Thought I would give ai a shot, so used Bard and asked one simple question. Wording and specifications are important. So, how does one go from primordial ooze to human without adding genetic material? Seems like a fair questiin since we're all supposedly here thru happenstance. Conversation follows.
What observable process adds genetic information to an existing mammals genes? No theoretics please, only replicate and observable facts.
expand_moreedit
View other drafts
volume_up
Currently, there are no known observable processes that directly add genetic information to an existing mammal's germline DNA (the DNA that is passed on to offspring) in a way that is replicable and verifiable.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I will go further, they can't create life at all right now. They don't know how to create the sugars, they don't know how to create most of the base components. Even if you ignore that and give them every component they still can't make life. Even if you assemble it for them they can't make life. Think about this, you can give them a single cell, and just let it die, we know it was viable, so just bring it back to life. Surely thats easier than creting it from scratch! THEY CANT because they don't even know what life is! There is 0 material difference between a dead cell and a living one when it first dies. They just know one, replicates and moves and uses energy while the other doesn't and decays.
A Joke comes to mind that I heard in Seminary once:
hahha
The Miller–Urey experiment comes to mind.
Ironically, without the "intelligent minds" behind the design of the experiment, the experiment would've failed miserably. Proving that a Mind is, indeed, required.
Darwinian Evolution is a farce - a lie.
Simple syllogism:
DNA = a code (biological definition)
Codes only come from Minds (Observable)
Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Now, this little argument doesn't get us to the God of the Bible just yet, but it does get us to a Being that existed before Humans with extreme intelligence.
Sprinkle in the Cosmological argument - which gives us a Space-less, Time-less (Eternal), Immaterial (Sprit), and VERY powerful cause for the Universe coming into existence - with the above little argument, and we're quickly approaching the God of the Bible.
The Miller–Urey experiment was a failure for the following reasons:
You are absolutely correct.
My only point was that even if the MU experiment succeeded, it would only succeed in showing that Minds (the scientists) were still needed, essentially supporting the Intelligent Design position.
Correct, and I understood. It's funny how they can believe everything came from nothing, order came from chaos, information came from garbage, and life came from non-life, all of which contradict observation.
Right! Truly blind faith!
Yeah I know..should have proofread my fat fingers post. Hate using a phone in my old age. Hard to type what you can't hardly see. Eyesight went to crap after 45 or so.
...evolution does happen... ...but humans aren't a natural development.
don't even know why people still try to tie this to the issue of intelligent design. there are many natural processes of change. why can't those processes be divinely designed and overseen? of course they are.
Right, there is a big difference between how and why. Science only answers how. For example, Why is the water boiling? Science will conclude that the water is boiling because there's a burner which is producing a lot of heat. this heat is transferred to the pot in which it then transfers to the water. The water reaches a temperature at which the vapour pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding atmosphere and it becomes a gas. This answer is WRONG because this is how the water boils not why. Its boiling because I wanted to make tea.
So spit some observable facts good sir. And let's not equate natural selection with evolution.
oh boy. sure lets break down some very basic stuff.
genetic variation occurs within a single generation. your kids will be similar to you, but have the potential to be different in many ways.
these variations compound on each other, and lead to more significant changes over more generations.
that is the natural process of evolution, by which the DNA of a species can change over time.
natural selection determines which genetic variations are able to be passed on to the next generation.
next up, the earth is actually round...
Ah yes, "Time." The magic wand of Darwinian evolutionary processes.
By definition, never observed.
"Add in deep time and anything is possible," the Darwinian evolutionist proclaims. Time, however, does not have creative powers. In fact, Time is more destructive and deleterious on genetic information than beneficial, and this is observable and verifiable.
Macroevolution - change on the grand scale from one species to another - is never observed. The fossil record doesn't support it (which Darwin acknowledged).
In fact, the fossil record screams long periods of stasis with short burst of new, complex life appearing on the scene (see Pre-Cambrian Explosion), and then long periods of stasis again. This resembles special creation so much so that Stephen J Gould (Darwin's successor) had to posit the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in order to save the Atheistic paradigm of Darwinian thought.
It's a joke.
as I said, human beings are not a natural development. the fossil record could not possibly be complete.
but no, the existence of time does not negate natural law. you may as well argue whether gravity is a law of physics or just God's will.
These issues are weaponized so that people misunderstand how the laws of nature are subject to the laws of God. they are not mutually exclusive, they are different aspects of the same design.
Sounds like you're favoring some sort of Theistic Evolution. Do I understand you correctly?