On closer inspection, too many aspects of the current information believed to consolidate the theory of evolution can be found to be scientifically inaccurate (in both biology and physics) and also never observed and unproven.
I found also it's incompatible with the Holy Bible and God does not deceive us. You can ask me if you wish I'll try to answer in simple language as much as I can.
Some of you have been studying the human embryo undergoes evolutionary changes during gestation this is fake and the German biologist who fabricated this study was exposed long ago.
Same story about human DNA that it has all the info of the evolutionary steps. We have been pushed to learn this is fact since our early years to believe it regardless of it being true or not.
Same story goes for the millions/billions of years propaganda. The truth is it was all built on inaccurate assumptions mostly based on imagination, including the 'scientifically measured' ages and colossal time scales (there will be adding for more big time, in biology).
Have a look at this very large panel, it describes many biochemical and metabolic pathways that occur mainly inside animal cells (current knowledge): http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl
Scientists have concluded that for biological life to start (just start, cannot even continue) in the simplest possible way at least 250 different types of proteins and enzymes like these need to be present AND directed to interact and feedback optimally.
How would DNA (or a subset as RNA) that must be present to ensure production and regulation of these complex protein based energy requiring mechanisms at the same moment, to suddenly exist fully coded, active and protecting itself and other proteins from decay or unwanted reactions? It can never be a trial and error thing - not even given 500 millions of years and is not even statistically possible.
Life cannot be produced from non life it's an established law of nature.
If you take that literally, its false, God didn't create the earth, dust and gas collected together, drawn in by the force of gravity, and grew gradually larger until it formed the earth. So specifically, God didn't create the Earth, nature did. That suggests that God uses nature as a tool, that the universe and laws of nature themselves are designed so that within the universe, a planet like ours capable of supporting life would form. If you apply the same principle to life on Earth, its not far-fetched that the entirety of life on earth became what it is today without God's conscious intervention.
Nature can do nothing by itself. Yes God uses nature as a tool but this is so after all creation has been created by Him. Amazingly (to current human logic) God tells us He created light before creating the sun, and also He created the Earth before He created the sun and the moon. When God says these details in clear order in the inspired Scriptures (in Genesis and in other books much later) I have to believe Him because he is the Holy One who created everything who knows better and in Him is the fullness of Truth.
The repetition of the time frame of one morning and one evening is for our human understanding that it is a real day as mankind knows it. Thus God created time as we know it even though He is miraculous in His work and though he is Omnipresent and the "day" is a real 24 hours one to us. God created time so the well known "day" frame was active before He regulated the motion of the Earth and its moon around the sun. So there is no gap every day is really one day.
For instance, when God tells us He created the birds and all flying creatures He means He created all flying kinds from insects to mammals included.
God didn't create the earth, dust and gas collected together, drawn in by the force of gravity
From what I studied that's what can form stars and the like, not a special, very habitable planet like ours. Also the mere presence of water and some other dead elements that we found in proteins does not statistically mean life must happen by chance.
The occurrence of many biological similarities spanning different kinds means to me one thing: God creates with style. His designed style is by creating the extremely complex DNA coding system and chromosomes in all living creatures though these coding instructions may have some common features but also do have some differences, that's one good reason God said it was good.
As a student I can certainly study evolution as it is one of the 'scientific' theories on origins and also think as an evolutionist for a moment to fully understand it, take my exams or write about it (without believing it or rejecting God's Word of course) BUT deep inside I know it is NOT the truth. Later I will also warn my close friends and my kids not to fall into this closed minded trap.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98453#msg98453 date=1229466744] Nature can do nothing by itself. Yes God uses nature as a tool but this is so after all creation has been created by Him. Amazingly (to current human logic) God tells us He created light before creating the sun, and also He created the Earth before He created the sun and the moon.
I agree 100%, that's exactly my point. And you know what's interesting, after the Big Bang, all light was 'trapped' inside the energy that was pushing the universe outwards, and then, it was all suddenly released into the universe in one go. Exactly like Genesis says, 'Let there be light...' Interesting huh?
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98453#msg98453 date=1229466744] God created time so the well known "day" frame was active before He regulated the motion of the Earth and its moon around the sun. So there is no gap every day is really one day.
Do you mean a 24 hour day? If so, I strongly urge you to rethink that, because its just about impossible, unless God lied to us and created a universe that only LOOKED like it was 12 billion years old. The evidence is, that the things like the earth's formation and development of life (whether by evolution or not) took several millions of years, not 24 hour days. What's more, the original Hebrew word that we translate as 'day' is 'yom' which is often used as an indefinite period of time, anywhere from a wekk to and epoch. Even the Pope doesn't believe that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days...
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98430#msg98430 date=1229455911] Scientists have concluded that for biological life to start (just start, cannot even continue) in the simplest possible way at least 250 different types of proteins and enzymes like these need to be present AND directed to interact and feedback optimally.
Yes that's absolutely true, the attempts science has made to explain the origin of life have been, frankly pathetic (the man who discovered DNA thinks aliens did it, no joke). This is because we just don't know enough about it. While with our current understanding, it seems like we'll never find a naturalistic explanation for it, remember we used to think the earth was flat. Just because science can't explain something today, doesn't mean God did it. But hear me out, imagine if 10 years from now, a scientist discovers some scientific principle which shows how the first living cell formed purely by natural means, that would be a MASSIVE problem for atheists. Think of it, the universe itself would have been proven to have been DESIGNED to produce life!
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98453#msg98453 date=1229466744] From what I studied that's what can form stars and the like, not a special, very habitable planet like ours. Also the mere presence of water and some other dead elements that we found in proteins does not statistically mean life must happen by chance.
I understand your point, and it is very interesting area. But the fact remains, earth did form when clouds of dust and gas clumped together by gravity. Yes, there was a lot of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in that dust and gas, which is what makes the Earth habitable, but there is no evidence that the way the earth formed was anything other than natural.
My point is this; I see two possibilities:
1. God created the universe, and since then He has constantly been 'tweaking' it, using divine intervention to do all the things we see as miraculous coincidences, like creating a perfect Earth for life to exist on and creating life itself. Meaning basically, if God didn't supernaturally intervene with the universe AFTER it was created, none of use would be here.
2. God did only one thing, create the singularity (i.e. the atom sized particle that the universe began as, and which 'exploded' in what we call the Big Bang). But, He created the singularity so perfectly, that the universe that it would grow into would do everything on its own, create a perfect earth, bring forth life and develop it until it was ready to recieve human spirits.
Personally, I tend to lean towards option 2. It explains a great many things, like why God create the universe, wait 12 billion years and then come back and create the earth, wait several millions of years and then come back and create life, which doesn't make sense. Option 1 makes God look incompetent, His creations is so fiddly that He has to constantly return to it and fix it to make it do what He wants. It makes more sense (to me at least) that God would create a universe so perfectly aligned with His will that it didn't even require His conscious intervention. Do you see what I'm saying?
I just think we shouldn't reject evolution JUST because of our faith. If we have any scientific objections to it, well and good, but our Christianity should not be the thing that causes those objections. Look, my dad is a priest and he himself has told me that he sees no contradiction between evolution and Christianity, he doesn't believe it himself, but ONLY because he doesn't think there is enough scientific evidence. I myself am undecided, because I just can't find enough objective evidence to make a decision. The evolution debate is split right down the middle with Christians on one side and atheist's on the other and the Christians are just as indoctrinated and biased as the atheists. The links you provided are a perfct example, you can trace them all back to a Christian author. If evolution was really as bankrupt as some Christians claim, then you would expect that some atheist's would be against it as well, but there is no group for atheist's against evolution. On the other hand, the Catholic Church itself has accepted evolution and there are tonnes of Christian organistations and people who are in favour of evolution. That's got to say something doesn't it?
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=7414.msg98401#msg98401 date=1229425508] While in the Bible it clearly states that God took dust from the earth and breathed in it, this is inconsistent with the evolution theory. For even if animals and birds came along by evolution, Adam can't have, since he was especially created by God with His breath... also it clearly states that only then did Adam become a living being, thus he wasn't alive before that in the form of an ape or any other animal...
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (genesis 2:7)
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=7414.msg98390#msg98390 date=1229387207] Nai_nai, I did not say that Adam and Eve were created before God created animals.What I said was, that the theory of evolution tells us that Adam was not created but evolved from apes. Such type of evolution is not OK with christianity.
Sorry bout that Hezekiel, I misunderstood what your point was. But you and Godislove seem to be talking about the same problem, ie that evolution makes humans little more than intelligent animals and contradicts the concept of God's 'breathing' of life into Adam, butI disagree, I think the two can be reconciled.
If evolution is true, that means that our bodies are indeed, just another breed of animal. In fact, our DNA is 99% the same as a monkey's, which leaves opponents to evolution with a lot of explaining to do. But for all the things that are the same between humans and monkeys, there is something massively different between us that evolution can't explain: consciousness. Genesis says that man was created in the image of God, now obviously that doesn't mean God's PHYSICAL image, God doesn't have two eyes a nose etc., He's a spirit. That means that the part of us that resembles God is our spirits, not our bodies. And that's the difference between us and animals, we display many of the characterisitcs of God, while animals don't.
1. Creativity: no animals, even the ones that are supposed to have a similar brain capacity to a human child, display creativity. Everything they do is purely for survival. Humans however display the same love for creation and beauty that God did when He created the angels and our own race as well as the beautiful universe we live in.
2. Objective moral laws: Every human being, no matter hwere they were born or how they are raised knows what is right and wrong. Evolution just can't explain that, but the Bible tells us that that occurred when Adam and Eve ate of the tree. Natural selection should have meant that the organisms who stole and lied and murdered for their own gain were the ones who survived, and that is what our moral code should be telling us. BUt its not, its telling us things that have aboslutely nothing to do with survival.
3. Free will: Animals do not have a spirit, so everything they do is driven by instinct. They dont make choices, they make calculations; lion runs towards monkey, monkey runs. Simple as that. When you and I make a decision however, we feel like the choice really was ours. That means either we have a METAPHYSICAL element to us that's actually making the decision, or free will is just an illusion, which is very, very unlikely. Again, that separates us from the animals, and is a characteristic of God.
There's much more, but I'm sure you get the idea. Now none of these things can be explained physically, consciousness is by its very nature metaphysical. So, I put it to you, that all the above characteristics are the result of the 'breath of life' which God breathed into Adam. What's more, if you read Genesis again, I think that God makes Adam and then breath His spirit into him. That suggests that the PHYSICAL Adam, was little more than an animal, which is consistent with evolution. Isn't it possible then that the physical body Adam had was brought about by evolution, and God breathed into that body and made it the vessel for human spirits?
Now admittedly, that is just speculation, but I still don't think evolution clashes with the idea of man being created in the image of God.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=7414.msg98400#msg98400 date=1229425009] I do know about Mendel's law (by the way very original way of explaining it lol), but that's not what I was referring to. As you know, Hezekiel, my field of study now is completely far from the scientific field, yet as my interests are very broad and varied. I do remember some things from biology as it was one of my favourite subjects in high school, although the info might not be entirely correct or detailed any more. What I do remember well is that while the teacher was explaining Darwin's theory, he specifically said that all genetic code from all stages of evolution can be found within the human cell. He used this to prove the evolution theory (NOT microevolution), although he had clearly stated beforehand that the theory has many holes in it and that there are people in the scientific community who don't agree with it, although just a minority. [
Godislove, I am certain, that if your teacher was talking about the theory of evolution,then he was talking about evolution that occurs as a result of genetic mutation.Mutations happen when genes that are faithfully copied from our parents encounter trouble.Occasionally, a gene is not copied correctly.The resultig offspring begins life with a new gene that is not possessed by either parents. This new gene is called mutant. Most of the time,such an outcome results in diseases.Most experts who believe in the theory of evolution argue that mutant genes are the bedrock of evolution by natural selection.But it has been shown that the majority genetic mutations are neutral,that means, they do not favour natural selection.These mutations do not help the organism to cause an increase in gene frequencey in subsequent generations.
The best example of genetic mutation that the Evolution-apologists regulary chew on is given here:
4) Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transition forms? Why is not nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them well defined? Darwin’s theory of natural selection is incapable of finding the link to prove how one kind of creature could evolve into a completely different kind when it doesn’t have the genetic coding to do so (mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. Bacteria may be an exception for this rule because they benefit from mutation but a bacterium remains a bacterium after mutating).
According to them,the case of the Bacteria is an evolution by natural selection.That is pure non-sense. The bacteria become resistant to drugs cos through mutation the bacteria lose the ability to produce an enzyme which interacts with the toxin. The antibiotic therefore loses its efficacy. But this does not mean the bacteria gains any new genetic information as they claim, they lose it. The most important thing is that the bacteria remains bacteria.
All of mutations examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.If there is no gain of new info,evoltion can not take place and that us why their theory is still a theory.
every human being has within him the genetic code for all stages of evolution, but most of it is deactivated..That's how I learned it in Biology class.
Every organism has a genome made up of DNA which is sort of instruction manual for making the organism. The genome can roughly be devided into 2 parts: Coding DNA and NON-Coding DNA.
a) Coding DNA: Here the sequence of the DNA are transliterated and are the genes that determine the physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism(so-called Phenotype).The process of transliteration has stages:-DNA sequences are copied into RNA (RNA is another molecule-the cousin of istaz DNA),then the RNA is copied into Amino Acids.Now,not all the transliterated RNA are copied into amino Acids(Proteins).This brings me to the 2nd part:Non-coding DNA
b)Non-coding DNA -There are areas of DNA that do not get copied. In other words, they seem to have no function.Actually no body knows what their functions are, but they are there and do not get coded.To use your word, they are sort of 'deactivated'.
Epchoice Nai-Nai:
It is very important to differentiate between the theory of evolution by NATURAL SELECTION and the mere theory of Evolution. We coud perhaps accept the Bible and that species evolve on a smaller scale and still believe in God. After all, might it not be the case that God controls the evolutionary process? Thus, it is not the idea of Evoltion itself that is the problem, but the dangerous idea that evolution happened as a result of NATURAL SELECTION. The latter theory has no room for God.
any protein is formed of many units called amino acids attached to each other (peptide chains) so, to simply explain the main steps of a prot. synthesis occurring inside a cell (plate C):
1. a certain protein selectively passes from cytoplasm to the nucleus through a nuclear pore (notice the membrane that bounds the cell nucleus there are ~4000 pores in it) 2. this prot. triggers a signal inside the cell nucleus [HOW?] 3. DNA responds by temporarily unwinding and loosening its double helix strands at some specific location [WHY?] 4. an RNA strand is synthesized from this location into a sequence that starts by the name of 5' end till the other 3' end which is the negative mirror of one of these two strands of DNA, this is a: transcription (of DNA code) 5. this preliminary messenger RNA (mRNA) is made of coding (called exons) and non-coding (called introns) pieces, they are the mirrored negative of the DNA location 6. this RNA undergoes a process called splicing to rid itself from the introns and becomes the ready active mRNA 7. it then passes out from the nucleus (through a pore) and in the cytoplasm another roundish type of RNA in the cytoplasm called ribosomes rRNA (some are freely bathing, others are fixed to special structures) binds to it at the 5' end, then starts moving step by step to read the coding sequence on the mRNA from the 5' end towards the 3' end 8. at each of these steps of code translation the rRNA attracts from the cytoplasm another type of RNA called the transfer RNA (tRNA) 9. the rRNA instructs the tRNA to fetch from the cytoplasm the desired amino acid (one by one, one per step) that will be forming the new desired protein, according to the mRNA sequence 10. when all amino acids are chained together and the rRNA reaches the 3' end it's the last step and the protein is released, at this instant the protein winds itself to a specific 3D layout in order to function (every prot. is different in layout). The mRNA has now done its work and so breaks apart into smaller non active pieces
also bear in mind that: -measuring their full length, a DNA helix may reach up to 7 meters (millions of coding seq.) -a cell produces on average a 100000 different proteins during its life -many rRNA and tRNA can act in perfect sync on one mRNA when speed is required -cells produce and breakdown numerous different proteins at the same moment -proteins are the building blocks for ALL parts inside or outside their producing cells -a protein usually interacts with other ones and with ionized elements to form more complex structures -different prot. complexes are parts of hormones, bones, nervous tissue, liver, muscles etc. -prot. complexes (or compound prot.) have extremely intricate multiple functions -prot. react together and undergo changes according to pathways that branch into highly sophisticated cycles helped by P, Ca, K, Na, Fe, etc. ions or mediated by other compound proteins called enzymes - and use or release gases and energy -cells in different systems work together in sync each one doing a contribution to the whole -at some time of their lives most cells divide to produce two similar functioning daughter cells -all these different events happen at the same time inside and outside the living body organs -this info applies to either single cells or multicellular organisms BTW the [HOW?] and [WHY?] are for you to research if you want to
Now such a situation cannot happen by chance or start as a simple scale and then by any means continue to reproduce, it's what is defined as irreducible complexity. Like excellent replies above, mutations degrade the coding sequences and never add new useful DNA, so no new species can ever be derived from them - only variations within the same kind are possible. The introns have functions: they are considered as rich spares for adaptations and survival equipment, among other more complex moderating functions.
Different species require a very different ready made coding (though still in DNA format) that has all the information and directions for forming technically advanced different specialized structures like wings, compound eyes, sonar organs, silk production, camouflaging skin etc., while having a fully optimized know how (as their coded instinct) to perform correctly in their original habitat, with a good level of flexibility to adapt when changes in their environment occur.
The Lord is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. He is truly the Creator not just a mere observer.
The protein molecule is a self-adjusting miniature machine! Allostery is the ability to self-regulate, and this is what the proteins can do. They must be ever aware of constant changes, in the cell, and able to react to them. Because of this ability, proteins are far in advance of any artificial device which man could make—and certainly far in advance of anything that the mindlessness of evolution could produce. In even the most advanced man-made machines, the regulating functions of a machine are always separate from the working parts. In an oven, the regulator (thermostat) and heater (functional unit) are separate; in a protein, they are united. This allosteric function is vital to enzymatic action. The amazing protein molecule is able to carry out the most complicated enzymatic activity automatically, yet all the while being able to adjust that activity to meet the needs of the situation.
to those who believe there is a kind of 'blind architect' that drives it all - go figure!!
Comments
I found also it's incompatible with the Holy Bible and God does not deceive us.
You can ask me if you wish I'll try to answer in simple language as much as I can.
Some of you have been studying the human embryo undergoes evolutionary changes during gestation this is fake and the German biologist who fabricated this study was exposed long ago.
Same story about human DNA that it has all the info of the evolutionary steps. We have been pushed to learn this is fact since our early years to believe it regardless of it being true or not.
Same story goes for the millions/billions of years propaganda. The truth is it was all built on inaccurate assumptions mostly based on imagination, including the 'scientifically measured' ages and colossal time scales (there will be adding for more big time, in biology).
Have a look at this very large panel, it describes many biochemical and metabolic pathways that occur mainly inside animal cells (current knowledge):
http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl
Scientists have concluded that for biological life to start (just start, cannot even continue) in the simplest possible way at least 250 different types of proteins and enzymes like these need to be present AND directed to interact and feedback optimally.
How would DNA (or a subset as RNA) that must be present to ensure production and regulation of these complex protein based energy requiring mechanisms at the same moment, to suddenly exist fully coded, active and protecting itself and other proteins from decay or unwanted reactions? It can never be a trial and error thing - not even given 500 millions of years and is not even statistically possible.
Life cannot be produced from non life it's an established law of nature.
Some further reading (I have more and from real scientists like this one):
The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Seventy-five Theses
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6f.htm
SCIENTIFIC FACTS AGAINST EVOLUTION
http://evolution-facts.org/what%27s_new.htm
The Grand Canyon
http://www.nwcreation.net/grandcanyon.html
Evolution is not a fact and repeating this won't make it so.
GBU
The repetition of the time frame of one morning and one evening is for our human understanding that it is a real day as mankind knows it. Thus God created time as we know it even though He is miraculous in His work and though he is Omnipresent and the "day" is a real 24 hours one to us. God created time so the well known "day" frame was active before He regulated the motion of the Earth and its moon around the sun. So there is no gap every day is really one day.
For instance, when God tells us He created the birds and all flying creatures He means He created all flying kinds from insects to mammals included. From what I studied that's what can form stars and the like, not a special, very habitable planet like ours. Also the mere presence of water and some other dead elements that we found in proteins does not statistically mean life must happen by chance.
The occurrence of many biological similarities spanning different kinds means to me one thing: God creates with style. His designed style is by creating the extremely complex DNA coding system and chromosomes in all living creatures though these coding instructions may have some common features but also do have some differences, that's one good reason God said it was good.
As a student I can certainly study evolution as it is one of the 'scientific' theories on origins and also think as an evolutionist for a moment to fully understand it, take my exams or write about it (without believing it or rejecting God's Word of course) BUT deep inside I know it is NOT the truth. Later I will also warn my close friends and my kids not to fall into this closed minded trap.
Sorry if I offend any one I didn't mean to.
GBU
Nature can do nothing by itself. Yes God uses nature as a tool but this is so after all creation has been created by Him. Amazingly (to current human logic) God tells us He created light before creating the sun, and also He created the Earth before He created the sun and the moon.
I agree 100%, that's exactly my point. And you know what's interesting, after the Big Bang, all light was 'trapped' inside the energy that was pushing the universe outwards, and then, it was all suddenly released into the universe in one go. Exactly like Genesis says, 'Let there be light...' Interesting huh?
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98453#msg98453 date=1229466744]
God created time so the well known "day" frame was active before He regulated the motion of the Earth and its moon around the sun. So there is no gap every day is really one day.
Do you mean a 24 hour day? If so, I strongly urge you to rethink that, because its just about impossible, unless God lied to us and created a universe that only LOOKED like it was 12 billion years old. The evidence is, that the things like the earth's formation and development of life (whether by evolution or not) took several millions of years, not 24 hour days. What's more, the original Hebrew word that we translate as 'day' is 'yom' which is often used as an indefinite period of time, anywhere from a wekk to and epoch. Even the Pope doesn't believe that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days...
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98430#msg98430 date=1229455911]
Scientists have concluded that for biological life to start (just start, cannot even continue) in the simplest possible way at least 250 different types of proteins and enzymes like these need to be present AND directed to interact and feedback optimally.
Yes that's absolutely true, the attempts science has made to explain the origin of life have been, frankly pathetic (the man who discovered DNA thinks aliens did it, no joke). This is because we just don't know enough about it. While with our current understanding, it seems like we'll never find a naturalistic explanation for it, remember we used to think the earth was flat. Just because science can't explain something today, doesn't mean God did it. But hear me out, imagine if 10 years from now, a scientist discovers some scientific principle which shows how the first living cell formed purely by natural means, that would be a MASSIVE problem for atheists. Think of it, the universe itself would have been proven to have been DESIGNED to produce life!
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=7414.msg98453#msg98453 date=1229466744]
From what I studied that's what can form stars and the like, not a special, very habitable planet like ours. Also the mere presence of water and some other dead elements that we found in proteins does not statistically mean life must happen by chance.
I understand your point, and it is very interesting area. But the fact remains, earth did form when clouds of dust and gas clumped together by gravity. Yes, there was a lot of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in that dust and gas, which is what makes the Earth habitable, but there is no evidence that the way the earth formed was anything other than natural.
My point is this; I see two possibilities:
1. God created the universe, and since then He has constantly been 'tweaking' it, using divine intervention to do all the things we see as miraculous coincidences, like creating a perfect Earth for life to exist on and creating life itself. Meaning basically, if God didn't supernaturally intervene with the universe AFTER it was created, none of use would be here.
2. God did only one thing, create the singularity (i.e. the atom sized particle that the universe began as, and which 'exploded' in what we call the Big Bang). But, He created the singularity so perfectly, that the universe that it would grow into would do everything on its own, create a perfect earth, bring forth life and develop it until it was ready to recieve human spirits.
Personally, I tend to lean towards option 2. It explains a great many things, like why God create the universe, wait 12 billion years and then come back and create the earth, wait several millions of years and then come back and create life, which doesn't make sense. Option 1 makes God look incompetent, His creations is so fiddly that He has to constantly return to it and fix it to make it do what He wants. It makes more sense (to me at least) that God would create a universe so perfectly aligned with His will that it didn't even require His conscious intervention. Do you see what I'm saying?
I just think we shouldn't reject evolution JUST because of our faith. If we have any scientific objections to it, well and good, but our Christianity should not be the thing that causes those objections. Look, my dad is a priest and he himself has told me that he sees no contradiction between evolution and Christianity, he doesn't believe it himself, but ONLY because he doesn't think there is enough scientific evidence. I myself am undecided, because I just can't find enough objective evidence to make a decision. The evolution debate is split right down the middle with Christians on one side and atheist's on the other and the Christians are just as indoctrinated and biased as the atheists. The links you provided are a perfct example, you can trace them all back to a Christian author. If evolution was really as bankrupt as some Christians claim, then you would expect that some atheist's would be against it as well, but there is no group for atheist's against evolution. On the other hand, the Catholic Church itself has accepted evolution and there are tonnes of Christian organistations and people who are in favour of evolution. That's got to say something doesn't it?
While in the Bible it clearly states that God took dust from the earth and breathed in it, this is inconsistent with the evolution theory. For even if animals and birds came along by evolution, Adam can't have, since he was especially created by God with His breath... also it clearly states that only then did Adam become a living being, thus he wasn't alive before that in the form of an ape or any other animal...
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (genesis 2:7)
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=7414.msg98390#msg98390 date=1229387207]
Nai_nai, I did not say that Adam and Eve were created before God created animals.What I said was, that the theory of evolution tells us that Adam was not created but evolved from apes. Such type of evolution is not OK with christianity.
Sorry bout that Hezekiel, I misunderstood what your point was. But you and Godislove seem to be talking about the same problem, ie that evolution makes humans little more than intelligent animals and contradicts the concept of God's 'breathing' of life into Adam, butI disagree, I think the two can be reconciled.
If evolution is true, that means that our bodies are indeed, just another breed of animal. In fact, our DNA is 99% the same as a monkey's, which leaves opponents to evolution with a lot of explaining to do. But for all the things that are the same between humans and monkeys, there is something massively different between us that evolution can't explain: consciousness. Genesis says that man was created in the image of God, now obviously that doesn't mean God's PHYSICAL image, God doesn't have two eyes a nose etc., He's a spirit. That means that the part of us that resembles God is our spirits, not our bodies. And that's the difference between us and animals, we display many of the characterisitcs of God, while animals don't.
1. Creativity: no animals, even the ones that are supposed to have a similar brain capacity to a human child, display creativity. Everything they do is purely for survival. Humans however display the same love for creation and beauty that God did when He created the angels and our own race as well as the beautiful universe we live in.
2. Objective moral laws: Every human being, no matter hwere they were born or how they are raised knows what is right and wrong. Evolution just can't explain that, but the Bible tells us that that occurred when Adam and Eve ate of the tree. Natural selection should have meant that the organisms who stole and lied and murdered for their own gain were the ones who survived, and that is what our moral code should be telling us. BUt its not, its telling us things that have aboslutely nothing to do with survival.
3. Free will: Animals do not have a spirit, so everything they do is driven by instinct. They dont make choices, they make calculations; lion runs towards monkey, monkey runs. Simple as that. When you and I make a decision however, we feel like the choice really was ours. That means either we have a METAPHYSICAL element to us that's actually making the decision, or free will is just an illusion, which is very, very unlikely. Again, that separates us from the animals, and is a characteristic of God.
There's much more, but I'm sure you get the idea. Now none of these things can be explained physically, consciousness is by its very nature metaphysical. So, I put it to you, that all the above characteristics are the result of the 'breath of life' which God breathed into Adam. What's more, if you read Genesis again, I think that God makes Adam and then breath His spirit into him. That suggests that the PHYSICAL Adam, was little more than an animal, which is consistent with evolution. Isn't it possible then that the physical body Adam had was brought about by evolution, and God breathed into that body and made it the vessel for human spirits?
Now admittedly, that is just speculation, but I still don't think evolution clashes with the idea of man being created in the image of God.
God bless you
Pray for me
I do know about Mendel's law (by the way very original way of explaining it lol), but that's not what I was referring to. As you know, Hezekiel, my field of study now is completely far from the scientific field, yet as my interests are very broad and varied. I do remember some things from biology as it was one of my favourite subjects in high school, although the info might not be entirely correct or detailed any more. What I do remember well is that while the teacher was explaining Darwin's theory, he specifically said that all genetic code from all stages of evolution can be found within the human cell. He used this to prove the evolution theory (NOT microevolution), although he had clearly stated beforehand that the theory has many holes in it and that there are people in the scientific community who don't agree with it, although just a minority.
[
Godislove,
I am certain, that if your teacher was talking about the theory of evolution,then he was talking about evolution that occurs as a result of genetic mutation.Mutations happen when genes that are faithfully copied from our parents encounter trouble.Occasionally, a gene is not copied correctly.The resultig offspring begins life with a new gene that is not possessed by either parents. This new gene is called mutant. Most of the time,such an outcome results in diseases.Most experts who believe in the theory of evolution argue that mutant genes are the bedrock of evolution by natural selection.But it has been shown that the majority genetic mutations are neutral,that means, they do not favour natural selection.These mutations do not help the organism to cause an increase in gene frequencey in subsequent generations.
The best example of genetic mutation that the Evolution-apologists regulary chew on is given here: According to them,the case of the Bacteria is an evolution by natural selection.That is pure non-sense. The bacteria become resistant to drugs cos through mutation the bacteria lose the ability to produce an enzyme which interacts with the toxin. The antibiotic therefore loses its efficacy. But this does not mean the bacteria gains any new genetic information as they claim, they lose it. The most important thing is that the bacteria remains bacteria.
All of mutations examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.If there is no gain of new info,evoltion can not take place and that us why their theory is still a theory. Every organism has a genome made up of DNA which is sort of instruction manual for making the organism. The genome can roughly be devided into 2 parts: Coding DNA and NON-Coding DNA.
a) Coding DNA: Here the sequence of the DNA are transliterated and are the genes that determine the physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism(so-called Phenotype).The process of transliteration has stages:-DNA sequences are copied into RNA (RNA is another molecule-the cousin of istaz DNA),then the RNA is copied into Amino Acids.Now,not all the transliterated RNA are copied into amino Acids(Proteins).This brings me to the 2nd part:Non-coding DNA
b)Non-coding DNA -There are areas of DNA that do not get copied. In other words, they seem to have no function.Actually no body knows what their functions are, but they are there and do not get coded.To use your word, they are sort of 'deactivated'.
Epchoice Nai-Nai:
It is very important to differentiate between the theory of evolution by NATURAL SELECTION and the mere theory of Evolution. We coud perhaps accept the Bible and that species evolve on a smaller scale and still believe in God. After all, might it not be the case that God controls the evolutionary process? Thus, it is not the idea of Evoltion itself that is the problem, but the dangerous idea that evolution happened as a result of NATURAL SELECTION. The latter theory has no room for God.
sorry I am not replying yet (been very busy) but i am preparing something
I invite you to carefully read this "The Survival of the Fakest"
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
also I suggest you check these sites:
There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
http://www.pssiinternational.com/about.php
GBU
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=024ac24ef90722fbd2db6fb9a8902bda
now pls open the one titled "proteins synthesis diagram.pdf" (other PDF later!)
any protein is formed of many units called amino acids attached to each other (peptide chains)
so, to simply explain the main steps of a prot. synthesis occurring inside a cell (plate C):
1. a certain protein selectively passes from cytoplasm to the nucleus through a nuclear pore (notice the membrane that bounds the cell nucleus there are ~4000 pores in it)
2. this prot. triggers a signal inside the cell nucleus
[HOW?]
3. DNA responds by temporarily unwinding and loosening its double helix strands at some specific location
[WHY?]
4. an RNA strand is synthesized from this location into a sequence that starts by the name of 5' end till the other 3' end which is the negative mirror of one of these two strands of DNA, this is a: transcription (of DNA code)
5. this preliminary messenger RNA (mRNA) is made of coding (called exons) and non-coding (called introns) pieces, they are the mirrored negative of the DNA location
6. this RNA undergoes a process called splicing to rid itself from the introns and becomes the ready active mRNA
7. it then passes out from the nucleus (through a pore) and in the cytoplasm another roundish type of RNA in the cytoplasm called ribosomes rRNA (some are freely bathing, others are fixed to special structures) binds to it at the 5' end, then starts moving step by step to read the coding sequence on the mRNA from the 5' end towards the 3' end
8. at each of these steps of code translation the rRNA attracts from the cytoplasm another type of RNA called the transfer RNA (tRNA)
9. the rRNA instructs the tRNA to fetch from the cytoplasm the desired amino acid (one by one, one per step) that will be forming the new desired protein, according to the mRNA sequence
10. when all amino acids are chained together and the rRNA reaches the 3' end it's the last step and the protein is released, at this instant the protein winds itself to a specific 3D layout in order to function (every prot. is different in layout). The mRNA has now done its work and so breaks apart into smaller non active pieces
also bear in mind that:
-measuring their full length, a DNA helix may reach up to 7 meters (millions of coding seq.)
-a cell produces on average a 100000 different proteins during its life
-many rRNA and tRNA can act in perfect sync on one mRNA when speed is required
-cells produce and breakdown numerous different proteins at the same moment
-proteins are the building blocks for ALL parts inside or outside their producing cells
-a protein usually interacts with other ones and with ionized elements to form more complex structures
-different prot. complexes are parts of hormones, bones, nervous tissue, liver, muscles etc.
-prot. complexes (or compound prot.) have extremely intricate multiple functions
-prot. react together and undergo changes according to pathways that branch into highly sophisticated cycles helped by P, Ca, K, Na, Fe, etc. ions or mediated by other compound proteins called enzymes - and use or release gases and energy
-cells in different systems work together in sync each one doing a contribution to the whole
-at some time of their lives most cells divide to produce two similar functioning daughter cells
-all these different events happen at the same time inside and outside the living body organs
-this info applies to either single cells or multicellular organisms
BTW the [HOW?] and [WHY?] are for you to research if you want to
Now such a situation cannot happen by chance or start as a simple scale and then by any means continue to reproduce, it's what is defined as irreducible complexity.
Like excellent replies above, mutations degrade the coding sequences and never add new useful DNA, so no new species can ever be derived from them - only variations within the same kind are possible. The introns have functions: they are considered as rich spares for adaptations and survival equipment, among other more complex moderating functions.
Different species require a very different ready made coding (though still in DNA format) that has all the information and directions for forming technically advanced different specialized structures like wings, compound eyes, sonar organs, silk production, camouflaging skin etc., while having a fully optimized know how (as their coded instinct) to perform correctly in their original habitat, with a good level of flexibility to adapt when changes in their environment occur.
The Lord is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent.
He is truly the Creator not just a mere observer.
GBU
http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/PROTEIN.pdf to those who believe there is a kind of 'blind architect' that drives it all - go figure!!
GBU