Proof of evolution -at last-

[gnostic]

On the other hand there are those in the abiogenesis camp who say there were materials that obviously made themselves and from those materials a chemical reaction or some kind of reaction took place and out of these dead lifeless things life happened and then we had evolution from this to get this complex life we have now. This view makes no sense to me at all. This scenario is impossible.

Impossible scenario?

How about Genesis 2:7?

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Creating man from “lifeless” dust, is impossible scenario.

Dust are lifeless waste product. Dust have no useful functions.

The smallest biological organism, is the cell.

Cells are themselves are made of different biological compounds and molecules, like proteins, nucleic acids (dna, RNA), carbohydrates, etc, none of these organic matters within the cells are dust. Cells are not dust.

Now “dust of the ground”, might means means soils of some types, there are 3 basic types of soil: silt, clay and sandy soil, and the mains compounds of each these soils, are minerals that have been weathered from from rocks, rock minerals like feldspars, micas and quartz, they are broken down further into soil minerals. None of these soil minerals are present in any cell of any organisms.

So, if the “dust of the ground” are one of these soil, there are no evidence, not even trace evidence that these dust are present in any cell. And these so-called dust don’t exist in the human body.

So the Genesis 2 about creating man from dust, is just a myth borrowed either from the Mesopotamian myths or Egyptian myths, which is nothing than impossible scenario. Genesis 2 is just crap, with no scientific reality.

Second. As I have said earlier, cells in every organisms, whether it be animals, plants, fungi or bacteria, these cells have various organic matters, that have different functions.

As I have stated earlier, three of these very essential organic compounds, are

• proteins (which are formed by chain of amino acids)
• nucleic acids ( eg RNA, DNA)
• carbohydrates.

But each of these biological compounds and molecules are basically chemical compounds and molecules, and they are all made of atoms, combined or arranged in such ways that make them, “biological”. The 4 most basic atoms that exist in the biological substances, are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

Abiogenesis isn’t just about WHEN or HOW life got started, but HOW did any of these biological compounds form. These compounds have to exist, before the earliest cells formed.

So Abiogenesis, is essentially try to recreate the compounds, using inorganic compounds get a chemical reaction. One of the earliest experiments were done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952.

They were able to do chemical reaction with less half-dozen inorganic compounds (water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen), where originally 9 amino acids formed. The experimented liquid substance were stored some vials. These vials were later examined with a total of 20 amino acids.

Other scientists have used different chemicals, that have produce some of these compounds.

There are nothing impossible in these experiments.

What is impossible in the belief that Adam was made from lifeless dust.

Obviously someone with a 5 year old intellect is smarter than those pushing abiogenesis and evolution. When have you ever in your wildest imagination believe if a dog had puppies for example that eventually one of them would be a fish, ape, fly or a bird?

This is why no one take creationists seriously. Out of their utter ignorance, they have the desperate tendencies of making up impossible (and utterly absurd) scenarios that have nothing to do with Evolution.

Where did any biologists stated that dog can give birth to - “a fish, ape, fly or a bird”?

Only creationists make up some dishonest strawman.

Evolution only stated that species can breed subspecies only within the that species, from that genus and family.

No species can breed any organisms of complete different family, genus and species.

Your strawman example is example of your ignorance in biology, and in your lack of integrity on the subject.

If you want to talk of weird hybridization, look at religions, including in the Bible, like Ezekiel and Revelation.

For example, in Ezekiel 1, you have 4 angels - living creatures - where each one...well, it is better if I quote the passage:

5 In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. 6 Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another; each of them moved straight ahead, without turning as they moved. 10 As for the appearance of their faces: the four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle; 11 such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. 12 Each moved straight ahead; wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went.

So, the angels have 4 faces but only 1 head, each face of 4 different animals (man, lion, eagle & ox faces); 4 wings; under each wings is a human hand, so 4 hands; there’s only 2 legs, but the feet are shaped like calf’s soles.

No scientists would make up such idiotic hybrid monsters, but some self-proclaimed prophet would. And there are more impossible monsters in Revelation.

You keep talking of impossible in sciences, it sounds like you don’t even read or understand your own scriptures, ElishaElijah.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Nonsense. There is NO natural selection. It is an artificially produced bottleneck EXACTLY as my theory predicts. There is no "survival of the fittest". Unusual behavior in wolves was bred to make dogs SUDDENLY. Dogs are not more fit than wolves and they were not selected at random or by nature. Luck and consciousness played no overarching role.

This assertion of yours is just plain strange. Dogs were not, in any way, "created" suddenly. It took humans selecting for various attributes over many multiple generations to produce something variably different from the "wolf" or "dingo" or "fox" that may have started as the common denominator. You don't just say: "You know... I'd like something small with relatively long hair please" to a wolf and boom - out pops a toy Pomeranian. That's the most ridiculous thing you could possibly be imagining... and your "theory" (it is ridiculous to call it this, by the way) is no more specific or interesting than that stupid, inane example of how one might pretend to imagine in a lala land that these selection processes went.

The selections were made, by hand, from available specimens from many, many multiple breedings. Those specific selections were then paired off again, or matched up with unrelated specimens from another breeding line, etc. Eventually(key point here - NOT AT ALL "immediately"), you end up with something different in a lot of obvious ways. To believe, truly, that nature cannot affect the same sorts of "selections" via a process of early death to organisms whose ability to survive is hindered (and therefore they do not go on to procreate and pass on their genetic materials), is quite irrational.

The reason humans were able to accomplish so much over the span of just tens of thousands of years is because the process was being guided with immediacy. Meaning that, a human observer could easily hand-select the specimens it wanted bred together and the resulting offspring could again be hand-selected for yet another breeding - again selecting for specific traits. This is probably a thousand percent, or more, more efficient toward the processes of evolution than what would be happening in nature due to various organisms that lack what it takes to survive ultimately being unable to procreate plus the oddball slightly advantageous mutation thrown in there, due to the sheer variability that evolved into these systems, that may eventually hone in on some specific, new adaptation. However - as we know from observed experience, this hand-selection of organisms for breeding DOES NOT produce the "most fit" organism with an ability to survive on its own in natural conditions. For example - the pug. These creatures can have terrible breathing problems because their faces are so smashed up - due, again, to humans selecting for that ridiculous trait once it was exhibited in some particular line or another. Doberman's are prone to narcolepsy. Congenital hearing problems are common in dalmatians. It is fairly common for rottweilers to develop vision and heart problems, Just Google "dog breeds with health issues" and notice that there is no shortage of descriptions of various issues with all sorts of breeds I didn't even mention here. And then, as a follow-up, Google "wolves health issues". Just in case you're unwilling to do so, the list you get back for wolves is this: rabies, canine distemper, par vovirus, blastomycosis, tuberculosis, and mange; - ALL things that they contract - NOT that they are born with. You see the key difference there? Wolves do not have super-common genetic issues... because their survival in the wild, with nature handling the "selection" process means that they are "fit." Far more so than any dog breed can hope to be, having only been concocted by the wiles of their human controllers.

Your crackpot "theories" (it is a joke to call your piddly rantings by the name "theory") stand directly in the path of a river of evidence that should have knocked them over in your mind ages ago. You're stuck wanting to believe in something that is preventing you from seeing what is plain as day, right in front of you. All the evidence is there... just give up that last hold out - whatever it is. Chances are that whatever it is doesn't even exist. Or if it does... it doesn't matter that it does.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

For example, in Ezekiel 1, you have 4 angels - living creatures - where each one...well, it is better if I quote the passage:

So, the angels have 4 faces but only 1 head, each face of 4 different animals (man, lion, eagle & ox faces); 4 wings; under each wings is a human hand, so 4 hands; there’s only 2 legs, but the feet are shaped like calf’s soles.

No scientists would make up such idiotic hybrid monsters, but some self-proclaimed prophet would. And there are more impossible monsters in Revelation.

You keep talking of impossible in sciences, it sounds like you don’t even read or understand your own scriptures, ElishaElijah.

Beyond their immediate and obvious denotations, the words have a connotative power that suggests an alternate meaning. I have heard/read plausible explanations that these 'creatures' were metaphorical descriptions of ancient astrological observances of the constellations, or possibly other celestial bodies such as super novae emphasized by examples of pareidolia. Astrology of course being the primitive foundations of our science of astronomy.

There are other claims that they were perhaps extraterrestrial vehicles (UAPs). Though, I find the hypothesis of them being descriptors of celestial movements more likely.

I suggest you leave the reading and translating of the Bible verbatim, to the zealots such as the Westboro Baptists. Unless you want to believe in monsters, at which point I cannot dictate your decisions and you're free to believe what you want regardless of the absurdity.

 

[tas8831]

I'd like, for once, to read a single, logical, evidence-based defense of creationism. All I ever see are attempts to discredit evolution -- as if that would support creationism.

Indeed - and nearly every one of those attempts can be readily dismissed as strawmen, etc. The mere handful that cannot, those that take some digging and reading, also end up being wrong.
And the punchline - we keep seeing the SAME baloney "arguments" year after year after year, often times from the same people.

 

[tas8831]

It is an artificially produced bottleneck EXACTLY as my theory predicts.

Provide to us, as is required in any real scientific endeavor, according to you, the experiments that support your 'theory.'

I do wonder if you ever learned what "survival of the fittest" means, for as of very recently, you were still employing that child-like manta based nonsense that people with no knowledge of the subject employ.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not difficult at this point to understand. What I have found is that there are artifacts such as fossils, and when examined scientists may say, "You see, this shows that dinosaurs lived a long time ago." And they may alsoi say, "OK, birds evolved from dinosaurs." Becaur

No, more. But things in the evolution world keep changing their concepts and precepts, based on new discoveries or ways of considering factors. So -- what the textbooks say can be old hat soon enough. And to think I had to have the right answers when I was in school, which I did, although I was not a "science" major, although I am not against research on a pracrtical level, but I had to take science courses and as I said, I was on the honor roll plus.

It remains that your rejection of the ;science of evolution' is not based on science, but a religious agenda based on ancient scripture without science. You have utterly failed to present any 'scientific evidence that would bring the 'science of evolution' remotely in question.

Yes you are totally unqualified to question the 'science of evolution, based on your very very limited academic qualification.

By the way what was your major and university you attended? Based on your statements you have no background in genetics, paleontology, organic chemistry nor geology worth mentioning other than very basic course all college students take. The qualifications you mentioned do not measure up.






i

 

[ElishaElijah]

Impossible scenario?

How about Genesis 2:7?



Creating man from “lifeless” dust, is impossible scenario.

Dust are lifeless waste product. Dust have no useful functions.

The smallest biological organism, is the cell.

Cells are themselves are made of different biological compounds and molecules, like proteins, nucleic acids (dna, RNA), carbohydrates, etc, none of these organic matters within the cells are dust. Cells are not dust.

Now “dust of the ground”, might means means soils of some types, there are 3 basic types of soil: silt, clay and sandy soil, and the mains compounds of each these soils, are minerals that have been weathered from from rocks, rock minerals like feldspars, micas and quartz, they are broken down further into soil minerals. None of these soil minerals are present in any cell of any organisms.

So, if the “dust of the ground” are one of these soil, there are no evidence, not even trace evidence that these dust are present in any cell. And these so-called dust don’t exist in the human body.

So the Genesis 2 about creating man from dust, is just a myth borrowed either from the Mesopotamian myths or Egyptian myths, which is nothing than impossible scenario. Genesis 2 is just crap, with no scientific reality.

Second. As I have said earlier, cells in every organisms, whether it be animals, plants, fungi or bacteria, these cells have various organic matters, that have different functions.

As I have stated earlier, three of these very essential organic compounds, are

• proteins (which are formed by chain of amino acids)
• nucleic acids ( eg RNA, DNA)
• carbohydrates.

But each of these biological compounds and molecules are basically chemical compounds and molecules, and they are all made of atoms, combined or arranged in such ways that make them, “biological”. The 4 most basic atoms that exist in the biological substances, are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

Abiogenesis isn’t just about WHEN or HOW life got started, but HOW did any of these biological compounds form. These compounds have to exist, before the earliest cells formed.

So Abiogenesis, is essentially try to recreate the compounds, using inorganic compounds get a chemical reaction. One of the earliest experiments were done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952.

They were able to do chemical reaction with less half-dozen inorganic compounds (water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen), where originally 9 amino acids formed. The experimented liquid substance were stored some vials. These vials were later examined with a total of 20 amino acids.

Other scientists have used different chemicals, that have produce some of these compounds.

There are nothing impossible in these experiments.

What is impossible in the belief that Adam was made from lifeless dust.



This is why no one take creationists seriously. Out of their utter ignorance, they have the desperate tendencies of making up impossible (and utterly absurd) scenarios that have nothing to do with Evolution.

Where did any biologists stated that dog can give birth to - “a fish, ape, fly or a bird”?

Only creationists make up some dishonest strawman.

Evolution only stated that species can breed subspecies only within the that species, from that genus and family.

No species can breed any organisms of complete different family, genus and species.

Your strawman example is example of your ignorance in biology, and in your lack of integrity on the subject.

If you want to talk of weird hybridization, look at religions, including in the Bible, like Ezekiel and Revelation.

For example, in Ezekiel 1, you have 4 angels - living creatures - where each one...well, it is better if I quote the passage:



So, the angels have 4 faces but only 1 head, each face of 4 different animals (man, lion, eagle & ox faces); 4 wings; under each wings is a human hand, so 4 hands; there’s only 2 legs, but the feet are shaped like calf’s soles.

No scientists would make up such idiotic hybrid monsters, but some self-proclaimed prophet would. And there are more impossible monsters in Revelation.

You keep talking of impossible in sciences, it sounds like you don’t even read or understand your own scriptures, ElishaElijah.

I said God is the only one who can create from nothing by speaking things to existence, He is the only one who can take and form man out of dust and breathe life as in Genesis.
A godless abiogenesis scenario is what I said was impossible.
You say my example is a strawman yet this is what you would have people believe, that we started out with some micro organism and by that we ended up with plants, animals, insects, humans etc. This is absurd and impossible as well because like begets like.

 

[tas8831]

I find it realy sad that you have this authorative attitude that you can continue to bash, mock, and belittle any person with a Creationist view!

I find it sadder that people boasting of their supposed Christian virtue spread lies and nonsense in a sad attempt to prop up their position, then whine when called on it.

I bet you that if any Christian would say the same to you, it will be 10 minutes and a warning will be issued to them.

What are you whining about now?

You sit with the cambrian explosion for instance, and can not explain how the heck any fully functional animal came into existance, with no intermediate fossil from a nothing to a trillobite.

Your write ignorant nonsense like that, and then whine about getting called out.
You keep claiming evolution is a religion - is that and your unintelligible rambling all you've got? You totally ignored this post. Or maybe this whining is related to your inability to support your silly claims in response to that:

I once read a book by one of those scientists you refer to. Marsh was his name. He tried to impugn the expertise of paleoanthropologists like you're doing here. He used broken pottery as an example - you come across some bits of broken pottery and they can go together to form all kinds of shapes, so how can one find a piece of a bone and reconstruct a whole creature from it!

1. Marsh was a botanist so had no business comment in on the issue.
2. Depending on the bone, how much of the bone, etc., a LOT of information can be gleaned providing you are not some layman whining about it because you can't understand it. I am by no means an expert on osteology, but I do have an anatomy background. I can look at a bone like this:

And I can glean the following:
- hominid primate (dental formula 2-1-2-3)
- not human - mandible come to a 'point' internally, human mandibles are more rounded
- probably an omnivore leaning toward herbivory (large, flattened and worn molars)
- apparent large size of muscular insertion on outer surface near molars indicative of large muscles - as this is a primate, a large masseter - implies herbivory

And this just from a cursory glance at one surface of one bone. Imagine if this was my area of expertise and was able to study the bone close up for an extended period? Add to that knowing the context (e.g., where it was found, its estimated date, etc.).

Point is - stop projecting YOUR ignorance onto people that have years or decades of training and experience.

​

Was that the part you objected to? The fact that because YOU can't understand things that you feel others cannot, either and for them to indicate otherwise is just a lie? Is that how highly your think of yourself? Because you definitely should not.

From my point of view, Evolutionists have to do everything in their power to somehov force their religion down everyones' throat, and they plug their ears to any alternative view.

The point of view of a whiny religionist?

Lets look at Brian Ford for instance.
Here we have an Evolutionist.
And an atheist.
One of your highly educated scientists.
He gives sound evidence and observed facts that it was not possible for Dinosaurs to be that tall, to have walked onl and.
He proves that they were aquatic, he proves that the Earth must have been a marshy environment with huge forrests and lakes to have supported theae dinosaurs.

Guess what?
All his evidence means nothing to the establishment!
Why, because he is proving a change in the religion of established theories which no ons should even attempt.

Never heard of him.

Evolutionists are so closeminded they resemble clay figurines unable to get anything into their ears to change their mind!

Ford spends a few chapters showing how the estanlishment of Evolutionist scientists belittle him wrongly.
The attetude of the elite priests of evolution is just horrendous!

Now, why do I use Ford to compare him in this regard?
To demonstrate that scientists are totally bias, and can not even change their views on how the world looked like during the age of dinosaurs, even if it comes from a scientist with the same religion.

Interesting - which creationist site did you read about this on?
Because I looked him up, and it seems that his position was accepted for spinosaurus, but for others there was not sufficient evidence.
Further, his "hypothesis" was presented as an essay on his personal site, and was not submitted to a scientific journal as far as I can tell.
Here is a rebuttal to his claims. It does not appear to have gone the way you (more likely, your creationist source,) describe it. I do hope you read it, for it appears that Ford has a personality very much like your typical professional creationist - declaring that those not accepting his assertions at face value are just part of an elite that rejects the truth to prop up the orthodoxy! When in real life, he had just pontificated on something he had not researched very well, and got called out on his errors and ignorance. And, like the typical creationist, decided to just whine about being oppressed and the like. No wonder whichever creationist you got this tall tale from liked Ford's pseudo-martydom.

Thanks for providing yet another reason to doubt the things you say are authentic and honest.

Nope, Evolutionists are bullies, they are incapable to change their opinions, even if all the evidence proves them wrong, they will still try to get some explanatio to sooth their minds.

You like to argue solely what your creationist handlers tell you to. You are wrong,

Nothing to do with science, all about your religion pal!

Ah, so religion is bad now?
Weird standards you have there - and an even worse "argument".

Oh, by the way...
Fords' theory actually fits in with the Biblical description that the Earth was much flatter, and the oceans much shallower than what we see today.

Ford had no theory. He had a 1 page essay that was largely debunked. Sounds like your creationist handlers lied to you again.

Was is that whiny kook David Coppedge, he of lost lawsuit fame?

Does this mean he is a creationist?
Nope!
It only means that again the scientist discovered another peak in a mountainrange, finding a creationist waiting there for him.

Ah, so there we have it,. Ford is a great theorist because he once wrote an essay that creationists like.

You just spew and rant incomprehensibly. I doubt if anyone took the time to try to educate you you'd whine about that, too.

But it is OK - your rant which totally avoided my challenge is just another datum point.

 

[tas8831]

When I look at Scripture that God the Creator is Eternal, He has life in Himself, that He spoke what we see and experience into existence, yet formed mankind from the dirt, breathed life into us, this all makes sense to me. Not only that but I know Him, when I pray He answers, He delivered me and keeps His promises.
On the other hand there are those in the abiogenesis camp who say there were materials that obviously made themselves and from those materials a chemical reaction or some kind of reaction took place and out of these dead lifeless things life happened and then we had evolution from this to get this complex life we have now. This view makes no sense to me at all. This scenario is impossible.
The Scripture says this: It’s about the resurrection, something important about the flesh of animals and humans is mentioned, why is the flesh of animals, reptiles, human beings different? This is not from the work of evolution but The Creator.
“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?” You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow — you are not sowing the body that will be, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat or another grain. But God gives it a body as he wants, and to each of the seeds its own body. Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; in fact, one star differs from another star in splendor. So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:35-44‬ ‭CSB‬‬

Hosea 13:16

 

[tas8831]

That was not what you argued, nor what I was correcting you over.

I didn't argue anything, I just replied to your post.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said God is the only one who can create from nothing by speaking things to existence, He is the only one who can take and form man out of dust and breathe life as in Genesis.

This is a Biblical claim and there is absolutely no evidence that the philosophical 'absolute nothing' ever existed.

A godless abiogenesis scenario is what I said was impossible.

What academic background do you have to make this claim other than an ancient religious agenda based on ancient scripture that describes many things that are physically impossible.

There is a lot of objective verifiable evidence that the physical abiogenesis is not only possible, but the most likely scenario.

You say my example is a strawman yet this is what you would have people believe, that we started out with some micro organism and by that we ended up with plants, animals, insects, humans etc. This is absurd and impossible as well because like begets like.

The absurd 'like only begets like' remains an ancient Biblical claim not based on science. The present objective vrifiable evidence based on paleontological and genetic evidence has determined this as absurdly false.

 

[gnostic]

I said God is the only one who can create from nothing by speaking things to existence, He is the only one who can take and form man out of dust and breathe life as in Genesis.

Which is a matter of faith-based belief, not natural physical reality, and certainly not something that can be explained scientifically.

People who wrote Genesis...certainly not by Moses, false attribution of him being the “author”; there are no biblical texts in the Late Bronze Age, where Hebrew alphabet don’t even exist...people wrote this creation stories, have no understanding of nature, and certainly not biology.

The unknown authorship of Genesis clearly have no understanding of life and human biology, so they recreated creation myth that have Babylonian sources (earlier than Babylonian, were the Sumerian sources). The God did it, is nothing more primitive and ignorant superstitions.

Turning dust into living (adult) human being can only happen with magic, which also don’t exist.

To date, there have never been any evidence to support anything supernatural, whether it of divine source or magical source.

Do you seriously believe that words can just make things physical “happen”?

Do you think the Judaeo-Christian religions are the only one who believe that their god?

Genesis creation isn’t original. Both Egyptian and Mesopotamian (eg Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian) have all created old myths for their respective religions much older than 6th century BCE Genesis, about creating humans from the earth, bringing them to life with their powers too.

Also the Egyptian myth of Ptah, created the world and life with words, as well as other myths of other gods, eg Ra, Thoth, Isis, Horus, etc. To the Egyptians, there are powers in the words as well as in the true names of the gods. The Egyptians believed that the gods were powerful magicians, using incantations, to create.

Even the story of Lazarus or Jesus being brought back to life, isn’t original, because in the of Isis, the infant Horus, her son was stung by a scorpion, and he died. Isis’ lament, brought Thoth to her, who used the powers of his words, and then Horus’ life was restored.

If you don’t believe in Mesopotamian or Egyptian stories, and the powers of their respective deities, then why should anyone believe in god of Genesis or the gospels?

You cannot say Ra, Enki, Zeus, Brahma, Odin, etc, are not true, but the biblical God is true.

There are no more evidence of god of the Bible being true, than that of the Christian god.

A godless abiogenesis scenario is what I said was impossible.
You say my example is a strawman yet this is what you would have people believe, that we started out with some micro organism and by that we ended up with plants, animals, insects, humans etc. This is absurd and impossible as well because like begets like.

You are now confusing Abiogenesis and Evolution, as if they are one and the same...they are not.

And your example with the dog, is a strawman, because no biologists ever claim your absurd scenario being possible.

Do you even know what strawman argument even mean?

You are making up things no one has said or claim. You are putting words in biologists’ mouths. The strawman argument is a dishonest tactics.

Dog breeding fishes, insects, plants, are only creationist propaganda. you are making up false assertions that don’t exist in biology.

Have you forgotten Exodus 20? Do not bear false witness, means do not make up lies? because that’s what you are doing with your dog/puppies example.

 

[gnostic]

Beyond their immediate and obvious denotations, the words have a connotative power that suggests an alternate meaning. I have heard/read plausible explanations that these 'creatures' were metaphorical descriptions of ancient astrological observances of the constellations, or possibly other celestial bodies such as super novae emphasized by examples of pareidolia. Astrology of course being the primitive foundations of our science of astronomy.

I am not denying that Ezekiel 1 is merely a symbolic description, but the very nature of symbol, allegory, metaphors and “supposed” revelation, they are open to interpretation, and can have multiple meanings.

Such descriptions about the living creatures or angels, involved numerology, where most of descriptors come in “four”: eg 4 angels, 4 faces, 4 wings, 4 hands.

Numerology are craps, whether it be found religious scriptures or in some supernatural psychic phenomena or occultism.

And what I quoted above from you (regarding to your claim of astronomical meaning), isn’t really an explanation, but an interpretation, and in this case - your interpretation.

And such interpretations, like your own, is highly speculative, with no real explanations, and definitely no facts.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I am not denying that Ezekiel 1 is merely a symbolic description, but the very nature of symbol, allegory, metaphors and “supposed” revelation, they are open to interpretation, and can have multiple meanings.

Such descriptions about the living creatures or angels, involved numerology, where most of descriptors come in “four”: eg 4 angels, 4 faces, 4 wings, 4 hands.

Numerology are craps, whether it be found religious scriptures or in some supernatural psychic phenomena or occultism.

And what I quoted above from you (regarding to your claim of astronomical meaning), isn’t really an explanation, but an interpretation, and in this case - your interpretation.

And such interpretations, like your own, is highly speculative, with no real explanations, and definitely no facts.

No, it is not my idea. Thank you for trying to afford me the credit, but I cannot honestly accept it, as the idea is far from a new one.

Our ancestors from several locale around the world actually had a pretty decent grasp on astronomical movements of the sky, especially if you consider they only had their naked eyes for tools to observe it.

Regarding your claim that "No scientists would make up such idiotic hybrid monsters". I would like to refer you to the folly within the field of evolution known as the Piltdown Man Hoax, which is not an isolated case. Some members of academia will do anything to make a name or fame for themselves. There are unsavory types within all walks of life, unfortunately.

I would agree that no self-respecting scientist would make up such malarkey.

 

[F1fan]

Beyond their immediate and obvious denotations, the words have a connotative power that suggests an alternate meaning. I have heard/read plausible explanations that these 'creatures' were metaphorical descriptions of ancient astrological observances of the constellations, or possibly other celestial bodies such as super novae emphasized by examples of pareidolia. Astrology of course being the primitive foundations of our science of astronomy.

There are other claims that they were perhaps extraterrestrial vehicles (UAPs). Though, I find the hypothesis of them being descriptors of celestial movements more likely.

I suggest you leave the reading and translating of the Bible verbatim, to the zealots such as the Westboro Baptists. Unless you want to believe in monsters, at which point I cannot dictate your decisions and you're free to believe what you want regardless of the absurdity.

You illustrate part of the problem for creationists, in that they do tend to interpret the Bible literally, and that means any of it is open to being read at face value and criticized at face value. The science literate and atheists (two different groups, but highly overlapped) tend to be responding to the claims of creationists and theists in these discussions about evolution and science in general. The science literate are typically just correcting errors, and these errors are driven by bad religious belief.

 

[F1fan]

I said God is the only one who can create from nothing by speaking things to existence, He is the only one who can take and form man out of dust and breathe life as in Genesis.

And you say this without any God known to exist, nor any mechanism known to exist that a God could use to do this. So you aren't citing any facts, only interpreting an ancient story literally. And you are interpreting this story literally because you adopted a religious tradition from your social/cultural experience.

You completely ignore that life can arise from natural processes.

A godless abiogenesis scenario is what I said was impossible.

And you are incorrect, as was explained to you in detail.

You say my example is a strawman yet this is what you would have people believe, that we started out with some micro organism and by that we ended up with plants, animals, insects, humans etc. This is absurd and impossible as well because like begets like.

You are being misinformed by religion, as has been explained to you in detail. I kn ow you don't like it, but everyone can see how creationism is a false set of claims that are themselves implausible and fact-less.

 

[ElishaElijah]

To date, there have never been any evidence to support anything supernatural, whether it of divine source or magical source.

This is not true either, people are delivered daily as I was from addiction, demon oppression, healing, Jesus was raised from the dead He is not in any grave but in Heaven ( this takes faith for me but not for those who saw Him after He rose). I have the testimony that when I called to Him He answered and set me free, this doesn’t take faith because He did this and I witnessed it, was given the Holy Spirit. Every day these things are happening in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[F1fan]

Regarding your claim that "No scientists would make up such idiotic hybrid monsters". I would like to refer you to the folly within the field of evolution known as the Piltdown Man Hoax, which is not an isolated case. Some members of academia will do anything to make a name or fame for themselves. There are unsavory types within all walks of life, unfortunately.

I would agree that no self-respecting scientist would make up such malarkey.

No scientists did.

I guess you aren't aware that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, and not by experts in biology. It was a hoax by a lay person, I think it was the land owner. It was the experts who kept trying to comprehend how the bones fit in with the known patterns of fossil remains that led to them revealing it was a hoax by one guy. So your accusation is false. Did you assume that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax by academics on your own, or did you read that disinformation somewhere?

 

[ElishaElijah]

And you are incorrect, as was explained to you in detail.

Your explanation is lacking and insufficient, without God how can anything exist to begin with, how did anything get here? It didn’t make itself did it? Saying it was already here, really how if there is no God? How would the beginning of life sustain itself? What happened to the amino acids since the Miller experiment, have they progressed into some organism and living right now?

 

[F1fan]

This is not true either, people are delivered daily as I was from addiction, demon oppression, healing, Jesus was raised from the dead He is not in any grave but in Heaven ( this takes faith for me but not for those who saw Him after He rose). I have the testimony that when I called to Him He answered and set me free, this doesn’t take faith because He did this and I witnessed it, was given the Holy Spirit. Every day these things are happening in the name of Jesus Christ.

None of this has any basis in fact or reality.

Feel free to demonstrate I am wrong by proving facts and a coherent explanation. Thus far you just repeat religious claims, so we throw them out.