On Evolution & Creation

[Dimi95]

Then you do the math and show me where it is wrong.

Enjoy,

That's the problem.
You think that Math will give you knowledge in Biology.

Well , by the models yes , but that's it.

 

[YoursTrue]

How?
Can you live a milion years?


Yes , certain methodologies witness that.
And that is not a merit btw.


Actually , they show the exact oposite ,

Read :

A Pleistocene Puzzle: Extinction in South America

evolution.berkeley.edu

You think that is intelligent assistance?
Making cream on your coffee?



No one is assuming nothing before they study it.
The number does not matter - what matters is the way you get to it.

You're saying we humans do not have to witness the process of evolution but it is true nonetheless.

 

[Dimi95]

The BBT is based on there being non-existence and all of a sudden the universe began to expand into the universe the universe we have today. You may like your version of the BBT but I don't know what you base it on.

No Scientist has said this , neither Atheist , neither Theist.

The Big Bang Theory was formulated by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian astronomer and cosmologist.

You forgot to say that he was a Christian.

He proposed that the universe began from a single, primeval “super-atom” that exploded, leading to the expansion of the universe. This idea was later popularized as the "Big Bang Theory.

That "super-atom" later received the nickname of the God Particle.

So you think God is a particle , and you think that God has parts?

Then it became a pinpoint .

No , we see only light at the end of all that.

Sorry , bad news for you.

Do you guys know anything about what you are trying to argue, or does it just change every so often?

Enjoy,

We don't know everything , but we know some things that some here don't.

 

[Dimi95]

You're saying we humans do not have to witness the process of evolution but it is true nonetheless.

Define 'witness'.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can say the otherwise.
By appoarching another interpretation of the Bible , which is not so litterate i can say that the Bible does not say much about Evolution , but tells much more about events in certain timelines.


So you choose what to accept?


You don't have to , in this case is really irrelevant.


And you think that by one defition alone you can decide what is correct and what is not?


The best clue is a gene all animals have inherited. This gene is called Sonic Hedgehog and it controls the development of fins, claws, hands, etc. Considering Fish are the oldest vertebrates, we know we must have inherited it from them.

Vertebrates are an animal of a large group distinguished by the possession of a backbone or spinal column.

That's it.

Obviously our aspects and viewpoints of the Bible are different. While I certainly can say I don't understand everything in the Bible, I also now believe that the process of evolution as described by scientists is not valid. To present land flopping fish or Tiktaalik as examples that evolution is true does not make the theory true. It means that there are fish that flop around on land and that there once was a fish type named Tiktaalik.

 

[YoursTrue]

Define 'witness'.

I think it's clear what the word means, perhaps you can say why you want me to define the word. Since you asked that, though, I truly wonder about the sincerity of some on the board insofar as their reasoning goes. Take care. With that I may say -- so long -- goodbye -- auf wiedersehen...have a good one!

 

[Dimi95]

Obviously our aspects and viewpoints of the Bible are different.

I agree , i am glad that we sortes that out.

While I certainly can say I don't understand everything in the Bible

Neither do i , i don't understand everything.
But i try to understand as much as it gets.

, I also now believe that the process of evolution as described by scientists is not valid.

And you need to be able to demonstrate that.
Otherwise is just aples and oranges.

To present land flopping fish or Tiktaalik as examples that evolution is true does not make the theory true.

Yes it makes it just more and more probable.
Evolution is a large area of study.
This kind of rejection is absurd , sorry.

This is very weak straw-man.

It means that there are fish that flop around on land and that there once was a fish type named Tiktaalik.

And may i ask how did you get to this conclusion?
By reading the Bible?

 

[Dimi95]

I think it's clear what the word means, perhaps you can say why you want me to define the word. Since you asked that, though, I truly wonder about the sincerity of some on the board insofar as their reasoning goes. Take care. With that I may say -- so long -- goodbye -- auf wiedersehen...have a good one!

No , it is not clear to me , i wanted to know what you mean by that.We can witness things in many ways.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree , i am glad that we sortes that out.


Neither do i , i don't understand everything.
But i try to understand as much as it gets.



And you need to be able to demonstrate that.
Otherwise is just aples and oranges.ju


Yes it makes it just more and more probable.
Evolution is a large area of study.
This kind of rejection is absurd , sorry.

This is very weak straw-man.


And may i ask how did you get to this conclusion?
By reading the Bible?

OK, just as there is no "proof" in science, I think it's about time for me to say auf wiedersehen. Take care.

 

[Dimi95]

OK, just as there is no "proof" in science, I think it's about time for me to say auf wiedersehen. Take care.

Do you think that a 'belief' without proof can be true?
The proper word is not belief but let's just settle for something that exists without proof and it is true.

 

[wellwisher]

The Theory of Evolution is not the same as the Mechanism of Evolution. If you use a black box approach, one can still correlate a theory, from the input and output. However, the mechanism remains hidden in the black box. I can see and accept the theory of Evolution, but I disagree with the current attempts at any evolutionary mechanism.

For example, DNA as shown in almost biology textbooks is not bioactive. The DNA needs water to become bioactive and this hydration water is not shown in most if not all biology textbooks. Out of the gate, there is major flaw in terms of teaching realty science, that is still not corrected. In the black box, this may not matter, and may even be good enough for the theory, but it prevents knowledge of a sound mechanism.

Below, in the top image, shows the water that needs to hydrogen bond to the phase pairs, with nature making these hydrogen bonding sites with water in mind. The GC base pair form 3 hydrogen bonds between the base pair, and 6 with water. With the AT base pair, there are two hydrogen bonds between the base pair, and five hydrogen bonds with water. Those water are designated to be there as part of a composite DNA-H2O structure. You cannot replace that water with any other solvent and get bioactivity.

Below is a larger scale picture with water also destined for the phosphates groups, the base pair hydration water as forms a double helix within the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. This is all needed for the DNA to become bioactive. Beyond about 10 angstroms you have the bulk water. When an enzyme complex separates the double helix, the double helix water structure is altered, with a rapid increase in entropy; free energy boost that is part of the catalysis. A real mechanism needs this at the very least.

Below is more of a standard textbook image. It says a lot, but is not based on the practical reality needed for a solid mechanism. As shown, the DNA is not bioactive and cannot be used for evolution. But may this may be good enough for the blackbox theory of Evolution. But if you open the black box, you will see what I showed, in the two above images. Evolutionist get upset when I show the truth. It could be the black box taboo that should never be opened. This makes me a Creationists because I wish to know the truth and not just the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Theory of Evolution is not the same as the Mechanism of Evolution. If you use a black box approach, one can still correlate a theory, from the input and output. However, the mechanism remains hidden in the black box. I can see and accept the theory of Evolution, but I disagree with the current attempts at any evolutionary mechanism.

For example, DNA as shown in almost biology textbooks is not bioactive. The DNA needs water to become bioactive and this hydration water is not shown in most if not all biology textbooks. Out of the gate, there is major flaw in terms of teaching realty science, that is still not corrected. In the black box, this may not matter, and may even be good enough for the theory, but it prevents knowledge of a sound mechanism.

Below, in the top image, shows the water that needs to hydrogen bond to the phase pairs, with nature making these hydrogen bonding sites with water in mind. The GC base pair form 3 hydrogen bonds between the base pair, and 6 with water. With the AT base pair, there are two hydrogen bonds between the base pair, and five hydrogen bonds with water. Those water are designated to be there as part of a composite DNA-H2O structure. You cannot replace that water with any other solvent and get bioactivity.

Below is a larger scale picture with water also destined for the phosphates groups, the base pair hydration water as forms a double helix within the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. This is all needed for the DNA to become bioactive. Beyond about 10 angstroms you have the bulk water. When an enzyme complex separates the double helix, the double helix water structure is altered, with a rapid increase in entropy; free energy boost that is part of the catalysis. A real mechanism needs this at the very least.

Below is more of a standard textbook image. It says a lot, but is not based on the practical reality needed for a solid mechanism. As shown, the DNA is not bioactive and cannot be used for evolution. But may this may be good enough for the blackbox theory of Evolution. But if you open the black box, you will see what I showed, in the two above images. Evolutionist get upset when I show the truth. It could be the black box taboo that should never be opened. This makes me a Creationists because I wish to know the truth and not just the theory.

Listen, thanks for that. As I see it, it (the need for water of DNA) almost shows me that it is unreasonable to think it all came about without a divine maker. Obviously some will argue that no Divine Authority is necessary for these functions. I no longer accept that as a theory, since I believe now it is too fantastic for these things like DNA to 'happen.'

 

[Audie]

How could one vital organ survive, while it is waiting for all the rest of the vital organs to evolve?

The average adult human has between 300 million and 500 million Alveoli in their lungs. Alveoli are the structural and functional units of the respiratory system, and they increase the surface area for the exchange of respiratory gases. Yes, the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide occurs throughout the bloodstream, primarily through the process of gas exchange where oxygen moves from the lungs into the blood and carbon dioxide moves from the blood into the lungs at the level of the alveoli, carried by red blood cells to be delivered to body tissues and then transported back to the lungs as waste.

Doesn't the heart, lungs, brain, blood stream, nervous system, muscles, digestive system, skeletal system, mouth, throat, eyes, passageways and other vital organs have to be fully developed all the same time?

How would one survive without all the others, fully developed all at the same time?

Because that is not remotely what happened.

All you creationists do is make up silly ideas then ridicule them.

Showvsome education and self respect already.

 

[walt]

Because that is not remotely what happened.

All you creationists do is make up silly ideas then ridicule them.

Showvsome education and self respect already.

I respect all persons that believe in evolution, I just feel it is silly because of the reasons I have already commented on. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[walt]

How do all the vital organs in the body evolve?

How does the eyeball evolve?

How does the mouth, teeth, tongue, taste buds, the ability to swallow, the digestive system evolve?

The skeletal system?

The shoulder, the arm, the elbow, the wrist the hand the fingers?

The reproductive system?

Wouldn't the first human need to be Instantly complete, to survive out the first day? How could the first of any life, live to see the next day If something vital was missing?

 

[walt]

I feel for life to start, it needs to start complete not incomplete, like what you see when you look at any person.
[ A fully developed human being, with all of its parts functioning. ]

If the first human was complete In the first moment of life, that sounds like intelligent design not evolution. In my opinion.

 

[John53]

The plates of the continents bashing into each other is that what you are talking about?
All they do is rearrange the landscape.
The deepest oil well is in Russia at 7.57 miles deep. Oil is where ever you find it.

Yep, rearrange the landscape... like building the Himalayas. Pretty impressive rearranging.

Enjoy,

Enjoy what?

 

[John53]

How do all the vital organs in the body evolve?

How does the eyeball evolve?

How does the mouth, teeth, tongue, taste buds, the ability to swallow, the digestive system evolve?

The skeletal system?

The shoulder, the arm, the elbow, the wrist the hand the fingers?

The reproductive system?

Wouldn't the first human need to be Instantly complete, to survive out the first day? How could the first of any life, live to see the next day If something vital was missing?

All these questions have been asked and answered dozens of times over the years. You can look back through old threads or google the questions. That's if your truly interested in finding answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The BBT is based on there being non-existence and all of a sudden the universe began to expand into the universe the universe we have today. You may like your version of the BBT but I don't know what you base it on.


The Big Bang Theory was formulated by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian astronomer and cosmologist.


He proposed that the universe began from a single, primeval “super-atom” that exploded, leading to the expansion of the universe. This idea was later popularized as the "Big Bang Theory.

That "super-atom" later received the nickname of the God Particle.

Then it became a pinpoint .

Do you guys know anything about what you are trying to argue, or does it just change every so often?

Enjoy,

No, the Higgs boson or "God Particle" was not the super atom. That article does not support that claim. And they found the Higgs boson.

Higgs boson: The 'God Particle' explained

The existence of the Higgs boson completes the standard model of particle physics.

www.space.com

And the physics of the Big Bang breaks down before we get to a point. This article covers how small the known universe could br:

How Small Was The Universe At The Start Of The Big Bang?

If it wasn't a singularity, how small could it have been?

www.forbes.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you do the math and show me where it is wrong.

Enjoy,

I only have to point out the facts.