rambot said:

So...you're advocating for the division of the united states I guess?

Click to expand...

No, it's very unfortunate, but it's the reality we have to deal with.

sfs said:

The probability of speciation isn't worth simulating, since we see every step in the process in current populations -- it clearly happens and happens frequently.

Click to expand...

The debatable issue is not whether or not we observe a diversity of living creatures. The issue is, "how did that diversity come to be?".

sfs said:

I would not attempt to simulate something like the development of the eye, since there are too many directions that selection can take a species, depending on what environment it faces and which mutations occur first, and since we have too poor a knowledge of most of the relevant parameters.

Click to expand...

The evolutionist's claim is that only mutation is un-directed; selection is directed (toward survival and reproduction), no? So in any hostile environment, for sentient animals the complex sense of sight provides an advantage for survival. But since "there are too many directions that selection can take", a gradual change evolution theory cannot explain the necessary complexity of an evolved functioning eye?

sfs said:

What we can do is note how often multiple mutational routes turn out to be available to achieve a particular trait change (answer: very often) and observe how quickly selection can drive change.

Click to expand...

It seems logical that selection delimits the available mutational routes. Within that limit, those mutational routes remain random, yes? So, how many mutational routes are available? If the number of random mutational routes is not significantly smaller than the number of possible random mutations before selection weans them then I don't see much progress in the discussion on gradual evolution explaining the functioning eye.

sfs said:

For morphological changes in animals, what we see is that typical (inferred) morphological change in the fossil record is much slower than (inferred) change during adaptive radiations (as when a lineage invades a new environment or when many ecological niches open up after a mass extinction), which in turn is much slower than the observed change in invasive species, which in turn is much slower than the observed change in artificial settings when experiments are done on natural selection.

Click to expand...

No argument that radical changes in a creature's environment affect its survival and reproduction. No argument that radical changes in ecology accelerate (or decelerate) micro-evolutionary events. However, the evolution of a functioning eye via accumulated micro-evolutionary events needs evidence. The rate of change is not that evidence.

sfs said:

So there is no hint that the inferred rate of change is somehow difficult for natural selection and normal genetic variation to achieve. That, coupled with the overwhelming evidence -- from biogeography, from morphology, from fossils, and above all from genetics -- that species share common ancestors, provides compelling evidence for the reality of common descent and the role in it of random genetic variation and natural selection.

Click to expand...

Many, not all scientists agree. However, the explanation via evolution for a functioning eye in sentient creatures or the flagellum at the cellular level remains unanswered. (Behe)

sfs said:

Yes to the first; I don't know what's 'mere' about evolution, but yes, we clearly evolved from other animals; all the evidence I've seen to date indicates that abstract thinking evolved; genetic evidence is very strong that humans have had a population size greater than 2 for at least 500,000 years.

Click to expand...

We observe effects and logically infer their causes. What are the effects of abstract thinking? Our evidence is solely those observed effects. So, what is the bais for the claim that "all the evidence (observed effects) ... to date indicates that abstract thinking evolved"? What animals use syntactical speech? What animals bury their dead? What animals draw their abstractions? What animals possess the freedom to act against their instinctive tendencies?

sfs said:

My turn... I would like to know what alternative explanations there are for what we see in living things, aside from evolution.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1 I think has the explanation almost spot on:


What are life's characteristic manifestations? What are its chief forms? What is the inner nature of the source of vital activity?

Vegetation manifests the universal and basic phenomena of life: nutrition, growth, and decay. The second kind of life, the animal kingdom, adds sentience and locomotion The highest kind of life is mind or reason, exerting itself in thought or rational activity. This last properly belongs to man. The source of vitality in all creatures resides in its soul, its animating and harmonizing principle.

You admit to the (non-scientific) omnipotent Creator (a theistic-evolution) but it also appears that you constrain His omnipotence to that which limited human observations and fallible reason can reach on its own. So, the scientific method is quite limited in its discovery of truth. Further, the science jetisons metaphyical principles as guardrails to its claims and admits (I think too much) unwarranted specualtion and imagination to its claims.

sfs said:

Genetically, however, these birds are all more closely related to one another than to any other bird in the world (and are most related to rosefinches outside the islands). Why? Similarly for the 800 species of fruit fly on the island, which are all most closely related to one another. Why?

Click to expand...

Micro-evolution.

rambot said:

So...you're advocating for the division of the united states I guess?

Click to expand...

It’s already divided.

Tropical Wilds said:

And you don’t find that to be kind of a hypocritical double standard that when you do it, it’s ok but when others do it, they’re wrong?

Click to expand...

Again, I don't log on to CF to teach you reading comprehension. Figure it out yourself, or not.

iluvatar5150 said:

lol

How is it that little ol' me, the guy who makes cartoon fart noises for a living, could see this coming from a mile away (and said as much here, repeatedly) when all of these supposedly smart billionaires couldn't. Either these guys don't have a full brain between them or they're lying about being disappointed in the outcome. This approach didn't work at Twitter and it was obvious from before it began that it wouldn't work in the federal government.

Click to expand...

There should be a searing Congressional investigation into this malfeasance, but instead Musk is put out to pasture with a "U tryed" sticker.

Chesterton said:

He's right. And Jesus came with a sword, to divide. If good and evil face against each other, and the evil makes the divide irreconcilable, you need to pick a side.

Click to expand...

So...you're advocating for the division of the united states I guess?

JosephZ said:

An individual killed Charlie Kirk. His name is Tyler Robinson, and investigators believe he alone is the one responsible for Kirk's death. There is no "they."

Click to expand...

And of course you would say the very same thing about James Fields, right?

Chesterton said:

Exactly.

Click to expand...

And you don’t find that to be kind of a hypocritical double standard that when you do it, it’s ok but when others do it, they’re wrong?

Aryeh Jay said:

And people wonder where Sovereign Citizens get their crack ball ideas from.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where they get their ideas, but now I know where they get their license plates... Walmart

Postvieww said:

Spin at its best. With information now available it is absolutely clear which side of the political spectrum this confused killer was influenced by.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's clear, huh? Tell me, how do you know whether he was far left or a groyper? Hmm? Both groups have long had problems with Kirk and attempted to disrupt his events. The groypers even waged a "Groyper War" against TPUSA in 2019.

These links are all from before Kirk's murder, so they're not attempts to redirect blame:

He's right. And Jesus came with a sword, to divide. If good and evil face against each other, and the evil makes the divide irreconcilable, you need to pick a side.

Vambram said:

Should any blame be placed upon whoever influenced Tyler Robinson into hating Charlie Kirk while deciding Kirk needs to be assassinated?

Click to expand...

According to a family member, in the days leading up to the shooting, Tyler Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk "was full of hate and spreading hate." Do you think that Kirk's own words may have had an influence on Robinson and his decision to assassinate him?

Desk trauma said:

Have to embrace the double think. All weapons are equally effective, have the same learning curve and ease of use as firearms. If someone wants to kill they will do so with the same level of lethality regardless of having guns or not.

Also.

Guns are the most effective and easy to use tool for self and home defense. People must have access to them and cannot be expected to use other less effective tools.

Click to expand...

Ive noticed over the years, pro gun people invoke the absolute dumbest arguments.

Not that all their arguments are dumb. But the general notion that theres no public safety discussion to be had about the availability of various objects is just absurd. Its a zombie argument with working legs but no brain.

Nick Moser said:

Fallon Nevada in Churchill county

Click to expand...

Well we need to rectify that. Lately the Antiochians have planted churches right across Utah and converted many Mormons.

How far away is the nearest Orthodox church?

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

You have been dancing around the issue that I raised. You have a need to change the definition of slave depending on the circumstance. You like its meaning when it is applied to lost people. But you need to change its meaning when applying it to saved people. And here you are trying to create some kind of distinction between what makes a person a slave of sin based on whether he lived before or after pentecost. That distinction is invalid because sinning still makes people slaves to sin. Yet, even if you were right on that point, you would still have a problem with Romans 6:18 which says we have become "slaves of righteousness" and Romans 6:22 which says we have become "slaves of God". Your definition of slave changes in these verses because you allow for unrighteousness and ungodliness for slaves of righteousness who are also slaves of God. And I bring this up, not to criticise, but to get you to thinking about the inconsistency and what might clear it up.

so far, so good.

While it is true that He guides us, what you have not stated is that the Holy Siprit coming into our hearts makes us a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). He separates us and removes us from the flesh (Ro 10:9), joins us with Christ (1 Cor 6:17), and makes us one Spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17). This new creature (the new man) is "created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24).

The fact that we are a new creation, separated and removed from the flesh, joined with Christ, and are one spirit with Him is what makes us sanctified. We are have been culled out from among the lost, cleaned up, and set aside for His service. And this thing that He did for us happens in the heart. We are not in the flesh but in the Spirit because He He separated us from Sin and Joined us to Christ. That is our sanctification.

Please address why you need the definition of slave to change when we talk about being slaves of God (see comments above).

I'm trying to help you understand that the flesh is corrupt and cannot be reformed but the redeemed spirit is "truly righteous and holy" and connot be corrupted. Not knowing these things is why you change the definition of slave to fit the context and is a big reason why you think sanctification is progressive. I know this is a big bite of spiritual food to offer you. Maybe you could just start by investigating why you need to run away from Jesus' statement that whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

Click to expand...

No, it is your error. It is Christ who makes us new creatures (that’s called regeneration) and then He gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit to work in us to help confirm us to the image of Christ.

And you are only partially correct later on, also. The flesh IS corrupt, and that is why sin still has power over us even after we are regenerated. But you are splitting non-existent hairs. Whether or not we have been regenerated, as long as we are surrounded by sin, it has power over us. But the gift of the Holy Spirit helps mitigate that power so we can respond to its guidance. We are NOT slaves to it after we have been redeemed.

And don’t flatter yourself that you think you have some secret knowledge that is not revealed in the Bible. I understand the Bible by looking at the context of the spoken and written word. That’s not “running away” from anything. You cannot take something that was said in one context and simply transpose it to a different, unrelated situation and make a coherent theology around it.