ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

do u accept evolution

Report this
Created by: Justsomeguy

eutychus

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 124

Report this May. 16 2012, 7:19 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>BUT there is NO evidence it is being engineered by some supernatureal diety, it os random and the only controlling factors are time and gradual envirnmental changes over geologial time spans. Sorry, but Intelligent Design is not science but creationism in new clothes and it's foolish to believe in it.


 


My personal choice of a means by which to address this subject is genetic code, and for now, all I want to say about genes and genetic code is this: It's a code. It's a code! IT'S A CODE! IT'S A CODE!! IT'S A CODE!!!!! What is a code? Letters are codes. Numbers are codes. Dots and dashes are code.  Codes are means of transmitting ideas. Do the ideas belong to the code? If not, then to whom do they belong? So, when you read a novel, you don't imagine that the ideas of the novel were conceived by the letters that make up the words, do you? When you study mathematical equations, you don't imagine that the idea communicated by the equation was thought up by the numbers in the equation, do you? And you certainly don't think that the high and low frequencies of computer code created, by themselves, Apple Computers and apps, do you? So how in the world do we come up with this idea that a code, a genetic code, does anything but communicate ideas from the being, or Being who originally conceived of the ideas being communicated through the code and originally conceived of the code as a way of communicating these ideas.


 


Also, for a code to be functional it must have a reader of the code. Letter codes and number codes were created long after there were human brains and human eyes to read these codes. But if we are talking about the beginning of life; if life did indeed begin with a code, then it had to also begin with the equipment necessary to read that code. The equipment required to read the code is the entire system of transcription and translation involving mRNA and tRNA nucleotides, involving scores of precisely engineered proteins with the ability to locate the needed code, with a precise signaling system that sets the entire operation in motion when a particular protein is needed, involves the copying of the code on to the mRNA, the transport of the mRNA to the precise area where it can be translated into a string of amino acids, the precise mechanisms for folding those amino acids into a functional protein, and an elaborate timing system so that the proteins manufactured will be manufactured in a sequence that will result in a synchronized and elaborately integrated organism and not just in a random pile of proteins.

If archaeologists examining an ancient ruin made the discovery that those scratches on the walls of a building were actually a code, that discovery would elevate the archaeologists' perception of the advancement and level of intelligence of the culture that once lived in that ruin. It is only modern scientists, so inculcated with Victorian Darwinian notions, that would use the discovery of a code as proof that intelligence does NOT exist in the formation of life. The basic difference between the modern scientific perception and the traditional, spiritual perception is that modern scientists believe that life and later intelligence, came about through the random interactions of matter; while the traditional, spiritual perception is that all things begin with intelligence out of which comes matter and later life forms. Intelligence, desire and will are all non-physical things, but associated in our world with physical bodies; yet they precede physical bodies, precede all of matter, and it is out of intelligence, desire and will that matter and later life forms were created. The tortured explanations of how matter began, ignoring the fact that a whole series of precise and brilliantly callibrated laws had to be in place before anything, even the Big Bang could have occurred; and the tortured explanations of how life formed from matter, explanations which run contrary to all discoveries of geologists and everything we know about environmental conditions as they were at the beginning of life on this planet; and the tortured explanations of how oxygen metabolizing organisms could have 'evolved' from photosynthetic organisms; and the tortured explanations of how complexly organized eukaryotic cells with whole internal systems of organelles could have 'evolved' from relatively much simpler 'prokaryotic' cells; and all the nonsense about pre-biotic pools of organic material that supposedly lay unmolested on this planet for millions upon millions of years enduring intense volcanic activity, unbearable heat and the continual bombardment of meteors; while organic molecules randomly and accidentally accumulated, a process taking, supposedly, many, many millions of years, to form the first life form, or the first molecule determined to replicate itself and desirous of replicating itself, when there is absolutely no evidence to support any of this or even a reasonable conjecture as to how any of this could have possibly happenned; all of this can be seen as a desperate attempt to continue to cling to the idea that life evolved without intelligence, or design; and what is most ludicrous is that these Victorian Darwinian ideas are clung to in the face of the discovery of the astonishing intricacy and complexity of life at the very 'simplest' level, even within a single cell; none of which could have possibly evolved by a random, hit and miss series of interactions of mindless molecules, as neo-Darwinin evolutionists would have it. To the contrary, all the evidence regarding organic materials on this planet is that they first appeared four billion or more years ago, not in tide pools of organic material, but already organized into microbes which, exactly like today's microbes, had a genetic system of transcribing and translating nucleic acids into amino acids, a system of folding proteins, a system of digestion, a system of elimination, a system of metabolism, a system of growth and reproduction, and a sensory system of responding to their environment. But let's not speak of design, intelligent or otherwise.


 


A cassette guy in an I-pod world

daren.rigby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this May. 17 2012, 1:29 am

Quote: wissa @ May. 15 2012, 11:16 pm

>well...they are both fiction. Charles Darwin recanted all on his death bed. Dr. Carl (last name pronounced bawl but not sure spelling) got permission to dig up Darwins dig site of the skeleton he got the 'proving tooth' from , presented in the monkey trials and it was a pig skeleton.. I laugh at how many people are sooo far behind the eight ball on this knowledge...

>

>it's never ceased to amaze me how many people are sci fi fans but don't believe in evolution

>

daren.rigby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this May. 17 2012, 1:46 am

darwin recanted all on his death bed. his dig site was protested but Dr. carl baugh got permission to dig it up and it was a pigs tooth darwin used to persuade at the monkey trials....and no proof for the bible version like some peeps say...wow...where would i start??? the red sea crossing in exodus is proven by the sea bed in a straight line where they crossed being chockers with swords, chariots and heaps of stuff the egyptians had on them...noahs arc as the bible said was discovered on mt arrorat(not sure spelling). exact biblical measurments and location confirmed. the flood of noah proven that was when one pangea seperated and the water from the mantle shot 70 miles high and it took 40 days of 'rain'. the earth expanded and continents parted. the fresh water froze, the axis tilted under new polar weight...water erosion at top of sphinx..all old news and publically available...so evolution is bunk. the world is no more than 10000 yrs old...watch Dr. Carl Baugh on the net and see..


 

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14333

Report this May. 17 2012, 4:28 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>All i am saying is that biologist and Evolutionary spokesperson Richard Dawkins has made over 100 million pounds. So someone is profitting on the theory of evolution 

>According to the Sunday Times rich list he is now (2012) worth over £100 Million due to his previous book sales, science career, and his forthcoming blockbuster movie (The Angel of Atheism).   Just the like a televangelist... making money is the name of the game otherwise they would do it for free.


Right... so Dawkins is worth £100 million. Well done him. You've failed to demonstrate he made the money off the back of evolution

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 17 2012, 6:25 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Just the like a televangelist... making money is the name of the game otherwise they would do it for free.

>


Animals have been evolving "for free" (sic.) for billions of years!


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this May. 17 2012, 7:26 am

I've seen plenty of fossils that prove evolution is not a theory, but a pretty solid fact.

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this May. 17 2012, 7:35 am

While people can believe everything in th Bible is true, they can also believe everything true is not in the Bible.  Using Cain for example.  The Bible says that Eve bore 3 sons.  It does not say that is all she had.  She could have been pumping out kids like a rabbit.  Wouldn't contradict the Bible.  Cain would obviously have married a sister.  And if I had been God, when I created Adam and Eve, they would have been genetically perfect, so no need to worry about genetic deformities in the children.  Genetic flaws would have accumulated over generation.  


As to the Ark, I have found you to be a polite and intelligent poster, so I have a question for you.  If scientist did find the remains of a large wooden ship at the top of Ararat and dated it to about 10,000 years old, would it make you question your beliefs about Noah?  I don't believe they will, but would you consider that strong evidence?

miklamar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2164

Report this May. 17 2012, 9:31 am

I believe Adam was created around 4,114 (or so) BC, and Noah's Flood occurred c. 2,447 BC, based upon Biblical chronologies.


But, as one of my professors pointed out, that doesn't mean that Adam was the first human God created, since he said that there could have been a huge gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.


I think the Earth's being described as being void refers to Snowball Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth)--650 million years ago, followed by the Cambrian period--and Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson point out in Forbidden Archeology, there were footprints and other artifacts dating to billions of years old.  So, there could have been many civilizations before Adam, but the Bible focuses on our Adamic civilization.


Var Miklama--Zakdorn, engineer. "A sound mind in a FULL body!" "Time, like latinum, is a limited quantity in the galaxy."

DATAWORFfantotally

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 473

Report this May. 17 2012, 11:33 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>At any rate, if a boat is found on a mountain slope and is dated to 10000 years ago That is hardly conclusive evidence that the Bible is literally true. Nor is it evidence against evolution. If Noah's Ark was found it would be a very large ship. Large enough to house 2 of every species that exists on the earth. Or is it 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal. Whatever number a person subscribes to matters not as a ship capable of this would be so unimaginably big that I doubt that one man could build such a ship in a lifetime ( even with the help of his sons).


but then life times then where longer, he was way past our lifetime when he finished. im sure that if The Lord wanted you to build a ship when you are past your prime im sure He would let you


NOTHING THAT IS REAL IS REAL!

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this May. 17 2012, 12:02 pm

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, life expectancy  in the upper Paleolithic was 33.  However, if the individual survived childhood to 15, then their life expectancy rose to 54.  In classic Roman times, life expectancy was 28, make it to 15 and life expectancy rises to 52.  Most people of note in the ancient times were adults so it can be assumed their life expectancy was at least in their mid-fifties.  

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 17 2012, 12:04 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Is the rest of your history that faulty, son?!

>Man of the era you reference barely survived into his early twenties.  By Roman times he could get pretty close to thirty if he was incredibly lucky.

>Maybe that televangelist with the divinity degree isn't the best source for accurate knowledge of the ancient world, 'eh?!

>


for the most part if you managed to live through childhood you had a decent chance of old age.  Socrates went on trial when he was 70.   Look at it this way, if 2 babies are born and one dies before their first birthday and the other lives to 70 thier average age of death is 35.  If 3 babies are born and 2 die before the age of one and the third lives to 70 the average life span is 23. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 17 2012, 12:06 pm

well, of course


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this May. 17 2012, 12:18 pm

I'll give you a somewhat scientific reason people may have lived much longer if you wish to accept the Biblical versions.  Growing old is in our DNA.  Some people age faster than others.  This could be because of errors in the genetic code.  Ageing may be a result of increasing errors in our genes.  If God created Adam perfect, his DNA had no flaws.  Maybe he didn't age and only accidents, injuries or disease would have killed him.  His children would through mutation pick up a few errors.  They would lives less long, but still age very slowly.  Each generation would pick up a few more errors in their DNA resulting in a gradual lowering of life expectancy.  If you look at the ages Biblical people died, you see a gradual decrease of age of death.  Of course  no way to prove any of the above.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 17 2012, 1:34 pm

Quote: Vicsage @ May. 17 2012, 12:18 pm

>

>I'll give you a somewhat scientific reason people may have lived much longer if you wish to accept the Biblical versions.  Growing old is in our DNA.  Some people age faster than others.  This could be because of errors in the genetic code.  Ageing may be a result of increasing errors in our genes.  If God created Adam perfect, his DNA had no flaws.  Maybe he didn't age and only accidents, injuries or disease would have killed him.  His children would through mutation pick up a few errors.  They would lives less long, but still age very slowly.  Each generation would pick up a few more errors in their DNA resulting in a gradual lowering of life expectancy.  If you look at the ages Biblical people died, you see a gradual decrease of age of death.  Of course  no way to prove any of the above.

>


I don't see a whole lot of people aging faster than others.  At least not unless it's due to disease or too much sun


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this May. 17 2012, 2:46 pm

Quote: DammitJim6200 @ May. 16 2012, 10:29 am

>

>Evolution is mainly just a theory, can't be proven, only a grand designer could had made this marvelous universe, God  

>


You just contradicted yourself. Being a theory, it is proven.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum