Leyla Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Just now, Still Alive said: I do a lot of technical writing. What makes a good article is one that explains the complex in simple terms. What makes DNA so special is that it is so simple, yet so mindbogglingly efficient in its capabilities. Yes DNA is cool and studying about it is fun but it doesnt point to a designer. 43 minutes ago, Still Alive said: I also think you underestimate it's complexity. If it is so simple, why don't we whip up a batch from scratch? Something can only be complex in relativity to something else. To truly say that our DNA is complex, we need to find life on other plants and compare the complexity of its genom with ours. Also evolution had billions of years, and we are just great apes that evolved to survive in the wild and not to do science and our lifespan is short. It would be quiet a challenge for me to write a whole genom, unless there are some big jumps in the progress of science. Just because we cant do something doesnt mean that its complex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: Your repetition of "more science proved it wrong" is exactly my point. People once taught, believed, trusted in, and promoted the WRONG things. Ridiculous things. Good science corrects that. That's why good science is so very necessary. You proved my point. No science never "believed" anything. Believe means knowing something without proof or evidence. What scienctist did, was to make the most likely assumptions, given the information they had. Thats why the scrutiny auf ideas is so important in sciences, only the best hypothesis actually become theories. 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: Absolute truth is always absolute truth. Even if facts, like scientific facts, change. What is an absolute truth? We could be living in a computer simulation that was generated 5 minutes ago, and all your memories were generated too. We could be a brain in a jar. Our brain could play a prank on our understanding of the universe. We cant be certain that anything exists. Can you give me one example of an absolute truth? Yes scientific theories change, but how likely is it, that we will believe in a flat earth for example? We have to make realistic assumptions given the informations they have. 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: Denying evolution is like rejecting reality? Genetics and the fossil record, are as big of a proof, as Eratosthenes calculation of the circumferences of the earth, which required the assumption that the earth was round. Thinking that evolution will be replaced and corrected, is like saying that the model of a round earth will be replaced and corrected. 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: It is the backbone of fields like medicine? How could we develop vaccines or antibiotics without a strong understanding of evolution? We introduce bacteria to different pressures or take into account their genetic history and make useful things with it. Here is one example from the PNAS https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2009/12/22/0906198106.full.pdf "The diphtheria toxoid vaccine selects against toxin production, which is what causes disease, rather than other features of Corynebacterium. Thus, diphtheria infections and clinical isolations still occur, but the extant strains lack toxin production." 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: It gives incredibly good results and it has extremely good evidence? The results are amazing! Even now we can send DNA samples, and for only 60 bucks they can trace your ancestors back to the 1700. Imagine how much more accurate and better tracing will become in the future. We have a fairly good and sophisticated tree of life, we can predict what animals we will find, at what level etc. 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: There are some who desperately want evolution to be a self-evident axiom, but even Darwin said there were no missing links in the stratum of the earth where he thought there should be and many other scientists who are not Christians hesitantly say the same thing. But there's a reason why, with no proof, the theory of evolution is brandished about so aggressively. Define missing link to me. What is supposed to be a missing link? 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: It takes God out of the equation. It says "There is no God since there was never a need for one in the evolution of life." But here's the problem with evolution - besides no evidence. Where is the first life come from? Where did that first cell come from? That first sugar. That first phosphate. Etc..... The origins of it all is what stops evolution dead in its tracks. Evolution doesnt explain the origin of life and never intented to explain the origin of life. Evolution is only about life that is already there. It explains how there is slow change because some kind of pressure is involved. Saying that evolution is wrong, because it doesnt explain the origin of life, is like saying that Newtonian mechanics are bad because they dont explain relativity, or that a cheese cake recipe is bad because it doesnt tell you how to make an apple pie. Im alot less educated on abiogenesis so I dont know if I should even start to talk about it but I can try. The idea is that lifeles chemicals made chemical bonds that had the ability to save information and to self replicate. Mutation and natural selection did the rest. 42 minutes ago, Jayne said: You know why those who believe in it can't find the origin of it all? Hebrews 11:3 gives the answer. "By faith, we understand that the universe was formed as God's command so that what is seen was not made from the visible." The bible doesnt fulfil the scientific standard, so it cant be used as a reference material Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauJangles Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 44 Topic Count: 229 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 10,900 Content Per Day: 2.93 Reputation: 12,145 Days Won: 68 Joined: 02/13/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1954 Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Leyla said: The bible doesnt fulfil the scientific standard, so it cant be used as a reference material It was never intended as such. It was and is an expert reference for this: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto to father, but by me. KJV 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, Leyla said: Yes DNA is cool and studying about it is fun but it doesnt point to a designer. Something can only be complex in relativity to something else. To truly say that our DNA is complex, we need to find life on other plants and compare the complexity of its genom with ours. Also evolution had billions of years, and we are just great apes that evolved to survive in the wild and not to do science and our lifespan is short. It would be quiet a challenge for me to write a whole genom, unless there are some big jumps in the progress of science. Just because we cant do something doesnt mean that its complex It's complex compared to a rock - or a Chevy. That's the point. Add to that the fact that we don't fully understand it, though we know more than we used to. And I think it most definitely DOES point to a designer. IMO, the more we know about nature, the more complex we realize it is, on levels that we never even imagined, e.g. the discovery of DNA. We've barely scratched the surface. We know more than we used to, just as we knew more in 1820 than we did in 1090. But I look at today from the eyes of the future - it might as well be 1090 compared to what we will know. And so far, the more we know, the more it points to an intelligence behind it. And by intelligence, I mean a thinking personality deliberately creating the whole thing from energy - and that energy may be the substance of the creator himself. edit: I should add an argument against evolution I've made for several decades: Believing evolution is how we got complex life like mankind, as we watch micro-evolution happen, is like seeing a model T rusting away in a field and, as we watch it rust, we argue that it was created by the rust process. It was created by the Ford Motor Company. Rust is simply what happened to it after it was created. Edited May 10, 2019 by Still Alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Still Alive said: It's complex compared to a rock - or a Chevy. That's the point. We cant compare a living thing with a nonliving thing. Its like saying "if we pour water into a glass, the water will take the shape of the glass, so if we put a big rock in the glass it should take the shape of the glass too". In this case it would be comparing liquids with solids. This comparisson could have the same accuracy as comparing living things with nonliving things 11 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Add to that the fact that we don't fully understand it, though we know more than we used to. Not understanding something, only proofs that we dont understand it. 11 minutes ago, Still Alive said: And I think it most definitely DOES point to a designer. IMO, the more we know about nature, the more complex we realize it is, on levels that we never even imagined, e.g. the discovery of DNA. What exactly points to a designer? What is your way of measuring complexity? Complexity is relative, we need another nature, on another planet to compare complexity. Only then can we say that nature is complex or not complex. Just because somethings complicated for us, only proofs that its complicated for us. Nature and DNA could be absolutely simple in the grand scheme of things. 11 minutes ago, Still Alive said: And so far, the more we know, the more it points to an intelligence behind it. And by intelligence, I mean a thinking personality deliberately creating the whole thing from energy - and that energy may be the substance of the creator himself. Give me one example in nature that points to a creator. 15 hours ago, BeauJangles said: It was never intended as such. It was and is an expert reference for this: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto to father, but by me. KJV If it was never intented to be used as something like a reference material in science, then why do people mention the bible so often when we talk about scientific facts like evolution? Edited May 10, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Leyla said: We cant compare a living thing with a nonliving thing. Its like saying "if we pour water into a glass, the water will take the shape of the glass, so if we put a big rock in the glass it should take the shape of the glass too". In this case it would be comparing liquids with solids. This comparisson could have the same accuracy as comparing living things with nonliving things I'm comparing living things to non-living things. I have no problem doing that. Of course, one thing I haven't mentioned is that even if we were able to construct a biological thing from non-biological material, it would not be living. I've heard we can now produce beef in a test tube. But we can not make it alive. We always - ALWAYS - have to start with living material to create a living thing. I believe that when God created Adam, he was like an extremely fresh corpse, until God gave him life. I believe we will eventually be able to do the same thing at various levels, at the atomic level (some sort of biological nano-tech) but nothing we create will be alive, unless it is made of already living organizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Still Alive said: I'm comparing living things to non-living things. I have no problem doing that. Of course, one thing I haven't mentioned is that even if we were able to construct a biological thing from non-biological material, it would not be living. I've heard we can now produce beef in a test tube. But we can not make it alive. We always - ALWAYS - have to start with living material to create a living thing. I believe that when God created Adam, he was like an extremely fresh corpse, until God gave him life. I believe we will eventually be able to do the same thing at various levels, at the atomic level (some sort of biological nano-tech) but nothing we create will be alive, unless it is made of already living organizes. Why do you assume that we will never be able to create living things? Lets agree on somethings first. 1) Can we agree that we are made from nonliving chemicals? 2) can we agree that we can find and use these nonchemicals? 3) can we agree that the organic bounds in our body, are possible to recreate in labs? If we agree on these 3 things, then I really dont know why we should not also agree, that creating life form nonlife is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, Leyla said: Why do you assume that we will never be able to create living things? Lets agree on somethings first. 1) Can we agree that we are made from nonliving chemicals? 2) can we agree that we can find and use these nonchemicals? 3) can we agree that the organic bounds in our body, are possible to recreate in labs? If we agree on these 3 things, then I really dont know why we should not also agree, that creating life form nonlife is possible. We are not God. Sure, we can create things using what God has already created, which is just rearranging His creation, but try creating something that is not in existence today from scratch, using only what you have created, nothing God created. That would be true creation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, OneLight said: We are not God. Sure, we can create things using what God has already created, which is just rearranging His creation, but try creating something that is not in existence today from scratch, using only what you have created, nothing God created. That would be true creation. Just because our universe has the law of conservation of mass/energy, doesnt mean that this mass/energy is a creation. Do you have any reason outside of the bible to believe that what we have in this universe is a creation? If not what is your reason to take the word of the bible above other religious texts? Edited May 10, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted May 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Leyla said: Just because our universe has the law of conservation of mass/energy, doesnt mean that this mass/energy is a creation. Do you have any reason outside of the bible to believe that what we have in this universe is a creation? If not what is your reason to take the word of the bible above other religious texts? All I need is God, not man's theories. Who do you trust in? Man of God? Ever read Job 38:1-40:2? Can you answer the question posed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts