• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?

Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Just go up from watching an hour long documentary titled
"Was Darwin Wrong?"

It was noted that DNA was not discovered until 1953.
So, when Darwin wrote down his thoughts, he did not have the means to support them altogether.
His observations brought forth a theory, and it would remain as such until laboratory experiments could help to verify the idea.

In the hour long documentary, an animal called a sea squirt was subjected to an electrical shock....to change it's DNA.
The offspring of that animal developed a two chamber heart...instead of the usual one chamber heart.
A profound change...considering the one and only influence that induced it.
Apparently, DNA can be influenced rather easily....and lengthy periods of time are not required for change.

Other examples of influence were demonstrated, all to predictable results.
The title of the program should have been...Proving Darwin Right.

Still...I say...God is behind it all.
He set all things in motion. And it is the continual undulation of chemistry that is this earth...that produces, and brings to evolution all these various forms of life.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Thief said:
Just go up from watching an hour long documentary titled
"Was Darwin Wrong?"

It was noted that DNA was not discovered until 1953.
So, when Darwin wrote down his thoughts, he did not have the means to support them altogether.
His observations brought forth a theory, and it would remain as such until laboratory experiments could help to verify the idea.

In the hour long documentary, an animal called a sea squirt was subjected to an electrical shock....to change it's DNA.
The offspring of that animal developed a two chamber heart...instead of the usual one chamber heart.
A profound change...considering the one and only influence that induced it.
Apparently, DNA can be influenced rather easily....and lengthy periods of time are not required for change.

Other examples of influence were demonstrated, all to predictable results.
The title of the program should have been...Proving Darwin Right.

Still...I say...God is behind it all.
He set all things in motion. And it is the continual undulation of chemistry that is this earth...that produces, and brings to evolution all these various forms of life.
Click to expand...

I applaud you for bringing science to the table on this one to challenge me Thief. It's not enough to change my opinion on the matter, but kudos on presenting a palpable argument. Thank you. Who knows, maybe someday I'll look back and say "wow, he was actually on to something".

Cheers.
 
V

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
Thief said:
Just go up from watching an hour long documentary titled
"Was Darwin Wrong?"

It was noted that DNA was not discovered until 1953.
So, when Darwin wrote down his thoughts, he did not have the means to support them altogether.
His observations brought forth a theory, and it would remain as such until laboratory experiments could help to verify the idea.

In the hour long documentary, an animal called a sea squirt was subjected to an electrical shock....to change it's DNA.
The offspring of that animal developed a two chamber heart...instead of the usual one chamber heart.
A profound change...considering the one and only influence that induced it.
Apparently, DNA can be influenced rather easily....and lengthy periods of time are not required for change.

Other examples of influence were demonstrated, all to predictable results.
The title of the program should have been...Proving Darwin Right.

Still...I say...God is behind it all.
He set all things in motion. And it is the continual undulation of chemistry that is this earth...that produces, and brings to evolution all these various forms of life.
Click to expand...


Darwin had means to support evolution without genetics. Genetics isn't the only evidence supporting evolution. It's the strongest, however. The discovery of genetics actually fit perfectly with evolution and only made the evidence for evolution that much stronger. Evolution also has the fossil record backing it.

I also have serious doubts as to electric shocks changing DNA that much. Think about how many times we get shocked on a daily basis. We may touch a metal doorknob and receive a shock, for example. Yet our offspring do not come out with significant genetic mutation.

And it depends on how great of a change you are talking about.

Nonetheless, I still see no reason to claim God did it when there are naturalistic mechanisms to explain the origins of everything. Even if they are currently not conclusively proven, it at least demonstrates that God is at best irrelevant and very probably non-existent.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
prayersofjerusalem said:
Evolution can exist within bible's teachings
Click to expand...

I have a hard time agreeing with this one. There are claims in genesis as to how life came to be which are clearly not in harmony with evolution, and jesus had no apparent knowledge of any hint of evolutionary theory, so I'm gonna have to say I call "no" on that claim about compatibility between the bible and evolution.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Day Six tells the creation of Man.
Please notice....no names, no restrictions.
He made them in His image male and female.
He told them go forth be fruitful and multiply.
Dominate all things.

Day Seven...He rests. The creation process has ended.
Chapter One displays evolution. Plenty of time was allowed for Man to develop.


Apparently, the experiment was going too slow or the results were less than desirable. Apparently, Man was still behaving too much like an animal.

THEN comes Chapter Two.

Adam is isolated into ideal living conditions.
His life span is lengthy because of it.
He is put to sleep (anesthesia), and a rib is removed (operation).
The rib is increased to full status (cloning).
The clone is made to be a female ( genetic engineering).
Adam is given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve did not have a navel.


Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One. It portrays a more controlled experiment.

Either way...God was in control.
 
Last edited:
Kathryn

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
For those who are interested, I found an interesting link to a book on how to read Genesis. I like what this author says because in layman's terms, he lays out the principles for reading and interpreting an ancient text such as the book of Genesis. His approach seems objective and fundamentally honest.

How to read Genesis - Google Books
 
Kathryn

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Who, me? No. I just thought the book (which I haven't read in it's entirity) seemed like a decent resource for anyone reading Genesis.
 
camanintx

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Dunemeister said:
The opposing argument would be that the percentage of DNA patterns shared does not imply relationship but only that God designed the creatures according to a similar design plan. So again, this is a matter of perspective and first assumptions. If one is not initially inclined to accept evolution, he would attribute what the evolutionary scientist calls "relationship" to "similar design plan."
Click to expand...
But the common design argument only works for the functional parts of our genome. Pseudogenes are formerly functional genes that have undergone clear mutations leaving them non-functional, similar to typographical errors in a written document. When we find the exact same typographical error in written documents, we can be almost certain that the document was copied without any regard for the contents. Likewise, identical pseudogenes in two species can only be explained if they evolved from a common ancestor that shared this same pseudogene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top