Posted on 01/13/2009 6:40:50 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The traditional understanding of DNA has recently been transformed beyond recognition. DNA does not, as we thought, carry a linear, one-dimensional, one-way, sequential code—like the lines of letters and words on this page. And the 97% in humans that does not carry protein-coding genes is not, as many people thought, fossilized ‘junk’ left over from our evolutionary ancestors. DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards; and the ‘junk’ is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution. No human engineer has ever even imagined, let alone designed an information storage device anything like it. Moreover, the vast majority of its content is metainformation—information about how to use information. Meta-information cannot arise by chance because it only makes sense in context of the information it relates to. Finally, 95% of its functional information shows no sign of having been naturally selected; on the contrary, it is rapidly degenerating! That means Darwin was wrong—natural selection of natural variation does not explain the variety of life on Earth. The best explanation is what the Bible tells us: we were created—as evidenced by the marvels of DNA—but then we fell and now endure the curse of ‘bondage to decay’ by mutations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
I decided to post this as its own thread. Enjoy!
Are you kidding me? All that complex DNA stuff happened randomly, pure chance. Everything in the universe that appears to have design is just a “fortunate accident”.
Did I ping you to this?
More BS about ID.
Perhaps it appears to be designed for a reason :o)
More pure B.S. from the irreducible complexity moonbats.
I highly recommend the book, “Cosmic Codes”, by Chuck Missler.
As this new information confirms, DNA is holographic. That is, the information is encoded and distributed throughout the medium.
But not only is DNA likely holographic, but so our brains may be also.
The Bible exhibits holographic properties.
But even more startling, even our entire reality, what we perceive as the “physical” universe, may be a hologram.
Niels Bohr said that the only thing Quantum Physics has going for it is that it is undeniably correct.
Actually, if you check my recent posting history, you will find that he has written three papers back to back (to include this one) that are absolutely devastating to naturalistic evolution. And btw, he’s a Young Earth Creationist, not an IDer. However, he does think that nature screams intelligent design (notice I didn’t capitalize). You need the Bible to graduate from ID to YEC.
From "Creation on the Web"
So close, and yet...
> More pure B.S. from the irreducible complexity moonbats.
My, how informative you are.
Perhaps you can supply us with an intelligent refutation of the information provided in the article rather than schoolyard namecalling and unsupported assertions.
I’ll look it up. Thanks for the tip. I love Missler on prophecy. I didn’t realize that he branched out into science (although, I seem to recall that was his occupation before he went into full-time ministry).
> I didn’t realize that he branched out into science
> (although, I seem to recall that was his occupation
> before he went into full-time ministry).
Chuck Missler is an engineer and was one of the principal technologists at the Jet Propulsion Labs before giving his life to Christ.
I would like to challenge you to read the paper linked to this post, and then the two papers written by Williams linked to the following post...and then try and tell me it’s moonbatery.
PS Williams maintains that all life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) is irreducible to natural causes. And as far as I can tell, his arguments form an airtight case against naturalistic evolution (and for intelligent design). Trust me, he goes way beyond Behe.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts
I knew it had something to do with the sciences. I’m looking up his book right now. Thanks again—GGG
Why don't you post these in the Religion Forum? They would be much more appropriate there?
Because all of God’s creatures deserve to know what science tells us about the glory of God’s creation.
Job 5:9
He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted.
Amen to that! Thanks for that wonderful verse my brother :o)
> moonbats
I don’t appreciate that.
That's not what you are doing at all. That would be an honest approach.
What you are doing is promoting a very narrow fundamentalist view of religion and creation, one shared by only a small percentage of Christians. And you are saying that the majority Christian view, which holds that science must be accorded its appropriate respect, is heresy or blasphemy or some such.
The Pope and a large majority of Catholics would most likely say you are totally wrong. And last I looked, Catholics are the single largest religious denomination on earth. Are you saying that both scientists and Catholics are all wrong?
And from your response to my post you have shown that this thread properly should have been posted in the Religion Forum. You are not doing science.
I can help you to get your body to get rid of what it doesn’t need. Go out and have a chile rellino dinner made with caberneros. Have a few cold ones simultaneously. In 18-24 hours, your body will tell you what it doesn’t need or want in it.
“With gods like this, who needs enemies?” —Job
I didn't know the Bible mentioned DNA or mutations.
Nah, it’s just a waste of time to discuss this with those who hide behind their so-called “God.”
I’m not hiding. Bring it on.
Please elaborate.
“I highly recommend the book, “Cosmic Codes”, by Chuck Missler.” ~ Westbrook
Really?
Access all hot links below, here: http://calvarychapel.pbwiki.com/chuck-missler
Excerpt:
Today, Chuck Missler is the undisputed Calvary Chapel King of conspiracy theories and controversies.
Missler’s controversies include profiteering from the Y2K non-crisis, getting booted off CSN, being caught again in plagiarism.
At one point Missler was so outrageous that Chuck Smith had Missler’s message tape pulled from the Chapel Store.
Missler’s psuedo-science includes the discredited belief that the speed of light is slowing.
Missler has other crazy science ideas including these ideas.
Missler thought that the Mars was once very close to the earth. Some other criticisms of Missler.
Some of the more outrageous Missler-isms are documented here and here and here.
Missler vs Richard Abanes
Missler claims his critics are New World Order conspirators. Richard Abanes responded to Missler’s craziness.
Bibliography of Missler’s writings
It doesn’t. But Creation Science does predict that virtually all mutations will be deleterious, and that whatever few beneficial mutations that might be found will be the result of adaptation to cumulative information loss, not information gain. In other words, devolution, not evolution.
Why are you trying to drag Catholics into this? Are you Catholic?
I like the verse that states in the last days, that man will congratulate himself for his own origin, seeking to dismiss any input from God. That’s quite a loose interpretation, but it sure puts current extremist evolutionists in the cross-hairs.
You're treading on dangerous ground, FRiend... Catholicism allows a pretty wide range of beliefs, until such time as scientists can provide a more workable explanation. Considering this, the ID viewpoint should be given consideration by serious Catholics, especially arguments such as Behe's irreducible complexity argument.
The only view that, to my knowledge, is completely unacceptible is that evolution, separate from God, is the mechanism by which all life came to be.
Oh, and also, be very careful making any argument based on what "a large majority of Catholics" believe. Besides being an example of the fallacy of appealing to the crowd, most Catholics aren't qualified to make a definitive call on the matter.
My seminary rector made a compelling argument based on Thomistic metaphysics for theistic evolution. Unfortunately, the explanation is too long and it's too late to write it all here.
Meta-information cannot arise by chance because it only makes sense in context of the information it relates toPicture two men standing before you with keys...they came out of doors that those keys unlocked. Surely it can't be chance that the only two men you see have the right keys for their doors...!
But then if you could see what actually happened, in the big picture, 100 men were thrown into individual cells, each with a random key. But luck, two had the right key...but to the end observer, it seems so magical that the only two examples you have are those that match right.
These con-men rely on good people being math illiterate, gullible, etc...even other people who are generally bright but haven't thought things through. It's sickening that they would take advantage so.
Excellent graphic, thank you! ALthough, it is missing arrows pointing in both directions on the so-called sense and anti-sense DNA strands. In other words, ENCODE learned that not only do transcripts proceed on both strands, but they also proceed in both directions on both strands! Amazing!!!
Please explain what your example has to do with inversely causal meta-information.
LOL! Ain't that the truth!
Loki, God of Creationism...for what other god would play a trick on humans and put clear evidence of an old earth if it's actually young...
Catholics are the world's single largest denomination.
Why are you assuming your narrow view should be the only one considered, when they probably outnumber your denomination 100:1?
(See, I told you this thread should have been in the Religion Forum!)
[[More BS about ID.]]
Excellent rebuttal- Wow! Stunning.
Thank you. BTW, if you have a good link on Thomistic metaphysics, I’d be much obliged.
Throw in some jalapenos and you'll never worry about hemorrhoids again.
I’m not saying my view should be the only one considered. Where did you get that from?
Where are we, Iran?
Why is it that every time religion is discussed it's "dangerous ground".
People who disagree with the ID, the Catholic faith, evolution, or anything else religious are entitled to say whatever they damn well please.
Something said here offends you? Too bad. No one cares.
In my metaphysics class, we used the book "The One and the Many" by W. Norris Clark. It isn't pure Thomistic metaphysics (it's actually based on Lonergan's Transcendental Thomism), but it isn't a bad starter.
Thanks a bunch—GGG
No, I'm not offended. If I were, I would probably take my business elsewhere.
It's "dangerous ground" in the sense that the argument doesn't hold water. Appealing to the crowd is a logical fallicy. In other words, he can say what he wants, but I'm telling him that his argument is flawed.
Chill.
I can just imagine god telling Abraham, "You just got punk'd!! Haha, just kidding, you don't REALLY have to murder your son. I was just messing around!"
He didn't teach us what to think but how to think and puzzle things out.
Glad to see you on the thread, CottShop. If I’m not mistaken, I think I sent you this link before. I reread it last night, and found it even more powerful than the first time a read it, so I decided to give it its own thread.
All the best—GGG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.