Original Research--join In

[WisdomSpy]

I have read a lot of opinions regarding the supposed veracity of “evolution”, usually without the term being defined. This failure to clarify meaning only leads to further misunderstandings. Remember that science is man’s tool with which he tries to understand nature. Likewise, theology is man’s tool with which he tries to make sense out of spiritual realities. Specifically, biblical theology is a tool to more fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible. It is important to realize that science and theology are both opinion-based endeavors.

Let’s be clear: various constructions of creationism are essentially opinions based upon evidence from scripture and nature. Granted, various evidences are given different weights based upon prepositional biases or worldviews. Yet, to imagine that evolutionism does not exercise bias and presupposition and weighting of evidence, is simply not honest. It is also not honest to say that creationists don’t do any real research.

I am going to post a challenge to any and all honest souls who would like to participate in some real research. I actually did some original research within the past year which any of you could replicate or add to. Since the advent of the internet, you really do not need to be a trained biologist with various degrees, such as I, to do this research. I won’t even tell you my conclusions—you can come to your own when you do the research for yourself. It involves genes and simulating the expected results of various mutations on them. I discovered an amazing phenomenon that has direct and profound impact on the theory of evolution, specifically related to origins.

I don’t want to waste my time, so if 5 people or more would simply respond by agreeing to follow this through, I will walk you through the steps, which are not really hard to do. If you understand the basic concepts of DNA, the genetic code, mutations, and how DNA is “read” in order to turn its code into proteins/enzymes, then you should be able to keep up. All of these basic things can be gleaned from wiki and other easily-found web sources. If you are with me, just respond “yes”.

 

[Linuxgal]

I have read a lot of opinions regarding the supposed veracity of “evolution”, usually without the term being defined. This failure to clarify meaning only leads to further misunderstandings. Remember that science is man’s tool with which he tries to understand nature. Likewise, theology is man’s tool with which he tries to make sense out of spiritual realities. Specifically, biblical theology is a tool to more fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible. It is important to realize that science and theology are both opinion-based endeavors.

Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago, based on certain writings that come to us from the bronze age. Science tells us the world formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, based on observations through telescopes of other such solar systems forming, and the dating of certain radioisotopes obtained from the moon. Imagine a vast cataclysm that wipes out all human records and memories. We're left alive, but we have to start all over. At first there very well may be a religious phase, but it will almost surely not involve another Moses, another Israel, another Exodus, another five books of the Torah. We will have entirely different myths about the creation of the world, because our religious myths are not based on a methodical observation of nature. But in time, over thousands of years, this religion will give way to science once again, because people will rediscover telescopes and radiation and space travel. And the story that rebooted science will tell us is that the world was formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, because that is based on a reality that does not change.

 

[justlookinla]

Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago, based on certain writings that come to us from the bronze age.

Gosh, which religion would that be?

Science tells us the world formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, based on observations through telescopes of other such solar systems forming, and the dating of certain radioisotopes obtained from the moon. Imagine a vast cataclysm that wipes out all human records and memories. We're left alive, but we have to start all over. At first there very well may be a religious phase, but it will almost surely not involve another Moses, another Israel, another Exodus, another five books of the Torah. We will have entirely different myths about the creation of the world, because our religious myths are not based on a methodical observation of nature. But in time, over thousands of years, this religion will give way to science once again, because people will rediscover telescopes and radiation and space travel. And the story that rebooted science will tell us is that the world was formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, because that is based on a reality that does not change.

Who/what formed the world in the solar acceleration disk 4.5 billion years ago?

 

[Linuxgal]

Who/what formed the world in the solar acceleration disk 4.5 billion years ago?

Gravity and the conservation of angular momentum.

 

[justlookinla]

Gravity and the conservation of angular momentum.

And the source of gravity and conservation of angular momentum? Eventually we'll get to uncaused first cause.

 

[Linuxgal]

And the source of gravity and conservation of angular momentum? Eventually we'll get to uncaused first cause.

Funny how theists require that every effect must have a cause until they arrive at their God, then their requirement goes away.

 

[justlookinla]

Funny how theists require that every effect must have a cause until they arrive at their God, then their requirement goes away.

Not true. Funny though how folks like to spout various creationist theories which exclude God but resist finding the source of their creator.

 

[Linuxgal]

Not true. Funny though how folks like to spout various creationist theories which exclude God but resist finding the source of their creator.

Fallacy of many questions. Was there a creation? What if reality itself is eternal, the necessary being, thus cutting out the bearded middle-man who had to destroy every living thing on Earth outside of a gopher wood barge because he did such a botch job the first time through?

 

[justlookinla]

Fallacy of many questions. Was there a creation? What if reality itself is eternal, the necessary being, thus cutting out the bearded middle-man who had to destroy every living thing on Earth outside of a gopher wood barge because he did such a botch job the first time through?

What do you mean by "reality"?

 

[Linuxgal]

What do you mean by "reality"?

You know, that place you come back to after the LSD wears off.

 

[justlookinla]

You know, that place you come back to after the LSD wears off.

Didn't take long to back away from your claim, did it?

 

[com7fy8]

I don’t want to waste my time, so if 5 people or more would simply respond by agreeing to follow this through, I will walk you through the steps, which are not really hard to do. If you understand the basic concepts of DNA, the genetic code, mutations, and how DNA is “read” in order to turn its code into proteins/enzymes, then you should be able to keep up. All of these basic things can be gleaned from wiki and other easily-found web sources. If you are with me, just respond “yes”.

No, but in case you would like my feedback >

I research creation by means of prayer, mostly, because God knows.

One point of my "logic" is that if physical things started the universe at some point, by means of predictable scientific physical principles of atoms and molecules and energies, then why didn't they do all that way way way back in all past eternity, versus only about ten billion years ago?? Why didn't those predictable principles do what they do, earlier . . . in all past eternity?

Also, I have studied some about evolutionary theory and genetics and DNA function. One thing I picked up is that according to certain evolutionary theory, mutation of genes produces genes which can produce behaviors, as well as characteristics. But I see how many behaviors are very highly complex; so I would "think" such very complicated behaviors would need more than one gene to produce them. And if it can take many years for just one viable gene to be produced and selected, I see that the "chance" of two or three or more behavioral genes being produced in coincidence is not very "likely".

And if our Father was able to raise the body of Jesus, in the resurrection, then He can easily in seconds or less produce a universe and living things. So, using "six days" would be taking His time, "maybe"

And it was for love of Jesus; so why hurry?

In Colossians 1:16 Paul says, "All things were created through Him and for Him."

So, love had all to do with creation. Physical principles did not do it. Possibly, after the fall of Adam and Eve, creation went down in its nature so it is now capable of corruption and "age". Romans 8:20. I see that possibly creation before the fall was not operating according to the physical principles we see now.

Another thing - - evolutionary theory includes ideas like "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection". There is believed to be competition, even to live at the expense of others. And worldly people are fine with competing to be better than others and have more than others. So, I can see their evolutionary ideas could be the product of their willingness to compete and get what they want for themselves.

But the Bible says, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, God does not want us to try to be better and have more, and get more instead of others getting blessed, but >

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

And this includes caring about others as well as we care about ourselves, I understand from our Second Love Commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.

So, I see that if we are ok with an idea which means things work by means of competition, this can come from our ego wanting this to be so. Our character can have a lot to do with what we are willing to accept, for ideas.

 

[justlookinla]

Fallacy of many questions. Was there a creation? What if reality itself is eternal, the necessary being, thus cutting out the bearded middle-man who had to destroy every living thing on Earth outside of a gopher wood barge because he did such a botch job the first time through?

What do you mean by "reality"?

Bump?

 

[Zosimus]

Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago...

No, one religion out of the thousands running around thinks so.

Science tells us the world formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk...

That's an interesting theory but, of course, there's no way of determing whether it's true. In fact, many details of the solar system don't fit the theory. Such features as the retrograde motion of Venus, the magnetic field on Mercury, and the unusual size of the Earth's moon present challenges for the theory.

 

[JayFern]

Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago...
No, one religion out of the thousands running around thinks so.


That's an interesting theory but, of course, there's no way of determing whether it's true. In fact, many details of the solar system don't fit the theory. Such features as the retrograde motion of Venus, the magnetic field on Mercury, and the unusual size of the Earth's moon present challenges for the theory.

But you have no problem believing a magic man in the sky did it all, how strange is that?

 

[Linuxgal]

That's an interesting theory but, of course, there's no way of determing whether it's true. In fact, many details of the solar system don't fit the theory. Such features as the retrograde motion of Venus, the magnetic field on Mercury, and the unusual size of the Earth's moon present challenges for the theory.

A magnetic field inside a planet is caused by the convection of molten iron. How does this challenge the theory of planetary formation by accretion?

Why does the fact that the rotation period of Venus is slower than its period of revolution around the sun challenge the theory of planetary formation by accretion?

The current theory for the formation of the Moon involves the impact of an object about the size of Mars with the Earth when this object and the Earth were both forming in the planetary accretion disk. How does this challenge the theory of planetary formation by accretion?

 

[sfs]

Yes.

 

[EternalDragon]

Fallacy of many questions. Was there a creation? What if reality itself is eternal, the necessary being, thus cutting out the bearded middle-man who had to destroy every living thing on Earth outside of a gopher wood barge because he did such a botch job the first time through?

Um..that would be the humans he created doing the botching with
their given free will. Except for the 8 survivors that is.

Next time around there will be a lot more survivors but a similar
scenario and fate for those that have botched it once again.

 

[Linuxgal]

Um..that would be the humans he created doing the botching with
their given free will. Except for the 8 survivors that is.

And God couldn't look down the time line and see this, skip Adam and Eve and just create the eight? No wonder he wanted a do-over.

 

[justlookinla]

Fallacy of many questions. Was there a creation? What if reality itself is eternal, the necessary being, thus cutting out the bearded middle-man who had to destroy every living thing on Earth outside of a gopher wood barge because he did such a botch job the first time through?

What do you mean by "reality"?

You know, that place you come back to after the LSD wears off.

Didn't take long to back away from your claim, did it?

Bump?

Annnddd.....another bump.

What do you mean by "reality"?