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.
So you've studied the scientific understanding of plant developmental biology and found it lacking? Where, precisely, do you think scientific explanations are lacking?
If you are so intelligent then perhaps you could create an apple seed and program it to make an apple tree. <<
They need to create an apple see and have it become a peach tree.
While science is important some scientist think because they understand some things they know it all. That's my problem with so called science. They discount a need for a creator.
Real science can prove what it says. That is why evolution is not real science.
Well, yes. And if pigs had wings they could fly. That page looks like complete nonsense that somebody made up. Bacteria (and some other single-celled organisms) routinely take up DNA from their environment and start using it. Plants and animals don't(*).How about what's said in this one? If what's said in this writing is true, then I can imagine that there are many other ways to treat the seed.
Have you ever cut open an apple seed? Inside it has an off white color. It's moist, but yet when placed in the soil that seed knows to grow an apple tree. How does it know?
When science can explain this, then, and only then, will I listen to their nonsense on evolution.
You see if they can't tell me how an apple seed works then they have a lot of audacity to tell me how I came into being....
I didn't say anything about being intelligent.If you are so intelligent then perhaps you could create an apple seed and program it to make an apple tree.
Again, what does this have to do with what you wrote? You dismissed the core of modern biology (evolution) because scientists don't understand how apple seeds work. That's bad logic -- there are lots of things scientists don't know, but that doesn't mean they know nothing at all -- and it's not even very accurate, since scientists do know quite a bit about how plants develop from seeds.While science is important some scientist think because they understand some things they know it all. That's my problem with so called science. They discount a need for a creator.
I don't know who told you that, but it's a gross falsehood. Astronomers decided how old the universe was; geologists and physicists decided how old the Earth was. None of them gave a hoot about providing support for evolution. Scientists of all stripes accept an old universe because of the enormous weight of evidence.That's why they insist on billions of years for the universe, because with enough time they can get people to accept the lie of evolution on faith.
That's not the way it looks to virtually all scientists who actually work with DNA, whether they are believers or not.Belief in an intelligent creator takes far less faith and is supported by the evidence of information found in our DNA as information requires an intelligent source.
What's your point? Scientists who are believers acknowledge the same creator you do.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
I didn't say anything about being intelligent.
Again, what does this have to do with what you wrote? You dismissed the core of modern biology (evolution) because scientists don't understand how apple seeds work. That's bad logic -- there are lots of things scientists don't know, but that doesn't mean they know nothing at all -- and it's not even very accurate, since scientists do know quite a bit about how plants develop from seeds.
All of this has precisely nothing to do with rejecting a creator. Scientists don't discount the need for a creator; atheists do. Plenty of scientists are Christians (or belong to other religions). I'm one of them. It certainly doesn't make my life any easier that the impression most of colleagues get about Christians is that they reject science.
My point is that even with the presence of a creator God, evolution is still the best explanation for the way biological life looks on this planet. Despite their complaints about atheistic science, creationists do an absolutely abysmal job at explaining real biological data. You'd think that they be at least as good as secular science if they really had the inside scoop on what happened.By definition, science can consider only natural explanations and does not consider supernatural explanations. In the absence of a creator God, evolution would be the best explanation for our existence left given the limitations of science.
Some people used Newtonian mechanics to discount the need for a creator. So what? It was still an accurate description of the way the world works.Given these limitations, science will never come to an understanding of the truth of creation and those who are predisposed to reject their creator are more than happy to accept these limitations as long as they're not held accountable to God. Unfortunately, this denial will not save them on the day of judgement when we are all called to give an account.
My point is that even with the presence of a creator God, evolution is still the best explanation for the way biological life looks on this planet. Despite their complaints about atheistic science, creationists do an absolutely abysmal job at explaining real biological data. You'd think that they be at least as good as secular science if they really had the inside scoop on what happened.
Some people used Newtonian mechanics to discount the need for a creator. So what? It was still an accurate description of the way the world works.
I'm inclined to leave eternal judgment in God's hands. I'm more concerned with understanding biology, and evolution works much better for that than creationism does.
What was the first plant life and how did it become something other that what it was? How did it porduce offsprings other than what it was?
Hi and I could only agree but perhaps, I misunderstand what DNA is? I don't know that much about plant biology, etc., but it seems that it's much more deeper then DNA, alone; if we look at ourselves we see that all humans have a common DNA type that differs from a cat or dog, or any mammal. Within each 'species' of creature are a certain DNA type and though they differ from us they are unique creatures. Now, we must consider individualism in each one of the species and this is where the DNA plays a more detailed part in this factor, just like a snowflake is created randomly and each one is different, although they are all snowflakes.
I used to have a small garden and I experimented with grafting; and then there are other plants like vines that can be cloned by clippings but the thing that I learned is that there's a difference on how the plant will reproduce fruits from either seed or cloning/grafting methods. A seed will produce an individual plant with it's own DNA, and perhaps I am missing much on these details, and then a clipping that is planted into soil with the rooting-hormone will sprout it's own roots and be a clone of the mother plant or tree, and yet they are physically individual's.
This causes me to recall the seed of Abraham, and all lineage in the seed; each seed would produce an individual character in each of God's children so that each is an independent person.
My experience was that the cloned plant produced the identical fruit as the mother and the seeded plant or tree produced fruits that slightly differed, although they might be all apple trees in the experiment. I saw this chronicled on a TV documentary on apples and other fruits in certain regions. They said that each apple seed produces a tree that produces a slightly different apple if the seed is not genetically modified. They have GM'd their seeds so to produce more consistent apples in the orchards with simpler seeding methods.
Oh ya, I can't forget to mention that I believe in intelligent design and a creator of all things that are not man made.
I believe much like you in both intelligent design and evolution, ...
Plenty of scientists are Christians (or belong to other religions). I'm one of them.
You can't do that Biblically. It's one or the other....If you think both then you must discount the creation story.
God will not call you forth through evolution.
How about what's said in this one? If what's said in this writing is true, then I can imagine that there are many other ways to treat the seed.
So, it seems I should say: The DNA of a plant can be easily modified from the DNA of its seed.
And, we can imagine a case that one apple tree has different DNA from another apple tree of the same species. Or some crazier things like: 5 Fuji apples may have 5 different DNA.
How does this sound?
I don't know who told you that, but it's a gross falsehood. Astronomers decided how old the universe was; geologists and physicists decided how old the Earth was. None of them gave a hoot about providing support for evolution. Scientists of all stripes accept an old universe because of the enormous weight of evidence.
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?