Science isn’t always the answer.

barn sour

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
408
Reaction score
348
Points
158
Location
West Coast
Your "... because I say'' commandment about 900 year old humans is utterly unsupported. More to the point, your unsupported comment is presented in the context of unsupported events that are mere legend and fable.

Please identify what supported knowledge you can present in regard to any biblical fables surrounding Adam and Noah.
I didn't say....the Bible says.

I'm not able to prove the existence of God to someone who is so PROUD they call Scripture a fable.

You will remain in the DARK until and if you finally humble yourself and seek the Lord. God does resist the proud. Not what I say...what the Bible says. And, we see that with your post.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
3,456
Points
1,115
That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.
So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?
Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.
Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.
Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.
Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.
Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.
.
the desert creation or an Almighty - for proof howabout burning all the desert books and stating out fresh, those truths from the past would surly reemerge and most likely without the "sinning".

the evolution of religion is pathetic, you seem on the boarder.
LOL So you think if we burn the Bible sin won't exist? Getting rid of a term doesn't get rid of bad behaviour. What you don't understand is that God has seen to it that His Word is here for all men to read, to consider, and to know HIM. He has not left man to his own devices. Just look at the mess unbelievers have made when they lean to their own understanding.
So true barn sour! In fact, the Bible is available in more languages than any other book on our planet and also has the highest circulation (published copies) of any book on our planet..

We would expect that our Creator would make his counsel available to everyone on the planet.

Btw - our website is in 1021 languages - see:

www.jw.org

and note the list of languages you can select. Of course, this is nothing compared with how many languages the Bible is available in!

And that despite the efforts of many, like emperor Diocletian, who tried to destroy all copies of the Bible and more recently men burned at the stake for translating the Bible into common languages.

Matthew 24:14 is being fulfilled!
The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

There is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

Belief in Bibles and supernatural events is governed entirely by the choice one makes, when reason and dogma conflict, to embrace either reason or dogma. We are social animals, and like most other good social animals it is always less stressful to follow leaders, especially religious leaders, like sheep. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You are not alone.

But it is not a particularly good process for discerning truth.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
3,456
Points
1,115
Your "... because I say'' commandment about 900 year old humans is utterly unsupported. More to the point, your unsupported comment is presented in the context of unsupported events that are mere legend and fable.

Please identify what supported knowledge you can present in regard to any biblical fables surrounding Adam and Noah.
I didn't say....the Bible says.

I'm not able to prove the existence of God to someone who is so PROUD they call Scripture a fable.

You will remain in the DARK until and if you finally humble yourself and seek the Lord. God does resist the proud. Not what I say...what the Bible says. And, we see that with your post.
The Bibles say many things which are not true.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of partisan religious dogma.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
181
Points
73
True
I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.
Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.
It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.
Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?
Gotta check it out, the fact is even though I firmly believe in God I could accept evolution since Adam and Eve were not the only humans would just mean that is how God made them.
Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied, and people lived hundreds of years in the beginning, which explains how the multiplying resulted in many offspring.
There is no reason to accept that people lived to be hundreds of years old "in the beginning". Human biology has not seen that kind of change in just a few thousand years.
Adam and Noah both lived over 900 years. It was after the flood that God changed man's life time to three score and 10. Not all the patriarchs lived over 900 years, and not everyone has lived to three score and 10 after the flood, but those are the norms, apparently, from what we see in Scripture and from our own knowledge.
True - but the Biblical account is much more detailed than that as I am sure you realize. LIfe span decreased gradually after the flood - see the Genesis account. Shem was still alive at Abraham's time when the life span was down to about 120.

There are scientific clues involved as well. Radiation likely increased after the flood, and radiation induces mutations which are 99% harmful and usually recessive. Inbreeding forces recessive traits out so these two factors likely caused the decrease in life span. There was a drastic narrowing of the gene pool (aka genetic bottleneck) at the flood - there is evidence of this in genetics as well.

But the clincher for me is that it wasn't until Moses' time, when the life span had lowered to 70, that incest became against the law!

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob married close relatives - in fact Sarah was Abraham's half-sister!

I believe God instituted the laws against incest in the Mosaic law due to the dangers of forcing out even more harmful recessive traits.

Or, simply: God's love for us!
Nonsense. Mutations are not 99% harmful. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

Mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), exclusively helpful, exclusively harmful. Whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment.

This is stuff you should have learned in 8th grade biology.

"6, 7. What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial?

6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”⁠8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”⁠9

7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.⁠10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.⁠11

8. How do actual results verify an encyclopedia’s observation?

8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”⁠12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”⁠13"

References:

8. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, , p. 31.


9. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.


10. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.


11. The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.


12. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.


13. Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.


"Evolutionist Koller admits: “Most gene mutations are recessive and harmful, and may be lethal.” He also says: “Extensive studies have . . . demonstrated the fact that the greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”"

So, again, mutations are 99% harmful and mostly recessive. Your rhetoric does not change the truth.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
181
Points
73
Hollie - your rapid responses proves you are not researching the points you are posting.

Relax - you have plenty of time to post your links that mutations are not 99% harmful and mostly recessive. I am going offline!
 

barn sour

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
408
Reaction score
348
Points
158
Location
West Coast
That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.
So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?
Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.
Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.
Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.
Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.
Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.
.
the desert creation or an Almighty - for proof howabout burning all the desert books and stating out fresh, those truths from the past would surly reemerge and most likely without the "sinning".

the evolution of religion is pathetic, you seem on the boarder.
LOL So you think if we burn the Bible sin won't exist? Getting rid of a term doesn't get rid of bad behaviour. What you don't understand is that God has seen to it that His Word is here for all men to read, to consider, and to know HIM. He has not left man to his own devices. Just look at the mess unbelievers have made when they lean to their own understanding.
What you don't understand is that God has seen to it that His Word is here for all men to read, ...
.
that is not true, their word is spoken -

the spoken religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty - the triumph of good vs evil - is all there is. there are many considerations but one that truly is not relevant is sin.
And that spoken word was written down. That's what Scripture is. Sin is simply disobedience of God's law. Those laws of good and evil. You can't speak of the "triumph of good vs evil" without talking about sin.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
 

Vandalshandle

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
20,960
Reaction score
3,849
Points
290
Location
Southern AZ
Trump University has taught us that scientists don't know anything, and are just a bunch of elite liberals intent on making Donald look bad. Besides, they do not make any major financial contributions to political campaigns.
 

barn sour

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
408
Reaction score
348
Points
158
Location
West Coast
The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.
That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
3,456
Points
1,115
True
I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.
Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.
It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.
Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?
Gotta check it out, the fact is even though I firmly believe in God I could accept evolution since Adam and Eve were not the only humans would just mean that is how God made them.
Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied, and people lived hundreds of years in the beginning, which explains how the multiplying resulted in many offspring.
There is no reason to accept that people lived to be hundreds of years old "in the beginning". Human biology has not seen that kind of change in just a few thousand years.
Adam and Noah both lived over 900 years. It was after the flood that God changed man's life time to three score and 10. Not all the patriarchs lived over 900 years, and not everyone has lived to three score and 10 after the flood, but those are the norms, apparently, from what we see in Scripture and from our own knowledge.
True - but the Biblical account is much more detailed than that as I am sure you realize. LIfe span decreased gradually after the flood - see the Genesis account. Shem was still alive at Abraham's time when the life span was down to about 120.

There are scientific clues involved as well. Radiation likely increased after the flood, and radiation induces mutations which are 99% harmful and usually recessive. Inbreeding forces recessive traits out so these two factors likely caused the decrease in life span. There was a drastic narrowing of the gene pool (aka genetic bottleneck) at the flood - there is evidence of this in genetics as well.

But the clincher for me is that it wasn't until Moses' time, when the life span had lowered to 70, that incest became against the law!

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob married close relatives - in fact Sarah was Abraham's half-sister!

I believe God instituted the laws against incest in the Mosaic law due to the dangers of forcing out even more harmful recessive traits.

Or, simply: God's love for us!
Nonsense. Mutations are not 99% harmful. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

Mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), exclusively helpful, exclusively harmful. Whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment.

This is stuff you should have learned in 8th grade biology.

"6, 7. What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial?

6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”⁠8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”⁠9

7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.⁠10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.⁠11

8. How do actual results verify an encyclopedia’s observation?

8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”⁠12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”⁠13"

References:

8. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, , p. 31.


9. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.


10. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.


11. The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.


12. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.


13. Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.


"Evolutionist Koller admits: “Most gene mutations are recessive and harmful, and may be lethal.” He also says: “Extensive studies have . . . demonstrated the fact that the greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”"

So, again, mutations are 99% harmful and mostly recessive. Your rhetoric does not change the truth.
I would fully expect that the JW’s would have a selected set of “quotes” that would support their agenda. However, your claim that “mutations are 99% harmful and mostly recessive” is the expected reaction.

As expected, your claims are consistent with the charlatans at the ICR and elsewhere.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).

Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).

In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).


Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

Links:

Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

References:

  1. Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513
  2. Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
  3. Elena, S. F., V. S. Cooper and R. E. Lenski. 1996. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 272: 1802-1804.
  4. FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
  5. Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene. Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66.
  6. Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
  7. Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
  8. Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
  9. Newcomb, R. D. et al. 1997. A single amino acid substitution converts a carboxylesterase to an organophosporus hydrolase and confers insecticide resistance on a blowfly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7464-7468.
  10. Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253. See also: Rainey, P. B. and R. Moxon, 2000. When being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-1187. See also: LeClerc, J. E. and T. A. Cebula, 2000. Pseudomonas survival strategies in cystic fibrosis (letter), 2000. Science 289: 391-392.
  11. Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
  12. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
  13. Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
  14. Weisgraber K. H., S. C. Rall Jr., T. P. Bersot, R. W. Mahley, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513.
  15. Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.
  16. Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.


Not surprisingly, we even find the JW’s represented in some similar falsehoods.

CB101.1: Mutations as accidents

Claim CB101.1:

Mutations are accidents, and things do not get built by accident.

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 102.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 55.

Response:

There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.

Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for. Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.

Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations (Max 1999).

Links:

Max, Edward E. 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection. The Evolution of Improved Fitness

References:

  1. Max, E. E. 1999. (see above)
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
3,456
Points
1,115
The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.
That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.
Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.
 

barn sour

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
408
Reaction score
348
Points
158
Location
West Coast
The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.
That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.
Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.
Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
3,456
Points
1,115
Hollie - your rapid responses proves you are not researching the points you are posting.

Relax - you have plenty of time to post your links that mutations are not 99% harmful and mostly recessive. I am going offline!
Your posting canned commentary from the JW's proves you don't understand the material.

You have plenty of 1970's vintage JW material to "quote mine". We just need to remember that your position is one with an inherent bias and predefines a conclusion.
Unless you are prepared to first demonstrate the existence of anything "spiritual," and then subsequently describe a mechanism via which the "spiritual" can effect the "material," what reason would we have for considering your statements to be anything more compelling than appeals to magic?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
3,456
Points
1,115
The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.
That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.
Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.
Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.
On the other hand, why would the gods magically create living things with parts they don't use? Do the gods maintain a spare parts store like some heavenly AutoZone?
 
OP
M

Mello711

Active Member
Joined
May 5, 2020
Messages
157
Reaction score
121
Points
43
I believe that scientific progress will be the undoing of mankind, one way or another. Some scientists will go too far and destroy us all. Nuclear or biological war, artificial intelligence, and human experiments could push us over the edge
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,469
Reaction score
472
Points
85
I believe that scientific progress will be the undoing of mankind, one way or another. Some scientists will go too far and destroy us all. Nuclear or biological war, artificial intelligence, and human experiments could push us over the edge
Nuclear or biological war, artificial intelligence, and human experiments could push us over the edge
.
science ...

"free" enterprise is nothing to sneeze at either or the desert religions. motivation is out of control.

the religion of antiquity is a fading star - since the final scene of the 1st century.
 

barn sour

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
408
Reaction score
348
Points
158
Location
West Coast
The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.
That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.
Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.
Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.
On the other hand, why would the gods magically create living things with parts they don't use? Do the gods maintain a spare parts store like some heavenly AutoZone?
Perhaps you think you're being clever.....but you're not.
You don't know they weren't used in the past or if they'll be used in the future. You just think you're smarter than you are. You create dilemmas in your mind that aren't actually dilemmas. They're simply beyond your understanding. Perhaps they are there to make people like you have something to stew over when they try to find fault with God. :)

In the future when we see humans bent over with long necks, we might wonder why. They say cell phones will cause that to happen.
 

barn sour

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
408
Reaction score
348
Points
158
Location
West Coast
I believe that scientific progress will be the undoing of mankind, one way or another. Some scientists will go too far and destroy us all. Nuclear or biological war, artificial intelligence, and human experiments could push us over the edge
Just before that happens -- when mankind is on the brink -- Scripture tells us the Lord will return. Armageddon.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
181
Points
73
That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.
So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?
Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.
Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.
Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.
Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.
Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.
.
the desert creation or an Almighty - for proof howabout burning all the desert books and stating out fresh, those truths from the past would surly reemerge and most likely without the "sinning".

the evolution of religion is pathetic, you seem on the boarder.
LOL So you think if we burn the Bible sin won't exist? Getting rid of a term doesn't get rid of bad behaviour. What you don't understand is that God has seen to it that His Word is here for all men to read, to consider, and to know HIM. He has not left man to his own devices. Just look at the mess unbelievers have made when they lean to their own understanding.
What you don't understand is that God has seen to it that His Word is here for all men to read, ...
.
that is not true, their word is spoken -

the spoken religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty - the triumph of good vs evil - is all there is. there are many considerations but one that truly is not relevant is sin.
And that spoken word was written down. That's what Scripture is. Sin is simply disobedience of God's law. Those laws of good and evil. You can't speak of the "triumph of good vs evil" without talking about sin.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So true Or, as Jesus said in prayer to his Father: "Your word is truth.: - John 17:17.

So, do you think I should give up responding to Hollie since she is among those who make objections but does not actually research the answers I post?

I'm not one who gives up easily, but thee is Matthew 7!
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
181
Points
73
Or
I believe that scientific progress will be the undoing of mankind, one way or another. Some scientists will go too far and destroy us all. Nuclear or biological war, artificial intelligence, and human experiments could push us over the edge
Just before that happens -- when mankind is on the brink -- Scripture tells us the Lord will return. Armageddon.
Or, as stated, God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth - Revelation 11:18. However, there is something else hat will happen right before Armageddon...
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
181
Points
73
I believe that scientific progress will be the undoing of mankind, one way or another. Some scientists will go too far and destroy us all. Nuclear or biological war, artificial intelligence, and human experiments could push us over the edge
To be fair, it is not simply science that is at the root of mankind's problems. For example, note Greta Thunberg's speech condemning world leaders for not listening to science:


Jesus warned us about the ruler of this world btw. (John 14:30; 16:11;12:31).
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top