DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Vaccine]

Do you understand what an analogy is?
Because if you do, then I wonder what point you are trying to make with all of this.

Ah, metaphor/analogy. Got me there. I'm wrong, they said it wasn't a metaphor.

 

[Radrook]

This is one of my favorite parts of the ID story. We're supposed to pretend it is a generic, non religious ID. But as soon as anything other than the American Conservative Protestant Christian God is mentioned as a possibility ID supporters get all defensive. I understand that they have to pretend they're not pitching 19th century modernist religious doctrine as science but they don't seem to be very good at hiding it.

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. In fact, they even enthusiastically bring in Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns, fairies, Santa Clause and all sorts of mystical creatures. Then they act all surprised when the ID proponent responds relevantly to the deviation?

 

[ToBeLoved]

This video provides reasons why DNA is definite evidence that there is indeed a creator.

Good thread. No great thread.

Evolutionary goo does not create DNA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, metaphor/analogy. Got me there. I'm wrong, they said it wasn't a metaphor.

Analogy and metaphore are not necessarily the same thing.

Metaphores can also be poetic-like constructs to convey certain ideas.

Whereas analogies are strict comparisions of 2 things that are similar in a specific way, within the scope of that similarity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Theists who understand science and the goals and underlying motivations of the ID model, do that too.

You continue to make these accusations at the address of "them atheists" and you consistenly ignore all those theist biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc.

For example, did you know that the key witnesses at the Dover trial against the discovery institute, with there intelligent design nonsense, were people like Ken Miller? A devout christian?

Read that again and let it sink in: a christian evolutionary biologist, sitting in the witness stand declaring under oath that the ID model is just religious creationism disguised in a lab coat.

Even the judge himself was a conservative christian.

In fact, they even enthusiastically bring in Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns, fairies, Santa Clause and all sorts of mystical creatures. Then they act all surprised when the ID proponent responds relevantly to the deviation?

Nobody on this side of the table is surprised when the psychological defense mechanisms kick in in the minds of cdesign proponentsists.

It seems also that even after all this time, you still haven't understood the point of bringing up spaghetti monsters and unicorns.

It's not those creatures or entities that are being compared to your god of choice (sorry, "designer"). Rather, it is the total lack of evidence for their existence.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Read that again and let it sink in: a christian evolutionary biologist, sitting in the witness stand declaring under oath that the ID model is just religious creationism disguised in a lab coat.

Even the judge himself was a conservative christian.

There are all kinds of people who are Christians that have different levels of faith and belief.

That is not concrete proof that God is being represented.

I'm surprised you don't know that. Are all atheists beliefs alike?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are all kinds of people who are Christians that have different levels of faith and belief.
That is not concrete proof that God is being represented.

But it IS concrete proof that the accusation that only atheists oppose ID because of anti-religious agenda's, is utterly wrong.

Clearly, the objection to ID from the scientific community has nothing to do with atheism.

I'm surprised you don't know that. Are all atheists beliefs alike?

1. there's no such thing as "atheist beliefs".
2. I wasn't making any kind of point concerning christianity or god beliefs in general
3. read the post I'm replying to.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But it IS concrete proof that the accusation that only atheists oppose ID because of anti-religious agenda's, is utterly wrong.

Clearly, the objection to ID from the scientific community has nothing to do with atheism.

90% of scientists are atheists or non-believers. That is a fact

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

90% of scientists are atheists. That is a fact

It's not, actually.

It is true that it is higher then among the general population (which in itself is a rather interesting fact), but it isn't the case that 90% are self-proclaimed atheists. It's not even 50%.

But all this is besides the point.

My post was addressing the claim that the scientific community opposes ID by consensus because of atheism and anti-religious agenda. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's not, actually.

View attachment 188091

It is true that it is higher then among the general population (which in itself is a rather interesting fact), but it isn't the case that 90% are self-proclaimed atheists. It's not even 50%.

But all this is besides the point.

My post was addressing the claim that the scientific community opposes ID by consensus because of atheism and anti-religious agenda. Clearly, that is not the case.

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.

 

[ToBeLoved]

My post was addressing the claim that the scientific community opposes ID by consensus because of atheism and anti-religious agenda. Clearly, that is not the case.

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

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

LOL, who did your study and arrived at 90%?

 

[Radrook]

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

Paul tells us that they have no excuse for denying to see an ID in nature. You say that they do have an excuse because they lack holy spirit's help? How do we reconcile those two views?

 

[bhsmte]

90% of scientists are atheists or non-believers. That is a fact

I believe these numbers are way off. What is your source?

 

[Jimmy D]

Paul tells us that they have no excuse for denying to see an ID in nature. You say that they do have an excuse because they lack holy spirit's help? How do we reconcile those two views?

Paul mentioned ID?

 

[Radrook]

Paul mentioned ID?

Did Paul mention an intelligent designer? Yes he did.

 

[Speedwell]

Did Paul mention an intelligent designer? Yes he did.

And here all this time I thought he was talking about God and His glory to be seen in the creation. Who knew that Paul was nothing but a precocious shill for the Discovery Institute?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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

 

[Radrook]

Good thread. No great thread.

Evolutionary goo does not create DNA.

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. 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.

 

[ToBeLoved]

LOL, who did your study and arrived at 90%?

Didn't say I got my number from any study. Show me that I did by quoting me.