A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that you are still under the impression that Adam and Eve are real people, and they were indeed, respectively created from dust & Adam‘s rib, hence not born from natural means…

humans have never been made from dust or soil, that’s a myth adapted from even older myths, YoursTrue.

You pride yourself as being more expert than all modern biologists, but you ignored the fact that this belief in being created, is not just unnatural, Genesis 2:7 is a fairytale, it isn’t possible.

A large part of soil, whether it be of clay, silt or sand type, are made of 50% silicon-based minerals, such as silicate, eg feldspar, quartz, etc, only less than 5% are made of organic matters, and the rest are pores in the soil that are filled with gases or water.

The point if Adam was indeed made of soil, like clay, then shouldn’t human cells that make up tissues and organs have large quantities of silicate in our bodies?

There are not single silicate in any cells, which means myths of humans being made of dust of the ground or soil, is just pure myths, whether you read them from Egyptian myths, Sumerian-Akkadian myths, or myths from Genesis or the Qur’an.

Dust or soil can no more turn into living organic tissues any more than water can into wine. They are unnatural and scientifically improbable.

Humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve, as they were never real people. The story of their creation, are just story.

it is also religious propaganda.

Throughout human history, people have been claiming to be sons or descendants of gods or of mighty heroes. It is just that, propaganda.

For instance, just about every Egyptian pharaohs have claimed divine origins, like that of Horus or Amun-Ra. Alexander the Great had claimed to be descendants of Neoptolemus via the great Achilles…Achilles’ mother was the sea goddess, Thetis, while Achilles was great grandson of Zeus, on his father’s side. The Romans, particularly Julius Caesar, claimed to descendants of Romulus, of the Trojan hero, Aeneas, who was son of Anchises and Venus (Aphrodite). Many people have claimed to be descendants of King Arthur.

OK, this is a longer one than usual. Thank you for your expressions.
I thought long and hard about the theory of evolution vs what the Bible says. And I have read many writings in scientific journals plus more proclaiming the reality of things such as: water breathing animals developing legs which after who knows how long managed to crawl out of the water -- because why? -- and live for a time on land and then eventually after (how many millions of years maybe?) developed lungs that would enable them to live entirely on land and not in water. Etc. As as the 'theory' goes, after a long while in human time became (evolved to) humans. While it may make sense to a person inclined to accept the theory as proposed by some, I do not believe there is any real proof of this beyond what they think are fossils proving the theory. As if it fits in with the theory. But again -- that is not real proof, it is conjecture based on the theory.
Now, since I feel that life is beyond explanation by humans except that God enables and gives life in various forms, and the qualities of animals and minerals and plants defy description as to their origin except by conjecture by some scientists, and that life is stupendous as we see it, most of us do not want to die if we're healthy and happy, I have come to the conclusion that there is a Creator. And that the Bible is true. As far as being literal, that can be another discussion.
Exactly how God formed Adam and Eve, going cell by cell and step by step, giving them life, I cannot say beyond what the Bible says. But because I believe the Bible is true and evolution simply is not proved beyond shadows of doubt, I'm going with the Bible.
The Bible was there in the form of the writings that became known as the Old Testament before Jesus was born. He quoted from it, as seen in what is commonly called the New Testament.
So again -- no matter what a person calls myth, and yes, there are accounts in the Bible hard for a person to believe or understand because we do not experience such things today, if one is sure that life came about by physical means without a prime mover, or intelligent force behind it, no matter what type of Christian he may say he is, he is in essence, denying virtually everything the Bible has in it. Except maybe things like you have to love your neighbor. Sounds nice. And then following that can be problematic, too. Because people can be very, very reluctant to explain their viewpoint as far as their religious views go I notice.

 

[Audie]

Is this adaption based on natural selection or manmade selection?



In terms of human behavior, natural selection to any environment; natural or manmade, is also function of the brain, since the brain controls our awareness, consciousness, learning potential and even the muscular prowess and agility needed for adaption. The question becomes, how fast does the brain add; write, new adaption, to the DNA, so it can be passed on to the next generation via the DNA and be technically called natural selection?

This time scale is critical in terms of my thesis. If an innovative adaption does not have sufficient time to become engrained in the DNA, it does not qualify as natural selection, since no DNA change for future adaption will not be included in the next generation.

In other words, if there is an otherwise selective adaptation, that does not have sufficient time to be engrained in the DNA, then it does not exactly fit the definition of natural selection. That theory is very genetic centric and DNA has to play a full role. If we had fast paced knowledge, that allows one to adapt to a fast paced environment; civilization, the best adaptions may not have time to be recorded on the DNA.

Instead that person may need to use nepotism; politics, from the outside; peer pressure, to simulate the internal effect of it being recorded on genes for natural selection. I call this faster time scale manmade selection. It is in the zone where there is not enough time for the DNA to lead and pass forward to offspring, the adaption. However, the adaptive brain can still watch, learn and teach the next generation, from the outside and maintain that selective advantage; nepotism.

When Darwin went to the Galápagos Islands, what he saw were very old and conservative species that were still driven from within via natural selection; DNA to brain hierarchy. They had plenty of time, due to isolation, for their optimized adaption to become ingrained in their DNA. That was natural selection.

However, the faster pace of human evolution after civilization did not always have sufficient time to engrain on the DNA. The DNA centric inertia of species found on the Galapagos, did not exactly apply in England. Humans in England were not technically under natural selection; not DNA first. The convention of Blood Line; over many generation, tries to natural selection DNA effect, but as history shows not all the descendants would be Richard the Lion Hearted. It was more connected to brain and temporal opportunity; nepotism.

How long does it take for behavior to be transferable to the DNA, via the brain? The brain and consciousness can provide a short term buffer, even of the DNA is not in full control of behavior. Civilization increased the pace needed for adaption; war and rebuliding, to where the DNA was no longer able to keep up, and the inner self became more unconscious. The ego was much better adapted to short term change, learning and thinking. While the inner self; firmware evolved from the ego's data and the manmade environments beyond just DNA instinct; added more layers of firmware or archetypes.

Ironically, religions by being so old; thousands of years, may have had sufficient time to engrain adaption onto the DNA, thereby becoming part of natural selection; DNA based religious instincts for adaptation in civilization This explain the conserved persistence, in light of fast pace change.

The million dollar question is how does it take for human DNA to change with new behavior so we get that behavior part of natural selection and be transferable by DNA?

Before civilization things did not change very fast and stayed simple; pre-humans, implying that natural selection was dominant. But as the pace of change increased, this was left behind the DNA based natural humans.

In symbolism, Adam is not formed through biological means; DNA. He is formed from the dust. This symbolizes he; change, was not connected to natural or DNA based selection. This was a hint of him being fabricated; will and choice, and not due to the transfer of alleles. Eve is more like a clone of Adam; from his rib; science altering nature. However, their children are biological and still had a connection to DNA,,until they were taught snd learned how to adapt. The baby is still natural but learned to be manmade through education needed for adaption in a fast paced manmade world.

Re your unhelpful habit of
making things up things to present
as if they are fact, thats an aberration.

It's nothing to do with others.

As for your content / lack of, a
stock chatacter in fiction is the lone
wolf scientist who forges far beyond
the known limits of science. Faust,
Frankenstein, Captain Nemo, Elvis the
young rebel chemist, etc ad nauseum.


There's the stock characters
such as the yecs who infest these pages
with their claims to know more science than
any researcher on earth.
None of them even had to study.
None have a clue what they're talking about.

Your claim to be able to see beyond the veil
into deeper reality, its no different.

 

[wellwisher]

Here a definition of natural selection I found on the net.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.

I am repeating part of mu last post since nobody answered the question, that can open your mind.

In terms of human behavior, natural selection to any environment, is also function of the brain, since the brain controls our awareness, consciousness, learning potential and even the muscular prowess and agility needed for adaption; cerebellum. The question becomes, how long does it take for any new adaption, to become written to the DNA, so it can be passed on to the next generation via the DNA, and be technically called natural selection?

This time scale is critical in terms of my thesis. If an innovative adaption does not have sufficient time to become engrained in the DNA, it does not qualify as natural selection, since there no permanent DNA change for future adaption, via DNA. However such behavior can still be passed forward by word of mouth and observation; brain based but not genetic based.

In other words, if there is an otherwise selective adaptation; make money, that does not have sufficient time to be engrained in the DNA, then it does not exactly fit the formal definition of natural selection; see the definition of natural selection above. The current theory of evolution is very genetic centric, so DNA change is required to play a lead role, ,to technically be called natural selection. This is the line in the sand.

If we had fast paced knowledge, that allows one to adapt to a fast paced environment; civilization, the best or selective adaptions everyone will try to copy. may not have time to be recorded on the DNA. It can still be reinforced by the brain and collective education; peer pressure; make a cell phone call. I call this quicker non genetic engrained type of selection, manmade selection.

How long does it take to engrave behavior onto the DNA, so the behavior has the generic stamp to become a card carry part of natural selection; 100 years, 1000, years, 10,000 years, etc.

Natural selection works best with long term fitness and adaption; time for the DNA to be engraved. It is not technically valid for short term flash in the pan fad behavior; days or months, such as swallowing gold fish. The brain is better for that, since we can consciously learn a new fad that will never have the time to become part of natural selection and instinct, even it made you look cool and socially selected for a couple of years. Fads can change on. anime since there is not deeper genetic engraving.

Religions, which have repeated their version of selected behavioral criteria, using well maintained old books, for thousands of years may have a shot at this being ingrained on the DNA; may be part of natural selection. The question, however, is how long would it take until manmade selections, are more than flash in the pan, and become DNA steak.

I am saying the same things I have said in other posts. I found a way to help you understand what the genetic foundation premise of evolution implies due to the DNA centricity. Hopefully it is now easier to see and quantify exceptions to the natural constraints of natural selection. This is how science discovery works.

One has to get past turning science into a dogma. Although this tendency may be connected to the natural instinct; used to run out the clock until this is written to the DNA. This push to dogma is found in all aspects of culture.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here a definition of natural selection I found on the net.


I am repeating part of mu last post since nobody answered the question, that can open your mind.






How long does it take to engrave behavior onto the DNA, so the behavior has the generic stamp to become a card carry part of natural selection; 100 years, 1000, years, 10,000 years, etc.

Natural selection works best with long term fitness and adaption; time for the DNA to be engraved. It is not technically valid for short term flash in the pan fad behavior; days or months, such as swallowing gold fish. The brain is better for that, since we can consciously learn a new fad that will never have the time to become part of natural selection and instinct, even it made you look cool and socially selected for a couple of years. Fads can change on. anime since there is not deeper genetic engraving.

Religions, which have repeated their version of selected behavioral criteria, using well maintained old books, for thousands of years may have a shot at this being ingrained on the DNA; may be part of natural selection. The question, however, is how long would it take until manmade selections, are more than flash in the pan, and become DNA steak.

I am saying the same things I have said in other posts. I found a way to help you understand what the genetic foundation premise of evolution implies due to the DNA centricity. Hopefully it is now easier to see and quantify exceptions to the natural constraints of natural selection. This is how science discovery works.

One has to get past turning science into a dogma. Although this tendency may be connected to the natural instinct; used to run out the clock until this is written to the DNA. This push to dogma is found in all aspects of culture.

Even IF anythings evolved, the theory as promoted by scientists is beyond absurd.

 

[gnostic]

Exactly how God formed Adam and Eve, going cell by cell and step by step, giving them life, I cannot say beyond what the Bible says. But because I believe the Bible is true and evolution simply is not proved beyond shadows of doubt, I'm going with the Bible.

In just one verse - Genesis 2:7 - that Adam created from dust of the ground, or soil, only demonstrated that the author(s) of Genesis, whoever he or they) made be, have absolutely no understanding of human biology, no understanding that clay cannot simply or magically transform into organic tissues of human being.

You are living in the 21st century, so you should know better about biology than the Genesis authors. That you are “going with the Bible” no matter what biological evidence there are, only demonstrated your own biases, which are anti-science stance.

Biological facts are that cells are made of numbers of biological molecules and compounds, and the most important of them are proteins, DNA, carbohydrates and lipids, as they exist all cells, from unicellular organisms or multicellular organisms.

And do you know what keeping you alive, sustaining your life?

Your metabolism.

Metabolism is what cause chemical reaction that help sustain tissue functions and cellular functions. Such as for animals, they convert the consumption of food, into energy sources, eg glucose (carbohydrates or sugar). The chemical reaction are speed up by enzymes (proteins).

Cells are not made of silicate and your organs and tissues are not made of clay, silt or sand. If your cells have silicate, you wouldn’t even be alive.

Metabolism also played important roles in the growth of every organism and for biosynthesis. Silicate minerals in soil played no parts in human metabolism.

if you don’t understand then, there are no hope that you will ever understand biology.

The Bible was there in the form of the writings that became known as the Old Testament before Jesus was born. He quoted from it, as seen in what is commonly called the New Testament.
So again -- no matter what a person calls myth, and yes, there are accounts in the Bible hard for a person to believe or understand because we do not experience such things today, if one is sure that life came about by physical means without a prime mover, or intelligent force behind it, no matter what type of Christian he may say he is, he is in essence, denying virtually everything the Bible has in it. Except maybe things like you have to love your neighbor. Sounds nice. And then following that can be problematic, too. Because people can be very, very reluctant to explain their viewpoint as far as their religious views go I notice.

Jesus quoting from what were prevalent known belief at the time, doesn’t make Genesis creation myth or flood myth, true. All Jesus had done, was revealed that he knew of the story, just as every Jews knew about it back then.

Jesus had in no way ver and validated Genesis creation or flood with superior knowledge of the events. All he has done was used circular reasoning, just as you are doing right now with Jesus.

And btw, you are still yapping on over there being no proofs.

Proofs, or mathematical equations, are merely abstract representations of reality, formulated by people good with maths, but equations are not true until they have been rigorously tested by observations (observations as in evidence, experiments & data). If the evidence & experiments refute a theory or hypothesis, then the maths (proofs) are wrong too.

for years, I have explained to you and to other creationists in threads like this one, not to confuse proof with evidence, as they are two completely different terms with different meanings. it is evidence that important to science, not this proof. But you refused to learn even basic concepts, which mean you don’t want to understand science and the scientific method.

stubborn ignorance is not virtue in science, and yet all you creationists persisted on being deliberately ignorant.

Proofs are used in scientific theories as equations or formulas, they don’t validate theories as being “scientific“ or not…only observable and testable evidence, experiments and data can do that.

 

[gnostic]

Here a definition of natural selection I found on the net.


I am repeating part of mu last post since nobody answered the question, that can open your mind.






How long does it take to engrave behavior onto the DNA, so the behavior has the generic stamp to become a card carry part of natural selection; 100 years, 1000, years, 10,000 years, etc.

Natural selection works best with long term fitness and adaption; time for the DNA to be engraved. It is not technically valid for short term flash in the pan fad behavior; days or months, such as swallowing gold fish. The brain is better for that, since we can consciously learn a new fad that will never have the time to become part of natural selection and instinct, even it made you look cool and socially selected for a couple of years. Fads can change on. anime since there is not deeper genetic engraving.

Religions, which have repeated their version of selected behavioral criteria, using well maintained old books, for thousands of years may have a shot at this being ingrained on the DNA; may be part of natural selection. The question, however, is how long would it take until manmade selections, are more than flash in the pan, and become DNA steak.

I am saying the same things I have said in other posts. I found a way to help you understand what the genetic foundation premise of evolution implies due to the DNA centricity. Hopefully it is now easier to see and quantify exceptions to the natural constraints of natural selection. This is how science discovery works.

One has to get past turning science into a dogma. Although this tendency may be connected to the natural instinct; used to run out the clock until this is written to the DNA. This push to dogma is found in all aspects of culture.

you still ignoring the facts that humans are not the only organisms in the natural world.

Civilisation and religions played no roles with other animals, no roles with plants and fungi, and none whatsoever with microorganisms like eukaryotic protists or prokaryotic bacteria or archaea.

Civilisation and human cultures, like religions, don’t get imprinted into DNA of any nonhuman organisms. What you are claiming is just more junk science. While DNA are wondrous functions in biology, there are limitations as to what get imprinted in the genes, and what get traits get inherited. Religion isn’t one of them.

For each nucleotide, there are only 4 base molecules (nucleobases) - these are adenine, guanine, cytosine & thymine (RNA replace thymine with uracil). As DNA is biopolymer, hence chain of nucleotides, these combinations of nucleobase, will only carry so much genetic information. What you are claiming that get imprinted in DNA is pure fantasy.

 

[YoursTrue]

In just one verse - Genesis 2:7 - that Adam created from dust of the ground, or soil, only demonstrated that the author(s) of Genesis, whoever he or they) made be, have absolutely no understanding of human biology, no understanding that clay cannot simply or magically transform into organic tissues of human being.

You are living in the 21st century, so you should know better about biology than the Genesis authors. That you are “going with the Bible” no matter what biological evidence there are, only demonstrated your own biases, which are anti-science stance.

Biological facts are that cells are made of numbers of biological molecules and compounds, and the most important of them are proteins, DNA, carbohydrates and lipids, as they exist all cells, from unicellular organisms or multicellular organisms.

And do you know what keeping you alive, sustaining your life?

Your metabolism.

Metabolism is what cause chemical reaction that help sustain tissue functions and cellular functions. Such as for animals, they convert the consumption of food, into energy sources, eg glucose (carbohydrates or sugar). The chemical reaction are speed up by enzymes (proteins).

Cells are not made of silicate and your organs and tissues are not made of clay, silt or sand. If your cells have silicate, you wouldn’t even be alive.

Metabolism also played important roles in the growth of every organism and for biosynthesis. Silicate minerals in soil played no parts in human metabolism.

if you don’t understand then, there are no hope that you will ever understand biology.



Jesus quoting from what were prevalent known belief at the time, doesn’t make Genesis creation myth or flood myth, true. All Jesus had done, was revealed that he knew of the story, just as every Jews knew about it back then.

Jesus had in no way ver and validated Genesis creation or flood with superior knowledge of the events. All he has done was used circular reasoning, just as you are doing right now with Jesus.

And btw, you are still yapping on over there being no proofs.

Proofs, or mathematical equations, are merely abstract representations of reality, formulated by people good with maths, but equations are not true until they have been rigorously tested by observations (observations as in evidence, experiments & data). If the evidence & experiments refute a theory or hypothesis, then the maths (proofs) are wrong too.

for years, I have explained to you and to other creationists in threads like this one, not to confuse proof with evidence, as they are two completely different terms with different meanings. it is evidence that important to science, not this proof. But you refused to learn even basic concepts, which mean you don’t want to understand science and the scientific method.

stubborn ignorance is not virtue in science, and yet all you creationists persisted on being deliberately ignorant.

Proofs are used in scientific theories as equations or formulas, they don’t validate theories as being “scientific“ or not…only observable and testable evidence, experiments and data can do that.

As I have said and will keep saying, the Bible does not change, science textbooks change.

 

[gnostic]

As I have said and will keep saying, the Bible does not change, science textbooks change.

and you think “not changing” is a good thing?

isn’t that called, dogma?

Societies, and humans in general, have to change.

Understanding the natural world, back then, is generally poor. The authors of Genesis, have no understanding of human biology. Do you think we should remain stupid and believe that magic can transform dust into fully grown human male?

Because that what the idiot authors believe. Adam wasn’t born by normal means, natural reproduction. He was created already fully grown. That’s just pure fantasy and fiction.

if that was even remotely probable, then why wasn’t Jesus created in similar fashion, like Adam?

in Jesus’ time, they still believe in the absurd notions that angels are responsible for the planetary motion of the sun, moon and planets…pushing and pulling them across the sky.

Prior to the Babylonian Exile, the ancient Israelites didn’t have their own creation myths. The Jews adopted and adapted Babylonian story into their own version of creation. The Israelites were no better intellectually than the Babylonians, and instead of attempting to biological nature, they created another fairytale.

is it better to continually believe in fairytale of Genesis creation, today, or to understand the cellular life form through modern biology?

sorry, but I’ll go with biology, changing as we understand the evidence more, than to be stuck with illogical unchanging Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

and you think “not changing” is a good thing?

isn’t that called, dogma?

Societies, and humans in general, have to change.

Understanding the natural world, back then, is generally poor. The authors of Genesis, have no understanding of human biology. Do you think we should remain stupid and believe that magic can transform dust into fully grown human male?

Because that what the idiot authors believe. Adam wasn’t born by normal means, natural reproduction. He was created already fully grown. That’s just pure fantasy and fiction.

if that was even remotely probable, then why wasn’t Jesus created in similar fashion, like Adam?

in Jesus’ time, they still believe in the absurd notions that angels are responsible for the planetary motion of the sun, moon and planets…pushing and pulling them across the sky.

Prior to the Babylonian Exile, the ancient Israelites didn’t have their own creation myths. The Jews adopted and adapted Babylonian story into their own version of creation. The Israelites were no better intellectually than the Babylonians, and instead of attempting to biological nature, they created another fairytale.

is it better to continually believe in fairytale of Genesis creation, today, or to understand the cellular life form through modern biology?

sorry, but I’ll go with biology, changing as we understand the evidence more, than to be stuck with illogical unchanging Bible.

I think that for revisions keep being made in the various areas of science does not work in the favor of assumptions and presumptions of science. Because what's considered and taught as truth today in science classes and textbooks could be revised tomorrow in practice and teaching. But the word of God endures forever. I take vaccines, thus unlike some, applaud the research done. I also go under the surgical knife when deemed necessary, thus again going along when I decide, with science. Those are examples.
Isaiah 40:8
English Standard Version
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

 

[YoursTrue]

In just one verse - Genesis 2:7 - that Adam created from dust of the ground, or soil, only demonstrated that the author(s) of Genesis, whoever he or they) made be, have absolutely no understanding of human biology, no understanding that clay cannot simply or magically transform into organic tissues of human being.

You are living in the 21st century, so you should know better about biology than the Genesis authors. That you are “going with the Bible” no matter what biological evidence there are, only demonstrated your own biases, which are anti-science stance.

Biological facts are that cells are made of numbers of biological molecules and compounds, and the most important of them are proteins, DNA, carbohydrates and lipids, as they exist all cells, from unicellular organisms or multicellular organisms.

And do you know what keeping you alive, sustaining your life?

Your metabolism.

Metabolism is what cause chemical reaction that help sustain tissue functions and cellular functions. Such as for animals, they convert the consumption of food, into energy sources, eg glucose (carbohydrates or sugar). The chemical reaction are speed up by enzymes (proteins).

Cells are not made of silicate and your organs and tissues are not made of clay, silt or sand. If your cells have silicate, you wouldn’t even be alive.

Metabolism also played important roles in the growth of every organism and for biosynthesis. Silicate minerals in soil played no parts in human metabolism.

if you don’t understand then, there are no hope that you will ever understand biology.



Jesus quoting from what were prevalent known belief at the time, doesn’t make Genesis creation myth or flood myth, true. All Jesus had done, was revealed that he knew of the story, just as every Jews knew about it back then.

Jesus had in no way ver and validated Genesis creation or flood with superior knowledge of the events. All he has done was used circular reasoning, just as you are doing right now with Jesus.

And btw, you are still yapping on over there being no proofs.

Proofs, or mathematical equations, are merely abstract representations of reality, formulated by people good with maths, but equations are not true until they have been rigorously tested by observations (observations as in evidence, experiments & data). If the evidence & experiments refute a theory or hypothesis, then the maths (proofs) are wrong too.

for years, I have explained to you and to other creationists in threads like this one, not to confuse proof with evidence, as they are two completely different terms with different meanings. it is evidence that important to science, not this proof. But you refused to learn even basic concepts, which mean you don’t want to understand science and the scientific method.

stubborn ignorance is not virtue in science, and yet all you creationists persisted on being deliberately ignorant.

Proofs are used in scientific theories as equations or formulas, they don’t validate theories as being “scientific“ or not…only observable and testable evidence, experiments and data can do that.

As far as knowing better because of biology, true biology does not negate the word of God

 

[gnostic]

I think that for revisions keep being made in the various areas of science does not work in the favor of assumptions and presumptions of science. Because what's considered and taught as truth today in science classes and textbooks could be revised tomorrow in practice and teaching. But the word of God endures forever. I take vaccines, thus unlike some, applaud the research done. I also go under the surgical knife when deemed necessary, thus again going along when I decide, with science. Those are examples.
Isaiah 40:8
English Standard Version
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Wow. Not only you have always being illogical, you are being downright absurd with your anti-science stance.

There are no science out there, where scientists presume TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

Scientific knowledge have always been a learning process, and the knowledge are accumulative, not spontaneous appearing from nothing. That's called progress...and progress would include learning from their errors.

I don't know of any field of science, where everything is known...not even in Evolutionary Biology. Everything that we know today, are based on the evidence, so yes, theory get "corrected", "modified", "revised", "updated", and then repeated as discover more evidence and understand more about the evidence.

What you seemed to be asking for, is there are to be no updates at all...if you want to do that with your religion that's fine, but for natural sciences that's antithesis to progress and knowledge.

Should astronomers continue to use Galileo's 17th century telescope, today?

Should biologists continued to use only Mendel's 19th century pea experiments about the law of inheritance, without understanding DNA and RNA?

What you are asking for, is that there to be no progress at all. What you want, is simply just dogma.

The Bible isn't just wrong about biology. It is wrong about the astronomy, wrong about the Earth...they are wrong just about everything concerning nature.

If you read God's replies to Job (Job 38 to 41), it revealed just how stupid the author was, when he write about nature, like rain, thunder, sea, trees, etc. The author whoever he may be, portrayed God as being utterly stupid and that God believe in his own nonsensical superstitions. The author made God as stupid as himself.

Here are some of the stupidest questions that God had asked Job:

Job 38:28
“Has the rain a father,
or who has fathered the drops of dew?

Job 38:29
From whose womb did the ice come forth,
and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven?

Job 38:22-23
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
for the day of battle and war?

Job 40:9
Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?

Not only these questions are unanswerable, they cannot be answered because they are absurd.

The Book of Job not only portray God as a cruel tyrant, but also petty and stupid.

 

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic Really you have convoluted understanding of my observations as well as science. There is no proof of the theory of evolution. It is a joke. There is proof that vaccines can work to stem disease.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow. Not only you have always being illogical, you are being downright absurd with your anti-science stance.

There are no science out there, where scientists presume TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

Scientific knowledge have always been a learning process, and the knowledge are accumulative, not spontaneous appearing from nothing. That's called progress...and progress would include learning from their errors.

I don't know of any field of science, where everything is known...not even in Evolutionary Biology. Everything that we know today, are based on the evidence, so yes, theory get "corrected", "modified", "revised", "updated", and then repeated as discover more evidence and understand more about the evidence.

What you seemed to be asking for, is there are to be no updates at all...if you want to do that with your religion that's fine, but for natural sciences that's antithesis to progress and knowledge.

Should astronomers continue to use Galileo's 17th century telescope, today?

Should biologists continued to use only Mendel's 19th century pea experiments about the law of inheritance, without understanding DNA and RNA?

What you are asking for, is that there to be no progress at all. What you want, is simply just dogma.

The Bible isn't just wrong about biology. It is wrong about the astronomy, wrong about the Earth...they are wrong just about everything concerning nature.

If you read God's replies to Job (Job 38 to 41), it revealed just how stupid the author was, when he write about nature, like rain, thunder, sea, trees, etc. The author whoever he may be, portrayed God as being utterly stupid and that God believe in his own nonsensical superstitions. The author made God as stupid as himself.

Here are some of the stupidest questions that God had asked Job:









Not only these questions are unanswerable, they cannot be answered because they are absurd.

The Book of Job not only portray God as a cruel tyrant, but also petty and stupid.

Tell me something. Let's say you're right about God. I don't know if you're an atheist. If you are, or if you are not, do you suffer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@gnostic Really you have convoluted understanding of my observations as well as science. There is no proof of the theory of evolution. It is a joke. There is proof that vaccines can work to stem disease.

Then by your standards there is "proof of evolution". Scientists do not like the word " proof" because it tends to close people's minds. Science is evidence based and if you deny that there is massive evidence for the theory of evolution then you need to go back to middle school at least.

 

[YoursTrue]

In just one verse - Genesis 2:7 - that Adam created from dust of the ground, or soil, only demonstrated that the author(s) of Genesis, whoever he or they) made be, have absolutely no understanding of human biology, no understanding that clay cannot simply or magically transform into organic tissues of human being.

Simply not true. Besides, some evolutionists conjecture that life popped up from soil. Or water. Or outer space. No big decision here among scientists. Somehow. With, of course, a combination of whatever to burst out in life. Or something else. No real conclusions. Take it as you will.

The origin of life on Earth, explained

The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. To find out if we are alone in the galaxy, we will need to better understand what geochemical conditions nurtured the first life forms. Several seminal experiments in this topic have been conducted at the University of...

news.uchicago.edu

Life on Earth's soils began earlier than thought: Study

a closer look at the salt of the rocks suggests they had to have experienced evaporation on land, according to Gregory Retallack, from the University of Oregon.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

One Amazing Substance allowed Life to Thrive on Land - ArcheWild - Architects of Wild Spaces

One Amazing Substance allowed Life to Thrive on Land

archewild.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Then by your standards there is "proof of evolution". Scientists do not like the word " proof" because it tends to close people's minds. Science is evidence based and if you deny that there is massive evidence for the theory of evolution then you need to go back to middle school at least.

go read my last post, thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply not true. Besides, some evolutionists conjecture that life popped up from soil. Or water. Or outer space. No big decision here among scientists. Somehow. With, of course, a combination of whatever to burst out in life. Or something else. No real conclusions. Take it as you will.

The origin of life on Earth, explained

The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. To find out if we are alone in the galaxy, we will need to better understand what geochemical conditions nurtured the first life forms. Several seminal experiments in this topic have been conducted at the University of...

news.uchicago.edu

Life on Earth's soils began earlier than thought: Study

a closer look at the salt of the rocks suggests they had to have experienced evaporation on land, according to Gregory Retallack, from the University of Oregon.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

One Amazing Substance allowed Life to Thrive on Land - ArcheWild - Architects of Wild Spaces

One Amazing Substance allowed Life to Thrive on Land

archewild.com

If when you say "outer space" you are referring to the Murchison Meteorite that did not supply life. It showed that nucleic acids could form in space too. At one time it was thought that nucleic acids could only be formed by life but that was refuted by the Miller Urey experiment in the the 1950's. That was what it was all about. That nucleic acids could form naturally on Earth. And we have seen that confirmed in more than one way. That they can form in space too is just another source for the building blocks of life. Life still arose somewhere on Earth. There is a very very small chance that it could have arisen on Mars first, but that is a very dubious source for life here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

go read my last post, thanks.

I did. Quite often you appear to misinterpret articles. That post was about abiogenesis and it was not about evolution. Why do you keep conflating those two topics?

 

[YoursTrue]

I did. Quite often you appear to misinterpret articles. That post was about abiogenesis and it was not about evolution. Why do you keep conflating those two topics?I

The subject was about soil to soil. The jury (scientific one, that is) is out. They have not come to a conclusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone oh, and remember -- in science, there is no proof. So? whatcha gonna do with that? You can't prove it and neither can scientists.