Post by mahatma on Oct 3, 2006 13:11:38 GMT -5
Continued from the Evolution thread...
The DNA is like a code as you describe, but just as in a computer code, if you write code, you as an intelegent person write the code with an intent in mind. A cell reads DNA and does what it says. Likewise a computer reads the code and does what it says. The computer doesn't write its own codes, unless someone was able to program it to do so. It takes an itelegent being to write codes.
In DNA, which is in all cells, if it changes even in a very small degree causes birth defects, still borns, or naturally aborts (miscarriage). In any animal group, the DNA has "all traits" available" in the code, but not all are used. In fact, most are blocked.
What has never been shown is a "new" trait, one that is added to the DNA. That would take a "programming addition" or upgrade to use a computer term. That has never, I repeat, never, been seen or found.
Smart men in a laboratory, with a specific result in mind, might try and reprogram DNA, but it never happens in nature.
If "all possible" traits are already available but are mostly blocked, why would it need to be shown that new codes are being created?
On another subject, yes I did write that letter to Rick Warren. Yes, I am an environmental consultant. I am not a "tree hugger" or a "naturalist". I work primarily in evaluation of hazards and environmental liability. I am a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager an deal with chemicals in regard to human health and adverse reactions that chemicals, when improperly used and disposes can have on health of people.
Climate issues are different than toxicalogical issues. I have a Christian friend who is also a meteorologist, who agrees with me and says that studies in other places on earth are showing places that are getting colder. He believes we have had trends and will continue. Why has the East Coast had no real storms during this so called "huricane season" if higher temps are supposed trigger them?
Sure, they are different fields. But if you argue to Pastor Warren that we shouldn't attempt to improve the climate as disasters are required to not "make a liar of God" shouldn't the same apply to chemical/toxilogical dangers? Mightn't a few really huge chemical or oil spills that did some real, serious, lasting damage to the environment be just the ticket for assisting God in his plans? Why would God want us not to try to stop flooding, hurricanes, etc. but then want us to stop an oil spill? By identical logic to that which you used to chide Warren, couldn't a toxic safety issue your company helps to resolve result in preventing a giant disaster that God wanted and thus "make a liar of him?"
First, it sounds a little strange to argue with one breath that God is all-powerful and that everything goes according to his plans, and then argue with the next breath that any action humans undertake could somehow negatively affect God's plan. Second, it is odd to claim that God wants disasters, but that chemical spills and other toxilogical disasters just "don't count."
Could it be possible, we in the USA has stood with Israel on the war and God has caused the storms to pass by? Those who bless you I will bless, and those that curse you, I will curse! Something to ponder.
Wouldn't it be just as easy for me to argue that God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish the US for not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol(which went into effect in 2005) or to show his anger at John Roberts joining the Supreme Court? Saying "God liked X so he did Y" with regards to current events is silly.
While the world is being scared out of their wits by global warming nuts, for so many in the church to say that they will help join to fight it, is laughable to me. God has always shown in scripture He decides such things. A person who believes the Bible, should take such an occasion to see how close we are to the end, and helping others for eternity by helping them see their need for Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior, not their enemy, when He comes back, or when they die.
Well, which is it? Does everything happen exactly as God wants, no matter what, or do people need to not try to help the environment and stop global warning? You can't reasonably both claim that A) disasters are going to increase over time due to God's omnipotence and B) God needs our help in ensuring that these disasters happen
As far as evolution goes, much of our beliefs are shaped by what we are taught. Many of us don't ask the right questions. For instance a meteor was said to have been found in Antartica that was from Mars. The story stated that as fact and went on to tell of studies from it and how we could learn about Mars from it.
I wondered, "How did that rock, overcome gravity, lift off that planet, decide it wanted to get to the earth, not get burned up leaving Mars, or coming to earth, and finally end up here? Have you ever seen a huge rock lift off from our planet and travel through space? Why then do we just accept some scientist claiming the rock is from Mars, when he offers no viable explanation for how it got here, and how it just wasn't a piece from somewhere else where some planets collided and broke apart. Mars isn't dented where it would appear a huge chuck was rocketed off, so what nonsense do we just believe "hook, line and sinker".
Well, since multiple Nakhlite Meteorites have been found over the past century, and since examination shows them all to be of Martian origin, I don't personally have a lot of doubt about it. The theory (yes I know, theory) goes that there was a huge impact on Mars billions of years ago that flung these pieces out of the atmosphere. There would be plenty of time for the planetary surface to "heal" itself over that time period, if Mars was (as it was believed to be) tectonically and volcanically active.
To be clear, I don't disagree with you about not just accepting what we are told. Verification is always important. But sometimes theories really are good enough to be science. Math, for instance, is based almost entirely on theorems which can be proven only if one accepts the underlying assumptions (axioms) are true. But over time these axioms have been tested and retested in every scientific field. Our buildings don't fall apart. Our computers work. Our space shuttles launch. Circles always have a predictable circumference based on the radius of the circle. For the life of us we can't -prove- that 1 + 1 = 2, or that 1 = 1, but we have such a huge body of proven work based on those assumptions that these assumptions seem pretty darn solid.
I take God's word as truth, because it had predicted future world events, even people and has been 100 % on target. I know the living God and have experienced His power in my life in many ways (see my web site ministerwhereyouare.org for stories like "Islam Blown Away by the Gospel" "Only God can teach old dogs new tricks" and more).
Haven't there been people in every century since Christ's death who pointed to various world events and personalities as proof that the end was nigh and that Revelations was obviously about to happen? History is rife with stories of christians giving away all their worldly posessions in expectation of the upcoming end of the world.
I'm not saying that the Bible -didn't- predict certain people and events...just that a man claiming he can point to specific events as the exact ones the Bible was speaking of is not exactly a new proposition, and has been proven wrong plenty of times in the past when the end didn't come.
I used to be afraid that science would somehow prove the Bible was wrong, but now i am confident it will only confirm it to be true, as we understand more and more.
Ok, that's reasonable. I never said the Bible isn't true, I just don't think my reading of it brings the same interpretation as yours.
As for disproving the Polonium Halos theory, what evidence of links do you have, I find nothing but theories against his theory, which is a stalemate.
Well the paper I linked you to made the point that the polonium halo theory was forced to make the assumption that -every other- radiological compound would have had to have their decay rates change by something like a factor of -9000- over time, while that of polonium would have to remain exactly the same. Sure that may not quite be definitive empirical evidence, but the likelihood of that having happened has to be so astronomical as to make the polonium halo theory exceedingly unlikely to be true.
Anyway...I keep hearing about all these "facts" that prove evolution wrong. But I still haven't heard, from any source, a single, incontrobertible fact that would disprove it. This Evolution Handbook claims to be chock full of these facts, so I would think there would be some real, solid -proof- unless the book is being sold under false pretenses.
The DNA is like a code as you describe, but just as in a computer code, if you write code, you as an intelegent person write the code with an intent in mind. A cell reads DNA and does what it says. Likewise a computer reads the code and does what it says. The computer doesn't write its own codes, unless someone was able to program it to do so. It takes an itelegent being to write codes.
In DNA, which is in all cells, if it changes even in a very small degree causes birth defects, still borns, or naturally aborts (miscarriage). In any animal group, the DNA has "all traits" available" in the code, but not all are used. In fact, most are blocked.
What has never been shown is a "new" trait, one that is added to the DNA. That would take a "programming addition" or upgrade to use a computer term. That has never, I repeat, never, been seen or found.
Smart men in a laboratory, with a specific result in mind, might try and reprogram DNA, but it never happens in nature.
If "all possible" traits are already available but are mostly blocked, why would it need to be shown that new codes are being created?
On another subject, yes I did write that letter to Rick Warren. Yes, I am an environmental consultant. I am not a "tree hugger" or a "naturalist". I work primarily in evaluation of hazards and environmental liability. I am a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager an deal with chemicals in regard to human health and adverse reactions that chemicals, when improperly used and disposes can have on health of people.
Climate issues are different than toxicalogical issues. I have a Christian friend who is also a meteorologist, who agrees with me and says that studies in other places on earth are showing places that are getting colder. He believes we have had trends and will continue. Why has the East Coast had no real storms during this so called "huricane season" if higher temps are supposed trigger them?
Sure, they are different fields. But if you argue to Pastor Warren that we shouldn't attempt to improve the climate as disasters are required to not "make a liar of God" shouldn't the same apply to chemical/toxilogical dangers? Mightn't a few really huge chemical or oil spills that did some real, serious, lasting damage to the environment be just the ticket for assisting God in his plans? Why would God want us not to try to stop flooding, hurricanes, etc. but then want us to stop an oil spill? By identical logic to that which you used to chide Warren, couldn't a toxic safety issue your company helps to resolve result in preventing a giant disaster that God wanted and thus "make a liar of him?"
First, it sounds a little strange to argue with one breath that God is all-powerful and that everything goes according to his plans, and then argue with the next breath that any action humans undertake could somehow negatively affect God's plan. Second, it is odd to claim that God wants disasters, but that chemical spills and other toxilogical disasters just "don't count."
Could it be possible, we in the USA has stood with Israel on the war and God has caused the storms to pass by? Those who bless you I will bless, and those that curse you, I will curse! Something to ponder.
Wouldn't it be just as easy for me to argue that God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish the US for not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol(which went into effect in 2005) or to show his anger at John Roberts joining the Supreme Court? Saying "God liked X so he did Y" with regards to current events is silly.
While the world is being scared out of their wits by global warming nuts, for so many in the church to say that they will help join to fight it, is laughable to me. God has always shown in scripture He decides such things. A person who believes the Bible, should take such an occasion to see how close we are to the end, and helping others for eternity by helping them see their need for Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior, not their enemy, when He comes back, or when they die.
Well, which is it? Does everything happen exactly as God wants, no matter what, or do people need to not try to help the environment and stop global warning? You can't reasonably both claim that A) disasters are going to increase over time due to God's omnipotence and B) God needs our help in ensuring that these disasters happen
As far as evolution goes, much of our beliefs are shaped by what we are taught. Many of us don't ask the right questions. For instance a meteor was said to have been found in Antartica that was from Mars. The story stated that as fact and went on to tell of studies from it and how we could learn about Mars from it.
I wondered, "How did that rock, overcome gravity, lift off that planet, decide it wanted to get to the earth, not get burned up leaving Mars, or coming to earth, and finally end up here? Have you ever seen a huge rock lift off from our planet and travel through space? Why then do we just accept some scientist claiming the rock is from Mars, when he offers no viable explanation for how it got here, and how it just wasn't a piece from somewhere else where some planets collided and broke apart. Mars isn't dented where it would appear a huge chuck was rocketed off, so what nonsense do we just believe "hook, line and sinker".
Well, since multiple Nakhlite Meteorites have been found over the past century, and since examination shows them all to be of Martian origin, I don't personally have a lot of doubt about it. The theory (yes I know, theory) goes that there was a huge impact on Mars billions of years ago that flung these pieces out of the atmosphere. There would be plenty of time for the planetary surface to "heal" itself over that time period, if Mars was (as it was believed to be) tectonically and volcanically active.
To be clear, I don't disagree with you about not just accepting what we are told. Verification is always important. But sometimes theories really are good enough to be science. Math, for instance, is based almost entirely on theorems which can be proven only if one accepts the underlying assumptions (axioms) are true. But over time these axioms have been tested and retested in every scientific field. Our buildings don't fall apart. Our computers work. Our space shuttles launch. Circles always have a predictable circumference based on the radius of the circle. For the life of us we can't -prove- that 1 + 1 = 2, or that 1 = 1, but we have such a huge body of proven work based on those assumptions that these assumptions seem pretty darn solid.
I take God's word as truth, because it had predicted future world events, even people and has been 100 % on target. I know the living God and have experienced His power in my life in many ways (see my web site ministerwhereyouare.org for stories like "Islam Blown Away by the Gospel" "Only God can teach old dogs new tricks" and more).
Haven't there been people in every century since Christ's death who pointed to various world events and personalities as proof that the end was nigh and that Revelations was obviously about to happen? History is rife with stories of christians giving away all their worldly posessions in expectation of the upcoming end of the world.
I'm not saying that the Bible -didn't- predict certain people and events...just that a man claiming he can point to specific events as the exact ones the Bible was speaking of is not exactly a new proposition, and has been proven wrong plenty of times in the past when the end didn't come.
I used to be afraid that science would somehow prove the Bible was wrong, but now i am confident it will only confirm it to be true, as we understand more and more.
Ok, that's reasonable. I never said the Bible isn't true, I just don't think my reading of it brings the same interpretation as yours.
As for disproving the Polonium Halos theory, what evidence of links do you have, I find nothing but theories against his theory, which is a stalemate.
Well the paper I linked you to made the point that the polonium halo theory was forced to make the assumption that -every other- radiological compound would have had to have their decay rates change by something like a factor of -9000- over time, while that of polonium would have to remain exactly the same. Sure that may not quite be definitive empirical evidence, but the likelihood of that having happened has to be so astronomical as to make the polonium halo theory exceedingly unlikely to be true.
Anyway...I keep hearing about all these "facts" that prove evolution wrong. But I still haven't heard, from any source, a single, incontrobertible fact that would disprove it. This Evolution Handbook claims to be chock full of these facts, so I would think there would be some real, solid -proof- unless the book is being sold under false pretenses.