Evolution and Religion

[sleuth]

HOW's my driving?

you drive very well!!! BRAVO ( opladismenti xexexexexe :PPP)

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by sleuth anon personally i tend to belive in creation ,simply because everyday when i see nature( trees,leavs,earth,clouds.....)in harmony,balanced..and they silently glorify creation..its not random.it cant be random ..then again we see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today.

No one denies moths and finches changing, it's properly referred to as adaptation. The finch doesn't turn into anything else, doesn't mutate into some new creature.

[sleuth]

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

anon personally i tend to belive in creation ,simply because everyday when i see nature( trees,leavs,earth,clouds.....)in harmony,balanced..and they silently glorify creation..its not random.it cant be random ..then again we see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Extend the timeframe and Gould's punk-eek looks exactly the same as Darwin's original notes. No one less than the staunchly Christian Norman Miller pointed this out.

Darwin stated,""Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" and stated that the lack of transitional forms was,"the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Darwin, along with all of evolutionary science up until Gould and Eldridge, believed that change was incremental and gradual over time, in other words there should have been alot of intermediate forms. Well since this was an embarrasment for Darwinism, after the silly attempts at trying to bring forth "intermediates" such as "gemules", "bathybius", and "eozoon", punctuated equilibria seemed appealing since it once and for all answered the question for the missing fossils ( not proven ), it was simply a philosophical assumption. We found fossil A then we found fossil B. Fossil B is somewhat similar yet different from fossil A so therefore it MUST have evolved. How is that proving? Well, it's not. It's just stating it.

Stating that there are within species variation is one thing, to then assume that species jump to other species, well, that is a blanket assertion that lacks verification. It is simply asserted in the scientific world and believed. Evolution is a like class of faith yet evolutionists will coldly deny this. Arguing this point is pointless as it is. You argue that evolution is already proven without proving it and arguing a negative. When was it established and proven that species change into more complex species and this was because of hapahazard random mutations? Mind you that most mutations that do occur in organisms are harmful. It is mathematically improbable for species to have evolved by mutations. Murray Eden of MIT brilliantly proved this at the Wistar Institute Conference in 1966.

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?

http://www.daywilliams.com/masons_mystery_33rd_parallel.html

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

[felizitation]

Originally posted by sleuth i m going to desex arvest for this thread lol

Ok, I'm warning his mother that her son became a girl.

[sleuth]

i m going to desex arvest for this thread lol

[sleuth]

lol feli nothing wrong with your english relax .... I AGREEEEE WITHHH YOUUUUU..

[felizitation]

Originally posted by sleuth evolution meant to be science but ALAS!!! its not!!!its just a belif...most fam evolutionists have already admited that...

OK WE AGREE !!!!!!!!!!!
My point is that, even if evolution evolve in such a way that it become a science, it would never kill the idea of a God. That is what I was talking about, not only about evolution.
Even if we prove that the first cell is not created from Creator's will (which we have proven) the idea of God won't die.

[sleuth]

evolution meant to be science but ALAS!!! its not!!!its just a belif...most fam evolutionists have already admited that...


THESUTUN BUT NOT GITUTUN !!!!!!!!

[felizitation]

Originally posted by sleuth we are talking about evolution and creation...my point is evolution is not a science its a religion ,because its not proven and its a belife..any belife is theismmmmmm...so its religion..geeeeeeee...i am done with this thread lol

Sorry man, I never thought that evolution was a science, so I was confused sometimes. Besides i haven't understood Arvee's thread as being a discussion on this point

I'm sorry