Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Plausible?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:23 PM

 

I can certainly see evolution working in a similar fashion....e.g., an early long plateau until some major evolutionary breakthrough (e.g., eyes, skeletal structure, etc.) provided the impetus for follow on evolutionary jumps.  Now, I'm not saying that is exactly what happened, but I don't find this non-linear aspect of evolution at all implausible.

koonin says animal phyla arrived here ready made with no discernible intermediates.
he also doesn't assign a timeline, even after being questioned by one of the reviewers.

comments?

 

 

Does Koonin (whoever he is) Believe that everything is DE volving instead of E volving like Creationists do? Think (SLOT)

If so that would surely help him with the "timeline"  LOL



#22 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:34 PM

 

 

From a different topic:

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

 

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed. 

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

 

I'd like to add now:

Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this.

Creationists typically explain the diversity of "sub-kinds" by some form of "micro evolution". Every "kind" of animal was on the arc, and after the arc, they split up into different "sub-kinds". The genetic diversity of these "sub-kinds" can usually be explained by this. There is one exception (I know of) though, namely, the Cheetah. The Cheetah are so genetically similar they exhibit only a small fraction of the genetic variability when compared to other feline species. They're often referred to as clones of each other, which is a slight exaggeration, but not by much.

 

"Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this."

 

That may be so, But, Creationists.. DONT FORCE PEOPLE BY LAW TO TEACH GENESIS IN BIOLOGY CLASS..  Do you see the difference?

Where are the goalposts, you moved them so far I'm not going to bother respond to your comment other then this.

 

 

No worries, I wouldn't try to defend the Myth of AbioDarwinism against me if I were you either.. It is Hopeless..

I do give you credit though, others usually end up cursing me and my mother on other threads before heading

for the door..  :topic_closed:

 

 

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

 

RICHARD DAWKINS



#23 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

Does Koonin (whoever he is) . . .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/

. . . Believe that everything is DE volving instead of E volving like Creationists do? Think (SLOT)
If so that would surely help him with the "timeline"  LOL

yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness.

#24 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 May 2017 - 05:18 PM

 

"What if", you are quite right, it does depend upon the definition. I would define evolution as macro-evolution because that is it's most general meaning.

yes, that seems to be a logical choice.
speciation is basically the same animal with more fur.
or the same tulip with broader thicker leaves.
but i've also read about reptiles "growing" an extra organ within a few generations.
this has to be the result of epigenetics/ regulatory networks.
 

the scientific community changed their definition to changes to DNA and changes in allele frequencies in gene pools, as long as they don't include molecules-to-man then I could accept that definition. But they don't define it that way, and the semantics used by atheists and evolutionists online, leads them to abusing the term so that they can indulge in equivocation.

there are valid reasons to discount statistical analysis.
and the molecules to man doesn't have a plausible solution.
 

The most famous example of this bait-and-switch tactic, is Richard Dawkins, on camera, asking scientists for the people watching, "is evolution a fact?" To which the scientists will say "oh yes, absolutely." But whether Dawkins does it wittingly or unwittingly, the fact is the "fact" the scientists are referring to, is highly likely to be a change in the frequency of genes in any given population, natural selection, and basically micro-evolution.

the molecules to man scenario may very well be a fact.
problem is, science has been unable to demonstrate it as such.
at least one scientist has the courage to call this field of research a failure.
 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]The picture in the opening message shows how unreasonable macro-evolution is to believe given that in 500 million alleged years, jellyfish became jellyfish and snails became snails but we are asked also to believe that a fish became an amphibian and amphibian became a reptile, reptiles became mammals, mammals changed their minds got into the sea and became whales, some became dugong-progenitors, but a relative of dugongs changed their mind and went back to land to have a relative with elephants, which changed their mind and evolved back into the sea eventually became dugongs. Meanwhile a dinosaur became a sparrow which became tweety pie. Oh the last part about tweetie pie is wrong, but if we include tweetie pie will it really make this story I am telling you, any less absurd in it's obvious fiction?

if we take koonin at face value then we must assume animal phyla arrived here simultaneously and ready made.
this can probably be proved by an analysis of type 1 transposons.
all animal phyla will probably have essentially the same type 1 transposons.

 

 

"the molecules to man scenario may very well be a fact."

 

Actually, one way or another, it IS A FACT! :gotcha:

 

The only difference is that Creationists believe that in order to go from molecules to Man (Who is BY DEFINITION, Irreducibly complex) and has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL ORGANS, The molecules would have to become Man INSTANTLY :worship:   This is Scientifically Provable using the Empirical Scientific Method... (I don't recommend that any God haters try to prove me wrong Scientifically by removing one of THEIR 10.. :shock:

 

This is Observable, Testable, Repeatable, Falsifiable, Experimental Science... AKA  SCIENCE!!

 

If AbioDarwinists want to believe that Mans "ancestors" were able to live with LESS THAN 10 while they were "Evolving the Other Organs".. That is fine... but it is Merely a Religious Belief of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism and VIOLATES Everything that we have observed for over 5000 years.. :kaffeetrinker:

 

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong,



#25 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 May 2017 - 05:26 PM

 

Does Koonin (whoever he is) . . .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/

. . . Believe that everything is DE volving instead of E volving like Creationists do? Think (SLOT)
If so that would surely help him with the "timeline"  LOL

yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness.

 

 

"yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness"

 

Hmm,, would you be kind enough to name just ONE for me that has EVER done so?

Remember not to stray from Science and merge into Science Fiction!

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/

 

Thank for the Koonin link..

 

The VERY FIRST Sentence is interesting..

What do you think that Koonin means by it..

 

KOONIN...

 

"We are interested in understanding the evolution of life."  :think:



#26 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 May 2017 - 01:41 AM

Does Koonin (whoever he is) . . .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/

. . . Believe that everything is DE volving instead of E volving like Creationists do? Think (SLOT)
If so that would surely help him with the "timeline"  LOL

yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness.

 
"yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness"
 
Hmm,, would you be kind enough to name just ONE for me that has EVER done so?
Remember not to stray from Science and merge into Science Fiction!

it's in one of about 400 manuscripts on my hard drive.
yes, i already know i need to organize my evolution folder.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/
 
Thank for the Koonin link..
 
The VERY FIRST Sentence is interesting..
What do you think that Koonin means by it..
 
KOONIN...
 
"We are interested in understanding the evolution of life."  :think:

i think koonin is attempting to say they are interested in the nuts and bolts of evolution.

it should also be pointed out that the word "investigator" means scientist, not as some kind of legal term.

#27 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 22 May 2017 - 09:36 AM

Does Koonin (whoever he is) . . .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/

. . . Believe that everything is DE volving instead of E volving like Creationists do? Think (SLOT)If so that would surely help him with the "timeline" LOL

yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness.
"yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness" Hmm,, would you be kind enough to name just ONE for me that has EVER done so?Remember not to stray from Science and merge into Science Fiction!
it's in one of about 400 manuscripts on my hard drive.yes, i already know i need to organize my evolution folder.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../groups/koonin/ Thank for the Koonin link.. The VERY FIRST Sentence is interesting..What do you think that Koonin means by it.. KOONIN... "We are interested in understanding the evolution of life." :think:

i think koonin is attempting to say they are interested in the nuts and bolts of evolution.it should also be pointed out that the word "investigator" means scientist, not as some kind of legal term.

"yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness"

Hmm,, would you be kind enough to name just ONE for me that has EVER done so?

Remember not to stray from Science and merge into Science Fiction!


"it's in one of about 400 manuscripts on my hard drive."

Surely you can give us just ONE off the top of your head
or maybe using google!


"I think koonin is attempting to say they are interested in the nuts and bolts of evolution"

But, as you have been shown over and over, there IS NO SUCH THING as Evolution!! Merely Adaptation, Variation, and "Speciation" (According to Man made Terminology)

We have NEVER seen Evolution.. Either now or in the past.. Why look for the "Nuts and Bolts" of a myth?....Please allow me to remind you of the name of the website you are on right now..

Next time you see koonin, could you please ask him that for me?


"It should also be pointed out that the word "investigator" means scientist, not as some kind of legal term."


A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

#28 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:30 AM

Surely you can give us just ONE off the top of your head
or maybe using google!

sorry, i don't think the manuscript gave any details.
i'm still trying to figure out where it is.

 

"I think koonin is attempting to say they are interested in the nuts and bolts of evolution"

But, as you have been shown over and over, there IS NO SUCH THING as Evolution!! Merely Adaptation, Variation, and "Speciation" (According to Man made Terminology)

you know, i suspect you may be right.
i don't think todays cells are that much different than the cells of eukaryote super groups.
HGT events are assumptions.
 

We have NEVER seen Evolution.. Either now or in the past.. Why look for the "Nuts and Bolts" of a myth?....Please allow me to remind you of the name of the website you are on right now..

correction, we have never seen abiogenesis or macro evolution.
why look for nuts and bolts?
well to put it bluntly, so we can use this stuff to our advantage.
industry and agriculture can greatly benefit from this research.
we can potentially reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero if GMOs are implemented properly.

Next time you see koonin, could you please ask him that for me?

i never see koonin, he's in and out most of the time.

A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

an evolutions would scream "HE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS EVOLUTION"

could it really be that darwin is going to be (forgive me) the next laughing stock?

and it brings me right back to "these animals got here somehow".
and before you start, i wanna know why.

#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 22 May 2017 - 10:46 PM

Surely you can give us just ONE off the top of your heador maybe using google!

sorry, i don't think the manuscript gave any details.i'm still trying to figure out where it is. 

"I think koonin is attempting to say they are interested in the nuts and bolts of evolution"But, as you have been shown over and over, there IS NO SUCH THING as Evolution!! Merely Adaptation, Variation, and "Speciation" (According to Man made Terminology)

you know, i suspect you may be right.i don't think todays cells are that much different than the cells of eukaryote super groups.HGT events are assumptions. 

We have NEVER seen Evolution.. Either now or in the past.. Why look for the "Nuts and Bolts" of a myth?....Please allow me to remind you of the name of the website you are on right now..

correction, we have never seen abiogenesis or macro evolution.why look for nuts and bolts?well to put it bluntly, so we can use this stuff to our advantage.industry and agriculture can greatly benefit from this research.we can potentially reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero if GMOs are implemented properly.

Next time you see koonin, could you please ask him that for me?

i never see koonin, he's in and out most of the time.

A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

an evolutions would scream "HE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS EVOLUTION"could it really be that darwin is going to be (forgive me) the next laughing stock?and it brings me right back to "these animals got here somehow".and before you start, i wanna know why.


"could it really be that darwin is going to be (forgive me) the next laughing stock?"

Darwin ALREADY IS a Laughing Stock to Creationists and people who actually use logic and critical thinking about his Mindless Mud to Man Myth..

The ONLY reason that Darwin is not a laughing stock (Openly) to non creationists is simple...

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
R Rawkins


This guy is NOT a creationist..
But he IS NOT A DUMMY...
It is only 30 Min..
I HIGHLY Recommend it..
Send this link to Koonin!
See what he has to say!

https://www.google.c...78mHAX2q3TFP3Dw

#30 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:11 PM

This guy is NOT a creationist..

But he IS NOT A DUMMY...
It is only 30 Min..
I HIGHLY Recommend it..
Send this link to Koonin!
See what he has to say!

https://www.google.c...78mHAX2q3TFP3Dw

 

 

I clicked on your link and all I got was a blank page.  :( 



#31 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:01 AM

 

This guy is NOT a creationist..

But he IS NOT A DUMMY...
It is only 30 Min..
I HIGHLY Recommend it..
Send this link to Koonin!
See what he has to say!

https://www.google.c...78mHAX2q3TFP3Dw

 

 

I clicked on your link and all I got was a blank page.  :(

 

 

Sorry, hope this one works!

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Z6ElA0--JNg


  • Goku likes this

#32 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 May 2017 - 09:40 AM

"yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness"
 
Hmm,, would you be kind enough to name just ONE for me that has EVER done so?
Remember not to stray from Science and merge into Science Fiction!

took me awhile, but here it is:
Furthermore, it became apparent in the last decades of the 20th Century that DNA sequences often evolved in ways that reduced the fitness of the organisms that bore them.
- The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

#33 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 May 2017 - 11:09 AM

"yes, genomes often evolve with decreasing fitness" Hmm,, would you be kind enough to name just ONE for me that has EVER done so?Remember not to stray from Science and merge into Science Fiction!

took me awhile, but here it is:Furthermore, it became apparent in the last decades of the 20th Century that DNA sequences often evolved in ways that reduced the fitness of the organisms that bore them.- The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm


Yes.. But keep in mind.. That is NOT "Evolution" that is Devolution"..

#34 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 May 2017 - 11:18 AM

Yes.. But keep in mind.. That is NOT "Evolution" that is Devolution"..

yup.
kind of throws a monkey wrench into the "progressive" paradigm doesn't it.
and we have already seen the "gradual accumulation" paradigm is equally false.

#35 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 May 2017 - 10:37 PM

Yes.. But keep in mind.. That is NOT "Evolution" that is Devolution"..

yup.kind of throws a monkey wrench into the "progressive" paradigm doesn't it.and we have already seen the "gradual accumulation" paradigm is equally false.
The Darwinian Myth already contains more monkey wrenches than Henry Fords first Car Production Line.... How many more can it handle??

( Or are they Ape Wrenches..?)




“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.” Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, SJ Gould

#36 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:28 AM

The Darwinian Myth already contains more monkey wrenches than Henry Fords first Car Production Line.... How many more can it handle??

( Or are they Ape Wrenches..?)




“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.” Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, SJ Gould

there is a large number of scientists that dissent from darwinism.
there can be no doubt, the modern synthesis has been shot full of holes, every single tenet of the synthesis has either been discarded or rewritten.

it isn't gradual accumulation, progressive, natural selection/ genetic drift, that causes these changes, it's the cell itself.
IOW, it's life itself that causes these changes
this confers a level of complexity upon the cell that is completely over the top.

evolution IS NOT about some kind of "random" genetic mutation.
  • Blitzking likes this

#37 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:36 AM

 

 

What If: it isn't gradual accumulation, progressive, natural selection/ genetic drift, that causes these changes, it's the cell itself.
IOW, it's life itself that causes these changes
this confers a level of complexity upon the cell that is completely over the top.

 

But it's misleading to present it as life causing the changes, the true cause (ipso facto), is the designed information already present and dormant. If I remember rightly, some carnivore lizards became herbivores as some valves were switched on. (I think it was a lizard), they studied the DNA before and after and it was identical meaning it wasn't evolution.

 

So then these changes aren't caused by life but the environment life is in switches the dormant information, "on". So then, lifeforms come packed with information which is basically contingency-planning, a feature of intelligent design. So the designer of life causes the information to be available under certain environmental pressures.

 

Life itself has no intelligence in the sense of brains within the cell like you seem to think, and life can't be the cause of life which is to put the cart before the horse. That is like saying, "my frying pan is the cause of this cooked meal, it created it", but in fact the pan also had to be created, Bilbo my lad. 



#38 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:39 AM

But it's misleading to present it as life causing the changes, the true cause (ipso facto), is the designed information already present and dormant.

exactly.
in my opinion, this information was present from the very first cell, it most certainly wasn't acquired by any kind of "randomness".
the control of the above process was most certainly present from the first cell.
 

If I remember rightly, some carnivore lizards became herbivores as some valves were switched on. (I think it was a lizard), they studied the DNA before and after and it was identical meaning it wasn't evolution.

this was no doubt achieved by epigenetics, transposons, and regulatory networks, NOT by some kind of "random mutation"
 

So then these changes aren't caused by life but the environment life is in switches the dormant information, "on". So then, lifeforms come packed with information which is basically contingency-planning, a feature of intelligent design. So the designer of life causes the information to be available under certain environmental pressures.

i'm not prepared to say there was a designer on technical grounds.
the authors of my sources would not be pleased to see me use their work "to prove god".
OTOH, you are correct in the level of complexity of the cell.
it's becoming obvious that the cell has undergone very little "evolution" (or what you might think is evolution).
it (the cell) is rearranging the information it already has.
 

Life itself has no intelligence in the sense of brains within the cell like you seem to think, and life can't be the cause of life which is to put the cart before the horse. That is like saying, "my frying pan is the cause of this cooked meal, it created it", but in fact the pan also had to be created, Bilbo my lad. 

funny thing about life, science doesn't even know what life is, except to say it's the living cell.
so, when i say "life", i'm essentially referring to the cell.

#39 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:49 AM

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

{images ommitted from OP}

.
I think the left-side of the second image should be a representation of the moment of "first life".

As you know, I don't buy that this--the theme of the OP--is what happened--I remain agnostic: "I don't know and don't have to decide." One of the reasons I am able to abstain is that I don't have religious scripture of any kind to consider. Religious people don't have the "luxury" to abstain from such things.

#40 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 June 2017 - 02:10 AM

 

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

{images ommitted from OP}

.
I think the left-side of the second image should be a representation of the moment of "first life".

As you know, I don't buy that this--the theme of the OP--is what happened--I remain agnostic: "I don't know and don't have to decide." One of the reasons I am able to abstain is that I don't have religious scripture of any kind to consider. Religious people don't have the "luxury" to abstain from such things.

 

 

""I don't know and don't have to decide."

 

What ever you do, Don't you ever allow anyone to accuse you of being Wishy Washy or Ambivalent when it comes to the subject of Man's Origins.!! 

 

 

Jesus Said..

 

 

24Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because its foundation was on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.…27The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell — and great was its collapse!”  Mathew 7






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users