Species evolution is a scientific fact, that is as far as we know now, is 100% controlled by the DNA code, that like your computers code, had to be created. Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic. The simple fact as we know it now, and was not known when Darwin wrote his book, is that evolution can not happen in the way it is shown to happen, without DNA. If you discover a ship on the bottom of the ocean, it can be inferred that it was put there by a creator for some reason, unless you believe in spontaneous generation of shipwrecks. This works for all intelligently designed things, including you, like it or not.You seem to be saying here that Darwin should have inferred intelligent design because he didn't know about DNA. He discovered a mechanism of change yet didn't have an explanation for how it happened at the cellular level. But if he would have done that, he would have been wrong, right? Because we did discover that mechanism. Now we just don't know exactly how life began and might be a little fuzzy on how DNA became what it is. But why should we now infer intelligent design? How do we know we won't be wrong this time? Darwin did not discover the mechanism of change, as the mechanism of evolutionary change is DNA code, all Darwin did is to postulate why certain creatures look like one another, by being a birdwatcher extraordinaire. The problem that all of you are having, is that you can not understand, that if you were going to leave multiple life species on a distant planet, that you could not return too soon, because of the vast enormity of space, that you would need to engineer a code system, to help the species help itself, and automatically adjust to it's environment and in by way of mate selection improve on it's structure, because you could not be there to help it. Thus you would engineer DNA to respond to climate changes of various types, point being that evolution since it is embedded in every cell in every creature, is part of the plan of the creator of the creature in the first place. Simplified, evolution is caused by DNA, and was created by the creator of the DNA, to evolve the DNA and create better DNA. Every great designer does this, but they have to go back to the proverbial drawing board and create a new design, you can not do this if you are some multitude of light years away from the design.
the very first photo, of the curvature of the Earth was actually taken within my lifetime.A photo, perhaps, but people have known through experiment that the Earth is round since ancient Egypt. Not all people, but learned people of the times, at least. And mariners.
Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic.This is a pretty common misunderstanding of what evolution means. Species diverge, yes, but from common ancestors and under pretty restrictive rules. Changes in an organism can't just wildly pop up, and they can't change from one creature to another without diverging from a common ancestor. Changes which can seem large over eons need have developed as a long sequence of small changes which were each useful adaptations for that organism. So-called evolutionists are silent on how a rat turns into a rhino because no one who knows how evolution works would ever claim such a thing.
Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic.This is a pretty common misunderstanding of what evolution means. Species diverge, yes, but from common ancestors and under pretty restrictive rules. Changes in an organism can't just wildly pop up, and they can't change from one creature to another without diverging from a common ancestor. Changes which can seem large over eons need have developed as a long sequence of small changes which were each useful adaptations for that organism. So-called evolutionists are silent on how a rat turns into a rhino because no one who knows how evolution works would ever claim such a thing. There is no evidence, either direct or indirect for your statement. Even Darwin knew this, which is why he ignored the topic of how species originated, then named his book, the origin of the species. Darwin was a clever conman, or decisive and successful publicist, or both. The fact of the matter is that the human race is now doing gene splicing, and that this will enable huge changes over less than one single generation. Do you understand the scientific principle of genetic manipulation.....
There is no evidence, either direct or indirect for your statement.Which one?
There is no evidence, either direct or indirect for your statement.Which one? Species diverge, yes, but from common ancestors and under pretty restrictive rules. So there are rules for how species diverge from common ancestors, and you know them. Your book on this would make you very famous. Changes in an organism can’t just wildly pop up, and they can’t change from one creature to another without diverging from a common ancestor. Changes in an organism, and massive ones at that can happen from just the misplacement of one gene, and happen in one generation, this happens everyday, everywhere that DNA is present.
So there are rules for how species diverge from common ancestors, and you know them. Your book on this would make you very famous.No it wouldn't. Go read some Richard Dawkins. Not his stuff on religion; just his stuff on biology, where he made his professional reputation. That would be a great place to start, to get a good idea of the modern understanding of evolutionary theory. I'd recommend The Selfish Gene, his first book. It gets pretty detailed, if you like a very thorough read. If you want something a bit quicker to read, go read The Greatest Show On Earth, which he wrote mcuh more recently as a more generalized approach meant for more popular consumption. I'd recommend to not buy them if you don't want to provide financial support for someone you're skeptical of; go find them in a public library.
Evolution was taught to me in a Catholic school in either the fifth or sixth grade, based upon my age, near nothing was actually known about DNA at this time, this would require all text books the be radically updated. Does anyone go to technical school to learn how to repair a victrolla, as Victrollas are obsolete? Could quark theory be taught by a textbook written in the middle 1800's, is quark theory important? I say yes.Mostly. I'd agree, with the qualification that sound scientific principles don't become obsolete, merely built upon as a foundation of knowledge. I suggest that until very recently, Catholics were not exactly presenting an unbiased view of evolution. When did the Pope proclaim evolution to be valid? A few years ago? All scientific principles, are based upon the available database of information. If the available database is a view from land to the ocean, then the database says that the Earth is flat and that if you sail too far you will fall off, if the database includes a sailing trip around the World, the first observations become obsolete, this does not denote a change in any scientific principle, but a change in human interpretation of those principles. That said, the very first photo, of the curvature of the Earth was actually taken within my lifetime. The interesting thing about the warm pond theory of evolution is that if a scientist, that does not believe in a God, puts the random chemicals together, that will form primitive life, that he or she has demonstrated how life could be created from lifelessness, and has turned themselves into the creator of life from lifelessness. Thus the atheist, can easily be God, as God created the atheist in his image. This enigma, is what drives atheist cookoo....! It's not atheists who are driven cookoo, it's believers. Rational people don't have a problem with Origin of Species, it's believers in creation who have a problem. It's yours to try to work out and so far you are making a royal mess of it. Lois
So there are rules for how species diverge from common ancestors, and you know them. Your book on this would make you very famous.No it wouldn't. Go read some Richard Dawkins. Not his stuff on religion; just his stuff on biology, where he made his professional reputation. That would be a great place to start, to get a good idea of the modern understanding of evolutionary theory. I'd recommend The Selfish Gene, his first book. It gets pretty detailed, if you like a very thorough read. If you want something a bit quicker to read, go read The Greatest Show On Earth, which he wrote mcuh more recently as a more generalized approach meant for more popular consumption. I'd recommend to not buy them if you don't want to provide financial support for someone you're skeptical of; go find them in a public library. It really does not matter what name you mention, as no one knows, however as for Richard Dawkins who says that organized religion is worse than smallpox, well this dude is a clown in the first degree, big red nose included. http://donboys.cstnews.com/dawkins-is-a-clown-no-insult-to-clowns
Evolution was taught to me in a Catholic school in either the fifth or sixth grade, based upon my age, near nothing was actually known about DNA at this time, this would require all text books the be radically updated. Does anyone go to technical school to learn how to repair a victrolla, as Victrollas are obsolete? Could quark theory be taught by a textbook written in the middle 1800's, is quark theory important? I say yes.Mostly. I'd agree, with the qualification that sound scientific principles don't become obsolete, merely built upon as a foundation of knowledge. I suggest that until very recently, Catholics were not exactly presenting an unbiased view of evolution. When did the Pope proclaim evolution to be valid? A few years ago? All scientific principles, are based upon the available database of information. If the available database is a view from land to the ocean, then the database says that the Earth is flat and that if you sail too far you will fall off, if the database includes a sailing trip around the World, the first observations become obsolete, this does not denote a change in any scientific principle, but a change in human interpretation of those principles. That said, the very first photo, of the curvature of the Earth was actually taken within my lifetime. The interesting thing about the warm pond theory of evolution is that if a scientist, that does not believe in a God, puts the random chemicals together, that will form primitive life, that he or she has demonstrated how life could be created from lifelessness, and has turned themselves into the creator of life from lifelessness. Thus the atheist, can easily be God, as God created the atheist in his image. This enigma, is what drives atheist cookoo....! It's not atheists who are driven cookoo, it's believers. Rational people don't have a problem with Origin of Species, it's believers in creation who have a problem. It's yours to try to work out and so far you are making a royal mess of it. Lois Just tell me why the origin of the species, has no page or chapter, that even begins to describe where species came from.....! Also, can you please tell us why humanity, can not move life off of the Earth to another place? and have it thrive? Seriously, there is no plausible reason why this could not be possible, thus giving humanity the power to bring life to a lifeless place, and even bioengineer that life specifically for that place. ?
Species evolution is a scientific fact, that is as far as we know now, is 100% controlled by the DNA code, that like your computers code, had to be created. Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic. The simple fact as we know it now, and was not known when Darwin wrote his book, is that evolution can not happen in the way it is shown to happen, without DNA. If you discover a ship on the bottom of the ocean, it can be inferred that it was put there by a creator for some reason, unless you believe in spontaneous generation of shipwrecks. This works for all intelligently designed things, including you, like it or not.You seem to be saying here that Darwin should have inferred intelligent design because he didn't know about DNA. He discovered a mechanism of change yet didn't have an explanation for how it happened at the cellular level. But if he would have done that, he would have been wrong, right? Because we did discover that mechanism. Now we just don't know exactly how life began and might be a little fuzzy on how DNA became what it is. But why should we now infer intelligent design? How do we know we won't be wrong this time? Darwin did not discover the mechanism of change, as the mechanism of evolutionary change is DNA code, all Darwin did is to postulate why certain creatures look like one another, by being a birdwatcher extraordinaire. The problem that all of you are having, is that you can not understand, that if you were going to leave multiple life species on a distant planet, that you could not return too soon, because of the vast enormity of space, that you would need to engineer a code system, to help the species help itself, and automatically adjust to it's environment and in by way of mate selection improve on it's structure, because you could not be there to help it. Thus you would engineer DNA to respond to climate changes of various types, point being that evolution since it is embedded in every cell in every creature, is part of the plan of the creator of the creature in the first place. Simplified, evolution is caused by DNA, and was created by the creator of the DNA, to evolve the DNA and create better DNA. Every great designer does this, but they have to go back to the proverbial drawing board and create a new design, you can not do this if you are some multitude of light years away from the design. So, you are saying that DNA infers intelligent design. But how can you be so sure? How do you know we won't figure out something else that drives the creation of DNA? Something that isn't God? Another explainable physical mechanism. Would you then say that some designer created that? And that the scientists that wrote books about DNA all had missing chapters? When you are explaining things using natural causes, how do you know you have reached the point where it is impossible to find a cause?
Species evolution is a scientific fact, that is as far as we know now, is 100% controlled by the DNA code, that like your computers code, had to be created. Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic. The simple fact as we know it now, and was not known when Darwin wrote his book, is that evolution can not happen in the way it is shown to happen, without DNA. If you discover a ship on the bottom of the ocean, it can be inferred that it was put there by a creator for some reason, unless you believe in spontaneous generation of shipwrecks. This works for all intelligently designed things, including you, like it or not.You seem to be saying here that Darwin should have inferred intelligent design because he didn't know about DNA. He discovered a mechanism of change yet didn't have an explanation for how it happened at the cellular level. But if he would have done that, he would have been wrong, right? Because we did discover that mechanism. Now we just don't know exactly how life began and might be a little fuzzy on how DNA became what it is. But why should we now infer intelligent design? How do we know we won't be wrong this time? Darwin did not discover the mechanism of change, as the mechanism of evolutionary change is DNA code, all Darwin did is to postulate why certain creatures look like one another, by being a birdwatcher extraordinaire. The problem that all of you are having, is that you can not understand, that if you were going to leave multiple life species on a distant planet, that you could not return too soon, because of the vast enormity of space, that you would need to engineer a code system, to help the species help itself, and automatically adjust to it's environment and in by way of mate selection improve on it's structure, because you could not be there to help it. Thus you would engineer DNA to respond to climate changes of various types, point being that evolution since it is embedded in every cell in every creature, is part of the plan of the creator of the creature in the first place. Simplified, evolution is caused by DNA, and was created by the creator of the DNA, to evolve the DNA and create better DNA. Every great designer does this, but they have to go back to the proverbial drawing board and create a new design, you can not do this if you are some multitude of light years away from the design. So, you are saying that DNA infers intelligent design. But how can you be so sure? How do you know we won't figure out something else that drives the creation of DNA? Something that isn't God? Another explainable physical mechanism. Would you then say that some designer created that? And that the scientists that wrote books about DNA all had missing chapters? When you are explaining things using natural causes, how do you know you have reached the point where it is impossible to find a cause? What I am saying, is that humanity is going to leave the Earth someday, and when it does, it will need to take food with it and set up colonies elsewhere. If the food colonies are not intelligent themselves, say plants and cattle there is not an intelligent design conundrum. However if the plants, and cattle someday evolve into a species that can ponder the mathematical workings of the universe, then this new species will be facing exactly the same questions that we face now. None of this is even debatable, as it is presented as logical speculation. Now if humanity does this 100,000 years in the future, we may well have enough genetic understanding to gene splice (for lack of a better term) an entirely new organism to fit the new planet, we might even include new and improved DNA code to govern evolution, or perhaps the already billions of years old DNA evolutionary code is already the best available. Keeping in mind that when the Earth formed, that the universe was already 8 billion years old......When the human race moves a creature that can evolve to a new place, is the human race not performing a God function for that creature that will be moved to a new and unpolluted environment where it can flourish.
What I am saying, is that humanity is going to leave the Earth someday, and when it does, it will need to take food with it and set up colonies elsewhere. If the food colonies are not intelligent themselves, say plants and cattle there is not an intelligent design conundrum. However if the plants, and cattle someday evolve into a species that can ponder the mathematical workings of the universe, then this new species will be facing exactly the same questions that we face now. None of this is even debatable, as it is presented as logical speculation. Now if humanity does this 100,000 years in the future, we may well have enough genetic understanding to gene splice (for lack of a better term) an entirely new organism to fit the new planet, we might even include new and improved DNA code to govern evolution, or perhaps the already billions of years old DNA evolutionary code is already the best available. Keeping in mind that when the Earth formed, that the universe was already 8 billion years old......When the human race moves a creature that can evolve to a new place, is the human race not performing a God function for that creature that will be moved to a new and unpolluted environment where it can flourish.You have given a couple examples, shipwreck and genetic engineering. Both of those are design by intelligence. Both require the known presence of intelligent creatures and the required materials to make that inference. When you ask if that is a "God function", you introduce something that is undefined. "God" is defined by many cultures in many ways, all of them different. Most of them include creation, but not all, and none contain any detail on how the creation was done, just a page or two. So, basically, yes, in answer to your question. If we engineer a new creature on a new planet, we'll do something that only the gods of our mythology have ever done. We've also invented things that were first seen on Star Trek. So I don't see what the implications of that are. Well, for some, who believe those mythological gods are real, or that Capt. Kirk is real, it could be a problem.
It really does not matter what name you mention, as no one knows, however as for Richard Dawkins who says that organized religion is worse than smallpox, well this dude is a clown in the first degree, big red nose included.Like I said, don't read his stuff on religion, just his stuff on biology. You'll come up with better criticisms if you go get info from the someone who "evolutionists" would agree is a reliable source of good information. I wouldn't trust someone criticizing the Bible without ever having read it and only using hearsay as sources; same with evolution. For that matter, go read On The Origin Of Species. Go get specifics on what Darwin got wrong directly from him; that'll make your arguments a lot more persuasive.
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.Your obvious contempt for Darwin's well established theory indicates you take personal offense to the news that humans are not the lofty pinnacle of your intelligence designer's creation. The idea that we are simply one of myriad possibilities produced by natural selection is no doubt the impetus your you bitterness in the face of these facts. Your anger and fear is misplaced. Letting go of the position we thought we held in the cosmos is not the beginning of a meaningless and pointless existence. Meaning is a human creation we find great comfort in it, but it is only relevant in our minds. We attempt to assign meaning through the imagined mechanism of a creator, but the reality is we don't need that middleman. Each of us finds meaning in the lives we live all on our own. Those qualities originated from within our species and eliminating the middleman does not leave us bereft of them at all. Instead of our being the centerpiece of a deity's creation, we may actually be the cosmos becoming aware of itself. That is not at all depressing and meaningless. The mystery of what we do not know is not necessarily the arena of fear and boogie men that our religions have tried to save from by giving us ultimate answers to ultimate questions based on nothing but the desire to allay our fears of the unknown. The "emperor has no clothes", and that's all. And, the world dose not end because of that acknowledgment. You have nothing to fear but fear, itself.
Species evolution is a scientific fact, that is as far as we know now, is 100% controlled by the DNA code, that like your computers code, had to be created. Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic. The simple fact as we know it now, and was not known when Darwin wrote his book, is that evolution can not happen in the way it is shown to happen, without DNA. If you discover a ship on the bottom of the ocean, it can be inferred that it was put there by a creator for some reason, unless you believe in spontaneous generation of shipwrecks. This works for all intelligently designed things, including you, like it or not.You seem to be saying here that Darwin should have inferred intelligent design because he didn't know about DNA. He discovered a mechanism of change yet didn't have an explanation for how it happened at the cellular level. But if he would have done that, he would have been wrong, right? Because we did discover that mechanism. Now we just don't know exactly how life began and might be a little fuzzy on how DNA became what it is. But why should we now infer intelligent design? How do we know we won't be wrong this time? Darwin did not discover the mechanism of change, as the mechanism of evolutionary change is DNA code, all Darwin did is to postulate why certain creatures look like one another, by being a birdwatcher extraordinaire. The problem that all of you are having, is that you can not understand, that if you were going to leave multiple life species on a distant planet, that you could not return too soon, because of the vast enormity of space, that you would need to engineer a code system, to help the species help itself, and automatically adjust to it's environment and in by way of mate selection improve on it's structure, because you could not be there to help it. Thus you would engineer DNA to respond to climate changes of various types, point being that evolution since it is embedded in every cell in every creature, is part of the plan of the creator of the creature in the first place. Simplified, evolution is caused by DNA, and was created by the creator of the DNA, to evolve the DNA and create better DNA. Every great designer does this, but they have to go back to the proverbial drawing board and create a new design, you can not do this if you are some multitude of light years away from the design. So, you are saying that DNA infers intelligent design. But how can you be so sure? How do you know we won't figure out something else that drives the creation of DNA? Something that isn't God? Another explainable physical mechanism. Would you then say that some designer created that? And that the scientists that wrote books about DNA all had missing chapters? When you are explaining things using natural causes, how do you know you have reached the point where it is impossible to find a cause? Really the evolutionist who believe in an all mathematical universe, should understand this, as it can be broken down into a formula. Life requires Carbon and DNA, among other things, but Carbon and DNA are common to all life. DNA is the chemical computer code that governs every facet of an individual, DNA also contains the code that makes mutations that are said to be random, but might well be part of the chemical program of evolution (they are called random only because they are not understood), DNA can also be guided to make forced changes to an individual thru selective breeding of various types. The formula is the same as for a computer, where you need both an operating system, and the hardware to make use of the operating system. If you have either, but not the other, you do not have a computer, thus DNA and the life that it controls had to be created together. There is no conflict here with evolution, because DNA has many jobs, one of which is evolution. The purpose of evolution is to make the organism better, stronger, smarter and better suited to live within it's environment, and as well make the changes needed to create a new organism that can now exist in a new environment, say space or a new planet. Evolution, is part of DNA, since DNA has to be there for both life and evolution, any rational scientist would conclude that it could not have evolved, as the math equation of evolution must have DNA as a variable. The interesting thing, is that every scientist knows this, but they just ignore it as if it makes no difference. Since there is no speculation in math, DNA must have been created along with the hardware to use it, and evolution without a necessary variable to the equation is impossible...... None of you can argue these points and win, but none of you can even see these things because you are stuck in the past with old and dead ideas. God creates the future, he, she or it, does not dwell in the past.
You answered an earlier post twice. Are you working on my more recent one?
You answered an earlier post twice. Are you working on my more recent one?I have ideas posted on multiple boards thus I jump around a little. Seriously, I would rather have you dispute the truth (my ideas), but since all you can do is say that I answered something twice, I will take that as a complement, since you have no disagreement with the ideas that I have mused. The Mars rover makes electricity for movement from sunlight. How much more efficient would it be if the rover made sugar for movement, and oxygen from sunlight, noting that we could use both that sugar and oxygen when we got their ourselves. Think
Please, tell us more about your scientific forward thinking.http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram http://www.cnet.com/news/scientists-create-alien-life-form-with-artificial-genetic-code/ Anything but birdbrains bird watching.
You answered an earlier post twice. Are you working on my more recent one?I have ideas posted on multiple boards thus I jump around a little. Seriously, I would rather have you dispute the truth (my ideas), but since all you can do is say that I answered something twice, I will take that as a complement, since you have no disagreement with the ideas that I have mused. The Mars rover makes electricity for movement from sunlight. How much more efficient would it be if the rover made sugar for movement, and oxygen from sunlight, noting that we could use both that sugar and oxygen when we got their ourselves. Think What I was interested in was your response to this post ] There's no other way to "take" what I said. That you post on multiple boards is your problem and not an excuse for evading questions. Maybe, since you admit it makes following conversations difficult, you should stop doing it.