Computer Science and Other Items

[dadsherm]

I agree with some of the things mentioned, and disagree with others, (especially the 90% DNA is trash), because "God don't make no junk" :wink: , but would someone kindly explain to me how we went from talking about computers to anatomy?
Never mind. :roll: I know, I know...I started it.

[Agamemnus]

Among other things, you can't represent a person as a number in perfect detail because scanning that person's molecular positions accurately will violate the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. But yes, I do think it would be possible to have something approaching a person encoded in 0's and 1's...

BTW some researchers say that 90% of the human DNA is trash. I dunno what to think of it. But it may be true =P.

At least some DNA being useless is valid on several fronts IMHO:

1) Redundancy. If one part of DNA mutates, another part can take up the slack to produce virtually the same result. And they do mutate.

2) [opinion] Incremental change in DNA means that some DNA changes/mutations are useless. Otherwise, it is likely that humans would not be able to evolve from primordial slime in the span of a few billion years. Thus each change in the wrong direction would result in death. However it seems that after a few changes have accumulated, you have the formation of some very important structure of a human. (ie: fingers) It goes hand-in-hand with the idea that more than one mutation is required to change something drastic, at least in humans.

[dadsherm]

If anyone chooses to believe the theory of evolution, that's there choice. Even though it's been proven beyond all doubt that it's impossible. In fact Darwin himself referred to it as a theory, not an absolute as some would have you to believe. But still, some choose to believe it. I'd much rather believe the truth of the Bible, which, by the way, has yet to be disproven, although many have tried. The odds of having even the molecules arrange themselves, even by chance, to form a different type of creature are astronomical. :o This has been attested to by former Darwinian promoters.
Those that refuse to accept the Biblical explantion of the origons of man, but have admitted to the shortcomings of the Darwinian theory, are now referring to it as Intelligent Design.
Again I say, it's your choice, but personally I'd rather believe that I was created by a loving God as opposed to a chance creation which started as some slimey mold.

[Agamemnus]

Think about that two headed baby. It was only a deformed twin, but what if it had actually survived? You'd have two-headed people.....

[dadsherm]

In essence you're asking me to question what the Lord has allowed. That's very dangerous territory. Read Exodus 4:11 in the Bible. It's in the Old Testament.
Some things happen as a consequence of sin in the world, but even then, it's the Lord (God) that has the final say.
So if you wish to question Him, go ahead. But I wouldn't recommend it.
Read Job (pronounced with a long "o") chapters 38 - 42. It's also in the Old Testament. Your on your own on this one friend!

[na_th_an]

Yeah, you know, we all know that. God got bored one day and in just six days he created everything. Then he got bored again and he created Adam, then Eve and then they had many children, which had sex among them and their sons became the human raze.

Of course, this hasn't been disproven, this is the truth.

Out of the joke, now let's be serious. Evolution and origin of life are very different concepts that may have nothing to do. The origin of life is unknown, but evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Genetic mutation is a fact.

[oracle]

I agree with some of the things mentioned, and disagree with others, (especially the 90% DNA is trash),

I'd just like to point out that this has been proven. DNA consists of "exons" - parts of DNA that code for something in your body, and "introns" - parts that are copied by mRNA when they are transcribing but not used in the production of proteins, thus they are simply never used. That doesn't nessecarily make them junk, but no matter whose eyes you use to look at it, they simply aren't useful to us.

DNA sequence that interrupts the protein-coding sequence of a gene; an intron is transcribed into RNA but is cut out of the message before it is translated into protein. See also: exon

[LooseCaboose]

If anyone chooses to believe the theory of evolution, that's there choice. Even though it's been proven beyond all doubt that it's impossible. In fact Darwin himself referred to it as a theory, not an absolute as some would have you to believe. But still, some choose to believe it. I'd much rather believe the truth of the Bible, which, by the way, has yet to be disproven, although many have tried.

The "theories" of evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for something to be created and then to evolve from there. Darwin referred to it as a "theory" because it was, he had no way of proving it, thats what theories are. It is no longer theory because it has been proved to be true. Evolution occurs both naturally (early mans development into modern mankind) and artificially (modifying animals and plants genetically). As it stands most of what is in the Bible is theory because, as you say it hasn't been proven.

IIRC, the Bible talks about people having life spans of several hundred years, nowdays people are lucky to make triple figures at all, this is a form of evolution (or devolution, depending on how you look at it). The Bible also says that God made mankind in his own image, does it actually describe what God's own image was, (I do not intend any offense to your religion by this) could it be that God's own image was one of the forms of early mankind and that man has subsequently evolved after having been created?

EDIT: Hey, Ive got more than 500 posts now, when can I expect my free chocolate bar?

[Zack]

Pfft, I got a Hot Chocolote for my 1000th post, don't expect a full chocolate bar just for 500...
About the Adam and Chava (Hebrew for Eve...), and evolution, I don't ever think anything can be proven or disproven. It's just impossible to prove the Biblical side of it, and it's impossible to disprove. Same thing goes with the theory of evolution. And remember, the Biblical side and the Evolution really can, if you think about it, perfectly make sense together. In the English translation most Christians read, it can be hard to believe (no offense intended, to all the Christians out there), stuff that Chava was taken from a rib of Adam...If you look at the Hebrew text, in-depth (with at least a slim knowledge of Hebrew, and the commentary by the great Rabbinical leaders), it can easily make sense. Nothing should be taken literally. In Bible study among Jews, there are two ways to read the Chumash (the Bible): The Peshat (simple, plain sense) and the Midrash (legends, stories, speculation, tradition).
Just my two cents.

[oracle]

EDIT: Hey, Ive got more than 500 posts now, when can I expect my free chocolate bar?

You wanna change ranks again?