PDA

View Full Version : Can evolution help cure diseases? (Title revised)



SkapePhin
02-05-2008, 10:25 PM
Its amazing how a theory obviously based on lies and the deception of Satan can be so helpful to humanity..

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/05/natural-selection-dna.html

Celtkin
02-05-2008, 10:32 PM
Selective adaptation. :lol:

It's funny to me how some people believe that adaptation is some sort of magic that springs spontaneously, creating huge jumps in species.

Dolphan7
02-06-2008, 03:22 PM
As I read this correctly it appears this is adaptation. The human body has been known for many years to adapt, even at the cellular/molecular level. The human body's immune system is capable of fighting off disease. We have even seen situations where the body becomes immune to things that are good for it like antibiotics and such.

Celtkin
02-06-2008, 06:19 PM
As I read this correctly it appears this is adaptation. The human body has been known for many years to adapt, even at the cellular/molecular level. The human body's immune system is capable of fighting off disease. We have even seen situations where the body becomes immune to things that are good for it like antibiotics and such.

Selective adaptation is how species evolve. It is mainly a random process, usually involving small mutations in nucleotide sequences that result in changes to proteins that are beneficial or not. Those adaptations that are beneficial help the species survive and adapt to changes in the environment and those changes are passed on to offspring. Mutations that lead to disease help to end that line and that mutation is not passed on. This is a fact that is really not debatable. Who started it all and if there is a grand scheme, is something I never debate.

In the case of antibiotics, the body doesn't become immune to them -- the microorganism does. That is a good example of how bacteria evolve through selective adaptation.

Dolphan7
02-06-2008, 07:30 PM
Selective adaptation is how species evolve. It is mainly a random process, usually involving small mutations in nucleotide sequences that result in changes to proteins that are beneficial or not. Those adaptations that are beneficial help the species survive and adapt to changes in the environment and those changes are passed on to offspring. Mutations that lead to disease help to end that line and that mutation is not passed on. This is a fact that is really not debatable. Who started it all and if there is a grand scheme, is something I never debate.

In the case of antibiotics, the body doesn't become immune to them -- the microorganism does. That is a good example of how bacteria evolve through selective adaptation.I would agree with you that through selective adaptation species do adapt, but I think it is a far reach to say that they evolve, although I understand how the theory goes. We have not seen it evolve into anything outside of what the organism already is. Forget about origins and who made what for the time being. As much evidence put forth in support of evolution, we really don't have any conclusive evidence showing darwinian macro evolution on the scale that suggests that we could have come from a simple celled organism.

Yes we see things changing and adapting and surviving on a very small scale and so on and so forth, as in the case of this article, but we haven't really seen anything promising in the "big leaps" of evolution, in the grand scale of the theory.

Boston
02-06-2008, 08:09 PM
Its amazing how a theory obviously based on lies and the deception of Satan can be so helpful to humanity..

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/05/natural-selection-dna.html

Yer joking right?

Alex44
02-06-2008, 08:16 PM
The same as the way a bunk theory like God can make some people feel good about life I suppose.

cnc66
02-06-2008, 08:22 PM
so, Skape finds an article about a scientific discovery and turns it into a thread to demean and slander someone's religious belief.. The quoted article had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and now we have Alex jumping in also taking cheap shots at those who believe in God... how very very sad that you feel compelled to demean others for no reason.

Alex44
02-06-2008, 08:24 PM
so, Skape finds an article about a scientific discovery and turns it into a thread to demean and slander someone's religious belief.. The quoted article had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and now we have Alex jumping in also taking cheap shots at those who believe in God... how very very sad that you feel compelled to demean others for no reason.

Nono I guess I didn't portray my point correctly.


I was just trying to show how easy it is to make an illogical statement about someones beliefs, scientific or otherwise.

I don't think God is a bunk theory, I'm not a believer but at the same time I'm not discrediting anyone and I hope no-one takes it that way.

Dolphan7
02-06-2008, 08:30 PM
Some could make the argument that evolution is a belief in itself, relying strongly on science, yet still requiring a neccessary element of faith. One could then ascertain that it would require more faith,.......then to believe in a designed creation.

So in that sense, it is a religion.

cnc66
02-06-2008, 08:31 PM
Nono I guess I didn't portray my point correctly.


I was just trying to show how easy it is to make an illogical statement about someones beliefs, scientific or otherwise.

I don't think God is a bunk theory, I'm not a believer but at the same time I'm not discrediting anyone and I hope no-one takes it that way.

then please accept my apologies for grouping you with Skape.

SkapePhin
02-06-2008, 08:54 PM
so, Skape finds an article about a scientific discovery and turns it into a thread to demean and slander someone's religious belief.. The quoted article had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and now we have Alex jumping in also taking cheap shots at those who believe in God... how very very sad that you feel compelled to demean others for no reason.

Im not slandering anything..

Forgive me if Im wrong, but D7, dont you believe that those who push the theory of evolution are pushing lies? This is my understanding of how many evangelists view those who try to teach evolution..

ok ok, I am often sarcastic with my discourse. I concede that, but Im not exactly being disrespectful.

But it is interesting how a very large group of people can completely dismiss a principle that is the basis of many beneficial treatments and processes for humanity.

As for adaptation vs evolution, its the same thing.. evolution is just the extreme result of many many adaptations. If we are to believe we all came from adam and eve, and for discussion's sake, lets pretend they where caucasian. How did we get Asians, Africans, and Natives? You take these 4 groups and contrast them on appearances and traits, and they look nothing alike.. Differences too numerous to count. An alien coming here to earth not knowing any better might very well think all these different groups of people could indeed be different species.

They became different due to isolation, environmental effects, and selective adaptation. Ok, so they CHANGED... Now why would there be an invisible wall at which point they dont change enough to become another species? Thats where I lose people like D7 on their logic..

Dolphan7
02-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Im not slandering anything..

Forgive me if Im wrong, but D7, dont you believe that those who push the theory of evolution are pushing lies? This is my understanding of how many evangelists view those who try to teach evolution..

ok ok, I am often sarcastic with my discourse. I concede that, but Im not exactly being disrespectful.

But it is interesting how a very large group of people can completely dismiss a principle that is the basis of many beneficial treatments and processes for humanity.

As for adaptation vs evolution, its the same thing.. evolution is just the extreme result of many many adaptations. If we are to believe we all came from adam and eve, and for discussion's sake, lets pretend they where caucasian. How did we get Asians, Africans, and Natives? You take these 4 groups and contrast them on appearances and traits, and they look nothing alike.. Differences too numerous to count. An alien coming here to earth not knowing any better might very well think all these different groups of people could indeed be different species.

They became different due to isolation, environmental effects, and selective adaptation. Ok, so they CHANGED... Now why would there be an invisible wall at which point they dont change enough to become another species? Thats where I lose people like D7 on their logic..I don't think those who are pushing evolution are lying about it, I honestly believe that they believe in what they are saying. That isn't lying.

I believe that science can be used for many great things as we have benefited from some great discoveries. I also think that there are some good things that come from adaptation. But I feel it is a stretch to extend that to the macro level.

You ask a great question regarding all the different races. There is a real good scientific explanation for that. This link should explain it, although it is from a site that believes in the God of the Bible, please give it a read.

http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp

The invisible wall you speak of isn't invisible at all. It is very clear. There is no conclusive evidence that any species has changed from one to another on a macro evolutionary scale. There are alot of little things that science can point to, but all at the micro scale , and nothing conclusive. It is still researched and debated and we (science)are still looking for answers.

If you are inclined to know more about my logic, I posted in the "Why do you believe in God" thread recently and you could read more about it there.

http://www.dolphinsnation.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1062297812#post1062297812

I don't think that peole who don't believe in what I believe in are any less intelligent or logical (or any more), and I respect them. I just wish people would return that respect.

Now I have to go off and worship my invisible God tonight. Later.

JT#1
02-06-2008, 09:42 PM
the reason we haven't observed a species changing is because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for that to happen......

Pagan
02-06-2008, 09:52 PM
the reason we haven't observed a species changing is because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for that to happen......
Shhhh...don't talk logic.

JT#1
02-06-2008, 09:55 PM
Shhhh...don't talk logic.
whoops! i forgot where i was.

Thundercracker
02-06-2008, 10:02 PM
Some could make the argument that evolution is a belief in itself, relying strongly on science, yet still requiring a neccessary element of faith. One could then ascertain that it would require more faith,.......then to believe in a designed creation.

So in that sense, it is a religion.

How does one ascertain that? Taking more faith to believe in something that has evidence backing it up versus something with zero evidence? I don't follow.

Pagan
02-06-2008, 10:41 PM
Strap in kids....here we go again. :lol:

JT#1
02-06-2008, 11:23 PM
Strap in kids....here we go again. :lol:
i keep trying to get out but they keep pulling me back in!

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 12:08 AM
the reason we haven't observed a species changing is because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for that to happen......
Ok let's go with that for the moment. That is one of the two key elements in the Macro-evolutionary theory, that being long periods of time, and I mean long, long, long periods of time. The other element is gradual change, so .....gradual change - over time...... is the theory in a nut shell. A note: the current Age of the universe is about 4.5 billion years right, according to the scientists of the world. Hold that thought.

First off the element of time that you are convinced is required is only present because the theory demands it, not because we have any evidence that shows we indeed see evolution happening over time. So your inclusion of the time element is based only on what you think is happening.

Secondly how much time does it take to evolve from let's say….. “nothing”….. to a simple linked protein? Do you know? Does anyone know? Not only is it statistically improbable that we can get from nothing to a simple linked protein molecule by chance, but to get it just to an organism with just 100 parts (verses the over 400 amino acids in the most simplest protein molecule) would take more time than we have available to us. If we spot the age of the earth another 25 billion years - 30 Billion total – that equals about 10 to the 18th power seconds. So based on this, the 100 part organism we described above would need to link, unlink, and reshuffle over 1 billion times……..per second. So if evolution is based on change over long periods of time, how can it explain this rapid change necessary for life to happen in the time allotted. And we even gave an extra 25 billion years! Not only that, a simple linked protein cannot produce life without …..DNA! The chances that all this could happen are 1 chance in 10 to the 600th power. Astronomical amounts of time and improbability.

So when you say it happens over time, I reply by saying how much time? Because there doesn’t seem to be enough time available. Your one hundred thousand years eems like an infinitesimal amount if time in the grand scheme of things.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 12:17 AM
How does one ascertain that? Taking more faith to believe in something that has evidence backing it up versus something with zero evidence? I don't follow.Please read post #20. I understand that there is the wide spread idea that there are massive amounts of data and evidence supporting evolution, except there is one problem. All of that evidence is based on one of two things, either pure speculation/assumption, or it is micro evolution or what I like to call adaptation within species as the original post refers to.

Now to contrast - if you are looking for evidence of God, or at the very least a Divine Creator, all you need to do is look around at every living thing on this planet. It screams of evidence of a designer, not randomnness. It clearly has order, not chaos. It has delicate balances that if things were just a little off kilter - this planet would not be able to support life. Such perfectness does not come into being by chance, I am afraid.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 12:29 AM
i keep trying to get out but they keep pulling me back in!
Hey you are the one who strapped yourself in like Pagan says. Now you will have to wait till the ride comes back to the station!:wink:

JT#1
02-07-2008, 12:58 AM
Ok let's go with that for the moment. That is one of the two key elements in the Macro-evolutionary theory, that being long periods of time, and I mean long, long, long periods of time. The other element is gradual change, so .....gradual change - over time...... is the theory in a nut shell. A note: the current Age of the universe is about 4.5 billion years right, according to the scientists of the world. Hold that thought.

First off the element of time that you are convinced is required is only present because the theory demands it, not because we have any evidence that shows we indeed see evolution happening over time. So your inclusion of the time element is based only on what you think is happening.
how can we possibly see evolution over time when we've only been looking for it for what? 100-200 years?

Secondly how much time does it take to evolve from let's say….. “nothing”….. to a simple linked protein? Do you know? Does anyone know?no body absolutly knows as , we weren't there, but i THINKthe popular hypothesis is half a billion years, i'm probably off by alot though
. Not only is it statistically improbable that we can get from nothing to a simple linked protein molecule by chanceit wasn't "Nothing"countless experiments have simulated primordial earth and results showed up the basic building blocks of life formed(Amino Acids,carbon organic compunds,etc.)
but to get it just to an organism with just 100 parts (verses the over 400 amino acids in the most simplest protein molecule) would take more time than we have available to us. If we spot the age of the earth another 25 billion years - 30 Billion total – that equals about 10 to the 18th power seconds. So based on this, the 100 part organism we described above would need to link, unlink, and reshuffle over 1 billion times……..per secondno idea what your talking about here. So if evolution is based on change over long periods of time, how can it explain this rapid change necessary for life to happen in the time allotted. And we even gave an extra 25 billion years!
Not only that, a simple linked protein cannot produce life without …..DNA! The chances that all this could happen are 1 chance in 10 to the 600th power. Astronomical amounts of time and improbability.Miller experiment,recreated early earth, results found the materials found in Nucleic acids, which is what RNA(and DNA) is made of.And about statistics, no matter how small the odds, when there are billions upon billions of planets, its still a significant chance.1 out of 1 trillion of a chance isn't a good chance, but its still gonna happen 1 out of 1 trillion times(thats just an ex)


So when you say it happens over time, I reply by saying how much time? Because there doesn’t seem to be enough time available. Your one hundred thousand years eems like an infinitesimal amount if time in the grand scheme of things.hundreds of thousands of years to see any noticeable difference, not for say, mammals to come about

JT#1
02-07-2008, 01:03 AM
Please read post #20. I understand that there is the wide spread idea that there are massive amounts of data and evidence supporting evolution, except there is one problem. All of that evidence is based on one of two things, either pure speculation/assumption, or it is micro evolution or what I like to call adaptation within species as the original post refers to.

Now to contrast - if you are looking for evidence of God, or at the very least a Divine Creator, all you need to do is look around at every living thing on this planet. It screams of evidence of a designer, not randomnness. It clearly has order, not chaos. It has delicate balances that if things were just a little off kilter - this planet would not be able to support life. Such perfectness does not come into being by chance, I am afraid.
.so your "evidence" is because things aren't just self- imploding around us?thats not evidence THAT is pure speculation, what you are calling speculation is based on observations and experimentation.

edit:going to bed for now, gotta get up early tomorrow

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 01:34 AM
how can we possibly see evolution over time when we've only been looking for it for what? 100-200 years?
no body absolutly knows as , we weren't there, but i THINKthe popular hypothesis is half a billion years, i'm probably off by alot though no body absolutly knows as , we weren't there, but i THINKthe popular hypothesis is half a billion years, i'm probably off by alot though no idea what your talking about here. So if evolution is based on change over long periods of time, how can it explain this rapid change necessary for life to happen in the time allotted. And we even gave an extra 25 billion years! Miller experiment,recreated early earth, results found the materials found in Nucleic acids, which is what RNA(and DNA) is made of.And about statistics, no matter how small the odds, when there are billions upon billions of planets, its still a significant chance.1 out of 1 trillion of a chance isn't a good chance, but its still gonna happen 1 out of 1 trillion times(thats just an ex)

hundreds of thousands of years to see any noticeable difference, not for say, mammals to come about


no body absolutly knows as , we weren't there, but i THINKthe popular hypothesis is half a billion years, i'm probably off by alot though You don't know And yet you are sure.....this is faith, which is what I was talking about in an earlier post.





Miller experiment,recreated early earth, results found the materials found in Nucleic acids, which is what RNA(and DNA) is made of.
Those experiments did not find enough of the neccessary elements to support life. What they do show is that with "a intelligent being" controlling the conditions, he only got half way to where life needed to be. This isn't any research I would put my faith in.



And about statistics, no matter how small the odds, when there are billions upon billions of planets, its still a significant chance.1 out of 1 trillion of a chance isn't a good chance, but its still gonna happen 1 out of 1 trillion times(thats just an ex) The thing you are not understanding about this is that evolution demands the defiance of these statistics in order for it to succeed. It is an astronomical chance , 1 in quadrillions for instance, that life could just spark into existance on earth - with just the right conditions, temperature, elements etc....(we have already attempted to do this in a lab and failed).......even if that did happen......then what? It would take another one chance in quadrillions for the next "mutation" to evolve the organism, then once again another one chance in quadrillion for the next phase etc....etc....etc....ad infinitum. According to the time line I laid out before these changes would have to happen a billion times a second. You see how improbable that is? For one to believe that this happened against all the odds, and I mean all the odds, is a statement of faith, and a huge one at that.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 01:56 AM
.so your "evidence" is because things aren't just self- imploding around us?thats not evidence THAT is pure speculation, what you are calling speculation is based on observations and experimentation.

edit:going to bed for now, gotta get up early tomorrowThe evidence is all around us. Both sides of the argument look at the exact same evidence. I look at all the wonderful forms of life and marvel in their complexity, some so complex that they defy explanation, like the bombadier beetle for instance. I observe the uniqueness of the earth, the vast variation of life, the laws and theories in place, some which we know exist but can't explain or understand - like gravity, and look and see things that are so intricate and complex and purposeful ........as if by design........

And others look at the exact same thing and wonder how it got to where it is today, and propose theories and philosophies to explain it all, not looking at design, but at mechanism.

Both are two mutually exclusive viewpoints. There are those who would use science to explain "why things don't just implode around us". These men have wondered about our planet for years and asked many questions. And from that we have many great discoveries. Many of these men were men of faith in a divine creator.

Then there are those who look around and point to a creator as a reason things don't implode around us.

The evidence is the same, it is the conclusions that are different. That is where you get your speculation and faith. Are you telling me that your belief system isn't based on faith and speculation? Even the most renowned scientists (evolutionists)admit that they don't know for sure - that right there demands faith .....if one continues to believe in their speculations, in the absence on conclusive evidence.

So when you ask if that is what evidence I have I say yes I look around and see many wonderful and great things in this world that defy explanation and the simple fact that we don't just fall off the earth into space leads me to the fact that there is a reason and a design and a purpose for us being here. All this points to a Divinity that we can't entirely comprehend.

Now this does not even include my personal experiences that tell me there is a God, or some of the evidence we know of supporting a God. That is an entirely different thread.

SkapePhin
02-07-2008, 03:24 AM
You don't know And yet you are sure.....this is faith, which is what I was talking about in an earlier post.


Those experiments did not find enough of the neccessary elements to support life. What they do show is that with "a intelligent being" controlling the conditions, he only got half way to where life needed to be. This isn't any research I would put my faith in.


The thing you are not understanding about this is that evolution demands the defiance of these statistics in order for it to succeed. It is an astronomical chance , 1 in quadrillions for instance, that life could just spark into existance on earth - with just the right conditions, temperature, elements etc....(we have already attempted to do this in a lab and failed).......even if that did happen......then what? It would take another one chance in quadrillions for the next "mutation" to evolve the organism, then once again another one chance in quadrillion for the next phase etc....etc....etc....ad infinitum. According to the time line I laid out before these changes would have to happen a billion times a second. You see how improbable that is? For one to believe that this happened against all the odds, and I mean all the odds, is a statement of faith, and a huge one at that.

I will respond to some of the other discussion on here at a later time, but this comment struck my attention..

If the probability of simple life forming from basic elements is 1 and quadrillions, what is the statistical probablity that a fully formed omnipotent, omniscient, sentient being spontaneously came into existence? 1 in infinity? Just think about it for a second..

Even if you look at the development of any living organism, they begin as simple organisms and "evolve" into more complex forms. A human, for instance, begins as a blastula, it divides, and becomes an embryo (with gills like a fish!), then develops into a fetus, and becomes more and more complex until you have a full developed human at around 17 years of age. Everything we have ever observed in the Universe has followed this pattern of simplicity to complexity, except, apparently, for God.

I think its asking a lot more to believe the most complex being in the universe simply always existed than to believe simple life forms developed from basic elements on a primordial world.. But thats just me.. Now, if the theory was that fully formed adult HUMANS suddenly began slithering out of puddles when a couple of gasses and elements mixed together, I would agree with your disbelief regarding the notion, but thats not how it is...

Occam's Razor.

Celtkin
02-07-2008, 01:46 PM
Not only is it statistically improbable that we can get from nothing to a simple linked protein molecule by chance, but to get it just to an organism with just 100 parts ( verses the over 400 amino acids in the most simplest protein molecule ) would take more time than we have available to us.

Bro, I don't have enough time right now to address all of the misconceptions concerning molecular biology and biochemistry that you have but I did want to point out one very glaring error. There 20 standard amino acids. A few of those amino acids are post-translationally modified (modified after the protein is made). In addition, there are roughly 300 other amino acids found in cells that are not constituents of proteins, such as ornithine and citrulline that are key intermediates of arginine synthesis and in the urea cycle.

JT#1
02-07-2008, 05:08 PM
You don't know And yet you are sure.....this is faith, which is what I was talking about in an earlier post. The conclusions made by scientists isn't made with faith, they are hypotheses based on tangible data



Those experiments did not find enough of the neccessary elements to support life. What they do show is that with "a intelligent being" controlling the conditions, he only got half way to where life needed to be. This isn't any research I would put my faith in.
so an artificial recreation(that won the noble prize) of how early earth supposedly was like(they were not trying to create amino acids) and finding that most of the materials used to create basic life was there is not something you would find trust worthy? but looking around and coming to a conclusion that since nature works god must be real is?


The thing you are not understanding about this is that evolution demands the defiance of these statistics in order for it to succeed. It is an astronomical chance , 1 in quadrillions for instance, that life could just spark into existance on earthi'm not denying the chances are pretty low, but where are you pulling out these odds?and as another poster said, the chances of an omniscient being just sprouting into existence and deciding to create the universe on a whim is even less. -
with just the right conditions, temperature, elements etc....(we have already attempted to do this in a lab and failed).......even if that did happen......then what?We cannot recreate gravity in a lab either, doesn't mean its not real.fact is we don't know the exact conditions of early earth, we can speculate, but we have very little chance of actually knowing the exact conditions.
It would take another one chance in quadrillions for the next "mutation" to evolve the organism, then once again another one chance in quadrillion for the next phase etc....etc....etc....ad infinitum. According to the time line I laid out before these changes would have to happen a billion times a second. You see how improbable that is? For one to believe that this happened against all the odds, and I mean all the odds, is a statement of faith, and a huge one at that.
i don't claim to say evolution is 100% accurate,it will be changed many times as we find new data and evidence. But its the best explanation we currently have, and is founded on a crap load of observations,experimentations and data. religion is based purely on faith with no evidence besides a book which has been proven wrong many times before(earth is center of universe,earth is 10,000 years old)

JT#1
02-07-2008, 05:25 PM
The evidence is all around us. Both sides of the argument look at the exact same evidence. I look at all the wonderful forms of life and marvel in their complexity, some so complex that they defy explanation, like the bombadier beetle for instance. I observe the uniqueness of the earth, the vast variation of life, the laws and theories in place, some which we know exist but can't explain or understand - like gravity, and look and see things that are so intricate and complex and purposeful ........as if by design........ so if every thing is so exact a purposefully created why do we and many other animals have organs and appendages thats are completely useless to them?


And others look at the exact same thing and wonder how it got to where it is today, and propose theories and philosophies to explain it all, not looking at design, but at mechanism.

Both are two mutually exclusive viewpoints. There are those who would use science to explain "why things don't just implode around us". These men have wondered about our planet for years and asked many questions. And from that we have many great discoveries. Many of these men were men of faith in a divine creator.

Then there are those who look around and point to a creator as a reason things don't implode around us.

The evidence is the same, it is the conclusions that are different. That is where you get your speculation and faith. Are you telling me that your belief system isn't based on faith and speculation? Even the most renowned scientists (evolutionists)admit that they don't know for sure - that right there demands faith .....if one continues to believe in their speculations, in the absence on conclusive evidence.

So when you ask if that is what evidence I have I say yes I look around and see many wonderful and great things in this world that defy explanation and the simple fact that we don't just fall off the earth into space leads me to the fact that there is a reason and a design and a purpose for us being here. All this points to a Divinity that we can't entirely comprehend.

Now this does not even include my personal experiences that tell me there is a God, or some of the evidence we know of supporting a God. That is an entirely different thread. don't think you'll find many people arguing that it takes some assumptions or speculation, but its all based on the observations and experiments. Religion isn't based on any known facts, 100% faith with no logic really involved. I just find it infinitely more likely, based on evidence found, that simple creatures slowly changed over times into more complex creatures,based on evidence found, than a being that has always been around decide one day that he wanted to create the universe.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 06:10 PM
Bro, I don't have enough time right now to address all of the misconceptions concerning molecular biology and biochemistry that you have but I did want to point out one very glaring error. There 20 standard amino acids. A few of those amino acids are post-translationally modified (modified after the protein is made). In addition, there are roughly 300 other amino acids found in cells that are not constituents of proteins, such as ornithine and citrulline that are key intermediates of arginine synthesis and in the urea cycle.I am sorry I meant to say that there are over 400 parts in a simple potein molecule chain.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 06:42 PM
If the probability of simple life forming from basic elements is 1 and quadrillions, what is the statistical probablity that a fully formed omnipotent, omniscient, sentient being spontaneously came into existence? 1 in infinity? Just think about it for a second..
There is no chance that a God who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient can ever come into existance by chance. He either does not exist, or he is outside the realm of probablility. When we are talking about evolution we are talking about chance and randomness. God is full of design and purpose. We don't understand where God came from, the bible does not tell us. But that does not mean that he does not indeed exist. There are things the we just don't understand, or I like to say comprehend. We cannot understand an infinite being with a finite mind.


Even if you look at the development of any living organism, they begin as simple organisms and "evolve" into more complex forms. A human, for instance, begins as a blastula, it divides, and becomes an embryo (with gills like a fish!), then develops into a fetus, and becomes more and more complex until you have a full developed human at around 17 years of age. Everything we have ever observed in the Universe has followed this pattern of simplicity to complexity, except, apparently, for God. No. What we see is complexity everywhere. Life on this planet follows a known behavior as if by design. We know that when humans breed, they produce human children. We know that sunflower seeds produce sunflowers. What stage they are in in their developement into maturity is beside the point. We know what they will be. There is no question. Now the animal kingdom his very complex, but even in the plant world we see amazing complexity. When we go down to the molecular level it does not get any simpler, but even more complex. The amazing amount of things we can see today with a microscope shows just how much activity is happening at the cellular level, with several hundred different parts all doing different things as per their unique instructions or code. And we are still just scratching the surface as to why and how these things operate.



I think its asking a lot more to believe the most complex being in the universe simply always existed than to believe simple life forms developed from basic elements on a primordial world.. But thats just me.. Now, if the theory was that fully formed adult HUMANS suddenly began slithering out of puddles when a couple of gasses and elements mixed together, I would agree with your disbelief regarding the notion, but thats not how it is...

Occam's Razor.I understand that it is easier for you to believe in science than God. But do you really believe without a doubt that chance upon chance upon chance ad infinitum actually happened to not only create life on this planet, not only sustain that life but somehow against all probability infused it with change mechanism?

Think about that for a second. Your the first cell. You have come into being against all the odds. Now what? Did you also miraculously come into being with an instruction book that tells you to divide your self and mutliply? What about your environment. Is it too hot, cold? Are you protected from too much or too little sunlight? What is your life expectancy? What will you eat to survive? My guess is if you did defy the odds, you wouldn't make it much longer than a few hours.

Now I ask you is it really that preposterous to believe in a Divine Being?

CharlestonPhan
02-07-2008, 06:52 PM
so, Skape finds an article about a scientific discovery and turns it into a thread to demean and slander someone's religious belief.. The quoted article had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and now we have Alex jumping in also taking cheap shots at those who believe in God... how very very sad that you feel compelled to demean others for no reason.

well stated, Christians are one of a select few groups unprotected by political correctness.

Pagan
02-07-2008, 07:03 PM
well stated, Christians are one of a select few groups unprotected by political correctness.
Welcome to the club...we have cookies.

Pagan
02-07-2008, 07:07 PM
so, Skape finds an article about a scientific discovery and turns it into a thread to demean and slander someone's religious belief.. The quoted article had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and now we have Alex jumping in also taking cheap shots at those who believe in God... how very very sad that you feel compelled to demean others for no reason.
While I admit it was wrong to start this thread to demean religion, and the article had nothing to do with it, let's be realistic.

You knew it was only a matter of time before D7 turned it into a thread about religion vs. evolution.

Happens every time there's a thread about evolution. Maybe Skape was just jumping the gun anticipating the inevitable.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 07:15 PM
The conclusions made by scientists isn't made with faith, they are hypotheses based on tangible dataWhen we mix chemical A, with chemical B, we get reaction C. That is fact. When we add 2 plus 2 we get 4. That is a fact. When we try to apply fact to things that we cannot possibly observe, like the first day that life was created on earth, or the age of the earth etc....we can guess, we can speculate, we can hypothesize etc....but we can never say for sure. To then make a statement that evoluition is true because we have all these experiments that possibly explain it, we are relying on faith to make up the difference. Science is just that - science. Evolution is a faith.



so an artificial recreation(that won the noble prize) of how early earth supposedly was like(they were not trying to create amino acids) and finding that most of the materials used to create basic life was there is not something you would find trust worthy? but looking around and coming to a conclusion that since nature works god must be real is?Winning the Nobel Prize does not make something true. The experiment, while showing promise to those that needed it to succeed, failed. It found some of the building blocks of life, but not all of them and not in the neccessary quantities. It showed that even with intelligent life, we couldn't even get halfway.


i'm not denying the chances are pretty low, but where are you pulling out these odds?and as another poster said, the chances of an omniscient being just sprouting into existence and deciding to create the universe on a whim is even less. -We cannot recreate gravity in a lab either, doesn't mean its not real.fact is we don't know the exact conditions of early earth, we can speculate, but we have very little chance of actually knowing the exact conditions. Thank you. You are saying you don't know for sure. Yet you believe it to be true. That is faith.

i don't claim to say evolution is 100% accurate,it will be changed many times as we find new data and evidence. But its the best explanation we currently have, and is founded on a crap load of observations,experimentations and data. religion is based purely on faith with no evidence besides a book which has been proven wrong many times before(earth is center of universe,earth is 10,000 years old)Evolution Theory changes as often as it's supposed subjects are to have changed over time. Doesn't that tell you anything? Is it really the best explanation for how we got here? Why do you so easily dismiss God?

I beg to differ with you that religion is based solely on faith. At least with Christianity we are not called to a blind faith. Evidence manifests itself in many ways. Personal experience, evidence in our world around us, logic and intellect. You aren't saying that if one believes in God that they aren't being logical are you? That they lack intelligence are you? Science to some degree shows evidence of design all the time. Now science cannot prove God, but it can show evidence of His creation. Remember - the data is the same in both camps. It is the forgone conclusion that is the difference. When we look at a highly complex cell in the human body, evolutionists would point to selective adaptation over time, while others would marvel at the design of it, pointing to a creator of purpose, not chance.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 07:30 PM
so if every thing is so exact a purposefully created why do we and many other animals have organs and appendages thats are completely useless to them?Like what appendages?

And I never said that this world is perfect.



don't think you'll find many people arguing that it takes some assumptions or speculation, but its all based on the observations and experiments. Religion isn't based on any known facts, 100% faith with no logic really involved. I just find it infinitely more likely, based on evidence found, that simple creatures slowly changed over times into more complex creatures,based on evidence found, than a being that has always been around decide one day that he wanted to create the universe.Ok. Please read my other post of Christianity not being based on blind faith.

I understand your belief (there we go again with that faith thing) that life changed over time. But you haven't even begun to understand that that life that you so strongly believe has evolved, must have started from nothing. What I am trying to explain to you is that against all the odds, all the probability, against all the chances that it couldn't and shouldn't happen - it did. And not only that but once that first glimmer of life happened, then what? It needed to be nurtured. It needed to eat. It needed to survive. It needed to re-produce. So even at astronomical odds life did happen with a lightning strike, what then? What you are telling me and everyone else in the world is that not only did life happen out of 1 chance in quadrillion (the actual number is much higher by the way), but that this sudden miracle then repeated itself over and over and over again ad infinitum....defying all the odds.

Does that sound logical to you?

I really encourage you to consider that there is a God who created us and loves us and that our life does have meaning and purpose.

JT#1
02-07-2008, 08:10 PM
Like what appendages?

And I never said that this world is perfect.
Appendix, whales have bones for hind legs,goose bumps(they are used in animals to puff up their hair and make them seem larger than they are),our tail bone(which can be cut of and have no ill affect)dandelions sexual organs even though they reproduce asexually, theres alot more, thats just a few.You said everything was made with a purpose, these things don't have a purpose, they are they almost as if, i don't know, the organisms EVOLVED and still have remnants of what they used to be


Ok. Please read my other post of Christianity not being based on blind faith. explain to me how it isn't, you believe in something despite all evidence to the contrary.


I understand your belief (there we go again with that faith thing) that life changed over time. But you haven't even begun to understand that that life that you so strongly believe has evolved, must have started from nothing. What I am trying to explain to you is that against all the odds, all the probability, against all the chances that it couldn't and shouldn't happen - it did. And not only that but once that first glimmer of life happened, then what? It needed to be nurtured. It needed to eat. It needed to survive. It needed to re-produce. So even at astronomical odds life did happen with a lightning strike, what then? What you are telling me and everyone else in the world is that not only did life happen out of 1 chance in quadrillion (the actual number is much higher by the way), but that this sudden miracle then repeated itself over and over and over again ad infinitum....defying all the odds. Again you say it was made by nothing, miller experiment proved most of the materials needed to create basic life was made naturally in early earth, not to mention asteroids that were bombarding earth at the time also had organic compounds in them.I find those odds are immensely more likely than a omniscient being that has always been around decided to create the universe one day.


Does that sound logical to you? things changing very slowly over long periods of time....or a god who has always been around just decided to make us.


I really encourage you to consider that there is a God who created us and loves us and that our life does have meaning and purpose. why does their have to be a god for our lives to have meaning? what if our purpose is just to make the best we can out of the one life we have.

Dolphan7
02-07-2008, 09:53 PM
Appendix, whales have bones for hind legs,goose bumps(they are used in animals to puff up their hair and make them seem larger than they are),our tail bone(which can be cut of and have no ill affect)dandelions sexual organs even though they reproduce asexually, theres alot more, thats just a few.You said everything was made with a purpose, these things don't have a purpose, they are they almost as if, i don't know, the organisms EVOLVED and still have remnants of what they used to beHow do you know they are not useful or needed at some point? And aside from that, species do adapt, but that does not mean that it evolved from some other species....that would be speculation.


explain to me how it isn't, you believe in something despite all evidence to the contrary.That is just it...there is no evidence to the contrary. And is there any science that proves there is no God? Is that what you are suggesting? There is lots of science that supports the biblical account.


Again you say it was made by nothing, miller experiment proved most of the materials needed to create basic life was made naturally in early earth, not to mention asteroids that were bombarding earth at the time also had organic compounds in them.I find those odds are immensely more likely than a omniscient being that has always been around decided to create the universe one day.
Please read my response to SkapePhin about God and probability. Again, the experiment failed. As much hope that you want to put into it's results, the bottom line is it failed to produce life, or even come close to it.

things changing very slowly over long periods of time....or a god who has always been around just decided to make us.So is your belief logical or not?



why does their have to be a god for our lives to have meaning? what if our purpose is just to make the best we can out of the one life we have.You can have a great life .....and then you die. Now if you are right and we are all just an accident, then you just die and there is no reward for your successes, and no punishment for your failures. Poof. Gone. Sign me up for that and let's party all day for there is no tomorrow!

But if you are wrong.........


Think about that. We don't know how long we will live, inspite of those web sites that will give you a date of death. You or I could die tomorrow in an accident. Are you 100% convinced that there is no God? If you aren't then you should hope and pray for more time on this earth to find Him.

Majpain
02-08-2008, 05:33 AM
people who really don't believe in god don't know much about the bible. I'm open minded I like to see both views.

Pagan
02-08-2008, 07:43 AM
Think about that. We don't know how long we will live, inspite of those web sites that will give you a date of death. You or I could die tomorrow in an accident. Are you 100% convinced that there is no God? If you aren't then you should hope and pray for more time on this earth to find Him.
Ah...I could have set my watch knowing that the time-honored "you better be sure" tactic was coming into play!

Man D7, better come up with some new catch phrases. :lol:

DonShula84
02-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Think about that. We don't know how long we will live, inspite of those web sites that will give you a date of death. You or I could die tomorrow in an accident. Are you 100% convinced that there is no God? If you aren't then you should hope and pray for more time on this earth to find Him.

Seems like a pretty flimsy reason to believe in God. You either do or you dont, trying to scare people into finding God seems a bit creepy to me. Does the Church really want people who are only believing to hedge their bets? And wouldnt an all knowing God see right through that?

Dolphan7
02-08-2008, 07:27 PM
Seems like a pretty flimsy reason to believe in God. You either do or you dont, trying to scare people into finding God seems a bit creepy to me. Does the Church really want people who are only believing to hedge their bets? And wouldnt an all knowing God see right through that?The post of mine that you quoted is not meant to scare anyone, or make people believe in God. It is merely a challenge to their current view. It is meant to make people think about their beliefs, and ask how strongly they hold to them. If one has an interest in God after this, then that would be the start of process of learning more about God.

No one is going to change their beliefs overnight, and I don't expect anyone to.

I had a discussion just this morning about the many different ways people believe. The gentleman believed not because of fear, but because it is the right thing to do. As do I. Others have told me they believe because they just know God exists, blind faith if you will. God knows each of our hearts and yes he can see through the fakes.

But if Christianity is true, which I beleive it is, and those who don't have a relationship with God through Jesus, will not enter heaven, then wouldn't you want someone to tell you that before it is too late? Or would it be ok if people would just say "hey dude you are on your own, I'm not saying anything to help you out". Doesn't that sound selfish?

Stitches
02-08-2008, 08:52 PM
The post of mine that you quoted is not meant to scare anyone, or make people believe in God. It is merely a challenge to their current view. It is meant to make people think about their beliefs, and ask how strongly they hold to them. If one has an interest in God after this, then that would be the start of process of learning more about God.

No one is going to change their beliefs overnight, and I don't expect anyone to.

I had a discussion just this morning about the many different ways people believe. The gentleman believed not because of fear, but because it is the right thing to do. As do I. Others have told me they believe because they just know God exists, blind faith if you will. God knows each of our hearts and yes he can see through the fakes.

But if Christianity is true, which I beleive it is, and those who don't have a relationship with God through Jesus, will not enter heaven, then wouldn't you want someone to tell you that before it is too late? Or would it be ok if people would just say "hey dude you are on your own, I'm not saying anything to help you out". Doesn't that sound selfish?

So believing in god is the right thing to do now?

Who is it that decided this, god perhaps? :rolleyes2:

Dolphan7
02-08-2008, 10:15 PM
So believing in god is the right thing to do now?

Who is it that decided this, god perhaps? :rolleyes2:If Christianity is true, then yes following God is the right thing to do, and each individual chooses to follow for many different reasons.

I believe in God. That could be for many different reasons, but I follow God because it is the right thing to do. Others follow God out of fear, or blind faith.

Believe it or not there are some who believe in God, Jesus and the Bible, and they choose to not follow God.

Again if Chistianity is true, for the sake of this argument, then the truth is there is a place called Hell and many are on the path to it. Now that I know and understand this there really is no way for me to not follow God because I would have to suffer the consequences. That is a price I am not willing to pay.

HaRdKoReXXX
02-20-2008, 06:42 PM
While I enjoy a good Christian vs. Atheist face-off as much as the next heavy-hearted agnostic, I realized some time ago that at the end of the day neither party will switch his or her beliefs to the opposing.

I find myself wrapping my head around the same few lines of logic and reason:
1.In the absence of darkness there is light, but without light there can only be darkness.
2.Just because there is darkness does not mean light does not exist, only that light is not present at the current time.
3.However, if light is not present and there is only darkness, how can we prove the existence of light?

Thus the argument of religion vs. science continues into eternity. Without either side being granted the joy or satisafaction to stand up to the non-believer in question and say "Ah ha, I told you so!"

I don't know about any of you, but that's just fine with me. :up:

HaRdKoReXXX
02-20-2008, 07:21 PM
If Christianity is true, then yes following God is the right thing to do, and each individual chooses to follow for many different reasons.

I believe in God. That could be for many different reasons, but I follow God because it is the right thing to do. Others follow God out of fear, or blind faith.

Believe it or not there are some who believe in God, Jesus and the Bible, and they choose to not follow God.

Again if Chistianity is true, for the sake of this argument, then the truth is there is a place called Hell and many are on the path to it. Now that I know and understand this there really is no way for me to not follow God because I would have to suffer the consequences. That is a price I am not willing to pay.

Following someone or something out of fear or consequence is a scary thing indeed. Many historical events have shown us this...