Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[BobRyan]

Interesting post. It is certainly true that people will hold to irrational religious beliefs, even if they admit they are, simply because it establishes their identity. Another point to consider is how fundamentalists view God. The classical or traditional Christian model of God as he is in his own nature stressed that God is wholly immutable. And since God doesn't change, then neither can we or the universe .

What an "odd" kind of logic... are you even serious??

"If the painter is immutable - always painting never ceasing to the the artist, the painter - then no paintings will be painted" -- how odd the logic that you use.

Surely you were simply telling a joke to illustrate the pure nonsense in the bible-denier position.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Then objectively -

Rocks don't turn into rabbits.

Bacteria do not turn into horses.

Of course they don't. If this happened, evolution would be falsified.

observable science tells us that people come from people - and that rabbits come from rabbits.

Every species ever born was the same species as its parents. Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. You don't even have an elementary understanding of biology.

Example: Population of bears with brown fur- A mutation occurs in some of the offspring where their fur is white. The environment is now snowy. The bears with white fur are able to hunt much easier and survive. This advantage spreads to the offspring while the bears with brown fur either are killed off or have drifted into another environment. I already know your counter argument "But they are still bears!" Well of course they are. I highly suggest you open a biology text book so you don't make the mistake of building a strawman.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then objectively -
Rocks don't turn into rabbits.

Who says rocks can turn into rabbits?

Bacteria do not turn into horses.

If this is an attempted shot at evolution, then I can only respond by saying that evolution is independently verifiable and testable.

observable science tells us that people come from people - and that rabbits come from rabbits.

Genetics (among others) also tells us that people and rabbits share an ancestor.

You would be an atheist that rejects the blind-faith-evolutionism that exists today

Evolution is based on independently verifiable evidence.
No faith needed.

But, I am glad that you at least appear to realise that having blind faith is a bad thing. ;-)

- and instead admits that he only sees that "people come from people" and only that 'rabbits come from rabbits'.

I can also see that humans and rabbits share an ancestor.

What is more - we have obserations-in-nature showing us 50,000 generations from 1988 to the year 2010 -- observed generations - in real life - where 'bacteria remain bacteria'.

Evolution doesn't state that we should see bacteria evolve into non-bacteria in 2 decades. Perhaps you, like very other creationist I have ever spoken to, should first learn what the evolutionary model is about, before trying to argue against it and pretending to know better then actual biologists, geneticists, etc.

50,000 generations covers more than 2 million years for humans.

It's funny, because there is less genetic difference between a human and a chimp then between 2 bacteria. But hey, don't let your ignorance get in your way....

yet in 1/10'th of those generations - blind-faith evolutionism proposes humans evolved into being! But observations in nature tell us - that it is not true at all.

Your ignorance on how evolution works, is not an argument against it.

 

[BobRyan]

Who says rocks can turn into rabbits?

Atheists do -- the accretion disc of the sun -- in the atheist model gives rise to the earth rocks, dust, and gas then earth then life on earth.

If this is an attempted shot at evolution, then I can only respond by saying that evolution is independently verifiable and testable.

Just not in real life.

Genetics (among others) also tells us that people and rabbits share an ancestor.

No it does not. Any more than corn and rabbits sharing an ancestor.


Evolution is based on independently blind faith - wild assumption - hoax, fraud and complete fabrication.

Evolution doesn't state that we should see bacteria evolve into non-bacteria in 2 decades.

More objective thinking please.

Blind faith evolutionism says "a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

What is more - bacteria are far more genetically inclined to adapt to their environment "by design" than are humans. They have no enclosed nucleus - they wear their genetic material "on their sleeves" so to speak. In 5000 generations humans are imagined by evolutionists to have "evolved" into being - but in 50,000 generations - bacteria are OBSERVED NOT to have evolved!!

Your argument is that observations in nature - are not to be trusted over "imaginings" in evolutionism??!!

It's funny, because there is less genetic difference between a human and a chimp then between 2 bacteria.

Genetic difference that cannot be expressed in phenotype beyond that which is observed in nature to exist between humans and chimps - is not really genetic 'difference' after all.

What is more - you are comparing just 2% or 4% of the genetic code in the case of chimps and humans "were we simply not supposed to notice"???


But hey, don't let your ignorance get in your way....



Your ignorance on how evolution hoax and fraud works, is not an argument against its existence.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course they don't. If this happened, evolution would be falsified.



Every species ever born was the same species as its parents. Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. You don't even have an elementary understanding of biology.

Example: Population of bears with brown fur- A mutation occurs in some of the offspring where their fur is white. .

Brown fur - white fur is not "evolution" but bacteria prokaryote to Amoeba Eukaryote IS.

And in 50,000 generations "observed in nature" with populations in the millions - PROVES that evolutionism is hoax not science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheists do -- the accretion disc of the sun -- in the atheist model gives rise to the earth rocks, dust, and gas then earth then life on earth.

First, that's not an "atheist" model, that's a science model.
Secondly, that's not nearly the same as "rocks turning into rabbits". Not even remotely.

Just not in real life.

Yes in real life.

No it does not.

Yes it does. Just like your DNA tells us if you dad is your biological dad.

Evolution is based on independently blind faith - wild assumption - hoax, fraud and complete fabrication.

Right, right,... and the thousands, if not millions, of biologists and geneticists around the world, are all devil-worshipping folks involved in a worldwide conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Blind faith evolutionism says "a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

No, that's not at all what it says.
Again, if you wish to argue against something, perhaps it's a good idea to first learn about it..

What is more - bacteria are far more genetically inclined to adapt to their environment "by design" than are humans. They have no enclosed nucleus - they wear their genetic material "on their sleeves" so to speak. In 5000 generations humans are imagined by evolutionists to have "evolved" into being - but in 50,000 generations - bacteria are OBSERVED NOT to have evolved!!

Bacteria evolve. You're malinformed again.

Your argument is that observations in nature - are not to be trusted over "imaginings" in evolutionism??!!

Bacteria are observed to evolve. Again, learn about the science before making a fool of yourself by trying to argue against it from ignorance.

Here's a simple example: currently there is a big issue in the medical community about prescribing anti-biotics, because bacteria are evolving an immunity to it, which puts us at risk of dying from deseases 2 decades from now, while they are trivial deseases to treat today. Because if the current trend continues, no anti-biotics will work any longer.

Genetic difference that cannot be expressed in phenotype beyond that which is observed in nature to exist between humans and chimps - is not really genetic 'difference' after all.

Genetic difference is genetic difference.
And the genetic difference between a human and a chimp is a lot smaller then between 2 random bacteria.

What is more - you are comparing just 2% or 4% of the genetic code in the case of chimps and humans "were we simply not supposed to notice"???

No. I do mean the totality of the differences.
The human and chimp genome differs by some 40 million-ish mutations.

But hey, don't let your ignorance get in your way....

Says the person who has no clue about how evolution actually works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Brown fur - white fur is not "evolution" but bacteria prokaryote to Amoeba Eukaryote IS.

False.
Evolution is any genetic change that gets spread throughout the population and achieves fixation..

And in 50,000 generations "observed in nature" with populations in the millions - PROVES that evolutionism is hoax not science.

Yes, it's a worldwide massive conspiracy. When you enroll in a biology course in a university, you are first required to swear a bloodpact that you will commit in full to the satanic plan of establishing evolution as solid science, on the penalty of death if you break that oath. This is why hundreds of biologists mysteriously disappear every year. Because they wish to expose the satanic conspiracy!!!!


My head hurts from all the facepalming, btw.

 

[Oafman]

bacteria are OBSERVED NOT to have evolved!!

Oh that's wonderful news!

There I was getting more and more concerned about our imminent return to the medical dark ages, since so many bacterial infections are evolving resistance to all known antibiotics.

But now I know that they're not evolving at all, I can relax!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

And in 50,000 generations "observed in nature" with populations in the millions - PROVES that evolutionism is hoax not science.

Do you know why you're not supposed to take antibiotics for a viral infection? Because you're introducing a selective pressure to the bacteria inside your body. This can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria and puts you at risk to die from diseases. Your expectation for bacteria to turn into a rabbit is erroneous. No practicing biologist makes this claim. You are just building a strawman. All that modern medicine you enjoy? Thank our understanding of evolution. I guess you should stop taking medicine if you think it is a fraud. Go live like people did in the dark ages.

Blind faith evolutionism says "a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

No biology textbook says this and neither does any scientific research. This is a dishonest strawman that you have built up in your head. You do not even hold an elementary understanding of science. I've seen you post this before and you've been corrected several times. Repeating it makes you a liar.

Evolution is based on independently blind faith - wild assumption - hoax, fraud and complete fabrication.

Nope. It's based on verifiable evidence. Did you know that the human genome contains endogenous retroviruses. ERV insertions are rare and are only passed down to descendants. Humans and chimps have hundreds of thousands of ERVs that insert in the exact same spot in their genomes. This is demonstrable evidence for common ancestry. You lose.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you know why you're not supposed to take antibiotics for a viral infection?

Because bacteria might turn into a horse...?

An... Amoeba?

Oh no wait! A bacteria!

The point with bacteria is that they are the MOST likely to adapt based on environmental factors being prokaryote than the eukaryote amoeba. And hint - we are made up of a lot of eukaryote cells - as are horses... and rabbits.

If you want to start with bacteria -- and work your way to rabbit - you have a lot of "story telling -- stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" ahead of you.

Your expectation for bacteria to turn into a rabbit is erroneous.

Your idea that you can ever get from bacteria to rabbit without first becoming some sort of single celled eukaryote -- as a basic first step - is beyond belief.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course they don't. If this happened, evolution would be falsified.



Every species ever born was the same species as its parents. Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. You don't even have an elementary understanding of biology.

Example: Population of bears with brown fur- A mutation occurs in some of the offspring where their fur is white. .

Brown fur - white fur is not "evolution" but bacteria prokaryote to Amoeba Eukaryote IS.

And in 50,000 generations "observed in nature" with populations in the millions - PROVES that evolutionism is hoax not science.

False.
Evolution is any genetic change that gets spread throughout the population and achieves fixation..

If you want to ignore all of the salient points in the argument required by blind faith evolutionism - and argue that "every change in the weather is proof that bacteria can turn into rabbits" -- then I guess that works - but it is not science.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Because bacteria might turn into a horse...?

If that happened, evolution would be falsified. I explained to you the reason though. You seemed to ignore it.

And hint - we are made up of a lot of eukaryote cells - as are horses... and rabbits.

Which is evidence for evolution, Bob. It doesn't mean that bacteria is suddenly going to become a horse. This is a strawman. You don't have an elementary understanding of biology.

If you want to start with bacteria -- and work your way to rabbit - you have a lot of "story telling -- stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" ahead of you.

Do you know how family trees work? Same thing applies for all life. You aren't going to see bacteria suddenly turn into a rabbit. That isn't how evolution works.

Your expectation for bacteria to turn into a rabbit is erroneous.

That would falsify evolution, Bob. I never made this claim either. You're lying for Jesus

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you want to ignore all of the salient points in the argument required by blind faith evolutionism - and argue that "every change in the weather is proof that bacteria can turn into rabbits" -- then I guess that works - but it is not science

Another dishonest strawman, Bob.

Answer this question. Why do endogneous retrovirus inserted in your genome, insert in the exact same place in a chimpanzee genome. Spoiler alert- it's because you share a common ancestor with them.

 

[BobRyan]

More objective thinking please.

Blind faith evolutionism says "a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

What is more - bacteria are far more genetically inclined to adapt to their environment "by design" than are humans. They have no enclosed nucleus - they wear their genetic material "on their sleeves" so to speak. In 5000 generations humans are imagined by evolutionists to have "evolved" into being - but in 50,000 generations - bacteria are OBSERVED NOT to have evolved!!

Your argument is that observations in nature - are not to be trusted over "imaginings" in evolutionism??!!

Genetic difference that cannot be expressed in phenotype beyond that which is observed in nature to exist between humans and chimps - is not really genetic 'difference' after all.

What is more - you are comparing just 2% or 4% of the genetic code in the case of chimps and humans "were we simply not supposed to notice"???

Its called "story easy enough to tell" - the fossil exists but nothing at all in the fossil record about its ancestor or descendant.

Why?

[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question.

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
==========================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

=====================================

No biology textbook says this and neither does any scientific research. This is a dishonest strawman that you have built up in your head. You do not even hold an elementary understanding of science. .

Your dislike "of the wording" -- noted.

Your complete failure to point to a single fact to support your objection - also noted.

 

[BobRyan]

I
Do you know how family trees work? Same thing applies for all life. You aren't going to see bacteria suddenly turn into a rabbit.

There is no "bacteria suddenly turn into a rabbit" in anything I have said. For that nonsense we must "quote you"

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that no matter how many atheist evolutionists condemn the exposed fraud and junk-science that went into stories such as the Marsh's horse series -- the attempt is made to claim I am the one that did it -- and then to "double down" on confirmed fraud methods?


And what response do we get from evolutionists 60 years after the fraud was discovered? "still doubling down".

The "emotional effect" of arranging something that "looks like" it would go in a certain sequence if one were trying to tell a certain kind of "story" is just too tempting from the evolutionist.


=====================================
Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

================================

How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.



Irrefutable evidence of the junk-science nature of blind-faith evolutionism -- does not "vanish" simply because evolutionist stories fail to refute the evidence for junk-science or that evolutionist preference does not find that fact of history 'convenient' -- I think we can all see that.



"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


Some have offered the fictional revisionism claims that Eldredge thinks it is 'lamentable" that "so many proofs of horse evolution are now known" - as IF that was the case with Othaniel Marsh's fraudulent horse series.

The fraud was simply "arranging fossils' regardless of how they are actually found in the fossil record -- merely 'wishing' that it might be true that they would have been found in that emotionally pleasing sequence showing smooth orthogenic transformation over time.

It was a "story easy enough tell" but it certainly was NOT - science.

Thus even the atheist evolutionist can admit "it was LAMENTABLE"

Meanwhile the T.E. is stuck at "all news is good news! err... umm... right?"

The revisionist evolutionists are attempting with this confirmed fraud does not hold up.

And what is more - junk-science should be expected to employ many decades long frauds to tell it's stories and then continue with that same story after it was exposed - simply for 'emotional effect' - a pleasing sequence to view. The much-predicted result seen over-and-over again so far.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is no "bacteria suddenly turn into a rabbit" in anything I have said. For that nonsense we must "quote you"

You do not understand evolution at all. This is made clear in this post:

Then objectively -

Rocks don't turn into rabbits.

Bacteria do not turn into horses.

Of course they don't. That would falsify evolution.

You failed to answer my question though. I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it.

Explain why endogenous retrovirus insertions in your genome insert in the same place in the chimpanzee genome?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

It's been pointed out that you several times that you are dishonestly quote mining. Everything you posted here has been fully debunked for you before. Why do you keep lying for Jesus?

 

[ChetSinger]

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The "dust of the ground" is mostly made up of silicon dioxide and various silicates. So, if we are invited to believe that the above verse is literally true, how is it that the human body is 18% carbon by weight, with only trace amounts of silicon present.

Do you believe Jesus turned water into wine? If so, where'd he get the carbon? Same kind of question, I think.

 

[BobRyan]

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The "dust of the ground" is mostly made up of silicon dioxide and various silicates. So, if we are invited to believe that the above verse is literally true, how is it that the human body is 18% carbon by weight, with only trace amounts of silicon present.

hmmm. "what exactly" are God's limitations? -- dust - or the crust of the earth?

Are they the same ones that an atheist would have??

Does the atheist claim that dirt instantly became a human?
Does an "actual Christian" claim that dust jumped up to become a human -- God not required???

"The human body is made up almost entirely of 13 elements. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen make up 96% of our body’s mass. The other 4% of body weight is composed almost entirely of sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, and iodine. Silicon as an element in the human body (less than one percent) is not as prevalent as it is in the earth’s crust; however we require this small amount of silicon for bone development, and it is found in skin and connective tissue. Silicon dissolves in water and can be abundant in oceans and nearly all other waters. Microscopic single-celled algae, called diatoms, and some brown (Phaeophycota) and green (Pediastrum boryanum) algae require silica to build their cell walls.8 So we can see that the composition of living things is not simply a mirror image of the elements available to them."
from - https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/from-dust-to-dust/