hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
But if not cloning then it's weird that God used genetic material from Adam, rearranged some of his DNA and got rid of the Y chromosomes to form Eve.
Why is that weird? Engineers do that sort of thing all the time. They take a successful design and use deletion (and obviously other things too) and duplication to create variations.
hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
LUHE,
I don't see why cloning is a necessary outcome of this account.
The components needed to make Eve were already in Adam’s cells, i.e. human chromosomes, which carry the genetic material to make the human body. All humans have 46 chromosomes, but sex is determined by only two of them – called X and Y.
Males have one X and one Y. Females have two Xs. The other 44 chromosomes are called autosomes, and are the same in males and females. Therefore, to make female cells from male cells God already had all the different kinds of chromosomes he needed.
He had to take out the Y and duplicate the X, but He did not have to invent any new kind of chromosome that did not already exist, but if you can invent chromosomes in the first place – such a small act as deletion and duplication would be relatively simple. The XY configuration of the male seems to corroborate this account. This of course would have been unknown to the writer of Genesis. But, it fits what we know today.
Males need one X to live, and the Y for male reproductive functions. Females need two X’s for female reproductive functions .
Therefore, according to the Genesis account Adam and Eve were separate, unique creations, with Adam being fully male and Eve being fully female. God did not need to create any new material to make Eve, nor was Eve simply a clone of Adam – she was a creation of God, a different individual, but still one flesh with Adam.
hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
Anders,
Genesis (which I assume is true... forms the basis of my logic). I can't find anything that would ultimately contradict it.
Naturalism/Materialism (also an assumption) assumes there are only "natural" causes of things. I suppose you could fly in a space craft for billions of years and exhaust all efforts to find an example of life not coming from non-life and information not coming from a mind. But short of that, it is already confirmed to be impossible. No one can provide one example to the contrary. You are welcome to believe in that sort of thing if you want, it's just not science. It's a religion, and not a very good one. It's like trying to find a book that has no author or being told to sit in the corner of a round room. Some concepts are just impossible, and can be proved to be so in a number of ways.
Method of speciation? The same one we observe today of course, breeding and speciation within kinds. No one has ever observed evolution in action outside of "kinds". Evolution outside of "kinds" is a RELIGION, much the same as the ruthless one we all escaped from where deviation form the party line was severely criticized & dealt with harshly by the elders - the agents of the cult.
I cannot help but notice that after nearly 18 years on this forumn, many of the most critical posters of Creation are former elders who have a history of bullying. They get really bent out of shape when interacting with someone who chooses to believe differently than them. Their deviant, anti-social behavior has apparently followed them into their new paradigm. But, I digress.
Space time and matter all came into existence at the same time... most everyone agrees with this. I say, they were inventions born in the mind of God, who by necessity must exist outside of our 3 dimensional space-time universe. Theologians and Philosophers call this type of God a Transcendent God.... meaning that he transcends our space time experience. In other words, things like "before" and "after" cannot be applied to His experience as some sort of limitation since they are inventions of his.... just like Genesis states.
This is a satisfying answer to me. It fits with the order and precision of the known universe and explains how there could be a "First Cause" in a cause and effect universe such ours. Effects do do appear without a previous cause. Yet, how can this be if the universe had a beginning? The assumption of a Transcendent God satisfies this apparent contradiction.
Half Bananna,
We all have the same evidence, but we have different assumptions before we start to examine it. That's just the way it is.
When the word science is used, most folks think of the scientific method...where things can be replicated. This method works in the present and can be projected into the future. When dealing with the past, it's not nearly as straight forward. Some say historical science is a misnomer, and will never escape the theory category.
I also have a theory: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
What are your thoughts on the two scientists I posted about earlier who became creationists after studying the facts? Do you think their experience should cause us to examine the way we use the terms "science" and "religion"?
Repost:
[Quote]: A few years ago Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Both had been evolutionists and lifelong atheists. After making certain assumptions about the requirements for the origin of the simplest cell imaginable, they calculated the probability of the necessary protein enzymes arising by chance on this planet in five billion years. The probability turned out to be one chance out of the number one followed by 40,000 zeros! 41 [That's more molecules that there are in the universe]
This is flatly zero, so they calculated the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe, assuming that every star in the universe (about 100 billion times 100 billion) has a planet like the earth and that the universe is 20 billion years old. For all practical purposes, according to their results the probability is not insensibly different than zero.
Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747! One is free to believe that, of course, but it should not be called science.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are now saying that wherever life exists in the universe it had to be created. Wickramasinghe has stated that this evidence constitutes empirical evidence for the existence of God (they are not biblical creationists, since neither believes the Genesis account of creation, but they believe life had to be created).
Did Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe become creationists because of their religion? Obviously not, for they were both atheists when they began their study. They became creationists in spite of the religious beliefs they held at that time. Most evolutionists assert that to hold a belief in creation is religion. According to this view, then, when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in ignorance of the facts, held to an evolutionary view of the origin of life, that was proper science; but the moment the scientific evidence convinced them that life could not have arisen naturally, therefore life had to be created supernaturally, their views instantly ceased to be science and became religion! [Of course this is absurd]
Other scientists, such as Yockey, 42 Salisbury, 43 Coppedge, 44 and Wilder-Smith 45 have come to similar conclusions or have expressed serious doubts. A spontaneous evolutionary origin of life can be positively excluded based on the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics and the laws of probability. The theory of an evolutionary origin of life is Twentieth Century mythology.
[end quotation]
hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
Do you have a reference for this embryo research that confirms evolution?
hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
females cloned out of males - waton
What are you referencing here?
I highly recommend the Creation Museum and the Noah's Ark Exhibit in Cincinnati, OH area. Just got back a few weeks ago... was outstanding.
hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
Because NOTHING, never will prove creation!
How did you come to that conclusion? Think about it:
Fact: All life comes from a previous life
Fact: All information comes from a mind
Fact: All books have authors
[Quote]: A few years ago Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Both had been evolutionists and lifelong atheists. After making certain assumptions about the requirements for the origin of the simplest cell imaginable, they calculated the probability of the necessary protein enzymes arising by chance on this planet in five billion years. The probability turned out to be one chance out of the number one followed by 40,000 zeros! 41 [That's more molecules that there are in the universe]
This is flatly zero, so they calculated the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe, assuming that every star in the universe (about 100 billion times 100 billion) has a planet like the earth and that the universe is 20 billion years old. For all practical purposes, according to their results the probability is not insensibly different than zero.
Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747! One is free to believe that, of course, but it should not be called science.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are now saying that wherever life exists in the universe it had to be created. Wickramasinghe has stated that this evidence constitutes empirical evidence for the existence of God (they are not biblical creationists, since neither believes the Genesis account of creation, but they believe life had to be created).
Did Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe become creationists because of their religion? Obviously not, for they were both atheists when they began their study. They became creationists in spite of the religious beliefs they held at that time. Most evolutionists assert that to hold a belief in creation is religion. According to this view, then, when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in ignorance of the facts, held to an evolutionary view of the origin of life, that was proper science; but the moment the scientific evidence convinced them that life could not have arisen naturally, therefore life had to be created supernaturally, their views instantly ceased to be science and became religion! [Of course this is absurd]
Other scientists, such as Yockey, 42 Salisbury, 43 Coppedge, 44 and Wilder-Smith 45 have come to similar conclusions or have expressed serious doubts. A spontaneous evolutionary origin of life can be positively excluded based on the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics and the laws of probability. The theory of an evolutionary origin of life is Twentieth Century mythology.
[end quotation]
Just to avoid confusion, the bible doesn't rule out "evolution" within "kinds" - limited speciation. Biblical "evolutionary" trees would look something like this (initial creation interrupted by the flood and then restarted):
hi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
Where did all the information in DNA come from? Heck, where did DNA come from? It alone is a masterpiece of engineering. Can Rocks bumping together in an ocean do this?
The discovery of DNA was the end of this outdated theory for a lot of folks.
there is no charm in going to a cricket match after knowing the result.
similarly, there is no charm in living if there is nothing left to know.
we are surrounded by both—knowledge and mystery.
Personally, I think a big part of my growth as an adult (not to mention an XJW) was realizing
that......with regards to "perfection"......there's actually no such thing.
Vidiot,
Imagine the benefit of eliminating the majority of the past mistakes in your life that you are now aware of. Further, imagine an internal gyroscope compass that keeps you from making many more mistakes that you are not even aware of. Then, imagine that the mistakes and the evil that you still experience are somehow transformed into working for your good. (Romans 8:28)
For me that would be perfect.
This is what the Christian life looks like after making friends with God through the blood of Jesus apart from your works. Perfection is not the elimination of evil in your life, it is the elimination of mistakes in the face of it.
i wanted to share a few recent pics of izabella with everyone.
this week marks her one year since her coming home from nicu.
she has been growing and changing so much these last few months in particular.
Awesome!!
i consider myself an atheist, i completely reject the idea of a totalitarian desert god/any god and the bible is a book of fairytales and folk legends.. i do however sort of believe that this life is not all there is.
i’m not talking about heaven or hell but in a tangible state of being.. there are a few experiences i’ve had in my llife.
could be imagined could be real.
I reached my post limit one day last week and the post to FHN was denied. Then 3 days later it shows up after I reposted!
LV101,
Thanks. It's weird, we ran the skunk out but he never sprayed anyone. After he ran about 15 yards, he decided that he didn't like it outside and ran back all the way back into the wall....where we had to do it all over again. I guess he was pretty upset about being kicked out of his home.
Bees weren't too happy about it either. The hive was in the walls in between two different stud sections. We made some smoke using cow dung in a shovel and smoked them until they calmed down. Then, we ate the honey. Took about thee days for the hive to finally dissipate completely.
After I finish the project, I'll post a few pics on this forumn. The inside was a wreck. Had a 2 sf hole in the roof for about 5 years. Had to be gutted. Mold was everywhere. I bought the land and basically got the cabin for free. The foundation was good and about 90% of the studs were solid. Septic system still works.
