Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Great example of someone not understanding scientific articles and then making claims that aren't substantiated by the very articles they link...well done


By the way, there's TOOOOOONS of videos on Youtube that debunk Gallups disingenuous crap. Sadly Gallups doesn't allow rebutals to be posted below his videos, so people need to actually search for them.

Here's an example of a video that completely debunks one of his dumb and misinformed arguments:



It's a multi-part series. After the first few it should be clear that this ministry is nothing but pseudo-scientific nonsense of either dumb or lying people that want to continue their misinformed followers. It's really quite sad, and it needs to end.

Gallups is dumbing down the nation on purpose!!
edit on 2-10-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Just because they say that our DNA is from intelligent design in no way proves there is a God. The ancient aliens theorist could just as easily take this to use as proof that we were engineered by aliens.
edit on 2-10-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Just because they say that our DNA is from intelligent design in no way proves there is a God. The ancient aliens theorist could just as easily take to use as proof that we were engineered by aliens.
Be careful if you accept that position. The immediate question is then, "Who created the aliens?"



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I get the part that it is possible that intelligent life could have created the human gene... But this video is biased to begin with and take a huge leap from "created by intelligent life" to "Christian God did it" then it calls evolution a fairy tale when christianity is the non-scientific fairy tale



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by apushforenlightment
 


I agree with you whole heartetly. The neglection that most Christians take part in is the fact that Jesus never stated himself as God. He said he was one with God and that God was one with him.

Even Jesus says in Matthew 12:50: "Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!"

There he clearly states that whoever does his Fathers will will be like him.

I also find it saddening that people who are always claiming Jesus is that or this way haven't even read the Bible/scriptures and do not even take into fact the time it was written in.
In the hellenistic age there were all sorts of people being divinized through various cultures (though these cultures were all hellenistic do to the modernization of hella/greek culture at that time.) like Appollonious from Greece, various Roman Ceasars, Pharaos were looked upon as God's and so on and so forth.

We must also take into fact that the New testament wasn't written until 50 - 70 CE/AD, and at that time Christians were being scrutinized in various cultures and conflict was even within the Christian religion as it was then. I don't even have to mention the establishment of the Christian church was taking place at that exact time and it does have an impact on the way that the New testament was written and how the scriptures were being interpreted.

Even though all of this has it's toll on the credibility of the New testament, I still have faith that there is one God over all other gods (aren't we gods? and weren't some laws of this physical world even considered some sort of god on their own?) and that Jesus found that way to be a perfect man and whoever deny's that what is written he did and said he has forfeited his chance to become like Jesus.

So one might say that Jesus found Christ sort to say and became him (through thought, will, desire, need, heart, soul, body and deeds)(Matthew 22:44: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet." From this we can assume that the one God told/asked Jesus to be like him) and so can we, if we wholeheartetly try to be like him. I for one wouldn't care if I didn't get all those powers et cetera. If I don't love like he did, I have nothing at all.
edit on 2-10-2012 by Sump3 because: typo
edit on 2-10-2012 by Sump3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





Genesis 1:1:3:27

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy). 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

A hologram is an image. We are INSIDE the image and we are the IMAGE of God. How does the Son of God fit in?



This made me smile even more. That idea kinda works very vell with the 2 slit experiment. And it works well with entaglement also where 2 things can be connected to each other without being near each other in the 3D projection.

edit on 2-10-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 



Ask your god why then, does the human body fail? Why do we break, get cancer, disease, grow old, weak, senile, and die?

Because creation has fallen and all men are sinners. That is why the aforementioned happen.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
And another example of that "ministry" dumbing down the nation:



I can't believe people still fall for Carl's lies and pseudo-scientific nonsense


One more:



He's like an affiliate marketer trying to push Amazon books through lies and nonsense
edit on 2-10-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Sitchin 1
Darwin 0



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by charles1952
 



While I love science, and reason and measurements, etc., just looking at it's history tells me not to put too much faith in it.


The sad part is that you actually said this.

Listen, and listen good, because I'm only going to say this ONCE.

We don't have FAITH in science, and we don't BELIEVE in science.

We Prove that it works. Period.


I am sorry but it only works when people are open minded and really are seeking understanding/knowledge without preconcieved notions on what to expect and unfortunaly not all scientist or speakers for science are as open minded as they think they are or say they are. Just like many other they get caught up in ego mind and duality and cannot seek knowledge/understanding/thruth everywhere since their idea of what is right/thruth is clouding their ability to seek. I love the scientific approach of questioning things and I would love if all people on this planet did this including all scientists.

Some people are preaching science as a religion(a new dogma) for instance Richard Dawkins. He sounds very reasonble and convincing and I would have been his fan 2 years ago. Now I know better and know that he is as caught up in duality as the religions he is against. He is not seeking thruth with an open mind from my point of view but is only belittleling things that he does not understand or have experiance with. There are people who tell him the next understanding of reality and he calls them superstitious because he cannot see past his own preconcived notions. It is like being in Galileo Galilei:s time when the Catholic church was not happy that earth was not the center of the universe, but this time it is the people who call themselves open minded scientist that are creating the dogma/conditioning on what is allowed to think and belive that will be taught.

I cannot really blame Richard Dawkins for beliving what he does but since he is preaching his view/religon I have to point out the hypocrazy of a closed mind calling itself open minded. I am probably as close minded to things that I have not yeet experianced and understood and maybe I am myself only finding proof of my own mind/ego/ideas and not seeing things that are dissproving my views.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibajaba
Sitchin 1
Darwin 0


Yes...let's believe the guy who claimed shrooms are responsible for intelligence



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by apushforenlightment
 


Provide one example of Dawkins not speaking the truth


You might not like what he says, but his research is sound.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Saying that Noncoding DNA is somehow indicative of evolution is a crap argument. Also stating that functionality of DNA that we don't completely understand is indicative of a creator or god is equally crap.


Is that the best you can come up with? I'm sorry, but I think it's funny, but sad, how a lot of people will do and say anything they can to avoid admitting that God exists.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Came to this thread expecting to see links to 30 papers that state that evolution is dead and that DNA is encoded intelligently. Didn't find a single reference. What a surprise!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by boncho
Saying that Noncoding DNA is somehow indicative of evolution is a crap argument. Also stating that functionality of DNA that we don't completely understand is indicative of a creator or god is equally crap.


Is that the best you can come up with? I'm sorry, but I think it's funny, but sad, how a lot of people will do and say anything they can to avoid admitting that God exists.


Well, there's ZERO objective evidence for a creator...so what did you expect?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
"Say hello to my 'little' friend!"

en.wikipedia.org...

Lenski





Please take the time to read the information and watch the video. If you haven't got the time for both, wtach the video at a minimum. You WILL learn something.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by apushforenlightment
 


Provide one example of Dawkins not speaking the truth


You might not like what he says, but his research is sound.


You will probably not belive it anyway but chakras.The model might not be 100% right to how the body works but it is close enought for people who seek to play around with things that most humans have no idea about thru normal meditation or listening to medative sounds thru youtube. I myself have no experiance with crystals so I cannot say anything good or bad about them.

Hawkins always push the most rediculed version of a model/theory forward as an atempt to descredit the model that he does not belive in. For instance where people are exploiting the making money on the new age trend.


In this case his comment was mumbo jumbo.
.

It is like saying there is not a single psychic phenomena in the world since there are cold readers. Here again:


He has an agenda with his programs and it is not researching the unknown from my point of view. If he really was researching the unknown then he could research either:
1 Near death experiances.
2 Pineal gland chemical funtion in the brain and instances of amagydala fear overload changing brain chemistry.
3 Trying to meassure difference in body/enviroment around people in deep meditation.
4 Enlightenment experiances from people that have opened the crown chakra.
5 Synchronicity.
edit on 2-10-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Where do people get the idea that it's at all "intelligent" design anyway?

Wouldn't creationists prefer to regard it as "perfect" design?

I take it that's a laughable stretch, even for them, but then again so is intelligent.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by apushforenlightment
 


Regarding the first video:

He actually makes a really good point because the woman in the video has zero objective proof for her claims. Furthermore, those "crystals" have been thoroughly debunked in one of Penn & Teller's "Bull#" episodes.

Here's the video, that "crystal bed" is featured:



For some weird reason I can't watch the 2nd video, it says it's blocked in my country...which is kinda funny given that it's a channel from my country


It comes down to this though: Unless you have OBJECTIVE evidence that is supported by FACTS...all you are doing is speculating. And that's fine. Well...as long as you don't pretend your speculation is fact, which sadly is exactly what Carl Gallups does in the videos the OP posted. Even worse, he's flat out lying multiple times because it fits his agenda, and he's trying to sell his SUBJECTIVE OPINION as OBJECTIVE FACTS...which is beyond wrong.

Anyway, nothing Dawkins said in the video I can watch is actually incorrect. That woman claims there are mini black holes in all our bodies, yet there's ZERO evidence for that. She simply makes a claim that isn't backed up by evidence.

Now what is possible is that things like believing in Chakras allows people to "let loose" and to calm down...and that obviously has a good effect. It doesn't mean Chakras are real, all it means is that it allows SOME people to calm down.

I meditate 20min every day because I have a stressful day job and day trade the forex market on the side...and that's stressful. And meditation helps me to calm down. But it works because I allow it to work, not because of some spiritual mambojumbo that has no bearing in reality...and I am aware of that.

Homoeopathy can work because of positive reinforcement. If you absolutely believe it works, that positive attitude can have a positive effect...but it isn't because of some herbal drops



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
He has an agenda with his programs and it is not researching the unknown from my point of view.

I believe his agenda is to educate the public, and while at it, also make a living. It's not a bad agenda, I'd say. It's not like he's distorting facts or inventing bull#, which is exactly what creationists do (check e.g. OP: "30 papers suggest DNA is encoded intelligently", OP invented that lie).
edit on 2-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join