Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh Christians are quite educated. We recognize the simple equation:
Atheism = stupidity
Let me ask you...do you believe everything in the Bible happened as it was written? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you believe the stories in the Bible?
Don't let the shape of teeth confuse you. Even the giant panda of today has sharp teeth and eats bamboo. It's an herbivore with sharp teeth. Simply because we have sharp teeth doesn't mean that their original purpose was to tear flesh and muscle.
One could almost say that Pandas evolved with sharp teeth to specifically eat bamboo.
Suzy ... do you understand the differences between "suggestions" and "facts"? Anybody can "suggest" anything .. and people do it all of the time. Some of the suggestions are good, and some are down right idiotic. Neither constitute a fact.
The big clue that you are not actually dealing with facts .. let alone proven fact is the part "A new study suggests ...". Whenever you see that in the future, you can now assume it isn't a fact, or even a reasonable opinion.
Furthermore, it's rather obvious that you didn't actually read the linked article in it's entirety, or you don't understand the argument, because if you did, you might have discovered that it actually supports my opinion more than yours.
For example: (from your linked article)
"Powner's most recent work suggests that DNA might have come first, attempting to create DNA nucleotides through similar methods to those he used to make RNA nucleotides in 2009. Prebiotic chemists have largely ignored DNA, because its complexity suggests it cannot possibly form spontaneously."
Does that sound even a little bit familiar? I think that I've mentioned the improbability of DNA having come into existence by accident, due to it's complexity. But that is not really the significant revelation in those couple of sentences. The important information that resides between the lines is:
1) there is a raging debate among evolutionists and microbiologists even about what held the biological code for the earliest cell replication ... the majority have leaned toward RNA predating DNA in early organism creation/replication, due to it's less complex structure (though still too complex for spontaneous or accidental existence). While others disagree and insist that DNA was first (probably because DNA creates RNA, not the other way around). This is like the old debate about which came first, the chicken or the egg.
2) The problem with RNA theories is that the only observable method of RNA creation is during DNA transcription. So without DNA to make RNA ... there is no demonstrable way of RNA creation, other than the same argument used for DNA ... that it must have formed by random accident out of raw building blocks found in the environment, including some magical conditions that existed Billions of years ago that don't exist now (which can never be proven or verified, obviously). There we are back to square one ... that whole random mixing of raw material forming a complex data storage device and it's code contained therein.
3) These efforts to show how RNA could have developed naturally, only address the structure of the molecule itself, and not the complex code contained in the fully constructed molecule! This falls well short of the need to demonstrate natural occurrence, rather than design. Inorganic raw material creating an actual coded language by random mixing of raw material? Really? You see ... this is the problem with those who want to attribute the creation of life as a product of spontaneous, random processes ... because evolution can only begin once there is something that exists which can evolve. Since evolution relies on natural selection, a replicating cell must first exist in order for a "selection" to occur. Yet, RNA, DNA, and self replicating cells are all three much too complex to have formed randomly. It's a preposterous theory driven not by any reasonable evidence .. but by a deep, dogmatic desire to disprove creationism and the existence of God. Those among the evolutionist believers are indeed married to material science, which maintains a fundamental rejection of anything even remotely hinting toward the existence of anything that is non-material science ... and while Intelligent Design does not prove or even attempt to prove a supernatural God was that intelligent designer ... the mere inference is enough to warrant a similar attack for which creationists are targeted by the evolutionists.
But until the material scientists can successfully create a living cell from only inorganic material ... and for decades they've been trying without a modicum of success ... evolution being the answer to how life first came into existence will remain an unproven, and rather hair brained idea that came from a minority element of archaic 1800's pseudo science which has evolved into the modern pseudo science that should know better, but apparently doesn't.
So you are saying that since the mechanisms that resulted in the origin of DNA (or RNA) have not been elucidated, it could not happen? In other words, everything that can be discovered has been, and there will never be anything new?
Actually, the work on generating RNA in the lab is ongoing, and it is probably only a matter of time before that mechanism is defined:
Of course, it's full of disease. Sickness and Death entered the world with the fall of man when mankind sinned in the Garden of Eden. The Bible clearly states that death entered with man's fall.
Originally, it was God's plan that there be no death. When man disobeyed God, that result was the curse of mankind.
Being devoured (carnivores,etc.) didn't enter into the picture until after this fall, for everything was originally created to be a vegetarian. Man wasn't given permission to eat animals until the time of Moses. Don't let the shape of teeth confuse you. Even the giant panda of today has sharp teeth and eats bamboo. It's an herbivore with sharp teeth. Simply because we have sharp teeth doesn't mean that their original purpose was to tear flesh and muscle. Dogs have sharp teeth, but they'll eat lots of vegetables if given the opportunity.
These people are fallible. They don't have the wisdom of God. Many have simply studied the flawed beliefs of those who came before them who studied the flawed beliefs of others. When people have an agenda to disprove the existence of God and His role in creation, they'll make up anything to try to support their point of view.
You talk about testing, but evolution offers no true observational measures. It isn't observational science, but instead falls under historical science, which truly isn't real science according to the definitions of science since it cannot be tested.
The Word of God is infallible, so you have no reason to doubt its validity. If you actually study things, the answers to many of these things are in the Bible, or they do not disagree with the Bible.
There have been plenty of scientists who have researched. The evidence is simply compelling for the veracity of God's Word.
What do you think of the people who have died and been resuscitated, only to talk about the afterlife, whether of Heaven or Hell?
I don't demand anything. I am simply in disagreement, sharing the other viewpoint, based upon the Word of God.
Your dogmatic belief is your belief. Infallible word of God? Again, your belief. I will not even ask you how old the Earth is because I have a hunch that I know what your answer will be, but as far as these near death experinces, there is a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that too. I expect that you will not be interested in the link because science is a dirty word...right?
What defines an educated person? Education: the process of receiving or giving systematic instructions, esp. at a school or university.
Okay ... so you receive instructions ... the more highly educated you are, seems to infer that you've received a great deal of instructions! Great. Now, your academic score ... or the measure of how "smart" you are is calculated based on your ability to memorize and retain, and recite back to the instructor the details of those instructions that have been given to you. But is memory really the core measure of intelligence? What if the instructions you received were not accurate? Would remembering, verbatim, every tiny detail of those inaccurate instructions, (and believing them to be true and accurate) really prove that you are indeed smart and knowledgeable? And what of the intelligence of the instructors who provided you with all of those instructions that made you so smart? Are they really so smart as to be able to educate you and make you smart, simply because they spent a lot of time ... years ... listening to and memorizing and reciting back the instructions that they were given by their instructors? What if all of the instructions they were given, which they in turn gave to you, were inaccurate?
I suggest, that one's intelligence is dependent NOT upon memory and ability to recite instructions, but in the ability to analyze and measure and judge the legitimacy of the information being presented. And based on a careful and comprehensive analysis of history, what we find is that the greatest advances in human knowledge came not from those conforming to the status quo, but from those who dared challenge consensus opinion. As the old saying goes ... "if everyone is thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking".
The truth is, modern education is not education at all ... it's just training. Therefore, the more accurate way of stating your case would be to say "Well trained people don't deny evolution".
In other words .... sit ...... stay ...... good boy!
Species change over time. but one species cannot evolve into another species. that has never been proven. by anyone. ever. so don't lie to children. saying evolution is a fact is like saying the sky is blue is a fact. well it depends on the context and condition.
Species do evolve into new species. That is not the same as saying any species can evolve into any other species. A dog will not evolve into a cat or a tree. A chimp will not evolve into a human.
It is entirely possible, however, that a chimp could evolve into something new or a human into something new.
Study of DNA provides incontrovertible evidence, however, of common ancestors and can even estimate when it happened.
As far as humans are concerned, the question is how much will we alter natural selection by the tremendous influence we have on the world around us.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is not possible by evolution. This is only possible with creation.
An individual organism is not "evolving." It is only a point on a line. So the idea of "partially-evolved" is nonsense.
There are fossils that demonstrate how particular characteristics change from individual to individual over time. That is what happens with evolution. It's not an individual that is evolving, it is a series of individuals and their offspring.
An individual organism is not "evolving." It is only a point on a line. So the idea of "partially-evolved" is nonsense.
Bingo.
For any organism to exist, it must be a member of a complete, fully evolved and adapted species. There are no "half-wings" or "half eyes" in the sense that they are caught halfway along a process to some predetermined outcome. There are only the adaptations available to that species at that time for that environment.
Later evolution may allow the retrospective identification of a species as "intermediate" between two other points along a particular adaptive pathway, but natural selection is always and entirely ignorant of the future. For example when the reptilian jaw joint was going through the process (which by the way is extremely well documented in the fossil record) of replacing the quadrate-articular "hinge" with dentary-squamosal "hinge" of mammals, it was not for the purpose of freeing up a couple of extra bones for the middle ear, even though that's exactly what happened. But more importantly, at all points in the process, even when it was only "halfway" complete, all the animals involved still had a perfectly complete, perfectly functional jaw along with a perfectly complete, perfectly functional ear.
The bogus complaint about "partially-evolved" anything is not generally an example of creationist dishonesty (of which other examples are legion). It is simply an example of creationist laziness. They have not bothered to even understand what they are attacking before they attack it. My personal experience (after more than 30 years of debating creationists) is that evolutionists understand creationism a lot better than creationists understand evolution.
To take one example, there is no particular reason to believe that all people are equal. Scientific evidence shows the opposite to be true. Some people are smarter, faster, stronger, healthier, etc than others. Yet we accept it as an article of faith in our society that all people are created equal. We devote the same amount of resources and provide the same opportunities to the incompetent as we do the super-competent. Finite resources are allocated to people who from the moment of their birth demonstrably do not have the potential make the most effective use of them. We accept natural selection as scientific fact, then order our society to purposely circumvent the very process that we accept made us into the dominant species we are.
Now I agree that this is the proper thing to do, that everyone should have equal opportunity. An elitist society is fundamentally unjust. I accept as an article of faith that the costs in terms of human rights outweighs the benefits of devoting all society's resources towards only the smartest. But I'm not going to do that and then ridicule a religious person as being incapable of thinking for themselves.
Equality under the law has nothing to do with physical or intellectual differences. It is a social concept, not a biological one.
So you are saying that since the mechanisms that resulted in the origin of DNA (or RNA) have not been elucidated, it could not happen? In other words, everything that can be discovered has been, and there will never be anything new?
No, I didn't say that at all. That's your story, remember? Evolution being a proven fact, and all. You evolutionists are really a hypocritical bunch ... always projecting too. You all beat this drum and parrot this "it's scientifically proven, damn it"! But it isn't proven at all ... not even close to being proven. It's nothing more than a "hypothesis", like the Big Bang. The scientific method requires one to DEMONSTRATE a phenomenon, and it's mechanisms of action that support the theoretical ... then that demonstration has to be repeatable by others, before it is "scientifically" proven. Has any of that happened? NO! But that doesn't seem to stop you people from a lot of false claims suggesting that's been done, or that it's so close to being done now, it's only a matter of time! (as we see in the next bit of your post).
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Actually, the work on generating RNA in the lab is ongoing, and it is probably only a matter of time before that mechanism is defined:
Do you think I have not heard this before? Do you think that I haven't already reviewed this information? That's how I form my opinions, suzy. I don't parrot other people's opinions ... I review and analyze all sides, which allows me to make informed assessments.
I believe yours, and many other's biggest error is in failing to look at the full picture and scope of the issue personally, but instead, simply accepting someone else's claims and conclusions. It's only natural that those involved in this research are going to make claims ... these people are funded by lots of cash, and of course, they're not going to devote a decade of work and millions of dollars, only to throw up their hands and say ... welp, we tried, but we're still stuck in the mud, and are spinning our wheels. And though this particular effort to construct RNA is just one element of the debate, it's a great example of evolution science and it's basic approach.
It might be helpful to use an analogy that can illustrate just how far these scientists have gotten in their efforts of creating an RNA strand. Take a car as an example. The engineers have this car that they want to construct using an existing car as their model. So far, they haven't even been able to figure out how to attach the wheels. That leaves a great deal of unsolved work in front of them. This is true of the effort to construct a portion of a strand of RNA. They have been unsuccessful in figuring out how to attach an existing nucleotide to an existing section of RNA. So, about 99% of the hard part of creating RNA hasn't even begun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
By the way, just who or what is your "Intelligent Designer" and where did who or what come from?
I don't know ... and neither does anyone else. And there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when you don't know ... that's called honesty. You evolutionists ought to get better familiar with that, because you don't really know any more than anyone else does about how life originated.
Those of us who subscribe to the theory of intelligent design have not, and need not identify the nature of the designer, to recognize the signs of artificial versus natural characteristics. When I look at the inner workings of a swiss watch, I need not know who made it, or how they made it, or where the parts came from, or where the knowledge and skill was acquired, in order to deduce that someone must have made it.
We humans rely on our own basic common sense to make such discernments relative to any number of things. One of my favorite examples is Mount Rushmore. You'd have to be a blithering idiot to believe that it was a result of natural processes of wind and rock erosion occurring over millions of years. One brief glance at the structure is enough to conclude that someone deliberately carved those faces into the rock. We don't need to identify who the sculptor was, or what tools he used, or the methods employed in oder to reach that rational conclusion ... all the evidence required to conclude that is provided by the structure itself.
DNA is exponentially more complex, and the telltale signs which identify deliberate, purposeful design is even more obvious, even though we don't know who the designer was, or the methods employed to construct it. The evidence of design is provided by the structure itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
