Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[A Freeman]

The TRUTH about Darwin and "Evolution"


Everyone who chooses not to believe God and The Bible, seems to like to quote "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", that all life came out of the sea, as their so-called proof that God doesn't exist, without realising where Darwin got his theory from. Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

If you want to know the REASON for The Creation and the REASON for human-life on Earth, read:-
"The Way home or face The Fire" by JAH.

[Clownboat]

Everyone who chooses not to believe God and The Bible, seems to like to quote "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", that all life came out of the sea, as their so-called proof that God doesn't exist, without realising where Darwin got his theory from.

For the sake of debate, let's assume that Darwin cannot be trusted because he is a devil worshiping doody head.

With YOUR infatuation with Darwin out of the way that you project on to others, I ask you:
What mechanism best describes all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare that to the mechanism that we call evolution.

Darwin was NOT so clever,

Devil worshiping doody head remember! Not clever and you can even pretend he ate babies as it matters not.

he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

Please show that you speak the truth and that Darwin, the Devil worshiping, baby eating doody head got his information from believing in the Bible god concept and the Bible itself.

God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

We are familiar with the story. Your preaching at us is not needed and is against the rules of this debate site that you agreed to abide to. Why do you think those evil atheists here can abide by the rules when you struggle with them?

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

Please show that you speak the truth or kindly remove this claim for being false.

If you want to know the REASON for The Creation and the REASON for human-life on Earth,

If I desired such information, would seeking random people on the internet that display a willingness to be dishonest be a good place to go?

[The Barbarian]

The TRUTH about Darwin and "Evolution"
Everyone who chooses not to believe God and The Bible, seems to like to quote "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", that all life came out of the sea, as their so-called proof that God doesn't exist, without realising where Darwin got his theory from. Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Let's take a look at that...

Genesis 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Ooops... You should read the Bible. It's got a lot of things therein that would help you understand.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link"

It was "missing lynx." And it's been found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_issiodorensis

and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

But you can't cite publication or link? I think I know why.

If you want to know the REASON for The Creation and the REASON for human-life on Earth, read:- "[url=https://thewayhomeorfacethefire.net]The Way home or face The Fire[/url]" by JAH.

Science doesn't deal in final causes. Maybe a bit of review of philosophy, focusing on teleology and philosophy of science would help you.

[A Freeman]

Genesis 1
1:1 By periods (headships) God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the First Day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the Second Day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the Third Day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [He made] the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the Fourth Day.
1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the Fifth Day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in Our image, and teach him to be like Us: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in His [Own] image, in the Image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REplenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, (I have given) every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the Sixth Day.


Please note well that nowhere does it say that there were submicroscopic "viruses" created, which reportedly cannot survive without a host, but allegedly lie in wait everywhere to attack healthy cells, even though no one has ever seen a "virus", nor isolated a "virus" from a tissue sample, nor observed any "virus" infecting healthy tissue, etc.

What it does tell us in Scripture is to avoid ALL forms of pharmacy/witchcraft (witches' brew), the pharmacists/witches themselves, and the doctors/physicians that administer these toxic chemicals FOR PROFIT.

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch (pharmacist) to live.

2 Chronicles 16:12-13
16:12 And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease [was] exceeding [great]: yet in his disease he sought not to the "I AM", but to the physicians.
16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

Galatians 5:19-21
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, PHARMACY, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall NOT inherit The Kingdom of God.

Revelation 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the Earth; for by thy SORCERIES (PHARMACEUTICALS) were all nations DECEIVED.

Note: The Greek word φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) is where the English word "pharmacy" originates. This word is translated in some versions as "witchcraft" and/or "sorcery", which is exactly what pharmacy (witches' brew) is.

IF viruses actually existed in nature, and could live dormant outside of their hosts (even though they are reportedly not alive), and fed off of healthy tissue (as has been alleged by the medical "experts", e.g. virologists, microbiologists, etc.), then what would have stopped the very first "virus" from consuming all of the healthy tissue it could find, thereby exterminating ALL of its alleged hosts?

How obvious does it need to be that the alleged threat of "viruses" was INVENTED to be able to SELL the supposed cure: expensive pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines?

We are literally poisoned on the front end through toxic chemicals, e.g. fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, etc. which poison the soil. Other toxic chemicals are then sprayed on the crops or injected into the meat (e.g. alar, nitrates and phosphates). Even more toxic chemicals are added to the public water supply (e.g. fluoride, lithium), and sprayed into the air (e.g. aluminum, barium, cadmium, strontium), to rain down on us, the crops, livestock, water and the soil, thereby poisoning everything even further. And then, once sickened by the onslaught of these toxic chemicals, we are offered even more toxic chemicals, in the form of pharmaceutical drugs, chemotherapy and vaccines (and radiation, which is also carcinogenic), as the alleged "cure".

THE CHEMICAL-PHARMACEUTICAL-MEDICAL INDUSTRY IS A MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR A YEAR BUSINESS.

A business that doesn't make a dime off of healthy individuals, but instead relies on the sick and dying to make its fortune. A business that is now being used for population reduction, via direct injection, aka "vaccines", which have NEVER "inoculated" nor cured anyone of anything.

[Difflugia]

even though no one has ever seen a "virus", nor isolated a "virus" from a tissue sample, nor observed any "virus" infecting healthy tissue, etc.

How old is this claim? Is this apologetics from the seventies? We have pictures now. Here's a tunneling electron micrograph of four SARS virions.



Here's another one, using a different method (negative contrast electron microscopy).



For my money, bacteriophages (viruses that attack bacteria) are far more photogenic:

[A Freeman]

And how do we know these are actually "viruses" and that these alleged viruses are the cause of an illness or disease in healthy tissue?

[mgb]

What do you think genes are supposed to do? They code for proteins. That's it. Natural selection is not genes. It acts on genes.

Genes being directly observed in protein synthesis is evidence for them. Evolution being directly observed in populations is evidence for evolution. They are both observed facts.

Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification." After genetics was founded as a science, it was "change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Both are observed facts.

I am not arguing against this at all and I'm not arguing against the fact of evolution. I am saying that evidence for the fact of evolution is not evidence for the theory of evolution. And the theory comes in three distinct parts-
1. Evolution
2. Mutations
3. Natural Selection

When talking about evidence for evolution it is necessary to tell what aspect of the theory the evidence supports. Evidence for one of these 3 is not necessarily evidence for the others. That's what I'm saying. And I am saying that all the things that genes are supposed to do are not backed up by evidence. For example, if there is a child prodigy his/her ability is routinely 'explained' by 'genes' "He has his mother's genes" Such is the prevalence of the Gene-of-the-gaps theory: Any gap in our understanding is plugged by some hypothetical gene. But science does not know for sure that all these abilities are a result of mutations/genes. What is literature? Art? Music? Where do these things come from? Mutations? Well that's the theory. The problem is, the Theory of Evolution, as it is normally presented, does not leave any room for interpretations other than mutations - everything is put down to mutations, without proof. That's the point I'm making

[A Freeman]

Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle, and the statements were refined and published by Koch in 1890.

Koch's four postulates are:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

[Difflugia]

And how do we know these are actually "viruses" and that these alleged viruses are the cause of an illness or disease in healthy tissue?

Yeah, they're a little blurry. They might actually be bigfoot, right?

But seriously, is that really your response? You assert something utterly false and incredibly easy to disprove, but when we do, you just deny it with a bit of handwaving? On second thought, I guess that is just Apologetics 101. Welcome aboard.

Here's the deal: modern scientists know what viruses are and how they work in great biochemical detail. They routinely isolate and even crystallize virus particles and use them to infect new cells as part of their research. In fact, it's become cheap and easy enough that it's a routine service offered to clinicians. Genomic sequencing is now routine and scientists have been even been using viruses to inject modified DNA into living organisms. Viruses are understood well enough that they are used commercially.

The position you've decided to occupy is that since you have absolutely no understanding of scientific reality whatsoever, you can make whatever false claims you want. Unless we explain absolutely everything about the modern world to you in a way that you can't possibly misunderstand, you claim victory. If that's your idea of good-faith debate, then I'll just say, "Well played, sir!"

[A Freeman]

And how do we know these are actually "viruses" and that these alleged viruses are the cause of an illness or disease in healthy tissue?

Yeah, they're a little blurry. They might actually be bigfoot, right?

But seriously, is that really your response? You assert something utterly false and incredibly easy to disprove, but when we do, you just deny it with a bit of handwaving? On second thought, I guess that is just Apologetics 101. Welcome aboard.

Here's the deal: modern scientists know what viruses are and how they work in great biochemical detail. They routinely isolate and even crystallize virus particles and use them to infect new cells as part of their research. In fact, it's become cheap and easy enough that it's a routine service offered to clinicians. Genomic sequencing is now routine and scientists have been even been using viruses to inject modified DNA into living organisms. Viruses are understood well enough that they are used commercially.

The position you've decided to occupy is that since you have absolutely no understanding of scientific reality whatsoever, you can make whatever false claims you want. Unless we explain absolutely everything about the modern world to you in a way that you can't possibly misunderstand, you claim victory. If that's your idea of good-faith debate, then I'll just say, "Well played, sir!"

You're speaking about things you know nothing about, as if you have presented anything other than a few photos for evidence.

Here's the real deal, and it's very, very simple.

Our Creator, who designed not only the human body, but the entire universe and everything in it, knows much, much more than all of the "modern scientists" that you have decided to misplace your trust in.

King of kings' Bible - 1 Timothy 5:20-21
5:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE (knowledge) FALSELY SO CALLED:
5:21 Which some professing [to have] have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.

You can take all of the medical propaganda in this world, like the mainstream information you've cited, and the amount of actual wisdom in it couldn't fill a thimble.

The reason for the invention of "viruses" (after the medical industry itself proved they didn't exist in the early 1950s) is easy to understand: it is a LUCRATIVE business that makes loads of money off of SICK people.

A few studies on viruses, preplanned "pandemics", pharmacy/witchcraft, contagion, etc., which you may find interesting, if you have an open mind:

The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean

The Misconception Called Virus by Dr. Stefan Lanka

The Final Refutation of Virology

The Invisible Rainbow

And more to follow...