Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[Autodidact]

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.

Correct. And this is what ID does NOT do, and why it is NOT science.

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?

That was done over 100 years ago. You must have missed it.

Or the true origin of species?

Not very well read, are you?

Or the true origin of the first bacteria?
Cuz if you have, we are all waiting.

What does that have to do with it?

 

[McBell]

To not have all sides of arguments/beliefs presented in an open system you bias the process.

What "side" does ID bring to evolution?
I mean, it is nothing more than a big pile of unsubstantiated claims.

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.

Seems to me that this is nothing more than a sad attempt at dragging science down to the level of creationism.

Creationism/ID is nothing more than belief.
And all the pretty speeches in the world are not going to change that fact.

 

[Archer]

What does that have to do with it?

Here is the real hang up with a lot of evolution. It is completely believable until you get to the first life. When you look at a single celled organism today you kind of have to ask why is it here and how does one of those create every living thing on the earth?

Second part, how?

Big things eat smaller things. In the competition for food a group of cells in a changing environment made some adaptations and grew. Perhaps they had a mutation or something that did not allow them to split so they became multi-celled organism and they interacted with cells similar enough to pick up some of their genetic material and mutated, perhaps a split that came out with 3 cells and one was different and specialized and also aided the other two cells.

I can go for that but now introduce calls that are not connected to the other cells and make them be interdependent. In a nut shell from there to here can not exactly be proved.

So anyway part one. Why do we still have single celled organisms being eaten or shrimp. Seems to me they would have developed some kind of defense mechanism. Sure they are massive breeders but hey cells are also so everything needs to evolve or not..

 

[McBell]

In a nut shell from there to here can not exactly be proved.

Wait, you are concerned with proof?
Creationism has absolutely nothing going for it aside from the ignorance, willful and otherwise of its believers and you are here whining about proof?


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

 

[McBell]

Creationism has absolutely nothing going for it aside from the ignorance, willful and otherwise of its believers and you are here whining about proof?

I take that back.
Not every creationist is ignorant enough to think that poking holes in evolution somehow makes creation true.

However, there are multiple threads right here on RF asking for even the slightest evidence for creation and not a single shred has been presented.

Nope, creationists spend all their time trying in vain to prove evolution false instead of merely presenting even the tiniest remote shred of evidence for creation.
All the while bragging about how there is so much evidence for creation.

And then some creationist wants proof of evolution?

What a big bunch of super hypocrites.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is the real hang up with a lot of evolution. It is completely believable until you get to the first life.

Well fine then, consider yourself an evolutionist, because that's exactly where the Theory of Evolution (ToE) starts, right after the first life.

When you look at a single celled organism today you kind of have to ask why is it here

They are here because they are able to survive and reproduce.

and how does one of those create every living thing on the earth?

It doesn't create anything except its own offspring.

Second part, how?

Do you understand exactly what ToE says--and doesn't say?

Big things eat smaller things. In the competition for food a group of cells in a changing environment made some adaptations and grew. Perhaps they had a mutation or something that did not allow them to split so they became multi-celled organism and they interacted with cells similar enough to pick up some of their genetic material and mutated, perhaps a split that came out with 3 cells and one was different and specialized and also aided the other two cells.

Actually, I think it's more like several single-celled organisms got together and cooperated. In other words, one way to look at yourself is a huge assembly of single-celled creatures. Just as humans do better in cities, some cells do better in bodies.

I can go for that but now introduce calls that are not connected to the other cells and make them be interdependent. In a nut shell from there to here can not exactly be proved.

Nothing in science is proved. It's all about evidence, evidence, evidence. And if I had had $1 for every time I've said that, I'd be rich.

Not to mention all the other elementary, obvious things I've said to creationist after creationist over and over, often the same creationist. I'd be Bill Gates.

So anyway part one. Why do we still have single celled organisms being eaten or shrimp. Seems to me they would have developed some kind of defense mechanism. Sure they are massive breeders but hey cells are also so everything needs to evolve or not..

I'm sorry I have no idea what you're saying here.

 

[Autodidact]

I take that back.
Not every creationist is ignorant enough to think that poking holes in evolution somehow makes creation true.

However, there are multiple threads right here on RF asking for even the slightest evidence for creation and not a single shred has been presented.

Nope, creationists spend all their time trying in vain to prove evolution false instead of merely presenting even the tiniest remote shred of evidence for creation.
All the while bragging about how there is so much evidence for creation.

And then some creationist wants proof of evolution?

What a big bunch of super hypocrites.

Evidence, schmevidence; they won't even state their hypothesis.

 

[Archer]

Evidence of creation must go back to the beginnings of the Bible:

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty (a ring of stuff around an infant sun)

That is enough it is exactly what science says. Everything has been submerged as well so the land did come up from the sea. Hell it even says non plant life in the sea before on land.

 

[Autodidact]

Evidence of creation must go back to the beginnings of the Bible:

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty (a ring of stuff around an infant sun)

That is enough it is exactly what science says. Everything has been submerged as well so the land did come up from the sea. Hell it even says non plant life in the sea before on land.

Do you have any idea what evolution is? Biological evolution, that is?

 

[Archer]

Do you have any idea what evolution is? Biological evolution, that is?

Yup; I sure do. Unlike many I am willing to accept that there are alternate explanations.
As I said it is not provable either way. There is a great case for evolution and a weak case for God but just because something can not be proved does not mean it can not be just like a single cell evolving into a human. It can't be proven.

BTW: don't think me so foolish as to think I do not know the how from A to Z as I probably know more than you about it.

 

[McBell]

BTW: don't think me so foolish as to think I do not know the how from A to Z as I probably know more than you about it.

So that means every time you post something that shows you do not know what you are talking about it is really you just flat out lieing?

 

[Thief]

I take that back.
Not every creationist is ignorant enough to think that poking holes in evolution somehow makes creation true.

However, there are multiple threads right here on RF asking for even the slightest evidence for creation and not a single shred has been presented.

Nope, creationists spend all their time trying in vain to prove evolution false instead of merely presenting even the tiniest remote shred of evidence for creation.
All the while bragging about how there is so much evidence for creation.

And then some creationist wants proof of evolution?

What a big bunch of super hypocrites.

Now....now.... now....
You know there are exceptions......

I believe in evolution....even though it's a theory.
I believe in God....not having seen His face....just His handiwork.
And creation is a description of His involvement.

I know you've read some of my postings.

 

[Onlooker]

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?

Why does a newly discovered fossil confirm a theory. Isn't ID supporting the very same thing. Only the mystery is in the Creator not the confounded theory that needs lots of faith and belief ( as in "origin" and process).
Last time I checked the mystery'belief is still there.
In fact, after all these years I havent heard a great explanation on how exactly the "environment" (stressors that help mutate or drive a new adaptive function) transfer that stress and adaption to the sex cells so you can do something useful like pass it on to your prodigy.
Example: Cool weather causing my differentiated (end organ cells) to be stressed enough to want to form thicker hide/more hair/wings/whatever. Once those end organ cells get mutated with whatever DNA/RNA "damage" you can imagine that would be functional later on. How exactly does that "disturbance" to my homeostasis
get transferred to the cells that actually matter for evolution. The sex cells.
Remember, the information is coded in a cryptic language that is very guarded.
With evolution, these mutations just occurred and worked out very well, thank you very much. No more questions about these things, lets talk fossils.
With ID, these "timed" functions/implementation of a complex data system is logical.
Think of punctuated evolution, explosion of varied life forms that survived.
Remember Crick, co discoverer of all things evolution bases their "belief" on.
His knowledge at the time was limited compared to genetic engineers now, but he realized chance didn't work at this high of complexity. He believed in Panspermia, which by definition has an "outside" influence.

 

[Onlooker]

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?

Your not confused.
Neither evolution (the theory that is being taught today) or ID can be tested.
Some of the systems can be looked at.
Bias in interpretation will occur on your side and mine.
We discover the perfect mutation mechanism and TOE will jump for joy.
Unfortunately, so will ID, because we are looking at the FORD MUSTANG together, the vehicle of our ancestry. You are saying it was all an "accident", I am saying, "awesome job".
No one will scientifically "prove" anything concerning our deep "beliefs" : which I will boldly state for you, correct me if I am wrong.
Your belief is no outsider/intelligent/mystical force caused or directed our DNA.
My belief is there was an Intelligent Influence, the Creator.

 

[Onlooker]

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?

Science wants to be removed from is brother/sister branches of metaphysics, and rightly so.
But we are not talking about organic or biochemistry. Hard for me to bring a mystical discussion about jolting electricity into water and causing H2 and O2.
But, come on, what argument are you afraid of.
TOE can stand on its own, ID will discuss and argue its "beliefs".
Your arguments are no more scientifically provable than mine, but lets put them on the table.
Do you like having such a fearful/politically correct environment that inhibits free thoughts. I think thats what the church did to Galileo and others.
Our whole "western civilization" is based on open discussion, despite I think your wrong (and other names I want to call you , and we all live happily ever after.

 

[Archer]

So that means every time you post something that shows you do not know what you are talking about it is really you just flat out lieing?

Touche wrong and you know it.

I do know what I am talking about and the fact is you can have all the bones and DNA you want but all you have is assumption (I won't say you are wrong and definitely wont say you are 100% correct).

Here is part of it and why you get so much resistance from the churches and Christians. When evolution was proposed many jumped on it as fact and used it as a tool against the church. In the beginning evolutionists were going on an educated guess and passing it off as fact and it was nowhere near provable back then. Times change but people are people and will resist when forced.

So what I am saying is there is really no precedent for the formation of a mammal. There is evidence that recent evolution happened, last several hundred million years, where a fish turned to a land crawler that turned to dino that turned to reptile and mammal. There is evidence that cells and bacteria can mutate rapidly and pass on\retain traits (evolve).

The trick is how do the two go together. I guess one thing that could be looked at is embryonic development. DNA combines in the nucleus of the egg and replication of stem cells begins. This mass of cells goes through a series of programed mutation, replication and change. Kind of like evolution, though this is preprogrammed.

Our code was written in a very specific way. I am saying that chance was not the writer; God was.

 

[fantome profane]

(a ring of stuff around an infant sun)

I have not seen those words in any Bible I have read, what translation are you using? Or are you just making it up?

Yup; I sure do. Unlike many I am willing to accept that there are alternate explanations.

I would be more than willing to consider any alternative scientific explanations for how life developed. But the problem is that I am not aware of any alternative scientific explanations for how life developed. And I have been talking to creationists about this for many years now, I have read creationist books, I have studied creationist websites. But never has any creationist even suggested an alternative scientific explanation for how life developed.
I hope you might be the first, pick something and give me an alternative scientific explanation. You seem very interested in the beginning of the first living cell or bacteria. So tell me, what is your explanation for how that came to be. Or if you prefer give me an alternative scientific explanation for the first mammal, or the first reptile, or whatever you like. I would love to hear one.

You might think me obstinate that I don’t accept that there are any alternative scientific explanations, but before you convict me of stubbornness please give me an alternative explanation.

 

[fantome profane]

In fact, after all these years I havent heard a great explanation on how exactly the "environment" (stressors that help mutate or drive a new adaptive function) transfer that stress and adaption to the sex cells so you can do something useful like pass it on to your prodigy.
Example: Cool weather causing my differentiated (end organ cells) to be stressed enough to want to form thicker hide/more hair/wings/whatever. Once those end organ cells get mutated with whatever DNA/RNA "damage" you can imagine that would be functional later on. How exactly does that "disturbance" to my homeostasis
get transferred to the cells that actually matter for evolution. The sex cells.
Remember, the information is coded in a cryptic language that is very guarded.
With evolution, these mutations just occurred and worked out very well, thank you very much. No more questions about these things, lets talk fossils.

When we talk about the theory of evolution we are talking about Darwinian evolution (or neo-Darwinian evolution). If you were even slightly familiar with the theory you would understand that according to this theory environmental stressors do not affect the DNA. Whatever characteristics an organism may acquire do not get passed down to their offspring. Acquired characteristics are not inherited. It doesn’t matter how much you work out, your future children are not going to be any stronger because of it.

(btw the theory that you are refuting here is called Lamarckian evolution, which pre-dates Darwin and has long been rejected by the scientific community).

What happens in Darwinian evolution is that those organisms that have genetic traits that allow them to survive and produce offspring are selected for. The environment acts like a filter, filtering out certain traits and allowing others to pass on through to the next generation. Stressors don’t change the dna of an individual, but they do change the genetic frequency of a given population by filtering out those organisms that cannot adapt to the environmental stressor.

 

[Archer]

I have not seen those words in any Bible I have read, what translation are you using? Or are you just making it up?

Void and formless? vacuum of stuff

I would be more than willing to consider any alternative scientific explanations for how life developed. But the problem is that I am not aware of any alternative scientific explanations for how life developed. And I have been talking to creationists about this for many years now, I have read creationist books, I have studied creationist websites. But never has any creationist even suggested an alternative scientific explanation for how life developed.
I hope you might be the first, pick something and give me an alternative scientific explanation. You seem very interested in the beginning of the first living cell or bacteria. So tell me, what is your explanation for how that came to be. Or if you prefer give me an alternative scientific explanation for the first mammal, or the first reptile, or whatever you like. I would love to hear one.

You might think me obstinate that I don’t accept that there are any alternative scientific explanations, but before you convict me of stubbornness please give me an alternative explanation.

I was saying I can accept some alternate explanations.

 

[fantome profane]

I was saying I can accept some alternate explanations.

Well help me out, I would also like to consider alternative scientific explanations for how life developed. Do you have any you might like to share with us?