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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
