How DNA killed Evolution

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
LISTEN....You can debat all day long. It's pointless.

Instead I'll give you the bottom line. My humble opinion is that "we don't know where life started". According to the bible God created adam and eve. So what do we make of it? Well I believe the bible so I believe this on some levels. But I know 1 thing. I wasn't there. I have no idea if this is exactly how it happened. Maybe there's something else too it, or some backstory. Who knows.

And I'm sure some of you believe rather that we caME from lightnight hitting some puddle of chemicals to recreate the first organism. But again you weren't there.

I'm relying on the book written a long time ago. Your relying on some sudo science. But again, neither of us where there. So we can only make assumptions, and guesses. And every faction there is claim they know with 100% certainty that it happened this way or that way. And that the science supports this that and the other thing.

But again, you weren't there. So you don't know. neither do I. For me I believe life seems to iminate from a higher power. And I'm positive I'm right based on all my life experience. And I also base it on the idea that I want to place a winning bet. Sure I could believe in sudo science but if I'm wrong and there is something like heaven and hell and salvation and stuff like that then I can't afford to be wrong. It's too important. Where if I'm wrong and there's nothing after this life then it won't matter if I'm wrong. Not one bit.

But it's not just that it's having a spiritual dimention to my life that's real. I talked to a Dr who told me about how he believes in evolution. And what a sad sap. I felt so sorry for him. no hope, no expectation of something more to come. It was just sad. Because by 50 which this guy was he had tried most everything in life. now there's nothing left for him and because he's locked his mind into this limited reality he was pretty empty inside. I'd never want to live that way, even if I'm wrong, I'd rather try and believe in some God watching over us than no God at all.

The reason I say that is that there's 6 aspects of every persons life that needs cultivation which are:

Social
Emotional
Physical
Financial
Intellectual
Spiritual

If you don't cultivate all areas you wont' have a balanced life and you're life will always be missing something.

But again my original point. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.....PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
edit on 14-8-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I've watched all the videos and still don't see how DNA killed evolution.

The OP's point is basically, "because DNA is so complex, god did it".
The OP's point is "because science cannot prove it, god did it".
The OP's point is "every scientist for the last 100 years has been faking discoveries and evidence".

There used to be a time where when you got sick, they'd say god was punishing you.
Until we figured out what a "cold" was, until we classified it, understood it, knew where
it came from, people were shouting god! god! Like seriously, its childish way of thinking.

I love how Neil explains it. Different topic, same argument.




posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas
I've watched all the videos and still don't see how DNA killed evolution.

The OP's point is basically, "because DNA is so complex, god did it".
The OP's point is "because science cannot prove it, god did it".
The OP's point is "every scientist for the last 100 years has been faking discoveries and evidence".


Why are you putting words in my mouth? I presented reasons to believe in intelligent design. Please tell me where I said, "Every scientist" anything? I said that scientists have faked their evidence. You basically have no point but to ridicule which is something I asked to not happen. You obviously don't get my point and that is that there is clear evidence of intelligent design.




There used to be a time where when you got sick, they'd say god was punishing you.
Until we figured out what a "cold" was, until we classified it, understood it, knew where
it came from, people were shouting god! god! Like seriously, its childish way of thinking.


You are now bringing in a completely off topic issue and seem to need to mock. Again, not a suitable way to have a meaningful conversation.


edit on 14-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
The willful ignorance of the ID community and the fact that Behe has been debunked, moves goalposts, waffles and finally admits (in court) to the lack of evidence to support his made up claims . . . claims that he admits are due to his "Christian beliefs" . . . is the epitome of delusional.

If you sequence backward from the flagellum motor, you end up with the very apparatus that viruses use to inject genetic material into other cells . . . so, the flagellum is far from "irreducible", regardless of complexity.


In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."



Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof". Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".


As far as the thread title . . . unfortunately, DNA provides just the opposite.

Darwin predicted a mechanism for passing on traits and changes over time (mutations) outside of natural selection, although he admitted he had no way to prove such a mechanism. Mendel's work with Gene Theory fulfilled that prediction, which in turn predicted a cellular mechanism to transcribe these "genetic" traits and regulate the changes (mutations). All of this when there was no knowledge of DNA or even the necessary technology look for it. Decades later . . . DNA is discovered, and to this day everything that we have found out about DNA and the genome fulfills the predictions of Darwin and Mendel. Furthermore, recent advances in understanding concepts, like epigenetics and the role RNA plays, build upon the rigid bottom-up genetic determinism of the modern synthesis model . . . strengthening Evolutionary Theory.

The absolute disregard for empirical evidence in order to incorporate superstitious notions is the most disturbing part of ID and the canard of "irreducible complexity".

It takes a special type of ignorance and delusion to hold such beliefs and a complete failure in education of science and the natural world (meaning reality) . . . and the U.S. takes the cake on failure to educate and conflation of pseudo-science and superstition.
edit on 8/14/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
We will always be at a disadvantage with DNA until we can actually DNA the original God or Gods. I think only time and scientific research where possible will answer this deep fundamental question.

It wouldn't surprise me to find as with many things, its a combination of things, luck from chaos and intelligent design. The big question for me is whether intelligent design initiated or developed later in life's mysterious chain of events, I am open minded.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
This a very interesting thread, thank you. I am slowly getting the idea of what evolution is, I think. Whether you believe there is a God in control or Random throwing out the info and see what works. So that explains mass but what is consciousness, thought?



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Did God create everything all at once or did he do it over 6 days? (from his perspective)

If all at once, then you're right, and evolution isn't real.

...

The argument is not whether or not evolution is real - it is whether or not God caused it.

We know microevolution is real. Its called adaptation, galaxy creation, meteors colliding with planetary bodies - everything that changes is evolution.

So ask yourself - did God make man from a preexisting material that wasn't man? If you say yes, then macroevolution is real.

The argument against evolution makes you look bad - don't fall for that.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by blockhead
 





But it is hard to discuss evolution without talking about the beginning of life to give examples of my position.


It's only hard because you are trying to discredit something you don't understand, by attacking something it has nothing to do with.

Evolution explains how life formed for complex and diverse organisms, that's it. It doesn't try to, nor could it, answer the question as to how it started. The beginning of life is a totally different field than evolutionary biology.

Again, if evolution is a fraud, and you have all this evidence to back it up, why do you guys have to keep making crap up?

I could post the same video, again and again, showing how with the right materials and conditions, "inert" matter transforms into amino acids and the basic building blocks of DNA.... in a few WEEKS.

It's ridiculous to have to continually re-educate people on some basic stuff we've known for decades.

At least this OP is trying, he's posted his thoughts and a bunch of videos to back them up. Sadly, not a single one has any scientific merit whatsoever, but that is usually the case with intelligent design.

Please, please tell me how the banana was designed by god to fit the human hand, I'd really love to make you all look silly again, but it's boring, you make it too easy.

Take a quick online grade 7 biology course, then come back and we can try again.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 





The absolute disregard for empirical evidence in order to incorporate superstitious notions is the most disturbing part of ID and the canard of "irreducible complexity". It takes a special type of ignorance and delusion to hold such beliefs and a complete failure in education of science and the natural world (meaning reality) . . . and the U.S. takes the cake on failure to educate and conflation of pseudo-science and superstition.


Actually, the most disturbing thing is that the creationists have fought, and won, the right to teach this nonsense in SCIENCE CLASS. Falling short of requiring teachers to use air quotes when saying "evolution".

I love it. Everything in this thread, and all the others, is debunked, but it doesn't matter, that's how "belief" works, just keep repeating it, over and over, because 3 out of 10 people won't bother to fact check your BS.

Evolution is ANYTHING but random. Yes, there is a random element that plays in when DNA is replicated, errors can take place, this is part. The other part is adaptation.

the only reason we can;t prove to creationists that macroevolution is taking place, is because they can't see it in their lifetimes, therefore it's not real, it's just a lie madeup by us to somehow destroy their religion.

If their religion didn't rely on us being ignorant of a few basic facts, it wouldn't be such a problem.

Evolution is happening, right now, slowly, painfully slowly. But what started it from nothing? There's your room for god. Until, of course, we push the goal posts back again......

Who made the earth daddy? God did son.
=== actually no, gravity created earth from the debris and gasses circling our sun

How long did it take? 6 days around 6000 years ago
=== ummm try a few million years, billions of years ago.

Who made all the creatures on earth? God did, for us, exactly as they are now
=== ummm, no, we have the fossil records and dna to show this isn't true at all

How big is the universe? Just this planet, the stars are pin pricks in a big black sheet
=== no, we're in a solar system

Ok, but that's it, just a solar system, with earth at the center, nothing else
=== no, it's infinite, and we can see into the past millions of years because of the speed of light and age of the universe coupled with it's expansion and inflation.

Every few years, we make another scientific discovery that pushes god into a smaller and smaller box. But who cares? You still have "the creator" who started it all, who cares if he didn't design your cat directly, he brought something from nothing right?

But again, it's not even about knowing, it's about converting. And that's why they can't ever backtrack or admit they were wrong.

So, regardless of facts, science, and evidence=
god created everything in 6 days 6000 years ago, case close.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
And to discredit your whole theory: A diamond is made of the same composition as grapheme. A diamond looks "intelligently designed", even if it occurns normally, so, by your own definition, it must be "intelligently designed". If you can't even grasp the most simple logical fallacies how do you want to say that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are both wrong? Stop with the nonsense.
edit on Wed Aug 14 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


let me guess, you believe the Earth is ~6000 years old...


edit on 14-8-2013 by th3onetruth because: added picture



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


let me guess, you believe the Earth is ~6000 years old...


edit on 14-8-2013 by th3onetruth because: added picture



The Dark Ages were not Really Dark

In Christian/Western society there was some stagnation but hardly stunted and great discoveries are not all made by the west...



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


let me guess, you believe the Earth is ~6000 years old...


edit on 14-8-2013 by th3onetruth because: added picture


No I don't and the bible does not say it is. Those who teach that are biblically illiterate, and as such cause a lot of problems.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I have no problem admitting that DNA is intelligent...to an extent. DNA is intelligent in the same way bacteria is intelligent. It knows what is conducive, what is destructive, and what is preservative. It will behave according to its given function. If its given function is to feed and expand, it will feed and expand using whatever materials are at its disposal. Successive organisms of such nature will obviously lead to consecutive cycles of such behavior, eventually resulting in an EVOLUTION of function as form and capability mutates to match shifting environments.

Bottom line - you seem to be suggesting that cellular organisms are too stupid to take care of themselves, so an outside force had to help them along. Survival of the fittest dictates that the fittest will survive long enough to pass on the biological information necessary to breed more survivors. This earns the time necessary for biological mechanisms to evolve and adapt, rewarding the survivor's line of descent with even more survival ability. It's as simple as that. Layers and layers of specifically designed biology, all working in synchronicity for one game plan: survive, consume, reproduce, expand.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 




No I don't and the bible does not say it is. Those who teach that are biblically illiterate, and as such cause a lot of problems.


So you use the Bible as your instruction manual, alongside the sciences that you are willing to accept?



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


Did I say that all of the greatest inventions were made in the West??

No? Didn't think so.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
no no, the chart is all wrong. this is what it actually looks like



yes if you are an atheist, you are a roman. welcome to the (holy) roman empire.

how do you know you are a roman?
easy. observe:

- you quote only papal writs as evidence
- you quote only texts which continue to propagate papal writs
- you deliberately obfuscate what is in the texts of the ancient world in order to prop up papal writs
- you only allow papal decrees such as acts of war, to color your view of the ancient world
- you only cite activity of the papacy as your debunking tool
- no other authority on the subject is considered except the papacy, papal history
- and you are following the critical texts of roman catholic professors written 300 years ago, to color your view of the ancient world, even in the face of archaeological evidence to the contrary.

conclusion: atheism is, as a world view, roman catholic, who will consider no other view of the biblical text except the papal interpretation, which survives to this day due to your efforts. pat yourself on the back.

edit on 14-8-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by th3onetruth
 


I am curious what if they found the Universe is artificial, Sort of like the Matrix? Science finds out through an experiment that this and everything we see is a simulation.

This is not from a Christian stand point at all but could the earth be 6,000 years old then? If everything we see is a construct isn't in arbitrary?

Just something I have been wondering...



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magister1
I am still amazed at the amount of work the creationist go through to try to "prove" that their ancient mistranslated book is "scientific" The need to understand a topic before you misquote it would seem to be only responsible. DNA is the mechanism for evolution.It works due to the interactions of random events both in the DNA of individuals and the environment. Those individuals who have variations in the DNA may have a minor advantage to survive and reproduce. These minor changes over millions of years causes the species to adapt to the changes in the environment. There is significant geological record of this but you would have to read more than one book to find it.
I do understand the need for creationist to fight the natural laws. If everything worked through natural laws and the random events that the universe runs on then they wouldn't feel so special. It is a clear cut case of arrogance. " I am made in god image. my book says so. But if god had set up natural laws and I was just a part of that I wouldn't be special"
So, here is the real problem, science shows that god,or kinder nature set up natural laws (like the theory of gravity) so that the universe wouldn't need to be micromanaged (as the creationist believe) . If a god did set up a system where he had to be the janitor to keep it running every day and be the servant of his creations then he would need to read up more on how to design a more intelligently universe, and would definitely not be very impressive.
I also find the idea that just because the systems used in living organisms are too complicated for some people to grasp must prove the existence of a god to only be the proof of a belief in self impressed ignorance.
Consider that we understand these system because we have studied the biochemistry of living cells. This is where modern science is at. Unlike the creationist, science will tell you we do not have all the answers yet; science is a process and not an end. However, science is constantly learning and advancing whereas the creationist is stagnantly stuck in an eon before electricity and an understanding that there are other planets or even molecules. The writers of the religious text even disregarded the scientific knowledge of their own time; so, I do not see how it could be relevant to scientific principals that those writers couldn't have even know about.




If evolution is real, then there should be a point in time where self-reproducing molecules evolved into cells.
Were the oceans of the Earth one giant petri-dish, where there were just self-reproducing complex molecules? The first step would be to simply wait for every segment of molecules to find an opposite match through random motion, then split in half when every segment had been paired.

A more intelligent molecule could break down and digest other molecules or maintain stores of segments ready for use. Then an arms race would evolve as each molecule would try and avoid being digested. This would lead to the development of membranes, pores, receptors, multi-cell organisms, intercellular communication. At some point, there would be cells that could exchange DNA as well as viruses that could hitch-hike a genetic ride.





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join