DNA Self Assembly, Abiogenesis and How Science REALLY Works

a reply to: addygrace

Yes two creationists, you had a point?

they do not explain where the information comes from, nor does it explain:

John Sanford on Genomic Entropy
youtu.be...

Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different)
Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations
Mutations primary cause of aging and death.
“...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs)
--Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist)
50% reduction in sperm count in men.

Around 100 new mutations per generation.

Geneticists:
Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman.
Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.
Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation.
Implies a young Creation and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data.

and there are so many other holes in the theory of evolution:

1) it is the MOST hoax-ridden scientific theory ever (google the history)

2) there are no reliable dating systems nor any way to be sure decay rates or even the speed of light remains constant over millions of years…

3) many anomalies in astronomy:
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 30 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

4) the fossil record clearly shows much larger animals: giant beavers, bulls, sharks, crocodiles that would make T-Rex blush… but we are supposed to be evolving: improving.

5 the historicity of the Gospels: the scholarship and science (they can measure the actual depth of ink on paper for dating)
yt: Jesus: Evidence, ancient historical sources
youtu.be...
yt: Lee Strobel - The Case for the Resurrection
www.youtube.com...
yt: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
www.youtube.com...

all real scientists seem to know the truth:


“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
--Nikola Tesla


“(modern science) was born out of a Christian worldview.”
--J. Robert Oppenheimer “On Science an Culture”, Encounter, Oct. 1962

"My worldly faculties are slipping away day by day. Happy it is for all of us that the true good does not lie in them.
As they ebb, may they leave us as little children, trusting in the Father of Mercies and accepting His unspeakable gift.
I bow before Him who is Lord of all.”
--Michael Faraday, on his death bed, one of the greatest experimental philosophers, Doctorate from Oxford University, holding 97 unsought for distinctions who discovered Electricity

“Education is useless without the Bible.”
--Noah Webster, Webster’s Dictionary

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

“I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”
--Galileo (Letter to Grand Duchess of Tuscany)

“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”
--Kepler

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
--Max Planck

“When the answer is simple, God is answering.”
“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]
"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.”
“Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
--Einstein

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
--Dr. Fred Hoyle (scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" who was unafraid to go wherever the facts led him, and who consequently recanted his atheism.)

Head of Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, converts to Christianity
"I set out to prove that my atheist position was correct."

John Ray—Founder of Biology and Devout Christian
Ray quoted experiments by Francesco Redi which contradicted spontaneous generation. Ray said that “My observation and affirmation is that there is no such thing in nature” and he referred to spontaneous generation as “the atheist’s fictitious and ridiculous account of the first production of mankind and other animals.”
“He declared fossils were the petrified remains of extinct creatures. This was not accepted by biologists generally until a century later.”

“Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover.”
--Aristotle, “Physics”

“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
--Werner von Braun, Letter to CA State Board of Education, 9/14/72

"The laws of nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen, must conform. Just as the rules of Arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions of money, must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant "
"For every law says in the last resort: 'If you have A, then B."
But first catch your A.
The laws will not do it for you."
--C.S.Lewis

“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the Divine.”
--Dr. Vera Kistiakowski, Prof. of Physics Emeritus, MIT

“I stand in awe of God because of what He has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
--Dr. James Tour, Nanoscientist, Rice Univ.

“If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us.”
Paul Davies, Superforce, (1984)

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or rather, Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof for the existence of a Supreme Being?”
--George Greenstein, Astrophysicist, The Symbiotic Universe (1988)

“If everything in the universe came into being, then the cause of the universe must be transcendent, not a part of this universe,” Strauss argued. “Science kind of stumbled onto something that the Bible declared long ago … that the universe had a beginning.”
--yt: Scientific Evidence for God - Dr. Strauss

“If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the express purpose of duplicating our “Garden of Eden,” that being would face a formidable task...it is unlikely that the Earth could ever be truly duplicated.”
--Peter Ward, Geologist & Donald Brownlee, Astronomer “Rare Earth” (2000)

“It is my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than science... It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”
--Alan Sandage, Astronomer (Newsweek, 1998)

“Where do you get information from?”
Dr. John Lennox, Mathematics, Oxford Univ.

“Natural selection reduces genetic information.”
Dr. Marciej Giertych, Population Geneticist, EU

Though not officially a believer in God, Hawking: "It obviously matters because if there is an edge (to the universe), somebody has to decide what should happen at the edge. You would really have to invoke God."

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...

yt: Young Earth - Young Universe
youtu.be...

yt: Scientific Evidence for God - Dr. Strauss
youtu.be...

That is all very impressive, a real cut and paste fest However none of that proves anything. None of that is a scientific study, it is either a personal belief, or a quote. Yet none of them are, its all Unverifiable Personal Gnosis. UPG does not a valid argument make.

So cite something besides a youtube, or random quote please.

a reply to: Verum1quaere
Astronomy has nothing to do with evolution, but even so we DO see supernovas occurring, just search google pictures for "supernova". Your spiel about dating methods, the fossil record, hoaxes, and even the historical accuracy of the gospels is so far removed from reality, it's not worth addressing. Do you have anything to say about DNA self assembly, the topic of the thread, or are you just another guy looking for any excuse you can find to bash science for the simple reason that it disagrees with a literal interpretation of ancient myths?

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data.

Isn't that interesting, so the claim once again that all Christians are totally ignorant of science is bogus.
When highly advanced scientific knowledge makes you start to believe in creation when you didn't before, I think that is very telling.

I'd like to remind some posters that this thread is about the article in the first post. If you want to argue evolution or related issues, please start your own thread.

If you have an opinion on the article or have questions, please post them. But off topic posts are unacceptable.

Thanks for cooperating.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It's a cute anecdote except for the part about why he converted is completely untrue. It had nothing to do with his wrong. Especially any work related to the HGP.

It wasn't a rational or science based decision. It was entirely based on bring given a copy of CS Lewis book 'Mere Christianity'. Now none of this has any bearing on Dr. Collins intelligence. But, to be completely fair, he is in a huge minority. Only 4.5% of biologists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in any version of god let alone the Christian version and Dr. Collins faith has never had any bearing on his work. He still adheres to the scientific method. This is not something that can be said for large number of Christians who argue against the validity of scientific discoveries based solely on their faith.

So contrary to your statement, it wasn't his " highly advanced scientific knowledge" that led him down this path. It was the author of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a trip to the Pacific Northwest and a moment where he decided that since science doesn't have all the answers then... God. It's not a scientific path at all. It was a personal crisis and some literature.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except its not true, so yeah not worth the pixels on a screen.

Viz

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins wrote that scientific discoveries were an "opportunity to worship" and that he rejected both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief, he wrote, was theistic evolution or evolutionary creation, which he preferred to call BioLogos. He wrote that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell".[54] He appeared in December 2006 on The Colbert Report television show and in a March 2007 Fresh Air radio interview to discuss this book.

Francis Collins". The Colbert Report. 2006-12-06. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
^ "Francis Collins on 'The Language of God'". Fresh Air. 2007-03-29.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I'd like to remind some posters that this thread is about the article in the first post. If you want to argue evolution or related issues, please start your own thread.

If you have an opinion on the article or have questions, please post them. But off topic posts are unacceptable.

Thanks for cooperating.

"This is how real science is done - it is not the chaotic rhetoric of Creationists who have zip hard evidence to support their claims."
The above is a quote from the OP. You basically asked all creationists to come in here and show their hand.

This has been going on for years on ATS. Atheist draws a line, pretends he didn't, then feigns ignorance on what's going on.
The article was about DNA, but the OP was about real science v creationism. Now you act like nobody can stay on point. This is lunacy. Quit pretending you don't get excited arguing with people who believe in God. One day I hope you understand why you would do that, but I already know it's because you want to know about God. You'll put down believers until one day you realize God has the answers.

originally posted by: addygrace
Atheist draws a line, pretends he didn't, then feigns ignorance on what's going on.

That seems to be what you made it out to be.

All I saw in the OP was information about some experiment done that shows how DNA can assemble itslef.

God has the answers? Maybe you could be so kind to ask him, on our behalf, to let us know what they are. Do we need to file some kind of FOIA form to get the goods?

a reply to: addygrace

Are you sure its an atheist who drew this line? There are a lot of us who are not (atheists) who are NOT on your side neighbor.

I'm one and if you can actually read? You will know there are several others here Oh and there are more Gods than your Jehovah.

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Phantom423
I'd like to remind some posters that this thread is about the article in the first post. If you want to argue evolution or related issues, please start your own thread.

If you have an opinion on the article or have questions, please post them. But off topic posts are unacceptable.

Thanks for cooperating.

"This is how real science is done - it is not the chaotic rhetoric of Creationists who have zip hard evidence to support their claims."
The above is a quote from the OP. You basically asked all creationists to come in here and show their hand.

This has been going on for years on ATS. Atheist draws a line, pretends he didn't, then feigns ignorance on what's going on.
The article was about DNA, but the OP was about real science v creationism. Now you act like nobody can stay on point. This is lunacy. Quit pretending you don't get excited arguing with people who believe in God. One day I hope you understand why you would do that, but I already know it's because you want to know about God. You'll put down believers until one day you realize God has the answers.

You've misinterpreted the intention of the article. You obviously didn't even read the article.

BTW I never said I was an atheist. You're making an assumption with no evidence - typical of Creationists - make it up as you go along.

You want to post about your evolution theories - that's fine. But don't misquote me and don't make statements you can't support.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Verum1quaere

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data.

Isn't that interesting, so the claim once again that all Christians are totally ignorant of science is bogus.
When highly advanced scientific knowledge makes you start to believe in creation when you didn't before, I think that is very telling.

I don't recall anyone saying that all Christians were ignorant of science. Creationists are INTENTIONALLY ignorant of science, but Creationists are not Christians IMO. They are cultists following a guru a la Jim Jones.

And just like the lady scientist who was mentioned above, a good scientist does not bring their philosophical beliefs into the lab.

You can twist, turn and misrepresent all you want, but at the end of the day science is about facts and religion is about faith. And Creationism is a cult.

a reply to: Phantom423

And Creationism is a cult.

Nah, that's just negative semantics you keep using.

a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices.

Creation just doesn't qualify, and it's too broad of a sweeping statement, in 2012 Gallup did a poll that found 31% of Americans believed in a hybrid view of both creation and evolution, as these would have various different opinions within that group as well.
To consider these people in a cult is ludicrous. Then there is the 42% that believe in total creation.
73% is not "novel" or "socially deviant", you are wrong on this. Just another tainted opinion.

^ Young earth creationists, the primary folk that post here, fit your definition of cult to a T, however. When you do nothing but attack science, the very pillar of society, you are deviant and harmful to society.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Isn't that interesting, so the claim once again that all Christians are totally ignorant of science is bogus.

Sorry, but nobody says that. You could apply that to young earth creationists, but not Christians as a whole. The majority of Christians are actually rational people that accept science. It's the fringe creationists that are biblical literalists who give the rest of Christians a bad name and they dominate this section as far as false claims go.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: addygrace

Are you sure its an atheist who drew this line? There are a lot of us who are not (atheists) who are NOT on your side neighbor.

I'm one and if you can actually read? You will know there are several others here

Oh and there are more Gods than your Jehovah.

"This is how real science is done - it is not the chaotic rhetoric of Creationists who have zip hard evidence to support their claims."

"I'd like to remind some posters that this thread is about the article in the first post. If you want to argue evolution or related issues, please start your own thread."

Both quotes are from the OP. That's not schizophrenic to you?

a reply to: addygrace

Addy, all you have to do is read a few threads in this section to see the "chaotic rhetoric of creationists". It pollutes this section on a daily basis. The OP wasn't suggesting all Christians were in this camp, he was referring to the false claims posted in here by young earth creationists (and other literalists). They think they know science, but get all of their information from propaganda websites rather than research papers or articles about science. The OP was about the experiments, regardless of that one line.

a reply to: addygrace

Not in the slightest, you also misuse the term schizophrenic.

The OP is about DNA self assembly not evolution. Creationists injected discussion on evolution. Thus thread drift.

You also assume atheism being involved, with out evidence. All I see here is science. Remember I am not an atheist.