How DNA killed Evolution

DNA didn't kill evolution. DNA PROVED evolution.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

No I don't and the bible does not say it is. Those who teach that are biblically illiterate, and as such cause a lot of problems.

So you use the Bible as your instruction manual, alongside the sciences that you are willing to accept?

I study the bible and have found many things in it that are revealing. I am a messianic believer, and I believe science is a great tool as well. I accept where other people are and enjoy discussing known facts and theories. Some are possible, some are interesting with not much fact or evidence, and others are just fun to discuss.

I have found the bible to be an excellent instructional tool and I have found some use it to control others. I believe strongly in free will.

Originally posted by undo
the word is serpent from the word nachash. it means a sorcerer or enchanter = medicine.

The word nachash has different meanings depending on where the accent marks are in the text. In Genesis, it means shining one. It is one of the few errors that the strong's lists for the word serpent.

I went back to the actual hebrew and looked at the accent marks and it applies to the chaldea of copper and in Hebrew to shine.

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3.1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2 Kings 18.4." This comes from the source listed below.

This was an interesting read. The Serpent of Genesis 3
In the NT we see that Satan comes as an angel / messenger of light. He beguiled Eve. We know he was made the full pattern and was very beautiful and talented. He has a seed and so does Eve alluding to the virgin birth.

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by th3onetruth

 

I am curious what if they found the Universe is artificial, Sort of like the Matrix? Science finds out through an experiment that this and everything we see is a simulation.

This is not from a Christian stand point at all but could the earth be 6,000 years old then? If everything we see is a construct isn't in arbitrary?

Just something I have been wondering...

Mental masturbation while it might be entertaining rarely produces much fruit.

reply to post by Vandettas


You said I said, "God did it" and I said intelligent design. So, you are putting words in my mouth. You see, it is very important for the evolution crowd to turn ID into a religious issue to stop it on the grounds of the government pushing a religion. That isn't going to happen here because intelligent design does not say who did it.

I am not ashamed to say that I am a messianic believer. We can go round and round in circles pointing to our facts and evidences and won't agree. It's time you and I agree to disagree. You think there is evidence. You think a cell just produced all the necessary parts at once to sustain life despite the information I shared that mathematically proves its well beyond the probability of chance in happening. If that is so, then it was done on purpose, but that would me some intelligent being did it. You are going to disagree and say "Yes it could" and "It's proven" and I am going to say, "No it's not proven and here's my reasons again for the umpteenth time."

So, at this point, unless you want to show me the missing links and explain away proteins being created miraculously or show me the proof of scientist throwing chemicals into a container, applying whatever natural event and out pops a cell then we are done.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


yeah that text is so highly condensed and metaphorical that it takes a firm grasp of the hebrew there and the rest of the text to unravel it.

for example, the removal of the serpent's legs, is no doubt synonymous with the expulsion from eden, et.al, the blocking to the path of the tree of life (full body regeneration). the dna (serpent) no longer unzipped (no longer had legs) so that it could be replicated, thus the section there governing full body regeneration (something the serpent is famous for - i.e., regeneration by the shedding of skin to reveal new skin. which fits right into the whole "we were naked" text)

so i go back to my orignial premise that the serpent was a doctor of genetics, a life creator. he became synonymous with his creation -- DNA. he wasn't nerfed, our dna which he had created, was nerfed -- i.e. the dna no longer unzipped. the translators compacted him and his creation into the same thing.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

But I suppose that's a topic for another thread, although...Serenity, you say you believe in intelligent design. I have a question for you, a very important question - if you believe in intelligent design, exactly what sort of intelligence did the designing?

edit on 14-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

That is a perfectly reasonable question and I have answered it elsewhere. I am a messianic believer. I believe in the age before this age, God bringing order back into this age, and the age to come. I cannot begin to explain God though and one day that is my hope to see the fruition of the Divine plan and possibly suss that out.

the "scales" fell off their eyes.
boy. that's a doozie.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

yeah that text is so highly condensed and metaphorical that it takes a firm grasp of the hebrew there and the rest of the text to unravel it.

for example, the removal of the serpent's legs, is no doubt synonymous with the expulsion from eden, et.al, the blocking to the path of the tree of life (full body regeneration). the dna (serpent) no longer unzipped (no longer had legs) so that it could be replicated, thus the section there governing full body regeneration (something the serpent is famous for - i.e., regeneration by the shedding of skin to reveal new skin. which fits right into the whole "we were naked" text)

so i go back to my orignial premise that the serpent was a doctor of genetics, a life creator. he became synonymous with his creation -- DNA. he wasn't nerfed, our dna which he had created, was nerfed -- i.e. the dna no longer unzipped. the translators compacted him and his creation into the same thing.

You and Scott Mcquate talk of similar things that he takes from the Sumerian texts. He likens YHVH with the Annunaki and says YHVH is a backwards anagram for them. His views are pretty out there when he talks about the Gin on Saturn, the stealing of the DNA from the top God, and the fact that man was not created but made from dust after the Top God created man felt him evil and destroyed him leaving the dust which was mixed with the Top God's DNA to get modern man.

I believe this is all chicanery to confuse mankind. I am glad one day we will know the truth.

I believe this is all chicanery

what does the text there say? i don't care what scott says. read the text. what does it say?

reply to post by undo


Because before writing or religion exists, what truly exists is reality, and humans born into reality. In reality either a God created the universe, or one didnt. An atheist uses their logic, reason, and thought to observe reality, and think about it, and they have concluded for themselves that a god does not exist. Noone knows for sure, but that is the raw definition of an atheist.

Originally posted by undo

I believe this is all chicanery

what does the text there say? i don't care what scott says. read the text. what does it say?

But who wrote that text and with what goal in mind? You act as if because it was written it was 100% true. They were just as much capable of changing things to suit their masters goals as we are. I look for confirmation. I look for the truth woven throughout the history and how things have actually happened.

It sort of reminds me of people who get into astral travel or meditation and they meet a "master" and believe everything they are told without realizing they are being lied to. "Oh, but you were not there. You did not feel the love this being emanated, my heart knows it's the truth!" Then I just ask them how many times they have been married or made a wrong decision and say, "Yeh, your heart knew".

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by undo

 

Because before writing or religion exists, what truly exists is reality, and humans born into reality. In reality either a God created the universe, or one didnt. An atheist uses their logic, reason, and thought to observe reality, and think about it, and they have concluded for themselves that a god does not exist. Noone knows for sure, but that is the raw definition of an atheist.

depends. we don't know how far back the information in the writing goes. we have only atheists parroting the papal interpretation as their evidence that the bible is inaccurate, which to me is putting the cart before the horse

reply to post by undo


You are a troll and you dont even know it. Like how one can be ignorant or stupid, and not know it.

reply to post by undo


No. Just because you derive all your knowledge from other sources like mens writing, and papal papers. Doesnt mean every human does. You are deluded. You cant fathom a human being born in a free world as a free individual and being able to think for themselves? You cant imagine that religion and papal may mean absolute garbage to people, that they may completely disregard its existence, or be unwillfully or willfully ignorant of it? That even by knowing of its existence, history and content, may still think harry potter, the newspaper, or using the bible as toilet paper, contains more value then believing what is written in those stories?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by undo

 

No. Just because you derive all your knowledge from other sources like mens writing, and papal papers. Doesnt mean every human does. You are deluded. You cant fathom a human being born in a free world as a free individual and being able to think for themselves? You cant imagine that religion and papal may mean absolute garbage to people, that they may completely disregard its existence, or be unwillfully or willfully ignorant of it? That even by knowing of its existence, history and content, may still think harry potter, the newspaper, or using the bible as toilet paper, contains more value then believing what is written in those stories?

do you believe in evolution?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by solomons path

 

well tell me at what point did you toss your critical thinking skills out while considering a set of passages that show over and over again that it is talking about the human body, first being given procreation and secondly, having the life span nerfed as it relates to trees with serpents in them? and instead, we're going to say that it has nothing to do with dna and is instead about their belief that snakes were sin related. what about the rest of the story? all you've agreed to view critically is the snake=sin (sex=sin) but left out the rest of the information surrounding it. why? why why WHY? why be so hard headed when the information is right in the text?

I'm not arguing that the myth has no relation to creation or sex.

Eve ate of the fruit (knowledge/consciousness of the self) after being tempted by the serpent (sin vs. prudence) and thusly tempted Adam. Adam "knew" (had sex) with Eve. Giving in to their primal life force and began creation outside of God's hand (free will if you will), separating them from their true divine nature and humans to struggle with since. However, this story in no way has a direct tie to modern biochemistry. That is the leap you are making in your mind "connecting the dots" and there is no empirical evidence to support.

Again . . . instead of getting vexed that I disagree with your assertions that this myth is self-evident, provide some evidence that supports the creators of the myth had any knowledge of modern synthesis.

Did they have the technology to peer inside the cell?

If not, how did they get this knowledge? Divinity, extra-terrestrials, time travelers? If so, just show me evidence (empirical) for any of those three means of knowledge transfer and I will reconsider. Nothing hard headed, just don't agree with your huge leaps in logic when it's obvious the people of that day had no knowledge of the internal workings of a cell.

It's only obvious to you because you want to believe it. I see no evidence or tie to genetics, outside of your rationalizations or the coincidence of appearance between DNA and the caduceus.

reply to post by undo


What aspect of evolution specifically are you referring to? I believe at its basis the term evolution means, change. I believe change means time. I believe time and change occurs, there for I believe evolution occurs. Cosmologically, the evolution of the universe. From the first humans till now, I would also say we have evolved, or progressed, technologically, scientifically, medicinally, physically even perhaps. The universe is not static, it does not stay the same, it changes, it evolves. In what way does the universe, or aspects of the system that is the universe, not evolve?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by undo

 

What aspect of evolution specifically are you referring to? I believe at its basis the term evolution means, change. I believe change means time. I believe time and change occurs, there for I believe evolution occurs. Cosmologically, the evolution of the universe. From the first humans till now, I would also say we have evolved, or progressed, technologically, scientifically, medicinally, physically even perhaps. The universe is not static, it does not stay the same, it changes, it evolves. In what way does the universe, or aspects of the system that is the universe, not evolve?

i tend to take a more non linear view. i think we have moments of progress, biologically and technologically, and moments of loss of information, biological and technological, but thru it all, i believe there are always those, who know bits and pieces of the whole thing and who, because of the effectiveness of compartmentalization, never know the full story.

as a result, they are easily manipulated

reply to post by solomons path


have you ever read ezekiel chapter 1?