Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 94

Thread: Chance or Designer

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Below is another vid about 43 minutes by a PhD.

    Especially for Bez: You may not want to listen to the hold thing, but consider watching the first few minutes.

    In the first few minutes he quotes Zach. 12:1 written in the 6th century if you accept that, or in 275 BC from a skeptic viewpoint. "....stretches out the heaven...." is a statement, not a prophecy, unknown until the 20th century.

    And for grampster: This guy belongs from to the C. S. Lewis Society.

    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    About 10 minutes

    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Sanctuary
    Posts
    14,752

    Default

    Probability of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator, 100%.
    Pastor Guest

    Free E- Book!

    "Steps Toward the Mark of the Beast"
    The Christian's Guide to the How and Why of
    the Coming Cashless/RFID Economic System


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pastor Guest View Post
    Probability of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator, 100%.
    Absolutely agree!

    I can look at my computer, and the odds of all those components coming together by chance is greater than1 in 10164 because it is much more complex than a single strand of an enzyme, or amino acid.

    I can look at my computer, and say it had a designer, and the odds of that happening are 1 in 1. Or as you say 100%.

    I know it looks like I am beating a dead horse here.

    However, I personally think there are about 3 problems concerning evolution vs designer, and I am hoping to highlight that.

    1) The atheist/evolutionist may believe what ever they want. No matter how loud, they holler, and how much they say it is based on "science", and even act like it is, it is not. They believe it, because they want to. And with those I personally have debated, and those that I have seen on TV, and youtube they come across to me as high minded. They know it all, and we that believe in creation are dumb, and ignorant. That comes across as pride. And pride goes before a fall, with them, as it did with Satan. If you will note his interaction with Eve, Job, and Jesus. Also note Isa 14 and Eze 28.

    2) With that attitude they come across as having knowledge, and it can sway Christians. So theologians will try to harmonize the "science" of the atheist/evolutionist with creation. And that can cause confusion, and doubt in the Body. (Didn't Satan come across as having knowledge when he confronted Eve?)

    3) The confusion can stem from lack of knowledge in the Body about "science" matters. I mean really, how many of us have degrees in a field of science? So, when confronted with an atheist/evolutionist we feel inadequate, and overwhelmed. Smart people can be condescending, or high minded. As evidenced recently where students think they know how to run this country better than their parents-David Hogg, no dummy with a 4.? GPA.

    So the purpose here is to give out knowledge by people with PhD's, smart people, so those of us without PhD's can feel comfortable around science majors, and rest, in that our belief system is actually accurate, scientifically, and rests in evidence, and not blind faith.

    As for questions for Sean McDowell when he played the atheist/evolutionist. I have 3:

    1) As an atheist do you have evidence that God doesn't exit? Or to put it in scientific terms, can you prove a negative?

    2) If as an atheist you are relying on evolution to prove there is no God, If I disprove evolution, will you accept that there is a God?

    3) If you discount the Bible as a source concerning Jesus, and the prophecies concerning Him, if I provide prophecies out of the Bible that can be proven historically from outside sources that don't concern Jesus, will you accept what it says about Him?

    Does anyone have any other questions to put to Sean?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wilderness of W. Michigan
    Posts
    372

    Default

    The only thing that comes to mind when pondering atheisim vs Christianity is this: If atheism is accurate and true, then what difference does it make at all with anything? There is no need for hope, for love, for charity, or for any high minded human emotions. To me atheism is absolute selfishness. To those who are atheists who would say that they are nice people and go along and get along and are civilized because they choose to, I merely say...what's the point?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Providence, R.I.
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    This is making me think.

    Creationists Cite Mike Trout As Indisputable Proof Of Intelligent Design
    Satire

    http://babylonbee.com/news/creationi...ligent-design/
    Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium.
    I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.

    “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
    Gandalf the Grey

    People with ethics have little use for the state. Conversely, the state has little use for people with ethics.

    My Disqus channel:

    https://disqus.com/by/PierreBezukhov1812/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time


    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22...-same-time.htm


    Landmark new research that involves analyzing millions of DNA barcodes has debunked much about what we know today about the evolution of species.

    In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time.

    More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
    "This conclusion is very surprising," says Thaler, "and I fought against it as hard as I could."
    What Is DNA Barcoding?

    Over the last decade, hundreds of scientists collected around 5 million DNA barcodes from 100,000 animal species in different parts of the globe. Stoeckle and Thaler looked through these 5 million genetic imprints to find one of the most surprising discoveries about evolution to date.

    There are two types of DNA. Most people know nuclear DNA. This is the DNA containing the genetic blueprint for each single individual. It is passed down from the parents to the offspring. The genome is made from kinds types of molecules arranged in pairs. There are 3 billion of these pairs, which are then used to form thousands of genes.

    The other, less familiar type of DNA is one found in the mitochondria of cells. The mitochondria generate energy for the cell and contains 37 genes. One of these is the COI gene, which is used to create DNA barcodes. All species have a very similar mitochondrial DNA, but their DNA is also different enough so we can distinguish between species.

    Paul Hebert, biologist and director of the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, developed a new way to identify species by studying the COI gene.
    Born Around The Same Time

    In analyzing the COI of 100,000 species, Stoeckle and Thaler arrived at the conclusion that most animals appeared simultaneously. They found that the neutral mutation across species were not as varied as expected. Neutral mutation refers to the slight DNA changes that occur across generations. They can be compared to tree rings because they can tell how old a certain specie or individual is.

    As to how that could have happened, it's unclear. A likely possibility is the occurrence of a sudden event that caused large-scale environmental trauma and wiped out majority of the Earth's species.

    "Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey — all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," explains Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment.

    Such times give rise to sweeping genetic changes across the planet, causing new species to appear. However, the last time such an occurrence took place was 65 million years ago, when an asteroid hit the Earth and killed off the dinosaurs and half of all other species on the planet.

    The study is published in the journal Human Evolution.
    What they are saying is, there wasn't any animals, and then there was all kinds of different animals. They are trying to explain why there wasn't any animals, with all kinds of weird theories, but what if there just wasn't any, and then there was. Where have I heard that before????????????

    Now there are two accounts that record this: The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record, and DNA. (Shhhhh let's not mention The Holy Bible for a third)

    I would also note that this study wasn't done by some freazoid Creationist with a PhD. but rather by:

    The Journal of Human Evolution is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal in the field of evolution, specializing in human and primate evolution. The journal was established in 1972 and is published by Elsevier in print and online on ScienceDirect. As of November 2015, the journal was on its 88th volume.

    Journal of Human Evolution - Wikipedia


    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Hum_Evol

    Remember: 1 in 10164​. Who are you betting on?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WA Coast
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    What they are saying is, there wasn't any animals, and then there was all kinds of different animals. They are trying to explain why there wasn't any animals, with all kinds of weird theories, but what if there just wasn't any, and then there was. Where have I heard that before????????????
    This is probably going to be one of the most misinterpreted studies ever. The study looks at something very specific and comes to a much different conclusion than I have seen in any news article about it. The study examines mitochondrial DNA and uses a standardized mutation rate to determine how quickly a particular kind of mutation appears in the mitochondria. This can be used as crude evolutionary clock. They are basically looking at the diversity of what are assumed to be non-selective sequences in the mitochondrial DNA and estimating how long it would take to develop that level of diversity in the population since uniformity. The way that the media is interpreting this is as if uniformity indicates the origin of that species, but there is no reason to think that is true. We can only look at the survivors, so all that we really know is that, with these approximately 90% of species, the modern population is derived substantially from a single female line (because mitochondria are passed matrilinearly). We already know that this is the case in a number of different species, although it hasn't been studied widely. The evidence in this case shows that the majority of animal populations trace back to ancestors with mitochondrial uniformity about 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. That doesn't mean that suddenly all of the other mitochondrial lines died out - it just means that the only ones that we have tested 100,000 years later trace back to a particular line. There were probably ancestors with a diversity of mitochondrial genomes 100,000 years ago, many of which died out about that time, and others of which have died out since. The interesting question is: what happened about 100,000 and 200,000 years ago that might have caused mitochondrial bottlenecks in these species? There will probably be a lot of speculation on this subject, but there have been ice ages about every 100,000 years for the past 800,000 years. So, one possible interpretation of this evidence is that very few animal populations survive an ice age with a great deal of diversity. On the surface, at least, that sounds plausible. A species develops a lot of diversity, then an ice age comes along and kills off all but a small pocket of survivors in a favorable environment, and over time, one mitochondrial line becomes the dominant survivor of that event. There is more than one possible interpretation of the data, but one of them is not that these species originated 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which seems to be the take that the media is pushing.

    It is also worth noting that there are some serious limitations to the methodology. A relatively small number of individuals of each species have been barcoded, so there are probably populations with different mitochondrial sequences that have just not been tested yet. Mitochondrial clocks are also normally calibrated by species based on observational data, so setting a standard rate across many different species might not be very reliable. They also make assumptions about the neutrality (non-selectiveness) of the mitochondrial markers that they used and it is really hard to be sure about that. These are things that biologists usually understand very well, but aren't likely to be explained in a news story.


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    "Might" and "probably", very convincing of you.

    And then again might and probably not.

    But we are to dumb to understand right? I mean after all, we all can't be biologists, it just not in our DNA.

    Believe what you will , it's fine.

    I also note that you made no replies to ANY of the other vid or PhDers. We all too dumb?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WA Coast
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Certainty is not the language of science. Science narrows down the possibilities. If you want certainty, you can get it from many sources, but it will probably let you down in the long run.

    I respond to things that I find interesting and where I think that I can contribute something of value. And I almost never watch videos. But I read this study earlier this week and here it popped up, so I thought I would offer my perspective.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •