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 »
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
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]She has neither standing nor credibility within the scientific community.[/quote]

According to whom?

[quote]Please do not waste everyone’s time copy-pasting creationist pamphlets.[/quote]

Why?

[quote]Stop being lazy. Write down your own thoughts and reasoned arguments.[/quote]

Those are my thoughts and reasoned arguments.

[quote]This sort of piffle merely shows the academic dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy that characterizes creationism[/quote]

Where's your evidence that supports what you claim is true?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]According to whom?[/quote]

Peer-reviewed publication in reputable journals, and citations in the work of other scientists, are the measures of scientific relevance and standing

In the last ten years (!) Georgia Purdon has [i]published nothing[/i] (except an article in the Cedarville Magazine (😂) (Cedarville is a creationist ‘university’) and has received [i]no citations[/i] in any published research
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Incidentally, the description (magazine articles don’t have abstracts) of her Cedarville magazine article is “Only creationists have a rational, logical and consistent reason for morality. Yet in order for morality to be meaningful, the Bible and a literal Genesis must be true. Since God created human beings, He determines what is right and wrong, and we are responsible to Him for our actions”

...and that’s the muppet you offer as a ’true’ scientist?
@newjaninev2

[quote]In the last ten years (!) Georgia Purdon has published nothing (except an article in the Cedarville Magazine (😂) (Cedarville is a creationist ‘university’) and has received no citations in any published research[/quote]


Come on.
You know he doesn't understand what that means. If this zealot knows what an impact factor is without looking it up i'll eat my hat lol
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Pikachu Impact factor? Isn't that where meteors hit? lol
@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.