So, dont tell that others are telling nonsense if you dont even know what they are talking about



I can not hate creationits, you can not find any creationist in the old Europe
Anyway what about your personal interpretation about dino's and men ?



J Craig Venter, one of the pioneer in sequencing human genome has recentlty transplanted a fraction of a genome of one bacteria into an other species with the aim of creating a new specie of "cleaning" bacteria

By the way, this probably is an interesting read for some people here: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/locke/john/l81u/B4.15.html

Just thought I'd share the link,

Cheers

Nitro

Since I have access to this PC on weekend only I can not wait for your answer
A part from the dino's, assuming that in the near future s Mr Venter or an other scientiss will create a syntetic form of life
You will claim that :

a) I give it up
Life is nothing else than a combination of atoms
b) This is true for low form of life only.
Human coscience entail the existence of soul
c) God is present also in Mr Venters's lab
d) Mr Venters has a deal with the devil or , maybe , he is the devil

I dont really want to argue about anymore for now Alberto, I'll catch up with you later perhaps. I dont think you would like the answers I give you anyway. Have a good week and try to get yourself pc to access! jk. Have fun.

Quoting PHeMoX.

Thank you.

excerpt:

there are two kinds of evolution, i.e. Macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution (one species mutating into a different, more advanced species) is an unproven theory. Microevolution (take the acricle about the bacteria) is where one organism in a species gains/loses a trait due to tiny differences in genetic code when reproduced. Microevolution is a scientifically proven Law but no matter how much time you give it, N generations later, it will still be the same organism. Not a new species.



Since you say the mere chance is excluded how was life supposedly started billions of years ago? even now scientists cannot create life, I seriously doubt anyone/anything could back then. Unless that anyone was an intelligent, supernatural being.
And no, even if scientists could create life in a test tube, that doesn't prove Evolution. If decades of research up until now, and (supposing it possible) decades more for scientists to succeed, how could mere chance string all the exact chemicals together in the exact amounts in the exact place all at the same time all of a sudden? Take for amino acids in proteins as an example. The simplest protein in life is Ribonuclease and is comprised of a sequence of 124 amino acids. The order of the amino acids is EXACT. Any kind of change in the order/type of amino acids in the protein would nullify it. It just plain would not work. How could all the necessary amino acids needed for all the different proteins manditory for even the simplest single-celled organism all jumble together in the correct order, place and time? And that's a simple protein. The average protein is comprised of several thousand amino acids all in order!



How does the cartoon relate to TriNitroToluene's statement? In this case it is certainly right to say "don't be so arrogant." You think you're completely backed by science and that we're relying on 'village wizards' telling us legends myths? These are not myths. The Bible has not been proven true in all parts, but it certainly has not been proven false either. Some parts have been proven true, (the ark existed for example) and some parts havn't (i.e. Moses separating the Red Sea). Understand both sides of the debate before joining in yourself.



Have you even looked for evidence? Or are you like everyone else who brushes away any slight hint and God saying it will be disproved later by science.



Now you're just making fun, not actually contributing to this discussion.



What makes you think we believe a chihuahua came from a wolf? God created different types of dog. Perhaps a medium-sized dog, through breeding with other dog types could result in a slightly smaller offspring. Perhaps a few generations later the hair color, curl etc. changed, resulting in the chihuahua. Like I said above, microevolution resulting in new types of a certain organism is a proven scientific law, but no matter how much time goes by, the offspring will still be a dog.



It may be a brand new one but again it's just microevolution helped along by scientists. They use existing DNA from existing organisms. In essence all they are doing is a form of cross-breeding. It's a new type of organism but it's traits come from it's 'parents'



Anyway, after replying to the above I would like to add one more thing.

A comparison of some organism's cytochrome C structure:

Cytochrome C
comparison between a
lamprey eel and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Horse | 15% |
|Pigeron | 18$ |
|Turtle | 18% |
|Carp | 12% |


Cytochrome C
comparison between
a carp and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Horse | 13% |
|Pigeron | 14$ |
|Turtle | 13% |
|Lamprey | 12% |


Cytochrome C
comparison between
a pigeon and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Horse | 11% |
|Carp | 14$ |
|Turtle | 8% |
|Lamprey | 18% |


Cytochrome C
comparison between
a horse and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Pigeon | 11%|
|Turtle | 11$|
|Carp | 13%|
|Lamprey | 15%|

Cytochrome C is a protein which takes part in cellular metabolism. I won't go into the details, but every species' cytochrome C is slightly different since every species requires it to do slightly different things. Now if a single-cell evolved into a fish and the fish into a frog and the frog into a reptile etc. the cytochrome C of the fish would be similar to the frog, the cytochrome C of the frog similar to the reptile and so on. The above tables show that it's simply not the case. Evolution would say the eel came first, then the fish then the amphibians then reptiles then birds then horses. If that were so the eel's genetic code would be similar to the fish, the fish similar to the frog, the frog's similar to the reptile and the reptile similar to the bird and the bird similar to the horse. The table shows the eel is most similar to the carp, but then the next similar organism is the horse and is equally similar to the turtle and the pigeon. How would you explain that? It's clear from this information that the Theory of Evolution has some big obsticles to overcome before you can even think about making it a scientific law.




Agreed. Except that "the validity of Creationism can be simply proved by exclusiton."

Something I forgot to Add:

Even the position of the sun reletive to the earth is exact. If the sun was as little as 2% closer to the earth, we would get too much solar heat and the earth would be a DESERT wasteland. If it was as little as 2% farther away, we wouldn't get enough solar heat and the earth would be an ICY wasteland. This seaks volumes for the fact that the universe has a designer.

A hail to the holy flowerpot. Life is made by composting. Prove me wrong



Err, the poodle was first mentioned in end of 19th century. It is not godmade. But the result of mutation and selection. When there is no evolution then there is also no change. The Poodle is change compared to the previous dog races. A subspecies, and that is a poodle, it is a subspecies of dogs, always the start of a new species. That's where separation starts. The bodysize and shape leads to other habit of eating and living. A chihuahua is surely not able to sucessfully hunt a deer. And surely not able to carry childs from a great dane. Here the evolution has still reached the sexual barrer that divides the races. And that is macroevolution, right?

To say it is still a dog is true. It is also true that it is a mammal, or an animal. To say it is not evolution is simply false.

Everytime when there was no consensus between faith and science the science won in the end. Because provable facts are provable, faith not.

The catholic church said earth is flat. We now have the consensus that the earth is round. Too much provable facts pointed in that direction. And finally the catholic church couldn't longer ignore it and agreed that the earth is round. That in this point the bible is wrong - that was in 2001. The catholic church says there is no evolution. Well. Too much provable facts points in the evolution direction. Just a matter of time until the church also agrees in this point



The chance that you win in a lottery is let's say 30.000.000 to 1. And you nevertheless have dozens of winners every week. The sum of solar systems in just this galaxy is around 300 billion. And that is just one galaxy

where does the bible say the earth is flat?

julz

I couldn't agree more with said,



What about it mentioning 4 corners? What about the texts being very vague about what's really meant? I really don't think a round earth has corners... By the way, it's a bit stupid to repeat the same arguments over and over just because we disagree on the interpretation of text.

I think we should be able to agree though that the Bible by far isn't specific enough about Earth for us to simply assume it clearly says the Earth is round. Judged by our history, the egg of Columbus and what not I pretty much doubt the Bible's interpretation has stayed the same through time on this subject. Especially because going by some historic texts it weren't sailors who warned for falling of the edge of the world,

Cheers