Evolution My ToE

[dad]

Uh huh. Now, be a good boy and quote some Scripture to support your allegation. Wanna bet you duck and dodge again?

If you want to make the argument that at some times in the past ignorant people thought the earth circled the sun in 360 days, well OK. But a year is the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. If you want to assert that back then the earth made one revolution in 360 days, bring it on. But you will need more than your made-up story about time being different back then.

Here are some verses about a 360 day year in prophesy and Genesis.

The 360-Day Prophetic Year

 

[dad]

I don't see any reason to deny that genes play a significant role is resisting and suppressing "foreigners"... as I specifically stated before.


Why focus on single celled... any particular reason for doing so?
Why does the organism automatically have a mutation? What about the repair enzymes? What's wrong with them?

If you are talking about genetics as relates to TOE, can you demonstrate that genetics used to be the same as now? Otherwise no connection exists.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't see any reason to deny that genes play a significant role is resisting and suppressing "foreigners"... as I specifically stated before.

Okay, good. Perhaps then you could clarify for me...where do you believe these genes come from, and why do some organisms have them while others don't?

Why focus on single celled... any particular reason for doing so?

Just for simplicity.

Why does the organism automatically have a mutation?

Because no replication event is 100% perfect. As noted in the Nature article, bacteria mutate at a fairly constant and predictable rate. Pretty much every time there's a replication, there are mutations.

What about the repair enzymes? What's wrong with them?

There's nothing "wrong" with them. They're certainly not perfect though.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, good. Perhaps then you could clarify for me...where do you believe these genes come from, and why do some organisms have them while others don't?

All cells carry genes. They all have different purposes.... by design.

Just for simplicity.

Okay.

Because no replication event is 100% perfect. As noted in the Nature article, bacteria mutate at a fairly constant and predictable rate. Pretty much every time there's a replication, there are mutations.

So who decides that a mutation will automatically occur?
Are you assuming that? Are you also assuming that the cells do not possess efficient repair systems?

Seems like you jumped from one mutations, to hundreds. I haven't gotten to the hundreds as yet, so can you work with me?
So is it possible that that mutation, can be repaired, though not perfectly?

There's nothing "wrong" with them. They're certainly not perfect though.

I don't think I ever said they were.
Actually, I said, ...when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.

 

[nPeace]

If you are talking about genetics as relates to TOE, can you demonstrate that genetics used to be the same as now? Otherwise no connection exists.

Genes in general, not related to anything in particular, exist in cells, and carry out various functions. Some make up a defense system.

 

[dad]

Genes in general, not related to anything in particular, exist in cells, and carry out various functions. Some make up a defense system.

No kidding. So if that relates to the theory of evolution, such genetic realities also need to be true for the ancient earth. Since there is no dna that is usable from that time, how do you know it was the same as now?

 

[ecco]

The bible does speak of a different past, and this has what to do with the speed of light?

You tell me. You are the one making up stories about time, and therefore the speed of light and a whole lotta things being different.

Nevertheless, you assert that "The bible does speak of a different past" but you never seem to be able to actually quote the Bible as saying that.

 

[ecco]

Do I really need to explain to you what "time" is?

If you thought you knew, of course you should post your opinion. Funny thing is that science doesn't know.

Ignorance is indeed bliss. Even Webster knows what "time" is.

time
noun

\ ˈtīm \
Definition of time
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION
b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future​

How is it that you don't know? Is that because the only book you apparently ever read is the Bible and the Bible doesn't define it for you?

 

[dad]

You tell me. You are the one making up stories about time, and therefore the speed of light and a whole lotta things being different.

For the umpteenth time when we talk about time it is in regards to deep space, and what time may or may not be like there now.

If you want to talk about the forces of natures on earth, that is a different topic. (unless you can connect time to the fundamental laws?)

I have no issue, as you were told before, what time was like in Noah's day is not an issue.

Nevertheless, you assert that "The bible does speak of a different past" but you never seem to be able to actually quote the Bible as saying that.

All one needs to do is look at how life was in the pre flood years in the bible. Trees grew in weeks. Man lived almost 1000 years. Spirits lived with man on earth and married women. Etc. In today's nature on earth is simply is not like that.

 

[ecco]

You thought it was constant all through the universe?? Ha. Proof?

You think it changes all through the universe?? Ha. Proof?


Do you even understand that time is just a measurement of the interval between different instances? Why would a measurement be different? How could a measurement be different? More important, who, besides you has such silly notions?

 

[dad]

Ignorance is indeed bliss. Even Webster knows what "time" is.

time
noun

\ ˈtīm \
Definition of time
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION
b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

​

Measuring something does not tell us what it is, obviously. As for space, science doesn't know what that is either, so calling it 'nonspacial' is foolishness.

Pretending some webster attempt at defining time is showing that science knows what it is is dishonest.​

 

[dad]

You think it changes all through the universe?? Ha. Proof?

I don't know, and science doesn't know. However, I have no reason to assume it is all the same as earth, on the contrary, the bible does suggest that.

Do you even understand that time is just a measurement of the interval between different instances?

False. A measure of something is not what it is. Take a teaspoon of salt, does that tell you what salt is? Take a clock ticking away, does that tell us what time is? No. Man can measure and mark time here on earth and in the solar system area, but doesn't know what it is. Clocks tell or measure time, they do not define it. Besides you only know how to measure fishbowl time!

 

[ecco]

So, no then you either do not believe in spiritual beings or you cannot tell the difference between drinks and spirits.

Well, you weren't talking about "spiritual beings" were you.

Perhaps I was just giving you a lesson: In the English language words can have different meanings. That's something that I learned in public schools in the first grade. Your educational process was obviously different.

Another lesson that you may have now learned is that in some cases it is important to be precise. What you should have said is that there is a difference between spiritual beings and alcohol.

Why Is Liquor Called 'Spirits'?

The Oxford Dictionary defines spirit as a “strong distilled liquor such as brandy, whiskey, gin, or rum.” Merriam-Webster gets more specific by defining a spirit as “the liquid containing ethyl alcohol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash — often used in plural.”
​

But you are right about one thing, I do not believe in Spiritual Beings in the sense that the Holy Ghost is a Spiritual Being. Why would I? Why would any rational being?

You need the Holy Ghost Spiritual Being because you need an entity to rape and impregnate a young virgin. To me, that is reprehensible.

 

[ecco]

What historical accounts do I deny? What historical accounts have I denied?

Do you believe that spirit beings were the first rules of ancient Egypt for example? Or do you deny it?

There ya go again. When you aren't ducking and dodging you are changing goalposts.

We were discussing whether I deny Historical events and you want to talk about spirit beings ruling Egypt. That's not History, that's mythology. If you think that is History, then please reference some History books and/or scientific papers that discuss spirit beings ruling Egypt.

Please do not, again, duck and dodge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There ya go again. When you aren't ducking and dodging you are changing goalposts.

We were discussing whether I deny Historical events and you want to talk about spirit beings ruling Egypt. That's not History, that's mythology. If you think that is History, then please reference some History books and/or scientific papers that discuss spirit beings ruling Egypt.

Please do not, again, duck and dodge.

Some posters have a very difficult time telling the difference between history and make believe.

 

[Jose Fly]

All cells carry genes. They all have different purposes.... by design.

Now it's my turn to say, "Interesting".

So to be clear, you believe that a pathogen's ability to resist an antibiotic, or an insect's ability to resist an insecticide was intentionally designed into their genomes?

So who decides that a mutation will automatically occur? Are you assuming that?

I've never seen any evidence that there is a "someone" who is "deciding" that mutations will happen. Do you believe there is a "who" behind all mutations?

Are you also assuming that the cells do not possess efficient repair systems?

Of course not. But you should realize that the repair systems are limited in the types of mutations they reverse, and not all organisms have the same types of repair systems. We know for a fact that many mutations get through with each generation.

Seems like you jumped from one mutations, to hundreds. I haven't gotten to the hundreds as yet, so can you work with me?

No, I've been talking about and providing material about multiple mutations since we started on this topic. Back in THIS POST I provided you THIS LINK which contains....

"Mutation Rates and Bacterial Growth
Even if only a single S. aureus cell were to make its way into your wound, it would take only 10 generations for that single cell to grow into a colony of more than 1,000 (210 = 1,024), and just 10 more generations for it to erupt into a colony of more than 1 million (220 = 1,048,576). For a bacterium that divides about every half hour (which is how quickly S. aureus can grow in optimal conditions), that is a lot of bacteria in less than 12 hours. S. aureus has about 2.8 million nucleotide base pairs in its genome. At a rate of, say, 10^-10 mutations per nucleotide base, that amounts to nearly 300 mutations in that population of bacteria within 10 hours!

To better understand the impact of this situation, think of it this way: With a genome size of 2.8 × 106 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 10^10 base pairs, it would take a single bacterium 30 hours to grow into a population in which every single base pair in the genome will have mutated not once, but 30 times! Thus, any individual mutation that could theoretically occur in the bacteria will have occurred somewhere in that population—in just over a day."​

In a LATER POST I even copied that portion and highlighted the last part.

What exactly is your understanding of mutation rates? How often do you think they occur?

So is it possible that that mutation, can be repaired, though not perfectly?

It's possible.

I don't think I ever said they were.
Actually, I said, ...when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.

Right. So I'm not sure what the issue here is. Do you disagree with the estimates of mutation rates that geneticists have generated? If so, on what basis?

 

[ecco]

I deny the validity of stories that were written 4-6000 years ago. I deny the validity of stories that were written 2000 years ago by people like David Koresh and Jim Jones and Joseph Smith and Ballulah. You deny the validity of stories that were written by David Koresh and Jim Jones and Joseph Smith and Ballulah.

The reasons for our denials are the same.

Back to admitting your denial again. Try to pick a position and stick to it.

You really need some lessons in English comprehension.

I haven't changed my position. I do not deny history. I deny the validity of myths. If you can't understand the difference, then you need to go back to Grammer school - a public one, not an in-home one.

You deny history. You accept some myths and deny others. You disregard nonsense written by ballulah but accept nonsense written by anonymous people 2000 - 6000 years ago. Worse yet, you accept as absolute truth, nonsense that you make up in your own mind.

 

[ecco]

No. On earth I have not used time as any significant factor that we know about. Where a question with time arises is in deep space, We don't know what it is like there.

Time, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, is a measurement. It is something created by humans. What question with time arises "in deep space"? What don't we know about "what it is like there"?

In any case, how does that affect your silly stories about God tricking Adam and Eve and God killing almost all humans and animals? Does it mean it rained for 80 days and eighty nights because forty days was not enough to completely flood the earth?

 

[ecco]

Here are some verses about a 360 day year in prophesy and Genesis.

The 360-Day Prophetic Year

Whopee!
You have just proved that the anonymous writers of your Bible sucked counting.
You have just proved that the anonymous writers of your Bible sucked at astronomy.

How hard is it to mark a stone on the shortest day of the year and then mark it every day until the next shortest day of the year.

The pagans who built Stonehenge had that figured out 5000 years ago.

But, I guess if you believe...

Revelation 12:14
The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach​

... you'll believe anything.

 

[ecco]

All one needs to do is look at how life was in the pre flood years in the bible. Trees grew in weeks. Man lived almost 1000 years. Spirits lived with man on earth and married women. Etc. In today's nature on earth is simply is not like that.

Uh huh

on one side, the angelic Valar, the Elves and their allies among Men; on the other, the demonic Melkor or Morgoth (a Vala fallen into evil) and his minions, mostly Orcs, Dragons and enslaved Men. In later ages, after Morgoth's defeat and expulsion from Arda, his place was taken by his lieutenant Sauron.

The Valar withdrew from direct involvement in the affairs of Middle-earth after the defeat of Morgoth, but in later years they sent the wizards or Istari to help in the struggle against Sauron. The most important wizards were Gandalf the Grey and Saruman the White. Gandalf remained true to his mission and proved crucial in the fight against Sauron. Saruman, however, became corrupted and sought to establish himself as a rival to Sauron for absolute power in Middle-earth. Other races involved in the struggle against evil were Dwarves, Ents and most famously Hobbits. The early stages of the conflict are chronicled in The Silmarillion, while the final stages of the struggle to defeat Sauron are told in The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings.

​

Your fiction is not nearly as good as this. Your fiction is just as believable as this.