MedVision ad

Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
The virus would have come afterwards cells, a possible mutation in a cell that created them.[/QUOTE]

Mutations?? do u know what mutations lead to. Have a look at the hiroshima bombings, thousands of mutations occured, and none of them led to any advancement or any positives, they either led to death or to "mutation" where instead of an arm u had a leg, or had no arms or legs at all. Mutations have been a key component in an attempt to prove the development of cells, species etc. however evry mutation goes wrong, they are never successful. A mutation in a cell as u claim will lead to the death of something and not the birth of a virus.
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Thousands....

Thousands of mutations occured in one person. This is different to a mutation occuring in one cell during the start of birth or in uni-cellular organisms.

Most mutations will be dangerous and will lead to death, such as what happened in the Hiroshima bombings, so although one cell in the body might have been improved too many others suffered negative imporvements.

In any case, the virus wasn't a positive mutation.

In any case, naturally observed mutations in plants have been seen to be beneficial allowing mass spraying of herbicides.
 

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Xayma said:
In any case buildings don't go through natural selection, and unlike your example cells can be damaged, they just wouldn't continue on. So random events that are positive continue, those that aren't don't.
That's my point, the story of a building going through natural slection is stupid. however what is more complex a cell or a building? if a building could not have been created through natural slection then how could a cell be created by natural slection? yes a buliding is non living, but u dont believ that it occured by chance, and a cell is living, but yet u belive it came into existance by some kind of evolution or chance.
 

acmilan

I'll stab ya
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
3,989
Location
Jumanji
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Mutations are not always harmful, in fact mutations occur naturally at a very slow rate. It is through exposure to mutagens, such as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the atom bomb, that the mutation rate explodes and causes defects and such. If the original cell where all life formed from did not mutate then all the things to follow would have been exactly the same as the original cell since no genes would be changed. In fact mutations may be beneficial...conincidently this was a question in this year biology exam

edit: the main reason why i dont believe evolution to be the full explanation to life is because of some contradictions and inadequacies i believe it contains
 
Last edited:

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
physician said:
That's my point, the story of a building going through natural slection is stupid. however what is more complex a cell or a building? if a building could not have been created through natural slection then how could a cell be created by natural slection? yes a buliding is non living, but u dont believ that it occured by chance, and a cell is living, but yet u belive it came into existance by some kind of evolution or chance.
A cell is more complex.

But a cell was not the first form of life. Bacterium were the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
 

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. B.G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would not be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement



Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all around the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme
 

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Xayma said:
A cell is more complex.

But a cell was not the first form of life. Bacterium were the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
what was there before bacterium?
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
This should do to explain the evolution of a specific bacterium
1.3. Theory: the evolution of systems with multiple required components

The standard answer to this question was put forward by Darwin. Mivart (1871) argued that the “incipient stages of useful structures” could not have evolved gradually by variation and natural selection, because the intermediate stages of complex systems would have been nonfunctional. Darwin replied in the 6th edition of Origin of Species (Darwin, 1872) by emphasizing the importance of change of function in evolution. Although Darwin’s most famous discussion of the evolution of a complex system, the eye, was an example of massive improvement of function from a rudimentary ancestor (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr, 1977; Nilsson and Pelger, 1994), Darwin gave equal weight to examples of functional shift in evolution. These included the complex reproductive devices of orchids and barnacles, groups with which he was particularly familiar (Darwin, 1851, 1854, 1862). Intricate multi-component systems such as these could not have originated by gradual improvement of a single function, but if systems and components underwent functional shift, then selection could have preserved intermediates for a function different from the final one. The equal importance of improvement of function and change of function for understanding the evolutionary origin of novel complex systems has been similarly emphasized by later workers (Maynard Smith, 1975; Mayr, 1976). Recent studies give cooption of structures a key role in the origin of feathers (Prum and Brush, 2002), and novel organs (Pellmyr and Krenn, 2002); Mayr (1976) gives many other examples. Computer simulations also show the importance of cooption for the origin of complex systems with multiple required parts (Lenski et al., 2003).

Do these common insights from classical, organismal evolutionary biology help us to understand the solution to the puzzle Macnab put forward regarding the origin of flagellum? Cooption at the molecular level is in fact as well-documented at it is at the macroscopic level (Ganfornina and Sanchez, 1999; Thornhill and Ussery, 2000; True and Carroll, 2002). It has been implicated in origin of ancient multi-component molecular systems such as the Krebs cycle (Melendez-Hevia et al., 1996) as well as the rapid origin of multi-component catabolic pathways for abiotic toxins that humans have recently introduced into the environment, such as pentachlorophenol (Anandarajah et al., 2000; Copley, 2000), atrazine (de Souza et al., 1998; Sadowsky et al., 1998; Seffernick and Wackett, 2001), and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (Johnson et al., 2002); many other cases of catabolic pathway evolution exist (Mortlock, 1992). All of these systems absolutely require multiple protein species for proper function. Even for some molecular systems equaling the flagellum in complexity, reasonably detailed reconstructions of evolutionary origins exist. Generally these are available for systems which originated relatively recently in geological history, which are well-studied due to medical importance, and where phylogeny is relatively well resolved; examples include the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade (Doolittle and Feng, 1987; Hanumanthaiah et al., 2002; Jiang and Doolittle, 2003) and the vertebrate immune system (Muller et al., 1999; Pasquier and Litman, 2000).

Thornhill and Ussery (2000) summarized the general pathways by which systems with multiple required components may evolve. They delineate three gradual routes to such systems: parallel direct evolution (coevolution of components), elimination of functional redundancy (“scaffolding,” the loss of once necessary but now unnecessary components) and adoption from a different function (“cooption,” functional shift of components); a fourth route, serial direct evolution (change along a single axis), could not produce multiple-components-required systems. However, Thornhill and Ussery’s analysis did not distinguish between the various levels of biological organization at which these pathways might operate. The above-cited literature on the evolution of complex molecular systems indicates that complex systems usually originate by a key shift in function of an ancestral system, followed by an intensive period of improvement of the originally crudely functioning design. At the level of the system, cooption is usually the key event in the origin of the modern system with the function of interest. However, a great deal of the complexity in terms of numbers of parts is added to the system after origination. These accessory parts get added by duplication and cooption of novel genes (for reviews of gene duplication in evolution, see Long, 2001; Chothia et al., 2003; Hooper and Berg, 2003) and/or duplication and subfunctionalization (Force et al., 1999) of genes already involved in the crudely-functioning system. Cooption of whole subsystems, linking them to the “core” system, may also occur.

Therefore, improvement of function at the system level might be implemented by cooption at the level of a protein or subsystem. Change of function at the system level might occur without any lower level cooption of new components. Thornhill and Ussery’s four routes can be reduced to the two major pathways proposed by Darwin: improvement of current function (optimization) and shift of function (cooption). Cooption remains its own category, while the other three routes (serial direct evolution, parallel direct evolution, and elimination of functional redundancy) can be considered as three versions of functional improvement, with the lower-level components undergoing optimization, coevolutionary optimization, or loss, respectively. This conceptual framework is basically equivalent to the patchwork model for the evolution of metabolic pathways (Melendez-Hevia et al., 1996; Copley, 2000), where components are recruited from diverse sources and functional improvement or functional shift might occur at any organizational level, e.g. system, subsystem, protein, or protein domain.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
 

snapperhead

Has decided to retire
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
3,018
Location
AD1 @ BMGS
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
Snapperhead that's easy to say tho... because all the stories of gods in current religions are so vague and their characteristics are vague and open to anyones interpretation of what they mean. An easy way to answer this is to say that the only 'gods' that manage to stand the test of time in the modern world are ones so ambigious in nature that anyone even people with opposing views on what the god is can believe in them.
they are only as vague as you want to be ie if you think they are stories, then they are stories. If you believe they are the unadulterated and unedited words of God, then they are (to use the bible as but one example). I would disagree about your point about 'god' standing the test of time due to ambiguity. "God" has stood the test of time because people have wanted "god" to stand the test of time. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html shows that well over 80% of the worlds population believes in "god"...an amazing figure that would increase if you factor China out of the equation) If you use the premise that the humanity is thousands of years old (eg earliest trace of Aboriginal culture= 114,000 years ago), this desire for "god" far outways the arguments for evolution (which should be pointed never actively strove to disprove the existence of "God" but rather to explain the development and survival of the species.
My point was that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of "God" as its not capable of doing it logically and using scientific evidence ie how do you "test" faith and belief?? You cant...... just like that idiot scientist in the US who has tried to prove that religious belief is genetic and he reckons he has isolated the religious gene by testing 200 people....his proof? None. All speculation and hypothesis. Is this science? No, its fancy guessing!

Im not arguing either side, Im just saying that science is incapable of answering this question as its "un-testable" (is that a word?) and to use evolutional theory to do this is ignorant and infantile.
lukebennett said:
i think the main reason for the bibles ambiguity is is translation from ancient hebrew to english. i think thats why the bible appears to have such strange holess in it too. its hard to translate ancient versions of languages and to understand their use of language at the time. look at the difference between elizabethan english and our english. and thats only the result of 600 years or somthing. alot of words dont mean the same thing as they once did either. i think this is the key reason for the bibles ambiguity
agrees as it went through many translations (verbal text to many dialects of hebrew and Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German to whatever...) and even then, there are many versions of the bible that have slight to major differences
 
Last edited:

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Xayma said:
This should do to explain the evolution of a specific bacterium

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
tell me one thing: all this explanation that goes on about evolution and the different forms of evolution etc.. does it intend to say that we came from nothingness? if at this stage in time i admit that i evolved from an ape that lived many years ago, u tell me where did that ape come from? u'll prbably say, from another species or animal or whatever. cutting down to the chase, if the world happened to have been created by the big bang, as scientists claim........ then Who created the cluster that the world originated from, i.e the thing that exploded in the firsts place.

If i were to tell u that a volcano happened to explode yesterday, and from this volcano came out a huge pole that stood on the surrounding earth at a 90 degree angle vertically.... Following the pole came out another pole that landed on the first pole horizontally.. then out of nowhere came two huge elephants and each one landed on one side of the pole balancing it out and creating equal hight and stability between the ground and the horizontal pole. All this from the explosion of a volcano.... U DON'T COMPREHEND TO THIS STORY BECAUSE ITS COMPLETE ABSURDITY? I agree, it is, and that is the absurdity of believing that the earth came to be from a huge explosion and an expanding galaxy began to form, with all the wonders and beauties of nature following it. People in this thread have said that science is seeing and not believing, well they didnt see the big bang occuring, so why do they believe it. i thought explosions destroy things not create things. Imagine a bomb exploding and from this explosion forms a bus with passesngers in it... Or even an animal comes to life, or hey lets stay simple, a bar of chocolate. its absurd if u look at it from a logical point of view.................................................................
 
Last edited:

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
That is the nature of singularities in that the laws of physics break down at them, meanigng to tell what was before them is impossible.

The volcanoe exaple is idiotic. A big bang doesn't involve things as complex as elephants being created instantly. Indeed even atoms took time to assemble.

You also fail to comprehend the power of explosions.

A bomb required to create a 150g block of chocolate would require 1.35*1016 Joules. Now given that a 1 megatonne Hydrogen bomb only releases about 5*1015 Joules (a very powerful about 20 times that), the explosion required for the chocolate (and this assuming that a. all the energy is converted to just mass b. it is the right sort of matter to form the chocolate bar in that it forms carbon atoms etc (which naturally take millions of years of nuclear fusion in stars, it takes time to occur it doesn't just pop out assembled)) is 2.7 times more powerful then a 1 megatonne H-bomb.

Now lets do a brief introduction into the big bang theory, first as how you see it happening and then a better (not perfectly accurate since I don't know all the facts, but I know more then you) version.

How you see it:

Big explosion, all planets produced within a few minutes perfectly aligned and assembled, houses built etc.

Better version:

Very very very big explosion.
Energy converts to quarks and anti-quarks (might be more steps in here) and leptons and anti-leptons (in a ratio of about 1 billion and one to one billion, matter: anti-matter).

Matter and anti-matter destroy each other releasing energy which is converted again.

After a while the quarks combine to form protons and neutrons.

Soon the protons and neutrons combine to form Hydrogen, Helium, small amounts of Lithium and Beryllium nuclei.

Add a few thousand years and the electrons being to fall into orbit.

They clump together due to irregularities (disorder) and gravitational pull forming masses which grow bigger and bigger.

These form proto stars and galaxies, which over time and lives converts a very small percentage of this hydrogen into helium, and other assorted elements.

Stars explode, relase these heavier elements and form spinning discs. Planets begin to clump together with the materials and eventually form (beginning of eath etc).
 
Last edited:

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
my point was not how much energy is needed, my point is that with an explosion things are destroyed not created, end of story.
 

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
If theres anything i fail to do, that is convince u, but my examples r there to show the absurdity of the examples scientists give such as the big bang and evolution. the way u see my examples as stupid that is how i view the thoery of evolution and the big bang
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Umm I hate to tell you but things can be created in explosions.

Look at particle colliders. Small explosions (relatively) yet particles are created from them.

You don't see it because the energy just doesn't all go to the particles there is heat etc liberated.
 

hipsta_jess

Up the mighty red V
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
5,981
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
physician said:
my point was not how much energy is needed, my point is that with an explosion things are destroyed not created, end of story.
What was that saying in chem, "matter cannot be created or destroyed, merely moved around" (or similar)
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yes but hipsta_jess that is violated in nuclear reactions all the time.

The total amount of mass and energy is constant in a closed system. Where E=mc2 to get an equivalence.
 

hipsta_jess

Up the mighty red V
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
5,981
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
ok, that somewhat resembles maths &/or physics, so I'll just take your word for it :p
 

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
hipsta_jess said:
What was that saying in chem, "matter cannot be created or destroyed, merely moved around" (or similar)
"matter cannot be created nor destroyed, merely changed into other forms"
yes but the first form is lost to another, not lost but changed.
 

lengstar

Active Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
1,208
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
hey, just because some of us believe the big bang is more credible then creation doesn't mean we don't believe in god.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top