On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

The man formed from the dust of the ground and the woman formed from the bone from the man died in the same light period (day) they ate the fruit

Enjoy,

The death sentence was applied when each ate of the fruit. Good going so far, ican't. Adam made his choice. He was not deceived. He loved Eve more than he loved God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is ridiculous. But why stop at monkey. why not say we are little squirrel like creatures that hid in trees from dinosaurs?
or that we are a bony jawed fish? or why just call us simple bacteria?

Bacteria is arguably a separate kingdom. Before the split between archaea and bacteria the proper term would simply have been "life". We are an example of life. Then it appears that our ancestors were archaea after the split between bacteria and archaea. Then one archaea engulfed a bacterium that did not die. And in fact somehow a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship formed and the eucaryotes arose. We are still eucaryotes. That goes far beyond fishes.

The fish that we evolved from were quite different from modern fish, but the differences between the monkeys that we evolved from and the monkeys of today are rather small. If you like you can always use the more scientific terms. So instead of admitting that we are "fish" one can acknowledge that we are members of Chordata. That we are mammals is a fact that goes back to early mammals, but even before then we were synapsids.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But the woman was not given a command that if she ate the fruit she would die, and she was not around as God had not formed her from a bone from the man at that time. So, she did not sin by breaking Gods Law.

You all seem to have a different dogma.

Biology has no intended end-design

I've never agreed with anything I've read from you before this.

conditions were in the early atmosphere. But of course they don't know

You continue to confuse your own ignorance with the degree of scientific understanding.

evidence? or conjecture.

Evidence based conclusions, for the critically thinking empiricist, conjecture for those who remain in the dark.

No one has seen these things happen as scientists say they have.

A meaningless criticism coming from a creationist who has never seen anything she accepts as dogma.

It is recognized from the conversation with Eve in the account in Genesis

There was no first woman.

Adam came first.

There was no first man.

The death sentence was applied when each ate of the fruit.

Conjecture. You never saw that.

And apples are still apples.

 

[YoursTrue]

You all seem to have a different dogma.

I've never agreed with anything I've read from you before this.

You continue to confuse your own ignorance with the degree of scientific understanding.

Evidence based conclusions, for the critically thinking empiricist, conjecture for those who remain in the dark.

A meaningless criticism coming from a creationist who has never seen anything she accepts as dogma.

There was no first woman.

There was no first man.

Conjecture. You never saw that.

And apples are still apples.

You can believe everything scientists say; maybe -- your choice. You're you, and I'm not you. I'm happy about that. Perhaps you are, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

You all seem to have a different dogma.

I've never agreed with anything I've read from you before this.

You continue to confuse your own ignorance with the degree of scientific understanding.

Evidence based conclusions, for the critically thinking empiricist, conjecture for those who remain in the dark.

A meaningless criticism coming from a creationist who has never seen anything she accepts as dogma.

There was no first woman.

There was no first man.

Conjecture. You never saw that.

And apples are still apples.

You can believe everything scientists say; maybe -- your choice. You're you, and I'm not you. I'm happy about that. Perhaps you are, too. Maybe you think snowflakes think and feel also. Who knows? do you?

 

[YoursTrue]

You all seem to have a different dogma.

I've never agreed with anything I've read from you before this.

You continue to confuse your own ignorance with the degree of scientific understanding.

Evidence based conclusions, for the critically thinking empiricist, conjecture for those who remain in the dark.

A meaningless criticism coming from a creationist who has never seen anything she accepts as dogma.

There was no first woman.

There was no first man.

Conjecture. You never saw that.

And apples are still apples.

Perhaps you think apples have different feelings from each other and from humans and can make decisions about themselves.

 

[ppp]

That is ridiculous. But why stop at monkey. why not say we are little squirrel like creatures that hid in trees from dinosaurs?
or that we are a bony jawed fish? or why just call us simple bacteria?

You have no cell walls and you move around.
You have a spinal cord
You are hairy and have nipples

 

[YoursTrue]

You all seem to have a different dogma.

I've never agreed with anything I've read from you before this.

You continue to confuse your own ignorance with the degree of scientific understanding.

Evidence based conclusions, for the critically thinking empiricist, conjecture for those who remain in the dark.

A meaningless criticism coming from a creationist who has never seen anything she accepts as dogma.

There was no first woman.

There was no first man.

Conjecture. You never saw that.

And apples are still apples.

Obviously the God as portrayed in the Bible permits different ideas to go around. He can offer His servants correction, but I figure you don't believe that. Anyway, that's ok, it's probably as it should be. He allows. Now let me ask you what you look forward to for yourself as well as life on the earth. If you care to answer, of course.

 

[Audie]

Biology has no intended end-design is a math assumption. How would you prove that? Statistical models, which are very common to biology, use a black box with random assumptions, which, by default, can have no intended end designs. It like assuming infinite lives in video games, and than building that into the game, so it become part of the game reality. If you assumed an end design, you could not use statistics. You would need to stick to logic, since dice and cards would not work as well as it does for no intended end design.

Statistical modeling is a tool and it makes no sense to mold reality, to the needs of the tool. It would be like having a small hammer and then building with soft wood, so the hammer works better. Or we can evolve the hammer, with logic, so we can use hard woods.

I work under the assumption of a logical evolution, which has milestones and goals. The single cell was a milestone as was multicellular. You cannot use random assumptions to get there and stay there. Entropy appears to have quantum states, which for life are called species. The most likely variable I found, was entropy, since entropy is a law of science; better than theory, and it has to increase. Entropy has an unusual sense of direction to the future; increases and gets more complex. Energy wants to lower. Dice and cards want to repeat over time, which is not observed in evolution. We do not see new life appear from scratch; throw another one, or see dinosaurs appearing again, like another two, etc. repeating previous steps like throwing dice or flipping cards.

Entropy is what is called a state variable, meaning any given state of matter, has a fixed measurable entropy value. Entropy is not a theory but a measurable value; law. Evolution would come down to its many parts and its wholes increasing their entropy value over time. Below is a table of common entropy values. Each value is like a finger print of given states, even atoms. It can finger print life states since we are made of matter.

A cell ls like an integrated state, similar to all the integrated atoms of a molecule, albeit far more complex. Water as a liquid has a value of 70, while water as a gas has a higher value at 188.8. Like humans and apes, gas and liquid water have many similarities, but define different states with different properties, with humans a higher state like water vapor is to liquid water. This is like evolution. We can share common DNA, but human are a higher entropy state, driven to that state, by the 2nd law.

An interesting one is diamond. Notice diamond on the upper right has the lowest value in the table. This low value or fingerprint is because diamond is a very simple 3-D repeating matrix of carbon atoms bonded to four other carbon atoms that forms a single giant molecule. Its beauty is in its simplicity; very low entropy.

But the second laws says, entropy has to increase, even for diamond. Humans are attracted to diamonds. We help the 2nd law by adding entropy or complexity to diamonds, by forming them into intricate shapes. Even consciousness is driven by entropy, and helps to add complexity to nature and the universe. Entropy is that call of the wild to increase; internal selection process along with external selection.

Nobody actually reads these

 

[Argentbear]

Bacteria is arguably a separate kingdom. Before the split between archaea and bacteria the proper term would simply have been "life". We are an example of life. Then it appears that our ancestors were archaea after the split between bacteria and archaea. Then one archaea engulfed a bacterium that did not die. And in fact somehow a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship formed and the eucaryotes arose. We are still eucaryotes. That goes far beyond fishes.

The fish that we evolved from were quite different from modern fish, but the differences between the monkeys that we evolved from and the monkeys of today are rather small. If you like you can always use the more scientific terms. So instead of admitting that we are "fish" one can acknowledge that we are members of Chordata. That we are mammals is a fact that goes back to early mammals, but even before then we were synapsids.

you just dumped cold water all over your "There is no "change of kinds" in evolution." so thanks for the laugh

 

[Subduction Zone]

you just dumped cold water all over your "There is no "change of kinds" in evolution." so thanks for the laugh

How did I do that? I am betting that it was a lack of understanding on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody actually reads these

Occasionally I will scan to see if there is even a hint of a point, but that is almost always enough to verify that there is nothing there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody actually reads these

well, here's something easier to read: Method to convert the ashes of the deceased into diamonds..

 

[icant]

And a primate, and a mammal, and a vertebrate, and an animal.

you can be all of those if you want to be.
But I am just a born again child of the King, unworthy but His child by His Grace.

Enjoy,

 

[Audie]

Occasionally I will scan to see if there is even a hint of a point, but that is almost always enough to verify that there is nothing

Same or Less

 

[Audie]

you can be all of those if you want to be.
But I am just a born again child of the King, unworthy but His child by His Grace.

Enjoy,

So why are you even here?

 

[YoursTrue]

So why are you even here?

Do you have a problem with his being here?

 

[Audie]

well, here's something easier to read: Method to convert the ashes of the deceased into diamonds..

That would be fascinating! Alchemists dream
come true.
The transmutstion of elements.

 

[YoursTrue]

So why are you even here?

and...why wouldn't he be here? or do you think he shouldn't be here...

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be fascinating! Alchemists dream
come true.
The transmutstion of elements.

yes, from slime (oh, liquification) to dust and possibly diamonds. Amazing! Yes!