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.
no, beacuse i believe in God more than even before, beacuse science leads me to God.
I'd love to read exactly how. I would predict that it is either the god -belief coming first and the science cherry - picked, mangled and misrepresented so as to look like it supports the God -belief, or perhaps the often - reported case of someone bamboozled into faith by some book, evangelist or website doing that same thing. Science does not even support 'god' very well, let along God.
You deserve a rep for such an honest admission. Much of the 'silly-poo' exchange we get is just trying to have some 'last - word' rejoinder and it's more to do with personal feelings of self -worth than with making a sound case about anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuralMissionary
The problem is, the arrogance of some people blinds them to the fact that there is no ignorance...except maybe on their own part.
Remakably, that's true, but heaven ..ehh ...random factors only knows.. whether you realized it There is no ignorance in the sense that there is a lot of information about. But arrogance blinds some people into thinking that they can take on the opposition from a position of ignorance and win though bluster, denial, cut and paste (aka linkposting - a favourite that ) and personalities. It probably gets a lot of applause and reps from the equally uninformed Faithful, but in fact it just looks arrogant and unintelligent.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-28-2012 at 06:17 AM..
I'd love to read exactly how. I would predict that it is either the god -belief coming first and the science cherry - picked, mangled and misrepresented so as to look like it supports the God -belief, or perhaps the often - reported case of someone bamboozled into faith by some book, evangelist or website doing that same thing. Science does not even support 'god' very well, let along God.
i have info wich you dont have that is why i believe in God , beacuse i have evidence for that.
let have a look at these evidence, non-religious evidence for existence of God
real scientists talk about evidence for inteligent deign/God/Creator
Firstly it takes about five minutes to post a link to some video presentation, but could take days explaining why they are unsound science. It took me a lot of time to explain evolution and clear up a lot of misconceptions . to one muslim poster.
I did ask your reasons, but I don't see why I should waste my time viewing videos of the sort of Creationists tosh I have seen many times before. Intelligent design is false science, false reasoning and false arguments against evolution - let alone FOR God.
DNA and the other irreducible complexity arguments are also false science, false reasoning and false arguments against evolution - let alone FOR God.
I can -indeed I will -post some excellent videos explaining evolution and why ID is not a good argument against evolution, let alone evidence for a god. I don't suppose you would watch them any more than I'm inclined to watch yours.
I shall, however, post a rebuttal of one of the other supposed evidences of DNA for a God -that it encodes language or at least a computer-type -program.
Claim CB180:
The genetic code is a language in the normal sense of the term, since it assigns meaning to arbitrary symbols. Language is obviously a non-material category of reality; the symbolic information is distinct from matter and energy. Therefore, life is a manifestation of non-material reality.
Source:
Baumgardner, John, 1995. Six problems with evolution: a response to Graham Mark. The Los Alamos Monitor, 31 Mar. http://globalflood.org/letters/baumgardner310395.html
Baumgardner, John, 2001. Highlights of the Los Alamos origins debate. http://globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html
Response:
The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.
Firstly it takes about five minutes to post a link to some video presentation, but could take days explaining why they are unsound science. It took me a lot of time to explain evolution and clear up a lot of misconceptions . to one muslim poster.
I did ask your reasons, but I don't see why I should waste my time viewing videos of the sort of Creationists tosh I have seen many times before. Intelligent design is false science, false reasoning and false arguments against evolution - let alone FOR God.
DNA and the other irreducible complexity arguments are also false science, false reasoning and false arguments against evolution - let alone FOR God.
I can -indeed I will -post some excellent videos explaining evolution and why ID is not a good argument against evolution, let alone evidence for a god. I don't suppose you would watch them any more than I'm inclined to watch yours.
I shall, however, post a rebuttal of one of the other supposed evidences of DNA for a God -that it encodes language or at least a computer-type -program.
Claim CB180: The genetic code is a language in the normal sense of the term, since it assigns meaning to arbitrary symbols. Language is obviously a non-material category of reality; the symbolic information is distinct from matter and energy. Therefore, life is a manifestation of non-material reality.
Source:
Baumgardner, John, 1995. Six problems with evolution: a response to Graham Mark. The Los Alamos Monitor, 31 Mar. Origins Debate - Baumgardner: Six Problems with Evolution II
Baumgardner, John, 2001. Highlights of the Los Alamos origins debate. Global Flood - In Six Days
Response:
The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.
DNA is more indicative of evolution than some kind of intelligent design.
Quote:
Firstly it takes about five minutes to post a link to some video presentation, but could take days explaining why they are unsound science. It took me a lot of time to explain evolution and clear up a lot of misconceptions . to one muslim poster.
did you watch those 3 above ? they are not to long, and it is scientst who speak, it is not relgious people, so please watch it and then comment.
Quote:
did ask your reasons, but I don't see why I should waste my time viewing videos of the sort of Creationists tosh I have seen many times before. Intelligent design is false science, false reasoning and false arguments against evolution - let alone FOR God.
How can you say false science when even biggest atheist in the world admited that there is inteligent design in nature
how can you say that it is false science, when you can clearly see natural engines with propellers and fuel, that is inteligent deisgn in nature, how can such complex stuff create by itself? how can non-thinking nature create engine with 40 parts wich use fuel to move in the liquid????
Quote:
DNA and the other irreducible complexity arguments are also false science, false reasoning and false arguments against evolution - let alone FOR God.
absolutly not.
if you say that it is false, tell me who had rotating propellers with motor before bactera and spermcells?
that person from DNA
Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is currently director at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and Senior Fellow at the DI.
Quote:
I can -indeed I will -post some excellent videos explaining evolution and why ID is not a good argument against evolution, let alone evidence for a god. I don't suppose you would watch them any more than I'm inclined to watch yours.
then explain this to people
where do you see evolution here
fossil
GARFISH
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Size: 39 centimeters (15.3 in) in length; matrix: 29 centimeters (11 in) by 40 centimeters (15 in)
Location: Lincoln County, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene
Hundreds of garfish fossils that have been collected give evidence that these still-living fish have remained unchanged for millions of years. The garfish pictured, between 54 and 37 million years old, is no different from those living in our seas today. This exact similarity is an inexplicable situation for Darwinists and once again proves the fact of creation.
HERRING
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Size: 9.3 centimeters (3.7 in)
Location: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene
"Living fossils" reveal that species have not evolved, but are created. Species have not attained their present body structure by chance, as evolutionists claim. They are all created flawlessly by Almighty God and have lived throughout their existence in the form they were created.
The herring fossil pictured also proves this. Herrings have remained the same for millions of years, preserving the form and structure with which they were initially created. Like all other fossils, this herring reveals that the theory of evolution is based on lies
JUVENILE RABBIT
Age: 30 million years old
Location: Lusk, Wyoming
Formation: White River Formation
Period: Oligocene
30-million-year-old fossils that are identical with creatures living today refute the theory of evolution. Fossil discoveries reveal that rabbits have always been rabbits.
SUNFISH
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Size: 17.2 centimetrs (6.8 in)
Location: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene
Seas in our day have many species of sunfish. The fossil pictured shows that sunfish have not evolved. For millions of years their physiology has remained the same. The appearance and structure of sunfish that lived about 55 million years ago are the same as those alive today.
CRANE FLY
Period: Cenozoic Era, Eocene epoch
Age: 48 to 37 million years old
Location: USA
As with all other species, stasis observed throughout the course of crane fly's existence is proof that evolutionary claims are false. The theory of evolution was proposed under the scientifically primitive conditions of the 19th century, adopted merely by ignorance, yet collapsed in the face of the 20th- and 21st-century science
SHRIMP
Age: 145 million years old
Location: Eichstâtt, Bayern, Germany
Size: matrix: 10.5 centimeters(4.1 in) by 15.2 centimeters (5.9 in)
Period: Jurassic, Malm Zeta
The shrimp is an arthropod belonging to the sub-phylum Crustaceae. Its body is covered in armor composed largely of calcium carbonate. Various species of shrimp live in both salt and fresh water. The earliest known shrimp fossil dates back some 200 million years.
The fossil shrimp pictured is around 145 million years old. Shrimps, which have maintained their structure for millions of years with no change, are proof that living things never underwent evolution.
DRAGONFLY LARVA
Age: 10 million years old
Size: 42 millimeters (1.6 in) by 35 millimeters (1.3 in)
Location: Vittoria d'Alba, Cuneo, Italy
Perio: Upper Miocene
SPIDER
Age: 156 to 150 million years old
Size: 1.5 centimeters (0.6 in) (leg to leg ), 0.7 centimeters (0.28 in) (body )
Location: Beipiao, Liaoning Province, China
Period: Upper Jurassic
The oldest known fossil spider is of a water spider, 425 million years old. The fossil pictured is 156 to 150 million years old. Such fossils show that spiders have been the same for hundreds of million years. Darwinists have no consistent and scientific answer for these findings
no evolution, just forgeries from atheistic scientist propaganda
5. “Lucy” is the name given to the fossil discovered by anthropologist Donald Johanson in 1974. Many evolutionists claimed that Lucy was the transitional form between the humans and their so-called hominid ancestors. However further analysis on this fossil revealed that Lucy is only the member of an extinct ape species, known as Australopithecus. The brain size of the Australopithecus is similar to chimpanzees. Many other characteristics—such as details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms and short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today’s chimpanzees. Even the pelvis is similar to that of chimpanzees.5
Some races living today, like the Malaysian native to the side, have the large eyebrow projections and the foreheads that are inclined backwards—features peculiar to Homo erectus skulls
THE MYTH OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS
FILLED WITH HOAXES
More than 6,000 species of ape have existed at one time or another. The great majority of them have since become extinct and vanished, leaving only some 120 species alive today. But the fossils belonging to these nearly 6,000 extinct species represent a rich source of hoaxes for evolutionists. Unable to point to any concrete evidence, evolutionists surround fossils of extinct apes with biased analyses and then present them as evidence for evolution.
For years now, evolutionists have been employing such methods in order to gather supporters and mislead the public. However, they now need to see that these methods are of no use. The false evidence used by evolutionists to make their tall tales of the alleged human evolution seem more credible—and the debunking of that evidence—are summarized below. However, there are many more evolutionist hoaxes than the few considered here. All the “ancestor of man” reports in the media, as well as the illustrations accompanying them are completely fictitious. Concrete scientific discoveries have now demolished the story that human beings became human by means of a gradual course of development.
Piltdown Man: A fossil skull was discovered in 1912 and described as belonging to a half-human, half-ape species. For the next 40 years or so, evolutionists used this fossil as one of their supposedly strongest pieces of evidence, making countless analyses and illustrations of it in a statement issued on 21 November 1953, however, Piltdown Man was finally declared to be a hoax. A dating test performed 40 years after its discovery revealed that the jawbone and the skull did not actually belong to each other.
More detailed examination revealed that the “Piltdown Man” skull had been assembled by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull, which was then aged using potassium dichromate. The way that the skull had been displayed in London’s Natural History Museum for 40 years and that no permission had been given for detailed scientific studies to be carried out during that time has gone down as a major scientific scandal.
Fossils discovered on the islands of Java in 1891 and 1892 were given the name Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus).
Fossils discovered near Pekin in 1923-1927 were given the name Pekin Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis). In 1939, however, two experts, Ralph von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich, revealed that both were actually normal
human beings.(1) And Ernst Mayr from Harvard University had classified both as human in 1944.(2)
ALL THE SKULL THOUGHT TO REPRESENT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN DECLASSIFIED!
Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in 1922 by Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History, was depicted as belonging to an intermediate life form between apes and human beings. However, in an article published in Science magazine in 1927, Osborn’s colleague William Gregory stated that the tooth actually belonged to a wild boar—whereupon all evolutionist claims regarding the fossil were quietly laid aside. The illustration to the side, produced on the basis of a single tooth by evolutionists of the time, was published in the press.
This attempt by evolutionists to reconstruct a living thing on the basis of a single tooth is a striking instance of how biased and misleading they can be when it comes to defending and imposing their theories.
The illustration above shows the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud 1 skull discovered in Israel. Its owner has been estimated to be 1.80 meters. tall, and its brain volume is the greatest so far discovered: 1740 cubic centimeters
Neanderthal Man: After the first specimens were discovered in the Neander Valley in 1856, evolutionists suggested that Neanderthals were primitive ape-men. Subsequent archaeological discoveries, however, revealed that there was no scientific basis to that claim. Erik Trinkhaus, an expert on the subject of the Neanderthals and also an evolutionist, has admitted that, “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”(4)
In addition, the size of the Neanderthal Man skull—200 cubic centimeters greater than that of present-day humans—reveals the invalidity of the claim that it was an intermediate form between humans and apes.
The Taung Child: A fossil skull discovered by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 was initially depicted as a supposed ancestor of man. However, contemporary evolutionists can no longer maintain that it represents such an ancestor—because it subsequently transpired that the skull belonged to a young gorilla! The famous anatomist Bernard Wood stated that this fossil constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution in an article published in New Scientist magazine. (5)
Lucy: This fossil, discovered in Africa in 1974, was widely esteemed by evolutionists and was the subject of some of the most intensive speculation. Recently however, it has been revealed that Lucy (A. afarensis) had an anatomy ideally suited to climbing trees and was no different from other apes we are familiar with.(6) The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.” One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps.(7)
In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man
LEOPARD SKULL
Age: 73 million years old
Location: Qi Pan, Yun Nan, China
Period: Cretaceous
Darwinists’ ruses and the techniques they use to mislead people are now totally futile. Faced with atlases that make the fact of Creation crystal-clear—and countless fossils that demonstrate how living things have never changed in the slightest—Darwinists have seen that all life forms were created out of nothing. Their ruses have been exposed and effectively neutralized.
By itself, this 73-million-year-old leopard skull is sufficient evidence to show that all tales regarding the changes supposedly undergone by life forms are totally invalid. They show that leopards living 73 million years ago had exactly the same characteristics as leopards living today.
The jaw structure and teeth of this fossil can be seen in great detail
ZEBRA SKULL
Age: 45 million years old
Location: Xi An, China
Period: Eocene
God has created all living things with their different appearances and forms. In the same way that their lifestyles and needs differ, so there are profound differences in their body structures. This means it is not difficult to describe the fossils that are unearthed, making it possible to establish the anatomical features of a living thing whose fossil remains have been discovered. The 45-million-year-old zebra fossil illustrated makes this distinction. It’s evident that there is no difference between the fossil’s characteristics and those of a present-day zebra’s skull.
There is no doubt that this is one of God’s divine miracles. The scientific evidence to hand is too definitive for scientists to be able to deny, even if they are evolutionists. It’s a scientific fact that species have not changed, and they have undergone no evolutionary process.
CAMEL SKULL
Age: 3.9 million years old
Location: Gan Su, China
Period: Pliocene
According to evolutionist claims, the camel’s large skull, long neck and humps must be the result of a large sequence of mutations. As a result, there should have been innumerable mammals with semi-lengthened necks, odd-shaped heads and incipient humps. These imaginary life forms should be encountered frequently in the fossil record, and there should be no trace of fully-formed camels dating back millions of years, like the one shown here. But data from the fossil record show that such imaginary transitional forms never existed. Camels never passed through any intermediate stages, and have always existed as fully-formed camels.
ASIAN WILD HORSE SKULL
Age: 33 million years old
Location: Yun Nan, China
Period: Oligocene
The myth of the horse evolution is one of Darwinism’s best-known frauds. This scenario—which many contemporary evolutionists admit is untrue—is still defended by a number of fanatical Darwinists. However, this claim is full of extraordinary inconsistencies and lacks any scientific evidence, and has been totally refuted. Horses have remained unchanged over millions of years. The 33-million-year-old Asian wild horse skull illustrated shows that horses lived in exactly the same way then as they do now. This by itself is sufficient to demolish all Darwinist claims about the alleged horse evolution
19:67 Does man not remember that before We created him he was nothing?
God says in quran:
We created you, why will you not believe! Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate? Do you create it, or We are its creator?
flagellum of sperm
flagellum of bacteria
it is like car engine
have you ever seen engine create itself in nature , NOOOOO
that is why God ask you
Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate? Do you create it, or We are its creator?
beacuse it has a motor in the drop of sperm, wich is created by God and not by nature 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.
...random factors only knows.. whether you realized it There is no ignorance in the sense that there is a lot of information about. But arrogance blinds some people into thinking that they can take on the opposition from a position of ignorance and win though bluster, denial, cut and paste (aka linkposting - a favourite that 
) and personalities. It probably gets a lot of applause and reps from the equally uninformed Faithful, but in fact it just looks arrogant and unintelligent.
to all of you
