YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Like you can't see no one ever said the 7th day of creation is infinite?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia
That's a family tree, automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes.
"automatic", meaning "not by human hand".
Just a simple piece of software that plots out genetic matches.
It didn't have to generate a nested hierarchy / family tree. But it did. Because that's how our collective DNA is structured.
Exactly the pattern that is predicted by a process like evolution where all life shares ancestry.
It's the only possible pattern it ends up in.
Common ancestry of life is thus just as demonstrated as a DNA test that demonstrates 2 siblings share the same daddy.
Baseless, willfully ignorant and fallacious denial in 3....2....
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Or that is just from a common Intelligent Creator.Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's a family tree, automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes.
"automatic", meaning "not by human hand".
Just a simple piece of software that plots out genetic matches.
It didn't have to generate a nested hierarchy / family tree. But it did. Because that's how our collective DNA is structured.
Exactly the pattern that is predicted by a process like evolution where all life shares ancestry.
It's the only possible pattern it ends up in.
Common ancestry of life is thus just as demonstrated as a DNA test that demonstrates 2 siblings share the same daddy.
Baseless, willfully ignorant and fallacious denial in 3....2....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is evidence against an Intelligent Creator. Too bad that you do not understand evolution or biology. If you did you could claim that it was evidence for a common Incompetent Creator. Did you want to do that?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Sorry. The Creator, God Almighty, would have used common design elements like all intelligent designers do. So similarity between species just proves common creation. And how DNA works and is passed down within species, that is absolute proof of God Almighty the Creator.
Remember that abiogenesis Is impossible as I have shown. So evolution and billions of years is already been falsified.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why would one do that? How stupid do you think that this god is?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Only if that creator made a point out of deceiving everyone that it was the result of evolution.
Like, really go out of its way to make it look as if all species share ancestry.
As a creator, you'ld have to literally go out of your way to make your productline organize in such a pattern - and it would inevitably involve design decisions that are objectively bad decisions from an engineering / design standpoint just to make it end up in such a pattern.
So it would have to be on purpose.
This is why people like @Subduction Zone tell you that you are calling your god a liar. Because such a designer would be going out of its way to deceive us on purpose.
It is clear that you haven't thought any of this through and that you lack serious understanding of both the process of evolution as well as the evidence for it.
That is very evident when you say stuff like the above. You clearly have no idea about the implications of such a statement.
And it's extra sad to realize that you'll be going out of your way to remain in that state of ignorance also.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The nested hierarchy that life is organized goes much much further then mere "common design elements".
An opel corsa and an opel zafira "share common design elements" but they do NOT fall in a nested hierarchy.
First of all, it doesn't. Second of all, the pattern in which those similarities (exact matches, actually) are organized, pretty much rule out "common creation". On the other hand, they fit the predictions of evolution theory like a glove.
So much so that this type of evidence is more then enough to factually determine biological bloodties like in paternity tests.
When DNA tests determine that two siblings share the same father, it is considered factual. That's how good genetic evidence is in determining ancestry.
That makes no sense at all.
Disproving abiogenesis has no impact at all on evolution theory, as has been explained to you a bazillion times already.
But there's that willful ignorance again off course.....................
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Sorry. The Creator, God Almighty, would have used common design elements like all intelligent designers do. So similarity between species just proves common creation. And how DNA works and is passed down within species, that is absolute proof of God Almighty the Creator.
Remember that abiogenesis Is impossible as I have shown. So evolution and billions of years is already been falsified.
without abiogenesis there is no possibility of evolution.
That is why they run and hide,
No first living creature no evolution.
And there is supposed nested hierarchy of life is just an illusion.
No matter what traits, functions and DNA commonality there is, it can only be explained by the Intelligent Creator, God Almighty.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
How many times are you going to double down on this strawman?
I have just explained to you that it's not the "commen elements" that are interesting here. It's the pattern of their distribution.
If species share a common ancestor, only one specific pattern could exist.
And it is the exact pattern we find when comparing genomes.
Do you comprehend the difference between "the pattern of similarities" and just "similarities"?
The first is the one that matters in the question of common ancestry. It needs to be a specific pattern. Do you understand why?
False and explained ad nauseum why it is false.
Interesting. So you are saying that the "first creature" could only come about through abiogenesis?
Irony.
How is that an illusion?
Pick a genetic marker, any marker. Map out the matches between genomes. See what pattern it gives you.
Pick another genetic marker, any marker. Map out the matches between genomes. Lo and behold, it gives you the same pattern.
Nothing here is "illusion". It factually is the case.
As factual that you share more DNA markers with your siblings then with your random neighbour.
Because the closer related, the more markers you share.
Take ERV's, a very useful marker as it is one of those things that is past on to off spring.
You share many ERV's with chimps.
A little less with gorilla's.
Less still with lions.
Less still with aligators.
Etc
This works for functioning DNA, for broken genes, ...
There is absolutely no reason other then sharing ancestry for why genomes should be structured in such a manner and in such a pattern.
Moreover, if life shares biological ancestry, then DNA should be structured that way.
Insofar as to say that if it was NOT, then common ancestry would be DISPROVEN.
Conversly, if species each had a seperate creation event (intentional or otherwise), then such a pattern is the very last thing we would expect.
There would be absolutely NO REASON to do this. In fact, from a designer stand point you would have to go out of your way and do this on purpose... even to the detriment of your products, since this will also force you to take design decisions that are just plain STUPID, but which are nevertheless required to fit the pattern of nested hierarchy. STUPID decisions, like requiring broken parts (like the GULO gene) in several species simply for the sake of maintaining nested hierarchical integrity.
So, if your claim is that this was designed like this, then I can only conclude that your creator went out of his way into fooling us that he didn't.
It's enormously deceptive. It's literally planting false evidence.
As I have just explained to you above: this is both false and idiotic.
Common ancestry explaines nested hierarchies. It's literally what family trees are.
Furthermore, it actually can't be explained from a creator's perspective UNLESS we assume this creator planted false evidence on purpose.
I hope that this last question was rhetorical, given the mess made by God apparently as to creating so many different and conflicting religious beliefs, with such being more about incompetence than supreme anything - but tends to imply we made all these, given we are much more likely to be incompetent than any invented and perfect God.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
God makes free will creatures. After all He is not a tyrant.
He just allows slave keeping, allows giving a good thrashing to slaves as long as they don't die for a day or so, allows rape of the enemies women as long as they're virgins, murders 99.99999999% of all living things because some of the angels he created went rogue, talks his believers into sacrificing their children then as they're about to do it says only kidding etc etc.... what a great guy!!!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well if God destroyed anyone who committed evil there would be no one alive.
So new born infants have committed evil. Interesting outlook you have on life. Makes me glad to be a non-believer, thank you.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No they have not sinned.
If they were to die before they did sin, they go to heaven forever .
And there is nothing better than that.
Interesting though that evolutionists are mostly for abortion which has killed over 2 billion innocent children worldwide since Roe v Wade in 1973. In fact it has been used to establish that they are not children in the womb.
Marx was into evolution as was Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Communism and evolution go together. That is another over 1 billion murdered and billions of more lives destroyed.
So the total is over 3 billion murdered and billions of more lives destroyed.
Make up your mind. You said no one would be alive if your God killed all sinners. Were you not being factual?
Assumption with zero evidence to back it up
And what's your evidence of this claim?
A U.S. court has no worldwide authority. This section of your posts shows perfectly how you misuse and twist facts to try and force them into your world view. I didn't think it was possible to trust your posts less but you've proved me wrong.
No idea of your point.
I'd say incomplete not dead because some points of the theory have logical merit . What is do is take all the words involved and place them inside an empty box in no specific order . Then I pull the word from the box I require to make specific arrangement of words called a sentence .
I then take a second box that only contains one word , that word is semantics .
I then apply every possible semantics I can think off for a word to define the truth in sentence form.
Does this help with your problem of thoughts ?
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. The world does not dance to your laws. American.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
But all will be judged by the God of the Bible when they die.Nonsense. The world does not dance to your laws. American.