DNA Code Indicates Creator

[ToBeLoved]

That was a study by the PEW Research center. A very well respected polling company.

Perhaps you are conflating the fact that over 90% of scientist accept the fact that life as we know it is the product of evolution. Accepting reality, at least in common descent, does not mean that one is not a theist, or even that one is not a Christian. Worldwide most Christians may accept the theory of evolution.

ETA: I used that same poll yesterday. Here is the link:



Scientists and Belief

I will look at this link later when I am not at work.

What I was questioning was the criteria that determined who was a "scientist" and who was not a "scientist", like is it according to a degree in a science related field? What type of degree (ie. BS, or MS or PHd, ect).

That is the criteria for those who the poll considered scientists that I am talking about. And it is a valid question. They all use criteria and say what the criteria is.

 

[KCfromNC]

By what I have experienced during such discussions, the atheists always suddenly shift the subject from a purely ID perspective to that of deities, a deity, goddesses, a god, or God.

Are you implying that the ID is a non-supernatural being? Seems like an easy thing to clear up that really is what you're proposing - what exactly is the nature of this supposed intelligent designer?

 

[KCfromNC]

I see 33% of scientists believe so it is 66.6 %. But I believe that they are taking quite a bit of liberties with who and how they are counting scientists.

Why do you believe that?

Who did the study?

And even more interesting, why do you believe that without knowing anything about the study?

 

[KCfromNC]

By what I have experienced during such discussions, the atheists always suddenly shift the subject from a purely ID perspective to that of deities, a deity, goddesses, a god, or God.

Did Paul mention an intelligent designer? Yes he did.

Remember, everyone, it is atheists who drag gods into "scientific" discussions of ID and other forms of creationism.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Why do you believe that?



And even more interesting, why do you believe that without knowing anything about the study?

I was looking at the image that the person uploaded and the graph, it said 33%.

I wasn't agreeing with it, I was noting that it was that number.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is "common sense"? Common sense, I'ld say, is the practice of drawing logical conclusions by using rational reasoning.

I beg to differ - most usages I hear of common sense are referring to what people think is intuitively obvious, which is a far less reliable source of information about the world than rational reasoning... but, for the rest of your post, I concur

 

[ToBeLoved]

Are you implying that the ID is a non-supernatural being? Seems like an easy thing to clear up that really is what you're proposing - what exactly is the nature of this supposed intelligent designer?

So you think that God created DNA then. You should become a Christian. Do you want me to pray with you brother? I will.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was looking at the image that the person uploaded and the graph, it said 33%.

I wasn't agreeing with it, I was noting that it was that number.

I was talking about your belief that the survey had problems with how it defined scientists. Like I said, it was interesting that you believed that a weakness with the survey without even knowing who did it.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you think that God created DNA then.

Nope. Take a look at the faith tag below my user name. That should be the first hint that there's something wrong with your analysis.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I was talking about your belief that the survey had problems with how it defined scientists. Like I said, it was interesting that you believed that a weakness with the survey without even knowing who did it.

I said I wanted to VERIFY how the survey decided who would be in the category of 'scientist'.

Please read my words carefully. I choose them carefully purposefully.

 

[KCfromNC]

I said I wanted to VERIFY how the survey decided who would be in the category of 'scientist'.

No, you said you believed there was something suspicious in the research :

But I believe that they are taking quite a bit of liberties with who and how they are counting scientists.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No, you said you believed there was something suspicious in the research :

No. I said I wanted to read the research and determine who they included as scientists and if they had a degree and what kind of degree. The criteria of who they labeled as scientists.

If you will not read my words correctly as I wrote them, I will not take time to respond to you. I am not going back and forth with you if you are not reading what I did write.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see 33% of scientists believe so it is 66.6 %. But I believe that they are taking quite a bit of liberties with who and how they are counting scientists.

Who did the study? Do you have the paper that goes with how the vote was counted and who was in each of the groups?

I would be interested in looking at further if you do.

I just googled "religious affiliation of scientists" and a survey came up. I didn't bother to dive into it.

Because, once more, it doesn't matter to the point I was making.

That point being that the key witnesses at the Dover trial, in which it was ruled that ID isn't science but just another species of creationism, were christian biologists. And the judge himself, which is not a scientist, was a conservative christian.

Which directly contradicts the accusation I was responding to.

I get that you don't like that reality, but you're just gonna have to deal with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People do not need an anti-religious agenda to let their opinions cloud their judgement.

Yes, yes. Cdesign proponentsist can tell you a thing or two about their opinions and personal beliefs clouding their judgement.

God says that non-beleivers do not understand belief because they cannot understand deep spiritual things as they do not have the Holy Spirit. It is more that they do not experience it, so they do not understand. IMHO.

The trump card of the ID followers is how ID apparantly has nothing to do with religion.

Yet, here we are... having this discussion.
Yet, here we are... being accused of "you only reject it because you are an atheist" (eventhough I can point to a looooooooooooooooooooooooong line of theists who reject it just as much as I do - both scientists and non-scientists).
Yet, here we are... having you go all defensive when I point out that it has nothing to do with atheism.

So much for the argument that ID is a scientific model and not a religious one merely disguised as a scientific one....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Paul tells us that they have no excuse for denying to see an ID in nature

Meanwhile, you said that the ID model has nothing to do with religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for the encouraging feedback. Yes I agree 100%. There is definitely a designing mind revealed and easily detectable in our DNA among many other things in nature. From our standpoint it takes a enormous stretch of the imagination to deny it and sometimes we might wonder whether the denials are really as sincere as they claim to be.

It doesn't take any imagination to reject undemonstrable, unsupported, indefensible supernatural entities.

It takes imagination to come up with them and subsequently accept that they exist.

Just saying.

But when we consider that this denial has been infused educationally and propagated by the media in a concerted effort over the stretch of decades, then it is no wonder that it seems is so easily adopted and so prominent today.

Ow boy.... Thin ice. Are we now going to "it's a conspiracy!!!" route?

This is getting more pathetic with every post.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The trump card of the ID followers is how ID apparantly has nothing to do with religion.

Yet, here we are... having this discussion.
Yet, here we are... being accused of "you only reject it because you are an atheist" (eventhough I can point to a looooooooooooooooooooooooong line of theists who reject it just as much as I do - both scientists and non-scientists).
Yet, here we are... having you go all defensive when I point out that it has nothing to do with atheism.

So much for the argument that ID is a scientific model and not a religious one merely disguised as a scientific one....

Most Christians do not try to disguise anything. We are straight out saying it is wrong. Science disguises science as being truth which is why science teaches evolution is true, but it has not been proven true to the point that there is proof of no God.

There is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong line of theists that do not reject it also. So we also can get loooooooooooooooooong as you would like.

It would be great if you could PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Then, prove SCIENCE IS TRUE.

Won't happen, because you cannot. So next.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most Christians do not try to disguise anything.

Most christians don't have any issues with the natural sciences either.

We are straight out saying it is wrong.

I know you are. But you're not able to support that claim.

Science disguises science as being truth

Actually, one of the pillars of science is that no explanation is ever considered "truth", because there's always that chance of future data to show it wrong / incomplete.

which is why science teaches evolution is true

No. It teaches that it is the best explanation that we have. It accounts for all the facts and it makes testable predictions. Lots of them.

Just like any other well-evidenced theory of the natural sciences.

, but it has not been proven true to the point that there is proof of no God.

1. the concept of god is an unfalsifiable concept. It can't be shown wrong (or correct) by definition. It can't even be rationally supported by any evidence. Because once you allow for what-can-only-be-called "magic", all testability and rationality goes out the window.

2. evolution theory is an explanation for biological diversity. It has nothing to say about gods. Or anything else that isn't within the scope of the subject of biological diversity, for that matter.

There is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong line of theists that do not reject it also. So we also can get loooooooooooooooooong as you would like.

A long line if you would physically gather them together, sure.
But in the great scheme of things, it is an insignificant bunch. A minority of cdesign proponentsists among a minority of creationists.

In any case, that doesn't really matter, since I don't feel the need for a fallacious argument by popularity.

And please note that the only reason I mentioned the "long line of theists", was because I was responding to the claim that atheism is the reason why ID is being rejected. I wasn't making an argument by popularity.

The claim that atheism is the reason for rejecting ID is testable, you see. It predicts that only atheists will reject ID. So in fact, I only need to point to 1 respectable theist who rejects it, to show how that claim is wrong.

It would be great if you could PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Indeed, then we could finally move on. But unfortunatly, reality doesn't work like that. You can't really prove something does not exist. You can only prove that something exists.

Especially if the thing you're supposed to look for is like defined as being undetectable.

Then, prove SCIENCE IS TRUE.

You are reading this message.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That it was analogous to human language was exactly the point of the paper.

Isomorphism: meaning"equal," and morphosis, meaning "to form" or "to shape."
Isomorphism -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Equal to form and identical are not the same. I didn't say they were identical or the result of common decelopment. I said exactly what they said, it was more than just a metaphor.

I agreed it is more than a metaphor and then indicated the mistake you were making (and continue to make) by claiming they are analogous. Your latest error is to choose a specific mathematical definition when talking about linguistics. Try taking a less specific definition and you get:
a : similarity in organisms of different ancestry resulting from convergence
b : similarity of crystalline form between chemical compounds

You really need to stop conflating "similar" with "equal" and "analogous". They are not the same. The paper says there are similarities, it does not say they are equal. I even quoted the part where the paper says there are "10 of 13 design features". That is not equal or analogous, that is similar.

 

[Loudmouth]

First, science ceases to be science when it becomes prejudicially myopic and refuses to seriously consider an alternative because of anti religious sentiments.

What science are scientists ignoring? You never answer this question.

Second, yes, a view that is constantly ignoring an very compelling alternate explanation and chooses to focus on its opposite is promoting its opposite via cunning omission.

What science is being ignored?

Third, there certainly is plenty of very compelling evidence which is tagged as non-evidence by atheists because they cannot stomach the idea of an ID.

Examples?

Finally, your comparison of the ID with such things as a spaghetti monster is a false analogy since there is no evidence for a spaghetti monster whereas the evidence for the ID- for which you claim a seemingly inherent incapacity to see, is virtually everywhere.

What evidence?