Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[Willamena]

i don't know about the title, i didn't come up with it...i'm sure creationists will try to respond to this.
any thoughts?

I think they misspelled "gnome".

 

[waitasec]

The word 'supernatural' is not in your vocabulary?

Assuming the after life does not exist?
What cause did you have to rule it out?

If you have proof positive ...it is not there....fine.
Without proof...it falls to faith ...which needs no proof.

from what i experience i don't know what that the supernatural is. and i'm not going to assume i know what it is. it could just be chemistry.
and as far as i can tell nature does not care for me and i don't mind that at all. it doesn't mind me not caring what i think of it, why would it? life is bigger than me. however we are all apart of life, this wonderful state; being.

the best way i can describe it would be using music as a metaphor.
there are laws in music, but they were meant to be broken.
when you are improvising, the knowledge of music, based on the level of experience, allows for you to break the rules and sometimes the entire band becomes a unit. each instrument plays an integral part of painting a picture or creating a vibe, each instrument has a purpose. i'm not talking about playing a cover song i'm talking about improvising. which is a form of chaos.
have you ever listen to the greatful dead, or jimi hendrix...even jazz. when those guys go out on a limb and it's magic...you can call that spiritual..all i know it's when you step out side of your safe zone and go...it's where you find this euphoric moment... sometimes. its the fearless zone...just let it go and be in the moment. of course that's not saying do what ever you want, because most of us have an innate sense of responsibility and common decency.

 

[Archer]

Well I thought the video was cool. And what is the issue anyway? Monkeys were smart enough to stay in the trees and we supposedly evolved from that? I propose they evolved from us Well that won't work but sometimes I wonder who is more civilized.

I choose to follow a Divine creator. How is becoming clear but the why has perplexed me.

Here is a good one. Considering humans interbred with neanderthal what are the chances that neanderthal is where the issue originated? In examining the neanderthal DNA were they able to identify similar characteristics?

 

[Thief]

from what i experience i don't know what that the supernatural is. and i'm not going to assume i know what it is. it could just be chemistry.
and as far as i can tell nature does not care for me and i don't mind that at all. it doesn't mind me not caring what i think of it, why would it? life is bigger than me. however we are all apart of life, this wonderful state; being.

the best way i can describe it would be using music as a metaphor.
there are laws in music, but they were meant to be broken.
when you are improvising, the knowledge of music, based on the level of experience, allows for you to break the rules and sometimes the entire band becomes a unit. each instrument plays an integral part of painting a picture or creating a vibe, each instrument has a purpose. i'm not talking about playing a cover song i'm talking about improvising. which is a form of chaos.
have you ever listen to the greatful dead, or jimi hendrix...even jazz. when those guys go out on a limb and it's magic...you can call that spiritual..all i know it's when you step out side of your safe zone and go...it's where you find this euphoric moment... sometimes. its the fearless zone...just let it go and be in the moment. of course that's not saying do what ever you want, because most of us have an innate sense of responsibility and common decency.

Some rules broken....some not.
Do you think the Creator broke some rules?
If not...I see no cause to count Him dead....or never lived.

And there is the over all scheme of things you speak of....
All these copies of a form.....
each breaking the rules....
and for what?

Why do you think we are here?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is as easy to believe in God as not to do so, there is no proof either way.
However a majority of religions believe in a beneficial God and some form of afterlife.
A majority have prophets and teachers who convey that religion's standards of how our lives should be lived.
From time to time religions are subverted and used as a powerbase for evil, contrary to their own teachings.

I believe Jesus to have taught us how we should live and how we should respect God, and love our fellow man. He did this in a way that was comprehensible to those living at the time, and in a way that still has an equal meaning today. He had no Doubts in his own faith in God, or his purpose on earth.

 

[David M]

Monkeys were smart enough to stay in the trees and we supposedly evolved from that?

Except the monkeys that don't stay in the trees of course, such as those savannah dwelling baboons.

 

[Archer]

Except the monkeys that don't stay in the trees of course, such as those savannah dwelling baboons.

Well a few of them were dumb enough to give up the tree.

 

[waitasec]

Some rules broken....some not.
Do you think the Creator broke some rules?
If not...I see no cause to count Him dead....or never lived.

And there is the over all scheme of things you speak of....
All these copies of a form.....
each breaking the rules....
and for what?

Why do you think we are here?

for what? to experience life, being.

for me, there is no why. we just are. i can't dabble in those quests.
it's like comparing the reason of an insect to mine. it is absolutely impossible to know why. our natural senses now have the ability to go beyond it's limited capacity with radar, microscopes, telescopes... and they have helped us to see this world differently, which is why i think labeling things we don't understand to be an impossible task.
i think if we label things is when we place limits on them. sort of like playing in a particular key, we don't step outside the parameters because your're not supposed to but then the pigeonhole isn't sufficient anymore so we step out and find something new.

 

[waitasec]

I don't know your particular cause for discontent in the world, or with God. But if you had one, you wouldn't be the first person to tell me about such a thing, and you probably won't be the last.

through my discourse with theists, i have come to realize that labeling something no one can possibly understand places limits, therefore limiting its capacity with our own limited understanding.
sort of like, looking through a peephole and expecting what we see is small enough to fit through that hole for it to come into our reality.

I hear that.

:rainbow1:

 

[Onlooker]

well thank you for that. i think
first of all, i started this thread to start a conversation concerning the possibility of common descent, as meow mix put it.

as far as the metaphysical, i don't know. but from what i do understand is science has discovered things that were not even imaginable 100 yrs ago.
our capacity of knowledge keeps increasing... what we have also seen is that whenever we come to our wits end it must be god, until the next genius comes along...
ancient books were written by a people from a time where they didn't have the knowledge we do now, which brings me to another thought, had we known then what we do now we wouldn't experience religion the way we experience it today.

Its a good topic. I agree that science at the time of most writings in the Torah and Tankah was limited.
But consider this, only one tribe thinks a "Day" is night then day.
Science agrees with this. Big bang with all the universe's materials in such dense material all the fundamental forces were fused. About 700000 years later the quarks/photons cooled off enough to create light. So , on part one of the ancient Torah, you have night then light.
Open mindedness works both ways. Science will never ( okay, never is strong word, maybe a "time machine" can work) prove creation/big bang was an accident verses directed. Also, evolution will never be proved to be accidental verses directed.
Some cool parts of evolution include punctuated explosion of various life forms, as if they were waiting for "right time" to come forward.
The search for answers is a blast. By the way, have you seen any Aliens around, the hunt is still on.

 

[Autodidact]

Sounds like you have weighed all scientific options on abiogenesis, cosmology and evolution.
Discussions about nonprovable issues become emotional, political and mystical.
As science progresses we understand more and fit our emotions, politics and beliefs to these.
Example: the universe is at least 11 dimensions (maybe more). So tell me how you think that plays into your believe in evolution, God, time travel and other issues.
You are mistakingly saying they move the bar backwards. In science you constantly change your theory to fit current findings.
The one thing I see not happening in our "modern society" is allowing ID to be taught.
An argument is a 2 sided sport. If you outlaw/demean/label/prejudice/fire/not hire/not tenure all discussions and discussants concerning ID, maybe you are not really in a free "modern society".

So University Departments should hire people who are wrong to teach things that are not true?

 

[Autodidact]

I agree. Problem is evolution by definition assumes no outside force.

False. It assumes no such thing.

It also has a sticky time with abiogenesis.

It has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

In fact, abiogenesis has many theories but the 2 that keep coming up in debates are the crystal grown protein terrestrial belief or an Alien extraterrestrial (panspermia) belief (Crick was fond of this one). Seeing my avatar, one would believe I favor the latter. But in fact I favor an ID form of abiogenesis.
In the scientific method, both sides (or all sides) of an argument are discussed. Only in politically correct or repressed societies are arguments not openly discussed.

No. In science, only scientific ideas are discusses. ID is not a scientific idea.

 

[Onlooker]

So University Departments should hire people who are wrong to teach things that are not true?

I am not sure what you are stating.
Is it: Hire people who teach things that arent true?- answer: what is your definition of truth?
Is it: Hire people who wrongly teach things that prove not to be true? answer: I dont know.
Is it : Hire people who wrongly teach things that are true? answer : I dont know.

 

[Onlooker]

False.

Evolution assumes no directive input by any intelligent being. Evolution assumes accidental mutations due to nature that somehow make the magic leap of end organism stress ( the evolving force on the end organ, that is to say, the differentiated cell) to the haploid cells that transfer data.

It has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Our existence has everything to do with abiogenesis. Dont talk about "creationist" without the stomach to talk about abiogenesis. I know some dont like to be called "evolutionist", but that is at least defined to the "evolving" process. "creationist" refers to the whole enchilada baby. So, naturally abiogensis is somewhere between the meat and mole sauce. Cant have evolution without something to evolve.

No. In science, only scientific ideas are discusses. ID is not a scientific idea.

Who awarded you "Dean of Science"? Who are you to say what is science?
Trust me, the last sentence is not meant to be a rip/flame or whatever( because we are all looking for the truth), Im just asking, who says its not science. A high school teacher?, some college teachers?.
You know, if most public school teachers go against what political correct answers are "set", tenure and further employment is in jeopardy.
Thats a free society.
In science, both sides of an argument are looked out.
No one should be scared to discuss openly.

 

[McBell]

In science, both sides of an argument are looked out.
No one should be scared to discuss openly.

In science, science should be looked at.
Not beliefs.

Creationism, or as some prefer to call it Intelligent Design, is NOT science.
It is a belief.

Are you going to start a thread to argue that the Stork Theory should also be presented in schools alongside of sex ed?
That is, if you can sex ed to be something more than: don't have sex before you are married because if you do you will go straight to hell.

 

[Onlooker]

In science, science should be looked at.
Not beliefs.

Creationism, or as some prefer to call it Intelligent Design, is NOT science.
It is a belief.

The central tenet of education has been described as “imparting of knowledge”.
Knowledge is described as a subset of truth and belief, that is to say knowledge is where truth (whether it is absolute/objective or relative/subjective) and belief (whether proposition/content or premise/reason) meet.
This is confusing isn’t it. Epistemology investigates these fine points of the theory of knowledge and how it relates to truth.
How do we know your truth is better than my truth?
Opposing views and beliefs become arguments. If my truth is different from your truth, you want to lay out all the facts to convince me of your belief (with an argument).
An argument is defined as: a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Each premise and conclusion needs to be true or false not ambiguous. Each argument is valid or not valid (not described as true or false).
Since these are the same words described for “belief” in the knowledge definition, we can state that arguments are defined as: a set of one or more declarative beliefs along with declarative beliefs known as the conclusion. Each argument is valid or not valid (not described as true or false).
To not have all sides of arguments/beliefs presented in an open system you bias the process. In eastern europe this “all around development of the personality for social needs” was education with a goal. This goal often provided only one side of certain education “arguments” for the greater good of the society.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.
Scientific Method is the objective study of observable, empirical and measurable evidence that is subject to specific principles of reasoning. This involves collection of data through observation and experimentation with formulation and testing of hypothesis.
Science seeks to approach truth through the scientific method. Strictly speaking, the scientific method never "proves" a theory or shows that it is definitely true. Except when it comes to directly observable facts, the scientific method never claims to reveal "the truth"; rather, it attempts to approach the truth by continuously refining theories so that they better approximate the truth.

In summary, your science beliefs are valid or not valid. They are not true or not true.
Currently, your arguments are valid but not provable.
Are you saying you have found the Nobel prize winning proof for evolution? Or the true origin of species? Or the true origin of the first bacteria?
Cuz if you have, we are all waiting.

 

[Archer]

In science, science should be looked at.
Not beliefs.

Creationism, or as some prefer to call it Intelligent Design, is NOT science.
It is a belief.

Are you going to start a thread to argue that the Stork Theory should also be presented in schools alongside of sex ed?
That is, if you can sex ed to be something more than: don't have sex before you are married because if you do you will go straight to hell.

The central tenet of education has been described as “imparting of knowledge”.
Knowledge is described as a subset of truth and belief, that is to say knowledge is where truth (whether it is absolute/objective or relative/subjective) and belief (whether proposition/content or premise/reason) meet.
This is confusing isn’t it. Epistemology investigates these fine points of the theory of knowledge and how it relates to truth.
How do we know your truth is better than my truth?
Opposing views and beliefs become arguments. If my truth is different from your truth, you want to lay out all the facts to convince me of your belief (with an argument).
An argument is defined as: a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Each premise and conclusion needs to be true or false not ambiguous. Each argument is valid or not valid (not described as true or false).
Since these are the same words described for “belief” in the knowledge definition, we can state that arguments are defined as: a set of one or more declarative beliefs along with declarative beliefs known as the conclusion. Each argument is valid or not valid (not described as true or false).
To not have all sides of arguments/beliefs presented in an open system you bias the process. In eastern europe this “all around development of the personality for social needs” was education with a goal. This goal often provided only one side of certain education “arguments” for the greater good of the society.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.
Scientific Method is the objective study of observable, empirical and measurable evidence that is subject to specific principles of reasoning. This involves collection of data through observation and experimentation with formulation and testing of hypothesis.
Science seeks to approach truth through the scientific method. Strictly speaking, the scientific method never "proves" a theory or shows that it is definitely true. Except when it comes to directly observable facts, the scientific method never claims to reveal "the truth"; rather, it attempts to approach the truth by continuously refining theories so that they better approximate the truth.

In summary, your science beliefs are valid or not valid. They are not true or not true.
Currently, your arguments are valid but not provable.
Are you saying you have found the Nobel prize winning proof for evolution? Or the true origin of species? Or the true origin of the first bacteria?
Cuz if you have, we are all waiting.

I agree onlooker:

Per Websters

Definition of SCIENCE

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

5: capitalized : christian science

 

[waitasec]

Scientific Method is the objective study of observable, empirical and measurable evidence that is subject to specific principles of reasoning . This involves collection of data through observation and experimentation with formulation and testing of hypothesis.
Science seeks to approach truth through the scientific method. Strictly speaking, the scientific method never "proves" a theory or shows that it is definitely true. Except when it comes to directly observable facts, the scientific method never claims to reveal "the truth"; rather, it attempts to approach the truth by continuously refining theories so that they better approximate the truth.

In summary, your science beliefs are valid or not valid. They are not true or not true.
Currently, your arguments are valid but not provable.
Are you saying you have found the Nobel prize winning proof for evolution? Or the true origin of species? Or the true origin of the first bacteria?
Cuz if you have, we are all waiting.

from what i understand whenever a fossil is discovered it confirms ToE.
we have yet to find modern forms of fossilized bones in the mesozoic era, or any era. once that happens it's game over...
i highlighted what you said and i am confused
what has ID brought to the table as far as scientific discoveries? has it debunked anything by way of the scientific method?

 

[Autodidact]

I am not sure what you are stating.
Is it: Hire people who teach things that arent true?- answer: what is your definition of truth?
Is it: Hire people who wrongly teach things that prove not to be true? answer: I dont know.
Is it : Hire people who wrongly teach things that are true? answer : I dont know.

It is false that ID is a scientific concept. If you say it is science, you are saying something incorrect, that reflects either ignorance, dishonesty, or incompetence. Should university departments have to hire people who are ignorant, dishonest or incompetent?

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution assumes no directive input by any intelligent being.

This is false. Evolution is science. All of science, including evolution, is agnostic as to whether any "intelligent being," that is, God, exists or directed anything. It neither assumes there is one, or is not one. If you believe there is one, then science, including ToE, tells us HOW It created what it did. Science is not about whether God exists. That's why ID is not scientific; it tries to apply science to something outside its scope--the supernatural.

Evolution assumes accidental mutations due to nature that somehow make the magic leap of end organism stress ( the evolving force on the end organ, that is to say, the differentiated cell) to the haploid cells that transfer data.

This is incorrect. This is not at all what ToE says.

Our existence has everything to do with abiogenesis.

That may be, but it is not the subject of ToE.

Dont talk about "creationist" without the stomach to talk about abiogenesis.

Pardon?

I know some dont like to be called "evolutionist", but that is at least defined to the "evolving" process. "creationist" refers to the whole enchilada baby. So, naturally abiogensis is somewhere between the meat and mole sauce. Cant have evolution without something to evolve.

You can't have cars without atoms, either, but engineering is not quantum mechanics. ToE is a specific theory about a specific subject--diversity of species, and that is all. And that is quite enough; it's one of the most enormous questions in all of science.

Who awarded you "Dean of Science"? Who are you to say what is science?

It's not me, but scientists and philosophers and historians of science. btw, this has also been found in a court of law in Dover v. Pennsylvannia, in which the ID proponents did their best to persuade the court otherwise. They failed, because it isn't.

Trust me, the last sentence is not meant to be a rip/flame or whatever( because we are all looking for the truth), Im just asking, who says its not science. A high school teacher?, some college teachers?.

Scientists. It does not meet the definition of science. Even one of its strongest proponents, in the Dover case, testified that for ID to be science, astrology would have to be science as well. Do you think astrology is science?

You know, if most public school teachers go against what political correct answers are "set", tenure and further employment is in jeopardy.
Thats a free society.
In science, both sides of an argument are looked out.

If one is correct, and the other isn't, we teach the correct one. We don't teach that some think the earth is round, and others think it's flat. We don't teach that some think the earth revolves around the sun, and some think it's vice versa. We don't teach that some think the Allies won WW II, while others believe the Axis powers prevailed.

If you want something taught in a high school science class, you have to survive the daunting process of first persuading the scientific community of its validity. Only the most core, basic, consensus concepts are taught there. ID is not even science, let alone correct.

Science has a very specific definition. Over the centuries we have found that this definition works. It is important to protect it, and not let it be muddied up with a lot of superstition and myth. Myth may (or may not) be valuable, but it's not science.

No one should be scared to discuss openly.

Of course not. That's what we're doing.

If ID were discussed openly in the classroom, it would be like this:

"Some dishonest creationists have tried to disguise their Biblical worldview by lying and calling it 'Intelligent Design.' This concept has been utterly discredited at every level. Every pillar of it has been shot down and destroyed by the scientific community. Nevertheless they persist in trying to advance it politically. That's ID." Is that what you want?