Intelligent design, my version.

[gnostic]

The RNA world hypothesis proposes that RNA capable of catalyzing its own self-replication was the first (or one of the first) precursors to living things. Given that RNA has a genetic code, it would be subject to mutation. I even read a report of RNA in a lab mutating such that reproduced more quickly over time. However, the replication of that particular RNA was catalyzed by a secondary agent, not itself. I don't know if self-catalyzing RNA replication has been achieved yet or not.

That's interesting.

Like I said before, I am not a biologist. I'm more of engineer (civil engineer and computer scientist, though I am more focused in the area of programming than computer architecture).

I know less of RNA than I do of DNA, but even then my understanding of RNA is considerably limited.

However, the replication of that particular RNA was catalyzed by a secondary agent, not itself.

Do you think the "secondary agent" could be proteins?

As I understand it, proteins have many different functions, like replicating DNA, catalyzing metabolic reactions, etc. I don't know if replicating RNA would require proteins or not for catalyzing.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

I support the idea of intelligent design being taught in Schools,as per this type;
Some people believe God created the Earth some 5 billion years ago, God was in no hurry so he spent 3 billion years before creating primitive bacterial life in a soup like mix of DNA strands, 1 1/2 billion years later he created the dinosaurs, and skipping ahead only 100,000 years ago he created the first Humans, one woman Eve and probably more than one man as her mate, skipping ahead to 15,000 years ago God created a great furnace to melt the Ice that covered most of the world and there was a great flood, 98% of the World's people lived below our present sea level and when most of the glaciers melted there was a cataclysm of Global warming that raised the sea level 400!!! feet and 99% of the world's people drowned, In the middle east everyone was killed except for a visionary nautical engineer that built a great ship his name was Noah and you may or may not believe the rest of the story but people of faith believe some of it is recorded in the bible.
I call it intelligent design, and its based on the idea that evolution is the way God creates, by encouraging mutations to occur over million of millions of years etc In a regular science course at high school all it would take is one one hour class to discuss it as a possible alternative to Godless evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin and most modern scientists.

My response:-
From what I understand from your theory, is that your proposal is that there is a blend of evolution and the creation of God; that God did not create in six days but over billions of years. In the Bible, the six days of creation are actually six days like the days of today. There is an evening and a morning for each day (Genesis 1), in other words they are literal days and there is no need for any fancy interpretation. God created in six days, however God is unlimited. He could have created everything in NO TIME if he wanted to. If you do not believe Scripture, the burden of proof is with you to prove He did not say what He meant. You either accept Scripture or you don't. If you don’t have a Bible, I suggest that you go out and get one.
The main problem with the design of the theory of evolution, is that it does away with the need of God. If everything created itself, what need is there to give any heed to the Creator? Man thinks that in his rebellion against God and in his high level of intellectualism and sophistication, what need do I have of God? Therefore the line of logic is thus:- Evolution is a method to get rid of God. If God could be separated from the origin, then we could be separated from God, and if we could be separated from God, then we can do anything we want, and man can make his own laws in contradiction to God’s laws. Another problem with evolution is that there are no witnesses, but with creation, there is the witness of the Creator who was there and had it written down for us. Hebrews 11:3 says:- By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.'
Evolution is a product of the rebellion of man against God. Man wants to be his own god, he is proud and does not want anyone else telling him what to do. Evolution says we came from monkeys which came from some form of primeval soup billions of years ago, but if Creation is right, then we were created in the wonderful image of God who is the source of all life. I think I prefer God to evolution. The evidence of God’s creation is everywhere to be seen in the world around us so that we are without excuse. We are no accidents. People must also realize that you need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution, than you do to believe in the existence of God. Food for thought. Christ’s prophet, Certainty for eternity

 

[gnostic]

The main problem with the design of the theory of evolution, is that it does away with the need of God. If everything created itself, what need is there to give any heed to the Creator? Man thinks that in his rebellion against God and in his high level of intellectualism and sophistication, what need do I have of God? Therefore the line of logic is thus:- Evolution is a method to get rid of God.

Evolution is not getting rid of God, God or any other deities are IRRELEVANT.

If we look at every other branches of science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc), and every fields of those branches (like electromagneticism, relativity, optics in physics), none of the theory that we used in whatever science textbooks that we used today, mention anything about God, spirits, angels or heaven and hell, because they are NOT RELEVANT in understanding those fields.

Have you ever study (non-evolutionary) science subject before, prophet?

Did any of these (non-evolutionary) subjects give you a lesson in understanding about god?

If not, then why should evolution even mention creationism or creator?

I am more of engineer than scientist, but my civil engineering course did require me to have physics background with some chemistry. Much of it, were about motion and forces, or understand the physical properties of construction materials (like steel, concrete, and even wood). Or learn about hydrodynamics, with regarding to water or sewer pipes. I had also learn some of the basics of geology, for foundation and how to test soil, etc.

None of these subjects that I had taken with this course, required me know about god or about religion, because god and religion irrelevant.

Do you think we would need to study religion, creationism or theology, to learn about constructing public buildings, bridges or roads?
Do you think praying to god will magically or miraculously lay out pipelines or road network?​

But let's get back to evolution.

Understanding evolution has given us a greater understanding of biology of all life, whether it be animals, plants or microorganism, like viruses, bacterias. It also give us greater understanding of diseases.

Let face it, evolution is a field about biology.

What does creationism or the bible (or any other scriptures) teach people about biology? Does the bible teach anything about the human body?

If the bible teaches nothing about biology, then what bl@@dy use is creationism?

And here is the thing, Christ's Prophet. Evolution is not a study of origin of first life, and any of the theories (not just Darwin's Natural Selection) ever teach about origin of life, so how is it actually being anti-theism?

If you want to study or understand about scientific theory on the origin of life, then you are arguing against the wrong theory. The theory on the origin of life on Earth, is biochemistry subject called - ABIOGENESIS.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects, focusing on two fundamental fields.

Evolution is focused more on biological changes or adaption, or on biodiversity, whether it because of environmental effects (natural selection) or because of migration into or out of population (gene flow).

Abiogenesis on the other hand, scientists are trying to determine how life came to be, and what chemical formed biological life. They actually know what chemical make up organism, but what conditions made life possible. This is not evolution.

Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be treated as science, because it come from mythological and superstitious belief and books.

You wrote:

Another problem with evolution is that there are no witnesses, but with creation, there is the witness of the Creator who was there and had it written down for us.

And God being witness is based on what?

It is based on belief of book, that wasn't written till the Iron Age, borrowing ideas from older Bronze Age civilizations, the Old Babylonian literary and myths, and from an even older Sumerian myths.

It was traditionally believe that Moses wrote the Genesis, except we don't have any written records in the late Bronze Age by any Israelite. And Genesis wasn't written at the same time, in fact, it wasn't written by the same author.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you think the "secondary agent" could be proteins?

As I understand it, proteins have many different functions, like replicating DNA, catalyzing metabolic reactions, etc. I don't know if replicating RNA would require proteins or not for catalyzing.

If I remember correctly, the catalyst in the experiments was another form of RNA that did not self-replicate.

 

[BUTSeriously]

I support the idea of intelligent design being taught in Schools,as per this type;
"God was in no hurry so he spent 3 billion years before creating primitive bacterial life in a soup like mix of DNA strands"
.

There is a fine explanation that explains such a notion. A more astute reading of the texts in Genesis opens with the word 'BEGINNING'; this refers to time, just as Earth in this verse refers to physicality. This is also the space-time origins, namely there is an equation here waiting to be discovered by man.

The factor of science is of definitions of the works embedded in the universe. This says that all parts of the universe are based on science, including the time factor it takes for a planet called earth to develop, so it can be tracked, researched and understood by man.

"Come, let us reason together, says the Lord" [Isaiah]

The Hebrew God based Genesis on 100% science: it does take that long for the earth to be as it is today from a scientific view. Genesis is the first writing that that said the universe is finite with a beginning, that the first product was a duality of light & darkness, then separated. That is also how the first life form began:

"Male and female created He them" - then they were separated as male and female. No other way to allow a life to output both or either gender; the first had to be dual-gendered. It is also why the Big Bang Theory must be re-evaluated to express it began with a duality: no action is possible with one single entity - there is nothing to interact with.

That we have an ancient writing that even 'THINKS' in the Genesis mode in the time of mythical head-bashing deities and divine kings is fantastic. Not meriting ridicule.

 

[BUTSeriously]

If not, then why should evolution even mention creationism or creator?

Because it would not be science w/o a cause & effect premise. And by the process of elimination in a finite universe there can be no scientific alternatives to a universe maker. Name one?

I agree that science must be thought free of religion. However, I do think it ok for a bottom post note that says there is a premise called Creationism. Genesis spurred science with the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 300 BCE, which is called THE SEPTUAGINT. It changed the mind of man, it is the only scripture that never said the earth is flat, and gave us our first scientific equation:

"A seed shall follow its own kind."

 

[BUTSeriously]

Noah's flood according to the bible which says it was a worldwide flood doesn't make any sense to me.

No sir. The Noah story opens with the preamble of a local, regional flood, with only Noah and his household, and his domestic livestock called to enter the floor. No wild animals are listed; the boat's size is open only to the first verse.The verses that the world was covered, are credible how an ancient people in this phase would express it. This people never ventured outside their towns all their lives:
Genesis Chapter 7
1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark

 

[Lyndon]

In that case the size specified for the ark seems much larger than what was needed!!

 

[Not Bob]

It is misunderstanding how creation works to say God must be proven.

There is no evidence for the soul of Mozart, which created the music of Mozart. Mozart made decisions about where to put the notes on the sheets of music paper. We can see as fact the way the decisions turned out, also we can surmise by the evidence how he decided it, but in the end a decision can turn out several different ways. And that means there can be no evidence for what makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

If you do mathematics about choosing then there is no symbol needed for what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Mathematics simply functions without such symbols.

It is just purely our opinion which says that Mozart had a soul with love, fear, courage in it, and whatever, which made the decisions turn out the way they did.

Whether Mozart had a soul or not plays no part in the fact that there is an uncountable amount of evidence to prove he created his sheet music. It is entirely possible for a person to create the most magnificent work of art without requiring a soul, it isn't necessary.
I agree that it is entirely opinion that people, including Mozart, have souls, an opinion I happen to share; however, until such a time as there is sufficient empirical evidence to prove the existence of the soul, it must remain opinion, and it must remain outside of established scientific theory.

 

[gnostic]

Because it would not be science w/o a cause & effect premise. And by the process of elimination in a finite universe there can be no scientific alternatives to a universe maker. Name one?

Science is supposed to present knowledge or explanation that can be verified through observation, and that mean by repeatable and rigorous testing or by verifiable evidences.

And when you talk of cause-and-effect in science, scientists have to provide evidences for the "cause" as much as they need to provide evidences for the "effect".

Creationism don't provide a single evidence of the existence of a god, let alone the myth that god created the world. In creationism, they have no evidences for the "cause", which is god or creator.

Saying that God or the Creator is the cause for all creation, is nothing more than belief in superstitions and the supernatural. The god-did-it, is nothing more than either delusional cop-out or wishful thinking, hence "not scientific".

The cause-and-effect of creationism - hence the creator and creation analogy only work in mythological scenario, but it failed miserably with evidences for god being the cause.

There are far too many similarities between the older Sumerian-Babylonian myths and Genesis creation, that surely the Hebrew authors/scribes/redactors of the Genesis were borrowing ideas from older Mesopotamian civilizations.

There are no literary evidences of Bronze Age writings of Israel. The Israelite/Hebrews were clearly offshoot of the Canaanites, and the Canaanites weren't ignorant Babylonian literatures, especially when you considered that fragmented tablets were found in Megiddo.

And considering that genesis creation is a creation myth, I find it ridiculous that any creationist can argue that creationism should be accepted as science.

So please don't talk to me about cause-and-effect, if you can't provide evidences both "cause" and "effect" for your creationism.

 

[gnostic]

In that case the size specified for the ark seems much larger than what was needed!!

Actually the ark is not large enough even if it was a global flood.

Ok, Noaẖ have to house 8 humans, and as many animals as they could, but what did they all eat?

They stayed on the ark for whole year. The storage of food would have been massive. So what did the animals eat? And have you ever consider what carnivore animals eat in the ark?

Dogs, wolves, cats, and big cats, bears and crocodiles, birds of prey, just to list a few, are all meat eaters.

And once Noaẖ release the animals, what would they eat then, since the whole earth have been under water have been underwater in better part of the years.

Wouldn't carnivore animals begin attacking other animals, after leaving the ark?

As genesis said, most of the animals that boarded the ark in pair, male and female. The carnivore animals would have wipe out a lot of animals, especially slow moving animals.

And speaking of slow moving animals. If the flood was global, how do you think slow-moving creatures like kola bears, wombats or enchidna leave the ark and travel from mount Ararat all the way to Australia, without being eaten by predators? and how would they travel over expanse of the seas?

The genesis flood is nothing more than delusional fantasy with no basis in reality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Whether Mozart had a soul or not plays no part in the fact that there is an uncountable amount of evidence to prove he created his sheet music. It is entirely possible for a person to create the most magnificent work of art without requiring a soul, it isn't necessary.
I agree that it is entirely opinion that people, including Mozart, have souls, an opinion I happen to share; however, until such a time as there is sufficient empirical evidence to prove the existence of the soul, it must remain opinion, and it must remain outside of established scientific theory.

i never asserted it as fact, I asserted it as opinion.

It means that all social darwinist, neurology, evolutionary psychology literature proclaiming to know as fact what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is false. It means all that talk of love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain is false.

 

[Sapiens]

i never asserted it as fact, I asserted it as opinion.

It means that all social darwinist, neurology, evolutionary psychology literature proclaiming to know as fact what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is false. It means all that talk of love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain is false.

Yet more unsupported claims.

 

[AllanV]

Actually the ark is not large enough even if it was a global flood.

And speaking of slow moving animals. If the flood was global, how do you think slow-moving creatures like kola bears, wombats or enchidna leave the ark and travel from mount Ararat all the way to Australia, without being eaten by predators? and how would they travel over expanse of the seas?

It is called intelligent design.
The slow moving animals were the humans that did not get on board.
The last days are going to be similar.

 

[Sapiens]

It is called intelligent design.
The slow moving animals were the humans that did not get on board.
The last days are going to be similar.

There are supposed to be claims that anyone would take seriously? Try again.

 

[metis]

I know this is going to come off quite snarky, but if one believes in the literalness of the Noah's ark narrative, they're likely to believe in just about anything. It simply doesn't make sense, especially in light of the fact that taking it as allegory is much more meaningful, and allegory is found throughout our scriptures and also the Christian scriptures (much of "Revelations", for example).

IOW, whether an ark built by Noah or whomever thousands of years ago in a local flooding situation actually occurred is no where near as important as the values and morals found within a narrative that doesn't have to be taken as some sort of literal history.

 

[gnostic]

The slow moving animals were the humans that did not get on board.

I was talking about after the Flood, when Noah released all the animals.

With predators leaving the Ark at the same time as the other animals, they are more likely to eat any slow moving creature, before they could get far from the ark.

 

[AllanV]

I was talking about after the Flood, when Noah released all the animals.

With predators leaving the Ark at the same time as the other animals, they are more likely to eat any slow moving creature, before they could get far from the ark.

I'm sorry, couldn't resist.

The predatory instincts of the biology on the planet are taken for granted. Animals can be affected by how a person behaves around them which comes from the persons state of mind or overall the spirit of the person.
I am uncertain if predation begins from the mind of man or the mind of man is ruled by an effect around the planet.

Noah had the Spirit of God and His mind would have been very quiet and he would have had no apparent aggressiveness. Food intake can be much less in this state of mind.

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

 

[gnostic]

IOW, whether an ark built by Noah or whomever thousands of years ago in a local flooding situation actually occurred is no where near as important as the values and morals found within a narrative that doesn't have to be taken as some sort of literal history.

True.

The importance come from the meaning of the message, like the obvious - do not sin - or - worship no other gods but me...whatever. Genesis 6 wasn't really clear what sort of sins were being committed by mankind.

Because everything else about the Noah's story is unrealistic - scientifically and historically.

ps What does IOW mean?

 

[metis]

True.

The importance come from the meaning of the message, like the obvious - do not sin - or - worship no other gods but me...whatever. Genesis 6 wasn't really clear what sort of sins were being committed by mankind.

Because everything else about the Noah's story is unrealistic - scientifically and historically.

ps What does IOW mean?

"In other words...".