Why do people associate evolution with where life came from

@rosborne979,

You do not know that binary code has been encoded on to DNA by Harvard engineers. Now you have the opportunity to learn.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/510246/why-dna-will-someday-replace-the-hard-drive/

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

One can not really attach God as the creator, because God has roughly 7 billion definitions, one for every human. However creator fits just fine, and it allows us to be the next creator, when we move to a new place, or take basic life forms that we can get adapted to that new place there, where the grand code of evolution will change them to fit their new environment, and begin new ecosystems, that might just spawn a self aware of the cosmos, humanoid, who will ask, what am I and from where did I come from. Now this concept merges both creation and evolution into one scheme of continued creation.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

...these things having been created is a far more likely, and also far more scientific explanation.

What in the world do you mean by "created?" Why don't you just explain yourself clearly and stop being so coy about it?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

DNA consist of a hard drive, and the code that resides on the hard drive. You follow so far?

Next, you must understand, that DNA code, is the instruction set, that enables the hard drive to be created, formed, grow, these words are all interchangeable. You follow so far?

Now, since the hard drive, is formed by the code on the hard drive, there had to be a creator of both the hard drive and the code on the drive, and they had to be created together, because one can not exist without the other. You follow so far?

There are two explanations, 1 the dopey one, is that a minimum of hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and a hard drive to store them on just grew out of a pond one day. The science that we know forbids this as irrational. Or 2, the code and the hard drive were created, with no more effort to the creator, then Apple builds a hard drive, programs it, then sells it as a computer. All you need is imagine a computer programmer, programming a new system in 10,000 or 50,000 years.

2 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

DNA consist of a hard drive, and the code that resides on the hard drive. You follow so far?

Next, you must understand, that DNA code, is the instruction set, that enables the hard drive to be created, formed, grow, these words are all interchangeable. You follow so far?

Now, since the hard drive, is formed by the code on the hard drive, there had to be a creator of both the hard drive and the code on the drive, and they had to be created together, because one can not exist without the other. You follow so far?

There are two explanations, 1 the dopey one, is that a minimum of hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and a hard drive to store them on just grew out of a pond one day. The science that we know forbids this as irrational. Or 2, the code and the hard drive were created, with no more effort to the creator, then Apple builds a hard drive, programs it, then sells it as a computer. All you need is imagine a computer programmer, programming a new system in 10,000 or 50,000 years.

You demonstrate only that you still don't understand the theory of evolution. Evolution does not depend on DNA. At this point in history, DNA is used to store the genetic pattern, but this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and it is believed that there was a time when life existed but DNA had not yet evolved. Evolution means that systems that reproduce tend to accumulate improvements. It would be true of any system that reproduced itself no matter how. Since evolution creates greater and greater complexity, the belief is that in the distant past, our ancestors were a single cell, and before that something even smaller and simpler than a cell. As to the origin of life, the belief is that after hundreds of millions of years of random chemical reactions in the oceans, a molecule much, much simpler than DNA formed randomly that could copy itself and that this is our ultimate ancestor. It doesn't matter that we didn't have instruments there to identify the molecule, the belief is perfectly logical and has the benefit of not involving magic. Stop saying that we believe that it was DNA, because we don't, as we've told you over and over and over. We believe that it was something much simpler. Stop misstating our position.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

There is not one bit of scientifically verifiable data in you post, just unsubstantiated by science ideas, first postulated by a birdwatcher. I agree that evolution happens now, and is a function of the most stupendously grand code in the known universe, which is you. However you state how life began, as though it were fact, it is not fact. You however are free to believe it is fact, but that just does not make it so. You can not find even one point in my post hat is scientifically not valid...........go ahead and try, instead of babbling about simple cells that you believe are logical.

PS. If humanity does move life to another planet or moon, what would this life be? Cattle, pigs, corn and wheat? Or simple celled algae, and the like?

Evolution will continue, when we leave the Earth...........And create God out of ourselves.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

One can not really attach God as the creator, because God has roughly 7 billion definitions, one for every human

Yea DNA, precisely, well put

Quote:

Now this concept merges both creation and evolution...

Yes I like it

…for what that's worth

…..not much hereabout

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

You do not know that binary code has been encoded on to DNA by Harvard engineers.

I do know that. It is simply irrelevant to your argument.

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

There are two explanations, 1 the dopey one, is that a minimum of hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and a hard drive to store them on just grew out of a pond one day.

There's a name for this particular type of fallacy which you are making, but I can't remember the name of it... it's something like the "it's too difficult for me to comprehend, therefor it must be impossible" fallacy.

Perhaps Setanta will come along and give us the actual type of fallacy. I think he's made note of it by name before.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Science, does not assume, therefor the creation of life, as evolutionist claim happened in a warm pond, is not science.

However, it is clear that science will reject the notion that either the hundreds of thousands of lines of DNA code, needed for a simple organism, will write themselves in a warm pond, and science will also forbid, this code to be written on a helix frame, that was also created by the pond. Seriously, science condemns evolutionary theory as nonsense, and in fact to accept evolutionary theory, one must either have no knowledge of science, or just push logic off to the side and ignore science.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

There is not one bit of scientifically verifiable data in you post, just unsubstantiated by science ideas, first postulated by a birdwatcher. I agree that evolution happens now, and is a function of the most stupendously grand code in the known universe, which is you. However you state how life began, as though it were fact, it is not fact...

At no point in any post have I ever stated it as fact. I state it as hypothesis.

Here is why it's a reasonable hypothesis. It is known that molecules do lots of interesting stuff, a molecule much simpler than DNA that could replicate itself is not ruled out by any principle or observation, and such a thing would account for the first origin of life. What is your evidence for a spirit of the universe that created life as a deliberate act of will?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Well you did say this,

''and it is believed that there was a time when life existed but DNA had not yet evolved.''

It was also believed that the flat Earth did not revolve around the Sun, but vice versa, so what is believed, is not the same as what is supported by science.

You also said this

''the belief is that in the distant past, our ancestors were a single cell, and before that something even smaller and simpler than a cell. As to the origin of life, the belief is that after hundreds of millions of years of random chemical reactions in the oceans,''

The fact is that you use the word belief more than a religious convention, anything can be stated as a belief, but science does not incorporate random beliefs. Why are your beliefs more important then someone elses religious beliefs? And in fact your beliefs are religious beliefs, because they are not backed by science in any way, and require faith to be accepted.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Well you did say this,

''and it is believed that there was a time when life existed but DNA had not yet evolved.''

It was also believed that the flat Earth did not revolve around the Sun, but vice versa, so what is believed, is not the same as what is supported by science.

You also said this

''the belief is that in the distant past, our ancestors were a single cell, and before that something even smaller and simpler than a cell. As to the origin of life, the belief is that after hundreds of millions of years of random chemical reactions in the oceans,''

The fact is that you use the word belief more than a religious convention, anything can be stated as a belief, but science does not incorporate random beliefs. Why are your beliefs more important then someone elses religious beliefs? And in fact your beliefs are religious beliefs, because they are not backed by science in any way, and require faith to be accepted.

In neither of those quotations did I say it was a fact. How does, "it is believed" become "it is is a known fact?" It is merely the most widely accepted hypothesis. How does it involve religious or magical thinking to postulate an explanation which is consistent with known facts and would serve to explain the phenomenon being considered?

Furthermore, which is more likely, that life started from a self-replicating molecule much simpler than DNA or that life started as a magical creature's act of will?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Actually, you are wrong again, as the most widely accepted hypothesis, for the formation of life on Earth, is that God did it.....

http://web.ovu.edu/peppercenter/survey/world_demo.gif

Building hard drives and filling them with genetic code, can hardly be considered magic. God is said to have destroyed the entire city of Sodom by his magical godlike powers. Any nuclear armed country could do the same right now, by E=MC2, which is not magic, but science.

2 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Actually you're wrong - religions don't deal with hypotheses, they deal with truth, as they see it.

The God hypothesis is lame - who/what created God? Invoking God as the creator merely shifts the point of creation back a notch.

1 Reply

Truth is not decided by popular vote. Scientific approach is the only one that considers the facts and lets the chips fall where they may.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

I did not invoke God, all of my ideas about the creation of life hinge upon science, and there is no science that supports abiogenic spontaneous generation, of which the theory of evolution depends. The fact of the matter is that all persons who claim to know how life took hold on the Earth, are doing so without scientific rigor, including evolutionist.

Harvard engineers have proven that the DNA helix is a hard drive, as binary code has now been stored to it, it then follows that hard drives do not form in warm ponds, and neither does the hundreds of thousands of lines of code needed to form a single celled organism. If this happened in the past, an experiment should be able to grow spontaneous hard drives and chemical codes of this length today from nothingness. As dumb as this sounds, brilliant minds have tried and failed. The biggest conundrum of all time is, that if they succeed, they only prove that God might have done this on his own at one point. Thus a creator is far more likely than hard drives building themselves, or codes writing themselves, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

2 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Actually, you are wrong again, as the most widely accepted hypothesis, for the formation of life on Earth, is that God did it.....

Building hard drives and filling them with genetic code, can hardly be considered magic. God is said to have destroyed the entire city of Sodom by his magical godlike powers. Any nuclear armed country could do the same right now, by E=MC2, which is not magic, but science.

I thought it was understood that I meant scientific hypothesis, and my point was that you were incorrect to state that I had presented it as fact. Again, which is more likely, that a molecule formed after hundreds of millions of years that could copy itself or that a magical being created life?

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

...DNA helix is a hard drive, as binary code has now been stored to it, it then follows that hard drives do not form in warm ponds...

As you have been told repeatedly, the actual belief is that a self-replicating molecule much, much simpler than DNA, formed and that DNA is the result of a long period of evolution. You consistently misstate our viewpoint, which, of course, is very convenient for you. None of us believes that DNA formed spontaneously.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

If you can't present any facts, then do not disagree with people who do not accept your theory. Bye the way some synonyms to theory are, assumption, doctrine, ideology, philosophy, scheme, speculation, suspicion, conjecture, guesswork, hunch, presumption, shot, supposal, surmise, and supposition.

Now when you say that you have a theory that hard drives and computer like code formed in a pond, and I say that I have a theory that hard drives and computer like codes can not form in a pond. Which makes scientific sense?

Does it make scientific sense to say that if humanity can get basic life forms to take hold on another planet, that humanity would have acted in a manner that has been attributed to what God is said to have done here in the past? And that if these forms of life evolve, that they could one day ask, from where did we come, thus evolutionary theory is proved, by humans who acted as God.

1 Reply

Why do people associate evolution with where life came from

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know