Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

[VaughanJB]

No one on this thread has ever made that claim. However, it is incompatible with the Bible and Christianity since Jesus cannot be biblically traced to your fish.

That's a strange comment. There are a lot of things about Jesus that isn't in the Bible, are we to assume that if it's not mentioned, it can't be true?

Why Atheists are without Excuse
The apostle Paul tells is that atheists who observe the wonders of nature that indicate a creator and yet deny God's existence are without any excuse.

Now, since such was the case then, approx. 2000 years ago, how much more it applies now that we can delve deeply into the coordinated intricacies that are necessary in order for life to exist. The video below focuses on those intricacies.

This is simply an assertion. Nothing more. I admit, I'm always surprised when you try to assert some religious statement by quoting the Bible, when clearly it's a simple fact that someone who doesn't believe it's the word of God won't care what's in your book. As such, a) it adds nothing to the conversation; b) It makes it seem as though you have no argument so point at a book instead. IMO YMMV

My friend eats fish. Does that make him a cannibal?

Nah, we're a different species now. Some fish even eat humans.

 

[VaughanJB]

That's an unjustifiable conclusion. That is a conclusion that is reached because evolution is considered to be fact by those who are examining the similarities and not because the similarities obligates a common ancestor conclusion.

Your homology conclusion is flawed,
​

As the article tells us, homology is not sufficient reason for that assumption since a common creator a logical conclusion and many justifiably reach it after examining those similarities.

Also, you claim inability to see any evidence for a creative mind in DNA. LOL! Would you say that about a signal from space received by SETI? Of course not. Yet DNA displays far more compelling reasons for easily detecting a mind at work. Which strongly indicates that there is something extremely defective in your line of reasoning because you are glaringly contradicting yourself.

But don't get me wrong. It is totally your right to make that claim just as it is your right to claim that the sun doesn't shine and you see absolutely no evidence that it does. LOL

You know, similar to your formal Junk DNA claim.

​

Yeah, erm, well - no actually. See, it's not just a matter of comparing DNA, it's the meaning of doing such. So, the genes on chromosome 15, OCA2, ad HERC 2 help determine your eye color. These similarities mean something. We know most everything about us comes from our DNA, and that the differences in our DNA determine individual traits. Yet you're suggesting it's all an assumption?

If you want me to believe in intelligent design, then all you have to do is present some proof. Not an insinuation, not incredulity, not a quote from the Bible. Besides, if your God created DNA - then doesn't that contradict your first paragraph? You're just moving the original source from one thing to another. Evolution has been proven, it's beyond questioning at this point - unless you simply want to bury your head in the sand.

 

[January]

No one on this thread has ever made that claim. However, it is incompatible with the Bible and Christianity since Jesus cannot be biblically traced to your fish.

why all the references to athiests then??

Here is just one However, I don't share the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists.

I do not agree that evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or any other religion) - because like many people I do not take everything in the bible literally - and I accept biblical creation myths as myths like there are creation myths in every religion.

You may not agree with that but clearly many other christian people do - therefore not incompatible.

 

[gruntlabor]

All life is versatile, it's one of our special charms. That versatility translates in the long run to evolution and our DNA.
That has little to do with the universe and who if anyone created it (or us).

 

[Radrook]

All life is versatile, it's one of our special charms. That versatility translates in the long run to evolution and our DNA.
That has little to do with the universe and who if anyone created it (or us).

So If I detect a mind because there is a code, I am supposed to make believe that it coded itself because it is supposed to have little to do with any mind that coded it? How would that reasoning sequence apply to a code detected at SETI?

 

[Radrook]

why all the references to athiests then??

Here is just one However, I don't share the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists.

I do not agree that evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or any other religion) - because like many people I do not take everything in the bible literally - and I accept biblical creation myths as myths like there are creation myths in every religion.

You may not agree with that but clearly many other Christian people do - therefore not incompatible.

I take EVERYTHING in the Bible literally?

Actually, I have never met, nor ever read about anyone who does. In fact, it is impossible to do so because the Bible very cleary includes both literal and symbolic language. The categories are quite easy to identify.

How Is the Bible Organized: A Guide to Its Structure and Books​

BTW
Some such as Genesis and Exodus, and the Book of Jonah, are identified for us as historical by Jesus himself. So since we have Jesus' word that they should be considered historical, I choose to believe him instead of you atheists .

Matthew 24:37-39​

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

​

Matthew 19:4 ► “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

Matthew 12:40​

40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Old Testament Passages Cited by Jesus Christ - Bible Central​

Please note that my reference to atheists is not an automatic reference to evolution as you are claiming. As I have explained repeatedly, but to no avail, It is in reference to abiogenesis claim that DNA coded itself. Which under any other circumstances would be considered a totally nonsensical concept similar to an abracadabra situation because codes do not code themselves, and are always traceable to a meticulously planning mind.
.

 

[Paco Dennis]

The reference to atheists is not an automatic reference to evolution. As I have explained repeatedly, but to no avail, It is in reference to abiogenesis claim that DNA coded itself. Which under any other circumstances would be considered a totally nonsensical concept similar to an abracadabra situation because codes do not code themselves, and are always traceable to a meticulously planning mind.

That is a glaringly obvious fact, and the only way that any normally intelligent person would make such an obviously outlandish claim is because the person is either being overwhelmed by theophobia, or else has cunningly chosen to conveniently place reasoning ability on hold, and to exercise a blind faith in what atheist scientists are irrationally claiming.

While your frustration is clear, it's important to engage with the actual claims and evidence presented by researchers in the field, rather than assuming irrational motives. The origin of life remains an open question in science, with ongoing research and debate.

 

[January]

nope, not getting your reasoning for frequently mentioning atheists - if it isnt an issue about atheists vs religious beleivers, why bring that into it?

 

[Marie5656]

 

[Radrook]

While your frustration is clear, it's important to engage with the actual claims and evidence presented by researchers in the field, rather than assuming irrational motives. The origin of life remains an open question in science, with ongoing research and debate.

Frustration? Nope I enjoy discussing such subjects. Sorry I gave you that negative impression.

In any case. I notice that you keep mentioning science as if it is your holy grail. Yet you contradict that claim by refusing to explain how exactly a code can code itself. You also continue to refuse to respond to the inconsistency of policy I mention in my comparison with SETI.

Umm, well, please note your stubborn refusal to respond to such logical rebuttals constitutes an evasion. In turn, an evasion indicates an inability to provide any logical response and a desperate effort to change the subject in order to resume the chanting of quackery. Such is abracadabra thinking, and abracadabra thinking is definitely not part of the scientific method, but merely constitutes a mindless unqualified faith in what others who are claiming to be practicing science but are actually not, are driveling. If indeed I am wrong, then why not respond to my rebuttals instead of chanting the same claims over and over? Now that is indeed evidence of Frustration!

BTW Show me the evidence of how all that information magically appeared and then coded itself. I am listening.

 

[ElCastor]

Religion is not illogical nor lacking evidence for its conclusion of a creative mind being the cause of what is being perceived in nature. What is illogical about concluding that a code needs a mind to code it? Much to the contrary, insisting that a code doesn't need a mind to code it is unscientifically illogical.

So DNA needs a mind, god like or otherwise, to write its complex code? If those minds wrote human DNA, then they must have been very busy writing the DNA of all the other creatures on planet Earth. How Many Species on Earth?

Eight million, seven hundred thousand species! (Give or take 1.3 million.)​

https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/how-many-species-on-earth

That is a lot of DNA to write, especially when you consider that all of that nearly nine million species, and many more now extinct, were continuously evolving over the millennia and had to be continuously re-written.

And …
“Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits.”
Genetics

 

[Radrook]

So DNA needs a mind, god like or otherwise, to write its complex code? If those minds wrote human DNA, then they must have been very busy writing the DNA of all the other creatures on planet Earth. How Many Species on Earth?

Eight million, seven hundred thousand species! (Give or take 1.3 million.)​

https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/how-many-species-on-earth

That is a lot of DNA to write, especially when you consider that all of that nearly nine million species, and many more now extinct, were continuously evolving over the millennia and had to be continuously re-written.

And …
“Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits.”
Genetics

How is that supposed to explain how DNA coded itself, or where the detailed information to be coded came from? BTW Not all scientists agree with your opinion.

Why Life Couldn’t Have Evolved from Non-Living Chemicals

Seven Reasons why Evolution is a Myth

Why Evolution is not a testable Scientfic Theory

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia


​

 

[ElCastor]

How is that supposed to explain how DNA coded itself, or where the detailed information to be coded came from? BTW Not all scientists agree with your opinion.

Why Life Couldn’t Have Evolved from Non-Living Chemicals

Seven Reasons why Evolution is a Myth

Why Evolution is not a testable Scientfic Theory

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia


​

Your “scientific” sources consist of Youtube recordings, and I suspected had an important religious element. So I listened to your first and third YouTubes, and in both up popped religion. If you want to credit evolution to a God, feel free, but please be a little more up front about it.

 

[gruntlabor]

You may not agree with that but clearly many other christian people do - therefore not incompatible.

Because many people believe something does not make it true. That is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Frustration? Nope I enjoy discussing such subjects. Sorry I gave you that negative impression.

In any case. I notice that you keep mentioning science as if it is your holy grail. Yet you contradict that claim by refusing to explain how exactly a code can code itself. You also continue to refuse to respond to the inconsistency of policy I mention in my comparison with SETI.

Umm, well, please note your stubborn refusal to respond to such logical rebuttals constitutes an evasion. In turn, an evasion indicates an inability to provide any logical response and a desperate effort to change the subject in order to resume the chanting of quackery. Such is abracadabra thinking, and abracadabra thinking is definitely not part of the scientific method, but merely constitutes a mindless unqualified faith in what others who are claiming to be practicing science but are actually not, are driveling. If indeed I am wrong, then why not respond to my rebuttals instead of chanting the same claims over and over? Now that is indeed evidence of Frustration!

BTW Show me the evidence of how all that information magically appeared and then coded itself. I am listening.

You know the scientific answer to that. It took millions of years of trial and err and eventually the DNA began the direction of life. Everything was perfect for it to arise. Just as evolution moves with the perfection of change that it is constantly changing into. It is quantum physics, and so much is not known about the way this quanta "IS". We don't know, but we can observe it in action, which remains semi-predictable.

and SETI is a completely different evaluation of life. It is decoding information that is an anomaly of electronic data. Not the same principle, and shouldn't be subject to direct comparisons. That could be a different thread worthy of investigation.

 

[gruntlabor]

So If I detect a mind because there is a code, I am supposed to make believe that it coded itself because it is supposed to have little to do with any mind that coded it? How would that reasoning sequence apply to a code detected at SETI?

No, you are supposed to believe what you like, and you have plenty of reason to do so since we really know nothing of what we're talking about.

I meant that 'evolution' is just a word. It means 'change'. The Theory of Evolution is something else.

We don't need DNA to tell us that we are made by pattern or template. So what? That has nothing to do with proof of Jehovah or another personal God or some other god or no god at all.

I do think that *IF* the Theory of Evolution is true, the undeniable forward momentum toward a superior being suggests a creator.

A code received from SETI could come from another planet, signifying nothing re god or no god.

 

[Radrook]

No, you are supposed to believe what you like, and you have plenty of reason to do so since we really know nothing of what we're talking about.

I meant that 'evolution' is just a word. It means 'change'. The Theory of Evolution is something else.

We don't need DNA to tell us that we are made by pattern or template. So what? That has nothing to do with proof of Jehovah or another personal God or some other god or no god at all.

I do think that *IF* the Theory of Evolution is true, the undeniable forward momentum toward a superior being suggests a creator.

A code received from SETI could come from another planet, signifying nothing re god or no god.

Yes, obviously people believe what they prefer to believe.

Yes, when they do, they usually feel we have a good reason to do so.

No, we don't do so because we know nothing.

Yes, there are people who are both theists and evolutionists.

Yes, the word evolution is indeed just a word meaning change.
Yes, the theory of evolution is a specific reference to a scientific theory.

True, we don't need DNA to tell us that we are created in a marvelous way.

True, a code received by SETI proves nothing in reference to the existence of God or a God. Never claimed that it did. I simply and very clearly pointed out that there is a glaring discrepancy between their policy toward the detected code from space and the way that they inconsistently react to the DNA code. Anything else is totally your idea.

 

[Irishdude]

Why argue about all this? Some believe, some don't. I personally don't have any trouble reconciling science and religion. The teachings of Jesus seem quite valid and applicable today and it doesn't matter whether Jesus was descended from a fish or came to us via virgin birth. Similarly, there is a lot that is valid in the teachings of the Buddha. Take what you need and leave the rest, to quote The Band.

 

[Radrook]

Why argue about all this? Some believe, some don't. I personally don't have any trouble reconciling science and religion. The teachings of Jesus seem quite valid and applicable today and it doesn't matter whether Jesus was descended from a fish or came to us via virgin birth. Similarly, there is a lot that is valid in the teachings of the Buddha. Take what you need and leave the rest, to quote The Band.

True, some people believe in a creator and some do not.

True, some people think that is is not worth arguing about.

True: There are other religions and books besides Christianity and the Bible that offer valuable advice

True There are people who have no difficulty reconciling what they consider to be science and the Bible.

True, such people have no trouble thinking that Jesus was descended from fish.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Why argue about all this? Some believe, some don't. I personally don't have any trouble reconciling science and religion. The teachings of Jesus seem quite valid and applicable today and it doesn't matter whether Jesus was descended from a fish or came to us via virgin birth. Similarly, there is a lot that is valid in the teachings of the Buddha. Take what you need and leave the rest, to quote The Band.

That is true. We all pick up what we want and put it in our tot bag/s. We discard stuff, and find new stuff to collect for awhile. Eventually it all ends up in the junkyard.

 

[gruntlabor]

Why argue about all this? Some believe, some don't. I personally don't have any trouble reconciling science and religion. The teachings of Jesus seem quite valid and applicable today and it doesn't matter whether Jesus was descended from a fish or came to us via virgin birth. Similarly, there is a lot that is valid in the teachings of the Buddha. Take what you need and leave the rest, to quote The Band.

Buddhism does not assert a god, but rules of right living, and so forth.
Science is understandably tired of Religion because of its violent controlling nature. Religion is understandably tired of Science because of its superior, "You're stupid" attitude.
It matters because the truth matters. I argue because it's interesting.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

Would I trade one of my relatives for a fish.......
That would be a fair swap.

 

[Radrook]

Your “scientific” sources consist of Youtube recordings, and I suspected had an important religious element. So I listened to your first and third YouTubes, and in both up popped religion. If you want to credit evolution to a God, feel free, but please be a little more up front about it.

Oh really? Well, Atheist "scientists" use you tube as well. Yet you don't consider their arguments or credentials invalid because of it-do you? Which of course is yet another example of the very glaring inconsistency of policy that you folks deploy towards the DNA code as opposed to any code that you folks detect from space. Now this is totally inconsistent with the objectivity that the scientific method demands and renders it quackery.

In any case, your premise is very seriously flawed since belief in intelligent design doesn't nullify person's scientific credentials. Did it nullify Isaac Newton's? Furthermore, and very significantly, cogent reasoning demands that presented evidence stand alone on its own merit regardless of the venue being used to transmit it be it via YouTube or otherwise as you are claiming that it does. Such an argument would be immediately dismissed in a court of law as being totally irrelevant to the issues involved.

In short, your refusal to acknowledge these men's scientific credentials merely reflects you prejudice, and nothing more but proves absolutely NOTHING in reference to the very pertinent issues that these scientists raise.

suggestion:

Why not address the issues that these scientists are focusing on instead? After all, desperately avoiding the issues they raise only manages to reinforce the suspicion that they are indeed telling us something that cannot be refuted. So why not illuminate us with your scientific refutations instead of wasting our time with useless fallacious reasoning?

BTW When I view videos where your scientists are talking about abiogenesis, up pops atheism.

 

[Radrook]

Buddhism does not assert a god, but rules of right living, and so forth.
Science is understandably tired of Religion because of its violent controlling nature. Religion is understandably tired of Science because of its superior, "You're stupid" attitude.
It matters because the truth matters. I argue because it's interesting.

True about Buddhism.
Religion is not necessary in order for us to detect a creator in nature.
True, truth does matter.

 

[Radrook]

Would I trade one of my relatives for a fish.......
That would be a fair swap.

In many cases, relatives are our worse enemies to be avoided at all costs. .