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

BobRyan · Jun 3, 2016

lesliedellow said:
No chemical process will turn silicon into carbon.

1. No evaluation of earth - shows that we have no carbon on earth.
2. No review of the Genesis 1:2-2:3 account shows that man came into being before plants and animals.
3. No analysis of plants and animals shows that they have no carbon.
4. No analysis of Genesis 1 claims that God had no ability to prepare the soil to support plant life.
5. No analysis of atheist complaints against the Bible - shows atheists supporting the Bible.

BobRyan · Jun 3, 2016

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

indeed - and not the sort of thing that atheists are too fond of supporting as if limited human science "Can also do that"

BobRyan · Jun 3, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
It's been pointed out that you several times that you are dishonestly quote mining

Not in real life.

In real life we see whining about qoutes that do not flatter blind faith evolutionism - lots of that.

but zero - absolute zero - support for the fiction that those whining posts ever give a single fact to show dishonesty in the least when it comes to the posts that do not flatter blind faith evolutionism.

hint: Just because a quote does not flatter blind faith in evolutionism - does not mean that the quote is dishonest.

This point has been a real struggle for some of the blind-faith evolutionists so far.

DogmaHunter · Jun 4, 2016

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

Nobody here has expressed an expectation that bacteria will turn into rabbits.
No matter how much you like to pretend the opposite.

BobRyan · Jun 4, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Nobody here has expressed an expectation that bacteria will turn into rabbits.
No matter how much you like to pretend the opposite.

to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and the story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist".

And we all know it.

So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference".

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".

Dawkins provides the "improbable" adjective.
Patterson provides the "stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" descriptive.
Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model.

All of them - pro-evolution sources.

And... we all know it.

DogmaHunter · Jun 6, 2016

BobRyan said:
to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and the story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist".

Life did start with simple, single celled life, yes.
This simple life then evolved into all living things we know today, yes.

However, this process took some 3.6 billion years.
Yet, you pretend as if we would be able to "redo" such a process in the lab.

That is the part that nobody here says we would expect to see, yet that is exactly what you demand. Or seem to demand, at least.

And we all know it.

From what I read, you actually know very little concerning this topic.

So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference".

I don't need to provide evidence to counter strawmen. I only need to point it out.

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".

I challenge you to find a single scientific source that defines evolution like that.

Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model.

A process, which took 3 billion years.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 6, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
However, this process took some 3.6 billion years.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

DogmaHunter · Jun 6, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

No.

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

Right. So to get from simple life to life as we know it today, took some 3.6 billion years.
Estimates on when life appeared tend to vary from 3.6 to 3.8 billion years ago.
I went for the lowest estimate.

BobRyan · Jun 6, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Nobody here has expressed an expectation that bacteria will turn into rabbits.
No matter how much you like to pretend the opposite.

to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and then story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist".

And we all know it.

So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference".

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".

Dawkins provides the "improbable" adjective.
Patterson provides the "stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" descriptive.
Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model.

All of them - pro-evolution sources.

And... we all know it.

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

So then if you and the evolution text book writers do not prefer to summarize your beliefs in the short pointed form "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" since it exposes the perfidity in the argument for faith in evolutionism - that is understandable.

But if you can challenge an actual fact given in that summary - it would be more 'objective' than just "we don't like to say it that way because it exposes the flaw in our story".

DogmaHunter said:
Life did start with simple, single celled life, yes.

Indeed and the atheist would argue that it is not an "eternal amoeba" that starts life - but rather that the earth formed from the accretion disc of the sun (or of "some sun") and then life on earth eventually 'arose' the dust, rock, gas etc starting point.

Hince the well stated and simplified 'pile of dirt'. -- irrefutable.

And "sufficiently talented" deals with the claim that all of this grand story telling deals requires that it is inherent in the properties of matter itself - to do what was done -- rather than a divine being causing it. -- irrefutable.

This simple life then evolved into all living things we know today, yes.

Indeed the "story" is that once you get to some single celled bacteria - over time you will get to "horse".

DogmaHunter said:
However, this process took some 3.6 billion years.

Which is where the addition of " 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" comes in.

Rather than refuting the details in that summary - you appear to be confirming every one!!

I challenge you to find a single scientific source that defines evolution like that.

Again the fact that you prefer not to summarize your beliefs in the details that you cannot at all refute - is a given.
The fact that evolutionist sources would seek to avoid that level of candor is also not a proof against it.

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

Yet, you pretend as if we would be able to "redo" such a process in the lab.

There are a great many ways to simulate time in the lab as we know in cases where producing oil or coal or diamonds is the objective when under normal conditions it would take longer. But in the summary statement that aspect is not mentioned at all -- rather the summary I give just states the "story" we are getting from believers in evolutionism.

Certainly the Bible account can be summarized as 'infinite God came to earth - formatted it for life and then created life on earth in stages over a period of 6 earth days - and rested the 7th day" --

From what I read, you actually know very little concerning this topic.

Another sign of your 'belief system' - try to confine yourself to actual fact.

Jared Forrest · Dec 29, 2019

lesliedellow said:
"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.

interesting point,
I think that quote is referring to our souls and not our bodies. Like you said, there is a little bit of silicon in the body, perhaps it has to do with our souls

Ophiolite · Dec 29, 2019

BobRyan said:
to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and then story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist".

And we all know it.

So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference".

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".

Dawkins provides the "improbable" adjective.
Patterson provides the "stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" descriptive.
Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model.

All of them - pro-evolution sources.

And... we all know it.

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

So then if you and the evolution text book writers do not prefer to summarize your beliefs in the short pointed form "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" since it exposes the perfidity in the argument for faith in evolutionism - that is understandable.

But if you can challenge an actual fact given in that summary - it would be more 'objective' than just "we don't like to say it that way because it exposes the flaw in our story".

Indeed and the atheist would argue that it is not an "eternal amoeba" that starts life - but rather that the earth formed from the accretion disc of the sun (or of "some sun") and then life on earth eventually 'arose' the dust, rock, gas etc starting point.

Hince the well stated and simplified 'pile of dirt'. -- irrefutable.

And "sufficiently talented" deals with the claim that all of this grand story telling deals requires that it is inherent in the properties of matter itself - to do what was done -- rather than a divine being causing it. -- irrefutable.

Indeed the "story" is that once you get to some single celled bacteria - over time you will get to "horse".

Which is where the addition of " 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" comes in.

Rather than refuting the details in that summary - you appear to be confirming every one!!

Again the fact that you prefer not to summarize your beliefs in the details that you cannot at all refute - is a given.
The fact that evolutionist sources would seek to avoid that level of candor is also not a proof against it.

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

There are a great many ways to simulate time in the lab as we know in cases where producing oil or coal or diamonds is the objective when under normal conditions it would take longer. But in the summary statement that aspect is not mentioned at all -- rather the summary I give just states the "story" we are getting from believers in evolutionism.

Certainly the Bible account can be summarized as 'infinite God came to earth - formatted it for life and then created life on earth in stages over a period of 6 earth days - and rested the 7th day" --

Another sign of your 'belief system' - try to confine yourself to actual fact.

Snide rhetoric, akin to flaming, is hardly the way to engage in productive dialogue, which is the intended role of this sub-forum. Would you like to rephrase your summary of evolutionary theory without the disparaging vocabulary? You might then find several "evolutionists" happy to agree with you. Or are you simply out to stir things up? I hope not.

BobRyan · Dec 30, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Snide rhetoric, akin to flaming, is hardly the way to engage in productive dialogue, which is the intended role of this sub-forum.

I see the false accusation. Did you want to add "some fact" where you show that something in my post was not accurate?

I view the inclusion of some actual fact - as the basics for productive dialogue. Feel free to state one.

1. Do you know of any text on evolution that starts with "bacteria are eternal they have always existed and they evolved into eukaryotes"?? I don't.
2. Do you know of any text on evolution that starts with "prions with no dependency on any other organism have been observed for decades and are known to be eternal, some of them evolved into bacteria". - I don't.

No "fact" is introduced simply by insulting me for noticing.

Ophiolite · Dec 30, 2019

BobRyan said:
I see the false accusation. Did you want to add "some fact" where you show that something in my post was not accurate?

I view the inclusion of some actual fact - as the basics for productive dialogue. Feel free to state one.

1. Do you know of any text on evolution that starts with "bacteria are eternal they have always existed and they evolved into eukaryotes"?? I don't.
2. Do you know of any text on evolution that starts with "prions with no dependency on any other organism have been observed for decades and are known to be eternal, some of them evolved into bacteria". - I don't.

No "fact" is introduced simply by insulting me for noticing.

Are you denying that you made use of devious rhetorical devices and that your language was deliberately provocative? Do accept that your approach will fail to lead to common ground, but rather deepen the divide between those who accept evolution and those who deny it? What is your motive here? Mine is to alert you to the aggressive, negative aspects of your posting style, to question your motives for using that style and to encourage you to be more benign, more willing to engage in dialogue rather than provoke antagonism.

Jared Forrest · Dec 30, 2019

BobRyan said:
to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and the story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist".

And we all know it.

So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference".

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".

Dawkins provides the "improbable" adjective.
Patterson provides the "stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" descriptive.
Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model.

All of them - pro-evolution sources.

And... we all know it.

BobRyan said:
I see the false accusation. Did you want to add "some fact" where you show that something in my post was not accurate?

I view the inclusion of some actual fact - as the basics for productive dialogue. Feel free to state one.

1. Do you know of any text on evolution that starts with "bacteria are eternal they have always existed and they evolved into eukaryotes"?? I don't.
2. Do you know of any text on evolution that starts with "prions with no dependency on any other organism have been observed for decades and are known to be eternal, some of them evolved into bacteria". - I don't.

No "fact" is introduced simply by insulting me for noticing.

Ben Sira chapter 4
“29 Do not be haughty in your speech”(4)

Speedwell · Dec 30, 2019

joshua 1 9 said:
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. " The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

And so that means it couldn't have happened?

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

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Code Monkey

Junior Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Junior Member

New Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Junior Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

New Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency