|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:18:17 AM | | Mysticism, supernatural powers, and mythology support Creationism much easier than Evolution. REST OF POST REMOVED | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:30:41 AM | | Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. They're separate things. Evolution can only occur after genes already exist. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:38:22 AM | | Yes but what does Evolution have that can be proven by Magic? Nothing. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:41:37 AM | "The writer to the Hebrew says, 'Through faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.' (Heb 11:3). This leaves no room for the theory of evolution which holds that the things that are seen today were made of pre-existing material."
[Compare. Jer 51:15-16]:
(v. 15) "He made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by His understanding.
(v. 16) When He thunders the waters in the heavens roar; He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind form His storehouses."
"In Jeremiah 51:15, the prophet, by the Word of the Lord, declared... [that] ...God designed the earth by His wisdom and power; He created all of it perfectly. But then, in the following verse, there is a transitional statement. We find that there is now rain, lightning, and a water cycle. Before the flood, there was no rain: a mist went up and watered the earth. But now, there is a judged ecosphere: we see mountains, snows, and varying temperatures.
"The miracle does not awaken you, but merely shows you who the dreamer is."
  | |
|
| an example of adaptation by the Creator - specific immunity
Posted: 8/19/2005 6:57:08 PM | Even old IrritatingAgitating can figure this out.
The fact that the human body (and animal bodies) produces several million specificities of B lymphocyte anatibodies, as well as types of T lymphocytes, to fight off millions of strains of bacteria, should be informative to a rational person.
The match-ups of specific immunity is only the beginning of amazements, the tip of the iceberg. And this is done with only a handful of genes. This indicates that our approx 35k linear proscribed-location genes have trillions of prescribed functions, as is manifested in so many other aspects of the human body.
The handful of genes for the blood vessel proscribed construction, for example, is impossible through random construction, even over a billion generations of selectiviity and survival necessity.
Each proscribed cell alignment has approximately (conservatively) a .1 probability of falling in a particular necessary area of construction to construct the tubular, branched vascular conduits. As there are at least a trillion cells in the vascular system, that would give a rough probability of 1 / 10 to the trillionth power. divide that impossibly humongous number by 1 billion generations, and you still have a probability of 1 / 10 to the 999,000,000 power, translate impossible.
And this is only a small part of our physiology.
There might be an argument that the trillion-cell alignment was not done by single steps, multiplied, but by copies and multiplications over and over again. But that occurance, with all the copies having to connect at explicit locations, and the multitude of trillions of vascular and capillary branches splitting and rearranging on the venous side, might be even a more impossible feat. | |
|
| an example of adaptation by the Creator - specific immunity
Posted: 8/19/2005 7:23:47 PM | I believe in God because animals can love. There is nothing in the evolution theory that explains love. Cats aren't physically attracted to a pretty smile. Dogs could care less if you have tight abs. Human to human attraction could perhaps be explained by lust (still quite a stretch), but it does nothing to explain herding or pack behavior between multiple species.
What is the scientific explanation for love ? If evolution was completely true, animals would feed and leave. They would have no need or desire to remain with people. Animals stay because they want to be loved. Would a dog without love allow a three-year old to ride on its back ? Why does a dog go into a burning house to save a little boy when a seventeen year old mother will put hers in a microwave ?
Evolution ?? Evolution is going to tell you that things that go into fires tend to die.. not continue reproducing so that the "go into the fire" gene becomes dominant... Instinct ? Instinct says run...
Love would not exist unless some Supreme Being put such a force into the world. Such a being must be incredibly good, as he wants all thing to love each other, not just him.
Yes, I have been taught all my life to believe in God. Once you sit down and think about it, there just simply is not another explanation that makes sense. | |
|
| an example of adaptation by the Creator - specific immunity
Posted: 8/19/2005 7:40:03 PM |
What is the scientific explanation for love ? If evolution was completely true, animals would feed and leave.
The reason why so many animals exhibit pack/social behavior is that it increases the survival chances of everyone in the pack/society. Interestingly you don't find love amongst the reptiles. They lay their eggs and leave, never to see them again. They're largely solitary animals. Fish and amphibians don't show love either. Fish will eat their own children. Why did God decide to withhold love from these animals? | |
|
| an example of adaptation by the Creator - specific immunity
Posted: 8/19/2005 7:55:39 PM | uhhhhh... that would be the whole snake in the garden thing... I will put emnity between your offspring and his... hence, they get no love.
Your "enhance the survivability" thing doesn't work either... Why does a dog let a kid ride on him ? to enhance survivability ??
So where does love come from ? | |
|
| an example of adaptation by the Creator - specific immunity
Posted: 8/19/2005 8:04:12 PM | What about non-snake reptiles? And wouldn't it be pretty silly to punish all snakes for the sins of their forefather? Besides, shouldn't this just apply to talking snakes anyway?
Dogs let kids ride on their back because they get food to do stupid things like that. | |
|
| |
| an example of adaptation by the Creator - specific immunity
Posted: 8/19/2005 8:29:55 PM | | As far as the "punishing all snakes", it's what God promised to do... he may be silly, but at least he keeps his word. For the record, you appear to at least think and do some research before posting, something alot of Friday Night Philosophers don't. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I think you're wrong (for whatever that's worth) | |
|
| Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/19/2005 11:45:27 PM | The circulatory system construction was, by using basic probability technique, obviously of intentional design, created. This was based on the fact that the human body has approximately 40 billion capillaries, which would necessarily be constructed of trillions of cells, in addition to complementary 'coats' of vascular material. I VERY conservatively assigned the cellular 'population' at 1 trillion vascular cells per human body, with a VERY conservative subjective probability of consecutive proscribed cellular placement of .1 (e.g. 1/10) per cell.
This gives a random construction probability in a singe generation of 1/ 10 to the trillionth power. I.E. impossible. Even dividing by one billion generations would not even put a dent on this impossibility, still resulting in a probability of 1 / 10 to the 999,999,991st power. Impossible randomly, but possible by intention, e.g. created.
Some might counter that somehow the vascular system resulted in some type of mechanism of repetition where something dragged a construction through the body, apparently randomly.
I contend that such a simplified notion is not factual, to wit, each of the following would preclude a 'repetition', and together, would do so multiplied:
- the tapering of the vascular system downward from the heart's arterial side to capillaries, then reverse tapering upward to return to the heart
- the 40 billion capillaries would necessitate that many branches of tubular design on each side of the vascular system (arterial and veinous). Not a mere repetition, by an stretch, as each fork requires an elaborate tubular separation
- veinous valve placement
- vessel specialized construction, e.g. *continuous capillaries in muscles, lungs, adipose, and CNS allows no passage of nutrients, gases, etc to penetrate at these proscribed areas *fenestrated capillaries (at kidneys, endocrine glands, etc) have pores *discontinuous capillaries (in bone marrow, liver, spleen) have sinusoid construction.
There are certainly other factors which preclude a simple repetion model of construction. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that the design was intentional, not random.
And we are only talking (in ref to our circulatory system) about a relatively 'simple' construction, not an interactive, exceedingly integrated matrix such as hormones, cellular interaction, reproduction, mental, the nervous system, etc. We do ourselves a disfavor in believing a notion that we are the result of some strictly random, mechanical design. | |
|
| Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/20/2005 5:19:14 PM | Your calculation of probabilities is based on two faulty premises. To wit:
1) The creation of the system was random.
2) The systems existence was pre-ordained.
As to (1) natural selection is not a random process. It preferentially filters out genes that lead to lower survivability.
As to (2) evolution didn't have a grand plan for what it was going to strive for millions of years hence. We may start out with a very simple system whose function is nothing like the modern more complicated system. For example, the complex eye (e.g. as found in humans) began as a simple patch of photosensitive cells. Some animals never evolved past that stage. | |
|
| Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/20/2005 7:37:59 PM |
Theophrastus, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Eupalinus, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Empedocles, Pythagoras, ........ et al ?
Ohh late tm, you dont REALY consider Pliny to be a scientist do you? lol :D
I love your arguments, the only thing I have read so far by a creationsit that I agread with, was kenny 27 saying
I believe in creationism because it is my faith. Can I prove it, not a chance. If I could, then why would it be a faith, and not a science. Can I prove that God exists, no, I can't. But I believe with all of my heart that He does. Sure, all of the evidence of God's work in my life can be summed up to co-incidences and misinterpretations. Just like creationism, science can refute that God has affected my life in the way that I beleive that He has.
And as for irritatingagitating, your model is based on random permetations, but cell division is anything but random. It is controled by a series of chemical nutrients formed by the cell RNA itself, which is encoded in the trillions of gene's, that tell the cells what size to reach, what shape to construct, what direction to branch out in, ect ect. If it wer not controled by these chemicals then it would not be posible to culture cells outside of the body. Specific chemical baths are required to make the cells grow in the way desired, use difrent chemical and the ceels weill grow difrently if at all. | |
|
| CountIbli: Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/20/2005 8:37:52 PM | CountIbli says: " natural selection is not a random process. It preferentially filters out genes that lead to lower survivability."
----------
comment: oh, since natural selection is not a random process, and is preferential, you apparently therefore agree that it is a guided process. Good, good, Count. I was afraid you were of those on the Dark Side!
-------------
------------
The Count says "the complex eye (e.g. as found in humans) began as a simple patch of photosensitive ".
-----
comment: Count, I don't offhand know the # of cells in an eye in order to make a calculation of probability. But I know this: when I do a little research on the eye, it will come to my attention that the probability of random evolution (yes, I realize that each generation of natural selection is the function that allows the continuum) from generation to generation, although be it billions of generations, that probability will be around .00000000000000001 or less. The brain stem, the surrounding muscle and tissue for eyelids.........
I am getting sleepy now. Maybe I can think about this later. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/21/2005 7:28:43 AM | yes evolution-what species will be next????some nuclear mis-hap of a mutant gene???
or r we already evolved from a bloodline that was imperfect?
the teaching of the evolution and or of the teachings of any thing should be a prerequisite? | |
|
| CountIbli: Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/21/2005 8:02:52 AM |
comment: oh, since natural selection is not a random process, and is preferential, you apparently therefore agree that it is a guided process. Good, good, Count. I was afraid you were of those on the Dark Side!
Yes, it's guided by death non-personified. There's also sexual selection, which is also not random, which is guided by the urge to merge, as it were. Of course there are some random processes which effect evolution, mutation and genetic drift, so evolution is really a mix of random and non-random forces. | |
|
| Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/21/2005 8:45:56 AM | Bright1: "And as for irritatingagitating, your model is based on random permetations, but cell division is anything but random"
-------------
Response: it is not about "permetations" (wahtever that is). It is about placement, parameters, location, in such a way as to be constructive to the organism. In blood vessels, for example, each cell has to be aligned within parameters that would make blood vessels suitable for the function of conduiting. The alignment in vessels is almost perfect. For each succeeding cell to fall in line as such, in my wild estimate, would be a probability of maybe, at best, .01 . Now, with a minimum of 500,000,000 cells in the vascular system, the prob would be .01 to the 500,000,000th power.
Translate: IMPOSSIBLE, even in a billion generations of evolution. And, if it is not guided, it is random. | |
|
| Circulatory system obviously created
Posted: 8/21/2005 8:47:34 AM | Bright1: "which is encoded in the trillions of gene's, that tell the cells what size to reach, what shape to construct, what direction to branch out in, ect ect."
-----------
Response: sounds like you are conceding design here. | |
|
Millan
|
Joined: 5/27/2005
Msg: 170 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/21/2005 5:47:56 PM | I realy nead to draw a diagram here, its so much simpler to explain through images. There is no requirement for inteligent desighn in DNA, it may be a posabilitiy but it is not a nececity. Dna governs the Chemicals created in the cell and subsequently, its surounding area. Those chemicals act like scafolding and construction materaials, alowing cells to grow only in a specifed patern based on the shape of the chemicals or the compostion of the chemicals. So there is no random proces that provides the structure of multicelular proces. It is an ordered and fully structured series of events that prevent cells growing where they are not neaded.
This system is not perfect as you would expect from a desighned system, but is a very precariously balanced process. Flaws in this process can be seen everyday in the world around you, People with dwarfism or thalidimide poisoning. cancer is another good example, the cells DNA becomes damged and the cells begin growing out of control because they are producing chemicals that tell them to grow in the wrong places, this is why certain chemical agents work to supres cancer, as they mop up the bad chemicals. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2005 7:10:32 AM | Well irritatingagitating, thanks for joining us (sorry not here on weekends). However you seem to be going off in the disprove Evolution direction. Which was not the intent here. We are/were trying to Prove the validity for creation not point out the questions raised by DI or Evolution.
Sure Evolution does not answer every ones questions, but so far it does appear to offered a better explanation then Genesis.
The question posed was, "Why should Creation be taught out side of Sunday School?"
As to the Randomness of Evolution, that is a valid question for the First Cells that archived life. But after that it would be less random as survival and natural selection would then dictate the developments.
But even with a probability of,
0.00001 to the 90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th power. In an infinite Universe there are infinite possibilities. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2005 5:55:40 PM | Forget it what should really happen is here are all the questionable reason as to how the earth evolved students now you pick the topic that suits you and write about why you think it is so.
Almost a majority through the years will pick the Bible creation over any other I am sure.
That will be nothing that the teacher forces apon them and then the students can learn what they think is correct.
Hee hee It is no better than the way it is going now....LOL | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2005 6:12:04 PM | ok Science has pretty much guaranteed that Evolution exists.
But I do not think we have the necessary knowledge or understanding of the history of Evolution and the full spectrum of its power and use. How it starts, etc is still really unknown, and I think that's where the real confusion starts.
If we are unsure about the start of Evolution, like the start of the Universe how can we honestly teach our children that we know it exists and works? Would all Christians who believe in Creationism believe in Evolution if it was absolutely proven without a shadow of a doubt that Evolution is how the Universe works?
The other side of the question is the "in-between" idea - where the Universe was created by "God" and "started" and is being observed from the outside. That follows through with a petri-dish idea of the universe how an unlimited being or force can exists OUTSIDE of a limited (or maybe unlimited) universe. That is if we think along terms of euclidean/non-euclidean mathematics. Outside of the realm of known Physics and Math we are unsure, but to nay-say Evolution because we do not have all the facts is blatantly ignorant since Evolution explains much of the Universe that Creationism can't. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 7 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
