I've had dreams like that...Perhaps there is! Perhaps you can suggest how the shower turned itself on without any persons there and then turned off when we unlocked the door with still no persons inside? It shattered my worldview!
If you check what Job actually says, the springs of the sea and the depths of the sea are separate 'or' clauses, i.e. it refers to the springs or the depths. But I'm no expert - perhaps you could explain how it's clear that the springs are in the depths?Or even how the writer of the Book of Job knew that there were trenches in the bottom of the seas that had fountains (springs) deep within them? Maybe he was Job Cousteau?
Well, it depends what kind of natural explanation you're looking for; for example, the 3% of unexplained UFO sightings are pretty much what you'd expect from investigating a large number of random misidentifications, misperceptions, illusions, hallucinations, etc.No, some things simply defy natural explanation.
Scientists can DEMONSTRATE that the evidence is consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution.
Science is testable theories, not opinions.
I don't see the connection. How does one start with parents, and end up with the conclusion that there is a deity?
But even if you found none of those, it still hadn't disproved that I did eat strawberries. But that's beside the point. I could use "It is a fact that I just raised my hand and put it down before I made this post" instead, or many others to show that facts do not have to be falsifiable.But there is some conceivable test which would falsify it, isn't there - if I pumped your stomach and found strawberry remnants, or got you to poop in a cup and found strawberry seeds, or strawberry seeds between your teeth. I can conceive of something which would indicate that you didn't.
Falsifiability could mean:I don't think you understand what falsifiability actually means...
That's what I said in post #74:But it should not be accepted as a fact if you can't think of something that proves it wrong.
Even though a fact can withstand any attempts to prove it false, anything that cannot be proven false doesn't automatically make it a fact.
"Evidence" is subject to interpretation.I mean, if you can just handwave away any evidence that suggests it is wrong, you have something that can't be disproven, but that doesn't make it a fact, does it?
Science has no problem explaining water on Earth - water is not only bound into the rocks themselves, but the solar system has vast amounts of water, and comets and asteroids have carried it to the planets since they first formed. If anything, the problem is in deciding which source provided the largest contribution. See Where Did Earth's Water Come From?... science has no real answer as to how all the water on our planet got here...just that it likely came from space...from the sky...
Actually I did consider the example you provided and I thought it equally possible that each organism has and repeats this gene as they individually require (as the different organism needs in order to be what it is)...in other words (which was my point) a similar gene across genomes in different creatures does not imply a lineal relationship just some degree of similarity (for reasons of form or function).
TO ME the evidence in many cases that these alleged "shared Genes" are shown by testing to be different in size, order, and function make this alternate interpretation of the evidence equally feasible.
Then show how that interpretation is supported by evidence.
Not all interpretations are equally valid, wouldn't you agree?All you have to do is observe the geological column. If you go with what we can actually observe you can INTERPRET the data in either direction.
You cannot possibly think this actually addresses my 'challenge'?
It was clear in your original post that you used the fact that for those genes you picked, whose sequence lengths were different, to imply that calling them 'the same gene' was dishonest.
My 'challenge' was to look at the genes that YOU chose as apparent examples of evolutionist dishonesty to see whether or not their disparate lengths were due to them having not been equally sequenced.
Great - did you actually compare the sequences for these genes:
Human Gene HDLBP
Rat Gene Hdlbp
Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C)
D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB)
or did you call foul:
"What it ACTUALLY shows is some semblance of similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.
If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted pre-conceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric.
Well since what I am telling you is true, how did they convince so many? This process of convincing the masses of the speculative for a definite motive (to prove their theory) requires consistent:
a) Interpretation of all data...
b) Repetition over and over....
c) Appeal to Authority....
d) And then finally through c) consensus follows (the argumentum ad populum)..
based SOLELY on the fact that their published sequences are not identical?
By the way - that is QUITE an indictment - especially when one considers the overarching amount of projection you are employing!
Repetition? Appeal to authority? THAT is creationism's bread and butter!
Anyway -
THAT is the crux of the issue, not whether you considered this or that!
My gosh, that had to have been my obvious point!
This is getting as silly as your round and round on your doctored Blum quote.
At one point there are no indicators of humans then there are.
The real meaning of hominidae ONLY referred to humans, but this allowed other scientists to question the Darwinian model, so they blurred the lines to include all the great apes (to make the theory appear reasonable).
They often have changed meanings to be more generalized so the theory seems more feasible. It is a common propaganda technique.
For example, in the 1970s, politicians did the same thing with the word "choice" so that any who make a different choice are now billed as being against freedom of choice. The new definition created by the pro-death crowd (right to die, assisted suicide, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, etc.) denying the freedom of choice of whole group who previously also enjoyed free choice without repercussions.
Not all interpretations are equally valid, wouldn't you agree?
Those interpretations which rely on purposefully obscuring information (such as Henry Morris' treatment of folding processes) or concocting fantastical scenarios (such as requiring thousands of rhythmites to be laid down in minutes to explain varve formation) can and should be rejected.
Now whether or not the "disparate lengths" were due to not being equally sequenced (which they obviously are not)
is irrelevant to what establishes something (in each person's opinion) as factual (yo know the OP?).
In this case in this discussion, they are NOT the same gene regardless of what means they use to determine "same" as factual.
They are structurally DIFFERENT, and have different functions in each respective organism.
So "same" is not factual...DIFFERENT IS. In my example, the basis for determining what constitutes "factual" is the actual observable data, as opposed to the narrative attached to explain the reality in light of the hypothesis (like many creationists do). Also it appears you are blurring threads...with the probability thread...
At one point there is dust of the ground and then there is a fully formed human male.
Is that why 'they' did that? really? What is your evidence that this is the case?
Or is this just your biased spin?
All your years of scientific reading and study and, as I have already pointed out, when it comes down to it, you "argue" like a plain old under-informed creationist.
Boring and mundane rhetoric.
Why are you constantly trying to derail the OP and make it appear I am saying things I never said? What did any of my comments have anything to do with Creationism? Not one...but you persist. Simply address the reasoning and the content of the posts from your perspective. For example, the "same gene" comment I gave. Are they the same of different? It's simple, and of course you are free to disagree, but what we can actually observe is that they are different not the same and science should be based on observable facts that can then be tested.
Now whether or not the "disparate lengths" were due to not being equally sequenced (which they obviously are not)
Really? How do you know that?
Because they contain a different number of base pairs (thus not equal)....
Science has no problem explaining water on Earth - water is not only bound into the rocks themselves, but the solar system has vast amounts of water, and comets and asteroids have carried it to the planets since they first formed. If anything, the problem is in deciding which source provided the largest contribution. See Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
Yes I am suggesting that, simple because the bible does not support the idea of evolution.Are you suggesting that a Christian biologist will be biased against the Bible?
At one point there are no indicators of humans then there are.
I guess if you don't know or understand the science it could be...Science does indeed have trouble explaining all earth's water.
It's a scientific mystery.
Much like the origins of water on Earth, there are several good explanations - it's less a mystery, more a question of how much each contributes.Like the morning chorus of birds...
Why do they do it...?
That's a scientific mystery, too.