What Have Creationists Said That's True?

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

First you would have to show that DNA is a symbolic form of language/code....

Biologist speak freely of the ‘ DNA code,’ or the ‘ language of Dna’ and for a very good reason... Because that’s precisely what it is, there’s NO dispute about that. There’s a vast amount of information contained in Dna/ Rna... And that information certainly means something to intelligent minds/scientists capable of deciphering /reading it.
___________
There are four kinds of nucleotides in Dna ( C, A, G, and T ) . And starting at the beginning of a gene , which encodes for a specific protein, every sequential grouping of 3 Dna letters or triplet ( also known as a Codon, ) say CAG, or AAT... encodes for a specific amino acid , of the 20 possible varieties...Note Bien: there are 64 different codons altogether ( 4 times 4 times 4 ) BUT there are only 20 Amino Acids, so there’s a fair bit of redundancy. ( please see the * ADDENDUM * to this ! )

But any biologist, anywhere on earth, at anytime can read these Codons sequentially and say ‘ a ha’ ....valine, lysine, etc...Which is basically a lot like the way our own written language works...We read the letters of a word in sequence ( for example) ‘ CAT’ and we say ‘ Ok that word symbolizes a certain kind of animal '...

if you’re intelligent and you understand English/ the alphabet ... you can readily decipher pretty much any meaningful sentence I type ...well that's my hope at least

... And by the same token , a biologist can read a long sequence of Dna, separate all the codons ( which we might liken to carefully worded instructions in a recipe/cook book ) put together all the amino acids/ ingredients, it calls for, in the correct order, and say ...’ Eureka'...' I know this recipe'...it’s the recipe for ‘ hemoglobin’ ( for instance ) ...In other words , this snippet of Dna or gene, provides all of the information/ instructions for making hemoglobin. ( it's symbollic obviously because it isn't hemoglobin, but just a code explaining how to make it )

Now if DNA was NOT a code/ symbolic language... intelligent scientists could never repeatedly make the quantum leap from identifing Dna nucleotides , numbering literally billions, inclusive of tens of thousands of genes...TO saying ' aha' ...here's the blueprints/recipe for literally tens of thousands of different proteins

Surely the precept that DNA=' A CODE ' argument is on SOLID / NEIGH IRREFUTABLE GROUND EH ? Unless u think, all those geneticists have been making lucky guesses all along ?

Ok let's move on...
__________________
Camanintx :

...( you need to show that DNA has been ) composed by an intelligent mind.

Well what I’m doing here is making an ‘ argument based on inference.’ Because every other comparable code we know about ( or can even imagine ) requires an intelligent mind to create/ devise it. It is therefore quite reasonable to ‘ infer’ that the same must be true of DNA , based on our understanding/ untold centuries of experience with symbolic codes/ languages....

...Arguing otherwise would basically be akin to asserting that this MESSAGE mindlessly/ randomly wrote itself...WHICH WOULD BE SHEER NONSENSE ! ( not to mention far far more improbable that randomly picking two dozen scrabble squares , in the correct sequence, out of a hat ! )

There are many other variations of this DNA=AN INTELLIGENT CODE argument/ requiring an Intelligent Author ( sorry I don’t know the name of its originator ) some delve deeply into ‘ information theory’ and also into a derivation ( some would day a bastardization ) of the second Law of Thermodynamics , known ( in this case ) as ‘ Informational entropy’

Dna DOES contain information ( so the ‘ Informational entropy’ argument goes ) and since ALL informational sequences/ information carrying signals etc , IF EXPOSED TO THE RANDOM FORCES OF CHAOS, invariably degrade over time, ( Note Bien ) they never but NEVER increase in complexity / information carrying capacity by sheer chance... it follows, that biological evolution CANNOT have been underpinned by random mutations/ blind Darwinian forces...
___________

* ADDENDUM * : I would be remiss if I didn't point out that my above description of how the genetic code works, is a colossal OVERSIMPLIFICATION . The Human genome project has only been able to roughly identify /guestimate 20-30,000 genes in total, on human Dna, which ( so they say ) couldn’t come close to containing all of the instructions/informational data needed to fashion and sustain beings such as ourselves.

The ‘ central Dogma of Genetics’ ( which declared one gene = one protein ) is now widely believed to be defunct. Geneticists now suspect that most human proteins are actually made from multiple genes. The Dna from multiple genes, is first transcribed into various snippets of Rna, and then even smaller snippets of this Rna, gets recombined with various snippets from different RNA strands ( derived originally from different segments of Dna/ different genes ) ...This subsequently , allows for all manner of permutations and combinations ( BUT THIS PROCESS IS NOT RANDOM, cause there’s specific enzymes responsible for all of this ! )

Generally speaking, Scientists DO KNOW what a specific section of Dna ( known as a gene ) says/encodes for if considered in ISOLATION... but when it's transcribed- Rna data, is subsequently recombined with parts of other RNA strands, ... This adds MANY MANY MANY more layers of complexity...almost as if I had a computer program, which allowed my posting here to convey multiple ( but till completely meaningful ) messages at the same time !

One of the central figures in the Human Genome Project , Craig Ventnor ( who btw is a proponent of Intelligent Design ! ) said something to the effect that : ' we scientists know almost nothing about genetics...compared to all that which is still unknown'

Ventors frank admission should provide a note of caution , to today's oft times Smug Genetic Engineers engaged in transferring genes across previously sacrosant ( for the most part ) species lines... many of these reckless G.E.'s I would liken to MAD SCIENTISTS !!!...but I digress...

_________________

Also Camanintx : I disagree that most DNA mutations if random would be neutral...The vast majority of Genetic errors, should they occur in a gene, DO tend to be harmful in very short order , if not DEADLY...

Remember the hemoglobin example ? only a single altered Amino Acid , one out of 287, produced a 25 percent DEATH RATE ...This could be accomplished by a single nucleic change in the corresponding gene ...resulting in a Codon which said : ' don’t give me this AA, give me that one instead '

As for the rest of your commentary ( in a related post ) ...very little is known about that part of DNA where no genes reside...which scientists used to call ‘ Junk DNA’...BUT most geneticists now believe that ' junk DNA' is anything but junk ( if may have a crucial role to play in fetal development for example + so-ooooo much more )

...Let’s recall that scientists can only guestimate the number of human genes, at this point, and they're unanimous in saying that these known / suspected genes CAN"T come close to carrying enough data to account for the complexity of organisms such as ourselves...

****
as for the rest of your comments Camanintx ...I fear YOU STILL DON’T GET IT !

Random mutations, have to fashion a fully functioning gene , first and foremost ( at the very minimum ! )...in order to produce something valuable ...a single novel protein in this case...Which Natural Selection can then say : ' yeah baby ! Give me more of that

Before That Happens ... there’s NOTHING NOVEL / NADA / ZILCH...of value for Natural Selection to Select ! GET IT ??? So we're not really evolving yet, much less moving toward novel organs/ species...we're basically just reshuffling pre-existing genes within an already existing species...which insofar as Darwin's proposed ' Origin of ( Novel ) Species' Goes...GETS US NO WHERE !

Since randomly/blindly producing a novel gene...is much much much much much much more difficult/less probable than just pulling the phrase ‘ Darwinism is impossible !’ blindly out of a hat ...my analogy remains completely appropos !

Whereas, your analogy does NOT hold any water...You can’t be picking and choosing the words you recognize and keeping them Kemosabey ( and call this Natural Selection ) ...Your example is NOT Darwinian !...You’re applying INTELLIGENCE to the problem and that’s CHEATING in a Darwinian world...Now if you’ve suddenly converted to the ‘ Intelligent Design’ hypothesis ...I stand corrected : )

In my opinion, even achieving a single novel gene via random mutation is naught but a pipe dream/ Darwinian fantasy... and in this OP I'm far from alone !

To demonstrate the sheer ‘ impossibility’ of a blind ‘ macro-evolution’, mathematician Murray Eden ( employing a mainframe computer ) developed statistical models based on a fast replicating and relatively simple species, known as E Coli bacteria. To be sporting Eden assumed that 5 trillion tons of E. coli , had encompassed the entire earth, to a depth of roughly one inch ( might have been 3 metres, I forget ) for some 5 billion years. Even in this absurdly optimistic scenario , the probability for the spontaneous emergence of just ‘ a single ordered pair of novel E Coli genes’, according to Eden , remained virtually nil !

Yup I know , I’ve talked about Eden’s Mathematical analysis before, but some here seem to need repetition from time to time In my estimation...

CHEERS AGAIN GANG/ GOTTA FLY/ BYE

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Note to Yossarian : I’ll try to apply myself to devising a more sophisticated probabilistic model vis a vis amino acids / proteins Abiogenesis/ prebiotic blind evolution ( or at least try to research mathematicians/ scientists who have done so )......plus respond to ur numerous ( as of yet unaddressed ) criticisms..BUT I’ll need some time for this ...

In the interim , what’s say u apply ur consider intellect ( and NO I’m NOT being facetious in this instance ) to the DNA=code=denotes an Intelligent Agent / ‘ informational entropy’ arguments Yossarian...and see what ( if any ) flaws you can expose...just a friendly request/suggestion

PEACE OUT

 

[camanintx]

Biologist speak freely of the ‘ DNA code,’ or the ‘ language of Dna’ and for a very good reason... Because that’s precisely what it is, there’s NO dispute about that. There’s a vast amount of information contained in Dna/ Rna... And that information certainly means something to intelligent minds/scientists capable of deciphering /reading it.

That DNA contains information is undisputed since what complex system could function without transmitting information, but that does not make it a language. Scientists may use language as a metaphor when discussing DNA but when it is subjected to scientific scrutiny, it does not qualify as a language. Since there are natural explanations for the origin of DNA, there is no reason to ascribe this to an intelligent source.

as for the rest of your comments Camanintx ...I fear YOU STILL DON’T GET IT !

In my opinion, even achieving a single novel gene via random mutation is naught but a pipe dream/ Darwinian fantasy... and in this OP I'm far from alone !

You are the one who apparently DOES NOT GET IT! Your opinion of what random mutation and natural selection is capable of is irrelevant. Scientific studies have shown numerous times that it is capable of producing beneficial changes in the genetic structure.

 

[yossarian22]

I may be intruding in your airspace Ymir, but this really annoys me

Notably, u staunch defenders of Darwin's ' T.O.E '. ... STILL haven’t come up with a single noteworthy mathematician, who has come out in support of Darwinism ( based on his own probability calculations/ scientific papers )

Ugh....
I will write in big letters in the hopes that this sinks in
You provide evidence against the null hypothesis.

Do you mean , training in ‘ mathematics’ ? Why , do you need help with your homework or something ?

A low level statistics class is suffice to tear your model apart.

 

[agent_smith]

...bla bla bla...


Theists who are using the "Intelligent Design" argument, can you please explain what an "unintelligent design" would look like? Thanks.

 

[yossarian22]

Note to Yossarian : I’ll try to apply myself to devising a more sophisticated probabilistic model vis a vis amino acids / proteins Abiogenesis/ prebiotic blind evolution ( or at least try to research mathematicians/ scientists who have done so )......plus respond to ur numerous ( as of yet unaddressed ) criticisms..BUT I’ll need some time for this ...

If your model is accurate, there probably is a Nobel Prize in store for you.
This is going to need some very very high level mathematics to pull off considering there is the issue of time and space to plug in. You will need a set of mathematical parameters for everything to start off with, and to my knowledge, none exist for protein synthesis. I have seen one or two rough estimations which are good enough for small scale analysis, but abiogensis is not small scale, it is large scale. All the worlds a stage...

In the interim , what’s say u apply ur consider intellect ( and NO I’m NOT being facetious in this instance ) to the DNA=code=denotes an Intelligent Agent / ‘ informational entropy’ arguments Yossarian...and see what ( if any ) flaws you can expose...just a friendly request/suggestion

In terms of mathematics? None. We don't have a mathematical model for abiogenesis. I do not pretend to know how to factor in the myriad of variables which are involved. I can think of over a dozen just off the top of my head, and I am most certainly not a specialist in the area.
I could certainly define a model, but it serves as only an arbitrary device which would bend to the whim of whoever used it, making it much like the Drake equation.
I could prove the general concept behind Darwinism with a few examples, but they do not factor in entropy or the dozens of other variables.
Here is a simple example of a randomly generated AI which will play tic-tac-toe.
There are a couple interesting things about tic-tac-toe which makes it possible to produce a 'random AI'.
1. There are a finite number of possible board configurations.
2. The rules never change.
First we start by giving every possible board configuration a number, removing any repetitions. We have a set of possible board configurations for every turn. Now we just play against our AI. The AI will randomly pick a move from it's list of possible moves. If the resulting move results in an unfavorable position for the AI or results in a loss, we lower the probability of said move occurring. Doing this a couple hundred times results in an AI fine tuned for playing tic-tac-toe.
This example is not limited to tic-tac-toe. any board game with a finite number of possible configurations can have a 'random AI' constructed for it. Increasingly complex games require a great deal of time before the AI grows a brain (so to speak)

In order for this example to apply to Darwinism, we must assume two things
1. The rules never change.
This is a necessary assumption for science in general, and is not unreasonable
2. The effect of other variables are negligible to the overall function of the system.
Now this assumption may be reasonable or not depending on your point of view.

Depending on your point of view, you can take this example as strong evidence, weak evidence, or inapplicable.

 

[Valjean]

Science has nothing to do with "proof." Proof is the realm of mathematics. Science collects, tests and evaluates data.

When there is a great deal of evidence supporting a scientific theory and no empirical evidence against it, the theory is described as fact.
It i still, of course, subject to further investigation and possible disproof.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Hela :

YmirGF:

Muslims ???....Ah yes ...Guilt by association...what a clever ( read undignified and completely crass ) response ...I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m NO KIND of religious fundamentalist...I’ve described myself as a ‘ panentheist sans dogma’ ( ' sans ' is French for ‘without’ btw ) .

I believe in the essential unity of all religions ( and all sciences too...once science embraces its own innate spirituality ) all paths IMO lead ultimately to the Creator...Another way I might describe myself is : Deeply Spiritual but NOT Religious ...I don’t think I could belong to any Church / Mosque / Temple / Synagogue etc, that would have me for a member

YmirGF:

Hmmm....If my assumptions/arguments are ‘ ERRONEOUS’ it should be easy for you *cough, cough* Intellectual giants... to DEFEAT them

YmirGF

By ' IT ' are u referring to Darwinism/ Materialism ? ..IF so , I agree...that’s precisely how most Darwinists do tend to think, which is why I consider many of them ‘ irrational’ in their thinking/ blind faith in this unscientific / intellectually unsupportable paradigm ....

Notably, u staunch defenders of Darwin's ' T.O.E '. ... STILL haven’t come up with a single noteworthy mathematician, who has come out in support of Darwinism ( based on his own probability calculations/ scientific papers )...Every renown mathematician, I know of ( and I’ve named names already ) who has contemplated the ‘ origin of life ’ enigma...has come out STRONGLY in support of the ID hypothesis !

YmirGF :

Sorry BUT, you’re the one whose being DISINGENUOUS here IMo...I’ve provided rational arguments to support my preferred ID/ Intelligent- Evolutionary paradigm...All u’ve done thus far, is sling mud...while safely ensconced on the sidelines...Tut Tut...Guess you’re feeling threatened Eh ?


YmirGF

Do you ? IF SO....Why not provide probability calculations to support the Darwinian paradigm ?...I won’t hold my breath How about ‘ information theory’...are you familiar with that ? If so, I'm still waiting to hear tell of a symbolic form of language / code ( comparable to DNA ) which was NOT composed by an Intelligent Mind/ Minds...again I won’t hold my breath

YmirGF :

So YOU say...BUT that does NOT make YOU correct . If YOU think otherwise, kindly point out the FLAWS in my arguments... rather than again, simply sitting safely on the sidelines slinging mud.

BTW...Did YOU mean to say ‘ ABIOGENESIS ?’ ...just wanna be sure we’re talking about the same thing here

For the record, It is NOT my thinking, but rather ABIOGENESIS itself which is FLAWED. ABIOGENESIS: is the nonsensical and largely discredited theory that life could spontaneously emerge from insensate matter ( which strangely enough still underpins Darwinism/ Materialism ??? )

There is NO probabilistic / mathematical / rational basis for either Abiogenesis or Darwinian theory, as I maintained earlier : ‘ Darwinism is Impossible !’ ‘ Darwinism does NOT compute !’


YmirGF:

Do you mean , training in ‘ mathematics’ ? Why , do you need help with your homework or something ?

CHEERS ET AL

I really don't think anyone who at times apparently finds it impossible to even type a three letter word and instead substitutes 'u' (and consistently misspells kemosabe) is in a position to try and discredit someone else on the basis of a couple of typos.
While we're on the subject, when you were talking about mathemeticians earlier, I'd have to be positive you were either meaning to say,'mathemeticians of renown' or 'renowned mathemeticians', because as written, it would have prompted my English teacher to ask why you didn't properly proofread prior to submission.
Now, I'm sure you can see none of this is at all relevent to the fact that I think you're eating up ID gobbledygook off a spoon and failing to substantiate it by any form of evidence that I haven't seen refuted before by people who are far more qualified to come up with an answer than me and in fact come up with some very good answers to the things that make people who will listen to the basic arguments for ID and go 'Hmmm...how do you explain that then?' (and I'm not talking about the good folks at RF, either). Personally, I've yet to see a good argument for ID that hasn't been satisfyingly - to my mind - refuted.
Knocking a poorly constructed phrase, your apparent intermittent inability to completely construct 'you', or pointing out the fact you apparently have one of those words you just can't seem to spell correctly (it's ok,we all have those little mental block words ) doesn't make my case however, and bagging anyone else for typos certainly doesn't make yours.
Also - though I can't really speak for Ymir and admittedly may be incorrect - what I think he was doing was not in the least implying you are a Muslim (or any kind of religious fundamentalist), but instead drawing a comparison with the type of mindset that claims that because I can't prove that an out of context passage from the Quran isn't about tectonic plate subduction (although to any individual without an agenda who cares to put the thing in the correct context it's blatantly obvious that it isn't), it logically follows that my inability to provide absolute proof against works as absolute proof for. It's something we've had a rash of threads in the not too distant past concerning, which is where the comparison comes from. Perhaps if you weren't so keen to assign non-existent motives to the man, you might not have to jump so high to reach those conclusions.

 

[daniegrace]

Wow...i feel retarded after reading through this thread
ya'll are smarties!

 

[WhiteSeal]

People have made longer posts here than anywhere else on the forum, full of math and science and any other valid arguments that can be formulated with words and numbers. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone posting has a degree in genetic science. As a majority, the people that do have one are opposed to creationism, not that it really means anything what the majority thinks, since we used to believe the world was flat too.

The thread was originally "Have Creationists said anything true?". Well yeah. Mendell discovered cells, and he was pretty Christian. Darwin wasn't an atheist either, he just wasn't a fan of "other people's God", for a nice way to put it.

Math is not a valid argument to prove or disprove Darwinism or Creationism. I find it ridiculous anyone thinks it is, because we took high school chemistry I'm pretty sure. DNA is nucleotides, sugars, and phosphates, bonding to each other in an organized and repeating fashion. (I am no genetics major, but I remember a few things) Sugars, by nature, bond to phosphates (I think on the 5' and 2' slots). The A nucleotide bonds to T, G bonds to C, these in turn bond to one of the sugar groups, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. If you take a sugar molecule, and a phosphate molecule, they will bond, add a T and A nucleotide, and they will bond too. Nucleotides, Sugar, and Phosphate groups are made from the most abundant elements on Earth: Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen. In prehistoric times, volcanic eruptions and extreme levels of pressure provided the enthalpy needed for the synthesis of trillions of the molecules that build DNA. When places in close proximity, they would bond. Prehistoric Earth was perfect for DNA creation.

The only valid argument for either point must be based off science, because in the case of genetics math is infrequently valid.

 

[Izdaari]

What, if anything, have creationists said that's true?

That God made the universe. You could loosely call me an Old Earth Creationist, in that I firmly believe God did make everything, but I have no attachment to any particular theory of how He did. I am sure the Earth is much, much older than 6,000 years. I think it's likely God used evolution as a favored tool of creation, but I don't insist on it. Beyond that, I'll leave the speculation to the scientists and those who enjoy intellectual parlor games.

 

[yossarian22]

Math is not a valid argument to prove or disprove Darwinism or Creationism.

Er, yes it is.
What do you think the FDA does?

 

[JamBar85]

That God made the universe.

Yeah but you don't know that it's true though.

 

[Izdaari]

Yeah but you don't know that it's true though.

And I don't know the sun is going to rise tomorrow either, but I behave as though it will.

 

[UnTheist]

And I don't know the sun is going to rise tomorrow either, but I behave as though it will.

Comparing two different things.

 

[Izdaari]

Comparing two different things.

They're different, but they're united in this way: I trust that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I trust God. I don't have 100% certain knowledge of either, but they both work for me.

Faith 1: Being certain God exists, even though I don't have proof.
Faith 2: Trusting in God and believing His promises.

I will never be 100% on definition 1, until I meet Him face to face. But it's definition 2 that I consider important, and that I think God considers important.