The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: Phantom423
As someone said, teaching this stuff is tantamount to child abuse. And I agree.

Teaching someone they are the child of God and should behave according to a benevolent moral standard is child abuse? You are delusional.


Teaching someone survival of the fittest and that they are the children of mutant apes is the degradation of society. Like seriously, what is your goal? To have everyone believing great grand-daddy mutant pond scum is their progenitor? It is such a dead-end philosophy it makes me sick.

a reply to: edmc^2

Your question/s have been answered so many times, it's pure dishonesty to say they haven't (even if you you don't agree with the facts)... you just seem incapable of accepting/understanding the answers, because of the creationist fog you live in.

Here, I'll answer AGAIN.

What Dr Venter and his team did (in very simplified layman's terms) was take an existing cell, "scrub" all DNA from it (so, an inert organic mass with no DNA... would you consider that alive?... I wouldn't), so it was just the cell "machinery" left, then they inserted a new DNA code into the "machinery" at which point, the "machinery" started working with the new code, taking new instructions, and functioning in new ways.

What this shows is that DNA is literally the "software" to biological "hardware". This also shows the DNA, and it's machinery can work independently of each other! Funnily enough, in the process disproving irreducible complexity in this instance (creationists always claimed this as an example of irreducible complexity... that the dna and cell machinery were inseparable).

In essence, they have created a new life-form that didn't exist before, this was not a genesis event, as both machinery and dna were pre-existing but separate, and are now looking to patent this life-form, or at least get some type of intellectual property recognition for it, like an artist signs their work.

This further supports evolution in the sense that it shows how a potential mutation in either the dna or the cell machinery doesn't stop the cell from functioning entirely, and rather can express new functions in related systems based on discreet changes.

So, let me repeat, just to be sure you get it... this was not a genesis event, the only honest answer to your very loosely defined "Can life come from non-life (abiogenesis)? question is still a big fat unknown!. You claiming "creation" in the face of this unknown is the height of dishonesty.

Creationist dishonesty at its finest!

Anyway, your question clearly and concisely answered.

As for your next thread, presenting more evolutionary research I see! When will you ever post anything in support of creation?

Oh... that's right You have nothing to support your fantasies, all you can do is nit-pick at evolution... lol

PS. Your claiming "case closed" on creation is like G.W. Bush claiming "job done" in Iraq. Completely delusional!... but pure comedy.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Your question/s have been answered so many times, it's pure dishonesty to say they haven't (even if you you don't agree with the facts)... you just seem incapable of accepting/understanding the answers, because of the creationist fog you live in.

Here, I'll answer AGAIN.

What Dr Venter and his team did (in very simplified layman's terms) was take an existing cell, "scrub" all DNA from it (so, an inert organic mass with no DNA... would you consider that alive?... I wouldn't), so it was just the cell "machinery" left, then they inserted a new DNA code into the "machinery" at which point, the "machinery" started working with the new code, taking new instructions, and functioning in new ways.

What this shows is that DNA is literally the "software" to biological "hardware". This also shows the DNA, and it's machinery can work independently of each other! Funnily enough, in the process disproving irreducible complexity in this instance (creationists always claimed this as an example of irreducible complexity... that the dna and cell machinery were inseparable).

In essence, they have created a new life-form that didn't exist before, this was not a genesis event, as both machinery and dna were pre-existing but separate, and are now looking to patent this life-form, or at least get some type of intellectual property recognition for it, like an artist signs their work.

This further supports evolution in the sense that it shows how a potential mutation in either the dna or the cell machinery doesn't stop the cell from functioning entirely, and rather can express new functions in related systems based on discreet changes.

So, let me repeat, just to be sure you get it... this was not a genesis event, the only honest answer to your very loosely defined "Can life come from non-life (abiogenesis)? question is still a big fat unknown!. You claiming "creation" in the face of this unknown is the height of dishonesty.

Creationist dishonesty at its finest!

Anyway, your question clearly and concisely answered.

As for your next thread, presenting more evolutionary research I see! When will you ever post anything in support of creation?

Oh... that's right You have nothing to support your fantasies, all you can do is nit-pick at evolution... lol

PS. Your claiming "case closed" on creation is like G.W. Bush claiming "job done" in Iraq. Completely delusional!... but pure comedy.

Ty. I finally got an answer.

Unfortunately, your answer is still vague.

But, just to be clear, are saying then based on the snippit below (from what you said above) ...

What Dr Venter and his team did (in very simplified layman's terms) was take an existing cell ...

... that, they "created a new life-form that didn't exist before" from pre-existing life?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

If YES, then it confirms what I've been saying: only a pre-existing life (mycoplasma genitalium) can create "new life-form that didn't exist before"!

Now try that with a piece of prime rib steak.

a reply to: edmc^2

NOT A GENESIS EVENT!

... and acting as if this isn't the umpteenth time that your question has been directly answered... dishonesty.

So your question of "life from non-life" does not have a definitive answer!!!... and is a complete unknown... as in , there is no known definitive answer to "Can life come from non life?".

What part of "unknown" do you not understand? "Unknown" does not mean god! Unknown does not confirm your fantasy. Unknown does not award your flimsy arguments validity.

This research in no way WHATSOEVER shows that life can "only" come from pre-existing life. It shows a single example of a new life-form being created by recombining the "pieces" of life, just like every birth or reproduction ever, just using a different mechanism. Showing that natural processes govern life... and as of yet not a single shred of evidence of the hand of an intelligent being in that process anywhere.

Geez...

... and always end your posts as if you have achieved some type of victory... lol... when every time you present flaws in logic.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Almost like talking to a flat earther eh...

Though they do come from the same camp

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

NOT A GENESIS EVENT!

So your question of "life from non-life" has not been answered!!!... and is a complete unknown... as in , there is no known definitive answer to "Can life come from non life?".

What part of "unknown" do you not understand? "Unknown" does not mean god! Unknown does not confirm your fantasy. Unknown does not award your flimsy arguments validity.

This research in no way WHATSOEVER shows that life can "only" come from pre-existing life. It shows a single example of a new lifeform being created by recombining the "pieces" of life, just like every birth or reproduction ever, just using a different mechanism. Showing that natural processes govern life... and as of yet not a single shred of evidence of the hand of an intelligent being in that process anywhere.

Geez...

... and always end your posts as if you have achieved some type of victory... lol... when every time you present flaws in logic.

there is no known definitive answer to "Can life come from non life?".

Ok - I'll take it if that's your answer to that particular question.

But my question is quite simple.

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

If yes, then that's it. It confirms what I've been saying.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Almost like talking to a flat earther eh...

Though they do come from the same camp

a simple yes or no will do.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

NOT A GENESIS EVENT!

... and acting as if this isn't the umpteenth time that your question has been directly answered... dishonesty.

So your question of "life from non-life" does not have a definitive answer!!!...

Proverbs 15:18

A hot-tempered man stirs up strife,

But one who is slow to anger calms a quarrel.

Some more from the same chapter:

A mild* [Or “gentle.”] answer turns away rage,

But a harsh* [Or “painful.” ] word stirs up anger.

2 The tongue of the wise makes good use of knowledge,

But the mouth of the stupid blurts out foolishness.
...
4 A calm tongue* [Or “A tongue of healing.”] is a tree of life,

But twisted speech causes despair.* [Lit., “the crushing of the spirit.”]
...
7 The lips of the wise spread knowledge,

But not so the heart of the stupid one.

And before further demonstrations of the above facts/truths/realities occur:

12 The scoffer does not love the one correcting* him. [Or “reproving.”]

He will not consult the wise.

13 A joyful heart makes for a cheerful countenance,

But heartache crushes the spirit.

14 The understanding heart seeks knowledge,

But the mouth of the stupid feeds on* foolishness. [Or “pursues.”]
...
17 Better is a dish of vegetables where there is love

Than a fattened* bull where there is hatred. [Lit., “manger-fed.”]
...
21 Foolishness is a joy to one lacking good sense,* [Lit., “in want of heart.”]

But the man of discernment walks straight ahead.
...
And before glory there is humility.

a reply to: whereislogic

Right back at ya mate!

a reply to: whereislogic

How sad that you've been so brain washed by your cult that you can only think of responses in terms of quotes from your fantasy book.

Throwing out sly insults in the form of religious quotes... how very "religiously" good of you.

With that type of religiously based fantasy knowledge, I can totally see why you don't or are incapable of understanding evolution.

One day the world will look at the hawking of religious fantasy as the deception that it is and tantamount to mental abuse to the gullible or naive.

a reply to: edmc^2

Confirms "what you've been saying"? What would that be exactly? Just for clarity's sake? Let's be clear about what you are suggesting, because your goalposts keep shifting...

That scientists used 15 years of evolutionary biology research to figure out how to dissociate the DNA from a cells machinery, making two independent and discreet systems (that creationists always claimed as irreducibly complex!... lol) then recombined those systems, using a new strand of DNA to create a new, never existed before, life-form.

Then yes, that is what they did.

... or, if "what you've been saying"? is trying to suggest that this research somehow confirms intelligent design on a universal scale,.. then NO... not at all in any way.

That would be fantasy... or comedy.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Confirms "what you've been saying"? What would that be exactly? Just for clarity's sake? Let's be clear about what you are suggesting, because your goalposts keep shifting...

That scientists used 15 years of evolutionary biology research to figure out how to dissociate the DNA from a cells machinery, making two independent and discreet systems (that creationists always claimed as irreducibly complex!... lol) then recombined those systems, using a new strand of DNA to create a new, never existed before, life-form.

Then yes, that is what they did.

... or, if "what you've been saying"? is trying to suggest that this research somehow confirms intelligent design on a universal scale,.. then NO... not at all in any way.

That would be fantasy... or comedy.

So, just to be clear, are you confirming that they did create life from pre-existing life?

Yes?

I don't want to misquote or misstate what you said.


As to the goalpost, it never moved!

The question was:

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

This is in reference to the Creation fact that Life or pre-existing life can create life.

Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

...
Throwing out sly insults in the form of religious quotes... how very "religiously" good of you.
...

Ah, so you read these texts and didn't come away thinking you were the one "slow to anger" that "calms a quarrel" (or that it was directed at you), giving 'mild answers that turn away rage', having the "tongue of the wise" that "makes good use of knowledge", "a calm tongue", "lips of the wise" that "spread knowledge"; but instead perhaps coming away thinking that you are a "scoffer" that "does not love the one correcting him" was directed at you, but not thinking that the description of having an "understanding heart" that "searches for knowledge" applies to you or was directed at you or that you are overflowing with "love" for those correcting or disagreeing with you or for those who your commentary is directed at or end up feeding on it (figuratively speaking, see the text under my accountname).

Perhaps you're right in only taking the negative descriptions of realities in my quotations personal by taking issue with them by describing them as "sly insults", but not the positive descriptions (ignoring those even; not registering or acknowledging them as part of the comment, as if all these quotations and descriptions, both the positive and the negative, were "sly insults"; or only noticing the negative descriptions and then seeing those as "sly insults"), who knows...

I'll leave the self-reflection up to you, nobody cares about my opinion anyway.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

Right back at ya mate!

Thank you, but I don't think I'm all that wise. But I do try to take heed of these descriptions as to what to do or what to change about my attitude in order to become "wise", develop an "understanding heart" that "searches for knowledge", "a calm tongue" that formulates "mild answers" with which I hope to "turn away rage" and "hatred"; all in an effort to avoid becoming foolish, "a hot-tempered man" that "stirs up strife", using "harsh" words and commentary that 'stir up anger or hatred' towards and for another using "twisted speech", having a "mouth of the stupid" that "blurts out foolishness", a "scoffer" that "does not love the one correcting him" and 'unwilling to consult the wise', or in an effort to avoid 'feeding on foolishness', but rather providing commentary motivated by "love" for other people to feed their minds on, even though my spiritual and intellectual meals are not as extravagant and expensive as a "fattened bull" in ancient times would be; and in an effort to avoid 'lacking good sense' or being "in want of heart."

I don't always do a particular good job at it though (actually more often not I would guess), but at least I'm trying to develop discernment, wisdom, humility and the other positive descriptions or advice mentioned there.

Wisdom is the toughest one for me. I feel I have made much more progress with discernment than wisdom. I also still need to work hard on a calm tongue and mild speech (sometimes I find it difficult when I want to remain honest and truthful and not waver with the truth as I see it, or what I think is true and important for people to realize as well without giving them the sense that I am insulting them, or having them end up reading that into my commentary no matter how I put it or try to season it with salt trying to remain gracious or phrase it graciously).

Colossians 4:6

Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.

Perhaps I should have another look at my salt canister, maybe someone swapped it out for pepper (or perhaps I did it myself by mistake, or unintentionally without realizing). Then again, it could also be that certain others prefer to taste pepper in my commentary regardless of the quality of the salt I use in it, so they can argue that my mental food is no good to encourage others to avoid even trying to eat at my restaurant. Who knows?

Jeremiah 17:9,10

9 The heart is more treacherous* [Or “deceitful.”] than anything else and is desperate.* [Or possibly, “incurable.”]

Who can know it?

10 I, Jehovah, am searching the heart,

Examining the innermost thoughts,* [Or “deepest emotions.” Lit., “kidneys.”]

To give to each one according to his ways,

According to the fruitage of his works.

Evolution, the history of the godless, justifies a nation going to hell.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Haha... so if we go with what we know exists, we can't believe in God

Gotcha

originally posted by: whereislogic

...but instead perhaps coming away thinking that you are a "scoffer" that "does not love the one correcting him" was directed at you, but not thinking that the description of having an "understanding heart" that "searches for knowledge" applies to you or was directed at you or that you are overflowing with "love" for those correcting or disagreeing with you or for those who your commentary is directed at or end up feeding on it (figuratively speaking, see the text under my accountname). ...

...
12 The scoffer does not love the one correcting* him. [Or “reproving.”]

He will not consult the wise.

Jesus once said that “All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline.” (Revelation 3:19) Showing that any attempt to correct/reprove someone, can be an act of love or motivated by love for that person (if rightly motivated).

For example, Proverbs 3:12 says:

For those whom Jehovah loves he reproves,

Just as a father does a son in whom he delights

He does this through the pages of the Bible, the word of God. Such as the book of Proverbs that I've been quoting from a lot. “For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul* [See Glossary.] and spirit,* [See Glossary.] and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is not a creation that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account.” (Hebrews 4:12,13)

Likewise, any commentary of mine on this forum that may be seen as reproof or correction, is (I hope at least, but the heart is treacherous remember?) motivated by my love for the one I am reproving or correcting. But I do try to let God's word speak for itself regarding the really touchy stuff or sensitive subjects, i.e. let God handle the reproof on that front (in such comments as the one you were responding to; while I also take his words personal, although in a slightly different manner as you did and as explained before in response to your comment: "Right back at ya mate!").

After all: “Love . . . rejoices with the truth.” (1 Cor 13:4-6) So if I think something is true and someone else is expressing a falsehood, I try to correct them with the truth about the matter, not just for them, but for all who may read it and are inclined to also rejoice with the truth, i.e. have true love rather than hatred for the truth of the matter (or in denial of it for other reasons, but hatred is usually involved, both for the truth of the matter itself, as well as anyone trying to convince them or others of it by means of factual/absolute/conclusive/accurate evidence and logical, sensible, reasonable arguments/points without resorting to personal invective*, discrediting of others or painting pictures on their commentary that are misleading and overly negative, or reading as such into their commentary and then expressing it in one's own, even when there is no reasonable justification of making such negative accusations). And of course, I do try to provide convincing evidence for why I think it is the truth of the matter, which in turn, will not be so convincing to those who hate the truth regarding that matter. Or who have the disdainful attitude towards truth that Pontius Pilate perhaps demonstrated when he insincerely asked Jesus: “What is truth?” He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

*:

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Source: If Not a Fact, What Is It? Awake!—1981 (part of a series of questions and topics related to the evolution-creation controversy, such as: "ACCIDENTS OF EVOLUTION OR ACTS OF CREATION? THE INCREDIBLE CELL; COULD CHANCE CREATE BACTERIA? THE FOSSIL RECORD​—THEIR BEST PROOF; EVOLUTION’S REVOLUTION; DESIGN REQUIRES A DESIGNER; INSTINCT​—WISDOM PROGRAMMED BEFORE BIRTH; IS IT A FACT?; IF NOT A FACT, WHAT IS IT?; WHAT DOES FIT THE FACTS?", etc.

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

Minor edit regarding the sentence I quoted from myself at the start of this comment (I'm out of editing time for the other comment), I meant to say:

...but instead perhaps coming away thinking that a "scoffer" that "does not love the one correcting him" was directed at you... (or without the word "that" in between the quotation)

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Evolution, the history of the godless, justifies a nation going to hell.

Too bad that understanding evolution isn’t relegated solely to atheists or agnostics. How do you account for prominent proponents of the MES being devout Christians? I hate to break it to you but there are many religious minded folks who are involved in evolutionary biology or genetics. The former head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins for example, is a devout Christian yet he has no problems with the way genetics has added to our knowledge of evolution.

Your belief that to understand and promote the MES somehow makes one godless and destined for hell is born of your own willful ignorance and not facts. I guess your god is the vindictive Old Testament version and not the loving and forgiving one from the New Testament. Good luck with all that.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Too bad that understanding evolution isn’t relegated solely to atheists or agnostics. How do you account for prominent proponents of the MES being devout Christians? I hate to break it to you but there are many religious minded folks who are involved in evolutionary biology or genetics. The former head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins for example, is a devout Christian yet he has no problems with the way genetics has added to our knowledge of evolution.

Your belief that to understand and promote the MES somehow makes one godless and destined for hell is born of your own willful ignorance and not facts. I guess your god is the vindictive Old Testament version and not the loving and forgiving one from the New Testament. Good luck with all that.

No human knows or has the right to judge the direction of any soul. But the point is that believing in evolution, and therefore concluding you are an ancestor of a mutant ape, detracts from the self-identification as a child of God. This is a huge difference. We are either the progeny of an indifferent mutative process, or the purposeful creation of the Creator of the universe. Yes there's other 'possible' examples, but these are the two main ideas explaining where humans came from. If we are actually children of the Creator, then having the false belief that we are mutant monkeys would detract us from what we actually are, missing out on exploring the depths of the gift of God while we live. Whereas if we are actually mutant ape progeny, then it really doesn't matter what we believe because we are the children of indifferent processes and will return to nothingness once we pass.

Please realize the implications of the theory you are defending.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Too bad that understanding evolution isn’t relegated solely to atheists or agnostics. How do you account for prominent proponents of the MES being devout Christians? I hate to break it to you but there are many religious minded folks who are involved in evolutionary biology or genetics. The former head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins for example, is a devout Christian yet he has no problems with the way genetics has added to our knowledge of evolution.

Your belief that to understand and promote the MES somehow makes one godless and destined for hell is born of your own willful ignorance and not facts. I guess your god is the vindictive Old Testament version and not the loving and forgiving one from the New Testament. Good luck with all that.

No human knows or has the right to judge the direction of any soul. But the point is that believing in evolution, and therefore concluding you are an ancestor of a mutant ape, detracts from the self-identification as a child of God. This is a huge difference. We are either the progeny of an indifferent mutative process, or the purposeful creation of the Creator of the universe. Yes there's other 'possible' examples, but these are the two main ideas explaining where humans came from. If we are actually children of the Creator, then having the false belief that we are mutant monkeys would detract us from what we actually are, missing out on exploring the depths of the gift of God while we live. Whereas if we are actually mutant ape progeny, then it really doesn't matter what we believe because we are the children of indifferent processes and will return to nothingness once we pass.

Please realize the implications of the theory you are defending.

Could you please post a link to a biology book that says that humans are descendants of mutant apes. You can't because the science of evolution never said that, does not say that and will never say that.

Once again, you're making it up as you go along to fit your agenda.

So please post a link to that biology book that repeats what you just posted. You've been asked that same question at least a dozen times. To date, you have never answered it.

Phony, fraud, evil.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
As someone said, teaching this stuff is tantamount to child abuse. And I agree.

Teaching someone they are the child of God and should behave according to a benevolent moral standard is child abuse? You are delusional.


Teaching someone survival of the fittest and that they are the children of mutant apes is the degradation of society. Like seriously, what is your goal? To have everyone believing great grand-daddy mutant pond scum is their progenitor? It is such a dead-end philosophy it makes me sick.

Ditto

www.abovetopsecret.com...