Search results

Alright. I'm going to tell you something I learned a while ago. You do not need to understand everything. You don't need to understand everything about God. You don't even need to understand why anything is going on in your life. All you need to do is put your trust in God. That's really what...

Hmm. Why are you of the opinion that God would have to be created? Sorry. Why do you hate people who don't believe in God? I'm not quite sure I understand why you feel this way.

This thread makes no sense. Unless... Maybe the title is stating that Macs are in fact not good computers while PCs are?

Actually, if you want a prediction from common design, presumably it would be that we will find more function in those structures labeled as nonfunctional.

Predicts or jumps to conclusions based upon lack of data? The 'vestigial' organs would seem to prove that. It's impossible to come up with any decent explanations until we know more about the various 'useless' genes.

And yet, it's a very legitimate thing to say. We don't know everything about genes. It's akin to the situation with vestigial organs. People didn't know what they did and declared them useless.

So, the chicken came before the egg? No, wait, we came from very simple life. The sun would only power biochemical reactions if the organism could use the energy. And starting from the egg, that really doesn't seem too likely.

Oh. Boy is my face red. Well, you have to understand the difference between canon and noncanon first. Canon are those works that are directly inspired (God breathed) by God. Noncanon obviously are not. What the Hebrews thought about the world is noncanon. I'm totally...

I didn't say it was worthless either. It's just not canon. That's a very big distinction there.

...so? I don't see why it matters what the Hebrews thought about the shape of the Earth. I think there was only one NT writer who mentioned anything from Enoch. Not that it matters, since as I recall, the writer wasn't saying anything about the shape of the Earth. You know how it...

I'm pretty sure it's because the apocrypha isn't canon. It doesn't count, y'see?

No idea. All I know is that different people see the past from differing perspectives.

When looking at past events, people always presuppose somthing. Christians see God's work, Muslims see Allah's work, atheists see something else, etc.

Alright, I'll get to another (probably nested hierarchy) point tommorow.

I still see it as something of a tautology, even with that. Why wouldn't they be? It (FUL) still can deal with anywhich thing you want it to. There's utterly no reason that a common designer would not use similar mechanisms and structures. In fact, I'd say it makes more sense than...

Points, counterpoints, that's how things usually go. Should I just pick out part of it for us to discuss? Hmm. I didn't see that. Of course, I never was the most attentive person out there. Let's discuss this.

And with small mutations we can get major problems! Considering that (even with most of the mutations being neutral), I find it very unlikely that we could have evolved from apes. Not that it matters much, since we have Ashby Camp's response. Care to debate the first part?

It seems that way but, the differences are more vast than you let on. Apparently that small percentage means 48 million nucleotide differences. That's a whole lot of mutations. Back to the topic at hand. Apparently Camp responded to the respsonse by Theobold to the critique to the 29...

Hmmm. I found something a bit more interesting than this, although it does tie in. I need to research it first though. It mostly deals with how big a difference 1.6% is for man and ape. So, I'll be back later.

I haven't said how they could accomodate it? I guess I'll try again. Alright we multiple groups of organisms with very different DNA. Fun for the common design advocates, right? Wrong. There's a very simple way to explain it away. They still all came from a common ancestor but, evolved...