Login

Join for Free!
118317 members


http://xkxy.org:Bible exact description of DNA and ATP

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby MrMistery » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:35 pm

some people don't believe in gravity. Does that answer your question?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:01 am

burninbriar wrote:Lets not forget that evolution is a theory and is full of unexplained circumstances, otherwise it would be fact. Much of the theory relies on faith in the theory to explain the unexplainable. Modern science and discovery's blow holes in some of the evolution theory, this does not mean its wrong, but does suggest that the original theory was flawed.


From Dictionary.com:

Faith –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I don't know how many times I've said this in this forum, but the scientific method in its true form has no place for faith. It is all doubt and speculation, with a heavy dosage of skepticism. The scientific method calls for scientists to attempt to disprove their theories, not the other way around. So the fact that there have been exceptions to the original TOE is a good thing and means that the path of scientific inquiry is still operating within the scientific method.

PS: People always say "it's only a theory" but I don't think many people realize the significance of a scientific theory.
See the links below, or do a little research on your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science[/quote]
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby Linn » Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:45 pm

Dongsheng Zhang wrote:
Linn wrote:The first example of the four living creatures is simply
showing God's attributes, one of which is like that of man.
That attribute thus being love. The other three living cratures also represent different aspects that is God.



Re Linn:

I consider the “mystery thing” with the four and fifteen characters is a creature on the earth that made by God. That is one of the ways to show God's attributes.
“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:12-13)


thats why all the creatures of earth are made in his image. The code comes from him.
There is a base DNA of all living things which consists of four nucleotides the same 20 amino acid sequences, then things differintiate according to his attributes.

But I dont see that the bible is talking about this. As I said before the bible is not meant to be a science text. The whole point of those passages you are talking about in are for the purpose of showing a glimpse of God's throne on the celestrial chariot and his great power and what he is capable of accomplishing. Also it is prophetic.
The lion demonstrates his courage, the bull his power, the eagle his "far- sightednes" and wisdom, and the man intelligence and love.

WE do not need to prove anything to the scientific community, as we know eventualy God "will prove to be"
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA


Postby js_daquilanea » Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:41 am

well...my brothers and sisters...i guess these things about rivals of science and religion are like sibling rivalries...they are just the same but just could not mix up together..is that pride?tell me...scientists say thet they dont believe unless they see GOD. but they are talking of the same thing. science believes that energy cannot be created or destroyed therefore....it an only be the creator or the destroyer right?which is the Alpha and omega for religious people. Can you see energy?no!but you can feel it and see it at work.Just like God!he is at work in everything...a potential or kinetic energy. The life force that keeps everything going.bigbang theory is also in the bible..."first ther was light". evolution and creation could be the same thing.have you heard of the existence of new species called nephilims?it is when angels admired the daughters of men that they summoned them and impregnated them. the cross between angels and women are nephilims. Jesus is also a cross of a divine energy and a woman...and that could make him unable to produce HIS offspring...(what about da vinci code)
the bible is a collection of real facts and historical acounts that could be explained by science...it could be writtem by early men that could probably have quite a genetic memory or memory imprints in their minds of what had been done long before time.at least...these are my beliefs.
js_daquilanea
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: Philippines

Postby js_daquilanea » Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:50 am

oops!i guess i missed something...of course we can see energy and likewise...GOD.The light,that talked to abraham, the burning bush moses met are all GOD's countless forms and are all forms of energy.the revelation section in the bible also tells probable scenarios that science can also forsee today but lets leave it for another topic....
take note: the great scientist of the human genome project Francis collins is also a believer and i admire his principles...for that at least.
If energy cannot be created nor destroyed then HE could only be the creator and the destroyer, The alpha and omega, the brahma and shiva. If HE neither create nor destroy then HE preserves,The Vishnu.
js_daquilanea
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: Philippines

Postby narrowstaircase » Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:21 am

Linn wrote:WE do not need to prove anything to the scientific community, as we know eventualy God "will prove to be"


prove to be sounds very much like scientific method.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby mith » Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:33 am

Genetic memory? Wow sounds like something from stargate...
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby narrowstaircase » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:11 am

mith wrote:Requires faith in the scientific method....


Mat 7:15-20 ...So every good tree produces good fruits, but the worthless tree produces bad fruits. A good tree cannot produce bad fruits, nor a worthless tree produce good fruits... By their fruits then surely ye shall know them.

although talking about false profits the methodology involved is very much a case of what we use in science today. its irrational to think that repeatedly observed phenomena can't be taken as fact. if we cant make a decision based on our observations we might as well relinquish our conciousness, which as a living thinking creature i find highly irresponsible for the sake of humanity, knowledge and truth in general.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby burninbriar » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:18 am

ughaibu wrote:Burninbriar:
1) Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is a theory, or rather a collection of theories that attempt to account for various aspects of the fact of evolution.
2) The theory of evolution doesn't require faith and neither does it attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Evolution denial is quite the most functionless position I can imagine, could you explain to me it's appeal, please?

Here's an article touching on this question, perhaps you could comment: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier0 ... index.html

I read the article and one thing that stands out is how she seems to think that science is extremely advanced and that all answers are known. Until recently we were chopping out peoples appendix's when there was nothing wrong with them, simply because they were already in there and since they didn't know what an appendix does, "we must not need it". How barbaric is that? I've read some other articles posted here and like this one, the authors seem angry. Not really informative.
I'm not saying that evolution is wrong, but Darwin's theory has a lot of holes in it. I think that fossil evidence is inconclusive. I know that the ceolacanth has been brought up a lot and you're sick of it, but it is rather odd that not only is it not a missing link growing legs and lungs, ready to walk out of the ocean, but it hasn't evolved at all in over 70,000,000 years.
The formation of coal and oil, and fossilized trees crossing many sedimentary rock layers are best explained by a catastrophic event. Although a catastrophic event could be evolutionary, most evolutionists immediately discount it because it fits the creation model. This I find very unscientific.
The more we learn how complex a living cell is, the harder it is to believe it assembled its self out of chemical soup. We really have no idea how life works, we know how some parts work but thats about it. If you have no idea how life works, how can you say for sure where it came from or how it was made.
I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just that there is a lot of unanswered questions and until they are answered, evolution is a theory, as the name implies, " The Theory of Evolution."
burninbriar
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:02 pm

Postby ughaibu » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:26 am

Evolution in action: http://www.msu.edu/~lenski/sciencearticle.html Evolution is a fact.
ughaibu
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:44 am

Postby burninbriar » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:34 pm

ughaibu wrote:Evolution in action: http://www.msu.edu/~lenski/sciencearticle.html Evolution is a fact.

They are studying adaptive evolution. Forced changes vs change by chance. Some of their findings seem to dispute Darwin. Here is a quote from the article.

"Lenski and graduate student Mark Stanek are now trying to pinpoint the particular beneficial mutations that boosted the bacteria's fitness. They've found one so far--and it is present in just one lineage, strengthening the idea that the others have found different paths to higher fitness. When it comes to organisms' adaptive performance, says Lenski, "evolution is remarkably reproducible. But as you move away from performance, to cell size or genes, things are less and less reproducible." Because all 12 populations started out genetically identical and have experienced the same selective pressures, the differences underscore the role of chance in setting evolution's course."

""What it comes down to is just a chance thing," Rainey says. "The phage puts the population through a bottleneck, which increases the role of chance. The reproducibility goes out the door." Only individuals that happen to be resistant to the phage pass through the bottleneck, and the array of genes they carry varies from microcosm to microcosm. As a result, each miniature ecosystem rediversifies from a different starting point and reaches strange new adaptive peaks."

We see adaptive evolution all the time, thats not in question. Nothing in that article shows evidence of species change, like reptile to mammal.
It was a very interesting article though, thank you for posting it.
burninbriar
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:02 pm

Postby narrowstaircase » Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:14 pm

burninbriar wrote:They are studying adaptive evolution. Forced changes vs change by chance. Some of their findings seem to dispute Darwin. Here is a quote from the article...

...We see adaptive evolution all the time, thats not in question. Nothing in that article shows evidence of species change, like reptile to mammal.
It was a very interesting article though, thank you for posting it.


i havent come across this yet so i dont understand this. it sounds like evolution itself has been divided into smaller categories. who is the person that determines whether a change is forced or by chance? do we understand enough about nature to make that decision yet?

when i think about it it seems every change is forced, and every product of that change is by chance. as if nature spreads its fingers, trying everything to know everything.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest