Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Interesting. We call a person who deliberately creates and releases deadly pathogens a bio-terrorist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Very Simple Question For Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Interesting. We call a person who deliberately creates and releases deadly pathogens a bio-terrorist.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
Are you calling God a bioterrorist?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Again, if a person deliberately creates and releases pathogens, we call them a bioterrorist. I guess the question is, is God held to greater or lesser standards?
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
If He created you, does that make Him a bioterrorist?
Nothing like a drive-by Christian smear to elevate the quantity of "love" on the board.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Nothing like a drive-by atheist to devalue the quality of the Holy God.
Haven't met him. Never showed me his qualities. If he wants me to know anything about him, a simple tap on the shoulder will do, and I promise I'll listen. If anybody wants to hide from me, I am actually quite content to let them hide.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
I'll pray for you. No offense intended but rather your well being. May you live a very joyful life.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
Moses said a man can't take his wife back if she leaves him to marry another man. Yet the prophet Hoses quotes God as saying he'll take Israel back even after she left God to make a covenant with another god.
So God does what he wants to do.
james bond
Well-Known Member
What you're asking is what disproves evolution? First, we have to understand what secular scientists claim to cause evolution and that is mutation. This is the website that I use. Here is the link that starts to discuss this vast topic with some definitions -- Evolution at different scales: micro to macro .
Macroevolution
What is macroevolution?
In a nutshell, they say mutation + gene flow + genetic drift + natural selection + 3.8 billion years = macroevolution
You can debunk it saying our Earth isn't that old which is one argument. We do not really disagree on gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection, but we disagree on 3.8 billion years. We also disagree on mutation. Creation scientists show that there isn't enough genetic information transferred at the DNA level to cause macroevolution. Before we get to that argument, you have to define and understand mutation from the creation side.
"A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability. It results from 2 possible mechanisms.
- Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination, or transposition.
- Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
"Mutations are classified as harmful, beneficial, or neutral.
- Harmful - spontaneous changes to genes will render proteins dysfunctional, and can lead to physical deformation, cancer, or death.
- Beneficial - mutations that produce some benefit can theoretically happen, even though the protein loses all or some of its function.
- Neutral - mutation where there is no effect (also known as a silent mutation). A neutral mutation either results from a codon that is translated into the same amino acid during gene expression, or a changed amino acid that has no effect on protein function. The following table shows several codons that are each translated into the same amino acid. In each case, the 3rd nucleotide in the codon would be a neutral mutation if changed."
If you read the above link, it should answer your question and lead you to the DNA level where not enough new information can be transferred via mutation.
and here is one link to argue against it by specifying what conditions are necessary for mutation.
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
My opinion is the secular scientists want is to persuade people that mutation is beneficial and not harmful. Their argument for macroevolution is vague, but I don't think their goal is to actually demonstrate or prove it (after all, you need 3.8 B years
). They seemed to have convinced people that mutation is beneficial and have derived products based on mutation such as GMO foods, seeds, chemicals and so on.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Looking at your avatar. You didn't like Jack Chick's argument?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
What you're asking is what disproves evolution? First, we have to understand what secular scientists claim to cause evolution and that is mutation. This is the website that I use. Here is the link that starts to discuss this vast topic with some definitions -- Evolution at different scales: micro to macro .
Macroevolution
What is macroevolution?
In a nutshell, they say mutation + gene flow + genetic drift + natural selection + 3.8 billion years = macroevolution
You can debunk it saying our Earth isn't that old which is one argument. We do not really disagree on gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection, but we disagree on 3.8 billion years. We also disagree on mutation. Creation scientists show that there isn't enough genetic information transferred at the DNA level to cause macroevolution. Before we get to that argument, you have to define and understand mutation from the creation side.
"A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability. It results from 2 possible mechanisms.
If even one of the nucleotides in a gene is changed to another, then a new variation of the allele has been added to the population, and a different amino acid may be assembled into the protein during gene expression."
- Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination, or transposition.
- Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
"Mutations are classified as harmful, beneficial, or neutral.
Mutation - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- Harmful - spontaneous changes to genes will render proteins dysfunctional, and can lead to physical deformation, cancer, or death.
- Beneficial - mutations that produce some benefit can theoretically happen, even though the protein loses all or some of its function.
- Neutral - mutation where there is no effect (also known as a silent mutation). A neutral mutation either results from a codon that is translated into the same amino acid during gene expression, or a changed amino acid that has no effect on protein function. The following table shows several codons that are each translated into the same amino acid. In each case, the 3rd nucleotide in the codon would be a neutral mutation if changed."
If you read the above link, it should answer your question and lead you to the DNA level where not enough new information can be transferred via mutation.
and here is one link to argue against it by specifying what conditions are necessary for mutation.
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
My opinion is the secular scientists want is to persuade people that mutation is beneficial and not harmful. Their argument for macroevolution is vague, but I don't think their goal is to actually demonstrate or prove it (after all, you need 3.8 B years
Thank you, sir. That took a lot of time and effort and is very much appreciated. I awarded you a medal for your candor and willingness to explain it in layman's terms.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It's like talking to a 5 year old. Next I expect to be told I'm a poopy-head.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So you believe in a God that deliberately creates and releases pathogens that cause immense suffering in billions of people, and when questioned about it your response is "Meh....God can do whatever"?
I'll just let that speak for itself.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I liked it as campy satire.
So where's the actual empirical support for your assertion that macroevolution isn't possible?
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
All,
"Why do the heathen rage, saying, where now is thy God?"
We are way off a religious discussion at a religious forum. So my quote will help, I hope. Also, this will help as follows, I believe . . . It isn't religious blindness that causes Creationists to deny some ideas concerning evolution and time. It's logic.
It's all well to say that X leads to X-X-X-X-X (although you are failing to multiply probabilities like X to the 5th power) but consider the journey from sea to land. The animal leaving the water for land needs:
1. A mate with heritable shared characteristics and survivable offspring
2. A new respiration system
3. Things to eat
4. Thermoregulation (the sea's temperature might change one degree in 24 hours, the land could change 50 degrees Fahrenheit or more)
5. A new excretory system
Etc., etc.
Micro-evolution = real
New species = real
Classic Darwinian and macro-evolution = bogus
"Why do the heathen rage, saying, where now is thy God?"
We are way off a religious discussion at a religious forum. So my quote will help, I hope. Also, this will help as follows, I believe . . . It isn't religious blindness that causes Creationists to deny some ideas concerning evolution and time. It's logic.
It's all well to say that X leads to X-X-X-X-X (although you are failing to multiply probabilities like X to the 5th power) but consider the journey from sea to land. The animal leaving the water for land needs:
1. A mate with heritable shared characteristics and survivable offspring
2. A new respiration system
3. Things to eat
4. Thermoregulation (the sea's temperature might change one degree in 24 hours, the land could change 50 degrees Fahrenheit or more)
5. A new excretory system
Etc., etc.
Micro-evolution = real
New species = real
Classic Darwinian and macro-evolution = bogus
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
If that were true, evolution denialists wouldn't be almost exclusively religious fundamentalists.
Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't with the science, but is with your understanding of it?
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
That is no problem; its feasible, but the nature of how it occurs is often considered totally understood,
but when one examines the details of the theory, then one sees massive leaps of guesswork and thumb-sucking.
For instance, one seldom even reads of how interstellar evolution could actually play any role.
Since the famous 'mars meteorite' it is ridiculous as to how people just forget about the role
all those millions of stars' worth of potential in all likelihood are 99%+ of the process.
Not just from seeding the Earth 'naturally', but from direct intelligent intervention,
or even from the position of Alien environmentalists, playing a limited but decisive role.
Very often what is sheer conjecture and 'science of the gaps' is claimed as 'empirical proof' in evolution.
For instance the debate often known as 'the missing link' is just dismissed by many theorists
and plastered over with sophistry and jargon.
But the real problem is Abiogenesis. Even if all those other issues are resolved, there is no explanation
for how the first life-form originated that even vaguely fits the vaguest criteria of the vaguest 'scientific method'.
And yet, nonetheless, most 'evolutionists' continue to claim that Abiogenesis is science; when it is
a theory; a mere philosophy; for which the only evidence is overwhelmingly against. (statistically & others)
Moreover, most atheists believe in a pre-determined universe, and yet believe that life came about
through 'random mutation'. If the universe is pre-determined, then that is NOT random, NOR mutation,
but instead a very precise set of events that unfolded according to an entirely ordered process.
So when the core parts of the argument are thoroughly illogical in reference to themselves, then
the only people who adhere to them, are a bunch of monkey-see-monkey-do ... well, monkeys.
Then there is superstitious notions that life is completely a result of electromagnetic forces;
that consciousness is just an 'epiphenomenon'; that the free will (the very essence of what YOU are)
is somehow not really real, when it is everything that drives you theoretical dilly-dallying.
I could go on, but that's probably beyond the typical attention span of a monkey already.