Posted on 06/11/2006 9:51:12 PM PDT by Marius3188
THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.
Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.
His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
"Wow. Just... wow. "
Didn't you say the organism is a side effect?
Wow.
"There are still creationists out there using that incredibly dishonest strawman arguement? "
What is your definition of a creationist? I don't know if I qualify (I'm not a regular on these type of threads)
What was dishonest about my statement?
"Well, the distortions, strawmen, ad hominems and outright lies coming out of the creationists is more than a little irksome."
Again...I'm trying stay on topic - as in the original article.
You obviously find me irritating. Oh well.
Are you also irritated about the scientist in the article?
If so...then why?
For me, I needed look no further than freshman level biology. The ATP process alone (with Krebs being a good example) just screams "Designer".
> I'm surprised you let The Pikachu fella get away
Some people aren't worth the effort.
>> "There are still creationists out there using that incredibly dishonest strawman arguement? "
> What was dishonest about my statement?
The *only* people who suggest that DNA just randomly fell together and *blammo* there was a fish are Creationists who dumb-down the process of evolution to an absurdity.
Why do you feel the need to resort to such outdated and laughable debating tactics?
"The *only* people who suggest that DNA just randomly fell together and *blammo* there was a fish are Creationists who dumb-down the process of evolution to an absurdity.
Why do you feel the need to resort to such outdated and laughable debating tactics?:"
Why do you insist on not anwering my questions?
If I mistook your "side effect" comment - then by all means, tell me what you really meant.
You were the one that talked about collisions in the air and side effects - so now you are saying it is not random?
What ARE you saying.
I can see you folks on these threads seem to love arguing and demeaning others - and if that's your shtick...then have at it. I'm not interested in trading insults with you.
I asked you about the scientist in the article.
Does he also irritate you?
If so - then why?
Neither quote supported your assertion.
as opposed to you, oh, educator?
Who can give an account of the beginning of time and all the creations - only ONE that was there and that was The Creator. The Bible is God-inspired.
Like you are writing/copying/pasting from the findings of your gods - the scientists; and, them from previous scientists. Your writings and theirs are man-inspired.
Your faith is in man, my faith is in the Creator of man.
Any man can write anything that they want to.
Like you are writing/copying/pasting from the findings of your gods - the scientists; and, them from previous scientists. Your writings and theirs are man-inspired.
They have evidence. I do not take their word on faith. They are not my "gods", you have no idea what my religion is, so don't assume.
Your faith is in man, my faith is in the Creator of man.
Again, you are making unfounded assumptions. My faith is in God; your faith is in those guys who wrote the Bible.
My faith is in God; your faith is in those guys who wrote the Bible.
Your faith is in that God exists but NOT in HIS WORD. Otherwise you would believe what HE says about creation, about being deceived, that HIS Book is inspired by HIM. It's all there and much more. You either believe HIM or not.
God Word says we can't have two masters. And He's not to fond of lukewarm/fencesitters because He says I will spew you out of my mouth.
Just as we learned that the earth goes around the sun, rather than the sun revolving around the earth, there might be a different way to interpret "Evening and morning." Especially those first few days before there was a sun and a moon.
True, yet I am still glad that technology has enabled him to remain productive when many others would have retreated into obscurity.
"True, yet I am still glad that technology has enabled him to remain productive when many others would have retreated into obscurity."
Me too. :)
Thank you; it is interesting how much effort has been put into conceptualizing these mechanisms. It would seem that the mechanisms of conservation would be even more challenging to evolutionary theorizing than the mechanisms of change.
If that were true, proteins would not be able to form the complex shapes that they do. Atoms with more or fewer electrons than the shell 'likes' (0 or the max for the shell) will combine with atoms in the same condition. This is why carbon so easily combines with other elements.
If the bases did not have a preferences, then each strand of the DNA sequence would not be identical but reversed in direction.
Both cytosine and thymine are pyrimidines, where adenine and guanine are purines. The pyrimidines will combine with the purines but not each other; specifically AT molecules and GC molecules are formed.
Individual strands can have the nucleotides in any sequence but when proteins are formed the shape is dependent on the order of the nucleotides and how the AT, CG molecules fit together.
If you really want the answer to that question, He spoke it into being. But how is not the question you should be asking. Why is the question that will lead you to understanding that all of creation was created by Him and for Him.
I guess I'm not being very clear.
You are still anthropomorphizing the process. The 'guiding' is not 'guiding' but a chemical reaction.
"While I understand this process works in processes, like, say...the formation of minerals - I suspect your explanation here for the formation of living organisms is oversimplified. And when you use a term like "nothing more" - it tells me that you believe you have all the answers?
If I implied that I, or science, has all the answers, I apologize, we do not. What we do know is that the process of cell creation and placement is based on the availability and concentration of specific chemicals interrelated in a very complex manner. We do not know every process nor it's feedback loop(s). In other words we know the proximate process but not the ultimate process.
"I never said a code in or of itself "intends" to do anything. A computer program has not intention of its own at all....all it does is what it is told...kind of like the chemical reactions you speak of.
The 'intent' is inherent in the creation and execution of the computer code.
I agree that DNA does look and act somewhat like computer code (something I am quite familiar with). It also looks and acts somewhat like a recipe. But it is neither, it is DNA.
We use the very human concept of computer code or recipe to describe DNA as a method of helping us understand how it works. We examine the function of DNA and abstract its function so that we can map it to something we are familiar with and have a practical understanding. However because we can map a human construct that needs a 'coder' or designer to what, by all evidence, is a naturally occurring process does not automatically map the 'coder' or the need for a 'coder' to the process.
If you examine the highly complex interactions of the products of DNA you will see that it is neither a 'computer code' nor a 'recipe'. Don't let the human tendency to describe things in terms of the familiar trick you into believing that 'similarity in process' means 'identical in process' along with all properties including the need for a 'coder'.
"I don't think I'm the one you need to convince of that. I'm not attempting to tangle this mystery on my own - or write scientific articles about it. It seems to me there are some brilliant scientists out there (like the one in the original article) who seem to genuinely disagree with you.
The majority of scientists understand and agree with what I am saying.
I'll see your great big byte and raise you two nibbles.
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.