Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    ...seperate creations are unlikely to use the same "hardware".
    Why? We humans do that all the time.


    Evo

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
      Doesn't the fact that they can trade genes argue for a common ancestor? A gene is a pretty complex protein and seperate creations are unlikely to use the same "hardware".
      Yes, and the simplest creatures known use hundreds if not thousands of such complex proteins, and the "rules" for generating them are stored in the DNA, which in turn requires proteins to support the translation machinery. All this literally boggles the minds of those involved in figuring out how it all works in detail. I will reactive my thread :Cell Trends Two so you can get a "feel" for why people believe that the cell is the most sophisticated and complex piece of machinery ever designed, by a country mile, making anything ever created by mankind look absolutely crude and childlike in comparison.

      But getting back to your posting, if creation by God is involved who are you little man to tell God what He can or cannot do when creating the first lifeforms?

      And if you are suggesting that nature did the "creating" then you should be able to use your own argument to rule out separate creations.

      (Except for the inconvenient fact that not all creatures use the same DNA code scheme.)

      There is some reason to believe that such inconvenient exceptions like non-standard DNA code schemes may have been planned deliberately in advance to thwart a future evolutionary explanation. At least that is the theme of "The Biotic Message".
      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bob b View Post
        Yes, and the simplest creatures known use hundreds if not thousands of such complex proteins and the "rules" for generating them are stored in the DNA, which in turn requires proteins to support the translation machinery. All this literally boggles the minds of those involved in figuring out how it all works in detail. I will reactive my thread :Cell Trends Two so you can get a "feel" for why people believe that the cell is the most sophistated and complex piece of machinery ever designed, by a country mile, making anything ever created by mankind to look absolutely childlike in comparison.

        But getting back to your posting, if creation by God is involved who are you little man to tell God what He can or cannot do when creating the first lifeforms?

        And if you are suggesting that nature did the "creating" then you should be able to use your own argument to rule out separate creations.

        (Except for the inconvenient fact that not all creatures use the same DNA code scheme.)

        There is some reason to believe that such inconvenient exceptions like non-standard DNA code schemes may have been planned deliberately in advance to thwart a future evolutionary explanation. At least that is the theme of "The Biotic Message".
        I would not presume to put limits on the Divine- but it seems to me that the set-up favors evolution. MAcguy mentioned "The Biotic Message". I checked it out, and it doesn't seem to fly. It's basically just a rehash of arguments for the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution spun to try and bolster creationism. I have yet to see any of this prove to be a better explaination than evolution. What are you talking about not using the same DNA scheme- it's all based on the same amino acids, same basic shape. What exceptions are these? I'm curious.
        "Those who have crossed
        With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
        Remember us--if at all--not as lost
        Violent souls, but only
        As the hollow men
        The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Evoken View Post
          Why? We humans do that all the time.


          Evo
          Not seperate creations. Not starting scratch, reinventing the wheel so to speak, then eventually arriving at the exact same end product.
          "Those who have crossed
          With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
          Remember us--if at all--not as lost
          Violent souls, but only
          As the hollow men
          The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
            I would not presume to put limits on the Divine- but it seems to me that the set-up favors evolution. MAcguy mentioned "The Biotic Message". I checked it out, and it doesn't seem to fly. It's basically just a rehash of arguments for the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution spun to try and bolster creationism. I have yet to see any of this prove to be a better explaination than evolution. What are you talking about not using the same DNA scheme- it's all based on the same amino acids, same basic shape. What exceptions are these? I'm curious.
            99.9% of lifeforms use a "standard" translation table to go from DNA code to the amino acids which make up proteins.

            But some lifeforms have been found that use a slight variation of the "standard" translation table.

            Of course, evolution is so flexible that people can invent a "story" to explain any possible finding. This isn't science, it is psuedoscience posing as science.

            Much of what goes on in biology is good solid science that can be tested and replicated, but there is a darkside element in biology that substitutes "stories" for experiments and has been very successful in convincing our society that it must be good solid science because it gets published in otherwise respectable journals.

            Even some of the good solid science can be tainted by evolutionally storytelling in the conclusion section of an otherwise valuable article. This may sometimes be necessary to make the article "acceptable" to be published in what has become a very "politically correct" environment regarding the subject of evolution versus creation.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by bob b View Post
              99.9% of lifeforms use a "standard" translation table to go from DNA code to the amino acids which make up proteins.

              But some lifeforms have been found that use a slight variation of the "standard" translation table.

              Of course, evolution is so flexible that people can invent a "story" to explain any possible finding. This isn't science, it is psuedoscience posing as science.

              Much of what goes on in biology is good solid science that can be tested and replicated, but there is a darkside element in biology that substitutes "stories" for experiments and has been very successful in convincing our society that it must be good solid science because it gets published in otherwise respectable journals.

              Even some of the good solid science can be tainted by evolutionally storytelling in the conclusion section of an otherwise valuable article. This may sometimes be necessary to make the article "acceptable" to be published in what has become a very "politically correct" environment regarding the subject of evolution versus creation.
              I don't think its storytelling- I think variations on a basic theme are what evolution is all about. Even when taken down to the level of DNA. If it were completely different then some people would have some 'splainin to do, but I don't see why this bothers you.
              "Those who have crossed
              With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
              Remember us--if at all--not as lost
              Violent souls, but only
              As the hollow men
              The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                I don't think its storytelling- I think variations on a basic theme are what evolution is all about. Even when taken down to the level of DNA. If it were completely different then some people would have some 'splainin to do, but I don't see why this bothers you.
                It doesn't "bother me" because I have come to expect "stories" instead of science from evolutionists to explain inconvenient facts. Sort of like your offhand remark that "variation on a theme" is what evolution is all about.

                But that kind of "handwaving" is not science.

                For a lifelong science lover like myself it is rather appalling to recognize the pathetic scientific state of most of what is known as "evolutionary science".
                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by bob b View Post
                  For a lifelong science lover like myself it is rather appalling to recognize the pathetic scientific state of most of what is known as "evolutionary science".
                  What kind of science do you like, bob?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by DoogieTalons View Post
                    My favourite subject on evolution is the Whale. I made a post about this.

                    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ighlight=Whale

                    Whales and their land ancestors are a good evidence for evolution, even their spines ect.

                    Abiogenesis is unproven but a logical preconclusion to evolution.

                    The very existance of the whale and it's transistional fossil record completly disproves YEC.

                    Slowly slowly tranformy monkey (Not that whales came from monkeys)
                    It's too bad your thread got sidetracked, since noone ever really discussed the idea that Pakicetus is a valid whale ancestor. Googling "pakicetus" got me a few links to both images of the complete fossil skeleton and an artist's rendition of what it may have looked like.

                    http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html

                    A giant rodent maybe? But according to evolutionists it's a whale ancestor because of it's inner ear! This is hardly convincing evidence...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Personally, I believe that the universe is ~20 billion years old, the earth is ~4 billion years old, and evolution is an unproven and, in light of recent evidence, a fairly flimsly hypothesis. The fossil record does everything but support evolution.

                      I would recommend reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. He is an agnostic. I personally will do my best to refute every claim in support of evolution.

                      Take your best shot!
                      sigpic

                      The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.

                      Larry Hardiman

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                        Personally, I believe that the universe is ~20 billion years old, the earth is ~4 billion years old, and evolution is an unproven and, in light of recent evidence, a fairly flimsly hypothesis. The fossil record does everything but support evolution.

                        I would recommend reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. He is an agnostic. I personally will do my best to refute every claim in support of evolution.

                        Take your best shot!
                        why do you think the universe is 20 billion years old?
                        it's actually 13.7 billion years old.
                        and if you're not an evolutionist, why do you think the universe and the earth are so old?

                        could you be more specific about what the fossil record does that doesn't support evolution?
                        you seem to be looking for a good debate, i'll accept the challenge.
                        "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
                        -George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Didn't the Big Bang occur ~20 billion years ago? Or am I behind in the times? Hmm...

                          I think the universe is old because of science. In the words of another Old Earth Creationist, to say the universe is only a week old is an insult to science, scientists, and the One who invented science in the first place.

                          He manages to support his argument rather well. The Hebrew word for day, yom, actually has three meanings: sunrise to sunrise, sunrise to sunset, and a period of time. Hebrew is literally a thousand times smaller than English in terms of vocabulary, so Hebrew words usually have several meanings, determined by context.

                          Besides, I believe Genisis 1 is a literary framework-- God simply organized it in the fashion that he did for the sake of the Hebrews, and to create a seven day week with one rest day.


                          It's not so much that the fossil record contradicts Darwinism-- it's more that it simply does not support it. However, I can think of two examples that contradict it: the Cambrain Explosion and the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup that really ought to be there.
                          sigpic

                          The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.

                          Larry Hardiman

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                            What kind of science do you like, bob?
                            The kind which is based on traditional scientific methods like prediction, experimental verification, etc.

                            The "Just so" stories of evolutionary science do not conform to traditional science.
                            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                              Didn't the Big Bang occur ~20 billion years ago? Or am I behind in the times? Hmm....
                              nope, 13.7 billion years ago. you were closer with the age of the earth, it's 4.5 billion years old.
                              EDIT: the universe is 13.7 billion years old +or- .2 billion years.
                              Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                              I think the universe is old because of science. In the words of another Old Earth Creationist, to say the universe is only a week old is an insult to science, scientists, and the One who invented science in the first place.

                              He manages to support his argument rather well. The Hebrew word for day, yom, actually has three meanings: sunrise to sunrise, sunrise to sunset, and a period of time. Hebrew is literally a thousand times smaller than English in terms of vocabulary, so Hebrew words usually have several meanings, determined by context.

                              Besides, I believe Genisis 1 is a literary framework-- God simply organized it in the fashion that he did for the sake of the Hebrews, and to create a seven day week with one rest day.
                              fair enough.
                              i'm very pleased to see that you're in support of science rather than the literal translation of the bible.


                              Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                              It's not so much that the fossil record contradicts Darwinism-- it's more that it simply does not support it. However, I can think of two examples that contradict it: the Cambrain Explosion and the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup that really ought to be there.
                              again, i'm going to need a little more specificity. sorry. it's just that i don't know where to start and i would be sitting here typing all night trying to cover everything.
                              "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
                              -George Bernard Shaw

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                                Personally, I believe that the universe is ~20 billion years old, the earth is ~4 billion years old, and evolution is an unproven and, in light of recent evidence, a fairly flimsly hypothesis. The fossil record does everything but support evolution.

                                I would recommend reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. He is an agnostic. I personally will do my best to refute every claim in support of evolution.

                                Take your best shot!
                                Not only is Denton an agnostic, he is also an evolutionist, but one who believes the ideas of Darwin and modern day Darwinists are incorrect. He has his own theories as to how evolution works. Because he attacked Darwinian ideas in his book people somehow got the idea he was a creationist.
                                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X