Creation vs. Evolution

[Midnight Star]

Maybe one thing I should mention is that all life uses the same genetic code - I could take a gene out of a bacteria (or a sponge, or a jellyfish, or a monkey, or a plant), put it into a human, and the human would make the protein that gene codes for. As such viruses (which are made of DNA, or closely related RNA) can, in theory, by made in any type of cell.

That's a very interesting point, since we use this plug-n-play "ability" today to mass produced pharmacuticals using bacteria, instead of livestock.

But to even achieve that in the laboratory is difficult and requires alot of disciplines from microbiology (the organic side), to genetics to chemistry ... you need a controlled environment (sterile, etc.,.) along with the right chemicals (be organic or inorganic in origin) to make the insertion point receptive to the new gene.

I'm thinking with this type of "clean" environment necessary, with specialized chemicals (custom made) or organic enzymes or proteins that are already present in nature (which wouldnt exists in the very beginning - life wasnt here just yet), just to make it work on a very basic level, it would literaly take an act of God to bring all this together on a massive scale to achieve life as we know it.

We are all made up of the same basic building blocks, except for the way in which they're ordered. Which is interesting, since the code to produce a nose for example, would be simular across the species ... but would a nose simply be an evolved trait, happening by mere chance, or a "ordered" evolution that has a beginning and an ending, governed by the very laws of matter itself which is in turn defined and set in motion by something we dont yet know or understand, wherein all matter is relative one to another no matter how close or distant - in every context (size, quantity, etc.,.), or was it (a nose) made to serve a particular purpse, and was so designed from basic building blocks at hand (dust of the earth - minerals and matter presently available) whether directly, or indirectly, and would therefore share a commonality.

It's really something to think about.

-----

Mike.

 

[H2Andy]

Actually Hank... that is the easy one.

you guys are missing the point

if it was a miracle, all of that gets taken care of

that's not the problem

the problem is the credulity and lack of critical thinking that would allow an educated adult in America today to look at the Noah's Ark story and not see it for the allegory it is.

blows the mind that there can be such lack of critical thinking skills in otherwise intelligent people

 

[Soggy]

It's really something to think about.

I think that you might need to lay off the whacky tobacky.

 

[Thalassamania]

i can imagine that the guys with advanced degrees in biology or who have spent a lot of time studying the subject probably go crazy every time they read that crap

imagine, if you will, reading a site on diving and finding the following words: there is still debate as to whether narcosis is caused by elevated partial pressures of certain inert gases, including nitrogen.

how seriously would you take that site?

You hit the nail on the head. And then you have the nutsos trying to get the Government to mandate that the scuba class you son is taking include in the curriculum the idea that Rapture of the Deep (mustn’t call it NITROGEN Narcosis!) is the result of Davy Jones’ magic protection of the deep spell, after all, we really have no proof concerning what causes Rapture of the Deep, just theories advanced by pointy headed hyperbaric physiologists, and we know how they all love to suck up money at the public trough, etc., etc., etc.

 

[MikeFerrara]

imagine, if you will, reading a site on diving and finding the following words: there is still debate as to whether narcosis is caused by elevated partial pressures of certain inert gases, including nitrogen.

how seriously would you take that site?

Ahhhh, you mean stuff like all the recreational agencies print?

 

[Midnight Star]

I'm not sure if this was directly asked, it seemed implied in places, so i'll toss it in here...

-

Is the question really whether God created life from lifelessness doubted because:

If God created life in an instant (well, an instant to us would be like a second, to him who knows - in a second would be our proof, it just never seems to work that way), why do we show a fossil record that starts from the Hadian (temperture and chemical change seeking a balance) to very simple Cambrian lifeforms, gaining in complexity and diversity until what we have today - an upside down pyramid. Why take a few billion years to do it?

Is this the basis of the anti-creationist view?

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

I think that you might need to lay off the whacky tobacky.

I'll take that as a joke ... unless you claim to have all the answers to my questions If not, relax, take a puff of this whacky tobaky, and let's quantify.

-----

Mike.

 

[aquanuts...]

oh "lord"...I don't even know where to start with this one...First of all, carbon-14 has a deterministic halflife, there is no and/or about it. Second, this analogy is terrible...The square root function to which you refer has two values in the range for any one value in the domain. That is, the square root of 4 (which is in the domain) has two solutions, which can be found in the range, 2 AND -2. These are the solutions to the function. This should not be thought of as a choice, because it's an equation, it's either included in the solution space or not.

Start by observing that the simple question has three complex answers. The real answer is determined by how you ask the question. I.e., only real numbers. Here’s a scientific oxymoron, imaginary numbers.

Science is bound by time, creation (God) is not. This debate is apples and oranges.

No doubt that animals “evolve” over time; no doubt that we have models that fit observation, and no doubt science (as a whole) is at best incomplete. Science can figure out the orbit of a planet; but it can not tell me when I will die, or who built the pyramids, or stone hinge, or answer the question is light a particle or wave? How about parallel universes? Do you remember Phelix the cat? This is all heavy scientific speculation that takes a great deal of faith to believe.

Time is the issue. If science figures it out, then we will all have the answers. We can go back and take a look and our single celled ancestors happily playing in the pond (if this really happened), or we can see God making Adam and Eve (if this really happened). Till then, creation and a superior being not bound by time is the only logical approach.

My 2psi

 

[Uncle Pug]

it just blows me away that people can still think evolution does not work.

Evolution appears to work. But just because it appears to work doesn't mean that it did work from non-life to life to present life. There is in that assumption a jump from science to a faith-based belief system.

Now, understandably those who believe in evolution as the only possible explanation for life will seek to account for any difficulties and set aside some things that as *mysteries* yet to be understood because it is the only way it could have happened.

Likewise those who believe in a Creator as the explanation for life will seek to account for any difficulties and set aside some things as *mysteries* yet to be understood.

The wise man (or woman) will not constrain himself to a limited point of view but rather be willing to incorporate all sources of information to arrive at the truth of the matter. It is foolish to ignore what science has to offer in pursuit of the truth... and it is foolish to ignore what has been revealed spiritually through ancient Scripture.

It seems to me that there are ignorant and untutored fools on both sides of the issue.

 

[Uncle Pug]

if it was a miracle
****************************
such lack of critical thinking skills in otherwise intelligent people

I don't think it was a miracle at all. See if you can (using critical thinking skills) come up with a solution.

Hint: think outside the box.