The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...
Options
Comments
-
The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.
Who wrote the code for your computer?
Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.
So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?
Where is the logical rationale?
What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.
1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?
2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf
3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?
Oh, i didn't mean to imply that the code that we write is more complex then dna. I will say that it is more efficient at many single task. But both as i've said has shown potential for failure that can lead to the failure of individual organisms so even with all it's complexity, it's not perfect. Regardless, measuring mans ability ti mimic what is already there isn't a good tool to measure what can be created from "scratch". Until, i see man create a universe with all of the elements and laws that we require for our science projects, then what you are showing is hubris. Still we actually are able to utilize dna for computer storage and produce new dna sequences, so our code is fairly complex comparative to where we started. It's is minuscule effort compared to the capabilities that it has and we are even looking beyond dna at atoms directly. Does those things existing denote intelligence previously? Well, that's an argument that you have settled on with little evidence while others choose to continue their investigation with the limited tools we have in comparison with the vastness of space time.
1. DNA isn't perfect because of SIN. Yes, the whole creation groans and cries out in labor pains waiting for the glorious deliverance of ? that will be brought to pass at His soon coming revelation. Amen.
2. Who made the laws and the elements of the universe to begin with? Where did they come from?
3. The evidence that Jesus Christ is LORD and ? , the maker of ALL things visible and invisible is piled as high as the heavens! Yes, the heavens declare the glory of ? and His existence! Night after night they speak, day after day they pour fourth knowledge! There is nowhere that we can go in all the earth where their voice is not heard! To deny that there's a ? , despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that certainly points to there being a ? , is only a job that a fool applies for. And guess what? Mama ain't raised one of them over here. Praise ? !
Please don't be that guy my friend!
Look in the mirror, look around you, look outside, look up, and get out of the river deNIAL! Amen.
"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens." Psalms 8:1 -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
No! The word of ? is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. That is why people fight tooth and nail trying to descredit the word of ? , something that has been going on for millennia! But guess what? The word of ? is still here and will always be here! Why? Because His word is forever settled in heaven! Hallelujah!
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Matthew 24:35
Praise ? ! -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
No! The word of ? is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. That is why people fight tooth and nail trying to descredit the word of ? , something that has been going on for millennia! But guess what? The word of ? is still here and will always be here! Why? Because His word is forever settled in heaven! Hallelujah!
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Matthew 24:35
Praise ? !
Yeah you are right I was sleep this whole time. You cannot discredit truth, because truth doesn't hide. Cause for some reason we cannot find much archeology that shows proof of Israels doings. It's not meant to be taken literal and its just metaphysics. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.
Who wrote the code for your computer?
Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.
So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?
Where is the logical rationale?
What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.
1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?
2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf
3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?
Oh, i didn't mean to imply that the code that we write is more complex then dna. I will say that it is more efficient at many single task. But both as i've said has shown potential for failure that can lead to the failure of individual organisms so even with all it's complexity, it's not perfect. Regardless, measuring mans ability ti mimic what is already there isn't a good tool to measure what can be created from "scratch". Until, i see man create a universe with all of the elements and laws that we require for our science projects, then what you are showing is hubris. Still we actually are able to utilize dna for computer storage and produce new dna sequences, so our code is fairly complex comparative to where we started. It's is minuscule effort compared to the capabilities that it has and we are even looking beyond dna at atoms directly. Does those things existing denote intelligence previously? Well, that's an argument that you have settled on with little evidence while others choose to continue their investigation with the limited tools we have in comparison with the vastness of space time.
1. DNA isn't perfect because of SIN. Yes, the whole creation groans and cries out in labor pains waiting for the glorious deliverance of ? that will be brought to pass at His soon coming revelation. Amen.
2. Who made the laws and the elements of the universe to begin with? Where did they come from?
3. The evidence that Jesus Christ is LORD and ? , the maker of ALL things visible and invisible is piled as high as the heavens! Yes, the heavens declare the glory of ? and His existence! Night after night they speak, day after day they pour fourth knowledge! There is nowhere that we can go in all the earth where their voice is not heard! To deny that there's a ? , despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that certainly points to there being a ? , is only a job that a fool applies for. And guess what? Mama ain't raised one of them over here. Praise ? !
Please don't be that guy my friend!
Look in the mirror, look around you, look outside, look up, and get out of the river deNIAL! Amen.
"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens." Psalms 8:1
You saying a whole lot of nothing. -
“If you take just the composition of an enzyme in the human component, which the enzyme is the building block of the gene, the gene is the building block of the cell: the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random (says Vicram Singhi professor of applied mathematics of Cardan in Wales) is 1 and 10 to the power of 40,000. That’s more than the atoms of this Universe altogether!! It is mathematically and timewise of this happening all at the right time all at the right building block stage the possibility of this happening is ZERO. “-Ravi Zacharias
Ravi studied under John puckinghorn at Cambridge University who was the world’s leading quantumphysicist who came to the conclusion ? has to exist. -
Common substance equals common source- Basic funadamental belief by evolutionists that believe in speciation that all life comes from one common cell. I've explained how this belief in macroevolution seems absurd to me that life shows everything has a parent, yet we are to believe that spontaneity and accident created life and created life to create other life that all operates on a CLEAR order rules, parents and not spontaneity. But, here's what a leading AGNOSTIC says:
David Berlinski, world’s leading agnostic physicist- “Has anyone provided proof of ? ’s inexistence?” Not even close. “Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of universal why it is here?” Not even close. “Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine tuned to allow the existence of life?” Not even close. “Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything as long as it is not of religious thought?” Close enough “Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right and what is moral?” Not close enough. “Has secularism in the 20th century been a force for good?” Not even close to being close. “Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinions taught within the sciences?” Close enough. “Is there anything sciences and their philosophy that can justify the claim that religious belief is irrational ?” Not even in the ballpark. “Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?” DEAD ON!!!!!
This is from an atheist agnostic physicist.
Another interesting claim is Anthony Flu, once the world's leading speaker on atheism turned religious
-
I'm a small part of the conscious source that gave creation.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
No! The word of ? is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. That is why people fight tooth and nail trying to descredit the word of ? , something that has been going on for millennia! But guess what? The word of ? is still here and will always be here! Why? Because His word is forever settled in heaven! Hallelujah!
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Matthew 24:35
Praise ? !
Yeah you are right I was sleep this whole time. You cannot discredit truth, because truth doesn't hide. Cause for some reason we cannot find much archeology that shows proof of Israels doings. It's not meant to be taken literal and its just metaphysics.
Proof?
1. Google "70 a.d."
2. Google "May 14,1948"
Amen. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.
Who wrote the code for your computer?
Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.
So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?
Where is the logical rationale?
What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.
1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?
2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf
3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?
Oh, i didn't mean to imply that the code that we write is more complex then dna. I will say that it is more efficient at many single task. But both as i've said has shown potential for failure that can lead to the failure of individual organisms so even with all it's complexity, it's not perfect. Regardless, measuring mans ability ti mimic what is already there isn't a good tool to measure what can be created from "scratch". Until, i see man create a universe with all of the elements and laws that we require for our science projects, then what you are showing is hubris. Still we actually are able to utilize dna for computer storage and produce new dna sequences, so our code is fairly complex comparative to where we started. It's is minuscule effort compared to the capabilities that it has and we are even looking beyond dna at atoms directly. Does those things existing denote intelligence previously? Well, that's an argument that you have settled on with little evidence while others choose to continue their investigation with the limited tools we have in comparison with the vastness of space time.
1. DNA isn't perfect because of SIN. Yes, the whole creation groans and cries out in labor pains waiting for the glorious deliverance of ? that will be brought to pass at His soon coming revelation. Amen.
2. Who made the laws and the elements of the universe to begin with? Where did they come from?
3. The evidence that Jesus Christ is LORD and ? , the maker of ALL things visible and invisible is piled as high as the heavens! Yes, the heavens declare the glory of ? and His existence! Night after night they speak, day after day they pour fourth knowledge! There is nowhere that we can go in all the earth where their voice is not heard! To deny that there's a ? , despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that certainly points to there being a ? , is only a job that a fool applies for. And guess what? Mama ain't raised one of them over here. Praise ? !
Please don't be that guy my friend!
Look in the mirror, look around you, look outside, look up, and get out of the river deNIAL! Amen.
"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens." Psalms 8:1
You saying a whole lot of nothing.
Jesus Loves you my friend, will you accept Him today? -
The destruction of Israel and the UN recreating the state of Israel. Great but same with Egypt and other places. Plus, the original descendants aren't there.
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.
Who wrote the code for your computer?
Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.
So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?
Where is the logical rationale?
What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.
1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?
2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf
3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?
Oh, i didn't mean to imply that the code that we write is more complex then dna. I will say that it is more efficient at many single task. But both as i've said has shown potential for failure that can lead to the failure of individual organisms so even with all it's complexity, it's not perfect. Regardless, measuring mans ability ti mimic what is already there isn't a good tool to measure what can be created from "scratch". Until, i see man create a universe with all of the elements and laws that we require for our science projects, then what you are showing is hubris. Still we actually are able to utilize dna for computer storage and produce new dna sequences, so our code is fairly complex comparative to where we started. It's is minuscule effort compared to the capabilities that it has and we are even looking beyond dna at atoms directly. Does those things existing denote intelligence previously? Well, that's an argument that you have settled on with little evidence while others choose to continue their investigation with the limited tools we have in comparison with the vastness of space time.
1. DNA isn't perfect because of SIN. Yes, the whole creation groans and cries out in labor pains waiting for the glorious deliverance of ? that will be brought to pass at His soon coming revelation. Amen.
2. Who made the laws and the elements of the universe to begin with? Where did they come from?
3. The evidence that Jesus Christ is LORD and ? , the maker of ALL things visible and invisible is piled as high as the heavens! Yes, the heavens declare the glory of ? and His existence! Night after night they speak, day after day they pour fourth knowledge! There is nowhere that we can go in all the earth where their voice is not heard! To deny that there's a ? , despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that certainly points to there being a ? , is only a job that a fool applies for. And guess what? Mama ain't raised one of them over here. Praise ? !
Please don't be that guy my friend!
Look in the mirror, look around you, look outside, look up, and get out of the river deNIAL! Amen.
"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens." Psalms 8:1
You saying a whole lot of nothing.
Jesus Loves you my friend, will you accept Him today?
Prove that Jesus existed. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
this is absolutely wrong there is a lot of historically proof that many of the people in the bible did really exist but the history is told from one perspective but not everything in the bible is allegorical and if you claim when something is then you have to give reasoning for why you think so -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
this is absolutely wrong there is a lot of historically proof that many of the people in the bible did really exist but the history is told from one perspective but not everything in the bible is allegorical and if you claim when something is then you have to give reasoning for why you think so
Around Judea split is when history becomes more accurate. I have studied tremendously a lot and there is no real proof of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Jacob's twelve sons, their enslavement in Egypt, the war on Canaan, the judges era. In fact there is no historical proof of them going to war with Canaan causerthey are canaannites
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
this is absolutely wrong there is a lot of historically proof that many of the people in the bible did really exist but the history is told from one perspective but not everything in the bible is allegorical and if you claim when something is then you have to give reasoning for why you think so
Around Judea split is when history becomes more accurate. I have studied tremendously a lot and there is no real proof of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Jacob's twelve sons, their enslavement in Egypt, the war on Canaan, the judges era. In fact there is no historical proof of them going to war with Canaan causerthey are canaannites
well by the very nature of the story of adam eve and noah you would not be able to get proof because basically all that was clearly meant to be allegorical. people like Abraham and Jacob would not be written about, the memory of them survives only in oral history because they were unimportant to the world at their time, they were just basically nomads. and their numbers were very small . As a general rule in the ancient world The only people that got written about and had their names carved in stone were the rich and powerful. that does not mean other people did not exist. So Abraham, Jacob and Isaac very well could have existed, so saying that their stories are metaphysical allegories is not quite right the story of Abraham and his children possess too much possible reality to be metaphor.
what do you mean by "their" enslavement in Egypt their was no nation called israel enslaved in Egypt. ANCIENT EGYPT did however have different people come into it and live their for a time. In the biblical account of this the jews just claim to be the descendants of one of these groups. If you are asking did the 12 sons exist i don't see why not nor do i see why their story should be seen as metaphor because many different people did migrate into Egypt and they did eventually leave so in a sense egypt was the ? of Israel and religiously speaking ? ORCASTRACTED their entrance into egypt
the history presented in the bible is ethnogenesis and oral history and should be respected like any other -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The bible is metaphysical and not historical and pure allegorical and metaphorical.
this is absolutely wrong there is a lot of historically proof that many of the people in the bible did really exist but the history is told from one perspective but not everything in the bible is allegorical and if you claim when something is then you have to give reasoning for why you think so
Around Judea split is when history becomes more accurate. I have studied tremendously a lot and there is no real proof of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Jacob's twelve sons, their enslavement in Egypt, the war on Canaan, the judges era. In fact there is no historical proof of them going to war with Canaan causerthey are canaannites
well by the very nature of the story of adam eve and noah you would not be able to get proof because basically all that was clearly meant to be allegorical. people like Abraham and Jacob would not be written about, the memory of them survives only in oral history because they were unimportant to the world at their time, they were just basically nomads. and their numbers were very small . As a general rule in the ancient world The only people that got written about and had their names carved in stone were the rich and powerful. that does not mean other people did not exist. So Abraham, Jacob and Isaac very well could have existed, so saying that their stories are metaphysical allegories is not quite right the story of Abraham and his children possess too much possible reality to be metaphor.
what do you mean by "their" enslavement in Egypt their was no nation called israel enslaved in Egypt. ANCIENT EGYPT did however have different people come into it and live their for a time. In the biblical account of this the jews just claim to be the descendants of one of these groups. If you are asking did the 12 sons exist i don't see why not nor do i see why their story should be seen as metaphor because many different people did migrate into Egypt and they did eventually leave so in a sense egypt was the ? of Israel and religiously speaking ? ORCASTRACTED their entrance into egypt
the history presented in the bible is ethnogenesis and oral history and should be respected like any other
Well, I never said Israel existed when they were in Egypt. You are right that each individual could exist but didn't their graves were well known in their time and it was common knowledge? You are right there were groups of nomads traveling I Egypt and Josephus the historian did said the hyksos were early israel and as well as manetho. Let me correct my statement there are historical events embellished and some are allegorical. You understand that and there are others who do as well. I don't disrespect it no longer cause it serves no purpose and quite frankly is idiotic energy spent.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »The destruction of Israel and the UN recreating the state of Israel. Great but same with Egypt and other places. Plus, the original descendants aren't there.
No.
"14And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom. 15It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations. 16And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord ? ." Ezekiel 29:14-16
That is the prophecy concerning Egypt and yes, It has come to pass. Egypt has never returned to her former glory and she never will.
But Israel on the other hand has overcome all odds. From being scattered for nearly 2,000 years without a homeland, she was miraculously reborn in 1 day just like the prophet Isaiah said would happen when he gave the prophecy some 2600+ years ago.
"Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children. Isaiah 66:8
The whole house of Israel is soon to return to the land in these last days. The whole house of Israel encompasses the body of Christ as well because their is 1 King, 1 kingdom, and 1 people. Reference Ezekiel 37. Amen. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.
Who wrote the code for your computer?
Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.
So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?
Where is the logical rationale?
What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.
1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?
2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf
3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?
Oh, i didn't mean to imply that the code that we write is more complex then dna. I will say that it is more efficient at many single task. But both as i've said has shown potential for failure that can lead to the failure of individual organisms so even with all it's complexity, it's not perfect. Regardless, measuring mans ability ti mimic what is already there isn't a good tool to measure what can be created from "scratch". Until, i see man create a universe with all of the elements and laws that we require for our science projects, then what you are showing is hubris. Still we actually are able to utilize dna for computer storage and produce new dna sequences, so our code is fairly complex comparative to where we started. It's is minuscule effort compared to the capabilities that it has and we are even looking beyond dna at atoms directly. Does those things existing denote intelligence previously? Well, that's an argument that you have settled on with little evidence while others choose to continue their investigation with the limited tools we have in comparison with the vastness of space time.
1. DNA isn't perfect because of SIN. Yes, the whole creation groans and cries out in labor pains waiting for the glorious deliverance of ? that will be brought to pass at His soon coming revelation. Amen.
2. Who made the laws and the elements of the universe to begin with? Where did they come from?
3. The evidence that Jesus Christ is LORD and ? , the maker of ALL things visible and invisible is piled as high as the heavens! Yes, the heavens declare the glory of ? and His existence! Night after night they speak, day after day they pour fourth knowledge! There is nowhere that we can go in all the earth where their voice is not heard! To deny that there's a ? , despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that certainly points to there being a ? , is only a job that a fool applies for. And guess what? Mama ain't raised one of them over here. Praise ? !
Please don't be that guy my friend!
Look in the mirror, look around you, look outside, look up, and get out of the river deNIAL! Amen.
"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens." Psalms 8:1
You saying a whole lot of nothing.
Jesus Loves you my friend, will you accept Him today?
Prove that Jesus existed.
Only an idiot denies that Jesus Christ never existed. Do you fall into that category my friend? -
I'm back with my ranting. Really, it takes to long for me to make a point, but what I write makes sense so I'm a leave it...even though I always write alot man.
This stuff is based on the philosophy of the one cell theory. People question religion all the time and now here some challenges to the one-cell theory part of evolution
One cell is the cause of all life on earth. Let’s think on that. One cell. That had to be one unbelievably complex cell. One cell that has life and can die somehow happened to have all the ingredients in its passing through the universe to pass through earth’s magnetic field and drop into the atmosphere through gravity and land in air or water and still through all this be able to survive. Correct?? No, but let’s state the belief. Then after the impossible of a cell existing through space and its infinite "space", it happens to make it through space which has no gravity and make it into earth's gravitational pull which often repels like almost ANYTHING that isn't massively heavy enough or strong enough to ? its magnetic shield (for example: a simple cell) and the rest of anything that isn't solid/large as a meteor and incapable of being burned before it even touches earth's terrain.
---After all this grandiose ability of this cell,it even has the ability to continue life on its own on a foreign planet that it NEVER had reached before and knew nothing about, but miraculously somehow was able to survive on this planet on a diet and functioning. It was so well equipped that it even was able to replicate itself on this foreign planet and not only replicate, but have just the right amount of other mutations to adapt to this planet. I am to believe all this is by circumstance and accident, when even in this theory any life form capable of doing that has to have intelligence to survive the impossible, replicate, adjust its diet to foreign territory, mutate and have the ability to initiate macro-evolution to ring speciation.
Really? One cell, that nobody now knows where it is or what it is, but yet all life on earth spawned from this one cell that somehow is no longer in existence; although it created everything and survived the harshest of all conditions (from space and into earth's atmosphere in complete tact and form) that all life forms to this day which are its spawn still do not have the ability it had to live outside of Earth’s atmosphere naturally. Yet, with this ability to do all the impossible, IT--somehow wasn't able to survive and be discovered the way all its lesser creations are?????
The ridiculousness of this is so far gone to me;that I have to explain it and break it down like this AGAIN, because I haven’t really heard others explain it the way I'm doing it-and so I'm writing alot b/c it's the way I see it and I ain't copying what someone else said; and it bothers me to know so many are just buying into the one-cell/ring speciation/macro-evolution theory that once uniting these theories together; they basically say all life is related and has a common ancestor that can be traced to one cell. This is the belief. It can’t be any other belief, b/c then a person would believe that many different species (thousands or millions) by accident all at the right time just spontaneously formed on earth. This can’t be believed b/c that’s kinda what the bible says.
-
Now (ring speciation)from this one cell another mutates/evolves into another cell or species that is slightly different enough from the original to the point of being incapable of no longer being able to have babies with the original. This, I am not arguing.
I will challenge only the one cell theory and challenge the parts that ring speciation tries to attach itself to that theory of one cell.
Now how does it evolve? Asexually? It has to evolve asexually. Yes, there is no other way. Now, this cell that evolves asexually and is different from the original cell suddenly becomes heterosexual with its asexual offspring? Reptiles have been known to do this, but Asexuality does not lead to heterosexuality. Asexuality keeps any life form in existence without the need for a male or female counterpart. So, if asexuality is the beginning, there never is a need for heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is never an evolution to asexuality and if asexuality is not the first organism then there is no need to consider any debate on this type of evolution b/c there’s no way two cells to form all life on a planet by accident happened to be perfectly designed for each other just enough to by accident at the same time, same exact place on the planet, same type of species just so happen to also copulate with each other just in time before the other dies to create all life.
Then before its offspring dies it also hurries up and breeds to create more life, always just in time to beat death.
That rationale is simply way beyond ignorance. So, back to asexuality being superior to heterosexuality and the first cell being asexual.
What was the need for the original to mutate? Asexuality seems like an evolution to heterosexuality and not the other way around.
Now, back to ring speciation. The belief that the evolution of a life form that is related to its parent life-form has evolved to the degree of not being able to copulate with its parent genus.
The mutated/evolved cell can however have its own offspring with other like-species that are evolved like itself.
Now with dominant genes and every species trying to revert back to its original state it is known that mutations/evolutions often weaken a species and render far more handicaps. 12 fingers, the extra fingers often don’t function. Two headed women often have liver and numerous ? problems. Lack of melanin in skin produces albinos which are nearly killed by the sun and face a million times more health problems than people with a lot of melanin.
Science often proves that the most dominant and well established species is the original and everything that has spawned from the original is seen trying to revert back to the original. This is why diseases/cancers are not seen as evolutionary benefits to people just because they can effect and change a person’s physical being.
-
THIS PART IS A RANT/JUST SKIP TO LAST PART IF U WANT
People born 7’0 tall have knee problems, some have forms of gigantism, and they seek to return back to the norm. Midgets and dwarves have health problems (and they aren’t seen as evolving-or are they??-- they are b/c they are deviants from the norm) and to be completely healthy they must compare themselves to the normal human which is the average height/health for whatever humans are.
Let’s move on to what’s just as important as Life……Death.
Then with this death. This cell also knows, all from accident and from the beginning to create trees and a healthy diet for life to exist on. I state the former claim, because I want to return to death. Why? Because now this cell that dies, somehow also creates soil/dust and trees/minerals to live off of, and by accident when it dies it feeds the soil and the ocean’s equally so that even in its death it sustain’s life.
Let’s remember it does all this by accident. Such a complex cell capable of travelling through space, invading a foreign atmosphere, creating a diet, surviving, having the ability to mutate and prepare for death and co-create is all by accident!!!!!
Those are a lot of prepared accidents to me. Just admit that ? . It’s ridiculous.
All this preparation and order from a cell that came to be in existence by accident? Who is challenging this theory? Nobody must be really even thinking of the claim that has been made, because this ? is stupid.
Logically it doesn't match a pattern that life before my very eyes in all/ALL and all of its existence shows me that all life on earth exists within a balance and is maintained by an order.
Diseases can ? its host and then it dies, tigers don’t go on killing sprees if healthy, humans breathe air, ocean’s don’t just fall off the tilting axis of the earth, the minerals and precious metals of earth are aligned to earth’s gravitational pull like a magnet to keep earth’s rotation at a speed that supports all life so that we are not flung off the planet, the seasons themselves are very testament to the circle of life. Moss grows to the right of a stone, chlorophyll is like blood like fuel is to an engine to a electricity is to water.
-
LAST PART
Then after this cell comes into existence, I can't emphasize enough that it literally just spontaneously bleeps itself and comes into existence --we are to believe it also hurries up and replicates a bunch of times to ensure its own survival before it dies.
How it knows about death and it just came into being by accident-the first life form ever on earth--who knows? That will never be known and don't think about that because obviously we aren’t to think about this at all. Just know that because it is a fact seen with your own eyes that many species are obviously related that all life from tree to elephant are all from one cell that spawned us all……..BY ACCIDENT!!!!
Then, this very pioneer, first of firsts and THE MOST important cell to all life suddenly is untraceable and disappears. Its original-life-all-encompassing self-somehow becomes extinct. Suddenly it disappears from its original cell structure and all of its abundant and ever evolving life creating ability is also to never be known of again or discovered by mankind again.
Something responsible for all life, with seemingly never ending mutating abilities and evolution structures that prior to its existence is unique as the GREATEST THING EVER TO Be-held or witnessed in all TIMES history just disappears and stops replicating its original cell structure..........but, wait.........it still leaves all its mutated offspring that are able to do what it couldn’t (which is continue to live) but yet it created and at one time was able to do but yet somehow lost its ability to survive and now its offspring somehow are more capable than this cell that prepared for life, death, and created everything was.
So, now of course someone will say we haven't discovered it yet. Yet, how could something this prevalent and responsible for everything we see in existence be so well hidden??? It's almost ? -like. But, don't use that word cause ? doesn't exist b/c you can't see him or prove it---kinda like the theory that so many believe in about this one cell that nobody knows what it is or where it came from or……….wait for it……….wait for it…………..we don’t know what it is, where it is, where it came from or IF IT EXISTS.
Amen
-
"One cell is the cause of all life on earth."
This is almost certainly false. Life arose in a population of 'cells'. I use that term loosely since the first thing we would call alive would have been a very primitive organism compared to a cell found in a modern organism. -
whar, I am familiar with the gases and nitrogen and earth expanding to the point of allowing for carbon or hydrogen/basically gases, thus the ingredients for multiple cells to randomly be created (I know I'm summarizing what would take 2 paragraphs to explain), but I am not speaking on that. I am speaking on the theory of one cell starting all life theory,which is how a lot of evolutionists believed life began, then they covered themselves later by including what basically you are talking about (population of cells formed here on earth, and not invading earth as I was ridiculing earlier), and NOW again they are returning to one cell again.
Basically, the core of my argument has maintained that this type of evolution theory (I say this type, because I accept otherparts of evolution theory) depends on people accepting too many accidents: the accident that the earth cooled at the right time as the planets expanded, the accident that the stars formed, the accident of protons, neutrons and electrons combined at the right time to form neutral atoms, not to mention the singularity debate and all that stuff you talked already at length with in a former debate.
Those are alot of accidents when dealing with such a precise formula to create all the circumstances of life as we see it. Not mad at any scientist for discovering very factual information on many accounts of how things come together, but on that point on the origin of "life"; it's obvious I take issue (meaning I don't believe them) with the claim of atheist scientists empirical evidence claims they make on their certainty of knowledge on the subject.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/ -
The area that you are discussing is abiogenesis, the transition from chemistry into biology. Currently there is no accepted theory on this subject. Arguing that 'accidents' are the explanation is therefore flawed since no explanation yet exists. Based on what we do know, however, we can see that accidents will not be the pathway that life took to arise. Almost all the basic building blocks of a living cell, the macromolecules that make up its composition, arise naturally in the environment. In fact they have a tendency to arise from common chemical interaction in nature. The concept of a random grouping of atoms that fuse into a living cell is simply false.
Stars do not form by accident. This is known.
Atoms do not form by accident. This is known.
Life did not form by accident. This is currently assumed.
If you are instead driving at the special tuning in the universe to have rules that tend to produce atoms and stars then I would direct you to this quote by Douglas Adams.
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” -Adams
It should be no great surprise that we who have naturally arisen in a universe should find out how well suited that universe is to the things that naturally arise within it.
