Science Proves Nature Was Created

[Etritonakin]

What is the reason of termination by "throwing into the lake of fire"? Why not just keep the dead, simply ... dead?

Does God feel the need to formally execute souls, spirits, or,... whatever?

Ciao

- viole

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.............

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Job_23:10 But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[God lover]

LOL The random mutations are not natural selection, the natural selection is the increase in survivability some of those variations result in. That is the feedback - that the most well adapted are more likely to survive.

Are you honestly not aware of how all farm animals vegetable and grain species came to be? Seriously? You are claiming not to understand how selection works? So the farmer chooses the brussel sprout plant that is the best and breeds from it? You really don't understand this? I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

By the way, a few thousand years of selective breeding has turned the original brassica into a variety of species from cabbage to brocolli, mustard and cauliflower - all from the original wild species by selection alone.

You really never thought how all those different varieties of dogs came to be? You did not realise that humans selected for certain traits and then bred for them?

How can we even discuss evolution if you don't know what selection is? How can you live in 2015 and not know how we bred all those different dogs, flowers, vegies, chickens etc?

LOL The random mutations are not natural selection, the natural selection is the increase in survivability some of those variations result in. That is the feedback - that the most well adapted are more likely to survive.

Are you honestly not aware of how all farm animals vegetable and grain species came to be? Seriously? You are claiming not to understand how selection works? So the farmer chooses the brussel sprout plant that is the best and breeds from it? You really don't understand this? I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

By the way, a few thousand years of selective breeding has turned the original brassica into a variety of species from cabbage to brocolli, mustard and cauliflower - all from the original wild species by selection alone.

You really never thought how all those different varieties of dogs came to be? You did not realise that humans selected for certain traits and then bred for them?

How can we even discuss evolution if you don't know what selection is? How can you live in 2015 and not know how we bred all those different dogs, flowers, vegies, chickens etc?

Ahh. I think I am starting to see where we mis-understood each other. I have understood natural selection since science class in the 90's. I am Canadian, but we are not living in igloos. Lol. I don't remember ever hearing the term feedback, I got thrown off by that. I thought you meant the things we do in life feedback to the dna we share in reproduction. .. Therefor evolution isn't based on random mutations.... but our actions create new dna. (But that's not what feedback is at all... right? )


Since we are having this conversation can I ask for some evolution clarification?

Here's where I left evolution in 2001 (ish):
1) natural selection is the process of species adapting to the environment based on the variety of dna traits that already exist within a species. (Such as moths with dna for white or black wings... both varieties of dna code already exist...but as the environment during the industrial revolution turned the trees black with soot.... the white wing moths dwindle and the black Wing moths thrived. ... but no evolution took place.) Same with dogs and cabbage?? Is this still the leading scientific view?

2) evolution is slightly different. When to members of a species mate, there offspring may have a mutation in its dna. ( an extra string of dna added by mistake or deleted by mistake) if this mutation happens to be advantages to survival, then eventually the mutated species will succeed the territory. This happened so many times that it is the reason for every species/phylum /order/class that we have on earth.

3) but before reproduction was ever a part of life forming without a creator, there was a process we call Biogenenesis, which has some other kind of phenomenon causing less complex things to assimilate into more complex things that are needed to go from non living things to living things.atoms to Molecules to amino acids to proteins to rna to a primitive cell. I probably skipped hundreds of steps, but I don't know that much about science.

Does this make sense with the latest views of evolution theory? This is my best understanding so far.

 

[Bunyip]

Ahh. I think I am starting to see where we mis-understood each other. I have understood natural selection since science class in the 90's.

So if you understand natural selection, why were you asking questions that made it appear that you don't?

I am Canadian, but we are not living in igloos. Lol. I don't remember ever hearing the term feedback, I got thrown off by that. I thought you meant the things we do in life feedback to the dna we share in reproduction. .. Therefor evolution isn't based on random mutations.... but our actions create new dna. (But that's not what feedback is at all... right? )


Since we are having this conversation can I ask for some evolution clarification?

Here's where I left evolution in 2001 (ish):
1) natural selection is the process of species adapting to the environment based on the variety of dna traits that already exist within a species. (Such as moths with dna for white or black wings... both varieties of dna code already exist...but as the environment during the industrial revolution turned the trees black with soot.... the white wing moths dwindle and the black Wing moths thrived. ... but no evolution took place.)

What? That is evolution. Changes to the environment favoured darker moths.

Same with dogs and cabbage?? Is this still the leading scientific view?

What do you mean? There are four species of dog and dozens of species of cabbage. So no, that is not the scientific view at all.

2) evolution is slightly different. When to members of a species mate, there offspring may have a mutation in its dna. ( an extra string of dna added by mistake or deleted by mistake) if this mutation happens to be advantages to survival, then eventually the mutated species will succeed the territory. This happened so many times that it is the reason for every species/phylum /order/class that we have on earth.

Again, no - that reflects a very, very poor under standing of evolution indeed.

3) but before reproduction was ever a part of life forming without a creator, there was a process we call Biogenenesis, which has some other kind of phenomenon causing less complex things to assimilate into more complex things that are needed to go from non living things to living things.atoms to Molecules to amino acids to proteins to rna to a primitive cell. I probably skipped hundreds of steps, but I don't know that much about science.

I think you mean abiogenesis - and that is a different topic to evolution. Could we discuss that separately rather than confuse two distinct fields?

Does this make sense with the latest views of evolution theory? This is my best understanding so far.

No, that is a particular strawman of evolution first popularised a couple of decades ago by the Discovery Institute, whose attempt to undermine evolutionary biology, the 'Wedge Strategy' collapsed after being leaked to the press and being demonstrated to be fraudulent in the Kitzmiller Dover trial. Which is why I am surprised you would use it.

 

[God lover]

So if you understand natural selection, why were you asking questions that made it appear that you don't? What? That is evolution. Changes to the environment favoured darker moths. What do you mean? There are four species of dog and dozens of species of cabbage. So no, that is not the scientific view at all. Again, no - that reflects a very, very poor under standing of evolution indeed. I think you mean abiogenesis - and that is a different topic to evolution. Could we discuss that separately rather than confuse two distinct fields?No, that is a particular strawman of evolution first popularised a couple of decades ago by the Discovery Institute, whose attempt to undermine evolutionary biology, the 'Wedge Strategy' collapsed after being leaked to the press and being demonstrated to be fraudulent in the Kitzmiller Dover trial. Which is why I am surprised you would use it.

I'm not trying to use a strategy to undermine evolution. But I must have heard that from those guys and thought it was true.

So natural selection is evolution?

 

[God lover]

So if you understand natural selection, why were you asking questions that made it appear that you don't? What? That is evolution. Changes to the environment favoured darker moths. What do you mean? There are four species of dog and dozens of species of cabbage. So no, that is not the scientific view at all. Again, no - that reflects a very, very poor under standing of evolution indeed. I think you mean abiogenesis - and that is a different topic to evolution. Could we discuss that separately rather than confuse two distinct fields?No, that is a particular strawman of evolution first popularised a couple of decades ago by the Discovery Institute, whose attempt to undermine evolutionary biology, the 'Wedge Strategy' collapsed after being leaked to the press and being demonstrated to be fraudulent in the Kitzmiller Dover trial. Which is why I am surprised you would use it.

Never mind.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not trying to use a strategy to undermine evolution. But I must have heard that from those guys and thought it was true.

So natural selection is evolution?

Just curious, but why did your school in Canada teach you the Discovery Institutes interpretation rather than the scientific view of evolution? Was it an evangelic Christian school?

The best way for you to learn about what evolution really is would be to get a couple of books on biology from your local library, or look at many of the online sites (The Smithsonian has a great one).

So you know what creationists say about evolution, but you need to look into what biologists say - then at least you know what you need to challenge.

 

[God lover]

Just curious, but why did your school in Canada teach you the Discovery Institutes interpretation rather than the scientific view of evolution? Was it an evangelic Christian school?

Haha. No. You keep making assumptions about me. I went to public school all the way. I read some books on my own and that must have been where I heard the other versions

 

[Bunyip]

Haha. No. You keep making assumptions about me. I went to public school all the way. I read some books on my own and that must have been where I heard the other versions

Hah yourself mate, that was not the interpretation of evolution taught in public school in Canada. You are describing the US Christian evangelic interpretation of evolution, not the one taught in public school.

If you still have your school books, you can look them up and prove this for yourself.

 

[God lover]

Hah yourself mate, that was not the interpretation of evolution taught in public school in Canada. You are describing the US Christian evangelic interpretation of evolution, not the one taught in public school.

If you still have your school books, you can look them up and prove this for yourself.

Well, what's your version? How do new dna coding come to be?

 

[Bunyip]

Well, what's your version? How do new dna coding come to be?

Well every time a cell divides due to replication errors for one example. When dna is struck by a particle and damaged, as in radiation, whenever a organism reproduces etc.
There are 150,000 such variations in the average human, the probability that several express in a way that has an impact on survivability is very high.

Did you notice that you went from apparently not understanding the most basic concepts, to wanting to discuss genetics?
Is this leading to, the next page of the creationist playsheet - where you start talking about 'no new code', information theory and the idea that complex stuff can't make itself?

Or maybe switch to Kent Hovind and the 'no dog gave birth to a none dog' thingy?
Or Comforts crocoducks?

Pretty sure they didn't come from public school in Canada.

 

[God lover]

Well every time a cell divides due to replication errors for one example. When dna is struck by a particle and damaged, as in radiation, whenever a organism reproduces etc.
There are 150,000 such variations in the average human, the probability that several express in a way that has an impact on survivability is very high.

Did you notice that you went from apparently not understanding the most basic concepts, to wanting to discuss genetics?
Is this leading to, the next page of the creationist playsheet - where you start talking about 'no new code', information theory and the idea that complex stuff can't make itself?

I'm not reading from a play sheet. I have listened to podcasts about evolution. I have serious doubts about the strength of it as a theory. I am not trying to beat you. I sincerely want to understand the theory. I don't beleive it is necessarily true that life happened in tiny, tiny, steps, but I am open to the idea that it did. I beleive in God and Jesus Christ, but I would never say the things scientist see don't exist. Okay, that's were I am coming from.

I don't know that much about science and I want people to explain it to me so I can understand. It makes me super curious.

Thanks for explaining where extra code comes from. Mis-prints in cell division- mis-joining in reproduction and exterior forces smashing dna. Is that it?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not reading from a play sheet. I have listened to podcasts about evolution.

Sure, but only from one side clearly. You need to familiarise yourself with the scientific view.

I have serious doubts about the strength of it as a theory. I am not trying to beat you. I sincerely want to understand the theory. I don't beleive it is necessarily true that life happened in tiny, tiny, steps, but I am open to the idea that it did. I beleive in God and Jesus Christ, but I would never say the things scientist see don't exist. Okay, that's were I am coming from.

I don't know that much about science and I want people to explain it to me so I can understand. It makes me super curious.

Thanks for explaining where extra code comes from. Mis-prints in cell replication- mis-joining in reproduction and exterior forces smashing dna. Is that it?

No, there is natural variation, genetic drift, adaptation, selection, inter-breeding, hybidisation, speciation and so on.

As I suggested, look up a couple of biology books.

By the way, the best evidence to demonstrate that life changes, diversifies and adapts in tiny, tiny steps is the simple truth that people have observed this happening. The first scientific observation of a species level transition occurred more than a century ago. And the theory of evolution is drawn from such observations.

 

[God lover]

Sure, but only from one side clearly. You need to familiarise yourself with the scientific view. No, there is natural variation, genetic drift, adaptation, selection, inter-breeding, hybidisation, speciation and so on.

As I suggested, look up a couple of biology books.

Okay. I'll look up those terms. Thanks Bunyip!

 

[Bunyip]

Okay. I'll look up those terms. Thanks Bunyip!

You're welcome.
Talkorigins has a great site answering to the usual creationist objections to biological science, well worth a look.

 

[Bunyip]

Okay. I'll look up those terms. Thanks Bunyip!

Just thought that you may want to look up the 'Wedge Strategy', it will pretty much explain everything.

 

[Thief]

That's fine if you want to go through life groping for some god to give you a better life and to stand over you, for me I am free, I am one with all there IS.

good for you.....
So too 7billion+ souls that will leave this earth within my life time.

I am willing to assume for myself life after death.
I do likewise for all others.
BUT!.....that means we stand into chaos.

7billion freshly formed spirits and no ONE in charge?

We have hierarchy now.
I suggest we pray for Greater Grace in charge.....as we surrender the last breath.

 

[Thief]

According to science....energy cannot be destroyed.

this thread, as well as every thing else I have come into contact.....leans to substance.

We seem prone to examination of whatever we can see, hear or feel.
If we cannot get what expect, we reject what is before us.

so how then to approach the discussion we should be dealing with in this thread?

I say, Spirit first.
been saying it for all these years I've been here. (and long before)

Prior to the creation, science cannot go.
There will be no photo, fingerprint, equation or scientific experiment.
all you can do is think about it.

Shall we then say?....energy has ALWAYS existed.
without a form of substance, all the laws of this reality do not apply.

laws of energy without form?
anyone up for this?

 

[viole]

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.
Angels have been displayed with sword in hand for centuries.

Do swords cut spirits?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I see your concern. This is a very thoughtful concern and you are a loving person.

The context is that the dead aren't actually dead. The bodies are dead. The conscious beings remain. The biblical view is that we are spiritual beings in a body. Our conscious self is strangely linked to our body but our body in this Universe is not the extent of who we are.

Therefor the bible tells us not to fear the first death. Like a catepiller should not fear the cacoon. But if an individual being wants/chooses to rage against God and refuses to partake in heaven by God's way. God will "sadly, with no joy" un-make that being. Can't have more devil's running around, it wouldn't be a great eternity. God has his boundaries, as any healthy being should.

Lake of fire sounds harsh. It is a visual representing of a spiritual reality. If you read or watched, " the lord of the rings" . In the end the ring (temptation and sin) was thrown into the lava at Mount doom. It was the only place that could un-make the ring. Frodo couldn't even do it himself... gollum grabbed it and was taken into the fire as well.

Sorry if you don't know the story... read the books!! They are much better but the movies are well done... JRR Tolkien, was the author and a devote Christian.

Short answer. Second death is to ensure a healthy eternity with everyone on the same page. God's hope is that no one refuses this option.

Make sense.. God is loving and has justice in store. We must hold the two aspects of God in tension to see the whole person of God.

My opinion as a Christian from what I know of the bible thus far.

Love and peace to you sister

He hopes? If He still hopes that everyone will make it, that would entail that nobody has passed judgement yet, and they will have a second opportunity when they appear at the pearly gates. I am sure that if He judges only by what people did on earth, He would have lost that hope a long time ago.

So, when is the last call? While I am still alive on earth, or after the first death?

Incidentally, if only the lake of fire can undo things, that would mean that God, without the lake, could not. Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Do swords cut spirits?

Ciao

- viole

Ah!

Swords sever the living from the dead.
Do you suggest that spirit, cannot be harmed?