How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

[KWCrazy]

This totally mischaracterizes the mentality in science and why people go into science.

There is no singular mentality in science and no singular reason people choose it as a profession.

Top scientists invariably _could_ have done something that made them a _lot_ more money. They choose not to.

Speculation. You can't judge the motivations of others. The private sector is more lucrative, academia is safer.

These kinds of arguments may work in creationist circles, but it's also probably related to why people leave Christianity when they discover how specious all of the reasoning is about mercenary scientists.

You also see scientists complaining that if they speak up against the fabricated evidence regarding global warming that they will be ostracised and will lose grant money. If your faith is based on what can be conclusively proven you don't have any faith in the first place. Faith is the acceptance of things unproven. As for the mercenary scientists, it's all about the grant money. No crisis, no grant money. No grant money, no job.

If you have a child who goes into science at a top school, he or she will quickly find out that what you've been telling him or her about scientists is totally bogus.

Conjecture. You don't know what they'll discover. They may discover, for example, that life after death has a MUCH more significant body of evidence than anyone wants to let on. As for the relationship between science and reality, my grandchildren will know that science is the study of the physical world and is limited to that. Period. If a scientist says that there is no proof of the supernatural the logical response is "Really, Sherlock? What gave you the first clue?"

 

[Loudmouth]

Conjecture. You don't know what they'll discover. They may discover, for example, that life after death has a MUCH more significant body of evidence than anyone wants to let on. As for the relationship between science and reality, my grandchildren will know that science is the study of the physical world and is limited to that. Period. If a scientist says that there is no proof of the supernatural the logical response is "Really, Sherlock? What gave you the first clue?"

You may be interested in the story told by Libby Anne:

"And then I went to college, where my young earth creationist views were challenged. I responded by fighting back. I argued with both students and professors, sure that I had some sort of truth they were missing. I brought out every argument I had, and went back to my creationist resources for more. As time went by, though, I found my arguments effectively refuted by arguments and information I had never been exposed to before. To my utter shock, it seemed that the evidence actually fell on the side of evolution and against young earth creationism. After nearly a year of fighting, I conceded defeat.

As I accepted evolution, I watched everything I had ever known crumble at my feet. I had been taught that the truth of the Bible rested on young earth creationism. Now that that foundation was gone, I had no idea what to do with the Bible. How could I trust it? How could I believe in it? How could I interpret it? But on the other hand, how could I give it up? My entire life centered on Christ and I found my entire value in what I meant to Jesus. Without my relationship with God, my life was nothing."
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/29/why-i-am-an-atheist-libby-anne/#ixzz3aoCKSu5m

 

[Smidlee]

Evolution is about the origin of the species (the diversity of life), not about origins in general -- even the origins of life. Modern biology, with genetics at its core, makes sense in light of the theory of evolution. There is no other theory that does this.

I totally disagree since genetics involves code and there is only one known source of where code come from... intelligent agent. Evolution can't account the large amount of information found in living systems.

 

[Loudmouth]

I totally disagree since genetics involves code and there is only one known source of where code come from... intelligent agent. Evolution can't account the large amount of information found in living systems.

Where is the evidence to back these assertions?

 

[Smidlee]

Where is the evidence to back these assertions?

Can you think of another known source for large amounts of code?

 

[HitchSlap]

I totally disagree since genetics involves code and there is only one known source of where code come from... intelligent agent. Evolution can't account the large amount of information found in living systems.

Erm... it's not "code," it's chemistry.

 

[Smidlee]

Erm... it's not "code," it's chemistry.

Lol. That like saying I didn't buy a movie at Walmart , I bought a plastic disc.

I wonder how many other evolutionist here denies the existence of the genetic code.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, and they still haven't restored my account.
KWCrazy.
I was Nutrider99 for a long time before someone decided that it had a sexual connotation. The name actually dates back to the late 80's when the internet was all pay-per-hour. There was a chatroom called "Hecklers Online" that was all about making fun of the world around us. I ride a motorcycle, people called me a nut and "Knightrider" was popular, so... Nutrider was born. I moved to KY in 1997 and changed it to Nutrider99. When the mods here changed it to "Rider99" I went away and came back as KWCrazy.

Okay.

I was just being nosey.

Thanks for the 411.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol. That like saying I didn't buy a movie at Walmart , I bought a plastic disc.

I wonder how many other evolutionist here denies the existence of the genetic code.

When used in the way that creationists so often do, yes, you're wrong.

BTW, what's the name of that creo-scientist who has been promising a way to quantify "information" for about ten years - yet hasn't delivered?

 

[Smidlee]

Here is a video of a guy who claimed of breaking one of the genetic codes you don't think exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

Here is a video of a guy who claimed of breaking one of the genetic codes you don't think exist.

Yep, I'm tangentially familiar with Trifonov through other works that I've read, and IICR, he looks at sequencing patterns in DNA, not in the "information" card you're trying to foist on us.

 

[Smidlee]

Yep, I'm tangentially familiar with Trifonov through other works that I've read, and IICR, he looks at sequencing patterns in DNA, not in the "information" card you're trying to foist on us.

He made it clear from the very beginning what he means by code is information.

 

[USincognito]

I totally disagree since genetics involves code and there is only one known source of where code come from... intelligent agent. Evolution can't account the large amount of information found in living systems.

Actually it involves chemicals, and could you please provide us with a quantifiable metric by which we can measure the "information" in genomes?

 

[Smidlee]

Actually it involves chemicals, and could you please provide us with a quantifiable metric by which we can measure the "information" in genomes?

So does a DVD which contains a movie. I remember posting a video here explaining how hard it is to measure "information" in most cases especially when it's not fully understood or cracked. Only in rare ideal conditions can mathematician nail down the exact measurement of information.

 

[USincognito]

So does a DVD which contains a movie.

DVD's aren't living beings nor are movies DNA. Your analogy isn't valid.

 

[Smidlee]

DVD's aren't living beings nor are movies DNA. Your analogy isn't valid.

Neither is DNA a living beings. DNA by itself will not produce a living cell.

 

[HitchSlap]

Neither is DNA a living beings. DNA by itself will not produce a living cell.

I'm missing the old face palm emoji right about now.

 

[Smidlee]

Just as DNA will not produce life by itself neither will a DVD produce a movie on it's own.

It's also very hard to nail down what exactly is life.
By the way in the video above he shows how hard it can be to nailed down the information. What most would see as noise (as junk DNA) could contain hidden information. I'm sure our government tries it's best to hide code so it's hard to detect it.

 

[USincognito]

Neither is DNA a living beings.

Non sequitur. My point is that cars, DVDs, houses, etc. are not accurate analogies to living beings.

DNA by itself will not produce a living cell.

How do you know?

 

[Smidlee]

Non sequitur. My point is that cars, DVDs, houses, etc. are not accurate analogies to living beings.

I thought we were talking about code which doesn't have mass. I agree 100% Cars ,DVD house are not living beings just like DNA.

How do you know?

Do you believe DNA alone can produce a living cell?