truthbetold Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Yes you can! I'm not sure why some have answered it's an "either or" situation. Depending on the study the human/chimp DNA is 96-99% So some may go all crazy with that stat and jump to conclusions we "must" have evolved. We also share 90% of our DNA with mice, and 50% with bananas! Are we cannibals if we eat a banana split? (See how it might not make sense to assume something?) Our DNA person to person is 99.9% shared. Within those 0.1% differences show how close a person is related to another. A mother is going to share more of that 0.1% with their child. Science is fascinating stuff! Science has examined the cell. They can tell you what it's made up of. Molecules all the way to atoms, and what makes up atoms and how they work to hold them together. Science can't explain "where" that cell came from though, other than the "parts" To break it down further, unless you slept through science class you know everything in the universe is matter in one of 3 states (other than energy) So all this matter comes down to atoms, forming molecules etc... in solid, liquid or gas in everything around us. From the vast universe to the dirt you walk on. It's all "something" so where did those atoms come from to form everything? Out of nothing? It "just happened"? Even with the big bang, it doesn't exclude that it wasn't God's design. IME science proves God more than disproves him. Evolution? Absolutely, we are fools if we don't admit what's around us. Everything is constantly changing, adapting. Take MRSA for example. It's become anti-biotic resistant for that exact reason of evolution and more super bugs are being discovered. (I have a focus in epidemiology) That still doesn't mean you HAVE to subscribe to the theory that we directly evolved from apes. Just that we share DNA. It's no surprise at all to me that we share DNA with the animal kingdom. WE are supposed to be leaders of that kingdom, actually stewards. It's cool we share a bond. Science can not, and will never be able to explain a miracle. But to deny them, is also denying reality. They happen in the greatest and smallest of ways. If you reduce a baby down to just the "parts" they are made up of and how those organs function. You are missing the true beauty and the miracle of life. The complete unexplainable healing of a disease is another mystery science can't explain, but it happens. Even the atom is a miracle. How it functions and holds together it's constantly in motion! How could something like that come from nothing? The evolution only theorists will say it's silly to believe that "something" created all of this. If you can take any complex matter, all the way down to animals and humans and break it down to molecules and chains formed which still all come from atoms. They all came from something. So the Darwinist want to say it's silly and uneducated and childlike to believe in God, that because they can't see him, this must have all come from nothing and just evolved. But I think it's unfortunate to think something and really everything came from nothing. To say you can't "see" God for me is sad as well. Because if you look you will see him in the intricate snowflake, or the variety and color of seashells, you will hear him in the roar of an ocean or the song birds sing, or your baby's first cry. You will feel him in a raindrop, you will smell him in the earthy intoxication of a rose garden after a thunderstorm. Science only requires hard, cold facts and what can be "proved". Christianity requires not only a leap of faith, but even in trials and doubt to keep having faith. And to "see" so much more of what's before us. Don't ever fear learning more. There's nothing to fear! 1
Author titman Posted March 28, 2014 Author Posted March 28, 2014 Which goes back to the OP: do you believe god cares that you believe in a literal bible? (I know some say yes but let's see what the OP thinks) Mainly though, I don't think it's correct to take the story of Adam and Eve too literally. The Bible says that Adam and Eve had two sons. Then Cain killed Able. So uh, how did humanity come into being with only three people? Did Adam and Eve have more kids? Who did those kids have sex with to make more kids? Either you take it literally and see that a whole lot of incest had to happen, or it was just a fable. After reading all the comments, I think it's more realistic to think the old Testament part is just simply a fable. And even if you really want to believe some parts in it, if not all, you still have to accept the fact of evolution into it. It's because it seems like there were other people outside of the garden already, and they must've been the non-created, evolved ones, I guess. Adam and Eve are the special ones who got created by God. How is that? (I'm trying to make both sides happy). If Adam and Eve had only two sons, who did they have children with, right? I used to be a christian as a boy, but not any more. I actually don't believe in any religion, even God. But I believe in all the facts the science has proved. But I truly believe everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want to as long as they don't attack or harm the others who think otherwise.
maturityassets Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I mean you can accept evolution and Christianity but it does change your view on theology a little bit I would say. You can't say homo sapiens brought suffering and death in the world because suffering and death are integral to evolution. So no biblical literalism is possible. But it wouldn't necessarily throw out the new testament. Philosophers like Kierkegaard believed the only thing that brings relief to our anxiety is a relationship with Christ because of how paradoxical it is to modernism. It would show God's love and power while emphasizing the strength of the person to believe despite the facts. Biblical literalism is a type of insecure faith in my view. But anyway in my view as a person who has no belief in a God, you can only discredit belief not disprove an existence of a deity. I don't accept Christianity because of how psychologically we can explain how the feelings of guilt, shame and despair influence the creation of religious belief and why people thought they needed a savior to relieve themselves of this anxious state of existence. Also it was a type of power play for priest like people to condemn the strong because of their jealousy (Ressentiment) and defend themselves and those who suffered from oppression from the strong/rich who lived without remorse 1
maiden of rohan Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Truthbetold, we didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with apes. We actually are apes ourselves. Define miracle, and provide examples with evidence of such things. I've heard of many "miracles," and none of them has struck me as especially miraculous. Lucky? Maybe. Miraculous? No. Edited March 28, 2014 by maiden of rohan
GorillaTheater Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Define miracle, and provide examples with evidence of such things. Buster Douglas, the 42-1 underdog, beating Mike Tyson in 1990. THAT was pretty goddamn miraculous.
truthbetold Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Truthbetold, we didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with apes. We actually are apes ourselves. Define miracle, and provide examples with evidence of such things. I've heard of many "miracles," and none of them has struck me as especially miraculous. Lucky? Maybe. Miraculous? No. Sharing the common ancestor does not mean we are apes. I got the theory of the common ancestor and one branch is the hominids. Still doesn't exclude Genesis. I could list many miracles, but as you said, you reduce them down to luck. Someone being completely cured from Cancer is a bit more than "luck" to me though. Cancer isn't something that just disappears for no reason, other than a miracle. But if you want to call it luck, we need to agree to disagree. In fact I don't think our worldview meshes, so while I respect your position, I don't wish to engage. I see the OP shares your view, so it's all good! To Gorilla: 1972 the Immaculate Reception? No, that's under some scrutiny now. How 'bout anytime in the 3 superbowls Montana threw to Rice and he caught those long passes? No, that was just poetry.... 2
maiden of rohan Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Truthbetold, cancer has survival rates. It's not a miracle that one would survive cancer just because you call it a miracle. Also, sometimes cancer can go into natural remission. It is pretty rare, but are we calling rare things miracles now? You don't wish to engage with someone that doesn't share your point of view? How very open-minded of you. You claimed that miracles were an undeniable truth, and yet, you've provided nothing when asked, to verify that. Your right, our worldviews probably don't mesh. I base mine on reason and evidence. I don't know what you base yours on. What is your definition of a miracle? Since we share a common ancestor, and about about 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, it's pretty safe to say that we are apes. This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, and you don't have to, but it is the truth. 1
mickleb Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Reading this discussion reminds me of when a heavily religious cousin of mine visited from New Zealand to 'save us'. My flatmate started to debate the more tenuous aspects of the Bible with him but gave up fairly quickly. "He's so sweet," my friend explained, "it'd be like taking candy off a baby."
OpenBook Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Since we share a common ancestor, and about about 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, it's pretty safe to say that we are apes. This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, and you don't have to, but it is the truth. We also share 97.5% of our working DNA with mice, which is actually higher than the chimps. And I'm pretty sure (about 97.5% sure) that we aren't mice. This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, but it's the truth. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-25-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men.html#.UzbTFKZOXcs 2
maiden of rohan Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 We also share 97.5% of our working DNA with mice, which is actually higher than the chimps. And I'm pretty sure (about 97.5% sure) that we aren't mice. This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, but it's the truth. Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men - 30 May 2002 - New Scientist We aren't mice, but we are apes. Accept it or not. It doesn't matter. Humans are primates. The Primates: Humans
OpenBook Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 We aren't mice, but we are apes. Accept it or not. It doesn't matter. Humans are primates. Ah, I see your mind is closed to engaging with others who don't share your point of view. Got it. 2
maiden of rohan Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Ah, I see your mind is closed to engaging with others who don't share your point of view. Got it. Truth isn't a democracy. 1
Trimmer Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 We also share 97.5% of our working DNA with mice, which is actually higher than the chimps. And I'm pretty sure (about 97.5% sure) that we aren't mice. This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, but it's the truth. Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men - 30 May 2002 - New Scientist The article you quoted says two interesting things: The first sentence of the article says that 1% less DNA is shared between mice and human beings than is shared between chimps and human beings. The first sentence of the second paragraph asserts that human beings and mice "shared a common ancestor 100 million years ago." Since you are presenting this article as authoritative evidence to support your position (complete with smug tounge-sticky-outie emoticon), do you (a) agree that the first item contradicts your assertion that we share more of our genome with mice than we do with chimps, and (b) agree with the second item that we share a common ancestor with mice? 4
OpenBook Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 The article you quoted says two interesting things: The first sentence of the article says that 1% less DNA is shared between mice and human beings than is shared between chimps and human beings. The first sentence of the second paragraph asserts that human beings and mice "shared a common ancestor 100 million years ago." Since you are presenting this article as authoritative evidence to support your position (complete with smug tounge-sticky-outie emoticon), do you (a) agree that the first item contradicts your assertion that we share more of our genome with mice than we do with chimps, and (b) agree with the second item that we share a common ancestor with mice? No, I was actually comparing the 97.5% mice/human commonality to Maiden's quoted 96% ape/human commonality... which is actually cited by many more sources (I found) than the other. Here is a good example: Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds This discrepancy in the human analysis of DNA results, along with the second item (as another poster said - we share a common ancestor with just about everything on the planet, if you go back far enough) actually supports my belief - and my underlying point - that the DNA argument is full of holes, that we don't really definitively know how we evolved (despite Maiden's insistence that it is the incontrovertible truth), that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution - and it proves/disproves nothing about God's hand in it. And I certainly did NOT intend to come across as smug with the tongue icon. It was meant to lighten up a heavy discussion, and embellish the rather ludicrous comparison of humans and mice. But however you wish to interpret the content of my posts is beyond my control. I can't do anything about that. 2
KathyM Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Well, I know several people personally, Christians, who were healed from illness/disease immediately after prayer. Where there could be no explanation for their healing other than a miracle. I also know people personally who experienced divine intervention in other matters which could have no other possible explanation other than a miracle. I also know Christians who can speak in tongues (languages which they have never learned). I also know Christians who have the gift of prophesy. So no strangers on the internet are going to be able to convince me that the evidence for God that I've seen in my own life and the lives of those I know is not convincing evidence. 3
maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Well, I know several people personally, Christians, who were healed from illness/disease immediately after prayer. Where there could be no explanation for their healing other than a miracle. I also know people personally who experienced divine intervention in other matters which could have no other possible explanation other than a miracle. I also know Christians who can speak in tongues (languages which they have never learned). I also know Christians who have the gift of prophesy. So no strangers on the internet are going to be able to convince me that the evidence for God that I've seen in my own life and the lives of those I know is not convincing evidence. You're asserting cause with no evidence of the existence of said cause. Interesting. 1
writergal Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 You misinterpreted your article, OpenBook. There is a huge, HUGE difference between sharing DNA and sharing Genes. Humans share gene counterparts with mice but that doesn't mean that scientists are saying that the genes are identical. They don't say that mice and humans' genes are identical. Scientists compare the number of gene FUNCTIONS only. They aren't comparing DNA sequences between mice and men. Mice genomes are smaller than human genomes. The reason that the rat/mouse is a good research model for disease in humans is because rats/mice share the same number of genomes. That doesn't mean that humans evolved from mice. Not even close. Humans evolved from primates. That's fact, Jack. We do NOT share 99% of our DNA with mice or rats. Humans have similar genes but that's it. So if you want to believe that humans came from mice, then you should contact a mice genealogy website to see were your mice ancestors came from. No, I was actually comparing the 97.5% mice/human commonality to Maiden's quoted 96% ape/human commonality... which is actually cited by many more sources (I found) than the other. Here is a good example: Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds This discrepancy in the human analysis of DNA results, along with the second item (as another poster said - we share a common ancestor with just about everything on the planet, if you go back far enough) actually supports my belief - and my underlying point - that the DNA argument is full of holes, that we don't really definitively know how we evolved (despite Maiden's insistence that it is the incontrovertible truth), that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution - and it proves/disproves nothing about God's hand in it. And I certainly did NOT intend to come across as smug with the tongue icon. It was meant to lighten up a heavy discussion, and embellish the rather ludicrous comparison of humans and mice. But however you wish to interpret the content of my posts is beyond my control. I can't do anything about that. 1
KathyM Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 You're asserting cause with no evidence of the existence of said cause. Interesting. Well, let me ask you this. The Bible describes that speaking in tongues is a gift given by the Holy Spirit, and was bestowed upon some believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit. Some of the Christians I know were also given the gift of speaking in tongues. Would it be logical to assume that they could now speak in tongues because they were given that gift from the Holy Spirit that was described in the Bible? I think that's a pretty logical conclusion. It was a gift from the Holy Spirit. Can you come up with a more logical conclusion as to why these people can now, after developing a close relationship with God, speak in tongues? There is no other possible explanation. And what about someone I know who was deathly ill from a serious virus, was prayed over in Christ's name, and suddenly after prayer was perfectly fine. And what about the man I've recently come to know, who had a rare form of cancer which showed up on medical tests, and he was going to undergo surgery. He was then prayed for healing in God's name, and two days later, before surgery, medical tests showed no sign of cancer whatsoever. Do you think someone can go from very evident cancer to no cancer whatsoever in two days' time? No, that was the hand of God that intervened for that man. And I've known more than a few people personally who were prayed for and actually could feel the healing going through their body immediately after prayer, and who were healed that same day. For some, it was instantaneous, immediately after prayer. For others, it was the same day. You are not going to be able to convince me that there was no divine intervention. These are only some of the examples of people I know personally who received God's intervention. There is no other possible explanation.
writergal Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Speaking in tongues is just another way to describe Evangelism. Some Christians like to evangelize and some don't. What does that have to do with the theory of evolution exactly? And prayer doesn't heal cancer. That is a scientific impossibility. If that were true, then Big Pharma would go out of business and doctors would become obsolete. Prayer does not heal illness either. Prayer is a tool used by people to self-comfort in times of stress, or use to comfort others. It operates on the power of suggestion and can have the same effect as a placebo. What about all those parents whose children died because they chose to pray to God to heal their sick/dying child, rather than do the logical thing and take their child to the doctor or hospital to be treated? Is that divine intervention? It's the same with meditation. Meditation is a tool people use to help them focus. Well, let me ask you this. The Bible describes that speaking in tongues is a gift given by the Holy Spirit, and was bestowed upon some believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit. Some of the Christians I know were also given the gift of speaking in tongues. Would it be logical to assume that they could now speak in tongues because they were given that gift from the Holy Spirit that was described in the Bible? I think that's a pretty logical conclusion. It was a gift from the Holy Spirit. Can you come up with a more logical conclusion as to why these people can now, after developing a close relationship with God, speak in tongues? There is no other possible explanation. And what about someone I know who was deathly ill from a serious virus, was prayed over in Christ's name, and suddenly after prayer was perfectly fine. And what about the man I've recently come to know, who had a rare form of cancer which showed up on medical tests, and he was going to undergo surgery. He was then prayed for healing in God's name, and two days later, before surgery, medical tests showed no sign of cancer whatsoever. Do you think someone can go from very evident cancer to no cancer whatsoever in two days' time? No, that was the hand of God that intervened for that man. And I've known more than a few people personally who were prayed for and actually could feel the healing going through their body immediately after prayer, and who were healed that same day. For some, it was instantaneous, immediately after prayer. For others, it was the same day. You are not going to be able to convince me that there was no divine intervention. These are only some of the examples of people I know personally who received God's intervention. There is no other possible explanation. Edited March 31, 2014 by writergal 1
maiden of rohan Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 KathyM, What we have here is an argument from ignorance. "I don't know anything else that could caused it...so god did it." It's a logical fallacy. Just because you don't have any other explanation does not mean "god did it." Cancer can and does sometimes go into natural remission. It's rare, but it most certainly does happen. Would it not be more plausible to think that it may have simply been a misdiagnosis? Why do you think the most plausible explanation is that you prayed for it, and it went away? Also, quite a few atheists were once Christians, and described speaking in tongues. They were faking it. They claimed that they got so caught up in the atmosphere, and the pressure to do it, that they simply faked it. Is it impossible to you that they faked it? I don't know what is logical about any of your conclusions. You're still inserting a cause without evidence of the existence of the cause. If I walked in to a doctor's surgery, and listed all of the symptoms I was experiencing, and even if they correlated to that of cancer symptoms, they would still need evidence that there were cancerous cells existing in my body, to reach that conclusion, would they not? So why, without evidence of the existence of god, are establishing him as the cause of these things? 2
Robert Z Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Well, I know several people personally, Christians, who were healed from illness/disease immediately after prayer. Where there could be no explanation for their healing other than a miracle. I also know people personally who experienced divine intervention in other matters which could have no other possible explanation other than a miracle. I also know Christians who can speak in tongues (languages which they have never learned). I also know Christians who have the gift of prophesy. So no strangers on the internet are going to be able to convince me that the evidence for God that I've seen in my own life and the lives of those I know is not convincing evidence. If there was any evidence to support any of these claims, it would be headline news. If you can cure anyone, then why not everyone? Why in the world are all of you Christians allowing so many people to suffer every day when you only need to clasp your hands and raise your eyes to the Lord? Speaking in tongues? Really?!?!?! Glossolalia is considered by some to be a pathology. Prophesy? Put it to the test. People have countless times and never has anyone demonstrated anything more than random chance odds. In other words, your claims can and have been tested and they always fail miserably. James Randi was offering 1 million dollars to anyone who could provide evidence of anything supernatural. Are you telling me that not one devout Christian could figure out how to put a million bucks to good use? What cowards they must be to have such amazing powers but only to be willing to make untestable claims to back it up, and never help anyone but themselves in private. Edited March 31, 2014 by Robert Z 3
writergal Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Empirical proof that prayer doesn't heal the sick: American Heart Journal study Praying Doesn't Help The Sick Get Better - Medical News Today NYTimes article about a 2.4 million dollar study on prayer and healing which was funded by the John Templeton Foundation that supports research into spirituality. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/ Abstract from an article in the Journal of Psychiatry. The abstract discusses the medical and scientific perspective on randomized-controlled trials on patients prayed for. The study's conclusion is that prayer has no effect on patient outcomes, or a negative effect on patient outcomes in human and nonhuman species, and can worsen patient outcomes: Prayer has been reported to improve outcomes in human as well as nonhuman species, to have no effect on outcomes, to worsen outcomes and to have retrospective healing effects. For a multitude of reasons, research on the healing effects of prayer is riddled with assumptions, challenges and contradictions that make the subject a scientific and religious minefield. We believe that the research has led nowhere, and that future research, if any, will forever be constrained by the scientific limitations that we outline. Prayer is just human nature packaged in religious wrapping as a marketing tool, to promote religion's mission, which is to brainwash the entire human race to construct their life and surrender their free will around a fairy tale written thousands of years ago by multiple people. As far as evolution goes, science proves evolution happened. Religion was built to control human behavior and it has no resources other than religious writing (theology, philosophy, logic) which does not provide a platform for scientific testing, just for who can argue a logical syllogism better. Science produces results. Religion produces zealots. 1
truthbetold Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Truthbetold, cancer has survival rates. It's not a miracle that one would survive cancer just because you call it a miracle. Also, sometimes cancer can go into natural remission. It is pretty rare, but are we calling rare things miracles now? You don't wish to engage with someone that doesn't share your point of view? How very open-minded of you. You claimed that miracles were an undeniable truth, and yet, you've provided nothing when asked, to verify that. Your right, our worldviews probably don't mesh. I base mine on reason and evidence. I don't know what you base yours on. What is your definition of a miracle? Since we share a common ancestor, and about about 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, it's pretty safe to say that we are apes. This might be uncomfortable for you to accept, and you don't have to, but it is the truth. First I want to thank you. As I pointed out to you, I figured this is resolved bc the OP shares your view. I originally answered bc I thought they were conflicted about being a Christian. There are Christians who believe in the theory of evolution but still that it was orchestrated by God. Honestly I never really gave it much thought because it's not something that really interests me. I believe God created everything yes, but exactly how doesn't interest me. I'm more interested in Pathophysiology and Epidemiology. I look to try to make a difference in my little corner of the world and evolution doesn't advance that goal for me. However bc I am open minded, I decided to take your challenge. Actually I am very happy that I did, because now instead of not really having a position one way or the other on how the world came about. I now stand strongly on the side of Creationism and I thank you because you have increased my awe of God even deeper. There are the studies out there that talk about the Law of Thermodynamics as well as the Law of Biogenesis. And how this “theory” doesn't support either. Valid claims but I have an even deeper understanding now. Evolution is still a theory. I read your article. It's interesting it comes from a community college. So I also read what Berkely U had to say. I appreciate you sharing the link. When I read it though I found it to be sad, cold, clinical, and flat. To reduce human life down to that....well it lacks joy to me. And by the way, a scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses Theories can be improved or modified theories can even be rejected. So I did a little bit of digging. As I did, I remembered something from my high school days. And this is one of the big reasons I can now say I don't believe in evolution. The “facts” are constantly changing. First it was most certainly taught that we evolved from chimps, apes or whatever. A quick search on “evolution charts” will pull up a plethora of charts that show a monky “evolving” to an a man. I remember clearly being taught this stuff in high school and having to “know” it and be tested on it and for what? It was proved false, now the evolutionists are on the trail of the TOL. Frankly it's not fair that kids are subjected to “have” to learn this theory in school but aren't presented with an equally valid claim of Creationism. Talk about having ONE view jammed down someone's throats, but Christians have to deal with it repeatedly. I was reminded of the Piltdown Man, which was actually skull fragments made out of three separate species, put together to make what was assumed to be an evolutionary “missing link.” The skull fragments were all found in near gravel pits in Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The finds were made 1912, and were not officially proven false until 1953. How about Nebraska Man? a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution. Oh really? Turned out it was from a pig! There's 3 cases that turned out to skew the “facts” of what they found. Now the latest is the TOL Which you are touting as “truth” and accept it or not. It's still only your opinion (and granted others as well) and a theory. No proof exists except what they are speculating. It's still evolution in terms, your article even states that. So what if the DNA is pointed out to be 96% homologous? Understanding that there are about 3 BILLION base pairs (nucleotides or “letters”) in every human genome. Even if we have that 4% difference that's still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of 500 pages! You seriously want to assert that mutations occurred in a random fashion to cause this? Mathametcally it's absurd. Math doesn't lie. Math is fixed. Having the understanding that Down Syndrome is caused by a mutatioin of ONE chromosome. Evolutionists believe that changes come via mutations (i.e. accidental copying errors in our DNA). So that means you take all the complex information in the chimp DNA and start making 120 million RANDOM changes and THIS supposedly produced a human being! Can you imagine making these types of random changes to a biochemistry book? Would your end result be an additional set of highly informational texts or would it lead to just destroying the book you started with? The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an EXACT (note: exact not random) pattern to provide the required functions. The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance. What about the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory? The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome, and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change. The male sperm are created in the testes of a male on a daily basis. This is a short time period between the creation of the sperm and fertilization of the egg that defies evolution. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. For example) a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54 and a cat has 38. Half of the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male, so the exact total number is brought together in the offspring. Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes can produce variety within the species but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. So to believe your "theory", you have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate.Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is absurd. If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution. Darwin himself wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species (in case you require "proof" ) that "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." It is perfectly natural that living creatures on the earth should possess very similar DNA structures. Living things' basic life processes are the same, and since human beings possess a living body, they cannot be expected to have a different DNA structure to other creatures. Like other creatures, human beings develop by consuming carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, oxygen circulates through the blood in their bodies, and energy is produced every second in each of their cells by the use of this oxygen. For this reason, the fact that living things possess genetic similarities is not proof that they evolved from a common ancestor. It actually points to a common Creator. If you want to "prove" theory of evolution from a common ancestor, then you have to show that creatures alleged to be each other's common ancestors have a direct line of descent in their molecular structures; where's that proof? This link is particularly interesting as there's a link to the "skeptics list" 20 pages of Biologists that are well trained in "evolutionary theories" towards the bottom. Debunking Evolution Evidence against Evolution Do all Scientist believe in evolution? One small change in DNA; One dramatic effect in humans Junk DNA continues its demise Of Apes and Men:Chromosome 2 I really wonder if evolutionist really have a grasp on the complexity of the human body because it doesn't seem if they do. Let's even forget the complexity of the human eye and how magnificently it processes what we see to send the messages to the brain, and the brain and it's complexity. Look at ANY organ in the human body and the synchronicity it works with the other organs. The delicate balance that the kidneys must maintain in homeostasis or it can throw the heart into arrhythmia if the potassium balance isn't right. It's no wonder that many people who study science eventually do realize the power and beauty of God's creation. As far as miracles. Cancer can go into remission true. I won't bore you with the whole oncogenes, and failure for healthy cells to under go apoptasis and the fact that oncogenes multiply at a much faster rate than normal cells. But “spontaneous remission” is not only more rare, when it follows prayer, it is most certainly deemed a “miracle”. Take the case of “Ray Jackson” in the link. Duke U. is no slouch in the medical realm. They can't falsify medical records. Do you have any idea how next to impossible it would be to “fill in bone” that previously housed a tumor by the next scan would be? Bone rebuilds at a rate of about 3% in a year. Hardly “natural remission” but whatever you tell yourself to get you through the night. The Lourdes does not just deem anything a miracle. It needs to undergo scrutiny as described, but again if you choose to scoff that's your choice. Nothing I say or link will change that. But here are the links that you asked for. Ray Jackson is mentioned here: 10 Miracles Lourdes is well known for the documentation of miracles. On the site it explains how a miracle gets it's recognition and designation as such. Lourdes:Cures and Miracles: It's obvious you and I do share different world views. The difference is I respect your right to hold yours based on your understanding of what your beliefs are. It's not irrefutable truth though as you are trying to insist, it's merely a theory that you happen to believe. Fine, believe it as it makes no difference to me. I'm more concerned with the here and now and how I can help rather than examining the latest evolutionary "theories". If that makes me limited or not willing to be open minded in your estimation, I could say the same for what you choose to study. For example the annals of Tacitus are part of Roman history. They are historical fact that can't be refuted and do by the way confirm what happened to Jesus. But I don't think anyone who chooses to not read them to be uneducated or unintelligent. Is that open minded enough for you? Probably not, because I drew an opposite conclusion than you. One simply cannot read about everything that the world has to offer that DOES interest them let alone what doesn't. Life is far too short and unlike you, I believe we all have a purpose and that “this” is not our home. If you choose to think I'm unintelligent, that's your view. I can absolutely live with that! I do thank you though for the opportunity of examining my choices much more clearly for the truth that is obvious to me and many others. Just as we will not convince you of Creationism, you can't expect to convince us of you "theory" and try to enforce your point by making false claims that we are either ignorant or foolish or "don't want to admit we came from apes". It's simply your theory. Not proven and widely criticized, and that's the only "truth" of the theory of evolution. 2
mickleb Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I'd just like to add that my sister-in-law was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer about 3 years ago. She was advised not to have children as it was expected childbirth would accelerate the cancer, but decided to try anyway. She was booked in for a very serious operation 6 months after the birth to deal with the expected cancer levels but, to everyone's disbelief and joy, on the the birth of her child, the cancer was declared gone. Both mother and child are perfectly healthy and she's just had a second. She is an atheist and so is her husband. She made medical history and is the subject of a few papers, as a result. Those who believe in God would call that a miracle and say, "Well, SOMEONE must have prayed for her! That's why!" But, actually, sh*t happens. Often bad but sometimes otherwise. For those of us who consider the Bible, Q'ran, Torah, Vedas, Tao Te Ching, Book of Mormon, you name it as works of fiction, that sh*t has nothing to do with God, or gods, or even Karma. It is just good. Science has been chipping away at the 'truth' such books profess to contain, notably so in the last couple of centuries. This has resulted in millions of people leaving the faiths they were born into. And this will continue as discoveries as brilliant as the one this thread is about continue to be made. Evidence is what overpowers faith. Nothing about that is new. 4
KathyM Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Speaking in tongues is just another way to describe Evangelism. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages that a person has never learned. It does not mean evangelism. There are people who speak in tongues who do not evangelize, and there are people who are evangelists that don't speak in tongues. They are not the same. Some Christians like to evangelize and some don't. What does that have to do with the theory of evolution exactly? My post was to show evidence for miracles, which the previous poster questioned as coming from God. And prayer doesn't heal cancer. That is a scientific impossibility. That's why it's a miracle. It is not scientifically explained, and cannot be scientifically explained, because it came from divine intervention. If that were true, then Big Pharma would go out of business and doctors would become obsolete.If you are saying that God will always heal every illness if a person is prayed for, that is not God's plan. There will be illness and disease in this world, and there will be death, because of man's original sin. It's not God's plan to change that at this point, but He does intervene at times in ways that cannot be explained in any other way than through divine intervention. Prayer does not heal illness either. Like I said, I've seen it, and heard testimony of it through people I know well, and family members. I'm not going to argue with you on that any further. I know what I've seen. I know what my family members have experienced, and others I know, through their testimony. Prayer is a tool used by people to self-comfort in times of stress, or use to comfort others. It operates on the power of suggestion and can have the same effect as a placebo. So a terrible disease leaves a body instantaneously because it was suggested to them? Uh, no. The mind is not that powerful that it can cure illness instantaneously or remove viruses from the body instantaneously. Or remove cancer cells from the body completely in two day's time. People pray to communicate with God, and He does answer prayer. Not always in the way we want, but always for our best interests. What about all those parents whose children died because they chose to pray to God to heal their sick/dying child, rather than do the logical thing and take their child to the doctor or hospital to be treated? Is that divine intervention? It's the same with meditation. Meditation is a tool people use to help them focus. I believe people should use the tools that God provided them (doctors and medicine), but they should also pray for healing. As I said before, there will be illness and death in this world, despite doctors, medication, and despite prayer. It is not God's will that we always be spared from that. This is a fallen world. Our perfect place, where there is no illness or disease, is in heaven. But sometimes God does intervene in this world to heal as a result of prayer, and I have seen that and heard testimony from those I know and trust. 1
Recommended Posts