Evolution? How?

God has foreknowledge... God can see ahead on what we will eventually decide...

More than one God is idolatry...

Hogwash, all we have for the last several pages is evidence of your delusions, and your willingness to discuss them, with yourself if no one else is on offer . . .

RexRed wrote:

More than one God is idolatry...

But it isn't idolatry if you just shove 3 gods into one?

RexRed wrote:

More than one God is idolatry...

But it isn't idolatry if you just shove 3 gods into one?

This holy blood line ended with the death of the lord...

Yet the mystery was not that our physical blood is changed but that we are "spiritually" born into a royal family of God...

real life wrote:

Hi Ros,

The point is that you propose that DNA ( I know, and other predecessors) carried encoded information for building a cell, before any cell had existed.

No. Rudimentary DNA did not necessarily need to code for cell walls. It migth have simply coded for replication and production of proteins which bound to lipid spheres in which surface tension functioned as the cell wall. Modern DNA happens to require a cell to protect it, but it is quite evolved at this point. You are skipping too many steps in your assumptions and drawing premature conclusions.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, which are stable as hell, are observable throughout the universe, from examples occurring naturally and through human intervention right here on earth, to comet dust, to the spectra of distant stars. They tend to form ordered, plate-like stacks of themselves, and in UV-irradiated aqueous solution have an affinity for amino acids, which stick to the stacks of plates. As they accrete, the space between these PAH layers is 0.34 billionths of a meter, which just happens to be precisely the distance between the ladder-like rungs of a DNA or RNA molecule. Given amino acids and long-chain polymers, protocellular membrane formation is no big deal, thats what Lipids, particularly Amphiphilic Lipids, are all about. As a simple, abiotic replicative mechanism, first at the molecular level, then, through accretion and chemical interaction, into ever more and more complex and diverse protobiotic compounds, that this phenomenon would be a logical precursor for the development both of RNA/DNA and prokaryotes is a notion which is a helluva strong candidate.

Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from Creationists


By Wayne Adkins
January 12, 2006
The Discovery Institute, an organization which bills itself as "the leading organization supporting scientific research into intelligent design" is seeking to distance itself from creationists. Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute wrote a letter to John W. Wight, Superintendent of the El Tejon school district in California seeking to change the title or content of a class. The district is facing a lawsuit filed by parents over a course titled "Philosophy of Design" taught by Sharon Lemburg, the wife of a local minister.

According to Luskin's letter "the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials." Luskin urged the school's superintendent to "either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design."

The concern of Luskin and his fellows at the Discovery Institute is that intelligent design will be equated with creationism. He tries to explain the difference to Mr. Wight this way; "Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator. Thus the U.S. Supreme Court found that creationism was religion in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard."

The reason the ID crowd wants to avoid this association is that teaching creationism is illegal as Luskin notes. After a scathing rebuke by Judge Jones in Dover last year for trying to sneak intelligent design into science classes there, intelligent design advocates want to take every opportunity to paint their idea as science and not as creationism. But it should be noted that among the senior fellows and fellows for whom there are biographies on their site, they boast more theology degrees than chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, biochemistry or physics. The only degree more widely represented than theology among them is philosophy. But they don't want the courts to think they are advancing any religious ideas.

Of course, most observers make that connection anyway. When Pat Robertson told Dover residents not to call on God because they had voted God out of their town he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. When one of Dover's school board members advocating intelligent design said "2000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. Although the Discovery Institutes official line for intelligent design is "science can't identify this intelligent designer" senior fellow Michael Behe admits he thinks it is God.

The fact is, intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize creationism and import it into public schools as science. What I find hilarious about the Discovery Institute's letter to Mr. Wight is that Casey Luskin makes the assertion that "Under the current formulation, the course title "Philosophy of design" misrepresents intelligent design by promoting young earth creationism under the guise of intelligent design." That is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Intelligent design proponents are trying to misrepresent science by promoting intelligent design under the guise of science.

Intelligent design is creationism. Refusing to name the creator doesn't change that. It only demonstrates how disingenuous its advocates are.

You recognize, I'm sure, how even a simple function such as a protective layer requires a large amount of information. It doesn't just happen.

If a 'lucky' DNA (or xNA) had just 'happened' into a situation where it fell in among some lipid spheres which protected it, then this molecule would not have had the encoded information regarding the lipids to pass on to the next 'generation', would it?

parados wrote:

RexRed wrote:

More than one God is idolatry...

But it isn't idolatry if you just shove 3 gods into one?

1x1x1=1

So far the logic of your argument has consisted of "if two things need each other in order to form, then they cannot form". While the logic of that statement is correct, the falacy is in the assumption that the two things in question needed each other to form. They do not. You are proposing a self limiting assumption and therefor setting yourself up a strawman.

Good for you! I agree!
What a wonderful forum you have here Timber! Congratulations!

Nancyann