Adam and Eve

[Valjean]

I believe humans were created as told in the Bible. I don’t know the exact date for that.

Why do you believe this? You have no empirical evidence, you have only tradition. Biologists have hard, testable evidence.

Do you think it is true that there happen mutations, alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA, like explained in: Mutation - Wikipedia?

That's what mutations are. Do you believe differently?

Those alterations accumulate in time. The longer humans have existed, the more there will be those alterations. Some believe that is the reason why for example X-chromosome is dying.

These 'alterations' occur in all genomes; all species. They're what creates the variation that enables organisms to adapt to changing conditions.
A specific mutation might be problematic for an individual, but problem variations are eliminated by natural selection, while beneficial ones are retained populations evolve and adapt.

That all indicates that there was once god genome that has degenerated in all this time. I think that is one evidence for that humans were created.

Please explain your reasoning. Why has this "god genome" not occurred to any of the best minds in biology?
What is this god genome? Was it the original genome? Is the human genome, then, a degenerate version of a more perfect. primordial, bacterial genome?

The human genome hasn't deteriorated, it's adapted, just like all genomes do.

I don’t believe in the millions of years or that humans have developed. All evidence in nature indicates the opposite, like for example the degeneration of genome.

On the contrary. All the evidence, from multiple disciplines, indicates great age, and species radiating over time into many different forms -- of which we are just one. All the evidence in nature indicates this, and it is what everyone even remotely familiar with the evidence believes.
I don't think you're familiar with the evidence. You don't know understand how we know what we know.

What is your evidence for magical creation?

If we would really have DNA coding for gills, we would have gills. We don’t have, therefore I think that is absurd claim that we would have that coding. Maybe we have something that looks similar, but I think it is misinterpret, because we don’t have gills.

You don't understand genetics. We have coding for a great many primitive features which are not currently expressed. Unneeded genes are "turned off." Epigenetics - Wikipedia
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02

And just because those errors occur all the time, it means there was once form that had no errors and the more those errors come, the weaker people will be.

No!
At what point did this pristine DNA exist? It must have been billions of years ago, long before multicellular organisms existed.

DNA changes are not necessarily errors. Without changes in DNA what would natural selection have to work with? There would be no change; no evolution, no ability to adapt to changing conditions. Without this "degeneration" we'd still be single celled organisms, wouldn't we?

 

[Valjean]

Can you show scientifically any genetic improvement?

Are we an improvement over lizards; over mice; over tree shrews; over monkeys?
How do you think these changes (adaptations) occurred, if there are no genetic changes for natural selection to select from?

 

[1213]

Are we an improvement over lizards; over mice; over tree shrews; over monkeys?
How do you think these changes (adaptations) occurred, if there are no genetic changes for natural selection to select from?

I have no reason to believe there has happened such adaptations by natural selection.

 

[1213]

...Biologists have hard, testable evidence....

Sorry, they don’t have any testable evidence for species to develop by evolution.

...Please explain your reasoning. Why has this "god genome" not occurred to any of the best minds in biology?

Sorry, I meant good genome and I meant with it, genome that had not yet had any mutations, mistakes in processing DNA.

...The human genome hasn't deteriorated, it's adapted, just like all genomes do.

Sorry, no intelligent reason to believe that.

...What is your evidence for magical creation?

The existence of all is the evidence.

...DNA changes are not necessarily errors. ...

Allegedly the process tries to avoid any mistakes in processing the DNA. Therefore, if the message is not copied exactly as the original, there is a mistake. But, one could claim it was beneficial mistake. I disagree with that.

 

[1213]

If you admitted that you don't know the exact date when humans were created, then how do you know that the events that occurred in the garden of eden didn't take millions of years ago? The only literal concept of time that was written in Genesis is the 7 days of creation. …

There is just no intelligent reason to think there was millions of years. If human would have existed millions of years, there should be evidence for it. By what I know, currently it is believed that human in current form has existed at least 200 000 years. If so, why we can see development only from about 10000 years, why did they wait about 200 000 before started to develop things as we can see from about 10000 years?

…But your biggest error was your scientific evidence in the form of a scientific article. Since it's science, you expect us to must accept it as evidence supporting your argument, correct? Well, you're wrong. In fact, we accept as scientific evidence that refutes your own argument. Since you accept that scientific evidence is true, you must accept that it took millions of years of evolution …

Your error is in that there is no real scientific evidence for millions of years.

 

[1213]

What is a god genome and its function? Does it still exist in humans today? Who was the person who discovered and how?

If it no longer exist in humans, how do you know that it existed in the past? And did you determined that it no longer exist is due to degenerative breakdown?

Sorry, I meant good genome and I meant with it, genome that had not yet had any mutations, mistakes in processing DNA.

 

[1213]

Yes.

Sorry, i don't believe you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, i don't believe you.

Why not? It is quite easy to show. I am not a creationist so I have no need to lie.

 

[Valjean]

I have no reason to believe there has happened such adaptations by natural selection.

There are good reasons to believe that natural selection occurs, you're just unaware of them and refuse to make yourself aware of them.

Sorry, they don’t have any testable evidence for species to develop by evolution.

That's demonstrably false, 1213. Do you think biologists just pulled all this evolution stuff out of their hats? You just refuse to look at the evidence.

Do you have any evidence for magic poofing?

Sorry, I meant good genome and I meant with it, genome that had not yet had any mutations, mistakes in processing DNA.

How did this original genome manage to go through the billions of generations that predated the appearance of humans without major changes? Without mutations there would have been no changes from the original cell.

Sorry, no intelligent reason to believe that.

You make these sweeping assertions not only with no supporting evidence at all, but with massive evidence to the contrary. Why is it that most intelligent people do believe it? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence?

You know nothing of the subject you're so opinionated about, so what merit does your opinion have?

The existence of all is the evidence.

How is existence evidence? "Things exist, so they must have popped into existence, by magic?"
Why do you think that magic's the only possible "explanation?"

Allegedly the process tries to avoid any mistakes in processing the DNA. Therefore, if the message is not copied exactly as the original, there is a mistake. But, one could claim it was beneficial mistake. I disagree with that.

WHY????
How did you never learn how beneficial 'mistakes' are retained while harmful ones are eliminated?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, they don’t have any testable evidence for species to develop by evolution.

Okay, now you either no nothing about the sciences at all or you are lying. You should check out the thread "An honest creationist". There is a creationist biologist that will tell you there is endless evidence for evolution.


By the way, there is no scientific evidence for creationism. If you understood what scientific evidence is and how it works you would see this too.

 

[Valjean]

There is just no intelligent reason to think there was millions of years. If human would have existed millions of years, there should be evidence for it. By what I know, currently it is believed that human in current form has existed at least 200 000 years. If so, why we can see development only from about 10000 years, why did they wait about 200 000 before started to develop things as we can see from about 10000 years?

Hominids existed in multiple forms for millions of years before our modern form developed. That's a fact. We have a succession of dated fossils.

We did not wait. Change has been continuous, and it continues.

Your error is in that there is no real scientific evidence for millions of years.

STOP IT!!!
Please stop making these completely unevidenced statements. The evidence is everywhere.

Why do you keep saying there is no evidence when there clearly is?
Where do you get these opinions? What do you believe -- and why?

 

[night912]

There is just no intelligent reason to think there was millions of years. If human would have existed millions of years, there should be evidence for it. By what I know, currently it is believed that human in current form has existed at least 200 000 years. If so, why we can see development only from about 10000 years, why did they wait about 200 000 before started to develop things as we can see from about 10000 years?

Who is we? It's better off for you to use "I" instead of "we" because there's no intelligent reason to include everyone as being like you are, seeing no evidence earlier than 10,000yrs ago. There are evidence of human development that date to over 10,000yrs ago. The ruins of a town that's believed to be the same Jericho from biblical writings, is one such example. Then there's also the Theopetra Cave, the site of the oldest archeological findings of human development, that is dated to be at least 135,000yrs ago. So just because you are unaware of the evidence, it doesn't mean that there are none.

 

[rational experiences]

Imagine you are just a human. Natural.

As yet you haven't chosen to practice science as a man human who theoried science first.

The O earth you claim had a form of sex immaculate. By erecting it's mountain volcano erection. Releasing it's sacrificed baby spirit in a volcano.

Ever wonder why possessed minds put babies back into volcanoes demon.strata ING mind possession.

God's son by inference sacrificed alive spirit a gas.

Preaching falsely as humans aren't science.

Science a living human theorising.

If you said your female maths science harmed your body. Space womb false thesis. It was a sin choice of man. Then you owned an agreement to do evil. Simple matter of fact.

What man science choice caused the body earth to attack him. God statement.

 

[metis]

Your error is in that there is no real scientific evidence for millions of years.

Well:
Human evolution - Wikipedia
And there are links to scientific studies within this article.

If your church, like my old church, says that the basic ToE is unacceptable, maybe seek out a new church that isn't lying to you like my old church did. The ToE in no way contradicts Divine creation as the creation accounts clearly should be taken as being allegorical, probably written and first carried orally in order to counter the much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian narratives.

IOW, the real issue is how to interpret the Creation accounts in Genesis, and with what we know now that it makes not one iota of sense to take it literally, much like parts of the Book of Revelation cannot be taken literally as there's much symbolism used, such as "666" for just one example.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry, they don’t have any testable evidence for species to develop by evolution.

Sorry, no intelligent reason to believe that.

There is just no intelligent reason to think there was millions of years.

Given the above, I'm curious what you think about all the scientists who have concluded otherwise. Do you think they're not intelligent? Are they extremely bad at their jobs? Are they part of a massive long-running worldwide conspiracy?

 

[1213]

Given the above, I'm curious what you think about all the scientists who have concluded otherwise. Do you think they're not intelligent? Are they extremely bad at their jobs? Are they part of a massive long-running worldwide conspiracy?

I would need to know what are their reasons, before I can answer to that.

But, generally the whole godless world view seems to be one vast confirmation bias, which reminds me of Münchhausen trilemma. Interestingly nowadays “science” seems to be more and more dogmatic. For example if you don’t easily believe in man made climate change, because no proper evidence, you are treated almost like heretic in “dark ages”.

 

[1213]

Well:
Human evolution - Wikipedia
And there are links to scientific studies within this article.
...

Still no real scientific evidence, but your opinion and belief is noted.

 

[1213]

Who is we? It's better off for you to use "I" instead of "we" because there's no intelligent reason to include everyone as being like you are, seeing no evidence earlier than 10,000yrs ago. There are evidence of human development that date to over 10,000yrs ago. The ruins of a town that's believed to be the same Jericho from biblical writings, is one such example. Then there's also the Theopetra Cave, the site of the oldest archeological findings of human development, that is dated to be at least 135,000yrs ago. So just because you are unaware of the evidence, it doesn't mean that there are none.

Please tell, why do you think the speed of development is very different now than it was 200 000 years ago?
Or, if you think the speed is the same, why we have no evidence of for example over 100000-year-old computers?

 

[1213]

....
Why do you keep saying there is no evidence when there clearly is?...

If you believe there is real scientific evidence, please tell one example of that? I have no other choice than think there is no such thing, if nobody can show such thing exists.

 

[1213]

...
Why do you think that magic's the only possible "explanation?"
...

I don’t believe in magic. And, if everything would have come into existence without God, that would be more like magic and miracle, because there is nothing in nature that indicates that things just pop out from nothing, without reason.