitional forms cannot exist
--Therefore, we dispute the existence of any transitional forms
--Therefore, all evolutionists have found are disputed transitional forms
Brilliant! What amazes me the most is how people just go right along with this sort of twisted, circular logic.
That's exactly how cognitive dissonance is set up, and how normally intelligent people can do well enough to graduate college with these ridiculous precepts firmly entrenched in their minds. They start with an assumption then force everything to conform to that assumption even if it means resorting to lies; it's acceptable in the creationist mindset.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, actually, they're made of evidence.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that science is impossible and fruitless, and yields no better results than idle speculation? Is that your point?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I've been watching someone talk about this topic...on tv...very intelligently.
He drew his speech...and the book he was promoting...from the foundation works of other scientists.
He has secured an important observation.
He focused on DNA.
DNA is the blueprint of life. The information must transfer on each occasion, with remarkable reliability. Small variables may occur, but those variables must remain minute.
As a blueprint...the SPECIFIC order of the molecular structure is critical.
He and other scientists he quoted...compare DNA to an immense computer program....and not one that can..... just happen.
With each occasion the blueprint must reproduce itself. He spoke of chemical forces and how one type of combination draws to another.
But DNA is a lengthy piece of work, and duplication without flaws seems unlikely.
So what do you think?
Can an EXTREMELY complex chemical reaction transfer information... specifically... accurately.... repeatedly.... for centuries?
Or perhaps 'something' intelligent is behind it all?
He drew his speech...and the book he was promoting...from the foundation works of other scientists.
He has secured an important observation.
He focused on DNA.
DNA is the blueprint of life. The information must transfer on each occasion, with remarkable reliability. Small variables may occur, but those variables must remain minute.
As a blueprint...the SPECIFIC order of the molecular structure is critical.
He and other scientists he quoted...compare DNA to an immense computer program....and not one that can..... just happen.
With each occasion the blueprint must reproduce itself. He spoke of chemical forces and how one type of combination draws to another.
But DNA is a lengthy piece of work, and duplication without flaws seems unlikely.
So what do you think?
Can an EXTREMELY complex chemical reaction transfer information... specifically... accurately.... repeatedly.... for centuries?
Or perhaps 'something' intelligent is behind it all?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That's the point. Minute, and at times major changes do occur. The "specifically... accurately.... repeatedly...." is not always specific, or accurate, flaws do occur. Not to mention that each transfer involves the combination of two separate DNA sequences. So that a change can be passed on to the offspring.
A change that increases the survivability of a creature not only allows it to live longer, but to mate more often. Passing the positive mutations to its offspring.
MSizer
MSizer
Tha answer to that seems obvious. I if it works once, twice, three times, then why would you expect anything any different ever? If you consider that the accuracy is of a certain degree over 10 generations, then you should expect that it should be exactly the same again over 1000 generations. Of course the difference between the 10th and 1000th generations will be increased, which is what is expected. It's exactly why we see budgies and parrots, chimps and humans....
MSizer
MSizer
That's not even what I said. I said that if it works once, it should work a thousand times. I agree that it's amazing that DNA replicates even once, but the fact that it replicates 1000 with the same degree of accuracy is not any different that it replicates once with a certain degree of accuracy. The fact that it happens over and over again is no more impressive than the fact that it happens at all. To say that it's more amazing that it happens over and over again than as if it were to happen once would be like saying "isn't it incredible that no matter how many times I punch myself in the face, it hurts and my nose bleeds every single time". Of course it does, it's the same condition and same action over and over again.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
MSizer is making a very valid point that escapes many creationists. The creatures you see around you are the winners in life. They are the descendants of a long line of creatures who succeeded. At first this success may seem impressive until you recognise that there were far more losers than winners throughout the history of lfe. The current life is here because when you play the game of life someone has to win.
MSizer
MSizer
Is it something online I can watch?
MSizer
MSizer
Cool, thanks.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It's not the same reaction in that it includes the same individual reagents throughout time. That's like asking, "How can hydrogen and oxygen keep making water for billions of years?" While the chemistry remains the same, new sets of reagents are imported on a very regular basis.
If you can point to something going on in the cell that isn't chemistry, then by all means do so.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Yeah, isn't it amazing that EVERY time I let go of something it falls. EVERY time.
How DOES that happen?
How DOES that happen?
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen Meyer argues that our DNA provides evidence of an intelligent designer and helps explain how life began. He spoke at the Seattle Art Museum during an event hosted by the Discovery Institute.
About the Authors
Stephen Meyer
About the Program
Stephen Meyer argues that our DNA provides evidence of an intelligent designer and helps explain how life began. He spoke at the Seattle Art Museum during an event hosted by the Discovery Institute.
About the Authors
Stephen Meyer
Stephen Meyer is director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. His books include: "Explore Evolution:
The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism" and "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education." For more, visit: signatureinthecell.com.
I think the above is what he was referring to.
Stephen Meyer is director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. His books include: "Explore Evolution:
The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism" and "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education." For more, visit: signatureinthecell.com.
I think the above is what he was referring to.