Conversation with a Pastor

You answer my question first.

We have more in common with dirt than bananas have in common with dirt. That's a fact.

 

This is silly because as soon as facts are presented that contradict your man made beliefs about religion you run an hide, and while turning to run attempt to demonize the messenger by calling them names. Time an time again.

Now the use of the term dirt/clay or "earth" is thought by some to be a play on words by some. In the Sumerian creation epics, the people from the sky (Sumerians thought they were Godlike beings and called them the Annunaki. We might refer to them as aliens) came to earth in search of resources.

As the story goes... the work was very hard and so they wanted to create a worker drone. They did so by mixing "blood of the Annunaki - with earth". Some claim this is a description of genetic manipulation. Mixing the genetic material of the Annunaki with a primitive being from earth. (like Neanderthal)

In any case. The story describes the creation of a worker and this new species was called the Adamu.

However we wish to interpret the Sumerian stories, the Genesis story was a much later adaptation from this original story.

 

What evidence? I have yet to see anything credible.

That assumes the Genesis story is a adaptation from the Sumerians, which it wasn't.

 

Sumerian story comes from around 3000-2500 BCE at the lastest. The Bible story is from 700-600 BCE. The Hebrew version is one of the latest. Most are earlier than the Hebrew and all have fairly similar ideas.

 

I will need to know who this non-existent being is to understand his mind and how he made this cell. That way I will be able to understand the cell and it's behaviour.

Well that's the sort of answer you would give.

 

This idea that something is either easy or false is not just idiotic, but an insult to education in general and to the individuals who have made important contributions related to the subject.

The ease of explaining something is not the issue. Also, it is not the issue whether I can explain it at all, nor does it matter that you don't have the education required to understand it at any detail.

Smart and interested minds must gain years of education and training to get to the point where they can make a contribution. And, it has taken centuries of progression to reach where we are.

Our world is complex enough that the challenge is to learn how to find and use experts in various fields to get the understanding we need. No individual can be an expert in all fields.

So in this thread, the fact that you don't know biology is fine. After all, it takes years.

But, the fact that you think you know better than all modern biology is not fine.

 

I gave you plenty of credible evidence showing that the Global Flood story in Genesis was not true. You did not even bother to address that evidence never mind refute its credibility.

You ran into the corner and hid like a scared child.

As usual you are again making a de facto claim with no support, nor have you made any attempt to refute the evidence to the contrary.

Genesis is thought by many scholars to be, at least in part, to be an adaptation or explanation using the various creation stories and beliefs of the day. Many of these stories, of course, had their origins in much earlier myths such as the Sumerian myths.

This expert claims that "Genesis" was not as solely dependent on the Summerian/Assyrian lore as previous scholars. He suggest (and this is likely true) that the writers of Genesis drew on a range of sources.


http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf

The Author (as Authors with intellectual credibility do) outlines the state of current scholarship.

I am sure you are not interested but, he then disagrees with the current tradition that Genesis was strictly dependent on the Sumerian creation stories and puts forward evidence suggesting that there were likely other sources "in addition" to the Sumerian stories.

This makes sense as the stories believed in 2000 BC would have changed by the time Genesis was written in 600 BC. As such Genesis is a compendium of more modern religious thought at the time.

What serious scholarship does not believe is that Genesis was written on the basis of real events witnessed by the writers.

Suggestion to the contrary is abject nonsense.

 

I assume what you've written below will be your evidence, right?

Here's the problem with your source that I'm sure you're not aware of. In order for the Genesis account to come from Sumerian text, the Genesis account would need to be less detailed than the source, but in fact, it's the other way around. According to my source, "Even as we look at the Babylonian flood epic, we find differences within the various Middle Eastern versions that have been uncovered. H. V. Hilprecht from the University of Pennsylvania in 1909 (Hilprecht was part of the University's Babylonian expeditions and excavations) uncovered the earliest fragment of the flood epic. After carefully uncovering and translating each cuneiform character, Hilprecht made the following statement: "In its preserved portion, it showed a much greater resemblance to the Biblical Deluge Story than any other fragment yet published."
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/

Based on that information, we can conclude that the Hebrew source didn't derive from the Sumerian source. Of course, there's even more data. There's further evidence to show that what you're proposing isn't the case.

According to my source, "A brief look at just a few particulars of both the Sumerian kings list and the flood epics will show the many inconsistencies that forfeit any consideration of Babylonian myth as a source for Scripture.

The list of pre-flood Sumerian kings has some curious similarities to the list of patriarchs in Genesis. For example, Genesis and the Sumerian list both refer to the Flood. Both refer to men of great ages, and when the differing numeric systems are considered, they provide similar totals. The lists, however, have three significant differences:

The ages and lengths of reigns of the Sumerian kings are much longer than that of the biblical patriarchs, as some of the Sumerian kings supposedly reigned for more than 30,000 years. After discovering the Sumerians used a sexagesimal system5 rather than a decimal system of counting, the longer life spans in the Sumerian list are converted to a very similar number with the life spans of eight correlating patriarchs in the biblical account.
The Sumerian kings list has only eight in the list while the Bible gives 10 patriarchs before the Flood (including Noah). Although a close correlation exists between these lists, it seems the Sumerian list has omitted the first man and the man who survived the Flood (Adam and Noah). The similarities between the other eight men make this a reasonable consideration.
The Bible has a clear difference in the quality of information, the spiritual and moral superiority of the patriarchs, and the completeness of the list. The Genesis account explains in great detail the struggle of mankind with sin and the effects of the Curse. It highlights those who walked with God and also provides details about humanity apart from the patriarchs. Such detail is not found in the Sumerian kings list.

While a study of the Sumerian list is a fascinating journey in discovering the way Sumerians looked upon their ancestry and how their numeric and commercial systems worked, the quality of the biblical text is distinctly superior in both completeness, information, and spiritual and moral quality. The biblical text does not reflect a borrowing from an inferior text. If anything, the very mention of this kings list that matches so closely to the biblical account is a confirmation of biblical authenticity."
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/

But lets not stop there. Both writings have a different form from one another. It suggests that both are stories written from one source and not from one another. Like I mentioned before, there are hundreds of these stories, and they are all very familiar to each other. According to another one of my sources, "From the early days of the comparative study of these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship. The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view.20 Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original."
Source: http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/

What I think you're ignoring is the fact that there are multiple Flood stories, which suggest that the ancient world agreed upon one fact, and that fact is that there was a worldwide flood.

 

Try to get a koolade Christian to admit that eternal torture is sadistic. To me, it is just a false doctrine that insults God. There is no doubt most Christians defy logic in their beliefs. It is easy for me to have faith because I have questioned and rejected a few current doctrines of mainstream church teachings.

 

This is a common logical fallacy that atheists use. They tend to tell people that they don't understand something, and therefore, the reasons are above them. However, the truth is, nobody here is stupid. Everyone here can grasp the fact that there are several things that do not make sense in evolution.

1) Abiogenesis: this has never been reproducible or observable. According to the scientific method, this idea needs to be abandoned.

2) There's no step-by-step procedure explaining how a single cell organism would gain additional information to its DNA strain when scientists have never observed or even reproduced such an event. Every time we try to change information inside of a DNA strain, it self heals and auto corrects itself.
Source: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/dna-proo...plication-cellullar-self-directed-engineering

3) As animals go through speciation, scientists observe that animals don't gain information, but rather, lose information. Scientist propose that information is supposed to be gained, but that's not at all what we see.
Source: http://www.icr.org/article/mutations-raw-material-for-evolution/

4) The probability for macro-evolution is so high that it's mathematically impossible.
[video=youtube;ai-DXFXZr8s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s[/video]


Shall I continue?

 

I'm talking about evolution. Are you saying you don't believe in evolution?

I provided facts with sources. Examine them.

 

I gave you evidence for why the Biblical flood story is myth in a previous post. You never did respond.

First off, the Genesis account comes not just from the Sumerian Text as per the link provided which you obviously did not read.

Second: The Sumerian account is far more detailed ? Give your head a shake.

3) Answering Genesis is an apologist site which rarely has any academic credibility ? 1909 ? Are you kidding me. As discussed in my link. Modern Scholarship does not state this at all.

None of modern scholarship has concluded any such thing ? What a bunch of poppycock.

Your source has been proven utter garbage ? What do Historical Sumerian King lists have to do with anything ? There is no logical connection.

No ... please do stop. Conclusions based on garbage are garbage.

1) We would never expect the writing form to be the same.
2) The Sumerian myths are the oldest sources we know of dating back at least 1000 years prior to the writing of Genesis and more likely 2000. These stories over time became adopted and changed by various cultures in the middle east.

It is not like the writers of Genesis copied the Sumerian story word for word. Those stories had changed greatly from culture to culture over time. Religious stories and beliefs are not stagnant. We see remnants of the Sumerian creation story all throughout the religious creation stories that cropped up over time. Genesis was an adaptation of the current dogma of the day.

The main point being ... Genesis was adapted from other stories. It is not a story written by anyone who witnessed the "Great flood" because the "Great flood" did not happen.

Again you cite from a completely biased source but lets not demonize the source and look what is said.

It starts out ok (in bold) but then devolves into abject nonsense that is not supported by any scholarship. Of course we know that there were flood stories from cultures all over the world. This is not evidence for a global flood in any way shape or form ?

When the ice age ended sea level rose 200 meters over time. Major cities and population centers tend to be built near the Ocean or on rivers. Guess what ? - it is no surprise that these cities had catastrophic floods or were submerged.

Then comes the real nonsense and outrageous logical leap supported by no references. That the oral tradition from Noah to 600 BC was maintained. There is no evidence of this. This is mind blowing absurdity to anyone with one ounce of academic credibility to make this kind of claim.

I already gave you the explanation for multiple flood stories and this certainly does not suggest that there was a world-wide flood.

The fact of the matter is that we know from science that no such flood happened. How much evidence would you like ?

How about starting with the fact that in 2000 BC - roughly the time when this flood was supposed to have occurred according to the Bible. There is no way for a person living in Mesopotamia, to know that the whole world is flooded !

How about starting with the fact, that we have cultures that are continuous throughout this time period. No flood wiped them out.

How about learning some science and realizing that there is not enough water on the planet to cover the entire earth.

How about using some logic and figuring out that there is no way for Noah and sons to have collected 2 of each land species from all over the earth.

How about using some more logic and figuring out that even if Noah had managed such a feat, there was no way to fit all these animals into the Ark, never-mind control or feed them.

How did these animals get back home and leave no traces of their existence in Mesopotamia either in the archaeological record or in written history ?

How about using the brain that God gave you.

 

So you're saying that despite the incredibly incriminating similarity, and the equally incriminating fact that there were other incarnations of the same story in that part of the world .... your favourite version isn't a plaigarism, because .... you say so. And your evidence for this claim of "no plaigarism" is your desire for it to be so?

 

Alright. So, you're bashing my sources. So, lets examine the references my sources point to.

and

So, in reality, you have a problem with these sources here. However, when I examine the source you provided (http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf), your own source says on page 25, "Everyone, it now seems, was relieved that the Bible was vindicated. In 1849 the reverend Joseph Sortain gave a spirited talk at Brighton on Layard’s excavations. He stressed that this was a momentous time when the Christian faith was being supported by science: "

Well, well, well... Shall I continue on your source?

How about such juicy quotes such as, "[W]ho can tell how much more remote such records may carry us into the past? The day may not be far distant when Nimrod’s Biography, Noah’s History of the Flood, and Adam’s Autobiography, shall become standard works among the civilized nations of the earth"

and, "The similarities are really not so striking as we might expect ... In fact, the divergences are much more far-reaching and significant than are the resemblances, most of which are not any closer than what we should expect to find in any two more or less complete creation versions (since both would have to account for the same phenomena and since human minds think along much the same lines) which might come from entirely different parts of the world and which might be utterly unrelated to each other."

These are from your own source.

Let us continue: "In discussing the possible connection between Marduk and the God of the Hebrew Bible, Heidel noted that the idea of a primeval war between a god and the sea is an idea born in the West and imported into Mesopotamia, so the Bible would more likely have borrowed it from closer neighbors than the Babylonians. Here, Heidel relies on evidence in myths discovered at Ugarit (on the Mediterranean coast of modern Syria) a decade after the First World War (and ipso facto unavailable to Smith and Delitzsch). Proof that this was indeed the case comes from the words the Bible uses for the sea monster. On the fifth day of Creation, in Genesis 1:21, God creates Tannîn, often translated “sea serpents&#8221. This same creature appears as tnn, or Tunnan, in Ugaritic myth: "

And, "Assyriologist Wilfred Lambert, who is preparing the eagerly awaited authoritative edition of Enu ̄ ma Eliš,notes that many of the parallels between the Babylonian poem and the Bible are as common throughout Near Eastern literature as to be insignificant.16 The watery beginnings of the universe have parallels not only in other Mesopotamian Creation myths but even in Egyptian and Greek texts and thus cannot be evidence of particularly Babylonian influence. The splitting of the waters (in Genesis, on the second day) is uniquely parallel to the splitting of aqueous Tiamat in Enu ̄ ma Eliš, although the splitting of other substances is well attested in Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Egyptian and Greek myths. As for the third day, Lambert finds a Mesopotamian parallel to the separation of the sea from the dry land, but it is not from Enu ̄ ma Eliš. The most important parallel Lambert finds is with the seventh day, the Sabbath. Man is created in Enu ̄ ma Eliš to give rest to the gods. If so, both Enu ̄ ma Eliš and Genesis 1:1–2:4a climax with divine rest.17 All told, Lambert sees the connections between Genesis 1 and Enu ̄ ma Eliš as relatively few in number. "


And, "As recent scholarship is making clear, simplistic comparison between Enu ̄ ma Eliš and the biblical tradition—as if the Bible were directly dependent on Enu ̄ ma Eliš and it alone—is patently untenable."

Both my sources and your own source destroy any point you were trying to make. You might as well give up, man. I'm too much for you.

 

1. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis you have to address something about abiogenesis.

2. We see changes in dna all the time. This is most clear when we see new species arise - cases where genetic material is so different that successful breeding can not occur.

3. No, scientists very definitely observe that animals gain information. For example, within the last 10K years humans gained blue eyes, ability to digest milk as adults, and genetically based resistance to certain diseases.


Scientists have found more than one million changes in human dna and have traced the majority to the last 200 generations.

See http://www.wired.com/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/ which references the scientific journal "Nature" as one insight.

4. This clearly does not rule out evolution. We watch evolution take place and see evidence of it happen.

You are still making two common blunders of religion:
- stubborn refusal to accept what has been found in nature, including a near total rejection of science.
- the notion that not knowing something is a reason to think that "god did it".

If you want to show that god did something, you need to show that god did it. You have not even tried to do that. Not once. Not in any of the cartoonish videos you post. Not in anything you reference.


NO. DO NOT bother to continue until you solve at LEAST one of these two basic mistakes of religion.

 

The Sumerian story predates Genesis by a thousand years or more and is recorded along with business transaction records on 4,000 clay tablets in Dilmun which is now called Bahrain.

The origin of the flood story come from Sumer and it is confirmed by the King's List and a flood footprint.. The Euphrates river basin often flooded in the spring as a result of snowmelt and heavy rains.. That how the delta below Basra developed.

I don't think that you really have enough education to understand the mythos or WHY the Hebrews borrowed and adapted the mythos and poetry of other cultures.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

1. apologetics press isn't part of science. The focus of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life began.

2. You keep saying this in the face of new stuff arising through evolution. Just recently we found more connection on how turtles arose. More fossil evidence shows a pathway to this species that seemed surprising and was not previously understood. Sorry, but we see evolutionary pathways ALL the time. Claiming they don't exist doesn't make any sense. Once again, you want to deny what is seen, based on preconceived notions that probably have religious, not scientific, foundation.

3. Again, this is just an error in logic on your part. I gave you a scientific citation. You're just hunting for cases that you hope don't demonstrate this characteristic. But, that does not form a proof of nonexistence. More specifically, the fact that new disease is cropping up at a good rate is not a proof that human evolution isn't solving diseases.

4. We have very definitely watched speciation take place. You're just wrong about that. Once speciation takes place, there is no limit to how different the two resulting species can become, given adequate time and variety of environment.

I don't care about your religion. I'm not making any statements about that at all. You're the expert on your personal religion.

I'm just pointing out that you are clueless about science. I'll also point out that you should be careful about strapping your religion to false notions of how our universe works.

 

1) Oh, so you believe God created everything and then everything evolved?

2) The fossil record doesn't provide DNA information. You can't prove that new information has been added to a DNA strain that wasn't there before. You can't do it.

3) No. I'm not disagreeing with your source. I'm disagreeing with what you got out of your own source. I provide additional information that helps correct your thinking. You somehow think human-beings are evolving, but you cannot prove it. Gaining the ability to drink milk isn't an evolutionary step because the information for drinking milk was already encoded in our DNA. This is evident by the fact that minorities are overwhelmingly lactose intolerant, and also by the fact that minorities, by an overwhelming margin, do not have blue eyes. Otherwise, what you'd be suggesting is that only whites evolved while blacks and other minorities did not.

4) Macroevolution isn't speciation. You should know that.

 

1. no. I believe modern science has only vague understandings of how first life arose. There are lots of things we don't know. We don't know what was going on before the big bang. We don't know if there are spacial dimensions beyond the 3 we experience. As far as I've heard, we don't know whether a Higgs boson is irreducible. Fifteen years ago we found a whole new force of nature - a repulsive force that operates on the scale of clusters of galaxies. There are LOTS of things we don't know.

2. we see new information added in time frames short enough that it can be seen directly. Read the science I cited.

3. You are disagreeing with the very foundation of modern biology and your ideas of cosmology are contrary to science as well.

I pointed out links to scientific work showing that evolution continues today. Then, YOU suggest I can't. ??? What sort of nonsense is THAT?

4. Once we have speciation, there is no hurdle for differentiation other than time and environment. Remember me saying that? One sees this in the fossil record, for example.

 

1) You don't have a choice but to believe in abiogenesis if you don't believe in God. There. Is. No. Other. Option.

2) No you don't. The article itself is a sham and it's misrepresenting the facts in which its referencing. Protein variances barely account for the entire genome. Not to mention many of the "new" genes are actually old genes that the authors had failed to input into their statistical analysis and recognize via their pcr assays.
Source: http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news148

3) No I'm not. You're simply not understanding what you're reading. You didn't examine the data that article was referencing. Period.

4) Once again. Macroevolution has not been observed. Period.

 

1. Of COURSE I have a choice. There is the obvious option - the truth!

Any time I don't know something, I could say "god did it". But, that is a lie. I don't know that god did it.

Plus:
- It isn't imperative that I have an answer to abiogenesis. I'm curious, but I don't have to have an answer. Not knowing is perfectly OK.

- Those who say "god did it" keep getting proven wrong. Early astronomers said god moved the heavens, because they didn't understand what the heck was going on. They were proved wrong. Newton said "god did it" when he saw the complexity of the multi-body gravitation problem presented by our planets. He was proven wrong. Long ago, people said the heart was the house for the soul - since the soul needed to be somewhere, damaging the heart led to death, and they didn't understand any other function of the heart. They were proven wrong. etc. This is called "god of the gaps". We have a gap in our knowledge, so someone says "god did it". BFD!

- if you want to show that god did something, you have to show that god did it. Showing that we don't know the answer is NOT A SOLUTION.

- right now, you want to claim "god did it", because you want the fact that it happened to prove there is a god. But, that is circular nonsense of the first degree. When YOU make this claim, you can claim it is your religion. But, DO NOT CLAIM IT IS SCIENCE - because it is not science.

The rest of your post has no credibility as already pointed out.

 

1) It's either you believe in abiogenesis or you don't. Everyone here knows you do, so quit pretending that you don't.

2) Here we go with the "God of the gaps" logical fallacy. Atheists and agnostics do it all the time. However, instead of saying "God did it" they simply say "I don't know", which is essentially the same thing. This never hindered Christian science in the slightest, but it certainy hinders atheists since they're pressured to come up with an answer; any answer. So, they'll say almost anything to satisfy that answer, and it holds science back because they're consistently wrong.
Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...-the-god-of-the-gaps-teaches-us-about-science

3) You then say the rest of my post has no credibility, despite the fact that I provided sources and facts to back up exactly what I'm saying. You know good and well macroevolution has never been observed. Ever. Yet you pretend it has. Who's living the fairy tale now, huh? Go ahead. Close your eyes and make believe. Make believe that Macroevolution is true, even though it's never been observed. Go ahead and dream that life can come from no life. Keep dreaming to yourself that the earth is billions of years old even though it doesn't make any wick of sense for the earth to be that old. Keep denying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Go ahead. Its already got to the point where, there's no evidence for you to argue with. You're just the way you are because you're just mad.

 

If the drinking of milk is encoded in our DNA, why can't 'minorities' drink it?

In the meantime, actually drinking any non-human milk is NOT 'normal', and while we have adapted somewhat to its consumption in areas where dairy animals are more common, we've yet to reach a stage where the human infant can metabolise foreign proteins (which is what non-human milk is) without the system forcing production of unique enzymes in order to do so. These enzymes are not usually present in children who've been exclusively breast-fed (ie, no formula or cereals) until 6 months of age. These enzymes have been demonstrably linked to things like obesity, cancer, and diabetes in adulthood.

 

I find your post deeply disturbing.

You certainly have a right...at least in the United States....to beleive what you want and pray to whoever you want....or not.

But I am sensing something deeply disturbing coming from you....FEAR.

You are AFRAID that information and data might come along that would make you question your belief system.

This is known as an EMERGENCY LACK OF FAITH.

Now you might say you have no lack of faith and personally I don't care who or what you pray to or what your belief system is as long as it doesn't hurt amyone and does not force others to believe as you do.

I am NOT an Atheist...I am AGNOSTIC....and for good reason.

Now I read your above answers numbered #1-#5.

#1. Abiogenesis is one of the Tenets of QUANTUM EVOLUTION which we see happening all around us as the Thermonuclear Reactions which fuse multiple Hydrogen Atoms into Helium is part of QUANTUM EVOLUTION.

So is all elements of the Irons development in the Stellar Core of Stars.

So is from Iron up all the HEAVIER ELEMENTS like Uraniaum, Gold...etc....which are part of Quantum Evolutions process which in this case includes and involves SUPERNOVA as Human Beings could not exist without the UNTOLD BILLIONS OF SUPERNOVA NECESSARY TO DEVELOP ALL HEAVIER THE IRON ELEMENTS as without these the HUMAN BODY COULD NOT EXIST!!!

#2.....We only see changes? Quantum Evolution's naturl progression s BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTON and any person with a cheap Microscope, a few prepared slides and eye dropper. some bleach and some sugar water and a $2 Biological Slide Harvesting Tools a person can ACTUALLY SEE EVOLUTION OCCUR IN FRONT OF THEIR EYE'S IN ONE AFTERNOON!!!

Take a Toy and Hobbie Shp's Prepared Slide of Bacteria and add one eye drop of SUGAR WATER to the slide...wait 10 minutes.....take a look at how much Bacteria grew and then add one drop of BLEACH.

At first the vast majority of Bacteria will die but take the $2 Biological Harvesting Slide Tool....Harvest the small amount of still living Bacteria...put them on a new slide and ADD ONE DROP OF SUGAR WATER.

Wait 10 Minutes....and repeat the whole process by first adding an eye drop of Bleach again.

Keep doing this and after several hours you will discover that less and less Bacteria will die and more and more will survive.

If you repeate the experiments process long enough eventually NONE OF THE BACTERIA WILL DIE!!!

Why?

Because only the Original Bacteria that in a SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST MODE....had the specific Genetic Traits that would allow them to survive Bleach.....survived and once Sugar Water was added the ate and divided via Mitosis and reproduced themselves STRONGER and as tis kept happening......ONLY THR BACTERIA WITH THE DNA NECESSARY TO SURVIVE SURVIVED....REPRODUCED AND BECAME STRONGER AS THE ACTUAL GENOME AND POSITIONS OF SPECIFIC ATOMS UPON THE DNA MOLECULE CHANGED AND A NEW SEPCIES OF BACTERIA DEVELOPED....IN A SINGE AFTERNOON!!

It takes much longer for this to happen in Multicellular, Multispecies Biomechanical Constructs that in the case of Human Beings a Human Being is NOT COMPRISED OF ONLY HUMAN CELLS AS A HUMAN BEING IS A muticellular.....MULTISPECIES BIOMECHANICAL CONSTRUCT that uses both Human Cells and the Cells of other Non-Human Species that are PART OF A HUMAN BEING and without a HUMAN BEING COULD NEITHER EXIST OR STAY ALIVE OR EVEN REPRODUCE!!

#3.....MINORITIES CAN'T DRINK MILK????

People who are lactose intollerant can simply take Renit and DRINK MILK....and they exist in White, Black, Hispanic, Asia...etc.....Being a MINORITY does not mean a person cannot drink milk.

#4.....YOU POSTED.....4) No, we haven't seen macroevolution happen. Ever. What you're saying is a lie and you have nothing to prove what you're saying to be true. Period....end quote Qchan.

Please define for all of us what you mean by Macroevolution. We have 100% PROOF POSITIVE that a Human Fetus has an EGG YOLK left over froma time when our ancient acestors.....Reptilian's and Amphibians and Fish....LAID EGGS!!

Human Beings have a tail bone....AND SOME EOPLE THIS part of a persons Genome remains ACTIVE and they actually grow a tail!!!

#5.....you posted.....Who cares what your opinions on religion is. You can't win against me in a debate. You nor your atheist friends are ready....end quote Qchan.

This sounds desperate and it sounds like a person who is finally findig out forthe first time in their lives.....there is a HELL of a lot more going on that what is written in the Bible.

Try not to hide or srink away from FACTS....MEET THEM HEAD ON!!

There is no conflict with SCIENCE AND FAITH.

AboveAlpha

 

1. Oh, please. "God did it" is the end of science. It says you know the answer. If you know, then there is no reason for science to continue. Knowing is what you have AFTER investigation. Obviously, if you don't know there is a possibility of excitement over trying to find out. Not everyone feels that excitement, of course.

There is plenty of evidence that at one time life did not exist on earth - in fact, at one time earth didn't exist! And, I know that today, life exists on earth. Somewhere between then and now, life came to earth. We do not have a scientific theory on how that happened. There are ideas. There are religions. But, there is no scientific theory - a scientific theory being an answer to the question "how" that conforms to the requirements of a hypothesis and is an answer in which we have developed confidence through testing.

2. Saying God did it specifies an answer. There are names for those who give answers when they don't know.

From your cite:

Do you not fully realize you are a specific example of "god of the gaps" thinking? You propose an answer for which you have no evidence. You do not know, thus you propose "god did it".

3. Sorry, no you did not post anything that refutes anything I said.

3.5 My interest here is to distinguish science from religion. We as a nation need to know that they are NOT the same thing. Their methods are NOT the same. Their logic is NOT the same. As the last couple Popes put it, science and religion are two separate realms. Science can not prove or disprove God's existence or anything about God. And, religion provides NO tools for examining our universe. The Bible is not a science manual any more than a science manual is a description of the relationship between mankind and Jesus.

So, if you want to discuss resurrection, you probably won't here from me for the reason that I'm not opposed to your God and I don't have reason to believe you will screw up on God as long as you stay away from science.