|
0 registered members (),
1,498
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The future of the big bang
[Re: PHeMoX]
#89537
09/24/06 18:27
09/24/06 18:27
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
but I don't quite understand how they could totally contradict any part of the theory, would you care to explain please?
They don't totally contradict the theory. Its just certain evidence that should overturn the theory, doesn't. Which is something I've already said. DNA comparisons can be found across a lot of animals, even supposedly unrelated animals, so if you ignore the DNA that doesn't match up, or just say the DNA evolved twice, randomly, to be exactly the same, then evolution is all right.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/24/06 18:27.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The future of the big bang
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#89539
09/24/06 19:19
09/24/06 19:19
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Okey, yeah, I think I see what you mean. It's not by pure chance alone that things evolve, there are some controlling factors too, like environmental selections, that on more that one occasion were the same and probably had similar effects on a species' evolution. I also think that certain things quite a lot of species have in common also have very similar if not the same DNA code. Take liquids like blood for example or skin tissue, even a heart or other organs and basic body cells resemble those of the animal kingdom quite a lot and thus also appear in the DNA as a familiar string of codes perhaps? If we are all related in one way or another, and from one time on, life began as one cell, it's not that strange to discover familiar DNA parts amongst a lot of species. If DNA is the information about how to grow/build and thus evolve, it's not that weird. Infact if a God placed all animals on this earth, then why did he gave them similar DNA?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The future of the big bang
[Re: PHeMoX]
#89540
09/26/06 16:52
09/26/06 16:52
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Infact if a God placed all animals on this earth, then why did he gave them similar DNA?
Well, I know there's the typical, "What would animals eat if we weren't all similar?" argument.
But really, if DNA is going to describe life, then all animals should have DNA. Now, let's say that God 'writes the code' for skin. If He needs to put skin on another animal, unless that animal has other basic requirements for their epidermis, then He'll probably use similar DNA for that animal's skin.
What we should expect is that DNA should be similar. It would just be a consequence of good design, in my opinion. In fact, I think the DNA similarities fit the design hypothesis best, but since design is unacceptable in the scientific community, they have to twist it to make it look like it fits their hypothesis better.
You can disagree with that, but I don't know how much more can be said.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The future of the big bang
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#89541
09/26/06 19:34
09/26/06 19:34
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Yes, but just because something can be explained both ways, doesn't mean one of them is not wrong or unlikely. However I guess it's up to further argumentation and different evidences to see which explanation holds.
As for the DNA argument, yes, a lot of animals have skin, which looks the same, hence the information to grow that skin will be about the same too, that's what we can derive from our world.
Can we really turn it around and say someone actually designed it and simply re-used already made things over and over again? It could be possible, but there's a problem with that. Simple put chickens lay eggs, eggs hatch, and there come more chickens. Now you'll have to agree with me there is no visible divine interference in this all, eventhough young chickens have something magical off course. Anyways, the way I see it, divine design could only have been way way back at the beginning of the single cell that all life evolved from. But that off course contradicts the biblical explanation ... and there are other problems with ID,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The future of the big bang
[Re: PHeMoX]
#89542
09/29/06 00:58
09/29/06 00:58
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Well, it depends on whether or not you believe that given enough time, the chicken will eventually hatch something other than a chicken.
There is nothing divine in a chicken laying a chicken, things are just working the way they do. God really doesn't have to maintain the universe beyond creation, but it all depends on whether 'creation' includes animals evolving, or just giving birth to similar animals.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/29/06 00:58.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
