No DNA from Flores man...why?

[FredVB]

I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make.

That basis is that nature now has DNA of a certain type, and you want to claim it always was the same nature. That is belief, not basis.

With my showing history of what I have posted, you keep answering those same points you already have, and which I had answered, with my further responses shown, you go to all those again as if I hadn't answered and still you still respond to all those. I won't keep showing all the history that way again.

That we don't say there was change does not need further basis than all we see now, if there is no basis to say there was change, other than just you saying there was change. You have no basis for that, you just claim it with something not being found that might yet be found. What about eveything else other than that one case?

You continue to ignore the logic, with concluding what isn't found in one case proves that forces change to account for DNA as we know it not ever being present. There are no ideas of how that could even work. But there aren't other things to give any support to thinking the forces have been changing.

Yes there are many other things, such as history and Scripture. Since science doesn't know either way it is sidelined on the issue.
I did not conclude that Flores man was pre present nature or not. I simply pointed out that the evidence of DNA if found, would place him in the proper category. So far, none was found, so how can we make any claim?

No, there isn't anything compelling from history for that, and absolutely nothing from scriptures.

The timeline divided by such change is only in your imagination.

If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it.

..Or that there was.

I am already dealing with this claim, so this is a false statement.

Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA.

That says nothing about what is not known. The issue is not what is alive today or in the recent past.

There is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be with it, especially if they are in the far past when we do not now it existed the same.

Your own perspective here, since the burden of showing there must have been change should be shown, and not from something not found in some case.

How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils? It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it? So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said. And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for.

If something was that different in previous times, there would be real evidence of that. Something hard to find that isn't yet found isn't such evidence. Why are you not talking about other fossils?

But it is not merely opinion. There is a logical approach that you are missing. If all living and many that are deceased including the fossilized have recognizable DNA which enables processes for life, and there is no known basis to conclude there is change of physical forces, when DNA has not yet been recovered from a fossil, it would be expected that the creature still had the DNA for it, and in some cases DNA could yet still be recovered.

But we have basis to expect. You do not show there is basis to conclude there are changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would not be there, when DNA is not recovered. And whenever it would be recovered, it shoots that thinking out of the water. Why not support argument with much more basis? People here argue against God even being there, and we have strong basis to argue against their position, and for the resurrection.

But having the same forces that there are is not invoking them, you would need sure basis for concluding convincingly that forces have been changing, instead of saying there was according to missing things that may yet be found.

I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it.

If you are right that physical forces change, all atoms would be unstable. I don't think that, I am sure it isn't the case. Believers have eternity assured to them. So physical forces don't change. And if those who expect that protons decay are right, there will be no such eternity.

The issue is not 'how hard would it be to find/preserve present nature DNA IN the present nature'!!

I do not think the current nature existed in the time when dinos lived for example.

Still, it's unclear just how long DNA can survive.

Scientists have proposed that DNA can survive as long as a million years, but definitely not more than 5 million or 6 million years, Schweitzer said. That's woefully short of 65 million years ago, when the asteroid slammed into Earth and killed the nonavian dinosaurs.

However, more experiments are needed to determine how long, and in what conditions, DNA can survive, Schweitzer said.

Moreover, don't expect a "Jurassic Park" twist to work. In the 1993 blockbuster, scientists find dinosaur DNA in an ancient mosquito caught in amber. But amber, it turns out, does not preserve DNA well. Researchers tried to extract DNA from two stingless bees preserved in copal, a precursor of amber, in a 2013 study published in the journal PLOS ONE.

The researchers couldn't find any "convincing evidence for the preservation of ancient DNA" in either of the two copal samples they studied, and they concluded that "DNA is not preserved in this type of material," they wrote in the study.

They added, "Our results raise further doubts about claims of DNA extraction from fossil insects in amber, many millions of years older than copal." [What If a Giant Asteroid Had Not Wiped Out the Dinosaurs?]"

https://www.livescience.com/54574-can-we-clone-dinosaurs.html

No fossilized DNA from the time of the flood or before exists apparently at all. ( My current opinion of when the flood happened is about 4500 real years ago, or about 70,000,000 so called science imaginary years ago). ( I deduce the nature change happened a century or so after the flood)
The issue then is what evidence exists for the claim that nature or the forces and laws we know today, being the same in the early fossil record.

You need sound basis for any claim you make including that nature was the same. Says who? The bible? No. History? No. Science? No...they do not know. Who does that leave?
God is in control of nature. Both now and in the future and in the far past. He changes not. It is not that nature changes on it's own in some fluke happenstance. God tweaks things as needed for any particular time of man.

Yes, DNA doesn't persist, this proves nothing.

Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well.

There was permission but not anything said to make it "cool". It doesn't make anything better, it wasn't in the perfect design.

This permission that gets cited ignores a lot. It moves away from the topic, but you did mention something involving this to start with, and questioned my statement that just eating from vegetation edible for us is of the perfect design. So I can completely defend that, such that it can't be shown to be otherwise, should there be any tempting inclination to do so. Genesis 1:29 shows Yahweh permitting what would be for food, it was this way at least for about sixteen hundred years. When the flood happened globally and Noah and his family got out of the ark when the animals had been released from it, could they have still had that way of eating? Hardly anything would be growing for that. But what then did God permit? It was meat permitted from animals, as the edible vegetation had been permitted all along, and it wasn't required to have it, but what was permitted was only that which was without abuse to animals and no blood in the meat that would be prepared. Who is obeying that permission? You? I said there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that. The best health from whole plant-based food is very well established, conclusively, that can be shown at length. Would God not want that with God's perfect will? I am sure God would. Besides problems to health that are definitely linked to continued use of animal products, a great amount more of resources including land for feed, and water, are used up for continued breeding of animals kept in confined conditions for slaughter for use to us privileged humans, while all the resources could be going to growing more food that would feed starving people, which would save human lives, while those of the privileged people who get enough food, but are eating animal products, and processed foods, are getting heart attacks and strokes from clogging arteries, cancers, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and any of many other problems. The environments are being severely diminished with this, also the oceans are being depleted. The waste and emissions from animal agriculture with all the animals bred for human use are enormous, with affecting this world with ruining environments and contributing hugely to greenhouse gases.

You do not have better bases, making assumptions yourself.

Permission being given in a specific situation, with requirements that you do not obey at all, does not make it all fine.

God planted a garden and trees were bearing fruit that week. Noah sent out a bird, and no trees were found the bird returned. In another week, there was trees. The former nature still existed after the flood for quite a while. So grasses and trees etc could grow super super super fast. Lots of food around for all.

You think meat is a killer?

After the return of Christ to earth in His kingdom here, lions will again eat grass, wolves also. Etc. Then we will return to the original perfection intended. Meanwhile in this present nature, a little meat seems to do me well.

Plants will again grow fast in the Millennium..no starving then at all. Even today I hear that most of the poverty on earth is due to greed and sin of man..no?

The evidence is on my side on this, continuosly having meat contributes to the health problems mentioned, even contributing to death, and other health problems, there will be abundant evidence to show for it.