Evolution vs. Creationism

[staugustine68]

For me your last two posts indicate that maybe, just maybe, you should first study what you are talking about before making any judgements about it.
First correction, although mutations are random, evolution is not random. Evolution is the product of random mutations and natural selection. The last is anything but random. Random mutations only provide the variety which natural selection can select from. Evolution is anything but random.

Furthermore, as Ondoher already pointed out, even if evolution is not the right answer, this doesn't mean that hence intelligent design is the right answer. You're now trying to form a conclusion by discarding something else. This is a fallacy. That you discarded another option at best means that you do not know what really happened, unless you've got something to back up your intelligent design conclusion.

Ok, accepted! I think of it this way, Everytime I've come across written communication, whether it's a painting on a cave wall, novel from Amazon or the words "I Love You" inscribed in the sand on the beach, there has always been someone who did this writting. Even if I can't see the couple who wrote "I Love You", I don't assume that the words randomly appeared by chance or by the movement of the waves. Someone of intelligence made that writting communication.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, accepted! I think of it this way, Everytime I've come across written communication, whether it's a painting on a cave wall, novel from Amazon or the words "I Love You" inscribed in the sand on the beach, there has always been someone who did this writting. Even if you can't see the couple who wrote "I Love You", I don't assume that the words randomly appearedby chance or the movement of the waves. Someone of intelligence made that writting communication.

But DNA 'writing' works a bit different then normal writing.It is a lot more flexible. So to use writing as an analogy and conclude from that that it can only be 'intelligently designed' is not valid, since it is not a good analogy.

 

[h2whoa]

But DNA 'writing' works a bit different then normal writing.It is a lot more flexible. So to use writing as an analogy and conclude from that that it can only be 'intelligently designed' is not valid, since it is not a good analogy.

Well said. We geneticists give the genetic code simple letters to relate to specific molecules within the DNA macromolecule. However, that is a human simplification that leads one to think too much in terms of letters and not enough in terms of organic chemistry.

h2

 

[staugustine68]

But DNA 'writing' works a bit different then normal writing.It is a lot more flexible. So to use writing as an analogy and conclude from that that it can only be 'intelligently designed' is not valid, since it is not a good analogy.

Flexible or not, It is still written communication. Ask any Scientist this, and they will agree. If you really study science, It will bring you closer to God.
Darwin did not murder God, he just couldn't read between the lines...so to speak.

 

[staugustine68]

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.

 

[h2whoa]

Flexible or not, It is still written communication. Ask any Scientist this, and they will agree.

Not really. DNA is essentially the molecular starter position for a cascade of reactions that result in numerous proteins etc (ultimately the metabolome). The nature of molecule dictates in some way the resulting cascade, as is the case for all chemical reactions. However, this does not make it written code.

If you really study science, It will bring you closer to God. Darwin did not murder God, he just couldn't read between the lines...so to speak.

I am really studying science, which I suspect that you are not. I am also a Christian. And I believe in Evolution. So I have to disagree with the intent of your statement, but not the actual content of what you say. I agree totally that studying science allows you to appreciate God's work on a very detailed level which brings me closer to God. But not for the reason you suggest.

h2

 

[staugustine68]

1. Leviticus 17:11
   ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier. Hmmm... A penny for a thought?

 

[Tenacious-D]

1. Leviticus 17:11
   
   ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier. Hmmm... A penny for a thought?

I think Neanderthals probably knew that blood was essential. This is not exactly a Biblical revelation.

 

[staugustine68]

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

1. Genesis 1:11,12
   Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. Genesis 1:21
   So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. Genesis 1:25
   And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes. Imagine that!

 

[h2whoa]

<snip>
A penny for a thought?

You don't think that maybe the fact that you can bleed to death from relatively superficial injuries perhaps gives a clue that blood is important?

h2

 

[Physics_guy]

Flexible or not, It is still written communication. Ask any Scientist this, and they will agree.

I'm a scientist and I don't agree - unless you using a totally different menaing of the words "written" and "communication" than me. I guess the single example of me disagreeing with you here is enough to show that you are wrong. Bad idea to make absolute statements about what others think.

If you really study science, It will bring you closer to God.

Depends on how you define "god." I study and have studied science, particle physics specifically, all my life, and it certainly didn't bring me closer to the christian concept of god. It did, however, bring me, like Einstein, closer to a more Spinozean concept of "god" - i.e. it brought me closer to understanding the Universe itself.

Darwin did not murder God, he just couldn't read between the lines...so to speak.

Well, I do not think it was ever Darwin's intention to "murder God;" he simply created a theory to explain the observed biodiversity on Earth, a remarkably good one too.

I fine the thinly veiled arrogance of this line however quite disturbing. I suppose you have added as much to the wealth of human knowledge as Darwin, because you are obviously capable of "reading between the lines," right?

 

[JohnR7]

But DNA 'writing' works a bit different then normal writing.

Different or not, we know that God created DNA. All science is doing is making observations on something God created. From the Bible we can pretty well surmise that DNA has gotten away from it's origional intended purpose. Because we live in a fallen world that has become corrupted. But we know that God is going to "fix it" and restore everything to His origional plan and purpose.

 

[staugustine68]

Last, but not least The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

1. Job 26:7
   He stretches out the north over empty space;
   He hangs the earth on nothing.

I don't believe that Moses had a satellite orbiting the earth.

 

[staugustine68]

P.S. I hope this isn't the start of a scriptural spam attack to take the objections raised to your previous posts away...

h2

Once it's dark, It gets really dark, doesn't it

 

[staugustine68]

I'm a scientist and I don't agree - unless you using a totally different menaing of the words "written" and "communication" than me. I guess the single example of me disagreeing with you here is enough to show that you are wrong. Bad idea to make absolute statements about what others think.

That's debatable. If you were really indepth with Science, You'd see things my way

 

[staugustine68]

Depends on how you define "god." I study and have studied science, particle physics specifically, all my life, and it certainly didn't bring me closer to the christian concept of god. It did, however, bring me, like Einstein, closer to a more Spinozean concept of "god" - i.e. it brought me closer to understanding the Universe itself.

The purpose of this post is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. (For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago?)

 

[Valkhorn]

The purpose of this post is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts.

Like where? It doesn't seem to be consistent with any scientific facts.

 

[staugustine68]

Like where? It doesn't seem to be consistent with any scientific facts.

Sure it does Valkhorn, Another example is Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. ) Yes, I'm one tough hombre.

 

[staugustine68]

Like where? It doesn't seem to be consistent with any scientific facts.

Still not convinced? Scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10.21 stars—which is a lot of stars.(The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10.25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

 

[Bradford]

:timeout:

Everyone calm down, stop throwing insults- and take a moment to read this carefully:

[noflame]

Thank you. I will be re-opening this thread shortly.