How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

You mean, absent a host, a virus is without life - by any definition?

What about aerosolized viruses?

Hospital? your statement? forbear!

Better to stick with eukaryote systems with their homolagous chromosome requirement for expressing traits in phenotype. (Remember that it is only expressed phenotype traits that can be "selected for" in the natural selection paradigm).

Thus the appeal to non-eukaryote systems like virus and bacteria -- is a helpful story for evolution - but eventually you the "birds came from reptile" storie gotta be shown to work with actual single-celled animals like an aomeba. Because if the story does not work with eukaryote animals - it is dead in the water.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

>>Viruses are without metabolism nor can they self-replicate. They are one-shot chemically triggered nucleic acid injectors. They can only hijack the cellular processes of living cells and get them to make more one-shot nucleic acid injectors.<<

Good post, in large part;it addresses a point and is informative. However, it leads to the greater question – can a virus, disseminated as panspermia, influence evolutionary processes – without an already existing host to, as you’ve postulated,

“inject”?

[karl]

>>Viruses are without metabolism nor can they self-replicate. They are one-shot chemically triggered nucleic acid injectors. They can only hijack the cellular processes of living cells and get them to make more one-shot nucleic acid injectors.<<

Good post, in large part;it addresses a point and is informative. However, it leads to the greater question – can a virus, disseminated as panspermia, influence evolutionary processes – without an already existing host to, as you’ve postulated,

“inject”?

No.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

>>I've wondered before whether quoting yourself was a sign of narcissism (just kidding.)<<

Good catch! Kinda like a ubiquitous, “I was shown.” Yes?

>>There is no doubt in my mind that Satan has tried to create life.<<

Mebbe, like Tulpas?

>>He wants to be God.<<

Whereas, we are gods.

>>...but cannot live on their own.<<

Can I take this statement to the bank?

>>jasd,I hope you don't talk like this around your mother!!<<

Well, doug, my mother disrobed her earthly tabernacle in the year of our Lord, Y2K. She (her spirit, animate self, intrinsic vitality) went to her reward in Jesus Christ and is now playing in fields of glory – literally and figuratively – and will be returning with Him in the clouds of Parousia.

I was my mother’s ‘cross to bear’ whilst she dwelled this side of eternity. Yes, sorrowfully, I was not the one who held back – when

encountering what I perceived to be error.

That said, upon what point in the above was your inspiration drawn to post that which I’ve responded-to? Perhaps, it is that I can address the point directly – that it may satisfy...

[BobRyan]

Good post, in large part;it addresses a point and is informative. However, it leads to the greater question – can a virus, disseminated as panspermia, influence evolutionary processes – without an already existing host to, as you’ve postulated,

Indeed "virus world" goes nowhere.

Evolutionists need a eukaryote system if they want to talk about "birds coming from reptiles". Cirlcing back to viruses and bacteria does not help them.

neither is it likely that virus go around with "leg genes" or "arm genes" or "eye genes" to insert into protozoans and provide the much needed "genome morphing" so often imagined by evolutionists.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:karl

Evolutionism is not science. It is religion masquerading as science.

Quote::jasd

Tchah. Dogmatic rote.

>>Inconvenient truth is funny that way.<<

Perhaps it is that you’ve an incomplete understanding of the definition of science, yes?

Science: ”The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”

...sounds like “experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” forwards rather neatly – the defining of an evolutionist.

Theory: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

I’ve selected among the many definitions for ‘theory’, that which is most likely to ‘massage’ the rhetorical anti-ideologue.

[jasd]

>>...but eventually you the "birds came from reptile" storie gotta be shown to work with actual single-celled animals like an aomeba.<<

Not so. Panspermia suggests a shotgun approach; not a ladder or sequential approach. And, per the matter of single-celled organisms ‘evolving’, well,

we, presently, see it occurring - often.

[jasd]

>>Indeed "virus world" goes nowhere.<<

Does the above contain a typo? If not,

what do you mean by - "virus world"?

[BobRyan]

"virus worls" is the result of the many arguments evolutionists make based on prions and RNA virus behavior -- in all those viral activities - they never get to full DNA eukaryote cells as "something that came from a virus".

So all their stories about what a virus or even a bacteria "can do" goes nowhere.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

>>...but eventually you the "birds came from reptile" storie gotta be shown to work with actual single-celled animals like an aomeba.<<

Not so. Panspermia suggests a shotgun approach; not a ladder or sequential approach. And, per the matter of single-celled organisms ‘evolving’, well,

we, presently, see it occurring - often.

Actually - we are "still looking" for a eukaryote single celled animal to "change genomes" - or in some way ascend "up" the ladder of taxonomy.

Not happenin'

As for "birds coming from reptiles" even the panspermia story has that little nugget. Because you can't "shotgun a bird to earth" from another planet -- as it turns out.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

>>I've wondered before whether quoting yourself was a sign of narcissism (just kidding.)<<

Good catch! Kinda like a ubiquitous, &#147;I was shown.&#148; Yes?

>>There is no doubt in my mind that Satan has tried to create life.<<

Mebbe, like Tulpas?

>>He wants to be God.<<

Whereas, we are gods.

>>...but cannot live on their own.<<

Can I take this statement to the bank?

>>jasd,I hope you don't talk like this around your mother!!<<

Well, doug, my mother disrobed her earthly tabernacle in the year of our Lord, Y2K. She (her spirit, animate self, intrinsic vitality) went to her reward in Jesus Christ and is now playing in fields of glory &#150; literally and figuratively &#150; and will be returning with Him in the clouds of Parousia.

I was my mother&#146;s &#145;cross to bear&#146; whilst she dwelled this side of eternity. Yes, sorrowfully, I was not the one who held back &#150; when

encountering what I perceived to be error.

That said, upon what point in the above was your inspiration drawn to post that which I&#146;ve responded-to? Perhaps, it is that I can address the point directly &#150; that it may satisfy...

Sorry to hear about your mom,jasd.Never could quite visualize an intrinsic vitality at literal play but there's a lot of learning left for me to do. Funny(?) how the human race can evolve into death.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

...can a virus, disseminated as panspermia, influence evolutionary processes – without an already existing host to, as you’ve postulated,

“inject”? [ed.jasd]

>>No.<<

Well, that appears to be an unequivocal and positive “No”, yes? no room there for a second, let alone, a ‘third way’... Oy.

I think I am pretty close to the truth in saying that both the evolutionist and the creationist concur that – energy would have been central to either process. Given that, and the fact that everything has a ‘signature’ frequency subject to “influence”,

and that crystals bear unique properties conducive to receiving, storing, and transmitting energy,

might not broadcast and crystallized viruses have, at least, “influenced” basic life-forms, however inconsequential that contribution may have been?

[jasd]

>>...neither is it likely that virus go around with "leg genes" or "arm genes" or "eye genes" to insert into protozoans and provide the much needed "genome morphing" so often imagined by evolutionists.<<

As I’ve previously noted: “We don’t know” – however likely or not – a hypothesis may be.

Interestingly, there seems to be a measurable 'electrical/energy' matrix, which precedes morphogenesis and upon which it forms – a spirit form, as it were.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

And, per the matter of single-celled organisms ‘evolving’, well,

we, presently, see it occurring - often.

Experiments with ‘lactose intolerant’ bacteria destroy most of those in petri dishes; however, a few mutate and generate successive ‘lactose tolerant’ generations. Perhaps, it is, in fact,

'lesser evolution'.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

...if they want to talk about "birds coming from reptiles".

Quote:Bob Ryan

As for "birds coming from reptiles" even the panspermia story has that little nugget.

Seems that ‘birds coming from reptiles’ is a strong suit with you – and is advanced in the negative. Okay, given the source for the posit following and your assumed affiliation – I take it that you are in agreement with the paraphrased statement below?

“the serpent in the Garden of Eve was feathered and flew.”

I suppose the consensus tandem an assertion of this sort would be –

wings!

Hoo-boy! Yumpin’ yiminy! Voila, the sought-after and transitional link between reptiles and birds... Moreover!

it spoke! ...understandable Eden-talk...

>>Because you can't "shotgun a bird to earth" from another planet -- as it turns out.<<

Fer shur? Where’d that come from? Don’t tell. You have a silly bone! Yes?

However, how about, instead, an entire ocean with its contents – from another planet?

[jasd]

>>Sorry to hear about your mom,jasd.<<

Thanks. (sorry, I couldn’t reply to an elicited response in a timely manner; my ISP has been on the fritz)

>>Never could quite visualize an intrinsic vitality at literal play but there's a lot of learning left for me to do.<<

Most people are hard put to define what they think spirit is – as in, “to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit” (Heb 4:12).

>>Funny(?) how the human race can evolve into death.<<

I believe Xtianity is all about evolving – (for some) to enter into a place where flesh and blood cannot go – and blood is all about life in our present state.

[BobRyan]

Perhaps it is that you’ve an incomplete understanding of the definition of science, yes?

Science: ”The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”

...sounds like “experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” forwards rather neatly – the defining of an evolutionist.

Perhaps it is that you’ve an incomplete understanding of the definition of science, yes?

For example - the claim that evolutionists are engaged in actual science - is debunked by atheist evolutionists themselves who lament the fact that "stories about how one thing came from another" that are "based on the fossil record" are simply "stories easy enough to make up - but they ARE NOT science because there is no way of putting them to the test".

Now here you have a frank statement from evolutionists themselves about their own "NOT SCIENCE" practices.

Are we to be sooo blind ourselves to their work that we cannot even see the point when they themselves are lamenting the problem?

Surely we can do better than that.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

might not broadcast and crystallized viruses have, at least, “influenced” basic life-forms, however inconsequential that contribution may have been?

That is a fantastically unscientific statement. It is like saying "might not a distant planet in a distant solar system - "influence" something in our solar system no matter how inconsequential that influence might be??"

Listing extremely inconsequential influence is not the realm of science -- as it turns out.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

>>...neither is it likely that virus go around with "leg genes" or "arm genes" or "eye genes" to insert into protozoans and provide the much needed "genome morphing" so often imagined by evolutionists.<<

As I’ve previously noted: “We don’t know” – however likely or not – a hypothesis may be.

Another "not science" perspective?

If it were remotely true that "we don't know however likely a given hypothesis may be" -- then "grants to study whether the easter bunny will appear in your lawn every other Tuesday" would be as 'common' as the grants for researching subatomic particles.

As it turns out - one field is "likely" to have results and the other is not even remotely "likely".

Though given your statement above - you appear to differ.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

As it turns out Bob, I do believe you're right.

[BobRyan]

LOL and by that of course I mean

[doug yowell]

>>Sorry to hear about your mom,jasd.<<

Thanks. (sorry, I couldn&#146;t reply to an elicited response in a timely manner; my ISP has been on the fritz)

>>Never could quite visualize an intrinsic vitality at literal play but there's a lot of learning left for me to do.<<

Most people are hard put to define what they think spirit is &#150; as in, &#147;to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit&#148; (Heb 4:12).

>>Funny(?) how the human race can evolve into death.<<

I believe Xtianity is all about evolving &#150; (for some) to enter into a place where flesh and blood cannot go &#150; and blood is all about life in our present state.

Oh yeah, that. What about the flesh part?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

...if they want to talk about "birds coming from reptiles"

...

As for "birds coming from reptiles" even the panspermia story has that little nugget.

Seems that ‘birds coming from reptiles’ is a strong suit with you – and is advanced in the negative. Okay, given the source for the posit following and your assumed affiliation – I take it that you are in agreement with the paraphrased statement below?

“the serpent in the Garden of Eve was feathered and flew.”

I suppose the consensus tandem an assertion of this sort would be –

wings!

[karl]

Originally Posted By: jasd

>>...neither is it likely that virus go around with "leg genes" or "arm genes" or "eye genes" to insert into protozoans and provide the much needed "genome morphing" so often imagined by evolutionists.<<

As I’ve previously noted: “We don’t know” – however likely or not – a hypothesis may be.

Another "not science" perspective?

If it were remotely true that "we don't know however likely a given hypothesis may be" -- then "grants to study whether the easter bunny will appear in your lawn every other Tuesday" would be as 'common' as the grants for researching subatomic particles.

As it turns out - one field is "likely" to have results and the other is not even remotely "likely".

If you're having trouble getting grant money, just invent some link, however tenuous, which ties your easter bunny study into global warming. No problem.

The amount of money available for global warming "research" has gone from a hundred million to over two billion in the last few years.

The word "prostitution" is cropping up more and more in description of "science so called."

[Guest]

The amount of money available for global warming "research" has gone from a hundred million to over two billion in the last few years.

Makes me wish I knew how to cuss.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

The amount of money available for global warming "research" has gone from a hundred million to over two billion in the last few years.

Makes me wish I knew how to cuss.

Just let your tongue follow the money.... down the drain.