|
| |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | God's creation vs. Science
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/22/2008 9:19 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I didn't say evolution is a myth, now did I?
My point was of the conclusion of there being an Intelligent Designer who wrote the DNA code for the evolutionary machinations of every living thing under the biosphere.
You might want to take a deeper look at the big picture, because the machinations of the 'survival of the species' relies not only on the biochemistry of each species intricate fail-safe biological systems.....
but is also apparent in the food chain, not to mention the beneficial symbiotic relationships between species....
as well as the perfect mix of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the balance of oceanic and fresh waters.
there is an intricately created Grand Symphony taking place in nature that cannot be explained away by MERE CHANCE....or 'the Luck of the Draw'....as you atheists ignorantly believe.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no evidence that DNA just appeared out of thin air by magic. There is even no evidence that it is remotely possible.
Science on the other hand proposes abiogenesis (formation of early replicating carbon based molecules followed by proto cells and so on). Which has no evidence for it but it does have evidence for it to be remotely possible.
Also chaos ordered by a framework can form order, the frame work in evolution is essentially survival of the fittest.
What makes, what you might define as a consciousless system, WANT to SURVIVE?
Where does that conscious effort or WILL come from? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
There is no conscience will or effort...it's as simple as can possibly be. If a mutation results in an organism that is less fit to survive his environment, that organism in general has less chance of passing on the trait through reproduction and the trait is not passed on. If, on the other hand, the mutation results in an individual better suited to or more able to survive his habitat, that individual is in general more likely to survice to produce offspring and pass on the trait. Over thousands of generations, species become more and more adapted for survival in each environment. It's simply the mathematics of survival and reproduction. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/22/2008 9:23 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition
Fucking idiot quotemine quoter. Read the fucking book before quoting a sentence.
This is the correct quote in the proper context;
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Now tell me do you really think Darwin agrees with the quote pulled out of context like you did?
The point is darwin is not sure about anything he says?
Its well documented he had a hard time believing his own THEORY
QOUTE.
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
He is asking me to believe ,fuck, does not sound like a scientist to me .Show me some fucking skeletons or fossils which are midway through ther transition from one form to another.
Its all full of fucking holes, and one day will be looked back as being as fucking dumb as the flat earth theory. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
The fossil record is full of transitional forms and you have been given several links just today that describe many of them. Please read a bit before showing your ignorance for all to see. |
| IndraThor
User ID: 508681
9/22/2008 9:39 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
yeah, whoever wrote down what God dictated must have lost something in the translation...
but then the scientists only understand - via the scientific method - about 4 percent of the universe, assuming that 96 percent is dark matter / dark energy |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 9:53 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
There is no conscience will or effort...it's as simple as can possibly be. If a mutation results in an organism that is less fit to survive his environment, that organism in general has less chance of passing on the trait through reproduction and the trait is not passed on. If, on the other hand, the mutation results in an individual better suited to or more able to survive his habitat, that individual is in general more likely to survive to produce offspring and pass on the trait. Over thousands of generations, species become more and more adapted for survival in each environment. It's simply the mathematics of survival and reproduction.
The mathematical machinations stamped in DNA's blueprint are designed to weed out the weak or malformed so that only the best or more suitable will survive and flourish.
Those machinations display an intent for the betterment of each species.
Now let's talk about your will to survive.
Is it based in mathematics?
or something else? |
| DrPostman  
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/23/2008 3:26 AM
 | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
*cough* Cambrian Explosion *cough* Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
Occurred over period of 70 or 80 million years, 530 million
years ago.
Does not matter who he is who the fuck is DARWIN, its what he is saying what counts. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
Evasion noted.
Show some evidence of gradual transitions from one major group to another. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
[link to www.talkorigins.org]
[link to www.actionbioscience.org]
[link to www.physorg.com]
[link to www.geo.ucalgary.ca]
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 361147
9/23/2008 4:42 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
*ugh*
So much misinformation it makes my head hurt.
A few things.
-Humans don't have exceptionally much genetic information.
-More genetic information does not equal "better" creatures.
-Changes in the amount of genes have been recorded.
A gene is nothing more then a bunch of basepairs huddled together. If 1 changes then the gene is inherently changed as well. Adding genes happens as well.
See for a bit more information;
[link to en.wikipedia.org] |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 508655
9/23/2008 5:39 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Been reading up on our friend Linton. Poster boy for the DI, all right; he actually was a professor of bacteriology at a top university [link to www.medici.bris.ac.uk]
He also wrote in 2001, within the body of a book review [link to www.timeshighereducation.co.uk]
the lines that have been quoted of him by so very many; the "...throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another..."
Well, first I'd be tempted to label this as overstatement or gloss for a lay audience, as speciation within bacteria is described in multiple papers. But there is something more interesting here. Which is that due to the fluid nature of prokaryotic DNA, defining "species" within bacteria is not clear-cut. See for instance this paper; [link to www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]
The implication is unfortunately plain; Professor Linton specifically singled out bacteria and phrased his statement as he did so he could give the impression that speciation has never been observed, while managing to narrowly avoid the un-Christian behavior of outright lying. However, as the paper I linked above clearly shows, even this careful two-step is of no avail against the real evidence of speciation -- in bacteria, and in examples of much more complex life (as has also been linked to both in this thread and to the other.)
Interestingly enough, it appears Doctor Linton has made a habit of reviewing (negatively) popular science books on the subject of Evolution. He's even turned up at Amazon. Often he makes a variation of the same argument, and as often he makes some pious nod towards God as well.
He's also signed on to the Disco Tute's list of scientists "questioning evolution" (actually, the text of the document is, on the surface, something any scientist would agree to; no theory is ever beyond question). Which makes a grand list of maybe thirty people actually in biological sciences (I hope you will forgive my ignoring the hundred or so physical therapists, mechanical engineers, and so forth).
The Steves are still ahead. They've got Steves from more COUNTRIES than there are biologists on the DI's list. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 384660
9/23/2008 9:46 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
Wrong. There are many examples of gene multiplication. Here are some references. If you would read some actual scientific papers rather than just the propaganda proliferated by the religious community, you'd know that.
[link to genome.cshlp.org]
[link to www.plosgenetics.org]
[link to www.plosone.org]
[link to www.talkorigins.org] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 404866
10/5/2008 4:05 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
you all wrong..monkeys evolved from humans. when the human population grew some evolved into tree monkeys to get fruit high up in the tree'S .these tree monkeys went on to evolve into chimps,gorillas etc |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | |
|
