Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
David Queller and Joan Strassmann, evolutionary biologists at Rice University, recently proposed a new way to describe what makes an organism a unified whole. They defined an organism as an entity made up of parts that cooperate well for an overall purpose, and do so with minimal conflict. But how do parts like these get together, and where does purposeful behavior come from?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Don’t forget the birth of rust.
The number of atoms is more than man can fathom.
The number of grams of an element equal to it's atomic weight (12g for carbon 12, e.g.)contains 6x10^23 atoms of that element. This number is known as Avagadro’s number.
'Rejects' isn't the correct word. Evolution is like looking at a map of how to drive from Phoenix to Dallas. That map has nothing to do with the laying down of the asphalt that makes up the road you drive on. It is simply what is involved in getting from point a to point b. Way too many people mess up the debate when they try to condemn the map because it doesn't tell you how the asphalt on the road was made.
I was discussing this with demshateGod. I said men wrote the Bible, he (or she) said men penned the Bible. Ok, let's take it as penned.
When creation was described to the man who penned it, was God going to get into particle physics, the Big Bang (Let there be light!), the techniques he used to create grass and herbs yielding seed, then creatures of the water, then birds, and so on in biological terminology ?
No, God would have described it in an intelligible manner. Why communicate it in a way that could not be understood ?
Why would God use evolution ? Why did God create gravity ? Or electromagnetic radiation ?
I would say because it's a natural part of His creation, following from the natural laws He established.
Evolution is by it's own descriptions materialistic and without the need to refer to any creator god at all.
That's because evolution attempts to explain what happened, not who did it, or how, or why. Evolution in no way precludes God - it can't.
Regarding man as fallen - man had no knowledge of good or evil originally. Thus it was impossible for man to sin - except in one way. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they disobeyed God - the original sin. That was the "fall".
Evolution doesn't talk about sin - it talks about biologically successful organisms. It doesn't say we're "perfected" or even "advanced", it says we're biologically successful.
...if evolutionary theory has an explanation for the existence of all things including man and, moreover, says it can explain all characteristics of man's makeup, conscience, religious feelings, altruism, morality, on and on.
It doesn't have an explanation for the existence of all things. It purports to tell us what happened in earth's history. Not who, or how or why. As to all the characteristics of man's makeup, I've never heard any evolutionary theory explaining all that - or even attempting to.
Why do you try to put God in the theory of evolution?
Because God could have done it that way, building His creation so as to follow His laws.
A very clever man. (Odd looking, too.)
Or a mole, for short..
Unless it is written to not produce the same results. GW scientists have perfected getting digital code to produce the same desired results regardless to the data used.
DNA seems to work that way in some very small scale cases, but completely fails in large scale cases.
Please offer an example. What 'failure' ?
Clones are never identical, neither are “identical” twins.
Yet one cannot say that either of the 'identical' twins 'failed'.
A perfect example of this is DNA. The Bible says nothing about DNA, it says man is made from dust and describes that creation event as unique from animals. I've only met a couple of literalists who would say that DNA is a myth and that man is really a unique, silicon based life form. Most, even the 6 day creationists, will give on that point that it was simply an analogous description of something that couldn't even be described in the simple language of the day. The same with the comment about God making man in His image. Again, few would argue that God is a bipedal, carbon based life-form who breathes and eats.
This might make you feel better:
One of the difficulties in that issue, is the definition of 'life'.
Earth itself it life. Life has always been here.
The Sun.
Heat, cold, cosmic rays, lightning, meteor impacts, gravity swings, the arrival of water (or other liquids), generally, the entire environment.
Which implies someone to build it.
An architect’s concepts don’t build themselves.
But is converted by 'the brain' into digital format for storage.
Yeah, but isn’t GGG more familiar with the “fake organism”?
How do you separate the Earth itself, from ‘life’?
Don’t confuse them. Please....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.