Posted on 01/17/2004 11:49:25 AM PST by cpforlife.org
Hey JoJo Gunn. What's happening hot stuff?
You might find these articles interesting:
About DNA replication (and why pesky science just won't quite validate Darwin...but validating Darwin is the scientists' challenge!)
http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/16-3commoner.html
About DNA as coded "language"
http://gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm
Just an interesting discussion
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/soup.asp#top
Thank you.
..BIG bump for Life...
Ping/bump and all that good stuff. A lot of info in this article
Given the incredible depth of code available in DNA, it's entirely possible that life is so ancient that it originated in a distant universe that has not existed for trillions of eons.
The competing doctrine is that of "little Earth" ~ where, it's believed that life arose as a consequence of natural processes we can all understand, and that it "evolved" in the last half billion years (after 3.5 billion years of no change whatsoever) into a plethora of critters.
Panspermia says nothing whatsoever about evolution, per se. "Little Earth" doctrines require evolution.
So far, neither view has been demonstrated to be true or false.
Actually Crick suggested that "we" evolved twice, once from random chance into intelligent beings in another universe "far far away", who then seeded the earth to start life evolving again. Crick would deny God twice, apparently once not being enough, in the absence of science to explain the contradiction between evolution and that pesky DNA replication process.
Apparently such theories as "panspermia", when presented by atheists, are considered scientifically more plausible than a God.
Nothing stops God from using Panspermia, or "little Earth" technology.
So many misdirections, where to start? ... To make comments such as you quoted shows the author has the arrogance to believe he knows what is the overall scheme of this universe and the spiritual component he chooses to deny. Sadly, his eternal destiny remains a phantasm while in the grips of such pride of self ... and Satan exploited that human trait in the Garden don'tchaknow. The more things change, the more we remain the same, vulnerable to the same guile revealed in the Garden. I wonder, do such people think their spirit will drift freely, in eternal peace, if they continue to squelch the still small voice of God within?
"you" don't look like "you" did 10 years ago, or will look like in another 10. "you" became "you" at the moment of conception.
You sed: "you" don't look like "you" did 10 years ago, or will look like in another 10. "you" became "you" at the moment of conception.
Certainly my genotype was established. But my point is that 'life' preceded conception. I was born through the union of two living cells contributed by two living parents. Life did not begin, it was recombined and extended. You could argue that "a life begins at conception", but without the qualifier the statement is false.
All life started with God who created us.
I don't have a problem with that statement. In fact I believe it. But I consider it an element of faith in my religion, not a scientifically demonstrated or even demonstrable fact.
But that isn't the point I was making.
Life, though created by God, does not "begin" at fertilization of the egg. Its genetic structure is just recombined. That was my point.
Playing God by Manipulating Man: The Facts and Frauds of Human Cloning
Bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.