Origin of Creationism

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If he wants us to believe in him, then it should be a two way street. We don't live thousands of years. If we make it to a century we are lucky. But even if we did live thousands of years, time is relative. It's not like we share the memories of our ancestors. We just know what we've experienced personally. So it reasons that the best way to gain belief is to talk to EACH person in a way that they'd accept as true. That would TRULY give the person a choice to either accept or deny him. A book doesn't cut it. It has to be a REAL experience. Something measurable and repeatable. Like I dunno... talking in a language that you can understand in your head, specifically answering any question you may have with the correct answer and being able to demonstrate the ability to manipulate events in real time like all the claims of its omnipotence suggest. And that is just the beginning, testing a claim of omnipotence would take a VERY long time. Longer than any of our lifetimes, and probably even many of our descendent's lifetimes. But if it holds true THEN we can say there is a god.

But guess what Krazy, I don't make the rules and you damn
sure don't make the rules. So you have a book, take it or leave it.
My choice is on the table for all to see and it has never shamed me.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
as per your references the evolution theory is descriptive!!!.

Hence it has no power.
On the other hand DNA evidence shows that y chromosom had a beginning and will have an end in the near future. Hence if things are explained by evolution then evolution ultimate goal is termination.. also all mutations observed since discovery of DNA clearly cause degradation and disease. There has been no beneficial mutation..unless if there is external intervention on living beings on earth evolution would have caused end of species without the possibly of evolving into a better or a worse species.t b

If you like to continue parrot-repetition, for any future claim, please also show supporting evidence...

And the way you would say it - Period!

a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

You seem to be under the impressions (from a previous post than the one I am replying to) that ancestry implies only one common ancestor. Let me give you some clarification using two sets of numbers... [64,36,18,4] ; [64,32,16,4]
See, these two short number sets share the number 4. You can consider this the most recent (lowest) common number. But you can also see they share 64 at the beginning, which shows they had a less recent (higher) common number in the sets. Just because humans have a most recent common ancestor rather recently does not imply there were not other recent common ancestors. In fact, it implies that we had a lot of common ancestry up until that point...

As for evolution, it has no goal. It is not a deity, you cannot personify it. It is a law of nature. Things that are suited to their environment live, things that are not die. It is a consequence of living, not an unseen force.

All mutations cause degradation? Like lactose tolerance? Nylonase in bacteria?

How about we use an example of a "negative" mutation, though? Perhaps you would see sickle cell disease as a very serious negative mutation? It certainly shortens the life expectancy of a person... And yet, sickle cell trait (not disease) offers one some resistance to malaria. So at the cost of shortening a person's life, sickle cell trait enables them to live with less severe symptoms of malaria. In nature where malaria would be untreated anyway(if you imagine the world 500 years ago...), this would certainly improve one's ability to reproduce. Not all negative mutations are negative, sometimes they are just sideways.

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: adnanmuf

What a surprise, you didn't even read the links.

D-, must troll harder

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: adnanmuf

What a surprise, you didn't even read the links.

D-, must troll harder

Did you honestly expect him to read the links?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If he wants us to believe in him, then it should be a two way street. We don't live thousands of years. If we make it to a century we are lucky. But even if we did live thousands of years, time is relative. It's not like we share the memories of our ancestors. We just know what we've experienced personally. So it reasons that the best way to gain belief is to talk to EACH person in a way that they'd accept as true. That would TRULY give the person a choice to either accept or deny him. A book doesn't cut it. It has to be a REAL experience. Something measurable and repeatable. Like I dunno... talking in a language that you can understand in your head, specifically answering any question you may have with the correct answer and being able to demonstrate the ability to manipulate events in real time like all the claims of its omnipotence suggest. And that is just the beginning, testing a claim of omnipotence would take a VERY long time. Longer than any of our lifetimes, and probably even many of our descendent's lifetimes. But if it holds true THEN we can say there is a god.

But guess what Krazy, I don't make the rules and you damn
sure don't make the rules. So you have a book, take it or leave it.
My choice is on the table for all to see and it has never shamed me.

Yes a book of testimonials from OTHER humans. God didn't fly down from the heavens and put the bible in our hands, humans wrote it. The SAME humans that you just said don't get to make the rules. So there you have it, you are elevating certain humans above others to make the rules for god. Until god comes and says otherwise, that the most logical explanation for the bible is that it is mythology. Occam's Razor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes a book of testimonials from OTHER humans. God didn't fly down from the heavens and put the bible in our hands, humans wrote it. The SAME humans that you just said don't get to make the rules. So there you have it, you are elevating certain humans above others to make the rules for god. Until god comes and says otherwise, that the most logical explanation for the bible is that it is mythology. Occam's Razor.

But that is merely one way to say it. Another way to say it
might be thru the use of an acronym. Brief Instructions Before Leaving
Earth. Another way to say it is, it's a beautiful example ancient literature
that obviously, will never need to be preserved, because it's been printed
so much more than any other book, it would now be impossible to ever
burn it out of existence. And seeinhg that the truth lives forever?
I think that pretty much puts all your books to shame.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes a book of testimonials from OTHER humans. God didn't fly down from the heavens and put the bible in our hands, humans wrote it. The SAME humans that you just said don't get to make the rules. So there you have it, you are elevating certain humans above others to make the rules for god. Until god comes and says otherwise, that the most logical explanation for the bible is that it is mythology. Occam's Razor.

But that is merely one way to say it. Another way to say it
might be thru the use of an acronym. Brief Instructions Before Leaving
Earth. Another way to say it is, it's a beautiful example ancient literature
that obviously, will never need to be preserved, because it's been printed
so much more than any other book, it would now be impossible to ever
burn it out of existence. And seeinhg that the truth lives forever?
I think that pretty much puts all your books to shame.

The word bible isn't an acronym... It is latin for book. Being an example of ancient literature doesn't mean that it is suddenly credible. In fact I would wager that it makes it less credible since people back then knew less about the universe than they do today. I can also say the same about the Torah and the Qu'ran. Heck, the Illiad is a good example of an ancient piece of literature. Should we give more credit to that book because it is ancient?

I'm confused though. What does any of the first part of your post have to do with the truth? You made no compelling link to the bible and truth in that post, so the statement that the truth lives forever is out of place with the rest of your post. In fact, all you did was demonstrate that humans REALLY like this book. You didn't establish any sort of link to the truth though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was merely remarking on one of the parallels between the Bible
and the truth. Whereby both are eternal.

Should we give more credit to that book because it is ancient?

Would you have a problem with it if more credit were given?

a reply to: randyvs

The bible isn't eternal. When humans finally die out (just like every other species, we have an expiration date as well), there is no incentive for the bible to remain in the universe. All the copies will decompose and be forgotten. Oh and the time frame of the existence of the bible will probably be a blink of an eye. Heck its only been around for about 6000 years now. The Earth has been here for billions of years. The bible has a LONG way to go before it can be called eternal.

Would you have a problem with it if more credit were given?

I already have a problem with how much credit it is given now, let alone if more were given to it. I don't feel like the bible has earned the credit it currently receives, so yes if more credit were given to it, I'd have a problem with that.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes a book of testimonials from OTHER humans. God didn't fly down from the heavens and put the bible in our hands, humans wrote it. The SAME humans that you just said don't get to make the rules. So there you have it, you are elevating certain humans above others to make the rules for god. Until god comes and says otherwise, that the most logical explanation for the bible is that it is mythology. Occam's Razor.

But that is merely one way to say it. Another way to say it
might be thru the use of an acronym. Brief Instructions Before Leaving
Earth. Another way to say it is, it's a beautiful example ancient literature
that obviously, will never need to be preserved, because it's been printed
so much more than any other book, it would now be impossible to ever
burn it out of existence. And seeinhg that the truth lives forever?
I think that pretty much puts all your books to shame.

Yes, it is an example of ancient literature. The story of Gilgamesh is similar (and the so the bible nabs bits of it) and much of the old Middle Eastern pantheon is also reflected in it. As a consequence it's full of contradictions. It's also full of vaguely remembered history. Finally it says bad things about scallops (shellfish) and bacon (pigs). Heresy!!!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The bible isn't eternal.

It is if it's the truth, so by all my perceptions it is eternal.

Yesterday, today and tomorrow.

I already have a problem with how much credit it is given now, let alone if more were given to it. I don't feel like the bible has earned the credit it currently receives, so yes if more credit were given to it, I'd have a problem with that.

My bad Shot I should've rereferrenced the Illiad sorry.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The bible isn't eternal.

It is if it's the truth, so by all my perceptions it is eternal.

Yesterday, today and tomorrow.

You have to prove that statement buddy. And frankly, you have a LONG uphill battle. The contradictions alone make that a very hard task, but pile on that science and archeology is showing more and more that the claims made in the bible are mostly bunk. Oh and then you would need to prove that all the OTHER religious books around the world aren't true as well (hindu texts, muslim texts, etc). So good luck with all that. I think I'll just side with science and not make assumptions about the universe until we can see the evidence that such a claim is true.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No long uphill battle at all. It's all just wait and see.
I know damn well God has nothing to prove to you.
And he damn sure doesn't have to prove anything to me.
So why should I be try'n to prove anything to you? When
it's all gonna happen to us in forty years or less any way?

So at least we had a decent volley Shot.

a reply to: randyvs

Ah the nice cop out answer of "wait and see. you'll be proven wrong" Excuse me while I laugh. HAHA! That is such a tired cop out that it got old after the first 1000 years ya'll have been doing it, let along the second 1000 years.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought it was just the truth.

B

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

You seem to be under the impressions (from a previous post than the one I am replying to) that ancestry implies only one common ancestor. Let me give you some clarification using two sets of numbers... [64,36,18,4] ; [64,32,16,4]
See, these two short number sets share the number 4. You can consider this the most recent (lowest) common number. But you can also see they share 64 at the beginning, which shows they had a less recent (higher) common number in the sets. Just because humans have a most recent common ancestor rather recently does not imply there were not other recent common ancestors. In fact, it implies that we had a lot of common ancestry up until that point...

As for evolution, it has no goal. It is not a deity, you cannot personify it. It is a law of nature. Things that are suited to their environment live, things that are not die. It is a consequence of living, not an unseen force.

All mutations cause degradation? Like lactose tolerance? Nylonase in bacteria?

How about we use an example of a "negative" mutation, though? Perhaps you would see sickle cell disease as a very serious negative mutation? It certainly shortens the life expectancy of a person... And yet, sickle cell trait (not disease) offers one some resistance to malaria. So at the cost of shortening a person's life, sickle cell trait enables them to live with less severe symptoms of malaria. In nature where malaria would be untreated anyway(if you imagine the world 500 years ago...), this would certainly improve one's ability to reproduce. Not all negative mutations are negative, sometimes they are just sideways.

Regards,
Hydeman

I am surprised that your knowledge in DNA ancestry is shallow if not zero.. clearly they avoid teaching you the subject in paleontology schools even though intimate!!!

Mrca is what it says.that all humans came from; one man. In the last 50k years.. now compare that with mrca of chimps.the mrca of chchimps of same tribe local it's 100k years. In 2 chimps from two different tribes it's one million years. Not so in humans whom any two humans like one from Sweden and one from Amazon tribes their most recent common Ancestor cannot be beyond 10000 years ago. Meaning man to father a.10 k y!!!

B

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

You seem to be under the impressions (from a previous post than the one I am replying to) that ancestry implies only one common ancestor. Let me give you some clarification using two sets of numbers... [64,36,18,4] ; [64,32,16,4]
See, these two short number sets share the number 4. You can consider this the most recent (lowest) common number. But you can also see they share 64 at the beginning, which shows they had a less recent (higher) common number in the sets. Just because humans have a most recent common ancestor rather recently does not imply there were not other recent common ancestors. In fact, it implies that we had a lot of common ancestry up until that point...

As for evolution, it has no goal. It is not a deity, you cannot personify it. It is a law of nature. Things that are suited to their environment live, things that are not die. It is a consequence of living, not an unseen force.

All mutations cause degradation? Like lactose tolerance? Nylonase in bacteria?

How about we use an example of a "negative" mutation, though? Perhaps you would see sickle cell disease as a very serious negative mutation? It certainly shortens the life expectancy of a person... And yet, sickle cell trait (not disease) offers one some resistance to malaria. So at the cost of shortening a person's life, sickle cell trait enables them to live with less severe symptoms of malaria. In nature where malaria would be untreated anyway(if you imagine the world 500 years ago...), this would certainly improve one's ability to reproduce. Not all negative mutations are negative, sometimes they are just sideways.

Regards,
Hydeman

I am surprised that your knowledge in DNA ancestry is shallow if not zero.. clearly they avoid teaching you the subject in paleontology schools even though intimate!!!

Mrca is what it says.that all humans came from; one man. In the last 50k years.. now compare that with mrca of chimps.the mrca of chchimps of same tribe local it's 100k years. In 2 chimps from two different tribes it's one million years. Not so in humans whom any two humans like one from Sweden and one from Amazon tribes their most recent common Ancestor cannot be beyond 10000 years ago. Meaning man to father a.10 k y!!!

a reply to: adnanmuf

It might help if you actually read the cites that you have been sent. Instead you are now wilfully distorting the facts. Which is SOP for a creationist person-who-lives-under-a-bridge.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf

It might help if you actually read the cites that you have been sent. Instead you are now wilfully distorting the facts. Which is SOP for a creationist person-who-lives-under-a-bridge.

of course I read your refs that say evolution theory is descriptive. Which has no power. It was damaged by the much stronger science DNA. The DNA science matching the creation story of Adam can only be