Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...

[Jose Fly]

Wow. You just clarified that talking to you about this. .. I may as well shut down my computer, and go talk to a tree outside.

More evasiveness and dismissiveness. All you have to do is answer the questions so everyone clearly understand your views, but you keep doing everything you can to avoid doing so, which by itself is extremely revealing.

As lawyers say, the questions you deliberately avoid tell us more than the ones you answer.

 

[Jose Fly]

I will when you misconstrue my meaning. Did I misunderstand your meaning?

I don’t think so (there’s the difference). If I did, I’m sorry.


What? 2 people?

(Others seem to understand.)

Where am I contradictory? Please, point it out.

Do you see what you're doing here? Again, you've gone out of your way to avoid clarifying the confusion regarding your views on this subject (how the life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences of the organism in the OP came to be). I specifically asked you, "how about you clearly state in your reply to me how you think the specific life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences that the organism uses to do what it does came to be? Do you believe God created those things? Do you believe they arose via natural means? Something else?"

You deliberately eliminated that in your reply. Do you understand how that gives the impression that you're being evasive and deceitful? Why can't you and @nPeace just answer the questions?

 

[nPeace]

More evasiveness and dismissiveness. All you have to do is answer the questions so everyone clearly understand your views, but you keep doing everything you can to avoid doing so, which by itself is extremely revealing.

As lawyers say, the questions you deliberately avoid tell us more than the ones you answer.

Believe what you will. Anytime one has to repeat themselves to someone over and over, it demonstrates that the person is not interested in what is being said, and I pointed that out to you before.
A mind so set in a worldview to prevent a person from seeing anything other than that, is like a person living in a box, and closing the lid shut, every time something (which cannot be refuted) that contradicts that worldview, blows their way.

I don't mind what you and blü 2, or anyone who flocks with you, try to paint. The picture may fool those with your worldview, but the reasonable see through it.
So go ahead and spread your untruths.
I'm interested in the reasonable and honest.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you believe God made the organism in the OP with it's complex life history, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences...all of which allow it to afflict humans in terrible ways. Thanks for clarifying.

Of course that now leads to some obvious issues, namely....what kind of God intentionally designs such horrible things? In any other circumstance we would call such an act "evil", wouldn't we?

I repeat:

I believe Jehovah created the families , equivalent to the Hebrew ‘baramin’, and from within those families, species diversified.

Was MRSA created by God? The ancestral Staphylococcus, prior to it, altered its genomic structure to better respond to pressures it faced. (A problem man created, BTW.)

No telling how many mutations it’s had throughout the centuries, but I can guarantee you something: Jehovah, when He created these viruses, created our first parents immune to them. Not even Poison Ivy would have affected them!

 

[Jose Fly]

Believe what you will.

More dismissiveness.

Anytime one has to repeat themselves to someone over and over, it demonstrates that the person is not interested in what is being said, and I pointed that out to you before.

You would not be repeating yourself, as you have never answered these questions...

1) By what specific mechanisms and processes do you believe the life history traits of the organism in the OP came to be?

2) By what specific mechanisms and processes do you believe the biochemical pathways of the organism in the OP came to be?

3) By what specific mechanisms and processes do you believe the genetic sequences of the organism in the OP came to be?​

A mind so set in a worldview to prevent a person from seeing anything other than that, is like a person living in a box, and closing the lid shut, every time something (which cannot be refuted) that contradicts that worldview, blows their way.

I don't mind what you and blü 2, or anyone who flocks with you, try to paint. The picture may fool those with your worldview, but the reasonable see through it.
So go ahead and spread your untruths.
I'm interested in the reasonable and honest.

More evasiveness. You've spent far more time evading the questions than it would have taken to just answer them. As the saying goes, "Trying to get a creationist to answer questions is like trying to nail jello to a tree during a tornado."

 

[Jose Fly]

I repeat:

I did not ask you about taxonomic families. I specifically asked you about the life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences the organism in the OP uses to do what it does.

Was MRSA created by God? The ancestral Staphylococcus, prior to it, altered its genomic structure to better respond to pressures it faced. (A problem man created, BTW.)

So the genetic sequences specific to MRSA arose via unguided mutations?

No telling how many mutations it’s had throughout the centuries, but I can guarantee you something: Jehovah, when He created these viruses, created our first parents immune to them. Not even Poison Ivy would have affected them!

So you believe unguided mutations can generate unique traits and sequences. Do you believe that's how the life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences the organism in the OP came to be as well?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You explained it clearly.

So clearly that it really was ridiculously easy to completely dismantle your nonsense as all it took was showing that the family this worm belongs to, consists of all kinds of similar nasty parasitic worms.
And the same goes for the level above that. And the level above that.


Whoops.

You’re concentrating on the genetics of those worms, and overlooking the “perfect ( Deut. 32:4)” immune system that Jehovah had endowed A & E with, which they lost when they rebelled. (Of course I understand that you don’t think A & E ever existed... I guess you think the entire religion of Judaism is based on falsehoods, too.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I specifically asked you about the life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences the organism in the OP uses to do what it does.


So the genetic sequences specific to MRSA arose via unguided mutations?


So you believe unguided mutations can generate unique traits and sequences. Do you believe that's how the life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences the organism in the OP came to be as well?

I don’t know, could be. I’m not a biologist, nor a chemist. Ask Dr. Axe & Dr. Tour.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don’t know, could be. I’m not a biologist, nor a chemist. Ask Dr. Axe & Dr. Tour.

First, Dr. Axe and Dr. Tour (EDIT: BTW, Tour isn't a biologist either, he's a chemist, so it's odd that you suggested him) are not here. Second, not being a biologist didn't stop you from stating what you believe about MRSA. What's different about the organism in the OP?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The one thing that people tend to overlook in that discussion, is the length of each generation. Check out the ages of those who lived before the flood......Noah was 500 years old before he even had children. (Genesis 5:32) And 600 when the flood came. (Genesis 7:6) He lived a further 350 years, and was 950 when he died. (Genesis 9:28)

STOP! That right there? That claim? Proves to as high a reliability as you want, that the entire narrative has to be myth.

Humans simply do not live that long-- genetics proves why (look up telomeres).

Unless, of course, you are willing to invoke Magic yet again...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

After they supposedly learned the difference between good and evil which God apparently didn't actually want them to learn.

I wonder what the moral of the story is supposed to be ...

The "moral" of Eden? REMAIN STUPID: LIVE FOREVER.

Learn Stuff? Get harsh punishment-- even death.

Knowledge, therefore, according to Eden? EVIL.

Well.... is it any wonder that people who study the bible eventually become atheists?

 

[nPeace]

More dismissiveness.


You would not be repeating yourself, as you have never answered these questions...

1) By what specific mechanisms and processes do you believe the life history traits of the organism in the OP came to be?

2) By what specific mechanisms and processes do you believe the biochemical pathways of the organism in the OP came to be?

3) By what specific mechanisms and processes do you believe the genetic sequences of the organism in the OP came to be?​

More evasiveness. You've spent far more time evading the questions than it would have taken to just answer them. As the saying goes, "Trying to get a creationist to answer questions is like trying to nail jello to a tree during a tornado."

OP -
Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...
Creation also means...

I don't believe in obliging people who ignore what is said, pretend not to have heard, or seen it, and then be dishonest about the situation... among other things.

I'll make an exception here, for one reason - the OP is discussing Creation. I'm not here to discuss evolution.

By creation, there is , not one branching tree, but a garden of trees.
From these trees, evolution has been occurring, as is observed, not speculated upon.
What don't you understand about, "reproducing according to their kinds"?

 

[nPeace]

STOP! That right there? That claim? Proves to as high a reliability as you want, that the entire narrative has to be myth.

Humans simply do not live that long-- genetics proves why (look up telomeres).

Unless, of course, you are willing to invoke Magic yet again...

Do you believe someone in their right mind would make up something like that? Do you think the Bible writers were loony?
I must be loony, asking Bob the Unbeliever this.

 

[Jose Fly]

OP -
Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...
Creation also means...

I don't believe in obliging people who ignore what is said, pretend not to have heard, or seen it, and then be dishonest about the situation... among other things.

I'll make an exception here, for one reason - the OP is discussing Creation. I'm not here to discuss evolution.

By creation, there is , not one branching tree, but a garden of trees.
From these trees, evolution has been occurring, as is observed, not speculated upon.
What don't you understand about, "reproducing according to their kinds"?

Does that mean you believe the life history, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences of the organism in the OP arose via evolutionary mechanisms, after God created it's original "kind"?

 

[Deeje]

I was going off your example where the Creator lets people who are ignorant about the difference between good and evil (they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) just “go off on their own because they no longer want to be under parental control.” That’s not responsible parenting, is it?

They didn't need to know anything but good because God was never going to let an evil experience enter their lives. They did not have to discern the difference if evil was never present. God placed that decision in his own jurisdiction. With the introduction of evil, all these thousands of years hence and humans still can't tell the difference. The world would not be in this mess if everyone just decided to do good to their neighbor...."the Golden Rule"...remember? That is the world we lost. Do you like this one better?

They were not children but perfect human specimens with intellectual capacity far exceeding that of present day members of our species. What they did was willfully and deliberately disobey their Creator when the penalty had already been stated.....it wasn't a mistake, but a carefully considered action in full knowledge of what it meant....it was a seed of doubt about the Creator's motives that got the woman to thinking that God was withholding something from them that was of benefit....as if somehow there were sinister motives in that small test. She was concentrating on self interest, believing that life might be even better if she ate the forbidden fruit and was able to "be like God, knowing good and evil" for herself. The devil even told her that she would not die....taking away the penalty in her mind.

The man was suckered into a 'divide and conquer' scenario that he did not resist. His loyalties were tested as he could have chosen to obey God, and a whole different outcome would have transpired. Most people have never really understood what that defection meant for the entire human race and even the planet itself.

Greed and selfishness have been exercised to the max ever since, creating no real good for anyone. The lesson is not lost on those who see its value.

How much experience did Adam and Eve have with the world outside the Garden of Eden, prior to eating the fruit?

There was no world outside of the garden until they created it with their children. Their environment changed dramatically from the delicious fruit in abundance in Eden, to the eking out of existence on cursed ground, tilling infertile soil to make bread for themselves. They would experience first hand, painfully and immediately, what it meant to throw away what they had, in favor of something unknown...told to them by a pathological liar.....it was a gamble that did not pay off, for them or their children. But he never left them without his instruction or failed to supply what they needed to live. This would be the greatest life lesson in history.

The result is the world we live in....and God has been trying all this time to make people see the outcome of denying him and failing to follow his rules. They reaped what they had sown, and it affected all their children.

But the lesson has a time frame and an outcome that is already foretold.....you are free to believe it or not.

How did they have knowledge about the difference between good and evil PRIOR to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? How would they even know that eating the fruit was evil/wrong given that they didn’t know the difference between right/good and wrong/evil? How does that make sense?

Its a lesson in obedience. How do you teach your children not to steal, not to cause harm to anyone, not to drive dangerously, not to use drugs or abuse alcohol....? But when they reach an age where they think they know better than you do, they leave home to live their own life and make their own decisions. It's not the parent's fault if they choose to live a life that is contrary to their upbringing. You can't force your 'adult' children to conform to your wishes....all you can do is warn them of the consequences of their own actions and hope that you have taught them well. They have a right to free will....don't they? It doesn't mean that they make the right decisions, does it? How many parents wonder what they did wrong?

In my analogy, that would be a like a parent not bothering to teach their children the difference between right and wrong and then sending them off into the world expecting them to know the difference between right and wrong.

But God did teach his son all that was necessary for him to become the family head and to exercise his wisdom and authority over his charges. The woman knew that eating the fruit would result in death.....but she was persuaded to take the risk by believing a liar. We have the same choice....believe God or believe the liar with a plausible, alternate explanation....

Funny how the “greatest teacher in existence” couldn’t be bothered to teach his creations about the difference between good and evil.

It wasn't a case of couldn't be bothered....it was a case of never intending evil to ever be in human experience. To invite evil would be the work of a fool when death was the penalty.....fools fell for the lies about God.....they are still falling for them.

God expected his creations to know the difference between good and evil without bothering to teach them those differences. And once Adam and Eve supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they were cast out of Eden – as though God didn’t want them to know the difference between good and evil. If he did, he would not have responded so harshly.

They knew the penalty before they ate the fruit. Only a stupid person gambles with their own life.....and if a woman is pregnant, she risks the life of her child is she engages in reckless behavior......because genetic imperfection entered the genome before they brought forth children, all their offspring inherited the same genetic flaw that resulted from their failure to obey their rightful Sovereign.....a fight to do the right thing is called "sin" because evil and sin work hand in glove. Evil actions are caused by evil minds. This world is the product of knowing and carrying out evil.

Now tell me if the human race learns anything from the actions of others in the past.

 

[nPeace]

Does that mean you believe the life history, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences of the organism in the OP arose via evolutionary mechanisms, after God created it's original "kind"?

I'm not here to discuss evolution.
I have said how creation occurred. If you have a problem with it working, then you can tell me how it cannot work.

Secondly, there is no one mechanism agreed upon, on how evolution happened, and by evolution in this case, I am referring to adaptation, and not the extrapolated idea suggests, which no one agrees on how that happened.

However, to repeat, the OP is about creation. I am under no obligation to discuss hotly debated evolutionary mechanisms with you.
Also if you are just here to ask questions, and ignore questions addressed to you, then I will not be responding to your posts.

 

[Shaul]

No, there just can't be a god that is -- at one and the same time -- all good and all powerful. Sure, I suppose it's possible that there's a powerful god that creates bad things to make some of its other creations miserable, but I couldn't call that being "all good." ​

There are lots of worms, in fact that are very good. Farmers till the soil of their fields, but worms till the soil of the rest of the world -- and that's a great thing. But there are other worms that do absolutely dreadful harm -- many of them in fact. I won't post pictures, because they're troubling, but you can easily look them up.

What this shows, to me, and to many others (especially those with a science background) is that purposeful creation looks about as likely as winning the lottery 30 times in a row, and natural selection -- where every species competes to pass on its own genes -- looks as unlikely as a mother loving her newborn child.

Basically you, in your finite intelligence, declare you know better than an omniscient Being. Brilliant!

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not here to discuss evolution.
I have said how creation occurred. If you have a problem with it working, then you can tell me how it cannot work.

Secondly, there is no one mechanism agreed upon, on how evolution happened, and by evolution in this case, I am referring to adaptation, and not the extrapolated idea suggests, which no one agrees on how that happened.

However, to repeat, the OP is about creation. I am under no obligation to discuss hotly debated evolutionary mechanisms with you.
Also if you are just here to ask questions, and ignore questions addressed to you, then I will not be responding to your posts.

It looks like you're gearing up to put me on ignore again. You tried the same thing last time, where you claimed I was ignoring your questions while refusing to say what questions you wanted me to answer (no matter how many times I asked). Rather than do that, why not just say something like "I don't want to talk to you about this anymore"? At least that's honest.

Anyways, at this point I think it's prudent to put this to the group and see what the general opinion is.

Does anyone who's following this thread know what nPeace believes about how the life history traits, biochemical pathways, and genetic sequences of the organism in the OP came to be?

 

[Salvador]

The one thing that people tend to overlook in that discussion, is the length of each generation. Check out the ages of those who lived before the flood......Noah was 500 years old before he even had children. (Genesis 5:32) And 600 when the flood came. (Genesis 7:6) He lived a further 350 years, and was 950 when he died. (Genesis 9:28)

Along with the flood obviously came vast climatic changes and an increased amount of radiation from the sun, no longer protected by the water canopy that was above the atmosphere. (One of the means used by God to flood the earth. 2 Peter 3:5-7) I believe that this greatly reduced man's lifespan, as we see in the ages of those living after the flood getting shorter. Their life expectancy was drastically reduced to 70 or 80 years. This would have increased the number of generations, as the further they got away from the physical perfection of their first parents, the more reduced their lifespan became. In some nations and time periods, it was even less. A reduced lifespan would have meant sexual maturity occurred very early in order for generations to go on reproducing. Australian Aborigines reproduced at quite a young age. It was nothing unusual for women to be grandmothers in their 30's. Do the math.

Counting generations that had shorter life expectancy does not answer the question.

See above....

You cannot provide evidence for such a claim.
The Bible's entire narrative is based on the fall of Adam. (Romans 5:12) Jesus came to undo the damage that Adam did to his future offspring. If there were humans prior to Adam, then you may as well throw the whole book out of the window. I am not prepared to do that, because the Bible is the most reliable book in existence IMO. I would rather throw out the musings of flawed humans because they are a dime a dozen......the Bible has not changed in the thousands of years of its existence. It tells one story from start to finish, and by all accounts, that "finish" is not far away. A new era is about to begin....this time God will run the show, rather than his pathetic adversary....and the gullible, godless humans who blindly follow him because they don't have a spiritual bone in their bodies, and would rather believe in what men of science tell them is true.

Science knows nothing about the origin of life. Not a single thing.....

Biblical Adam and Eve were allegedly created about 6,000 years ago; this according to Biblical chronology as follows:,1,948 years elapsed from the creation of Adam until the birth of Abraham ( Genesis ) , then 529 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 345 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2)

The ancient relics of the earliest Australian people are scientifically dated to be over 65,000 years old; this according to "Carbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence dating (that) were used to assess the artifacts' antiquity, the latter being a technique that measures the radioactive signature of a grain of sand revealing when it was last exposed to sunlight. In the deepest levels of sediment, some artifacts were estimated to be about 80,000 years old – or at least 95% likely to be older than 70,000, the report noted."

Reference: Artifacts suggest humans arrived in Australia earlier than thought

Reference: Chris Clarkson, Zenobia Jacobs, Ben Marwick, Richard Fullagar, Lynley Wallis, Mike Smith, Richard G. Roberts, Elspeth Hayes, Kelsey Lowe, Xavier Carah, S. Anna Florin, Jessica McNeil, Delyth Cox, Lee J. Arnold, Quan Hua, Jillian Huntley, Helen E. A. Brand, Tiina Manne, Andrew Fairbairn, James Shulmeister, Lindsey Lyle, Makiah Salinas, Mara Page, Kate Connell, Gayoung Park, Kasih Norman, Tessa Murphy, Colin Pardoe." Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago". Nature, 2017; 547 (7663): 306 DOI: 10.1038/nature22968

Biblical Adam being the first man and Biblical Eve being the first woman are mythological characters rather than historical persons who actually existed; proof of this being there were people who lived 60,000 years before the Bible alleges Adam as being the first man and Eve supposedly being the mother of all the living. ( Genesis 3:20 )

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do you believe someone in their right mind would make up something like that? .

Have you never listened to gossip? But nevermind that-- humans do not live to be 200 years old, let alone 900 or whatever bizarre fairy tale you care to list. The fact it claims such a thing? Is 100% proof it's myth.

Do you think the Bible writers were loony?.

No-- they were writing myth, they were not interested in writing history.

However-- anyone who thinks Noah hand-built an ark at the age of 600? Well...

Magic? Was it Magic Elixor that Noah was drinking or something?