Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No i don't believe in DNA writing purposeful code by itself.Don't you? Or will we simply be able to fly without them?
No i don't believe in DNA writing purposeful code by itself.
Let alone gradually,implying incomplete (not working) systems to dominate the gene pool.
Humans do fly without wings, we designed and manufactured flying machines.
The let's see it. Please, only valid sites, creationist sites tend to lie, let's see the the peer reviewed article that you base this claim upon.No,the evidence shows otherwise, or let's say that a different scenario (the Biblical one) is supported by the evidence.
No there weren't.
But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!
What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!
A "trick" not very unlike the trick for getting dirt to turn into rabbit.
Blatantly obvious flaw in the blind faith religion we know of as "evolutionism" which is as noted previously "the worst of all choices, the worst of all risk, the worst of all benefits"
No there weren't.
But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!
What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!
A "trick" not very unlike the trick for getting dirt to turn into rabbit.
Blatantly obvious flaw in the blind faith religion we know of as "evolutionism" which is as noted previously "the worst of all choices, the worst of all risk, the worst of all benefits"
But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!
What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!
You have misunderstood this. All of us are descended from mitochondrial Eve in the female line, and from Y-chromosome Adam, in the male line.
But there were other women besides mitochondrial Eve and we are descended from them as well, but not only in the female line. These women had only sons, who didn't pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, or
only grandsons, or only great-grandsons, etc.
You should be able to see that all of us have only one chain of ancestors in the female line and only one in the male line, .
The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have
As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, .
It's also a discussion about events (presumably) in the real world --
I couldn't agree more; all such mythology fails the test:
"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.
And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.
You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.
Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.
All such mythology - simply fails the test of the "real world".
That's a bit more objectivity than one can normally expect from evolutionists. I affirm your bold step forward.
The fact that "dirt" will not turn into a rabbit is a hard pill to swallow for many evolutionists.
The fact that an artist can take a pile of dirt and paint a rabbit -- also seems to surprise them as if it is the same thing as dirt itself turning into a rabbit.
Man - (engineers) - take raw elements from the earth - and make a computer.
But the pile of dirt - does not go forth and seek to make a computer on its own.
This is more than a little obvious to most of the non-evolutionists on this board.
Which gets us back to the OP.
That is not what abiogenesis claims occurred, and it most certainly has no connection with evolution. To summarize: abiogenesis involves organic molecules, primarily proteins, organizing themselves over times into units capable of replicating themselves, which ultimately grew larger and more complex until the result was the first living organism. Chemically, not only is this possible, but multiple conditions can stimulate and maintain the process."As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.
As a seeker, I obviously am not clinging to that. Not consciously, anyways. Ironic that you call it a "pile of dirt" mythology, given that you believe that a deity created the first human literally out of dirt. If you really want to talk about abiogenesis, this is not the subforum for it, and you need to be more well-informed about it. Furthermore, my position on the matter is not going to change because of the reward of heaven or the threat of hell "just in case they exist" because what I find to be true isn't so strictly under my control that I could change my mind for that reason. At most, I would be fully aware of constantly lying to myself, and that is not the kind of belief I seek.And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.
No, because that would be spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. Furthermore, you don't even know if I support abiogenesis or not, and you are just assuming I do because I am an atheist. Besides correcting people on what abiogenesis theory is actually about and what evidence does exist for it, I will never try to convince people that theory is an accurate representation of reality. I might convince people that it is possible, though.You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.
Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.
Nah, but the fact that people seem to think that is what abiogenesis claims occurs probably incites more than a few sighs and headaches.The fact that "dirt" will not turn into a rabbit is a hard pill to swallow for many evolutionists.
What? Weird choice of drawing material, although I have seen some artworks made that way. Still, since when would painting a rabbit out of dirt be the same as making a living, breathing bunny out of dirt? Even if abiogenesis claimed such a thing happens (which, it doesn't, and any insistence that it does shows you weren't willing to do any sort of research or fact-checking on your part), this statement of yours would not make sense.The fact that an artist can take a pile of dirt and paint a rabbit -- also seems to surprise them as if it is the same thing as dirt itself turning into a rabbit.
Computers will always be artificial, because the chemistry of metals is not the same as carbon and other components of organic molecules. However, it is possible that, with the right conditions, silicon based life could form, perhaps. That's the closest to a non-artificial computer you are going to get, aside from the life we already see around us.Man - (engineers) - take raw elements from the earth - and make a computer.
But the pile of dirt - does not go forth and seek to make a computer on its own.
Of course the people with the same position as you are likely to feel that certain interpretations are intuitive and obvious. That's nearly a prerequisite for agreeing with another person, and is pretty much required if they have matching reasoning. Feeling that your position is "obviously correct" doesn't mean it is.This is more than a little obvious to most of the non-evolutionists on this board.
Which gets us back to the OP.
Unlikely, given that we have airplanes and other devices that eliminate all selective pressure for that trait. In fact, since we adapt so much through technology, human evolution from this point on is likely to be very slow, like a coelacanth.Correct.
You think they will grow wings though?
PsychoSarah said: ↑
As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, .
Now there is a nice bit of fiction - who ELSE argues the abiogenesis angle - other than blind faith evolutionists.That is not what abiogenesis claims occurred, and it most certainly has no connection with evolution.
To summarize: abiogenesis involves organic molecules, primarily proteins, organizing themselves over times into units capable of replicating themselves
Also, the process predates what is conditionally considered "dirt". However, I am not trying to convince you that abiogenesis is a valid theory at all.
As a seeker, I obviously am not clinging to that. Not consciously, anyways. Ironic that you call it a "pile of dirt" mythology, given that you believe that a deity created the first human literally out of dirt.
If you really want to talk about abiogenesis, this is not the subforum for it, and you need to be more well-informed about it. Furthermore, my position on the matter is not going to change because of the reward of heaven or the threat of hell "just in case they exist"
No it's not. It's a creationism vs evolution discussion. Interesting that you mention Hindus, though, because the majority of creationists worldwide are, infact, Hindu. That we each have one position doesn't mean our discussions should behave as if only the two possibilities are in play. Just because neither of us are Hindu doesn't mean a dichotomy is justified in considerations.1. You are not Hindu and neither am I. This is specifically and agnostic - vs - Christian discussion.
Actually, Hindus persecute Christians hardcore. I don't know if their doctrines have anything that would actually say that believing in Jesus was inherently wrong, but they certainly behave as if it does. I don't know if any religion explicitly states that viewing Jesus as a deity is evil, but Jews and Muslims certainly disagree with that sentiment. Even if no religions explicitly go against yours via demonizing your faith in their doctrine, they generally disagree in terms of creation myth, number of gods, etc., so you can't lump in all theism as being ok with Christianity and treat this as a dichotomy legitimately. If Hindus are right, you are wrong. If Muslims are right, Jesus isn't the son of god but a prophet, so, again, you are wrong. If Buddhists are right, Jesus was at most an enlightened man, and you are wrong. If the ancient Greeks were right, Zeus, Hades, etc. are gods and YHWH doesn't exist, so then you would be wrong. Of the countless possible religions that have never existed, if any of those are right, you are wrong. If theism of any kind is correct, I am wrong, but that doesn't mean Christianity would be right by default.2. We both know that your statement is false - as it has already been pointed out to you that no other religion claims that it is "evil" or "wrong" to believe that Christ was good - and that we should follow his teaching. (excluding Satanists of course).
There is no evidence that life didn't develop through naturalistic processes on its own either. That's the big problem. Also, that's not what anyone thinks happened... except you, but with Adam instead of a horse."As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.
I have already said: I can't force myself to believe because of some personal gain or loss involved. The truth doesn't conform to desire; I do want to believe that there is something after I die, but without evidence, I cannot believe it is so. Evidence I would find convincing and not just an opinionated interpretation of evidence that differs from person to person.And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.
I not only don't desire to spread atheism or abiogenesis, but I would hate myself if I unintentionally did the former, and do a facepalm if I accidentally did the latter. Not that anything comes from dirt in actual abiogenesis theory; that's you being misinformed. Also, I not only didn't choose to be an atheist, but I have actively fought against it for many years. I was raised in a household where kids were left to find their own path and adults would give very unsatisfying answers about deities and religion.You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.
I'm actually moderately insulted that you think I, or any other atheist, thinks that complex lifeforms come spontaneously from dirt. We don't. Please read up on abiogenesis, and not from Answers in Genesis.Indeed I am pointing out that EVEN if you could not figure that rabbits do not come from a pile of dirt - you should at least have noticed that the "pile of dirt does everything" religion is the WORST of all options.
Nope, as long as other possibilities exist, it doesn't matter even if this forum was restricted to only discussion those two, because that doesn't stop the others from existing. Not only am I not obligated to behave as if Christianity is the representative for all theism, but it would be illogical for me to do that. Also, this may be a Christian forum, but nonChristian theists are free to debate here. You don't see it a whole lot, but there have been some Jews and Muslims on here before, and a few Buddhists (some of them are theists as well).But in the "real world" you have come to a Christian discussion forum -- so this IS indeed an "Agnostic" or "Christian" context. ... in the 'real world'.
The hypothetical "everyone goes to hell no matter what because the true religion never developed" is actually the worst, in my opinion, and frighteningly enough, it's more likely that a deity that cares about what is worshipped has never been worshiped and sentenced all people to punishment than for YHWH as Christians interpret the deity to exist. Also, deity but no afterlife wouldn't end any differently than no deity and no afterlife, now would it? You treat those possibilities as irrelevant because no one believes in them, but belief is not relevant to reality. Those are possible, so you have no choice but to count them.None of those outcomes is WORSE than the atheist/agnostic one.
Hindus don't, Buddhists don't, Muslims don't, Jews don't... the majority of the world doesn't. By definition, you cannot be a Jew or Muslim if you accept Christ as your lord and savior, and you can't believe in YHWH if you are a Hindu.ALL of them allow for following Christ -- except for some ancient forms of emperor worship and satanism.
So "again" it is total nonsense and "fluff" that is being argued as the "Alternative".
We do have evidence that supports our claims and there is no evidence for "design".
You do realize that y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve not only didn't live at the same time, but the individuals themselves are not static, right? They represent the man all modern men are related to, and the women all modern people share as an ancestor. As new people are born and others die, this position changes to different individuals.2 - to be precise.
y-chromosome Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve.
Rather than "all coming from a pile of dirt".
You forgot other religions. This isn't a dichotomy, at most, only one religion can be right, and it is entirely possible none of them are.
No it's not. It's a creationism vs evolution discussion.
Interesting that you mention Hindus, though, because the majority of creationists worldwide are, infact, Hindu.
Actually, Hindus persecute Christians hardcore.
I don't know if any religion explicitly states that viewing Jesus as a deity is evil,
You do realize that y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve not only didn't live at the same time, but the individuals themselves are not static, right? .
I'm actually moderately insulted that you think I, or any other atheist, thinks that complex lifeforms come spontaneously from dirt. We don't. Please read up on abiogenesis, and not from Answers in Genesis. .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?