Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

[James R]

The Woolly Mammoth and countless other examples, demonstrate how Evolution corrupts Genetic Code over time, and eventually leads to Extinction.

In what sense was the woolly mammoth's genetic code "corrupt"? Please explain.

It is only reorganizing existing Code, not creating new Code.

Clearly not. If a letter of the genetic code changes, then the sequence of which it is a part is a new sequence, different from the old one.

Most Genetic change is harmful, not beneficial.

You have already been told that most genetic change is neutral.

Are you taking in anything that people here are telling you?

Diabetes is harmful, does not have to affect reproduction at all, and is passed down from generation to generation to generation...

And so?

It is a Corruption of the Genetic Code, but is still passed on down the line, over and over again.

It doesn't prevent its hosts from living or reproducing. Therefore, as predicted by the theory of evolution, it has not been eliminated from the gene pool.

You have just provided a nice pro-evolution argument. Thanks, Seti!

There are many, many, examples of this.

Indeed there are many many pro-evolution examples. The evidence for evolution, as you know, is quite overwhelming.

You cannot prove Naturalism!

And so?

Can you prove supernaturalism?

Every single Scientific Discovery Ever has been strictly limited to Naturalistic Explanations by the bias built into the system.

Don’t you see the circular reasoning there?

No. Tell me what's circular.

Nothing else whatsoever is allowed in the faith and philosophy of Naturalism.

That doesn't appear to be a problem, since nobody has shown that anything else is needed.

It’s kind of arrogant to force all of mankind to view all of reality only through the lens of one single unproven philosophy.

You're managing to resist the influence of reason and science, so it's a bit precious of you to claim you're being forced into anything, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Write4U]

If it makes for better sex sign me up!

:EDIT:

Wonder what sex with Darth Vader would be like.

A lot of heavy breathing...............

 

[SetiAlpha6]

The facts still stand....Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started: And evolution, both micro and macro are facts.

Spontaneous Generation was thoroughly disproved by Science a long time ago. Making Abiogenesis only a blind faith, belief position, in spite of the Scientific Evidence against it.

Science does not support it!

People believe in it because they choose to, and simply want it to be true.

Not because it has been scientifically proven.

It has not!

 

[Write4U]

Spontaneous Generation was disproved by Science a long time ago.

Yes, that early and ignorant theory was debunked in favor of evolution just like creationism.

Do you understand the definition of "spontaneous generation"? Let me show the definition:

Spontaneous generation is a body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular.

So far so good.

It was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.[1]

Do you see the lack of scientific knowledge? No one had even heard of a microscope! This was the product of ignorant minds and was properly corrected by Darwin with his Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

You may want to check this out : What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
https://www.britannica.com/list/what-darwin-got-right-and-wrong-about-evolution

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Yes, that early and ignorant theory was debunked in favor of evolution just like creationism.

Do you understand the definition of "spontaneous generation"? Let me show the definition:
So far so good. Do you see the lack of scientific knowledge? No one had even heard of a microscope! This was the product of ignorant minds and was properly corrected by Darwin with his Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

You may want to check this out : What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
https://www.britannica.com/list/what-darwin-got-right-and-wrong-about-evolution

Right, but they are also the same theory.

Abiogenesis is just in a slightly different form.

Both claim that life can spontaneously generate from non living matter and that such processes are commonplace and regular.

Claims are even made today that it is so easy and commonplace, life must exist everywhere in the Universe.

Neither version has ever been proven.

Which is why Abiogenesis is only a faith position.

 

[billvon]

Right, but they are also the same theory.

No they are not. If you think they are, you don't understand either one.

Both claim that life can spontaneously generate from non living matter and that such processes are commonplace and regular.

Nope. Abiogenesis posits that it happened ONCE in a billion years. Which is the opposite of commonplace and regular.

Claims are even made today that it is so easy and commonplace, life must exist everywhere in the Universe.

See above.

Which is why Abiogenesis is only a faith position.

Given that you don't understand either theory and rely on blind obedience to religious dogma, I think I will go with science over your religious opinions.

 

[James R]

Right, but they are also the same theory.

Abiogenesis is just in a slightly different form.

Both claim that life can spontaneously generate from non living matter and that such processes are commonplace and regular.

No.

Scientific theories of abiogenesis would have chemical processes leading to the formation of life - i.e. life arising from non-living chemical precursors.

That is obviously different from life suddenly appearing from nowhere, which would be spontaneous generation.

You really need to do the bare minimum of research before you post on this topic, SetiAlpha6. A lot of your claims are just factually wrong, and you don't even seem to be aware of it. It's probably because of your heavy reliance on only Creationist sources. You need to realise that Creationists are notorious liars.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

No.

Scientific theories of abiogenesis would have chemical processes leading to the formation of life - i.e. life arising from non-living chemical precursors.

That is obviously different from life suddenly appearing from nowhere, which would be spontaneous generation.

You really need to do the bare minimum of research before you post on this topic, SetiAlpha6. A lot of your claims are just factually wrong, and you don't even seem to be aware of it. It's probably because of your heavy reliance on only Creationist sources. You need to realise that Creationists are notorious liars.

Abiogenesis is faith.

And you know very well that it is unproven.

They are both the same and different

It is the same theory as Spontaneous Generation in basic principle, but it only changes a few variables.

Under the name “Abiogenesis” the length of time needed is vastly increased, and the complexity of the Generation needed is also increased.

Both of which make it even less likely to occur.

Both propose and neither prove that life can Spontaneously arise from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis is not even a good Scientific Theory because it is unfalsifiable.

Please prove Abiogenesis.

 

[Write4U]

Please prove Abiogenesis.

What is there to prove? Can you answer what was before Life evolved?
Can you prove Life always existed? And how would that work, pray tell?

You don't even understand the implications of your own question.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

What is there to prove? Can you answer what was before Life evolved?
Can you prove Life always existed? And how would that work, pray tell?

You don't even understand the implications of your own question.

Like you all, I only have a faith position, on Origins.

My faith position is likely different than yours.

Abiogenesis is a Naturalistic Theory of How, When, and Where life originated. Yet it cannot answer even one of these specifically or definitively. It proves nothing and is unfalsifiable.

It assumes without the slightest proof that Nature is all there is and takes off from there. It’s foundation is merely faith.

How is the Naturalistic Theory of Abiogenesis falsifiable?

Because if it is unfalsifiable it means nothing Scientifically.

And again, is only faith.

 

[Write4U]

Slip-slidin-away.

Origins, the point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived?

Remember, the Universe originated 13.8 billion years ago.

Answer the question; "What was before Life came into existence"?

Abiogenesis IS the Naturalistic Category of "How".
The Evolutionary Theory of "When", and "Where" is yet to be formulated.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Slip-slidin-away.

Origins, the point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived?

Answer the question; "What was before Life came into existence"?

In my faith,
The Eternal “I Am” God.

How about you?

 

[Write4U]

In my faith,
The Eternal “I Am” God.
How about you?

Actually that is not the Eternal Word at all

The Word is; "I am That, I am", not "I Am Who I Am" or "I am God" (that is a bastardization of the true Scripture).

God wanted to assure Moses and Israel that God would become what they would need Him to become. In using the words “I AM THAT I AM,” God used an expression to reveal to Moses a promise and pledge found in His name

https://chicagobible.org/why-did-god-call-himself-i-am-that-i-am/#

In my book "That" is a "mathematical essence". Once you accept That, everything begins to make sense.

Besides what are you doing interpreting the Jewish OT? Just listen to Lewis Black, he will explain it to you.
Brought to you by:

Center for Tanakh Based Studies

Welcome to Center for Tanakh Based Studies' Monday morning "On the lighter side". Here comedian Lewis Black, a Jew criticizes Christians interpreting the Old Testament, his book (Lewis is Jewish if you haven't guessed. Although we don't believe Mr. Lewis' beliefs align with all Jewish people, this one bit of shtick is funny and true

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Why should I listen to Lewis Black?

He is just trying to make a living, at the expense of others, using the character assassinations of others.

The minute he does that he has lost the argument.

By the way, using his own approach...

With him being a Jew, he would have nothing valid to say about Christianity anyway!

So, again, why should I listen to him?

Something has to be Eternal or Nothing would exist right now.

 

[billvon]

Why should I listen to Lewis Black? He is just trying to make a living, at the expense of others, using the character assassinations of others.

So he's just like a creationist! You should be familiar with his approach, then.

With him being a Jew, he would have nothing valid to say about Christianity anyway!

Ah, that old anti-Semitism. Bigotry is alive and well.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

So he's just like a creationist! You should be familiar with his approach, then.

Ah, that old anti-Semitism. Bigotry is alive and well.

Abraham was my grandfather, with a bunch of great greats thrown in there. Let’s just say we go way back!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

So he's just like a creationist! You should be familiar with his approach, then.

I love this comment, and really appreciate it!

Historically yes, absolutely, Man has certainly abused Man, and used Religion as the primary tool to do so.

I really hate that, just like you do!!!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Lewis Black is at least funny!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Actually that is not the Eternal Word at all

The Word is; "I am That, I am", not "I Am Who I Am" or "I am God" (that is a bastardization of the true Scripture). https://chicagobible.org/why-did-god-call-himself-i-am-that-i-am/#

I am fine with that.

 

[Write4U]

I am fine with that.

Of course you are. Everything is negotiable when it is done in the name of God. It has been going on for thousands of years.