CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The simple fact is what we see today is that information always comes from intelligence so the logical conclusion is that information originated from intelligence which is God. Saying God did it is not taking the easy way out, that is simply where the evidence points too. You say keep the creationists paying money, the atheists do this too with all their schools and to be able to pay to push this evolution theory onto everyone.
Lets face it Evolution and Christianity are both religious. You have to believe in one or the other. No one was around when the earth was made so explaining origins of the earth and universe is not observable therefore it is not science it is religious.
Information does not always have to come from intelligence. The sun fuses hydrogen to make helium in Nuclear Fusion. This is information, however it didn't come from intelligence. No-one told the Sun do to nuclear fusion.Hello there, I saw that you study DNA. I will admit I have a lot to learn in that area but I did have a question for you. Today what we see about information is it always comes from intelligence. If that is true how would you explain the origin of information and the origin of DNA? Why does there seem to be specified complexity in the genetic code?
Information does not always have to come from intelligence. The sun fuses hydrogen to make helium in Nuclear Fusion. This is information, however it didn't come from intelligence. No-one told the Sun do to nuclear fusion.
The RNA world hypothesis is a proposition that before DNA, the first forms of life were dependent upon RNA molecules. RNA can store genetic information, can act as an enzyme and can self-replicate. Some RNA can catalyse the bonding of amino acids to make proteins. A change of uracil to thymine in the RNA would make for a more stable molecule that could self-adhere to form a double helix. This is all still a hypothesis though. It is based upon evidence at present with logical and rational thinking and is subject to development and change. Scientists do not know 100% how DNA originated however, we work towards trying to find the answers.
The specified complexity in the genetic code is not wholely complex and as for high order life has not always been so complex. Not all life has a huge amount of DNA bases, for example Carsonella ruddi has only 160,000 base pairs in it's genome compared to our 3 billion.
Over time genomes change, they contain new genes for encoding new proteins or the lose redunant genes. Or simple base mutations, additions or deletions. DNA will have started very simple, coding for a few essential proteins needed for the most basic of life, not very complex.
It's a system of trial and error.
So creationists are able to get the job done, wonderful.people who have been completely indoctrinated into creationism.
So creationists are able to get the job done, wonderful.
Looks like evos are not able to get the job of indoctrination done.
The Miller-Urey experiment is a joke.First step: Where or how Genesis (i.e. Miller and Urey) or introduction of amino acids. These are two theories I am aware of. Your person opinion on the matter sir.
Are you kidding me?Just one or two points.... you are a creationists which tells everyone other than creationists that you do not think for yourself,
Are you kidding me?
I've been called 'backwater' or its various synonyms, more times than you have threads, newbie.
If anyone around here 'thinks for himself,' it's I.
You want some of my better examples?
You don't know me very well, do you? but you sure like to act like you do.
- Adam & Eve spoke English.
- Noah lived in [what is now called] New Jersey.
- Flood waters were taken to Neptune.
- The King James Bible is 'the books' mentioned in Revelation 20:12.
Ya -- either way, I get it, don't I?Why are you proud of these inanities? I don't see what you think you have proved to yourself or anyone else by saying such silly things. Do you genuinely imagine anyone, anyone at all, is going to read them and conclude anything other than the author is off his trolley? Who are you trying to impress by saying such things?
Your assessment aside, yes.Do you call those demented juvenile ramblings 'thinking for yourself'?
Either way ... you'll whine about it, won't you?Soooo what now? I think I'll leave...
My apologies AV1611VET I will leave you to 'think for yourself' because it's obvious you have enough problems of your own without me adding to them.
God bless you.
you are a creationists which tells everyone other than creationists that you do not think for yourself,
I will leave you to 'think for yourself' because it's obvious you have enough problems of your own without me adding to them.
So which way are you going to pout, then?Not anymore.
Ya -- either way, I get it, don't I?
Well, one consolation -- it keeps you guys from calling me 'brainwashed.'
Although I've been called that many times, too.
If I quote the Bible or quote basic doctrine, I'm 'brainwashed'; and if I think for myself, I'm 'backwater.'
So either 'brainwashed' or 'backwater', the point remains:
It's not what I say that counts, it's what I am.
What isn't silly to you guys?So, I'll try again. Why do you say such silly things?
If you don't think Jesus walking on water is silly, but God taking the flood waters to Neptune is silly -- then I'd say you have a problem, in my opinion.
Thanks, SI, but I find that very hard to believe.But trust me when I say, AV, you get picked on strictly for the things you say. It has nothing to do with you being a Christian.
What isn't silly to you guys?
If you don't think Jesus walking on water is silly, but God taking the flood waters to Neptune is silly -- then I'd say you have a problem, in my opinion.
Although I'll admit; I don't think like you guys -- thank God.
Where's the dividing line with you guys?
Isn't it obvious? I prefer 'backwater' to 'brainwashed.'Why do you do it?
Isn't it obvious? I prefer 'backwater' to 'brainwashed.'
I think hard enough.Or perhaps you don't actually think very hard about what you are saying.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?