Catherine,
Before you get to carried away, please keep in mind DNA and RNA are biochemical processes and not mathematical. Because the basic simplicity of the parts that make up the genetic patterns, it is very suitable to place them in a mathematical model. That does not suggest any outside coding, just that patterns in all DNA that is found match up in that model. Which in turn is something you would expect there would be if there is common ancestry as Evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation suggest.
Now as to the original formation of the first RNA patterns, as Daystar already suggests, there are some hypotheses on this, one of which is abiogenesis. Research is being done, but this has no where near as much evidence as evolution does. It doesn't mean no evidence, but not enough to claim it a scientific theory. So maybe your god does have a hand in that, could be. The likelyhood of that are pretty slim though.
Daystar,
Blaspheming against science is one I'd like to see you try. There is nothing to insult. Science is objective, looks at facts, does not have emotions. You can insult scientists, but that is hardly blaspheming, it is just rude.
In other words, atheism is just as much a religion as theism. Like that one is never mentioned before. Apart from that, the "reality" behind the myths only make sense to those who are prone to believe it in the first place. I did not lose my faith, i never believed it in the first place. Sure, that Jesus was a prophet spreading his message in Judea, I had no problem with that
and some stuff told by my pastor sounded reasonable, but Noah and the arc, Moses and the burning bush, Adam and Eve, sorry, even as metaphor's they make no sense to me.
And sure, you can scrape up 5 pages of apologetic writing to account for it all, but I am not buying it.
Before you get to carried away, please keep in mind DNA and RNA are biochemical processes and not mathematical. Because the basic simplicity of the parts that make up the genetic patterns, it is very suitable to place them in a mathematical model. That does not suggest any outside coding, just that patterns in all DNA that is found match up in that model. Which in turn is something you would expect there would be if there is common ancestry as Evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation suggest.
Now as to the original formation of the first RNA patterns, as Daystar already suggests, there are some hypotheses on this, one of which is abiogenesis. Research is being done, but this has no where near as much evidence as evolution does. It doesn't mean no evidence, but not enough to claim it a scientific theory. So maybe your god does have a hand in that, could be. The likelyhood of that are pretty slim though.
Daystar,
Blaspheming against science is one I'd like to see you try. There is nothing to insult. Science is objective, looks at facts, does not have emotions. You can insult scientists, but that is hardly blaspheming, it is just rude.
Daystar Wrote:They knew their faith only as the myths they were spoonfed without bothering to investigate the reality behind that and so they grasp firmly hold of something else with the emotional attachment of the zealot.
In other words, atheism is just as much a religion as theism. Like that one is never mentioned before. Apart from that, the "reality" behind the myths only make sense to those who are prone to believe it in the first place. I did not lose my faith, i never believed it in the first place. Sure, that Jesus was a prophet spreading his message in Judea, I had no problem with that
and some stuff told by my pastor sounded reasonable, but Noah and the arc, Moses and the burning bush, Adam and Eve, sorry, even as metaphor's they make no sense to me.
And sure, you can scrape up 5 pages of apologetic writing to account for it all, but I am not buying it.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
