Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution and Religion

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

  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse
    So if evolution could not take place with randomness, then all you have left is design, which would require a creator with intelligent design and purpose. In fact, the mathematicians found that mathematically evolution could never have begun nor continued through randomness.

    Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

    Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

    *George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.


    A seed is a collection of information such as DNA, that describes processes that when carried out produce an end result. That end result could be a bird, a human being, plant, a planet or even a universe. When you look at the outline of a cloud, the branches of a tree, the path of a river, or the veins in your arms, you are looking at fractal geometry. 11, 22, and 33 are precise numbers. They are also multiples of 11. These numbers are encoded within our DNA. This is only the result of intelligent thought.

    We have 33 vertebrae and they are grouped under the names cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and coccygeal. Why is 33 one of the most sacred numbers in Freemasonry that a Mason can attain to? Why is the 33rd parallel such an important place on our planet and why have most major events taken place along the 33rd parallel?

    Layar303 merupakan tempat main game slot yang gak bikin pusing buat raup untung dan cuanya, gak pake ribet di jamin hoki parah pastinya.


    Our skull has 22 bones. Our ribs have 11 bones. This is surely not a result of randomness, or is it?

    You show this as evidence for design.

    Sorry, my friend, but you have no idea what you are arguing.

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse Propose an alternative? Isn't it obvious what the alternative is? Creation. A finch is a finch. Adaptational differences don't make it anything else.

    As for close anatomical relationship, for all we know God was perfecting his creatures, creating one with the blueprint of the previous. Who knows, I don't claim to know, why does science assume it alone knows?

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse This is not a "need" to resort to supernatural explanations. I am merely arguing like a scientist here relying on evidence.

    I argued that evolution can not come about through randomness, and mutations. That is all. I am not "offering" any "alternative", I am merely demanding evidence for the scientific claim, as any scientist should be.

    From that being said, artificial selection remains on contradiction to natural selection.

    Actually you are arguing that it may not come through randomness and mutations.

    You have not shown that it is a contradiction. You have asserted that it may not be representative.

    And yes, you have been offering an alternative. You are arguing for the support of design. That is an alternative. You are treating it like a default and if ever there was a logical fallacy, it would be that.
    Last edited by dusken; 02-20-2004, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    This is not a "need" to resort to supernatural explanations. I am merely arguing like a scientist here relying on evidence.

    I argued that evolution can not come about through randomness, and mutations. That is all. I am not "offering" any "alternative", I am merely demanding evidence for the scientific claim, as any scientist should be.

    From that being said, artificial selection remains on contradiction to natural selection.

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    If all you're saying is that we don't know for certain that one species was generated from another, and there is a possibility that each was individually created, all right, I'll grant you that. Given naturaly selection shows the laws of physics alone can do it, I don't see any reason to resort to supernatural explanation. But if you want to, because it makes you feel better that it was God doing it, hey, knock yourself out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by dusken You are mangling my words and ideas. I do not understand what is difficult about seeing that it would take human intelligence to make something occur quickly that would normally take natural selection significantly longer to duplicate. This is very obvious. You are addressing a non-existent fallacy.
    Why, you ask? Because it is only assumed that natural selection can accomodate all those changes and produce new species. Like I said, there is no empirical data, other than educated guesses, and hence why evolution is a theory that is desperately trying to maintain validation, and not a scientific law. Hence, intelligent interference has nothing to do with natural selection, it is a contradiction, the very antithesis of what Darwinism is about.

    I don't even have to get into the "whys" of why a dog will always be a dog, and not become an elephant or anything else. Evolutionists assume that it can become more, by pointing to the faulty past of the "fossils" and saying "look they changed from fossil A to fossil B", basically assuming that they evolved since it looks so "obvious", not proving it

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse Then, if you admit intelligence, there is no randomness, but only purpose and thus you didn't "evolve" it, but you created a new thing, since whatever humans make they "Create".

    What are you talking about? I never argued against intelligence. All my argument was based on the evolutionists' premise that all change is random and purposeless, without intelligence. Artificial selection shows intelligent human thought, not random mutations.
    You are mangling my words and ideas. I do not understand what is difficult about seeing that it would take human intelligence to make something occur quickly that would normally take natural selection significantly longer to duplicate. This is very obvious. You are addressing a non-existent fallacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by dusken Wasn't this addressed with the idea of the speed at which the change would occur? It requires intelligence to get it done at a certain speed. That much is obvious.
    Then, if you admit intelligence, there is no randomness, but only purpose and thus you didn't "evolve" it, but you created a new thing, since whatever humans make they "Create".

    Originally posted by dusken You have argued before, earlier in the thread, that it was completely impossible. The arguement on the side of the evolutionist is that it is possible and can be shown to be possible. Nobody has the luxury of observing first hand for 10,000 years if something is changing naturally or not. But one can see that it is possible and show that it can be expanded to a geater period of occured prehistory.
    What are you talking about? I never argued against intelligence. All my argument was based on the evolutionists' premise that all change is random and purposeless, without intelligence. Artificial selection shows intelligent human thought, not random mutations.

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse There is a logical contradiction which you choose not to see and ignore, which I am sure neither you nore dusken will admit here. Natural selection is not artificial selection. What you pointed out is artificial selection, i.e. requiring intelligence. It is fundamentally different from natural selection. Au contraire, it is you who do not have an idea of what natural selection is.

    Human breeders can breed animals all they want. They breed sheep, they breed pigeons, they breed dogs and produce variations among them for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight by "playing God" in seeing how much variation can be achieved.

    This contradicts natural selection, it has nothing to do with "speeding up" the process; natural selection being wholly unregulated and purposeless, whereas this requires intelligence.
    Wasn't this addressed with the idea of the speed at which the change would occur? It requires intelligence to get it done at a certain speed. That much is obvious.

    You have argued before, earlier in the thread, that it was completely impossible. The arguement on the side of the evolutionist is that it is possible and can be shown to be possible. Nobody has the luxury of observing first hand for 10,000 years if something is changing naturally or not. But one can see that it is possible and show that it can be expanded to a geater period of occured prehistory.
    Last edited by dusken; 02-20-2004, 03:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    There is a logical contradiction which you choose not to see and ignore, which I am sure neither you nore dusken will admit here. Natural selection is not artificial selection. What you pointed out is artificial selection, i.e. requiring intelligence. It is fundamentally different from natural selection. Au contraire, it is you who do not have an idea of what natural selection is.

    Human breeders can breed animals all they want. They breed sheep, they breed pigeons, they breed dogs and produce variations among them for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight by "playing God" in seeing how much variation can be achieved.

    This contradicts natural selection, it has nothing to do with "speeding up" the process; natural selection being wholly unregulated and purposeless, whereas this requires intelligence.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X