EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Enlighten me then, what is the evidence you propose and how come no serious scientists have heard about it ?

You know, science is about debunking itself, scientists are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong, and what they can't prove wrong is connected together, described, formed in to the theory, which makes predictions, and after this process, scientists try to debunk this theory testing predictions it makes.

You are just spilling religious bull# from youtube that uses pseudoscience - exact opposite of science, where they do not try to debunk themselves, they make a conclusion, and then pick suitable evidence to support their "theory" while ignoring contradicting evidence.

Now please, stop using word "science" or start behaving like a scientist

Originally posted by Heckren
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Enlighten me then, what is the evidence you propose and how come no serious scientists have heard about it ?

You know, science is about debunking itself, scientists are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong, and what they can't prove wrong is connected together, described, formed in to the theory, which makes predictions, and after this process, scientists try to debunk this theory testing predictions it makes.

You are just spilling religious bull# from youtube that uses pseudoscience - exact opposite of science, where they do not try to debunk themselves, they make a conclusion, and then pick suitable evidence to support their "theory" while ignoring contradicting evidence.

Now please, stop using word "science" or start behaving like a scientist

The research has begun. The theory is that the Junk DNA in our coding contains a message that we have yet to translate.

In the March 1995 issue of "Scientific American", in the article titled "Talking Trash" (see below), scientists claim to have found "word" patterns in the "junk" DNA of man. It seems that this junk DNA (segments of the DNA genome which do not encode instructions for the production of proteins) exhibits the same statistical patterns that are found in written languages.

One thing that I think is obvious in this thread: If I had suggested that UFOs and aliens were involved, many more people would love the idea. Since I am suggesting a connection to the Bible, we negate the possibility. What about this possibility?

Theory:

Our universe is an image created from another. On the other side, there is an environment of high order and no entropy that developed consciousness and became self-aware. As an expression of consciousness, it developed realities in the form of universes. Over time, all knowledge was examined and added to the infinity of knowledge and wisdom it possessed. Our universe is an expression of this in yet another image of frozen energy moving in time and space.

You see, I can make a theory that matches the Dirac equation. As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.

Without a third perspective, this theory lacks a verification. If I only had an ancient document that suggested this very thing, I would have a reflecting point to see the truth. If I had this kind of document and it was written in a similar language to the coding of DNA, I would have a fourth perspective.

Do you see the logic in this? Apart from seeing the reflecting point of the Biblical story, we form theory as misplaced concreteness. This is the Reification fallacy. Religion has be accused of this fallacy. In reality, it can only be applied to science as long as the biblical perspective continues to reveal the true implication of scientific theory. When applied correctly, theory then becomes the misplaced abstract.

LINK

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
did you know carbohydrate metabolism is virtually the same between humans and bacteria?

That is because is is based on Chemiosmosis. The odd thing about this stands out as the single greatest evidence for intelligent design. The process is one of deriving energy in a nearly 100% efficient manner. Your body runs on the equivalent of a light bulb worth of energy. Chemoiosmosis is currently being studied and duplicated on a larger scale to produce fuel cells for cars. The body, somehow, possesses the BEST technology possible at every step. Check your eyes. Have you ever seen a camera that can do what they do? Ears? We are intricate and subtle machines and there is no getting around our design. It is inescapable.

Originally posted by Aussie_Rock
In the beginning the WORLD was GOD

So who made the world

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
You know what amazes me about posts like this? That the OP feels he is doing God a service when in actuality he is absolutely denying the greatest of His works.

Let's take a look at what God has done. He created the Universe. Did He just say 'this looks like a good idea' and just throw the stars, planets and galaxies together? He did He created a set of immutable laws that finely govern every aspect of this immeasurable Universe down to the smallest quark?

There are absolute principles that keep the Universe in order. These are undeniable. To deny them is in reality denying God Himself as He created everything and set the world around us in motion. He didn't take chances but had order to down to the smallest particle. This science proves, not God, per se, but His irrefutable laws.

To deny what science has proven correct in the Universe is to deny God.

I do not deny science as good theory to describe what God has done. I do deny that leaving God out of science denies the obvious design within the universe. As you say, we are designed by the evidence of irrefutable laws. This is obviously what I have been saying.

You say I am, "denying the greatest of His works."

Have you read my words in defense of God's laws? How do you then characterize what I am saying as a denial of the very premise of the OP?

Originally posted by revs0lution

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

2) We are a happy accident that defies entropy in information theory

Doesn't entropy requires a closed system ... which the solar system isn't ?

When have you left the Solar System?

Actually, Entropy applies at many scales and I don't believe it requires a closed system.. The universe (which contains the Solar System) is a closed system, anyway.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Like language, species show morphology. One word originates with a root. For instance. The Aleph of Hebrew is an ox. This is strength. The word father is made by adding the floor plan of the tent. This makes the word father mean the strength of the house. Add more letters to the original root and you get a new word. The root is still there.

With species and their various variety, you see something similar happen. The root of a dog is the building plan or blueprint of that species. We see lots of different dogs, but we also notice the root of the species as a DOG and not a HORSE. We know the difference, yet they are similar to each other. Behind the variety, we still see the species. We don't see humans with horse heads. If natural selection was the answer, we might see a human with horse legs. This concept in species is referred to as the specie's Bauplan. This is a a German word that refers to the "building plan" or "blueprint" of the organism. It is well understood that the Bauplan has a morphology based on the root. Where do the roots originate? Where do the letters of our language originate? Where do the proteins created by RNA originate?

If you look at an acorn, you know that there is a 75 foot oak tree enfolded into it. How does this giant form express from the tiny seed? INFORMATION! That is all we need to see to know that it is designed. To say that the oak tree evolved is to say that entropy in information theory is defied. Nature cannot make a choice. Only consciousness makes choice. What originates consciousness? This is a better question than trying to make grandiose theory to describe something that is rather obviously seen with common sense.

You mention gravity. Where does gravity originate and how is it governed? What governs the other laws in nature to precisely the correct ratios? How is it possible that we are fine tuned? Science does not have an answer for this apart from admitting a governor.

edit on 25-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

And obviously you don't grasp basics of evolution. Firstly, you have set up a conclusion that there is a creator, then you make connection to how people developed complex language, and then misinterpret how evolution works. Great job scientist.

What the evidence showed us so far goes like this: Big bang happens, time dimension together with space dimension starts expanding, thus time starts flowing and the entropy kicks in, thus trying to get in a state where it can be arranged by as much ways as possible. Simple few constants are present, which cause that everything develops as you can see around you. These constants could be ranging quite a bit, as far as we know, there may be endless amounts of universes, where these constants are set up randomly, but only in those universes where molecules can assemble themselves creatures are made that question how come it is their universe in which they can exist.

So the first molecules are created, hydrogen collapses in to first stars, those stars create helium and other heavier elements, then they explode, again collapse in to a star, and the leftovers of matter forms first planets, on these planets you have a chemical factory, everything is boiling, comets with various materials are falling from each side, everything is mixing up together and bam, after 1 000 000 000 years of mixing, first molecule that can copy itself is created(can you imagine that time of random mixing ?), the RNA, its in a small bubble, and sometimes error occurs, doubling the number of acids in this molecule, it binds together, and add another 1 000 000 000 years of this small errors, and you have very primitive bacteria.

Bacteria bind together, creating more complex cells, as you can see in your own cells, like mitochondrias ( ancient bacteria that merged with another bacteria) and this continues for another milenia, until you have primitive organisms, which get more complex along the way thanks to random mutations, which most of the time make some abomination, and in few cases make something profitable for organism, which helps him survive and have more offsprings which share same mutation, go on like that for another billion years and you might get people which question how come they are so complex.

There was no jesus, stars died to be reborn as you, so they could question their own existence...

Originally posted by Magnificient
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Use lots of crack coc aine and then have a baby with a partner who also uses lots of crack coc aine, bang! you've just programmed your child's dna to make it a crack baby.

We are programmable. I won't deny that. This is the problem with being out of context with truth. You can see this by looking at proverbs. Proverbs are merely small renderings of natural law. For instance, if we are in context with truth, a proverb is true. If we are out of context with truth, a proverb will look like a paradox. Example:

Proverbs 4

1 Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction;
pay attention and gain understanding.
2 I give you sound learning,
so do not forsake my teaching.

This is Solomon speaking here. His proverbs are some of the best truth on the planet. If this is true, then how come he said all is vanity to his son when he was old? The simple answer is that he realized the paradox of being out of context with truth. At the end of his life, Solomon was a failed husband with 700 wives and a failed father with a son who cursed him verbally. He failed to follow his one observations. Does this change the truth? No. It shows context.

In the above proverb, your crack family that made a crack baby would not be able to follow the proverb. For them, it would be unwise advice. If we look to a righteous father raising his son in the correct context of a family that follows after the laws of nature, then this proverb is now in context to truth.

The same applies with science. Until they admit that light is a trinity and not a duality, they will continue to only possess theory. Pride blinds. Light is not merely a duality of particle and wave. It is a trinity of particle, wave and consciousness (information). The paradox is resolved when seen in context to what we actually observe.

If a train engineer and a friend argue about the sound of the whistle changing, who is correct? The engineer says it stays the same. The friend on the porch sees the train go by each day and hears the whistle change. Who wins the argument? The one who discovers the Doppler Effect and admits that they are both correct. I freely admit that science is correct in many ways. Religion and science are nearly unified when we admit the excluded middle of pre-existent consciousness. It won't be much longer and science will finally see clearly.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Humans invented the alphabet. What is your point? Even if our genes have some relation to linguistic patterns, it would still prove nothing. It would just show that our genes affect our thought patterns which in turn affects our language.

reply to post by Heckren

So the first molecules are created, hydrogen collapses in to first stars, those stars create helium and other heavier elements, then they explode, again collapse in to a star, and the leftovers of matter forms first planets, on these planets you have a chemical factory, everything is boiling, comets with various materials are falling from each side, everything is mixing up together and bam, after 1 000 000 000 years of mixing, first molecule that can copy itself is created(can you imagine that time of random mixing ?), the RNA, its in a small bubble, and sometimes error occurs, doubling the number of acids in this molecule, it binds together, and add another 1 000 000 000 years of this small errors, and you have very primitive bacteria.

No for one very good reason. The sun and the moon are necessary components to the overall design. They are mirrors to the rest. The sun and moon allow for all life on the planet. Take them away and we get no photosynthesis. The sun and moon are in union for balance to take place. Where there is no unity in nature, there can be no multiplicity expanding from this unity. Two become one to make the next. This is the process. Follow it along. Two humans come together to make unity. This then makes a baby. The baby is created by the same process of two becoming one. Sperm and egg come together to make one new life that develops in the womb. Does the process stop? No. Right hand and left come together to do work. Feet. Eyes. Nose. Ears. Hemispheres of the brain. Lungs. Reproductive organs.

On another level, we see the ratio of 1:1.618 show up in varying degrees to make variety within the same forms. We see this ratio in the galaxy and in all things made. I could fill up page after page with the same irreducable complexity on massive levels of unrelated systems. Your analysis above says BAM, and things magically mix together with perfect complexity and purpose.

What you are essentially saying is this: The big bang took place and we see energy in a high state of order with low entropy. This would look like a wash of even glowing energy in all directions. From this, we develop what we have today. Let's just take air as an example.

Why is it that light doesn't reflect on air? It's because air is a smaller particle than the wavelength of light. How convenient. Do you even see light? No. You see what light reflects off of. What you are actually seeing with your eyes is the wavelength of a color on matter as a reflecting point. Otherwise, you would see a wash of light between you and the matter you are observing. Light is vastly more than the frequencies you see from the narrow band you are tuned to. Air just happens to be a smaller particle than the wavelength you see. You say "BAM" and it happens. I say not a chance. It is designed.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
did you know carbohydrate metabolism is virtually the same between humans and bacteria?

That is because is is based on Chemiosmosis. The odd thing about this stands out as the single greatest evidence for intelligent design. The process is one of deriving energy in a nearly 100% efficient manner. Your body runs on the equivalent of a light bulb worth of energy. Chemoiosmosis is currently being studied and duplicated on a larger scale to produce fuel cells for cars. The body, somehow, possesses the BEST technology possible at every step. Check your eyes. Have you ever seen a camera that can do what they do? Ears? We are intricate and subtle machines and there is no getting around our design. It is inescapable.

That isn't evidence of intelligent design. Sure the body is amazing, but there's no reason to assume design because we don't fully understand a certain function (even though we understand quite a lot about the body and its processes). You may see the body as a designed machine, and you are welcome to that opinion, but as far as actual scientific evidence of any sort of process of creation or creator does not exist. That's the simple truth of the matter.

If you want to talk philosophy, why is it that we were designed with weak eyes, compared to so many other animals? If you look at diseases like cancer, genetic disorders and some that kill children before they are 10 with nothing that can be done, it makes me question the actual "intelligence" of this "designer". The human body is far from perfect. If we were designed it was a sloppy job.

In reality, we evolved from homo habilis all the way back to ardipithecus ramidus The evidence of this is overwhelming. Slow change over time happens. Humans have noticeably changed in just the last 100,000 years.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Humans invented the alphabet. What is your point? Even if our genes have some relation to linguistic patterns, it would still prove nothing. It would just show that our genes affect our thought patterns which in turn affects our language.

Not possible. Linguistics is a system that is designed with a high degree of complexity. If you have studied the proto-Canaanite in detail, it tells a story. Each letter tells it's own story as it branches like a tree. Each word is unique to its letter root. Each letter root branches like a tree with an obvious design. Symbols contain more bits of information than the single image relates. On the level of language, this defies early mans ability to comprehend the very design you say evolved. This is on the same level as DNA. Linguistics is easily seen in action by studying the Greek mathematics contained within each letter. There is more math contained in each letter than we possessed as cave men. See it yourself.

Greek Mathematics

Hebrew Letters and their Story

WORD and WORLD tell a Story as Well

Is it an accident that the root form of the language tells the story from the standpoint of the Bible? Is it a coincidence that Greek contains the math behind the story of creation? You can simply say I am making it up. Or, you could verify by following this link and seeing the Pheonecian letters defined for yourself.

WIKI This WIKI has the words defined and matched to the other languages that arise from the root.

Ancient Hebrew by Jeff Binner This Lexicon shows the root morphology of the Ancient Hebrew (Pheonecian) and how it defies human understanding.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
No for one very good reason. The sun and the moon are necessary components to the overall design. They are mirrors to the rest. The sun and moon allow for all life on the planet. Take them away and we get no photosynthesis. The sun and moon are in union for balance to take place. Where there is no unity in nature, there can be no multiplicity expanding from this unity. Two become one to make the next. This is the process. Follow it along. Two humans come together to make unity. This then makes a baby. The baby is created by the same process of two becoming one. Sperm and egg come together to make one new life that develops in the womb. Does the process stop? No. Right hand and left come together to do work. Feet. Eyes. Nose. Ears. Hemispheres of the brain. Lungs. Reproductive organs.

On another level, we see the ratio of 1:1.618 show up in varying degrees to make variety within the same forms. We see this ratio in the galaxy and in all things made. I could fill up page after page with the same irreducable complexity on massive levels of unrelated systems. Your analysis above says BAM, and things magically mix together with perfect complexity and purpose.

What you are essentially saying is this: The big bang took place and we see energy in a high state of order with low entropy. This would look like a wash of even glowing energy in all directions. From this, we develop what we have today. Let's just take air as an example.

Why is it that light doesn't reflect on air? It's because air is a smaller particle than the wavelength of light. How convenient. Do you even see light? No. You see what light reflects off of. What you are actually seeing with your eyes is the wavelength of a color on matter as a reflecting point. Otherwise, you would see a wash of light between you and the matter you are observing. Light is vastly more than the frequencies you see from the narrow band you are tuned to. Air just happens to be a smaller particle than the wavelength you see. You say "BAM" and it happens. I say not a chance. It is designed.

edit on 25-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

Ok I give up, you are retarded.

You assume that everything was created to suite us, not the other way around, as it actually is. If air would reflect the visible spectrum, our eyes would probably evolve to see different spectrum, probably infrared, like snakes, we would simply adjust to the environment and look differently. You cannot question how planets and stars were created, as we can actually see the process by telescopes everywhere in universe, you are so narrow minded that you think that how we look like is the only possibility, but there are endless possibilities of how conscious being can look like. Scientists created a cell made of metals, there even can be a silicon based beings, countless experiments proved that.

Its like a hall, in which hundred axes are swinging randomly, and you send one million people through that corridor, and when one makes it through, you say it was a work of god and not a simple random luck. You try too much to see patterns where none exist.

I would recommend you this video Ted Talks

But I sense you are too blind with faith to see anything else..

reply to post by Barcs

If you want to talk philosophy, why is it that we were designed with weak eyes, compared to so many other animals? If you look at diseases like cancer, genetic disorders and some that kill children before they are 10 with nothing that can be done, it makes me question the actual "intelligence" of this "designer". The human body is far from perfect. If we were designed it was a sloppy job.

As I stated earlier, when we are out of context with truth, we suffer. God planted us in a rain forest and said do not reach our your hand to the fruit of knowledge. If you do, you will die. The fruit was meant to be a gift. We took it as a thief and we now see where it leads.

John, in Revelation, stated that there was a beast to overcome and that this beast would rule commerce and destroy the earth. He said this:

Revelation 13

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man (or of mankind); and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Carbon has 6 protons, 6 electrons, and 6 neutrons. It is the mark of mankind. We use it to make your technology (Fruit of knowledge). By it, we have corrupted the DNA and see abnormalities and disease. Soon, we will die. Jesus said this:

Matthew 24:22

"If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."

How many letters are in the Hebrew? 22 How many proteins made from RNA? 22 How many letters in Greek? 24 How many chromosomes? 46 What verse number do you see above from a verse about the corruption of flesh?

Do you think a God that created the universe we have can also make sure the verse numbers are correctly identified? Chance? Maybe and maybe not, but this sure happens abnormally often in the Bible. How can it possibly have the answer to all of this so accurately? Who do you trust? Man's theory or God's revelation to mankind? God never gives enough to turn faith into fact. He does provide enough to show a vast amount of evidence for faith in a creator who loves us enough to show us how he did it. The mystery is there for us to solve.

reply to post by Heckren

Ok I give up, you are retarded.

You assume that everything was created to suite us, not the other way around, as it actually is. If air would reflect the visible spectrum, our eyes would probably evolve to see different spectrum, probably infrared, like snakes, we would simply adjust to the environment and look differently. You cannot question how planets and stars were created, as we can actually see the process by telescopes everywhere in universe, you are so narrow minded that you think that how we look like is the only possibility, but there are endless possibilities of how conscious being can look like. Scientists created a cell made of metals, there even can be a silicon based beings, countless experiments proved that.

Remember, I am making my point WITH science, not against. Why does an eagle see with eagle eyes? They need to for their domain. Shakes are the same. Insects are the same. They are designed with purpose in mind. You say happy accident. Above, you say my view is narrow minded. Narrow means exclusive. I am non-exclusive. I consider the merits of science and the implications it draws from incomplete theory. I understand that all paradoxes can be resolved if we know the excluded middle. I also do not disallow the possibility that stands out as the most sure by the evidence. Are you sure I am closed minded, or am I broad in my perspective?

I would say that any theory that excludes the pre-existence of consciousness denies what science is actually showing from current theory. Even the head of the Genome Project sides with me. Do you think he has reason to see DNA as digital information that is programmed beyond the logic we currently use for our own computers?

It's not that I don't see "similarities" with numbers in old writings and proportion or numbers of things within the human body.

But don't you see the fallacy of the logic your using here, its the same logic you use to condemn why evolution is just spotting "similarities" or traits?

This is where IMHO religion wears rose glasses.

Can someone please at some point produce a valid argument for creationism that doesnt just go...


Jews...Bible...Faith....


like i get it hebrew is real old...

i get it the bible talks about god

i get it you have faith that god exsists...


none of these are a basis for an argument though, now then arguing with people who can show at least either on paper or through scenarios like salamanders that are the same species as ones who live at rivers (and lay eggs) but as they live in mountains in harsher conditions now have live births.. that evolution is more than some crazy rambling from someone who WANTS somthing to be true seems like a waste of time dont you think?

I think the arguments on these matter are irrelevant.... the fact is that regardless of what any human believes, it was relatively the same cause/s that allowed humans to exist, and for us all to now live... one side thinks there is a god, one side thinks there is not a god... if there is not a god then thats it, what is THE BEST way humans can coexist on this planet, if there is a god, what is THE BEST way humans can coexist on this planet,,

i guess the concern from the believer in god is , that those who do not believe in god may be inclined to not care about the other human, they may treat it like a bag of water or what not...

the difference of belief also has to do with a personal god,.., I believe the seeking towards the best way humans can coexist on this planet is the seeking of god, and the creation of god,,.,

we are placed here with complete freedom on how to behave... observe what we have done, observe what we do....,
even if there is no god, this is his lesson...

imagine beings on other planets,,, the same or slightly different then yourselves, in this moment arguing over these same things..... if they cooperate to better themselves and their species, with love, compassion ,understanding, kindness,..,. there is no time on that planet, no race or rush, no worry, no fear, they will progress as far as they can and as far as they desiree, with caution, questioning there desires upon every turn of advancement, a complete group effort of knowledge and understanding, awareness, and a lack of deception, control, and power over others..

the one who does not believe in god, is fearful that there is no god and he will not be rewarded for being good, he does not want to be tricked into doing something he does not want to do...... the trick is the reward is in being good itself, and the positive effects that follow...

it is the opposite of humbling for a human to understand the complexities of the universe, the universe, everything in it, the thing that caused everything they have ever known, and everything they will ever be cabable of knowing and experiencing, and to dismiss it as nothing... they themselves are birthed in a process of intelligent creation, their parents sought out mates of their own free will, who struggled through the daily toils of life to reach a stage of mating, and created an original product, through an act of love, original and unique, a brand new creation...

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
I would say that any theory that excludes the pre-existence of consciousness denies what science is actually showing from current theory. Even the head of the Genome Project sides with me.

I think the distinction lies between those who rely on rational inquiry as opposed to those who rely on empiricism. Formulating logical arguments about morality and cosmology can become problematic when trying to demonstrate them empirically. It's easy to demonstrate physicality rearranging itself, but impossible to establish it popping into existence from quantum nothingness.

An all-powerful, unembodied consciousness could very well exist. Some people just don't want to jump the gun yet.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Do you think he has reason to see DNA as digital information that is programmed beyond the logic we currently use for our own computers?

I'm not sure how this is significant. Digital computers have only been around for roughly seventy years.

[EDIT]Facepalm, me. I get it. You're using this to imply design.[EDIT]

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
God never gives enough to turn faith into fact.

Damn. Guess we'll just have to keep on speculating.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Evolution cannot be measured. Intelligent design, however, can be measured and verified.

Oh 'Superior'-bandteacher-Ed...........I see your grossly overinflated ego has spilled over from the religion forum into this one. However must I warn you, your incessant rants containing nothing other than your imagination will not get as much traction here as they did in the religion forum.

You're in over your head....Ed

Prezbo, please read the title of this forum.

The OP is in the right place for its content.