It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science, Meet Your Maker!

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Wow for all the pontificating you do on scripture the very basic concepts seem to have escaped you. In Gods eyes there are no "good" people we all deserve hell. That's why we need a savior.

[edit on 5/12/2008 by Bigwhammy]


IS everyone going to hell then because weve had a saviour? or is there good people coz weve had a saviour?

or is your statement void now?




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by boredguy
 


Hey boredguy! I liked your post on the preceding page. First I'm not saying who is going where. God decides that. My warning to atheists is that the Bible does say unbelief is the only unforgivable sin.

According to the Bible, Gods justice is perfect ; so to deserve heaven by your own merit, you have to be absolutely sinless. For example, you could lead a perfect life but tell one little lie and you would deserve Hell. That's how tight the standard is. That's what the law and sacrificial system of the Old Testament was set up to demonstrate. It is impossible. Yet...

Because Gods mercy and love are equally as perfect as his justice and he knows none of us mere humans can meet the standard. He provided us a way out. God came to earth as a man. Fulfilled the law by leading a sinless life and then provided himself as the onetime sacrifice for all of humanities sin. Just like the blood sacrifices for sin of ancient Judaism.

All that is required to transfer the righteousness of Christ on to yourself is to confess your sin to God an believe in him and the one he sent, Jesus, and his atonement on your behalf.


[edit on 5/12/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeus187
Lets lend creationalisim some of evolutions creedence for a minute here...

and say, that if HYPOTHETICALLY god as you picture... (him?) exists and was the "creator" there still lays the issue of "his?" creation...

was there another god before him who in turn created him??

if so, what are the origins of this god??

and so on, if you catch my drift....


Zeus dude lay off the 420 - this was addressed in my post.


originally posted by Bigwhammy
"Well then by the law of causation what caused God?". But they are making junior high level error in their logic. The law of causation does not say that all things have a cause. It says Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Because the creator, by definition, has to exist outside of space time thus he has no beginning.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 



PROTIP: only creationists and ignorant people think anyone reasonably intelligent says that. I've never met an (reasonably intelligent) atheist who thinks that everything came from nothing.


Actually I have heard many extremely intelligent atheists claim that something came from nothing. Perhaps in an indirect manner but that's what it amounts to. Here's what I mean. DNA contains a written message, information that is one to one equivalent to 23 complete sets of the encyclopedia Britannica. That includes the DNA in the very simplest one celled life that is required to get evolution started. Darwinists ascribe to a reductionist materialism that demands the original life sprung from chemicals.

So where did the information come from?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
but we must also consider, we are our own judges. Everyone will be judged differently.

Matthew 7:2
"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."

Therefore we can conclude we are only responsible for ourselves, i believe our own conscience will be judge. If we feel we could have contributed more then we could have contributed more.

Ultimatley its what on the inside counts, you can still perform good deeds everyday and go to hell, even though someone who has performed less good deeds can go to heaven.

Actions are important, however the most important part is intentions. If you perform good deeds for praise then is it a good deed?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


This is a common mistake for folks who don't know a great deal about evolution (and I don't mean to be rude when I say that). The first life forms, including the first bacteria, were far simpler than life forms we have now. The amount of information you're talking about was not present in the first bacteria, but has steadily increased since then. Given the time frame we're talking about, you should be able to see just how possible it would be for that amount of information to be slowly introduced into the DNA of even the most simplest life form.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


This is a common mistake for folks who don't know a great deal about evolution (and I don't mean to be rude when I say that). The first life forms, including the first bacteria, were far simpler than life forms we have now. The amount of information you're talking about was not present in the first bacteria, but has steadily increased since then. Given the time frame we're talking about, you should be able to see just how possible it would be for that amount of information to be slowly introduced into the DNA of even the most simplest life form.


what adds the information?

they have proven that mutations take away information, not add it



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
what adds the information?

they have proven that mutations take away information, not add it


OK, try this for an example. Assuming we can define and measure such a thing as information in the genome, we'll start with a gene that can be represented as:

BROWN

This gene then undergoes duplication to give:

BROWNBROWN

More information? But it now undergoes a single point mutation to result in:

BLOWNBROWN

More information?

And for a simple search of gene duplication, pubmed gives 5844 articles. Someone might be pulling the wool over your eyes, Miriam.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


yes very interesting,

but what if you have

BROWN

add a frameshift mutation (squence unevenly adds up)

BORNW

add a slient mutation

BO NW (R is ¨turned off¨)

add a neutral mutation (letter is switch with a similiar amno acid)

OO NW

now what does it say?

mutations harm DNA, they dont advance it.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


or better yet,

take what you had before

BROWNBROWN

now instead of changing the letter that is convenient to change for the illustration (because we have to remember that the mutation is random) take out a 10 sided dice and roll to see which letter gets changed to ¨L¨

does the phrase have more information or has it become gibberish?

[edit on 13-5-2008 by miriam0566]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
or better yet,

take what you had before

BROWNBROWN

now instead of changing the letter that is convenient to change for the illustration (because we have to remember that the mutation is random) take out a 10 sided dice and roll to see which letter gets changed to ¨L¨

doesnt the phrase have more information or has it become gibberish?


Doesn't really matter. We are not talking about meaning at all. That's why I asked you whether just the gene duplication alone was something you would consider as an increase in information. Same again for the next step with a point mutation.

ahjjkakaka

has more information than:

jksue

Information doesn't really require meaning. However, if we now have the BROWNBROWN variant, who produces numerous offspring who each might possess mutations, who then pass them on etc etc.

It's pretty obvious that there will be a clear information increase somewhere along the line, no matter how you want to approach this.

ABE: and a real-world example of the power of gene duplication here: Behe vs. Lamprey's

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


This is a common mistake for folks who don't know a great deal about evolution (and I don't mean to be rude when I say that).


Please add that to this post by AshleyD



The first life forms, including the first bacteria, were far simpler than life forms we have now. The amount of information you're talking about was not present in the first bacteria, but has steadily increased since then. Given the time frame we're talking about, you should be able to see just how possible it would be for that amount of information to be slowly introduced into the DNA of even the most simplest life form.


Nice try Dave but you haven't even come close to refuting my point.

"Hey Dave"



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Information doesn't really require meaning.


im sorry, im not saying this as a personal bash, but that is one of the most scientifically ignorant statements ive heard in a while.

the function of DNA is to tell the cell what to do and provide intructions.

its a manual that the cells uses to determine whether it is a skin cell or a liver cell etc.

meaning IS required.

if the DNA has no meaning to the cell and its just a jumble of letters, then what is its purpose? how does the body know if your a red head or blonde or bald?

that statement just makes no sense.

mutations do create nonsense

BROWN does have more information than ñkjhsbhuehgbp

your just assuming that more letters = more information.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



Originally posted by miriam0566

that statement just makes no sense.

mutations do create nonsense

BROWN does have more information than ñkjhsbhuehgbp

I see you inadvertantly typed hue.



Random sequences sometimes do have unforeseen, seemingly designed results.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I see you inadvertantly typed hue.



Random sequences sometimes do have unforeseen, seemingly designed results.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Rasobasi420]


true, but if the letters where being used for a manual, it doesnt make a difference if a word is there or not

have camp hard yellow english one battery history grumpy

can you decifer what im trying to tell you?

i think DNA is more complex then people give credit



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



BROWN does have more information than ñkjhsbhuehgbp

your just assuming that more letters = more information.


Of course it does miriam!! Don't let mel's fancy schmancy scientist act intimidate you. When you see "Brown" you think of the color brown and all the things associated with it in your mind. You also remember your friend that had the last name Brown. It has a lot more information because it correctly spells thus represents something - where as gibberish does not. Meaning matters. Just like healthy DNA provides the plans to build a healthy organism and mutations provide plans for things like cancer and birth defects.



[edit on 5/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Fancy Schmancy?!


Ok, lets stop using big, hard to understand words.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 



Random sequences sometimes do have unforeseen, seemingly designed results.


But her sequence wasn't truly random was it? Of course not. Even computers only generate pseudo random numbers.

There is a world of difference between a pattern which can occur by accident in nature (like a snow flake) and information which requires a symbolic code to transmit (like DNA).



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Fancy Schmancy?!


Ok, lets stop using big, hard to understand words.




It's a scientific term.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


She was slamming her fingers on a keyboard. It's about as random as it can get.

And no, computers can not create random sequences, only seemingly random due to complex calculations.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join