You should be banned.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
No MW, evolution doesn't explain where life came from.
Dave
W
what768
Guest
I don't believe in education.
davewhite04: No MW, evolution doesn't explain where life came from.
*************
M*W: Then you explain it, and we'll discuss it.
*************
M*W: Then you explain it, and we'll discuss it.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
Abiogenesis = Naturalistic Origins of Life (Study)
Evolution = Diversity of Life (Scientific Theory)
Dave
Yes, I'm tired of this argument. I have made it so many times and proven that Evolution is wrong so many times, yet it still keeps coming back - like a stuborn piece of TP on my shoe.pavlosmarcos said:
Germs do not get stronger. First, the word Germ doesn't mean anything since it is a generic clasification for all of virus and bacteria which might cause sickness in humans. Viruses become more resistant to current drugs - that is not a description of stronger. Second, living organisms do adapt to their environment, which some call Micro-Evolution. I strongly support the truth of Micro-Evolution. This, however, is a far far cry from Macro-Evolution - the rising of life from non-life and the splitting or growth from single-celled organisms to the diversification of the animal kingdom. A virus becomes resistant to drugs because those drugs litterally affect the genetic code of the virus to kill it. When the virus replicates, there can be mistakes so that a genetic A is changed to a genetic C for example - DNA is encoded with amino-acids which are given the names A, C, G & T which is the first letter of their chemical names. Virus replication seems to be especially loose and suseptible to these errors. Changes in the DNA usually causes a fatal flaw that kills the organisms, but occasionally such changes occur and still allow the organisms to exist. When millions of these changes occur as viruses replicate, the change can sometimes cause the DNA to change at just the point where our medicines kill the virus DNA. If the DNA changes in just that way, then the Virus becomes resistant to medicine - not stronger, just different - and we then have to go find a new medicine for the new DNA configuration. All of this has nothing to do with the rise of life from non-life and does nothing to prove Evolution.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say about horses and donkeys?
That's the whole point. Nothing in all of science does anything to explain why we are here, why life exists. It is miraculous and impossible - yet somehow, somewhere it occured.Medicine Woman said:
I cannot give ANY explaination for life. The creation story is as good as any and does not disagree with what we see around us. Is not-disagreeing the same as proof - no, and I won't try to pretend it is.
I hope I have never given the impression I could prove the biblical story. I hope I have continued to stress that NO EXPLAINATION is satisfactory to those who insist on proof - not even the biblical story.§outh§tar said:
If you want to believe the African creation story - go ahead. I will stick with the biblical story, as much as anything because it is in the bible with other things I believe. Proximity to the 10 commandments is key to me, but that's just me.
It is hard for people to see that the ten commandments are a delight to us that believe, because the very same law brings death to those who have not accepted Jesus. We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe. The law that once brought us death is now opened up to us as something thoroughly holy and righteous even though we are still sinners. We live by His grace. The God that says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is the same God that says to us "My Grace is sufficient for thee". When we believe we fulfill the first commandment and therefore fulfill the whole law. We no longer live under the law but rather we fulfill the law through belief in Jesus who's blood was the fulfillment of the law also. We accept that we are sinners, and God pours out His grace upon us because of His great love for us. When our hearts are hard to the One who says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me", we face the full penalty of the law which is death.
It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.
peace
c20
It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.
peace
c20
c20H25N3o: It is hard for people to see that the ten commandments are a delight to us that believe, because the very same law brings death to those who have not accepted Jesus.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus!
*************
c20: We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe.
*************
M*W: Boy, are you ever wrong! The 'power of sin' is up to the local, state or federal authorities (in the USA). God has nothing to do with laws.
*************
c20: The law that once brought us death is now opened up to us as something thoroughly holy and righteous even though we are still sinners.
*************
M*W: What kind of god would have created a world filled with sinners?
*************
c20: We live by His grace. The God that says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is the same God that says to us "My Grace is sufficient for thee".
*************
M*W: The same god? Moses said, "Thou shalt have no other god's before me...". MOSES, the Egyptian Pharaoh -- MOSES. Moses took the ark on top of the mountain (which was custom in his day), and he etched the stone tablets with the welding fire of the ark. They couldn't have been in the language of the day, because Moses was the only one who could interpret the etchings. That wasn't any god, that was the ark-light. Because the ark created an electrical type fire, Moses believed the sun was contained in the ark. Of course, when any fool touched the electrical fire, they got zapped -- to death! The box that contained the sun (or what Moses thought was Aten) was worshipped by the tribe Habiru. Moses also told the nomads that he was god. He wanted the Habiru to have no other gods than him -- Moses.
*************
c20: When we believe we fulfill the first commandment and therefore fulfill the whole law. We no longer live under the law but rather we fulfill the law through belief in Jesus who's blood was the fulfillment of the law also. We accept that we are sinners, and God pours out His grace upon us because of His great love for us. When our hearts are hard to the One who says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me", we face the full penalty of the law which is death.
*************
M*W: Do you believe in the law of Moses? Please explain by cited research how Jesus' blood fulfills Moses' law.
*************
c20: It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.
*************
M*W: So you are admitting to it that your aim is to preach to us about the christian faith? You've just admitted to your one and only reason for being here on sciforums. Do you realize how offensive you are to non-christians, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos, Jews, and even other CHRISTIANS? Everyone is entitled to believe in the god of their choice or no god, if they choose. You are forcing your delusional belief on the rest of us. Since you are unable to respect the views of others, you should put all of those who are non-christians on IGNORE and just post back and forth with Jenyar, Adstar, and David F. The rest of us will join in if we feel like it -- or maybe not.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus!
*************
c20: We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe.
*************
M*W: Boy, are you ever wrong! The 'power of sin' is up to the local, state or federal authorities (in the USA). God has nothing to do with laws.
*************
c20: The law that once brought us death is now opened up to us as something thoroughly holy and righteous even though we are still sinners.
*************
M*W: What kind of god would have created a world filled with sinners?
*************
c20: We live by His grace. The God that says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is the same God that says to us "My Grace is sufficient for thee".
*************
M*W: The same god? Moses said, "Thou shalt have no other god's before me...". MOSES, the Egyptian Pharaoh -- MOSES. Moses took the ark on top of the mountain (which was custom in his day), and he etched the stone tablets with the welding fire of the ark. They couldn't have been in the language of the day, because Moses was the only one who could interpret the etchings. That wasn't any god, that was the ark-light. Because the ark created an electrical type fire, Moses believed the sun was contained in the ark. Of course, when any fool touched the electrical fire, they got zapped -- to death! The box that contained the sun (or what Moses thought was Aten) was worshipped by the tribe Habiru. Moses also told the nomads that he was god. He wanted the Habiru to have no other gods than him -- Moses.
*************
c20: When we believe we fulfill the first commandment and therefore fulfill the whole law. We no longer live under the law but rather we fulfill the law through belief in Jesus who's blood was the fulfillment of the law also. We accept that we are sinners, and God pours out His grace upon us because of His great love for us. When our hearts are hard to the One who says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me", we face the full penalty of the law which is death.
*************
M*W: Do you believe in the law of Moses? Please explain by cited research how Jesus' blood fulfills Moses' law.
*************
c20: It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.
*************
M*W: So you are admitting to it that your aim is to preach to us about the christian faith? You've just admitted to your one and only reason for being here on sciforums. Do you realize how offensive you are to non-christians, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos, Jews, and even other CHRISTIANS? Everyone is entitled to believe in the god of their choice or no god, if they choose. You are forcing your delusional belief on the rest of us. Since you are unable to respect the views of others, you should put all of those who are non-christians on IGNORE and just post back and forth with Jenyar, Adstar, and David F. The rest of us will join in if we feel like it -- or maybe not.
Concerning Microevolution and Macroevolution. Please allow me to post a rather long quote:
Evolutionists have always maintained that as we probe into the dark mysteries of the molecular and subatomic that life will become ever simpler and that these jumps from one animal kind to another will become easy and obvious. Quite the opposite has happened. The further in we delve, the more complicated things have become. We are now at the smallest level, molecular bio-chemistry, and the necessary jumps from one life form to another have if anything actually increased in scope, showing the utter impossibility of macroevolution.
LITTLE JUMPS, BIG JUMPS
Suppose a 4-foot wide ditch in your back yard, running to the horizon in both directions, separates your property from that of your neighbor’s. If one day you met him in your yard and asked how he got there, you would have no reason to doubt the answer, “I jumped over the ditch.” If the ditch were 8 feet wide and he gave the same answer, you would be impressed with his athletic ability. If the ditch were 15 feet wide, you might become suspicious and ask him to jump again while you watched; if he declined, pleading a sprained knee, you would harbor your doubts but wouldn’t be certain that he was just telling a tale. If the “ditch” were actually a canyon 100 feet wide, however, you would not entertain for a moment the bald assertion that he jumped across.
But suppose your neighbor – a clever man – qualifies his claim. He did not come in one jump. Rather, he says, in the canyon there were a number of buttes, no more than 10 feet apart from one another; he jumped from one narrowly spaced butte to another to reach your side. Glancing toward the canyon, you tell your neighbor that you see no buttes, just a wide chasm separating your yard from his. He agrees, but explains that it took him years and years to come over. During that time buttes occasionally arose in the chasm, and he progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded pretty quickly and crumbled back into the canyon. Very dubious, but with no easy way to prove him wrong, you change the subject to baseball.
This little story teaches several lessons. First, the word jump can be offered as an explanation of how someone crossed a barrier but the explanation can range from completely convincing to totally inadequate depending on the details (such as how wide the barrier is). Second, long journeys can be made much more plausible if they are explained as a series of smaller jumps rather than one great leap. And third, in the absence of evidence of such smaller jumps, it is very difficult to prove right or wrong someone who asserts that stepping stones existed in the past but have disappeared.
Of course, the allegory of jumps across narrow ditches versus canyons can be applied to evolution. The word evolution has been invoked to explain tiny changes in organisms as well as huge changes. These are often given separate names: Roughly speaking, microevolution describes changes that can be made in one or a few small jumps, whereas macroevolution describes changes that appear to require large jumps.
The proposal by Darwin that even relatively tiny changes could occur in nature was a great conceptual advance; the observation of such changes was a hugely gratifying confirmation of his intuition. Darwin saw similar but not identical species of finches on the various Galapogos Islands and theorized that they descended from a common ancestor. Recently some scientists from Princeton actually observed the average beak size of finch populations changing over the course of a few years. Earlier it was shown that a number of dark- versus light-colored moths in a population changed as the environment went from sooty to clean. Similarly, birds introduced into North America by European settlers have diversified into several distinct groups. In recent decades it has been possible to gain evidence for microevolution on a molecular scale. For instance, viruses such as the one that causes AIDS mutate their coats in order to evade the human immune system. Disease-causing bacteria have made a comeback as strains evolved the ability to defend against antibiotics. Many other examples could be cited.
On a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed; it is now about as controversial as an athlete’s assertion that he or she could jump over a four-foot ditch. But it is at the level of macroevolution – of large jumps – that the theory evokes skepticism. Many people have followed Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down into plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence to support that position, however, has not been forthcoming. Nonetheless, like a neighbor’s story about vanishing buttes, it has been difficult to evaluate whether the elusive and ill-defined small steps could exist . . . until now.
With the advent of modern biochemistry we are now able to look at the rock-bottom level of life. We can now make an informed evaluation of whether the putative small steps required to produce large evolutionary changes can ever get small enough. You will see in this book that the canyons separating everyday life forms have their counterparts in the canyons that separate biological systems on a microscopic scale. Like a fractal pattern in mathematics, where a motif is repeated even as you look at smaller and smaller scales, unbridgeable chasms occur even at the tiniest level of life.
-Michael J. Behe – Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University. Darwin’s Black Box; p. 13-15.
Suppose a 4-foot wide ditch in your back yard, running to the horizon in both directions, separates your property from that of your neighbor’s. If one day you met him in your yard and asked how he got there, you would have no reason to doubt the answer, “I jumped over the ditch.” If the ditch were 8 feet wide and he gave the same answer, you would be impressed with his athletic ability. If the ditch were 15 feet wide, you might become suspicious and ask him to jump again while you watched; if he declined, pleading a sprained knee, you would harbor your doubts but wouldn’t be certain that he was just telling a tale. If the “ditch” were actually a canyon 100 feet wide, however, you would not entertain for a moment the bald assertion that he jumped across.
But suppose your neighbor – a clever man – qualifies his claim. He did not come in one jump. Rather, he says, in the canyon there were a number of buttes, no more than 10 feet apart from one another; he jumped from one narrowly spaced butte to another to reach your side. Glancing toward the canyon, you tell your neighbor that you see no buttes, just a wide chasm separating your yard from his. He agrees, but explains that it took him years and years to come over. During that time buttes occasionally arose in the chasm, and he progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded pretty quickly and crumbled back into the canyon. Very dubious, but with no easy way to prove him wrong, you change the subject to baseball.
This little story teaches several lessons. First, the word jump can be offered as an explanation of how someone crossed a barrier but the explanation can range from completely convincing to totally inadequate depending on the details (such as how wide the barrier is). Second, long journeys can be made much more plausible if they are explained as a series of smaller jumps rather than one great leap. And third, in the absence of evidence of such smaller jumps, it is very difficult to prove right or wrong someone who asserts that stepping stones existed in the past but have disappeared.
Of course, the allegory of jumps across narrow ditches versus canyons can be applied to evolution. The word evolution has been invoked to explain tiny changes in organisms as well as huge changes. These are often given separate names: Roughly speaking, microevolution describes changes that can be made in one or a few small jumps, whereas macroevolution describes changes that appear to require large jumps.
The proposal by Darwin that even relatively tiny changes could occur in nature was a great conceptual advance; the observation of such changes was a hugely gratifying confirmation of his intuition. Darwin saw similar but not identical species of finches on the various Galapogos Islands and theorized that they descended from a common ancestor. Recently some scientists from Princeton actually observed the average beak size of finch populations changing over the course of a few years. Earlier it was shown that a number of dark- versus light-colored moths in a population changed as the environment went from sooty to clean. Similarly, birds introduced into North America by European settlers have diversified into several distinct groups. In recent decades it has been possible to gain evidence for microevolution on a molecular scale. For instance, viruses such as the one that causes AIDS mutate their coats in order to evade the human immune system. Disease-causing bacteria have made a comeback as strains evolved the ability to defend against antibiotics. Many other examples could be cited.
On a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed; it is now about as controversial as an athlete’s assertion that he or she could jump over a four-foot ditch. But it is at the level of macroevolution – of large jumps – that the theory evokes skepticism. Many people have followed Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down into plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence to support that position, however, has not been forthcoming. Nonetheless, like a neighbor’s story about vanishing buttes, it has been difficult to evaluate whether the elusive and ill-defined small steps could exist . . . until now.
With the advent of modern biochemistry we are now able to look at the rock-bottom level of life. We can now make an informed evaluation of whether the putative small steps required to produce large evolutionary changes can ever get small enough. You will see in this book that the canyons separating everyday life forms have their counterparts in the canyons that separate biological systems on a microscopic scale. Like a fractal pattern in mathematics, where a motif is repeated even as you look at smaller and smaller scales, unbridgeable chasms occur even at the tiniest level of life.
-Michael J. Behe – Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University. Darwin’s Black Box; p. 13-15.
Evolutionists have always maintained that as we probe into the dark mysteries of the molecular and subatomic that life will become ever simpler and that these jumps from one animal kind to another will become easy and obvious. Quite the opposite has happened. The further in we delve, the more complicated things have become. We are now at the smallest level, molecular bio-chemistry, and the necessary jumps from one life form to another have if anything actually increased in scope, showing the utter impossibility of macroevolution.
Medicine Woman said:
Matthew 19
19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Notice that Jesus is quoting the 10 commandments.19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
God did not create a world full of sinners. Adam became a sinner.
C2o is right. We all break the law and the penalty for sin is death. We are still guilty but we don't have to pay the price since Jesus paid it for us. That doesn't mean we are freed from the necessity of obeying the 10 commandments. It only means breaking God's law is no longer a captial crime.
Nice story but God first spoke the 10 commandments to all the people from the top of the mount and then called Moses to the top of the mount to get the tablets (so Moses couldn't cheat and change the rules). God did not tell Moses how to build the ark (measurements & materials) until after the 10 commandments had already been delivered etched into the stone tablets (God actually did this twice).
I kind of think discussing religion is what a Religion Forum is for. It is not for attacking religion - that's what they do on all the other forums.
Last edited:
MW. I am putting this reply in a separate post since it is kind of a separate topic.Medicine Woman said:
You seem to be saying that the only evil is what the Law dictates as evil. However, you should know that our own law does not see things this way.
There are two Latin phrases which are pertinent here:
Malum in se "Wrong in itself" — a crime that is inherently wrong; cf. malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref
The word Malum means what you are calling Evil. There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref
Lol, as you have shown many times now, you don't even know what 'evolution' is - and as such, saying you've proved it wrong is clearly nonsense. However, you always have the opportunity to submit your findings to a scientific journal where they can be tested. Failing that, try Sky News or something.
