There is a theory that life began Millions of years ago with tiny little organisms that could evolve. Slowly through time evolution progressed and here we are today.

I ask but one question. These little organisms were built using the same methods as all other life on this planet. ie. DNA. In this DNA is the code that governs what this organism can do. ie. to evolve, to eat, to reproduce.

If I was to ask a question to the great scientists it would be.
Who programmed the DNA?

I hope im making sense. The thing is I can explain it better in my head than I can in words which I type.

To all the guys that answered to my last post. "Gods and the gods he created"

Im am thrilled at the response that was caused due to my post. I came here with an idea. Not a really good one at that, and slowly through reading the replies others posted to question my theory, I have learned a great deal. Infact more than I could have ever wished. Thank you all.

------------------
The human brain is the architect of reality

The big brained people say evolotion is brining us to perfection. If that were true then why the heck cant this evolution thing make up its mind? One sec we need to be fish, then no we should get out of the water and be giant lizzards, but no we should turn into apes thats the idea, no we should be man? Those all look like pointless connections to me. We should have went. Fish, smarter fish, telapathic fish, fish that can walk on land and stay under water, fish that can walk on land and stay under water and fly, fish that can creat with there minds, fish that can fly in space.

That would sound more like perfection to me. A creature that slowly built itself into something that could go anywere and do anything. Thats why there is no way I can belive in evolution. Also there is the fact that acording to the evo people in ever evo past there were many creatrues that all atained the same stringths and just looked a little diffrent. There arnt any around to prove that (human kinda creatures). Munkys dont come even close to our brains.

Ah, well I need to get dressed and feed my kid. Oh I almost forgot about the christian rock concert in San Antonio today! I may just go. Hope you find your way to Hevan Amon.

~Angel~

quote:

---

If that were true then why the heck cant this evolution thing make up its mind? One sec we need to be fish, then no we should get out of the water and be giant lizzards, but no we should turn into apes thats the idea, no we should be man?

---

I agree with this. Another thing is that if evolution is true then why cant we find the inbetweens. What I mean is with regard to us evolving from apes, we have ape fosils and caveman fossils but where are the inbetweens. Ape >then >then >then >Man. If scientists can find the oldest fossil or bones "APE" why cant they seem to locate the steps in between.?

Again I hope Im making sense.

I pray that i find god again.

------------------
The human brain is the architect of reality

In some animals (e.g. cow with two heads) the DNA has become corrupted and the animal is grossly mutated. With other animals a trait may be visibly lost, but carried on in the DNA and show up in the children. That is not evolution.

And adaptation is something totally different from evolution. A species may have several different colors of camouflage, obviously the one with the coat that matches the environment best will survive and dominate the species.

It was posted in the other thread, but I thought I'd post it again. Answers in Genesis is a great biblical and scientific resource: http://www.answersingenesis.org

BlazeQ

------------------
I'm out of my mind... and into the mind of Christ -G.S. Megaphone

[This message has been edited by BlazeQ (edited June 21, 2003).]

As a programmer I find the idea that our current DNA came about by accident extremely absurd. If you think of it as a programming language, then it is a self replicating, self error correcting (with multiple backups for important sections mind you),
continual error preventing (if there are any major errors detected the DNA automatically attempts to make the resulting organism sterile, incapable of reproducing its own errors in a new generation),
extremely complex language (much more complicated than anything we use, supposedly is compressionable and certain sections are reused many times over. Think billions of lines of code just in the difference between humans and other species, as a programmer my head almost expodes just thinking of attempting to program that.),
the fact that this language isn't self cognizant (to have a language, you must have something or somebody already in place to understand it. What does machine code do without the computer hardware? Nothing.),
and above all they still not have found a "catalyst" that actually starts life going. I've heard it described as metaphysical, where if it was a piece of code it had this huge gap, that must be in place for anything to happen, that "miraculously" occurs without there being a physical mechanism for it to occur. As far as I know, they're still searching for it with no results.

Also, don't let talk of the supposed "junk" sections of DNA mislead you. These section of DNA were given this title because in the past scientists couldn't figure out what they did. Though that's not saying much, as scientists still don't understand the vast majority of how it works. Now, we are discovering that in fact these "junk" sections actually do have a purpose.

I also thought it interesting to read a recent news story where the research discovered that the ant, among other other insect species, has had NO EVOLUTION AT ALL. I was surprised to see anyone say that at all, no matter the species, for if anyone said the same of the larger species (such as us, who have had preconceived charts set in the 1800's) they would be declared nuts by many people.

Also, have you guys seen the recent attempts by physicists to change the laws of physics just for the act of creation? You see, the big bang theory has several very large problems that don't match the physics laws, so they're trying to say that the laws were different just for those time periods...

Anyway, the one thing no one can deny is the overwhelming improbability of it having occurred. According to mathematicians, anything that has a probability that is worse than 1 in 10^50 is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE. The French mathematican Emile Borel proposed this as a Universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded. Supposedly it is commonly accepted... but not in certain cases of course.

What is the probability for the mininum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life coming together by accident? Answer: 1 in 10^119,879

Now, that's just the MINIMUM for a microscopic life, not the chance for human beings as we know them to come about accidentally. Now that number would take you much more than a life time JUST to write down. Heck, even the estimated number of sub-atomic particles in the entire universe is only around 1 in 10^84... only.

Ugh... that's enough for me. I have stuff I need to do.

[This message has been edited by GUMP (edited June 21, 2003).]

Let's use as an example the recent endeavors to make a workable nanotechnology manufacturing plant. A typical manufactured molecule consists of 10^25 parts, never mind all the complications making up just those parts. That’s easy to say but let me write out for you.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

If you do the calculations yourself, even if you could assemble at the rate of a million parts per second, which is MUCH faster than can realistically be accomplished, the time to complete one molecule would still be 317097919837.64586504312531709792 years.

Over three hundred billion years! A team of brilliant scientists with the best equipment funded by millions to billions of dollars knowing exactly where each piece should go just for a single molecule! That is overwhelmingly longer than the age naturalistic scientists have given to the universe, which according to recent studies is around 13.7 billion years, give or take a tenth of a billion since we can't get more accurate than a that.

A single human brain alone is more powerful than most of the world’s supercomputers, processing power approximately around 100 Teraflops, which is roughly 100 trillion calculations per second. This is based on factoring the capability of the brain's 100 billion neurons, each with over 1,000 connections to other neurons, with each connection capable of performing about 200 calculations per second. Huge mainframes are approaching this level of power now, the memory capacity also with many holding close to the estimates of the brain having around 100 Terabytes. These supercomputers weigh hundreds of tons, housed in warehouses thousands of square feet, while the average brain is 56 cubic inches and weighs 3.3 pounds. These machines eat enough power to drain the pocket book of the average citizen, the brain can subsist on beer and potato chips. This amazing organic instrument is made of trillian of individual molecules, varying in types, interconnected and working perfectly.

<sarcasm> Fortunately though, nature has managed to accidentally beat our best scientists, producing life that can manufacture exact duplicates of all the needed parts at a tremondous rate. Scientists are attempting to harness gene spliced bacteria in order to make a feasible manufacturing plant. Too bad we can't try and manufacture the human brain ourselves, that would take way too many trillions of years of my time. Better to use nature's products that somehow managed to come about in a measly 5 billion years which is how long our solar system is supposed to have been around. </sarcasm>

Seriously, for nanotechnology a normal manufacturing process is inconceivable, the only workaround is to use already functioning bacteria to do the job for us. The very same scientists who admit they can't make a faster manufacturing process, but must come up with a workaround using bacteria and such, will also seriously say with a straight face that these amazing little machines came about accidentally.

EDIT:
By the way, could you guys give me feedback on this argument? Critique it hard, point out any possible flaws that someone may use to argue against it.
[This message has been edited by GUMP (edited June 21, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by GUMP (edited June 21, 2003).]

As for others, there are serious scientists who will admit that life as we know could NOT have evolved by itself on Earth. Do some reading, a good number of scientists who are firm atheists also admit evolution on earth is impossible based upon the evidence and they believe that life came here on a comet... or from aliens.

Seriously. Ask Dr. Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the structure of DNA along with his colleague Dr. James Watson. Because he knew that evolution on earth was impossible he came up the theory that said that organisms were deliberately transmitted to Earth by intelligent beings on another planet. He called this idea "Directed Panspermia". He wrote a book on it which you may be able to find in your local library. Don't laugh, it's serious science. Really.

Supposedly the cultist group called the Raelians hold to this belief, that all of our religious leaders of the past, Jesus, Buddha, Mohummad (sp?), etc. are really aliens. The scary part is that in their membership are some very intelligent people; obviously atheists.

[This message has been edited by GUMP (edited June 21, 2003).]

Science is the process of learning about the universe using order and laws.
Evolution depends on chance. and order cannot come from chance. And also, it is obvious there is order in the world. If you know all the factors that effect an object, you know exactly what it's going to do. period. The very basis of science depends on order and laws (repeating myself, I know). Evolution depends on a chance, something that does not exist in this universe. For if there is a little bit of chance, everything becomes chance. Chance has a notorius way of destroying order... and it doesn't exist, so it's more fictional than Tachyon waves (which, who knows, might exist... )
The basis of evolution cannot exist.

I found not one single piece of convincing evidence on evolution.

On one last note, many evolutionary scientists, admited that Evolution cannot exist without a God. Carl Sagan said that a watch doesn't become a grandfater clock, no matter how long you wait. And a watch is by far, more simple than a single celled organism(it's in his book Cosmos)
My idea on why some many people believe it is that it's "scientific," And they don't want to appear stupid and superstious. Oh, and many don't believe in God.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArchAngel:
On one last note, many evolutionary scientists, admited that Evolution cannot exist without a God.

---

Their are a lot of agnostics and deists in the world... I've always wondered how many there are in comparison to true atheists who deny any possibility of God existing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GUMP:
Their are a lot of agnostics and deists in the world... I've always wondered how many there are in comparison to true atheists who deny any possibility of God existing.

---

Yeah, same here.

------------------

The way I look at it is this, If I had a tank with goldfish in it and left them for millions of years, would I come back and find them flying around the room. The answer is an emphatic NO.

All I would find was either dead goldfish or thousands of goldfish. Each species is different. It is possible for species to change colour, but it is still the same species.

------------------
I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all around me seemed insufficient for the day. ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Love in Christ,
Gift

Amon,
That really depends on who the "scientific" minds are. Many, even a number of Christians, are screwing the faith of a number. Hugh Ross as an example is not really an evolutionist, but he attempts to enterpret the Bible by the physical world, what he calls the last chapter of the Bible or something like that, instead of enterpretting the evidence in light of God's word.

I've attended lectures from a number of scientists who take the Bible seriously, and they continue to work for God's glory in the footsteps of Isaac Newton. The head guy on the human genome project is a Christian as an example.

I've had discussions with Christians who say that creation scientists are not really doing anything important (one compared it to making the golden calf). The truth is they don't have to make anything, they just observe God's handy-work, the heavens declare the glory of God, God has made himself visible by the things he has made so that men are without excuse. Real science honors God, period.

For anyone who reads AiG material this is old news, but the Church can't be disconnected from reality. The Bible isn't a science book, but whatever it says about it are 100% accurate. Jesus asked how we could believe him on the heavenly things if we didn't on the earthly ones, and he obviously supported the inspiration and authority of the Bible. So, in short it's the Church in general that is doing more damage by not being consistent. One pastor who spoke to our group was fired three times for daring to preach anything on Genesis, another Church some friends attend told them it wouldn't invite "hired guns" like the speakers from AiG to speak at their Church, even though this same Church had Hugh Ross speak. Other people see the inconsistency, and they don't buy it.

The athiests want to project an image of science versus faith (just see how many times that comes up as a keyword in the liberal press), when in fact it's their faith against ours.

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one's just a fantasy...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/911508.asp

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crptc_Prgrmr:
The athiests want to project an image of science versus faith (just see how many times that comes up as a keyword in the liberal press), when in fact it's their faith against ours.

---

Exactly! Well put!
tho, heh heh, I would probably put it as "their faith vs. our Faith and Science."
After all, all christianity fits perfectly with science. Truth is truth. 'nuff said.

------------------

He also wanted to define faith as belief in the absence of evidence/proof. I brought up two points to counter that, one being the verse about God being made known to man by what is made in combination with the verse that tells us that without faith it's impossible to please God because those who come to him must believe that he exists (either our faith isn't belief in the absence of evidence, or the Bible is wrong which both of us agreed was not the case).

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one's just a fantasy...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...

------------------

Anyway this isn't half as weird as the discussion I've had with a "Christian" mystic.

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one's just makes you sleep...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...

Yeah. sometimes alot of people like saying "this is a good way to witness," "this is not a good way to witness." But ultimately, God knows.

Also, I have a problem with Non-Truth. It's not true... it bothers me when people believe it.

------------------

Hopefully these people will continue thinking about it though, and may the Holy Spirit be the bug in their ears:-)

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one just makes you sleep...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...
(Rich Mullins)

[This message has been edited by Crptc_Prgrmr (edited June 26, 2003).]

quote:

---

Crptc_Prgrmr:
Several of the Christians I've talked with try the tack of "it isn't required for salvation therefore it's not important,"

---

Yeah... it may not be essential, but it's important.
Not a very scientist attitude, huh?

------------------

When I started this thread I had an image in my head of a computer. the computer being the organism.

If the computer were left for millions of years it would still be a computer. same with the organism.

To me personally, somebody came along and wrote the software "DNA" to make that computer work and perform tasks.

Thus we have an organism that can evolve, grow ,eat and reproduce ect.

The programmer in my mind is our loving god.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randomness???

I think randomness is the most common excuse for scientists to explain things when they really dont have a clue on whats going on.

THX again guys.

my current faith level is at 23%. Its rising.
The more it does, for some reason the happier I feel.

------------------
The human brain is the architect of reality

Scientifically, evolution has absolutely zero support. The only real way to change genes is by mutations and natural selection. This is a horizontal or downward process, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Natural selection actually preserves species (check out population genetics), and allows them to populate different areas of the earth. The fossils only clearly show one thing, stasis (Steven Gould among others has admitted this). Experiments on insects with increased mutation rates have consistently shown the limits of genetic change. Not all cells are even made out of the same substances, there are consistent differences between the cells in birds and fish and other animals. Numerous systems exist in nature that could not be evolved in the step-by-step process of Darwinian evolution, and punctuated equilibrium as the alternative has neither evidence nor practical basis. Then there are bizarre results of the theory, such as the need for identically functioning eyes to have evolved some 40 times! The number of mutations that actually affect the DNA is very low, and often get corrected by the system, so you'd need billions of individuals to even possibly get the changes required for evolution (assuming it were theoretically possible). Think about this, when people talk about finding "a" missing link, they miss this major piece of the problem. We aren't talking about "a" missing link, if evolution happened we should find billions of in-between forms, not just one here or there (that can be interpretted as one anyway), if man has been around for the millions and millions of years as evolutionists claim, and fossilization is the slow and gradual process they claim (necessary for their claims of evolutionary evidence, but impossible anyway), then you should find them in the rock. As it is most of the fossils (something like 80%), even on the highest mountains, are marine animals.

Theologically, this combination of evolution with God's creation is trouble, and I hope you will consider some of the issues. If God created through evolution, or created animals with this ability through the processes we see today, then death and suffering were part of what God called "very good", yet death is what Jesus came to destroy, as the final "enemy". Also, the Bible repeatedly tells that the animals were each created to reproduce "after their kinds" (this from a book that also described the earth as a sphere in David's day, and told that all flesh was not the same flesh), this is in the NT as well as OT, and beyond the clear teaching of Genesis and Exodus on a creation in six literal days, Jesus affirmed that people were created "in the begining".

If you want to check this out more, just look at www.icr.org and www.answersingenesis.org , and you might also take a look at the book "The Lie: Evolution" by Ken Ham, it won't beat you over the head, but it really gives a lot of good thought on the subject. If you read one book on the subject, and I'd encourage you to do so, this would be the one. See if it doesn't all "renew your mind."

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one just makes you sleep...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...
(Rich Mullins)

This link discusses some DNA related news.

I hadn't noticed their latest update to the site, I'm hoping Ross will actually debate Humphreys at Las Alamos, that would be very interesting.

gump, you're right about DNA, I can't for the life of me understand how any serious programmer can begin to look at it without acknowledging the engineer behind it.

Add in that the same DNA code can (and does) contain multiple information depending on where the reader starts from (another hint that information isn't material in the first place so can hardly be explained by material processes). Tighter coding than anything we do.

If anyone called my multiprocessing and multitasking code "junk" simply because they couldn't understand the one's and zero's (what some of this DNA appears to be doing from recent study), I'd be upset.

BTW, here's a piece on the mitochondrial rates...

Using DNA mutation rates to date fossils, researchers believe that the first humans (not hominids), "Adam and Eve," lived 100,000-200,000 years ago. But recently researchers recognized they had miscalculated the rate of mitochondrial DNA mutation in fossils of early humans. Instead of having existed over 100,000 years ago, the new data indicates "Eve" may have lived only 6000 years ago, a scenario that amazingly correlates with the Biblical dating of creation. [Science, Volume 279, page 28, 1998]

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one just makes you sleep...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...
(Rich Mullins)

EDIT:

Ok, with a quick search I found something:

http://www.imssdarm.org/Publications/youthanchor/archive/mtclock.htm

It isn't very technical at all, so I'll continue to search and I would still like you to post your link.

EDIT2:

Found more details here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

This article is from a completely evolutionist point of view, but it does give more information and references on how it is done. The key here is that these articles ignore any new findings.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2003/dc-03-01.htm

This article pretty much covers it all. It would have been nice if the mutation rate WAS proven stable without a doubt, as it would make a very nice piece of evidence. Basically, it sounds like another case of "ignore the evidence and just keep moving on" for the evolutionists, they are still using the original old information as a basis for their new hypothesis's.

[This message has been edited by GUMP (edited July 02, 2003).]

The evolutionists haven't been interested in facts since Huxley anyway.

------------------
There's a difference you know, 'tween having faith and playing make-believe. One will make you grow, the other one just makes you sleep...

Faith without works is like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine...
(Rich Mullins)