Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

page: 13
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Also someone/somewhat/something managed to play around with some DNA strings to make things smarter, better looking or better adjusted ... I still think evolution is something that will happen as long as the universe expands and the day turns into the night ...

Things (plants, people, animals) evolve to be able to survive ... does that mean, it prohibits other creatures / energies/ aliens / doctors/scientists from supporting what is happening ... why not implementing ideas already, because someone can do so ... do we have to wait for evolution to get things sorted out?

Maybe people are supposed to fly ... maybe we will be able to do so after our own mind and evolution came to an agreement and provides us with wings ... maybe there are also some weird scientists who can do so a few hundred years earlier ...

accelerated evolution ...but still evolution




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
*My speculations*

The chicken and the egg is not a valid
question in the evolutionary debate...

Evolution made it, making an egg, is best for
birds. And carrying a baby in the womb for 9months
is best för mankind..Now, it doesent stop there...
We are (r)evolutionising this, by having the abillity
to fertilize eggs with sperm, and even having it
born in a machine. Who knows, in 500k years
we dont do it the old fashion way anymore....
Well maybe just for the fun and, you know...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
*My speculations*

The chicken and the egg is not a valid
question in the evolutionary debate...

Evolution made it, making an egg, is best for
birds. And carrying a baby in the womb for 9months
is best för mankind..Now, it doesent stop there...
We are (r)evolutionising this, by having the abillity
to fertilize eggs with sperm, and even having it
born in a machine. Who knows, in 500k years
we dont do it the old fashion way anymore....
Well maybe just for the fun and, you know...



The Chicken/ Egg debate, i would lean toward Chicken came first... because whatever the previous organism that gave birth to a mutant(the first chicken) will mean, the chicken came first, then this chicken moved onto producing its own offering.. thus egg came after
edit on 10/3/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by polyphemus75
reply to post by charles1952
 


True, I've always believed scientists are learning what God already knows, it's a shame scientists are busy trying to disprove God rather than prove God.

WHAT!?!?
Where is the proof of god?
It just so happens that science by it's very nature dispels myth, they are not trying to disprove god, god disproves itself, if science could prove there is a god they would. After all science deals with facts.

Where is the factual scientific proof of god?
If you find it, notify the scientists, they will, mark my words, find out if god is real.
So far though, nothing, no evidence.

If god was a fact, science would prove it. Science IS NOT trying to disprove anything, not even god. (If there is one)

The first scientist to prove god would be an instant celebrity, get much fame and adolation from his/her peers and the public, and be on every magazine cover.
Huge incentive to prove god is real.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise

Originally posted by Egyptia
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Science is only beginning to catch up to the things that will truly dumbfound them. They have no idea of what is next in their discoveries. The world of science will be shaken. The discoveries are going according to HIS Will but it must coincide with HIS plan for the end of days and the tribulation. There is only so much that HE will allow to be truly discovered in order to fulfill the great day of accountability in the final chapter of HIS Perfection for us.


Why can it not be THEIR WILL, or SHE or HER? After all, if we were made in their image........... Would it not be possible? But that is an argument for another arena I guess. Your avatar gives the first impression of Goddess Energy, not the christian energy....

As far as tribulation or end times, if thoughts are things and energy is never destroyed would it not be possible then to think that with so many people believing in something, it could create the event? Like for example, prayers, no matter what religion, takes on the energy of that prayer and manifests in the material world...just food for thought, and not trying to offend.



Well even the old testament say Created in our image but many Christians keep changing that. From my point of view that is one of the things that book got totaly right
. On another planet without any human religions around as another unknown creature god would still be there and prayer/need would be answered like everywhere in this reality. Religions are just maps/views of god and religious dogma makes no sense. Some are more precise than others and more useful for seeking understanding and proof.

SYSTEM OF A DOWN (SOAD) - Aerials + Lyrics



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPlow
I'd hate to ruin OPs party- but you do know this debate doesn't have to be "creator or no creator"

Evolution leaves plenty of room for an original creator. You can believe both.


The OP doesn't understand the basics of evolution.

He simply put "evolution now dead" in the title because he thinks it conflicts with his beliefs.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by smilesmcgee
 


No I have known about DNA for some time .DNA is a relatively new discovery why is this only now being understood that life starting on earth was not a random event.


DNA is not a relatively new discovery. Life starting on Earth was a random event.



It's just that a lot of people have never considered that DNA might ever relate to how life on earth started

Scientists do all the time.


Most people still think Carl Sagan and his billion years he threw in for good measure had the answer that life was a spontaneous event from nature .Even more couldn't care less .

Wrong.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 

The devil did it. He screwed up God's plan. But he did it with us, not alone, so we're partly to blame for it all. We can't erase the past and we don't have forever. Fixing our body is the least of our worries when it's our soul that needs fixing. And there's only one way now to do that and it requires Jesus Christ. Jesus fixes our soul and this supersedes all of the mess in the physical world. In fact, I might argue that after the physical world had been perverted, God made heaven so the saved souls would have a place to go after death. But I think heaven always existed, so it's just a play on words.
edit on 3-10-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egyptia
reply to post by winofiend
 


If you combine genetic tampering by the enemy faction who have been tampering with us from the beginning and the law of sin when we put that into effect......................WHAM, you get what we are today! It is all a matter of consequence to the fallen state that we initiated and chose.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)


How do you figure that "WE" were in the garden and ate the apple? Did "WE" tamper with our own DNA?

How can we NOT blame this God of yours for placing his most rebellious foe in charge of the Earth, and more importantly in the garden with Adam and Eve alone, as children, to fall for the beguile? Why would God allow Satan and his minions to alter the DNA of his finest creation, and them blame the creation for it's problems?



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   


After all science deals with facts. --- Where is the factual scientific proof of god?
reply to post by Toadmund
 


@Toadmund

You do realize that there are many creationist biologists don't you? You also should realize that most scientists have a club and a boss and very few are independent or self employed. The powers to be write the club's books and the sheep parrot the shepherd just as with any organization. You also realize that the scientists also obey their masters don't you? If the master says that he wants proof of a monkey evolving into a man then so be it. The effort is spent in that direction because that is what pays the club member.

How many of your brilliant biologists have never embraced a theoretical mind set? You mean to tell me that biology can split a gene and from that act can then tell me that this was an accident from a lower primate some thousands or millions of years ago? Is that the science that you say deal with facts? You must be brain dead to even entertain that as proof of anything other than the white coated beaker boys can split a gene in a controlled lab petri dish. The science club writes the book and the sheep parrot the book.

A club member can never be wrong. They simply change or improve their model while sitting about in their smug attitudes thinking that they are the most intelligent happening in five million years in which they cannot prove even existed. Was the chemistry and proportions of this chemistry of this world five million years ago the same as it is today or is it evolving also? How could you know this as a fact? If the substances of this world changes (such as air or water) then can the other tools of the sciences also change?

Granted that there are many truths in science and without true science along with brilliant engineering we would not have the luxuries of life that we enjoy today. While this is factual, don't become so obsessed with self grandiose that you lose perspective in the fact that all of this is team work.

A creationist, in truth, is a theologian at best and nothing more. The claim is not that they can prove that a God exists but that they believe a God exists. That is a big difference in thought. In order to prove that God exists you must die and I am sure that you do not want that proof. At least not yet. If not, then don't ask a creationist to prove to you that God exists because I don't think you would like that one little bit.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Bacteria not god made life. the first life was bacteria.
They grew inside many asteroids.
that was some time after the first stars whet nova and made heavy elements.
that was trillions of years age.
they have had this long to Evolved and Think !

It is they who seed the planets with life.
They have a plan. and they war with each other.
guess what human bodies are full of ?

bacteria are the one who made DNA.
if you research bacteria you will see this.
30 years ago I read about bacteria in space rocks.
how long do you thing the bacteria had in that rock?

I have read in the new science mag.
that bacteria can work together to make there environment better for them both.
just think who or what Could manipulate DNA?

Bacteria has been around Trillions of years.
and in that time they have evolved.
and they have been thinking.
and they have a Plan for us...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
New scientific argument in bound.

Aliens created mankind. God cant exist, the real creator are the aliens! Prometheus wasn't as far off as we thought.

Does it sound logical? Promote it.

----

Ill stick with the Magic theory. You have a lot more to lose with that one.
edit on 3-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 



The Chicken/ Egg debate, i would lean toward Chicken came first... because whatever the previous organism that gave birth to a mutant(the first chicken) will mean, the chicken came first, then this chicken moved onto producing its own offering.. thus egg came after


I'm going to have to say that the Egg came first:



LOL!



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


This post has provided no proof,To back its claim.Again all I see is dibble from a outdated book.As far as the 15 pages of incoharent ramblings about pesonal belifes that have no physical proof to back them up.I guess thats why ats is turning into the laughing stock im afraid it deserves to be...I had hope that one artical I read this month might be worth reading or another useless video that shows us nothing we didnt know already,However thats exactly what this is.No one knows yet and to hedge a bet to save your soul that there is no proof of seems a little to early personaly Ill wait for god to talk to me and me personaly,Then I will gladly point out how inferior a designer he truly was~Eric



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Here is a link to ENCODE Project where the information can be found: ENCODE PROJECT

Link to Papers / Journal of Nature

A Creator is becoming impossible to deny. As John 1 states, we are created with WORD.

John 11 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
edit on 1-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




Because of Science, my Faith in God is increased I must say.


By definition (websters) DNA is a genetic "Code" By law, all Code is written. Also, by law, all code has a decoder an encoder. Occam's says that the simplest explanantion is usually the correct one, and as man is the only species that can decode DNA on earth, the simplest explanation is that the encoder meant for the code to be decoded by this species, man. Man has made DNA a legal language in a court of law, with almost flawless accuracy in identifying organic material. We now have great tools for observing decoding, and identifying DNA in a lab setting. The significance of the discovery is that the encoder and must be of significantly higher intelligence than the decoder, significantly older, (because man was not around when DNA was encoded for the first time)...and somehow knew man would be present one day to decode it. These are scientific CERTAINTIES and are not largely debated by mainstream scientists.

The argument could also be made that Natural resources are only exploited successfully by man as well. Were these substances put here for man's future use as well... ?

edit on 3-10-2012 by sensible1 because: spl
edit on 3-10-2012 by sensible1 because: enumeration



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Anything but God huh? Because if there is God I will have to obey him .



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Anything but God huh? Because if there is God I will have to obey him .



You've noticed that too huh?? People want to deny that God exists, because they do not want rules or a ruler.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas
Life starting on Earth was a random event.



While you seem to state that as a foregone fact, your statement is actually unproven and unprovable.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Here is a link to ENCODE Project where the information can be found: ENCODE PROJECT

Link to Papers / Journal of Nature

A Creator is becoming impossible to deny. As John 1 states, we are created with WORD.

John 11 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
edit on 1-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




Because of Science, my Faith in God is increased I must say.


By definition (websters) DNA is a genetic "Code" By law, all Code is written. Also, by law, all code has a decoder an encoder. Occam's says that since man is the only species that can decode DNA on earth, and the encoder meant for the code to be decoded by this species, man. Man has made DNA a legal language in a court of law, with almost flawless accuracy in identifying organic material. We now have great tools for observing decoding, and identifying DNA in a lab setting.

The argument could also be made that Natural resources are only exploited successfully by man as well. Were these substances put here for man's future use as well... ?



Thats a definition made by humans. Math is made by humans. Money is made by humans. Its a human thing.



The significance of the discovery is that the encoder and must be of significantly higher intelligence than the decoder, significantly older, (because man was not around when DNA was encoded for the first time)...and somehow knew man would be present one day to decode it. These are scientific CERTAINTIES and are not largely debated by mainstream scientists.


How can you get : "the encoder must be significantly higer intelligence than the decoder" from DNA?

You can't call something a scientific certainty if you don't even have a shred of evidence of the prior.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by Vandettas
Life starting on Earth was a random event.



While you seem to state that as a foregone fact, your statement is actually unproven and unprovable.


Your point?
There are a lot of things that are unproven and unprovable.

Most evidence suggests that it is true.
www.chem.duke.edu...





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def