I hate to say Amen Brother, and sound cliche, but, Amen Brother! Alexander Hollins
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the > error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is > factually true and must be believed as written. > > You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. > > This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in > its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as > property. > > Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all > human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. > > Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error > exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to > assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject > to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not > for me. > > > Cheers: Axil > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up "evolution" to preserve >> and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone >> all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt >> to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already >> encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new >> environment. And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect >> life. >> >> My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called >> microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian >> Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation >> and that a species can "evolve" into another species. It's this whole >> nonsense of "Tree of life" that says we all came from single celled >> organisms; that I have a problem with. >> >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >> >> Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not >> interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that >> element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” >> >> Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say >> what God’s plan of creation is? >> >> Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup >> evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect >> life from the whims of the universe. >> >> >> Cheers: Axil >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each >>> day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA >>> sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo >>> sapiens. >>> This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from >>> one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand >>> as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to >>> discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during >>> that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there >>> are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. >>> The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that >>> Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian >>> Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and >>> relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. >>> Ditto Darwinian evolution. >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> >>> On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>> >>>> Axil, I think you mentioned this before. >>>> >>>> The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or >>>> is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. >>>> >>>> For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It >>>> is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't >>>> know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. >>>> >>>> People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume >>>> that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing >>>> up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not >>>> assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in >>>> chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof >>>> of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. >>>> >>>> The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called "Junk >>>> DNA" are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During >>>> microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. >>>> The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, >>>> not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the >>>> issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that >>>> automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is >>>> occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
