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.
If someone speak in a code , that is a language, that I don't understand then it will only sound like noise ... It may as well be "Junk sound". In order for someone to know the information in a code they have to know the language of that code. The genetic code is not in English so it's going to many years of hard work for man to crack the many codes in the DNA.
Spies tries to hide code while other spies tries to find the hidden code that the average person would see as junk or noise.
The simplest bacteria appear have been built by someone that is a million times smarter than man so it going to take a very long time for man to crack the genetic code.
Can you show how this applies, your statement was confusing, backing it up by saying whales, isn't helpful. Please provide illustrations of how Whales fit your formula.The whale for one.
Proof please. Copy and paste it from the original machine translated version.False. The Genesis Narrative even states that life forms (kinds) came before the Kinds being presented in the Narrative.
The proof is an illusion. OK I understand now.The proof is in all those things that materialists like to claim are illusions.
Let's test that theory with the evolutionists.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
"The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences."
Many who call themselves Christians don't believe the bible. How they can claim to believe God and think he's a liar is beyond me.
Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of common design? Everything was designed to fill a notch in a single ecosystem; earth.
Here is why evolutionist are afraid of the results produce by ENCODE.
Here is a quote from Dan Graur:
"If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long,undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong."
The best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist.
As usual, when a creationist quotes someone, the best solution is to check the source.
The "problem" usually resolves itself. Graur may be right that the 2012 results of ENCODE would be a problem for evolution. It almost certainly would be a problem for much of our understanding of genetics. 80% functional genome? That's an insanely high number, completely out of line with all of the rest of nature and with much of what we understand in genetics. Of course, the problem here is that Graur's presentation, where he made that quote, is tearing down ENCODE. He (like a great many other scientists) thinks that ENCODE's 2012 result is a load of crap. From a mere five slides later (slide 21) in the presentation:
In fact, in slide 126, he goes so far as to say that it is impossible that ENCODE's results are accurate due to effective population sizes.
How did ENCODE reach the conclusion that 80% of the human genome is functional, when the evidence for selection constraint is ~5%?
- Equating hype with science.
- Wrong experimental systems.
- Inappropriate statistical analyses.
- A peculiar definition of function.
- A peculiar definition of junk.
- A lack of evolutionary perspective.
- A lack of objectivity about the study organism.
- Ignorance of everything that came before ENCODE.
Grauer's statements are not particularly impressive given how widely ENCODE 2012 has been criticized. You should watch the whole presentation, rather than just taking individual snippets from it that seem to support your view. You might learn something.
...And then not a single cite actually refutes my argument (because it can't, because it's a very basic principle of information theory). I don't think you understood what I was saying.
We don't claim god is a liar. We claim priests and clergy can be liars, and in the case of Genesis and creation, were lying.Many who call themselves Christians don't believe the bible. How they can claim to believe God and think he's a liar is beyond me.
You just can't shake that faulty mentality that if evolution no God and if God no evolution.Do you believe the Creation? Would God put fake evidence in the Creation just to fool us?
There is no valid reason that Creation would not create a nested hierarchy. Do you have one?Why would that require a nested hierarchy?
Why is Genesis the only Narrative that puts forth a sequence of creation that can be supported in part by scientific findings?We don't claim god is a liar. We claim priests and clergy can be liars, and in the case of Genesis and creation, were lying. They simply didn't know anything but their part of the World, their oral stories passed down by mouth, and a little bit of writing. Which as far as the creation story had to be oral in the beginning. Which is wrong as the first people in the Middle East weren't farming.
Hebrew Bible.
I'm sorry. I assumed as a Christian you would believe in the Genesis Approach of a god doing all this. Can you show me what you believe created the Earth and all the species here, please.Why is Genesis the only Narrative that puts forth a sequence of creation that can be supported in part by scientific findings?
Scientists have now proven Humans mated with Neanderthals. We share their DNA.That would require you to demonstrate that there has been a mistake. Where has anyone shown that these are not transitional fossils?
Where have you ever shown that they were produced by "breed mates"?
Actually it is not 55 million years which has always been considered the required amount of time according to materialists for this evolution to occur. However, you must be unfamiliar with the discovery of fossil evidence that drops that 55 million down to around 3 to 5 million years. Which sounds like a lot of time but considering the evolutionary models it is hardly a blink of an eye.The whale had at a bare minimum 55 million years to evolve from entirely land-based (hippo-like) mammals. No peer-reviewed science publication has ever made the case that this is somehow "not enough time" for this change to happen. I understand this is a common claim among the intelligent design community, but it is not backed up by any published science.
As a Christian I believe the Christian God created the universe and all that exists.I'm sorry. I assumed as a Christian you would believe in the Genesis Approach of a god doing all this. Can you show me what you believe created the Earth and all the species here, please.
I said I wanted evidence. Please provide evidence that the OT and NT were political creations due to need.The Jews compiled the OT while in Bondage in Babylon. Constantine was compiling the NT at a time of the old gods falling in popularity, the new Christian religion was very spilt and he needed to bring it together.
Research the History, then read on and see how both have been used as a political tool ever since. You do the research, only on History sites, and see why the need was there.
The compilers were all top priests, they need to retain power.
Scientists have now proven Humans mated with Neanderthals. We share their DNA.
As for the Human skulls, illustrates perfectly how we evolved. The Hominid family is relatively new, so we find more remains and less gaps occur. Like a lot of later species. The problem is with species that lived 100 million years ago.
Why is Genesis the only Narrative that puts forth a sequence of creation that can be supported in part by scientific findings?
You just can't shake that faulty mentality that if evolution no God and if God no evolution.
There is no valid reason that Creation would not create a nested hierarchy. Do you have one?
There is evidence but that evidence is called illusion.Quite the opposite, I'm ready to accept a god and creation. If you can prove it with even a little bit of evidence, not by disproving parts of evolution.
God will come back but I don't think that will be a good thing for you unless something changes drastically.Maybe a god kicked it all off, maybe a god came back, or lived here and spent his time tweaking species that lived on Earth. One thing's for sure. It has nothing to do with the bible.
You believe we are going to find. When we do, the books will be re written.
Evolution doesn't mean no God and NO God doesn't mean no evolution. Hard one to get your mind around I guess?As we are finding more proof of evolution, it's more than likely less will believe in Creation. So if a god didn't kick it off, didn't spend a billion years constantly updating the life on Earth. How is it that life on Earth keeps changing without evolution fitting nature?
Like I said, the whale is an example of what I was referring to.Wrong. The jumps you propose is because of the scarcity of the older fossil. As we get to the last million years, the gaps are shorter, last 500,000 closer still.
You imply it all the time.Where did I make any such statement?
It was your claim, why wouldn't ID produce a nested hierarchy?I have been saying from the start that there would be no reason why ID/creationism would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. You haven't shown why a nested hierarchy is a prediction of ID/creationism.
There is evidence but that evidence is called illusion.
When one believes that evolution is the only process by which life could arise and change, is a belief based on evidence alone, then if one doesn't have the evidence one needs to prove it, this leads to disproving claims that people make about evolution. Its the way it is.
Evolution doesn't mean no God and NO God doesn't mean no evolution. Hard one to get your mind around I guess?
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?