Posted on 11/27/2015 11:55:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
You have a serious problem. That’s not an insult, it’s an observation. I haven’t and wouldn’t insult you or anybody else, which should be very obvious. The only real explanation for your words is that you’re trolling me and trying to get me to insult you. This is a complete waste of your time.
As far as photos go, it’s not my job to educate you. Is is fantastically easy to find them, but you choose not to. And it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference if you did, I’m sure.
I know. I work at a contact lens factory, and the process to build something like this is incredible, akin to walking up water on a waterfall.
If evolution had real applications (and I am not talking genetics manipulations and selections we enjoy doing with algorithms), the we would have factories being built by naturally condensing materials. I have not seen that happen yet.
Natural selection is a different issue because it already uses the factory of life existing. We are talking about manufacturing manufacture manufacturing life.
[[1) God can do whatever He wants.]]
[[2) If a “day†is something other than 24 hours, then it can be whatever duration God wants it to be.]]
Yes Vlad, God can do what he wants- however, He did what He did and the science backs up a recent creation, not one that was billions of years ago-
I just read this morning an article about “Mitochondrial entropy”. Secualr scientists studying the genome looked for know mutation rates in females and discovered several times that the rate of mutations per generation puts the “Motochondrial Eve” (The first woman) at a date not more than 6800 years ago- These studies were NOT done by creationists, and they were done several times and always came up with roughly the same dates- They also studied mutation rates in males, and also found the date of original male to be between 6800 and 10000 years ago
I stated there is al to of evidence that shows the earth is not infact billions of years old, and this one study alone is a death blow to the evolutionary time line proposed by Darwinian hypothesis - as is the fact that evolution is biologically, thermodynamically, mathematically, chemically, physically and naturally impossible- These are all very serious hurdles that those who believe in long ages and evolution can not over come
[[1) All living creatures have souls - they just don’t all have rational souls. Only human beings have rational souls.]]
I suggest you do a biblical word study of the word “Nephesh”- As I stated, the Hebrews were VERY specific in what words they used- they didn’t just use any old words they wanted, they used words that have very specific meanings- Nephesh is one of those words which speaks only about the death of those who’s souls go on for eternity
[[1) Not all “top Hebrew scholars†actually agree on that.]]
That is not what the sentence stated- There are of course some who disagree however, they MUST rewrite the bible in roder to support their claims
[[There’s no “soul death†ever for any human being for there is judgment after death of the body.]]
That is not what the term soul means in the word Nephesh- it simply means that higher life does not die In the same manner as lower life like plants do- The ‘soul’ meaning of Nephesh simply means higher life- not eternal soul- the point of this distinction is that before Adam fell, there was no death in higher life, BUT there was death in lower life forms- Plants do not die In the same sense that man does
the reason for the importance of making this distinction is that long age proponents NEED for there to be death in higher life forms to support their claim- or to invoke special supernatural power to life for billions of years- However, as We’ve seen with mitochondrial entropy, the scientific evidence shows that the span of life on earth agrees with young earth claims of 6500-10000 years old, as does the Radio Halos evidence found in rocks that hsow a sudden and recent creation
[[There might be, but a “day’ doesn’t have to be billions of years. You keep ignoring that point.]]
You’re confusing me- Now you seem to be suggesting that I think 1 day meant a billion years? (You were previously trying to argue that 1 day could = a billion years, or however many years God wants it to = but I’ve been hsowign evidence that shows 1 day meant a literal 24 hour day all along) If so that is certainly not the case at all
[[2) There was no death of human beings before the Fall for there were only two human beings other than Adam and Eve. Belief in pre-adamite people (Preadamism) is a heresy. Don’t embrace it.]]
OK- you seem to be confused by what I am saying- I’ve been making the case that there was no Nephesh death before the fall- I most defiantly have not been making the case that there were people before Adam- I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that that was my position when I’ve clearly been arguing just the opposite?
Exactly, micro evolution (Adaption- which uses the info already present) is a much different process than macro-evolution- (The addition of new non species specific information which is absolutely necessary in order to move one species to another kind of species) something that is biologically chemically, naturally, and physically impossible-
Macroevolution is just like the monkey shakespear scenario- the info is all there, but randomly banging the keys for trillions of years will not produce order out of the chaos except for a few short words which are meaningless to the overall picture.
One additional thought- I my last post, I showed how mitochondrial entropy shows that life is very young, and this compliments a previous post I did that showed that in order for macroevolution to happen (provided we ignore all the biological, mathematical, physical chemical etc impossibilities), over billions of years, the mutation rate would be so severe, a species could not survive it because science has shown time and again, natural selection is incapable of weeding out deleterious mutations (contrary to the false claim of those who support macroevolution- the scientific evidence simply doesn’t support their claim- Genomes retain nearly ALL of the deleterious mutations and pass them on to successive generations)
Tracin g back genetic errors, the evidence shows life to be very young- right in lien with what the bible states infact- and several such studies were done and they were done not by creationists, but by secular scientists, so the accusation of ‘bias’ can’t be made by those who support macroevoltuion In these cases
Exactly, and that was the point of a previous post of mine- Abiogensis is an impossibility because the ‘evolving species’ could not survive in a hostile environment- especially without the ability to feed and move around while it awaited mutations to create the mechanisms essential to survival- and they certainly could not have survived and thrived without being able to reproduce
There are just so many things they must ignore and wave away in order to prop up the hypothesis of evolution- The Cambrian explosion being just one of many examples- Mitchondrail entropy, biological impossibilities, even chemical impossibilities- They must ignore the fact that nature would have to violate many of it’s own rules in order for macroevolution to happen, they must ignore evidences for young earth etc etc etc-
It takes a tremendous amount of faith in the impossible to believe in macro evolution
The Hypothesis of macro evolution fails right from the starting gate- It can’t even get out of the gate- in order forl ife to even have a chance of beginning, the right amino acids would need to be produced, and they would have to be sealed off fro mthe wrong amino acids in order to even survive- The following exceprt shows why abiogenisis simply isn’t possible without supernatural intervention and carefully controlled, intelligently designed circumstances which violate natural laws
[[Amino acids, sugars, and many other biochemicals, being 3-dimensional, can usually be in two forms that are mirror images of one another; like your right and left hand are mirror images of each other. This is called handedness or chirality (Figure 5).
Now living things are based on biochemicals that are pure in terms of their chirality (homochiral): left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars, for example. Here’s the rub: chemistry without enzymes (like the Miller–Urey experiment), when it does anything, produces mixtures of amino acids that are both right-and left-handed. It is likewise with the chemical synthesis of sugars (with the formate reaction, for example).13
Origin-of-life researchers have battled with this problem and all sorts of potential solutions have been suggested but the problem remains unsolved.14 Even getting 99% purity, which would require some totally artificial, unlikely mechanism for ‘nature’ to create, doesn’t cut it. Life needs 100% pure left-handed amino acids. The reason for this is that placing a right-handed amino acid in a protein in place of a left-handed one results in the protein having a different 3-dimensional shape. None can be tolerated to get the type of proteins needed for life.]]
http://creation.com/origin-of-life
[[If evolution had real applications (and I am not talking genetics manipulations and selections we enjoy doing with algorithms), the we would have factories being built by naturally condensing materials. I have not seen that happen yet.]]
You bring up an excellent point- Even IF nature had all the necessary building blocks necessary for lie it would still need a factory to put it all together because building life from blocks requires precise engineering to build the structures necessary to ensure that nothing goes awry in the incredibly complex process of life building- in otherwords, you would need an intelligent designer to design a processing plant with all the necessary equipment needed to ensure that the incredibly complex assembly process resulted In the correct form of lie without any mistakes which would cause the assembly/life process to fail
[[”… other biochemical building blocks such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a ‘real factory.’ … The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy.” {Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 126, 176-177.}]]
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Life.htm
In otehrwords- if something along the way isn’t exactly precise, the experiment fails- hence the need for absolute precision- intelligently designed of course
Evolution is a non-starter. Adaptation is real and seen, but when that organisn adapts, it has not evilved into something different.
You can breed dogs all day long and get different characteristics, but in the end, all are canine.
You will not get non-dogs.
“Abiogensis is an impossibility because the ‘evolving species’ could not survive in a hostile environment- especially without the ability to feed and move around while it awaited mutations to create the mechanisms essential to survival- and they certainly could not have survived and thrived without being able to reproduce”
With all that’s available to read on the subject, what a strange misunderstanding/misrepresentation of evolution.
there’s nothing strange about it- If an ‘evolving species’ can’t move about because it hasn’t yet evolved the ability to do so it can not survive Ecoli have an outboard motor-like mechanism which propels them about and is essential for survival, yet take away just one essential component of the ‘motor’ and the wheel system fails- This is just one example- there are more-
[[In order to be considered “alive,†an organism must possess the ability to metabolize and assimilate food, to respirate, to grow, to reproduce and to respond to stimuli (a trait known as irritability). These criteria were developed by biologists who were trying to understand the process we call life. ]]
This is the very least required to consider something alive according to biologists
[[If we ditch the selfish-replicator illusion, and accept that the only known biological entity capable of autonomous replication is the cell (full of cooperating genes and proteins, etc.)... DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. “Catch-22,†say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: “In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.†Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences (Dover, 1999, p. 218).]]
Even RNA- evo’s only real hope for the hypothesis of macroevolution, isn’t able to accomplish even the most basic functions of ‘life’
[[Unless one postulates the unlikely scenario of the simultaneous spontaneous generation of many different organisms, one has to demonstrate the evolution of an organism that can survive on its own, or with others like itself, as a symbiont or cannibal. Consequently, the putative first life forms must have been much more complex than most examples of “simple†life known to exist today.]]
The prospect of cannibalism isn’t viable since it would create a self limiting situation whereby the species eats itself out of house and home so to speak-
[[Cytologists now realize that a living cell contains hundreds of thousands of different complex parts such as various motor proteins that are assembled to produce the most complex “machine†in the Universe—a machine far more complex than the most complex Cray super computer. We now also realize after a century of research that the eukaryote protozoa thought to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin in Darwin’s day actually are enormously more complex than the prokaryote cell. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is
essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals... In terms of their basic biochemical design... no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth (Denton, 1986, p. 250).]]
http://trueorigin.org/abio.php
Also- without the ability to move about, ‘simple’ life forms aren’t able to move away from destructive forces- even at the earliest stages it would take tremendous intelligent design to separate isolate left hand amino acids from the destructive forces of right hand amino acids in order for ‘life to arise’ from the basic building blocks
[[Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28).]]
Same link
IF ‘simple life’ can not escape destructive forces/hostile environments, they can not reproduce to pass along info to new generation- the whole process breaks down right fro mthe beginning because as we’ve seen the basic building blocks of life simply could not survive in a hostile natural environment- There has been no satisfactory explanation for how the basic building blocks could have survived in hostile conditions, nor how later more complex organism (had they been somehow supernaturally able to overcome their hostile environments) could move about in order to feed and reproduce
[[As Levy and Miller explain, “the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleotide bases A,U,G and T at temperatures much above 0° Celsius would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential components on the early earth†(p. 7933). For this reason, Levy and Miller postulated that either a two-letter code or an alternative base pair was used instead. This requires the development of an entirely different kind of life, a conclusion that is not only highly speculative, but likely impossible because no other known compounds have the required properties for life that adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine possess. Furthermore, this would require life to evolve based on a hypothetical two-letter code or alternative base pair system. Then life would have to re-evolve into a radically new form based on the present code, a change that appears to be impossible according to our current understanding of molecular biology]]
Same article- which is fascinating to say the least and illustrates what I’ve been stating- Abiogenesis fails right from the starting gate, and later more complex life forms would not have been possible because of the lack of more complex life forms needed for their survival and replication and later reproduction as they ‘evolved into more complex life forms still’
[[Some bacteria, specifically phototrophs and lithotrophs, contain all the metabolic machinery necessary to construct most of their growth factors (amino acids, vitamins, purines and pyrimidines) from raw materials (usually O2, light, a carbon source, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and a dozen or so trace minerals). They can live in an environment with few needs but first must possess the complex functional metabolic machinery necessary to produce the compounds needed to live from a few types of raw materials. This requires more metabolic machinery in order to manufacture the many needed organic compounds necessary for life.]]
Same link as above post
[[Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. ]]
[[Evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, Evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, Evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, eventual Evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and eventually Evolution into the first cells.]] Like the admin in the link states basically, these are all impossible hurdles evolution must overcome when it comes to muck to man evolution. The whole process requires multi-millions of links, all of which are missing as stated by the author- We're not talking about simply explaining away a couple of missing links, we're talking about having to excuse away multi-millions of missing links even at the very basic stages of life- again, it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe man evolved from a primordial soup. This is millions of times that must be explained away somehow because it can't be admitted that a supernatural intelligent designer created complex life capable of sustaining itself- Creationists are often accused of 'appealing to the God of the Gaps" Yet Macroevolutionsits must appeal to a fictional god of the gaps when trying to explain away the millions of missing links- usually by making the appeal that 'we just haven't discovered how yet' There's a lot of info at this link- info which delves into the impossibility of the earliest 'life forms' to survive and thrive while it waited around for all the right conditions to supernaturally occur to help it toward complex life
Love discussing it and not at all inflamed that others don’t agree. :-)
But seriously, what was they eye while it was evolving? How did anything evolve without a uterus?
“Yes Vlad, God can do what he wants- however, He did what He did and the science backs up a recent creation, not one that was billions of years ago-”
False. All science that is considered reputable by scientists backs up only a very ancient creation of the universe: geology, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, even genetics. You don’t have to believe in it, but that is irrefutably the “science” at this point.
I just read this morning an article about “Mitochondrial entropyâ€. Secualr scientists studying the genome looked for know mutation rates in females and discovered several times that the rate of mutations per generation puts the “Motochondrial Eve†(The first woman)...”
It doesn’t matter what article on Mitochondrial Eve you’ve read. Mitochondrial Eve is only one tiny aspect of the issue at best and does nothing to displace the rest of reputable “science”. The “most recent common ancestor” tells us nothing about the age of creation. At best it tells us about the creation of man only - and does not settle the issue “scientifically”.
“I suggest you do a biblical word study of the word “Nepheshâ€-”
Already done.
“As I stated, the Hebrews were VERY specific in what words they used- they didn’t just use any old words they wanted, they used words that have very specific meanings- Nephesh is one of those words which speaks only about the death of those who’s souls go on for eternity”
And as I already stated, souls do not die. Ever.
“That is not what the sentence stated- There are of course some who disagree however, they MUST rewrite the bible in roder to support their claims”
No, all one needs to do is realize the truth: the Bible never teaches that souls die. Ever.
“That is not what the term soul means in the word Nephesh- it simply means that higher life does not die In the same manner as lower life like plants do- The ‘soul’ meaning of Nephesh simply means higher life- not eternal soul- the point of this distinction is that before Adam fell, there was no death in higher life, BUT there was death in lower life forms- Plants do not die In the same sense that man does”
No. Before Adam no human being ever lived. There was no mortal “higher life”. Every human being has a soul. And their souls never die.
“the reason for the importance of making this distinction is that long age proponents NEED for there to be death in higher life forms to support their claim- or to invoke special supernatural power to life for billions of years-”
Actually they need not do either. You seem to have a faulty understanding of the issues at hand.
“You’re confusing me- Now you seem to be suggesting that I think 1 day meant a billion years?”
I think you’re just easily confused.
“(You were previously trying to argue that 1 day could = a billion years,”
And it could.
“or however many years God wants it to”
And it could.
“= but I’ve been hsowign evidence that shows 1 day meant a literal 24 hour day all along) If so that is certainly not the case at all”
What is the case is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“OK- you seem to be confused by what I am saying-”
Not one bit.
“I’ve been making the case that there was no Nephesh death before the fall-”
You’re the one confusing issues. Souls don’t die.
“I most defiantly have not been making the case that there were people before Adam- I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that that was my position when I’ve clearly been arguing just the opposite?”
Your position about souls is wrong. It’s just that simple.
[[False. All science that is considered reputable by scientists backs up only a very ancient creation of the universe: geology, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, even genetics.]]
you obviously haven’t read the science which proves otherwise-
[[You don’t have to believe in it, but that is irrefutably the “science†at this point.]]
Yeah not so much
[[It doesn’t matter what article on Mitochondrial Eve you’ve read. Mitochondrial Eve is only one tiny aspect of the issue at best and does nothing to displace the rest of reputable “scienceâ€.]]
you can throw the word ‘reputable’ around all you like as though that makes you claim ‘more valid’ but the fact is that the science I cited was done by secular reputable scientists too- and not just one study by one group or one person- there have been several studies- all coming ot same conclusion
[[No, all one needs to do is realize the truth: the Bible never teaches that souls die. Ever.]]
[[Already done.]]
Obviously you haven’t- I’ll not waste any more time explaining it to you- my previous posts on this particular issue stand
[[I think you’re just easily confused.]]
It isn’t me that’s confused- I’ve explained the situation several times to you and you either aren’t understanding what I’m telling you or you are simply confused- not sure which
[[Your position about souls is wrong. It’s just that simple.]]
As I’ve stated I’ve explained the situation to you several times- you apparently don’t understand what I’ve said- go back and read carefully what I’ve said instead of repeating your mistake over and over again- you show a profound misunderstanding of the word Nephesh if you continue making this statement repeatedly- no one has ever said souls don’t live forever- Nephesh does not refer to the eternal soul- I thought that was clear but evidently not
“you obviously haven’t read the science which proves otherwise-”
Actually, I have.
“Yeah not so much”
Actually, entirely. Again, you don’t have to believe it, but that is the case no matter what.
“you can throw the word ‘reputable’ around all you like as though that makes you claim ‘more valid’ but the fact is that the science I cited was done by secular reputable scientists too- and not just one study by one group or one person- there have been several studies- all coming ot same conclusion”
You need to learn how to read. What you said about “Mitochondrial Eve” does not displace other things that are considered “scientific” facts by “reputable” scientists. That’s not throwing the word around. That’s simply using it properly.
“Obviously you haven’t- I’ll not waste any more time explaining it to you- my previous posts on this particular issue stand”
I already did it - and studied what are referred to as the five levels of soul or spirit in Jewish thought as well. Don’t tell me what I have or have not done because you clearly don’t know what I have or have not done.
“It isn’t me that’s confused-”
Clearly it is. If you were not confused, then you would not make assumptions that I did not do word studies that I have in fact done. There’s no escape from that for you.
“I’ve explained the situation several times to you and you either aren’t understanding what I’m telling you or you are simply confused- not sure which”
I am not confused. If you’re making assumptions about what I have and have not done, then only you are confused. You have, and thus you are.
“As I’ve stated I’ve explained the situation to you several times- you apparently don’t understand what I’ve said- go back and read carefully what I’ve said instead of repeating your mistake over and over again-”
I made no mistake whatsoever.
“you show a profound misunderstanding of the word Nephesh if you continue making this statement repeatedly-”
I made no mistake whatsoever - about Nephesh or anything else.
“no one has ever said souls don’t live forever- Nephesh does not refer to the eternal soul- I thought that was clear but evidently not”
Scripture sometimes speaks of human beings as souls. That does not mean the soul as separate from the body. There’s no mistake there. There’s no confusion there. Human souls do not die. Ever. There’s no mistake there. There’s no confusion there.
and just for the record- everyone of the methods used for dating materials is faulty, numbers are fudged to fit the hypothesis, dates that don’t agree thrown out, etc- so please tell me how this is ‘reputable science’? ‘reputable scientists’ have come out and confessed to fudging the dates to fit the evolutionary timeline agenda- and other reputable scientists have discussed at length the problems associated with all long age dating methods- You can find that evidence readily available all over the internet - it’s no secret-
The ‘reputable scientists’ you put your faith in all have a faith in uniformitarianism- a blind faith in fact- You claim that all science backs up an ancient universe simply isn’t true- It is nothing more than opinion based on ASSUMPTIONS- so please don’t try to convince us the science is settled on this matter- we know much better than that Science isn’t about ASSUMPTIONS- Even the criteria for what is considered science doesn’t fit the opinions of old earth age because they can’t be tested- they can’t be scientifically falsified- they are nothing more than opinion- you may prefer their opinion over young earth creation scientists opinions, but to claim the matter that the earth is old is an ‘irrefutable’ truth is simply false-
[[The “most recent common ancestor†tells us nothing about the age of creation. At best it tells us about the creation of man only - and does not settle the issue “scientificallyâ€.]]
I never claimed that it did- The age of people was a separate issue being discussed- but it is also important to show this in thel ight of the age of the earth as well because it corroborates what the bible states about creation- other science along with this evidence is very strong evidence that the earth is in fact young, and not billions of years old-
[[Clearly it is. If you were not confused, then you would not make assumptions that I did not do word studies that I have in fact done. There’s no escape from that for you.]]
No escape is needed on my part Vlad- you clearly did not do a word study on nephesh because you keep making the same mistake over and over again
[[Actually, entirely. Again, you don’t have to believe it, but that is the case no matter what.]]
Lol- no it isn’t the case as explained in my last post to you on this issue-
[[I made no mistake whatsoever - about Nephesh or anything else.]]
Yes you are- I’ve explained it several times that soul creatures did not die before the fall, after the fall they did because thye were then under the curse- I asked you to study the word- obviously you don’t care to - Nephesh means ‘living being’ and ‘soul’ when a living being or living soul dies, the body dies but the soul goes on either to heaven or hell- as you well know- That’s all that soul death means- as evidenced by the definition of nephesh chayyah - When the bible refers to men using nephesh Chayyah, it refers to them as ‘living souls’- before the fall, there was no living souls death- after the fall there was bodily death of living souls- Like I said, I’m not wasting any more time on this issue-
[[You need to learn how to read. What you said about “Mitochondrial Eve†does not displace other things that are considered “scientific†facts by “reputable†scientists.]]
Lol- so now scientific opinions are facts- and by ‘reputable scientists’ no less- You do realize these ‘facts’ that you claim are settled science keep changing over time right? So how are they facts again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.