Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution Scientists vs True Scientists [Spirituality & Religion]

DNA is an incredibly complex information (and language) system. Scientists have only scratched the surface of the complexity of this molecule of heredity. Despite the obvious hallmarks of design, many geneticists attribute DNA to random chance processes over millions of years. But there are many problems with this idea (for example, we never observe information arising from non-information), including the question of why DNA and the code for proteins embedded in DNA evolved “into a nearly uniform blueprint that arose from trillions of possibilities.” Well, a group of researchers are arguing they know the answer. They believe scientists need to expand Darwin’s ideas to include an “energy code”: Darwin's theory of evolution should be expanded to include consideration of a DNA stability "energy code"—so-called "molecular Darwinism"—to further account for the long-term survival of species' characteristics on Earth. The origins of the evolution of the DNA genetic code and the evolution of all living species are embedded in the different energy profiles of their molecular DNA blueprints. Under the influence of the laws of thermodynamics, this energy code evolved, out of an astronomical number of alternative possibilities, into a nearly singular code across all living species. They claim thinking about DNA this way will “provide entirely new ways of analyzing the human genome and the genome of any living species.” AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom explains what these researchers mean: Ever since the elucidation of the genetic code, evolutionists have pondered how it came into existence. The genetic code is composed of nucleotide triplets (in DNA and RNA) known as codons. The codons, as their name suggests, code for specific amino acids. For example, the codon CGA codes for the amino acid arginine. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are responsible for the structure and function of every living thing. DNA is composed of 4 nucleotides, or bases, abbreviated A, C, T, and G. There are 64 possible combinations of these 4 letters in triplets and there are 20 amino acids. The code is redundant, meaning that multiple codons code for the same amino acid. For example, four codons code for arginine. It’s hard to imagine how something this complex could have evolved by random chance over millions of years, yet that’s exactly what evolutionists have to do! A new study attempted to explain the evolution of the genetic code (called “molecular Darwinism”) by calculating the energy levels of the codons. The conclusion was that the genetic code, “evolved under the influence and regulation of a series of interlocking thermodynamic cycles.” However, what the authors really crafted was a STORY based on the OBSERVATION that some codons have low free energy (are less stable) and some have high free energy (are more stable). The observations may be relevant in understanding certain aspects of the genetic code, but they provide no evidence as to how the genetic code evolved (except in the imagination of the authors!) Researchers continue to propose the preposterous to avoid the truth they know in their hearts but suppress in unrighteousness—that God is the Creator of all life and everything else (see Romans 1).

Evolution scientists see what they want to see in the evidence, true scientists see what is actually there in the evidence.
Yulianna · 22-25, F
i think i might block you, god tells me she already has...
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Carazaa I'm not saying what ever. I said what I said. And when it comes to religion, if people wouldn't voice against it, it would just get bigger and bigger and get abusive on everyone else. So I rather have it small, and preferably gone.
Sharon · F
@Carazaa [quote]Shame on you for being abusive again! Calling people stupid??[/quote]
I not being abusive, I'm just telling the truth and trying to help him by letting him know how foolish he's making himself look. Read his replies and see for yourself. I gave a clear example of how, without supporting evidence, his claims for his god can be made for any other god. His reaction was childish to say the least.
Sharon · F
@Carazaa [quote]Are you kidding me?? Everyone has a right to their religion![/quote]
It's a pity christians don't recognize non-christians have that same right!
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
[quote]we never observe information arising from non-information[/quote]

Let’s examine this claim, and you can contribute as we go along.

Information is anything that reduces uncertainty

The chemical nature of DNA means that the underlying processes come with inherent properties.

These properties mean that there are tight, highly localised restrictions on what can, and cannot, happen at any point.

With me so far? Any comment you’d like to contribute?
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
I have decided I am God, prove to me I'm not.
Sharon · F
@basilfawlty89 Hail Basil, Creator of all things and Giver of Life!
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@Sharon You have my blessing My disciple.
Sharon · F
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Perhaps you completely missed this offer which I made earlier.

Or perhaps you just ran away
___________________________

[quote]we never observe information arising from non-information[/quote]

Let’s examine this claim, and you can contribute as we go along.

Information is anything that reduces uncertainty

The chemical nature of DNA means that the underlying processes come with inherent properties.

These properties mean that there are tight, highly localised restrictions on what can, and cannot, happen at any point.

With me so far? Any comment you’d like to contribute?
SW-User
please site your source
tindrummer · M
why not just ignore this guy and stop feeding his martyr compulsion?
wetncthru · F
vs Scientologists?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@wetncthru Hail Thetan 🐣
wetncthru · F
@Kwek00 Our album Thetanic Majesty was quite well received. Signed: M. Jagger.
Ingwe · F
if evolution was a real thing
there would be life on exoplanet planet Psr B1620-26 B
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Ingwe Well, that’s a question of abiogenesis, and not a question of evolution.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Sharon
The Flying Spaghetti Monster???
Did you worship that?
Atheists make the lamest idols.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
[quote]Atheists make the lamest idols.[/quote]

🤣🤣🤣
@Kwek00
Have some stale spaghetti.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
Science involves observation. So, an "evolution scientist" is just called a scientist. You have to observe evidence in action, not just surmise what it means by intuition.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]That’s circular... and evasive.[/quote]

Call it what you will but you asked your question and I answered it.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 I called it what it is

and that means that you didn’t answer anything

[i]Quelle surprise![/i]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 So, your choice of [b]explanation[/b] is..?
Elessar · 26-30, M
You're confusing between science (the former) and pseudo-science (the latter, and the most of your post). But I don't expect you to know how Science operates...
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@SomeMichGuy I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you consider the Bible to be allegory? A story designed to give the populace rules and guidance, not to be taken as historical and scientific fact.

[quote]The conflict, to my way of thinking, comes when one misreads the biblical text or tries to stretch it beyond its simple, clear meaning.[/quote]

I'd be very interested to hear you expand on this point. What is your opinion of the "...clear meaning."
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@SomeMichGuy I have a rebuttal about your comment that implies that you hold certain opinions about the personality of Jesus.

I've read the New Testament bible several times. Maybe separated by decades in some instances. First, because I'm a slow and methodical reader when I'm studying something that isn't readily digested, i take the time to evaluate if one or several intonational or nonverbal aspects could alter what I may have inaccurately assumed upon first go through.

I recall as a youth when attending mass hearing it described to me with an inconsistency that would imply the man a timid or almost demure speaker at times, a conniver at others, and a rage filled tantrum thrower at others.

It was because of that. I was sure that either the faithful were either holding adoration for an emotional basket case, or that I was being led to believe that he was something that was being completely misunderstood by my spiritual teachers.

Perhaps that explains why I disagree with your belief that you cannot see the man for the man. Perhaps mistaking a God as a man and a man as something more akin to a fit throwing teenager.

Because if the foundation is incorrect, the entire house will be affected.

That's the point I'm making. That by judgements evaluations you've made, you help me understand some of a problem that people just don't seem to grasp.

I wouldn't expect to ever have become armed with this information if I had been anything less than patient.

As anyone that attacks my character in my minds eye, attacks only their own self.

Good day.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
@SomeMichGuy You do make some salient points and no, in no way is DJT the embodiment of what anyone with a modicum of common sense would think of as "Godly", the man is a pig, a swine in the purest sense of that word.
I remember watching a documentary a number of years ago about how the religious right desperately wanted to get one of their alumni into the White House to promote their agenda, did they ever pick the wrong man for that job in DJT, he's set their agenda back by 20 years or more!
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Purdon works for Answers in Genesis.

She has neither standing nor credibility within the scientific community.

Please do not waste everyone’s time copy-pasting creationist pamphlets.

Stop being lazy. Write down your own thoughts and reasoned arguments.

This sort of piffle merely shows the academic dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy that characterises creationism
@Bushranger

lol no. It's measure of how often a paper is cited in other scientific papers.
Godspeed will have no idea that it matters if a scientists is publishing or researching or whether what they publish is considered good science by the rest of the community.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Pikachu Yeah, knew that. Just kidding, ya.
@Bushranger

lol pretty good. I would call it an impact factor.
Elena05 · F
you are batshit insane. end of story
Bad4U · 22-25, F
@Elena05 that sums it up perfectly
Sharon · F
@Elena05 An accurate analysis. 👍
Sharon · F
[quote]AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom explains [/quote]
Why do you avoid saying that "AiG" stands for "Answers in Genesis", a creationists' propaganda website?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Sharon [quote]I'm not a liar[/quote]

Then quit telling lies.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Then quit telling lies.[/quote]
I suggest you take your own advice. Everyone can see the evidence of your lies all over this site. You need to start deleting.
SW-User
You didn’t write this.
What is your source?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Where do these Emergent Properties begin? What was their origin? [/quote]

Finally! it appears you’re now ready to discuss Emergent Properties.

They arise from the process yet their properties are not inherent to any one element of the process.

What causes the saltiness in sodium chloride? is it the sodium or the chloride?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]What caused the Biological processes[/quote]

Why, simple chemistry, of course. The formation of simple molecules is inevitable... simple hydrogen bonds will suffice.

The formation of more complex molecules is inevitable, given (and restricted by) the shape and chemical properties of the simpler molecules
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Why, simple chemistry, of course. [/quote]

Where did the chemistry come from? What was it's origin?
Viper · M
[quote]Evolution scientists see what they want to see in the evidence[/quote]
@newjaninev2
It doesn’t keep you informed too well.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SomeLikeItHot Oh gosh, well, OK... I’ll make a note of that
@newjaninev2
That is impressive.
Use a pencil and paper, your short term memory would get overloaded.
Miram · 31-35, F
Not sure what's worse; the fact that you plagiarized this or the fact that you think it's worth being plagiarized.
SW-User
@Miram 🔥
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Miram [quote]Not sure what's worse; the fact that you plagiarized this or the fact that you think it's worth being plagiarized.[/quote]

How did I plagiarize it?
SteelHands · 61-69, M
To reason that any educational point of view.. .

:: about the origins of intelligent human life.. .

:: must completely reject any or all possible theories

:: of any or all pre existing contributor intelligent life.. .

Is highly suspect.

Runs counter to what I consider academic inquiry.

Rules out the possibility of a predecessor species and any other legacy species.. .

And persecutes intellectual progress itself by purging science of all other examinations these institutions, over some, which they hold dominance.
This message was deleted by its author.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@SteelHands Toodles, dumbass.

This message was deleted by its author.
What are the obvious hallmarks of design?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]part of the design not a random accident[/quote]

Shaped by sex and death... it’s not too difficult to understand, is it?
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Cruel way to look at the world[/quote]
No, just "the Truth". It isn't always pretty, that's why you and those like you try to avoid it.
@GodSpeed63 Do you think it is impossible for beauty or intelligence to exist without being designed?
What about the fact that the perception of beauty is entirely subjective. For instance, if we read medieval writings we learn that nothing in nature was considered beautiful; it was regarded as useful, neutral or dangerous with regard to human needs and nothing more. Only with the Renaissance do Europeans begin to speak of landscapes or some natural plants, animals and phenomena as beautiful or attractive.
How about the fact that intelligence has evolved along with society? The Aboriginal languages of Australia have only one, two, and many (some have 1, 2, 3, and many). This means they could not count the numbers of their own children, animals in herds. They could not record or communicate lengths of time, how long ago something happened; yesterday or many generations ago are exactly the same - a part of the Dreamtime. They could not communicate distances or quantities. Therefore they could not do maths, and could not develop science or certain types of logic. Yet this doesn't/didn't make them less intelligent. They evolved entirely different ways of thinking that enabled them to survive and thrive in an extremely dangerous environment while living in harmony with it and causing no harm to any form of life.
If a god was the creator of all intelligence, how do we explain the evidence that different types of intelligence evolved among different cultures at different times and places?
Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M
Science relies on conclusion based off of what is observable and evidence. So technically a "true scientist" in that sense wouldn't be using science, just intuiting what might be which is the opposite of science. Now if they wanna form experiments based off of that intuition then that is science. Otherwise they're also just seeing what they want to see as the claim for evolution scientists suggests.

I think there's likely something more, but the amount of times where we said "Oh it must be god!" when we couldn't understand a new thing and then we found out how it worked is probably countless. That doesn't dissprove the existence of god imo, a lot of scientists believe in god because of how things work.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
All I'm reading here that makes a bit of sense is between the lines.

I smell a slew of federal research grant application papers.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@SW-User You mean he's actually a scientist.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
It's not science
it's "true" science. 🙄
Thevy29 · 41-45, M
tindrummer · M
a debate of no consequence - imo
LoveTriumphsOverHate · 36-40, M
Fascinating!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
DDonde · 31-35, M
When you meet the creator, you gonna ask him to verify you were right?
Or are you just gonna assume?
LoveTriumphsOverHate · 36-40, M
@Sharon You're still here Sharon!? You aren't working with your scientist pals today?
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]His Word says it's going to happen and I believe His Word.
[/quote]
I don't. There's no evidence it even exists so even less that what you say is its word.

[quote]You claim that don't believe in any gods, remember? [/quote]
You believe in Odin because you can't prove He doesn't live. After all, that's the criterion you set for not believing in your yahweh. Therefore the question is both pertinent and valid, regardless of whether I believe in Odin. So, how are you going to explain yourself to Him?
Sharon · F
@LoveTriumphsOverHate [quote]You aren't working with your scientist pals today?
[/quote]
I don't usually work weekends. When/If you get a job you might get weekends off too. Until then, you have the whole week off of course.
MethDozer · M
Nice word salad you mixed up there

 
Post Comment