1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12697
    08 Nov '13 02:202 edits
    Does DNA PROVE CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2003/04/25/what-dna-prove

    How DNA Proves God Made All Creatures Great and Small

    Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection may be able to explain how living creatures can evolve from one form to another, but it cannot explain how something that was not alive evolved into the first life on Earth.

    Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge trained scholar in the philosophy of science, does have an explanation for how life on Earth began: the DNA in every cell of every creature shows unmistakable evidence of having been deliberately designed by an intelligent being.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/how-dna-proves-god-made-all-creatures-great-and-small

    DNA is proof of creation. Evolutionists are in illogical denial of this obvious fact.

    http://www.seekfind.net/DNA_IS_PROOF_OF_CREATION.html

    The Instructor
  2. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    08 Nov '13 03:40
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection may be able to explain how living creatures can evolve from one form to another, but it cannot explain how something that was not alive evolved into the first life on Earth.


    The Instructor[/b]
    You are coming close to seeing sense!!!

    Evolutionists DO NOT KNOW how life began.

    They do know how species originated (and continue to originate).

    Now go and have lie down.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12697
    08 Nov '13 03:57
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    You are coming close to seeing sense!!!

    Evolutionists DO NOT KNOW how life began.

    They do know how species originated (and continue to originate).

    Now go and have lie down.
    Evolution may explain variations in species, but not how one kind changes to another kind. Evolution certainly does not explain the origin of the first living thing on earth. Only creation explains the origin of living things.

    The Instructor
  4. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    08 Nov '13 04:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evolution certainly does not explain the origin of the first living thing on earth.
    The Instructor
    Evolution certainly does not explain the origin of the first living thing on earth.

    HAPPY?
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    08 Nov '13 11:02
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evolution [b]may explain variations in species, but not how one kind changes to another kind. Evolution certainly does not explain the origin of the first living thing on earth. Only creation explains the origin of living things.

    The Instructor[/b]
    gardening doesn't explain how soil is formed.
  6. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    08 Nov '13 12:591 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Does DNA PROVE CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2003/04/25/what-dna-prove

    How DNA Proves God Made All Creatures Great and Small

    Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection may be able to explain how living creatures can evolve from one form to another, but it cannot explain how something that was not al his obvious fact.[/b]

    http://www.seekfind.net/DNA_IS_PROOF_OF_CREATION.html

    The Idiot[/b]
    Stephen Meyer on the age of the Earth:
    YouTube
  7. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8685
    08 Nov '13 13:142 edits
    Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge trained scholar in the philosophy of science, does have an explanation for how life on Earth began: the DNA in every cell of every creature shows unmistakable evidence of having been deliberately designed by an intelligent being.


    That's good that you're not afraid to listen to something Dr. Meyer might contribute, because he is not a Young Earther. Just like I would listen to some things contributed by someone who was not an Old Earther.

    Different people have significant contributions to the discussion. It doesn't mean, if I refer you to something said by astrophysicist Hugh Ross you should reject it in total out of hand.

    Kent Hovind is strongly young earth. I don't agree with him on that. But I do get help from some other things he says about errors in textbooks.

    Anyway, I think it is good that you could loosen up a bit and hear out Dr. Meyer on an area he has something to contribute even though he would not go along with a 6,000 year old universe.

    Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    08 Nov '13 13:37
    Originally posted by sonship
    Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge trained scholar in the philosophy of science, does have an explanation for how life on Earth began: the DNA in every cell of every creature shows unmistakable evidence of having been deliberately designed by an intelligent being.


    That's good that you're not afraid to listen to something Dr. Meyer might contr ...[text shortened]... along with a 6,000 year old universe.

    Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.
    Just because someone knowledgeable and smart and well educated in the subject does not mean he is right. He knows no more about the origin of life than any other human on the planet at this point in time. It is just his OPINION he thinks DNA is a sign of god.

    NOBODY says evolution has anything to say about the origins of life. Evolution is all about what happens after life is formed.

    Of course RJ and his creationist buddies use that as a weapon to try in their desperate way to make creationism real which will never happen in a million years because it is not true.

    Not in the 6000 year old sense.

    If people want to ascribe the beginning of the universe to the work of a god, so be it. Nobody can scientifically argue against that and nobody would even TRY.

    We can CERTAINLY argue successfully about the veracity of the 6000 year old Earth claim.

    I myself have given several arguments refuting that such as the fact the moon is cold on the surface, cool enough to walk on since we know that for a fact but yet millions of craters tell a story about an early moon that would have been molten red hot back a few billion years ago and if all that had happened 6000 years ago the moon would for sure still be too hot to touch. It is obviously cool now and therefore it is cool because millions of years have passed to allow it to cool down. It would NEVER cool down, an entire red hot planet, cool enough to walk on, in 6000 years.

    Young Earthers just cannot understand that argument and just poo poo it.
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8685
    08 Nov '13 14:207 edits
    Just because someone knowledgeable and smart and well educated in the subject does not mean he is right.


    I noticed your posts. Don't worry.


    He knows no more about the origin of life than any other human on the planet at this point in time. It is just his OPINION he thinks DNA is a sign of god.


    Yea. And I evaluate whether his opinion is reasonable. And it (Intelligent Design) is more reasonable than your concept.


    NOBODY says evolution has anything to say about the origins of life. Evolution is all about what happens after life is formed.


    Maybe they realized it was a losing proposition and decided that they better not push the process back that far.

    Could be that in another 20 years some future sonhouse will write - "But nobody says evolution has anything to say about the one species gradually becoming another."


    Of course RJ and his creationist buddies


    Everybody has right to some friends.


    use that as a weapon to try in their desperate way to make creationism real which will never happen in a million years because it is not true.


    It is much more real than a total Naturalism.
    How can you even trust your cognitive abilities to know what truth is ?

    A total Naturalism is self defeating for all that is important with a total Naturalism is that you have your body in the right place in order to survive and pass on those traits to another generation.

    If the antelope runs from the lion because it thinks its a game, purely naturalistic evolution doesn't care. As long as the antelope survives.

    And if survival is the only thing a purely evolutionary process is selecting for then whether what humans know is the truth or not is completely beside the point. That was Darwin's own fear - How could he trust the brain of a monkey to arrive at what is true ?



    If people want to ascribe the beginning of the universe to the work of a god, so be it. Nobody can scientifically argue against that and nobody would even TRY.


    The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive. And the fine tuning of many constants for the development of life strongly argue that the accident is too unlikely to not involve intelligent planning.

    So says people who honestly consider the particular calibrated laws of physics at the creation event.

    Way back in 1950, in his book The Nature of the Universe, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle also argued for accidental coincidence to explain the many unique but necessary properties of the universe and for our own planet. But the discoveries of the following thirty years dramatically changed his mind, as described in his book The Intelligent Universe. In 1983 he said,

    "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."

    It is easy to understand why many scientists like Hoyle have changed their minds in recent years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this amazing universe can't be explained as a series of happy coincidental accidents that were the result a thinking universe that knew we were coming.


    From page 73 of "How to Know God Exists" by Ray Comfort.

    Fredric B. Burnham, a historian of science, said - "The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."

    [ From ABC's "Nightline" with Ted Koppel, April 24, 1992 ]
  10. SubscriberPianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    Seedy piano bar
    Joined
    09 May '08
    Moves
    184487
    08 Nov '13 14:411 edit
    Originally posted by sonship
    The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive. And the fine tuning of many constants for the development of life strongly argue that the accident is too unlikely to not involve intelligent planning.
    I think you misunderstand the anthropoid principle. The anthropoid principal, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence.
  11. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8685
    08 Nov '13 15:30
    I think you misunderstand the anthropoid principle. The anthropoid principal, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence.


    I think this you have written is SUPREME SPIN. I don't mean it disrespectfully but that is what it sounds like to me - masterful spinning.

    I mean truly masterful intellectual somersaults to make evidence argue for the opposite of what it seems to indicate - purposeful calibration.
  12. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8685
    08 Nov '13 15:41
    It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence.


    If I won the Virginia Power Ball 1000 succesive times in a row, I might not conclude that the game was rigged ? But I might instead rationalize that just I find myself in a situation propitious to my winning ?
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12697
    08 Nov '13 17:55
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Evolution certainly does not explain the origin of the first living thing on earth.

    HAPPY?
    YES

    The Instructor
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12697
    08 Nov '13 17:57
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    gardening doesn't explain how soil is formed.
    This thread is not about gardening and soil.

    The Instructor
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12697
    08 Nov '13 18:08
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Stephen Meyer on the age of the Earth:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGFWH6Okgl8
    So what? He gives no evidence for the age of the earth. He doesn't even say young earth creationists are wrong. He says that the evidence for an intelligent cause makes no statement about the age of the earth.

    The Instructor
Back to Top