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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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...
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Elessar [quote]You're confusing between science (the former) and pseudo-science (the latter, and the most of your post)[/quote]

Prove it.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@GodSpeed63 Sure: link here a peer-reviewed study establishing that Evolutionism has major flaws and cannot be accepted, as per your post implication.
@GodSpeed63 Actually, you are the one making all manner of claims. Science isn't about people showing up, pissing upon a huge mountain of work, then asserting that their beliefs trump said pissed-upon work.

So...YOU prove it.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@Elessar Peer reviewed. That's like saying prove that a bunch of bank robbers don't exist by looking for evidence in the house of a bank robber.

So full. Of yo sef.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SteelHands Clearly you haven't understood how the process work, if you draw a similar comparison. Let me guess, one of the alumni of the [i]university of the road[/i] who's butthurt because their 3rd-grade like "research"/opinions are dismantled and rejected?
@SteelHands
"Peer-reviewed" means that competent people in the field checked the paper and found no glaring flaws/reasons to object.

Do you understand what the bar for a PhD is, and that this is a real standard for a natural science PhD?
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SomeMichGuy Good luck trying to explain to someone who probably barely finished high school what a PhD even is, lol. But sure they know that research worldwide is flawed 🤣
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@SomeMichGuy I can't remember where I read it, but the quote was along the line of peer review being just the beginning of the review process. As you correctly point out, articles are reviewed to ensure they meet the requisite standards of scientific endeavour. But after that, the actual research is then open for testing by others.

I know you know this, I just wanted to support your comment. Those who don't have even a rudimentary understanding of science don't realise what is required to have anything accepted in real science.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SomeMichGuy [quote]So...YOU prove it.[/quote]

I take it you have no proof then?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Just as you have none.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
How you attain a degree only to be able to recite only the most rudimentary descriptions of what now accounts as only "collective agreement" to the tune of dozens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars amuses me.

And then to have your own head so far up your predecessors dead asses to think you can prove that faith is nonsense and that theory isn't faith abuses the very idea of humor.

Yiah. I'm a marginalized inner city kid that cut high school classes and spent my teens in a drug house selling your pals some crap I grew in a bucket in the abandoned garage down the block horses ass.
Fack.


Lmfao!
@GodSpeed63
[quote]I take it you have no proof then?[/quote]

LMAO Proof of what?
*I* am not the one showing up and making claims.

YOU are.

YOUR claims, so YOUR proof.

Or does that logic escape you?
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SomeMichGuy [i]Onus probandi[/i] has always been a problem for religious folks.
@Elessar Oh, *I* am religious, but I don't think that the Bible is a scientific text, nor do I find science to be a threat to the real messages of the Bible (which aren't about the age of the Earth, etc.).

I don't see science & religion as being in conflict.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SomeMichGuy Should've better specified, [b]some[/b] religious folks. Even because I've been one, and I've been in a grey zone for long.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@SomeMichGuy Ah, a voice of reason.
@Bushranger Thanks, I like to think so...I have studied Physics & theology (history, concentration in hist. of religion & religious thought), among other things.

I think that they do not negate each other.

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

I think that the assault on facts and reason during the DSJ "Presidency" has been helped by self-described "Christians" supporting a man who in NO way exhibits *any* aspect of the Character or Person of Jesus.

So the next time someone on the "religious Right" tries to pull the high moral ground thing, I will ask if they supported Trump. If yes, then I'll make my observation, then say that their willingness to support a person essentially the opposite of Jesus shows which Kingdom they *actually* are in (i.e., Darkness, not Light), and that they have NO moral authority.

I freely give license to any and all to use this.
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!