Creation Talk, Origins, Species, and General Discussion

Do you Believe in creation.

We were created by God in his image
7
24%
We Were created by many Gods
1
3%
We are a computer simulation
2
7%
We are engineered by aliens
7
24%
We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it
7
24%
We have no way of ever knowing
0
No votes
We have no way of knowing, but only for now
4
14%
I do not really care
0
No votes
Gundum style
1
3%
 
Total votes : 29
Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:13 am » by Constabul


Bleever wrote:
Well...hmmm...ok, here is where I respectfully struggle with your viewpoint. Its lacks logic and structure you impose whatever you deem it to, via subjective projection.

A stumbling block,

Constabul wrote:I site fields of study that are on the path to source coding, and precursors to create life.


No you don't. No even close, you do an above average job of skirting the issue. Or, more pointedly, never truly address 'source code' other than to try and splice it and re-attach other 'source codes'.

I don't feel you believe half the stuff you post or can concisely articulate its summation. Verbose comes to mind and quite frankly, I terry of such. If presented with true source code, and NOTHING else, no bastardization of it, no possible allusions of it, not what ifs, and they are on the right path, or they are close, or all research points to the possibility....or in all likelihood...just pure source code, you would say, Whoa, dude. And, from across the galaxy God would wink at you.



I've Addressed the issue a couple of times, on different comments directed to you. Not skirting, not dodging, But plainly addressed depending on the context of the post at the time.
If i had been dodging this, i would have either abandoned the topic or thread. Which i havent.

I've been more then accommodating to provide you with my opinion of various topics that are tied to this, and provide sources that in some small way touch on what i am conveying.


for 10,000$ i could get my cat cloned. While this might not be creation/origin of all life stuff. It is an example of Us bridging that divide of billions of billions of crafted cells. Of programing dna, and recreating life to parameters of our choosing.


No one has Solved mystery of the origins of first life. Religious sources like the bible, are not even searching. It is all provided for you in its texts. At least various other ideas are being pursued by the sciences to address this topic.



Actually i have provided links, or touched on topics that address this. An in such a way to demonstrate humans are indeed on the path to creation from scratch.
There is a complexity implied beyond human capability, Therefor 'finger print of god'. Which is not the case.
Various advances in recent years shatters this notion.
I provided a link to a site on synthetic biology

What is Synthetic Biology?

Synthetic biology combines molecular biology and systems biology with engineering principles to design biological systems & bio-factories. The aim is to create improved biological functions to fight current & future challenges.

At Life Technologies we believe synthetic biology will change the way we create energy, produce food, optimize industrial processing; detect, prevent, and cure disease. We are committed to offering unparalleled technology and solutions to this research community. Through science and engineering, this unique area enables researchers to study, alter, create, and re-create highly complex pathways, DNA sequences, genes, and natural biological systems, in order to understand and answer some of life’s most challenging questions.

http://www.invitrogen.com/site/us/en/home/Products-and-Services/Applications/synthetic-biology.html

Right here In this alone, dismisses the notion you put forth of,
'No you don't. No even close, you do an above average job of skirting the issue. Or, more pointedly, never truly address 'source code' other than to try and splice it and re-attach other 'source codes'.'
The problem i think you are having is.. It is not based in some theological sense, nor currently address on some apologetics web site dealing with creationism and origin.. That is a assumption on my part, judging from the type of comments you have had.
This has not been a discussion. Besides the obvious commas and periods i have posted. I've posed some question marks too.

What i have been trying to point out, in making 'source code'. A understanding of the 'current code. being studied... Has to be understood.
Going beyond chemistry and biology to physics, and I have tried to express this without having to go through the whole chemistry 101, biology 101, or physics 101.
Be it (by example) humans making..


Cyborg Parts, Princeton researchers, using a 3-D printer, have built a bionic ear with integrated electronics. http://www.technologyreview.com/demo/51 ... org-parts/

A Rudimentary Liver Is Grown from Stem Cells, A mixture of three cell types self-assembles into a liver bud that can be seen with the naked eye. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/51 ... tem-cells/

A Manufacturing Tool Builds 3-D Heart Tissue, A layer-by-layer fabrication tool lets researchers quickly form complicated biological tissue in three-dimensional space. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/51 ... rt-tissue/

Human Embryonic Stem Cells Cloned, Scientists produced embryonic stem cells from the DNA of one person combined with a human donor egg. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/51 ... ls-cloned/

These are all steps on the road to making that 'source code'. Sourced from recent releases of scientific data.

My personal opinion is they already can, but such is like technology levels of the governments vs tech of the common person, there are generally about 15 to 20 years in difference.


Here are a couple other companies that are involved in this,


https://www.illumina.com/
http://www.verinata.com/

For the purpose of 'weeding' out various traits before birth.. the ground work for Orwellian shit, but in the grander scheme of things another step in the process.


Again i think your failing to follow the logical linking of the data provided, has in large part to do with the belief you have vested yourself in. Demanding that final answer Right NOW, Or it isn't valid. Theist point of view.

This Is a mistake on your part. Much of this i've already stated at some point, either making comments to you or truthdefender. The one continuous theme to my comments has been the on going progression of scientific discovery. We have jumped leaps and bounds in the past 20 years alone. To be able to sequence, edit, create, etc DNA on the fundamental level. These are not "what ifs" or 'could be' This is has done. Again, cause it seems to be necessary.. To quote myself from this thread..

While this might not be creation/origin of all life stuff.


Bleever wrote:By the way, the fruit fly stays a fly.

Demonstrating that a population is reproductively isolated (in a nontrivial way) from populations that it was formerly able to interbreed with shows that speciation has occurred. In practice, it is also necessary to show that at least one isolating mechanism with a hereditary basis is present. After all, just because a pair of critters don't breed during an experiment doesn't mean they can't breed or even that they won't breed. Debates about whether a speciation event has occurred often turn on whether isolating mechanisms have been produced.

Some of this would be argued to be semantics, but we are talking minor variances.


Bleever wrote:You resemble a theistic evolutionist, which is an 'open handed' issue to a degree of course. Francis Collins wrote a book right up your alley, called, "The Language of God". Or you are only left with a 'multi-verse explanation. Otherwise you have not stated your position only blurred the lines to "play it safe" in your mind or the eyes of your peers.

I will say this, enough with page, 2 this, or page 5 that, or the subatomic world as being your next 'lesson' for me.



From page one....
Would your view be more like Theistic Evolution? No my view would not be at this point. Tho further explanation is needed i believe.

I think it is a decent step process for people of creation belief to be able to start to adapt an involve the scientific realm into their theological belief.
There are issues present for those of the christian persuasion in using this. Ultimately it is untrue by the teachings of the bible. An this hurdle means, abandoning what it teaches, to following a subjective version unique to your own life. Most occurrences in the past like this have just been called denominations. Tho while the changes of, you do not have to pay for repentance of sin, or you can read your own bible were big steps, and a big deal in the past. It is something completely different then humans are a branch of hominid, and that creation force made it all. Ergo we are made of the same things the stars are.

To have the generic belief there is some creation force unseen at work, which started the events in motion to get use where we are.. I tend to put more thought into, but once you start trying to name that force, and attribute actions, of a character.. like say jesus to this force. It loses any an all credibility of being approached in a scientific way or discussion.



You are right in something 'we may be nearing an end to this topic.'
My questions to you or truth still are there for discussion if you so choose.

Do i believe a lot of what i typed? I think there is an over use of the word belief, and believes.. solely for the purpose of debate tactics..
Do I Acknowledge a lot of what I typed.
In the scientific sense that these are current levels of understanding and development?
Yes I do acknowledge them.
Are the principals of common descent, or molecular evolution apart of my belief structure?
Not really, I can follow a lot of it acknowledging the studies that led to the data, see the results in nature as described, and (as ive mentioned on occasion) acknowledge we are far from a finished product. Not only in our evolution, but our study of it too.

None of it, or lack there of.. Makes me feel like I need to be in one camp or another. I can enjoy living life as best i can, take in the sights and sounds am content in that i will likely never know the answer in my life time.
I dont need jesus, or some version there of, to make me feel better, or worse. Nor a god to be the prime mover. For all we know, it could be like greek mythology and be a pantheon of gods.. Even the god of the bible, going far enough back comes from a pantheon. Jesus is another sort of discussion.
Present or not, It does not stop the natural processes, let alone the man made ones.
If it is a medium you need to help come together as a community, ive no problem with that on the surface. People use various things to promote community based activities.

Preview is bugged for me at the moment, so flying a kite without string at the moment. :oops:
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2647
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:22 am » by Truthdefender


I got "excited" over fruit flies because you say '40' generations and they show an adaptive change. Well they have bred hundreds of generations and they are still fruit flies down to the identical code. And as far as 'adaptive change,' we have adaptive change after every cold, flu, and the chicken pox. This is not evolution.

By the way, your debate Bleev and Const, is what this site is really for. Minds meeting, not heads slamming together :cheers:
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2647
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:31 am » by Truthdefender


Introduction: All species undergo gradual change over time, but in the fossil record we find evidence of some changes that are particularly striking. This website is dedicated to some of these so-called transitional fossils.

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.

Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Just whoaaaa!!! Intellectually honest evolutionists? Stunned
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:39 am » by Bleever


Well I for one have and continue to enjoy Constable, he is a gentlemen. And, worthy of my valuable time. I dont always have the time to stay engaged on this site. As a matter of fact I am heading to the Redwood forest for 4 days and where I am going there wont be internet so I will vanish for a couple of days. But, hey, I got Truth and SOGEF to sort it out whilst im away.

I will however, be bowing my head and worshiping the creator and not creation, as I pray beneath the largest living creatures on the earth.

God bless brothers and sisters...

Bleever.
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2647
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:41 am » by Truthdefender


From one of your sources:


But by using the directed evolution method, scientists hope that they will be able to evolve this random "moonlighting" activity into PON1's main "day job," which would be carried out more quickly and efficiently than before.”

“To identify the most effective PON1 mutants


This is called mutating, and a standard example of the hyperbole used in many of the scientific papers
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:49 am » by Constabul


Damn having issues replying to this damned thread.

Truthdefender wrote:I got "excited" over fruit flies because you say '40' generations and they show an adaptive change. Well they have bred hundreds of generations and they are still fruit flies down to the identical code. And as far as 'adaptive change,' we have adaptive change after every cold, flu, and the chicken pox. This is not evolution.

By the way, your debate Bleev and Const, is what this site is really for. Minds meeting, not heads slamming together :cheers:

As i said to bleever, some of it is semantics. I provided a link to the original study show 600 generations with no evolutionary change. Yet we have other studies that in 40 generations or it could have just been 40th attempt to illicit a change, to have marked difference than the original flies did.
Also posted those links.

I have enjoyed the discussion, with you and bleever both. We are rooted in our subjective views, and likely will have a hard time changing, let alone to the ways one another thinks.


Truthdefender wrote:
Introduction: All species undergo gradual change over time, but in the fossil record we find evidence of some changes that are particularly striking. This website is dedicated to some of these so-called transitional fossils.

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.

Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Just whoaaaa!!! Intellectually honest evolutionists? Stunned


I would be stunned to see where it was claimed we have a complete fossil record. Which is a part of the problem in discussing it from a theist perspective / debate. Tho that is often ignored for the purpose of debate points.

Matter of fact we have a whole slew of evolutionary 'dead ends' as it were.. that was the result of a cliff falling into the ocean and burying a large group of critters. Critters with trunks and lil claws attached to them, sets of three eyes, just a whole plethora of random forms of life. That if not for that one event we wouldnt have a clue they existed, and would attribute anything similar to sci fi.

Making a fossil in itself, is a specific set of circumstances to allow for the process, and not be destroyed by the other critter around, or just the normal decay processes.

Edit to add color, and have a good time bleever.
Be careful bohemian grove is up that way, dont get sacrificed..
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 5:57 am » by Bleever


Dang it Const...I tried leave all cool and graceful, then you had to post again! Haha....

Anyhow, briefly, there should be a ton of these type of fossils from the fossil record, they should be littered all over the place. Check out Mt. Maotian, in China. The famous Chengjiang fossil site. No cliffs here, matter of fact complete fossil records, like the one in Canada and N. Dakota.

Edit: Thank you sir. They would have a hard time sacrificing me, as my God trumps their god every time!
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 6:11 am » by Constabul


Was just commenting on a particular instance, not the state of fossil records as a whole, which is incomplete. Yes various sites have complete skeletons, or we have found ancestors of various species. Tho we do not have for every critter, every segment of existence or change.
Even with in our own species we get the random webbed appendage, or eleven to twelve fingers, and some who still produce a tail.
Aberrations, mutations, or environmentally forced changes can be seen, tho most all are lacking in fossil record.

There was a really nice fossil site in Australia found too. Sinkholes for the win..

Hopefully the conversation can continue. I do not see the need to stress one belief verse another. As much in just discussing various points. Like the fossil record, and the instance i mentioned earlier. will have to go back and see what it was named in particular.
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2647
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 6:15 am » by Truthdefender


Constabul wrote:Damn having issues replying to this damned thread.

Truthdefender wrote:I got "excited" over fruit flies because you say '40' generations and they show an adaptive change. Well they have bred hundreds of generations and they are still fruit flies down to the identical code. And as far as 'adaptive change,' we have adaptive change after every cold, flu, and the chicken pox. This is not evolution.

By the way, your debate Bleev and Const, is what this site is really for. Minds meeting, not heads slamming together :cheers:

As i said to bleever, some of it is semantics. I provided a link to the original study show 600 generations with no evolutionary change. Yet we have other studies that in 40 generations or it could have just been 40th attempt to illicit a change, to have marked difference than the original flies did.
Also posted those links.

I have enjoyed the discussion, with you and bleever both. We are rooted in our subjective views, and likely will have a hard time changing, let alone to the ways one another thinks.


Truthdefender wrote:
Introduction: All species undergo gradual change over time, but in the fossil record we find evidence of some changes that are particularly striking. This website is dedicated to some of these so-called transitional fossils.

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.

Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Just whoaaaa!!! Intellectually honest evolutionists? Stunned


I would be stunned to see where it was claimed we have a complete fossil record. Which is a part of the problem in discussing it from a theist perspective / debate. Tho that is often ignored for the purpose of debate points.

Matter of fact we have a whole slew of evolutionary 'dead ends' as it were.. that was the result of a cliff falling into the ocean and burying a large group of critters. Critters with trunks and lil claws attached to them, sets of three eyes, just a whole plethora of random forms of life. That if not for that one event we wouldnt have a clue they existed, and would attribute anything similar to sci fi.

Making a fossil in itself, is a specific set of circumstances to allow for the process, and not be destroyed by the other critter around, or just the normal decay processes.

Edit to add color, and have a good time bleever.
Be careful bohemian grove is up that way, dont get sacrificed..



Const, what is your theory on why we have a hundred times more complete dinos than hominid fossils? This is one of my largest curiosities.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostThu Aug 15, 2013 7:03 am » by Constabul


Honestly, my best answer is I dont know. It is a good question, Possibly due to a thicker atmosphere, the soil conditions a bit more receptive to the mud making / fossil process.

I think too we have to consider the amount of time of existence. Humans as we are now, are in the realm of 150,000 to 300,000 yrs old. Depending on sources. Dinos are claimed to be in the realm of 180 million years.. even considering early hominids, we are talking 6 to 7 million years.. there have been a few recent discoveries in china and Europe that challenge the out of Africa theory. Also recent studies finding a 2 to 3 % neanderthal dna present in all non African peoples. Marduk posted an article on it not so long ago.

The latter would be my first assumption. A longer period to have such instances occur. The funeral practices of humans could be another link too. The bog peoples of the British isles come to mind.
Tho thinking of Buddhist rites in which the whole body is dismembered and fed to the local wildlife. There was cannibalism too.
I think one could find a number of factors that in their own right would reduce this amount.

Then we have the complete opposite too, where we find a whole human frozen in ice, or like the bog peoples, preserved, or such as in various forms of mummification. Those these are in the more recent realm of 100s to 1000s of years the fellow frozen in ice , Ötzi was 5000 +/- yrs old.


Humans do tend to live near water, more in past tense thoughts. What traces were lost below rising waters is another consideration..

It opens a good question tho.
Image
Image


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook