Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

If you have no problem with humans and an amoeba sharing a common ancestor, then why do you have a problem with humans and flatworms sharing a more recent ancestor?

You're not addressing the issue, you're continuing your attempt to force the focus from Darwinist creationism to one of common ancestry.

What was the impetus which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago? Entirely naturalistic or theistic?

 

[justlookinla]

It is in your posts, which have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I am presenting evidence for the theory of evolution.

Present evidence that humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago entirely by naturalistic processes.

That is exactly what that paper provieds. The mechanism is the same mechanism we observe every day: descent with modification. You do know how babies are made, don't you?

When babies are made, humans produce human babies, don't they?

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cre·ate
krēˈāt/Submit
verb
bring (something) into existence.
"he created a thirty-acre lake"
synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, fashion, build, construct;

 

[justlookinla]

Offered by the keyboard of Just



Boy, talk about private definitions!

Dizredux

How about this creationist?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

 

[Dizredux]

I've admitted before that I have fun doing this. I enjoy it.

Now, do you have the evidence that the following is a lie?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
​

And that has what to do with what I posted?

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

How about this creationist?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

And that has what to do with definitions?

Dizredyx

 

[justlookinla]

The divergence of LTR's in ERV's does prove it. If random mutations and selection produced the human genome we see today then we should observe divergence in LTR's of ERV's produce a phylogenetic signal. This is due to the fact that LTR's are identical in sequence when the retrovirus inserts. Overtime, due to random mutations, the LTR's at each end of the viral genome will accumulate different mutations causing them to diverge. The longer they have been in the genome the more divergent they will become. Therefore, the amount of divergence should mirror the time since common ancestry. That is EXACTLY what we see. It is evidence that naturalistic forces acted on our genome through common ancestry, natural selection, and random mutations.

Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

Here are the results from the experiments.

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

As expected, the LTR divergence falls into the predicted phylogenies.

And more of not addressing the issue.

What color was his hair? Large nose? Small nose?

It was a spiritual encounter, but just as real, or maybe more real, than a physical encounter.

 

[justlookinla]

And that has what to do with definitions?

Dizredyx

Would this be a true statement regarding a creator?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

 

[Dizredux]

Would this be a true statement regarding a creator?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Again, we were discussing private definitions. When getting pushed into a corner, change the conversation to something else.

While I have no problems with the verses you wrote, I have to say "Cut the Drama!"

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Again, we were discussing private definitions. When getting pushed into a corner, change the conversation to something else.

While I have no problems with the verses you wrote, I have to say "Cut the Drama!"

Dizredux

We're discussing the issue of what/who created humanity, creationism. The scriptures I posted gives one view of who created, a particular view of creationism.

Other's have differing creationist views, but no matter what the view the common thread is that creation is present in the view.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Not really.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.​

Thanks for the definition. That doesn't tell me why you reject any piece of evidence supporting evolution with nothing but a hearty "Nuh-uh!"

It's not evidence that humanity was created entirely, completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Actually, it is. It also happens to be evidence of the possibility that a supernatural being changed the DNA of a pre-chimp in order to create human. Evidence is not proof, it is a piece of the puzzle that leads to a conclusion. This piece points to humans and chimpanzee's having a common ancestor.

I'd rather we just stick to finding the evidence that humanity was created entirely by naturalistic processes.

Of course you would. Considering my example might cause you to rethink your current debate tactic of simply denying any and all evidence.

I'm curious why you aren't starting with the first life form and offering evidence for the creation of humans from that single life form.

You said that God made a human as a separate creature when I asked about your belief regarding the creation of humanity. I took that to mean you believed God built the first man without any ancestors (be that human or non-human).
You also stated that this belief of yours was by faith alone and you could not produce evidence for it. I was providing some of the evidence that scientists have uncovered which leads them to the conclusion that the first man did have a non-human ancestor.

Since it was a spiritual encounter, the experience cannot be fully described using naturalistic terms. There was a presence, an entity, which manifested Himself in a reality just as real as a corporeal physical presence, but without the corporeal, physical, presence.

How did you determine you were not hallucinating? Was someone else there experiencing the same thing? If so, how did they describe the encounter?

No, it was no assumption, I knew Him, it was a non-verbal interaction with a spiritual being.

Aren't angels and demons spiritual beings? As I recall, there are many hosts of spiritual beings according to the Bible. How did you recognize that it was Him? I recognize people by their facial features and mannerisms but I could probably be fooled by a double who faked the mannerisms of someone I was thought I knew.

It's more like Darwinist creationism cannot use any God(s) because it presents the view that humanity is the result only, totally, completely, solely of naturalistic processes. All other impetuses are disallowed, rejected, discarded, forbidden.

Whatever...I am well acquainted with your view of what Darwinist creationism is. You have said it many time. Since you made up the term, I concede that you would be most familiar with its meaning.

The issue, in this particular case, isn't about evolution from a common ancestor, the issue is entirely about the impetus which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. The impetus, whatever the view, is a form of creationism. Whatever the creationist view of the individual, it's based on faith. None of the views have absolute evidence.

So? We're done talking about that since the impetus cannot be unequivocally determined as being either a god, demon or nature. I have already said that it is a point of faith that everything in the evolution of life was either solely naturalistic or performed by a supernatural being that made it look solely naturalistic.
We are now addressing your contention that there is no evidence that it was solely naturalistic. I have showed you (actually I kinda stole it from Loudmouth) one piece of evidence that supports my position. Either scientifically refute that piece of evidence or admit it is evidence that supports my position. Simply denying that it is evidence doesn't help your argument.

 

[justlookinla]

Thanks for the definition. That doesn't tell me why you reject any piece of evidence supporting evolution with nothing but a hearty "Nuh-uh!"

There is no evidence supporting Darwinist creationism.

Actually, it is. It also happens to be evidence of the possibility that a supernatural being changed the DNA of a pre-chimp in order to create human. Evidence is not proof, it is a piece of the puzzle that leads to a conclusion. This piece points to humans and chimpanzee's having a common ancestor.

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to offer evidence for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Of course you would. Considering my example might cause you to rethink your current debate tactic of simply denying any and all evidence.

There is no evidence.

You said that God made a human as a separate creature when I asked about your belief regarding the creation of humanity. I took that to mean you believed God built the first man without any ancestors (be that human or non-human).
You also stated that this belief of yours was by faith alone and you could not produce evidence for it. I was providing some of the evidence that scientists have uncovered which leads them to the conclusion that the first man did have a non-human ancestor.

It's based on guesses and suppositions. Could be's. Maybe's. Possibly's.

How did you determine you were not hallucinating?

I was driving and very aware of my surroundings at the time.

Was someone else there experiencing the same thing If so, how did they describe the encounter??

No, I was alone.

Aren't angels and demons spiritual beings?

Yes.

As I recall, there are many hosts of spiritual beings according to the Bible. How did you recognize that it was Him?

It was a spirit to spirit communication and identification. No words were physically spoken except by me. The words I spoke were words of praise.

I recognize people by their facial features and mannerisms but I could probably be fooled by a double who faked the mannerisms of someone I was thought I knew.

Ok.

Whatever...I am well acquainted with your view of what Darwinist creationism is. You have said it many time. Since you made up the term, I concede that you would be most familiar with its meaning.

So? We're done talking about that since the impetus cannot be unequivocally determined as being either a god, demon or nature. I have already said that it is a point of faith that everything in the evolution of life was either solely naturalistic or performed by a supernatural being that made it look solely naturalistic.
We are now addressing your contention that there is no evidence that it was solely naturalistic. I have showed you (actually I kinda stole it from Loudmouth) one piece of evidence that supports my position. Either scientifically refute that piece of evidence or admit it is evidence that supports my position. Simply denying that it is evidence doesn't help your argument.

Actually what you got from loudmouth was his constant attempt to change the issue from one of providing evidence (he hasn't) for Darwinist creation to one of common ancestry.

 

[Dizredux]

We're discussing the issue of what/who created humanity, creationism. The scriptures I posted gives one view of who created, a particular view of creationism.

Other's have differing creationist views, but no matter what the view the common thread is that creation is present in the view.

I was disucssing your tendency to use private definitions. Very often, I have no idea of what you are discussing since you like to use private definitions and changing the subject when you don't wish to discuss something which is unfortunately, most of the time.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

And more of not addressing the issue.

It addresses the issue. Quit ignoring it.

It was a spiritual encounter, but just as real, or maybe more real, than a physical encounter.

You mean an encounter that only you experienced, and that you have no evidence for?

 

[Loudmouth]

We're discussing the issue of what/who created humanity, creationism.

Creatonism, according to your definition, includes all of science. The Germ Theory of Disease is atheistic creationism, according to your definition, because it involves only natural mechanisms used by germs to cause disease.

The scriptures I posted gives one view of who created, a particular view of creationism.

We have presented evidence that support scientific theories, which you continue to ignore and run away from.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence supporting Darwinist creationism.

There is evidence supporting the theory of evolution, which I supplied. This same evidence also falsifies your claim that humans do not share a common ancestor with chimps.

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to offer evidence for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is enough to falsify your claims as they relate to creationism.

It's based on guesses and suppositions. Could be's. Maybe's. Possibly's.

More of your lies.

Until you can deal with the evidence, this will continue to be a lie on your part.

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

Darwinism is like you people's religion, you guys are on here every day worshiping him. It's central to your life.

Evolution theory is a lie, (a devilish lie)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Darwinism is like you people's religion, you guys are on here every day worshiping him. It's central to your life.

Evolution theory is a lie, (a devilish lie)

1. Not my religion, if sufficient evidence is provided to disprove evolution, I won't hold on to it. Also, I don't base my life in any way on it, it isn't even the reason why I am an atheist.

2. We are on here attempting to combat ignorance about the theory, misconceptions such as crocoduck and other such fallacies that result from people talking about evolution without actually having much knowledge about the theory itself.

3. In order to lie, one must intend deception. I view evolution as the best explanation currently for the diversity of life we see today, even if in the future evolution is disproven, I viewed it as true, and thus I am being honest when I support it. One can be incorrect without being a liar.

 

[RickG]

Darwinism is like you people's religion, you guys are on here every day worshiping him. It's central to your life.

Okay, so if science is a religion, then my M.S. in Earth Science is a Theology Degree.

Hey guys, I'm a theologian.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay, so if science is a religion, then my M.S. in Earth Science is a Theology Degree.

Hey guys, I'm a theologian.

Technically, they were only suggesting evolution was a religion

 

[RickG]

Technically, they were only suggesting evolution was a religion

Well Darwinism, another YEC made-up name. Everything I've learned and experienced in earth science in one way or another supports ToE.