He definitely has talent and there were several great ones but I could not pass up the opportunity to use the Princess Bride quote.
Dizredux
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My favorite part was when he tried using the 1st law of thermodynamics to claim that DNA can't mutate
Quotemining the berkely site and then misrepresenting the quote mine came in a close second though.
Not to mention his nonsense about "the law of biogenesis", lol.
Okay, I guess this is a reason not to use the NIV but why not all the other English translations?I have found that the Received Texts or the Textus Receptus which originated from Antioch as the source is more reliable than those source documents originating from Alexandria were poetic licensing & gnostism is known to have existed.
Acts 11:26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch
Secular history reports how plagiarized literatures has been done in Alexandria to verify poetic licensing as well as gnosticism being in the area.
Jesus had testified that the Father said that those that did not love Jesus nor His words would not keep His saying and those that did love His words would.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Jesus prophesied that just as He was persecuted, so will they persecute His disciples by not keeping their sayings as well.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
Alot of omissions have been done to the testimony of the deity of Christ in the NIV. One can still find it in the NIV, but in comparison, it should be telltaling about the source documents at Alexandria was indeed subjected to poetic licensing and gnosticism. They changed it enough to suit their needs as the leaders will use those changed references to support their false teachings in denying the deity of Christ to steer followers away from the word of God in seeking secret knowledge which one can suspect praying & fasting was a means to obtain it by. I do digress....
False teachings abounds and apostasy is across all the denomenational churches wherein hopefully a few are still keeping to the faith, but I am not holding my breath since no church wants to examine themselves in the faith: prove all church traditions by the scripture via reformation..
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.
So if there be any doubt as to the meaning of His words, go before that throne of grace and trust Jesus as your Good Shepherd to give you wisdom in understanding His words as they are kept in the KJV.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
No you don't see. Anything humans evolve into will always be a subspecies of human. Just like anything apes evolved into will always be a sub-group of apes, just as humans are.Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?
That means when a cow is no longer a cow that it cannot reproduce with said cow because it is an entirely different and larger animal.
The problem is micro evolution is the law of Bio Genesis whereas macro evolution is only theoritical, is not observed, and cannot be proven.
Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?
The use of microscopic to prove the existence of macroscopic things is hardly the same thing after all when it involves seeing them whereas we are talking about how the microscopic becomes the macroscopic as in micro evolution will become macroevolution if given enough time.
That means when a cow is no longer a cow that it cannot reproduce with said cow because it is an entirely different and larger animal.
Remember the first law of thermodynamics? That nothing can be created out of nothing and nothing can be destroyed? Now apply that to your DNA. No genetic information is going to be added to your DNA to sprout wings.
Oh my, are you trying to set a record for the most erroneous facts in a single post? You are doing a good job but those before you have left a legacy of some very high standards for this so you may have a ways to go.
So far my favorite is:
"Impotent" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You might consider looking it up.
Dizredux
My favorite part was when he tried using the 1st law of thermodynamics to claim that DNA can't mutate
Quotemining the berkely site and then misrepresenting the quote mine came in a close second though.
Not to mention his nonsense about "the law of biogenesis", lol.
Okay, I guess this is a reason not to use the NIV but why not all the other English translations?
No you don't see. Anything humans evolve into will always be a subspecies of human. Just like anything apes evolved into will always be a sub-group of apes, just as humans are.
That isn't talking about the physical size of the animal, it means the taxonomic groups above species level.
Where did you get this line anyway?
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
It's in neither Delphiki's post that you quoted nor in the Berkeley link you posted.
The law of biogenesis says that comlex species, such as flies or modern bacteria, do not emerge from lifeless matter in a matter of a few days. I dont' see how life evolving from a single common ancestor over 3.5 billion years violates that law. Could you explain?
We can show that macroscopic shapes are made up of microscopic molecules. Same applies to evolution. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary events in the same way that the shape of a rock is the combined interactions of single, microscopic molecules.
Entirely different? I can find shared features between cows and humans, so even humans and cows are not entirely different. Perhaps you want to think about that one for a second.
We can throw out your misrepresentation of the law of biogenesis since no scientist uses it.
1. The principle that life originates from preexisting life and not from nonliving material.
I remember that the first law of thermodynamics deals with mass and energy, not information. The first law says that you can not create mass and energy from nothing. It says nothing about information.
Not only do you invent your own definition of biogenesis, but you also invent your own definition of thermodynamics.
The rest is just more distortions of science.
Well, I can admit my mistakes on recollection quite well. The crossbreeding between a horse & a donkey is the actual event which produces a mule. That mule cannot reproduce. If that term impotent is not the correct spelling or the actual meaning of cannot reproduce, then sorry about that, but you are side stepping the truth I am conveying here.
It is a common scientific fact that no genetic information has been observed as being added to a living organism.
And mutation does not involve added genetic information.
I aquaint macro evolution as having extra genetic information that is not present from which it assumingly had sprung from.
It presents a problem when theorists extraopolate a cow to a whale scenario. That would the genetic information is present in the whale that it had legs once, but all they can do is point to mutation which they attribute to having legs once but it is still not found in the DNA which suggests that they are not legs that they are looking at.
Tell
If you are interested in honestly discussing some of what you said I will try but do keep in mind that most these are things we have gone over a thousand time or more, they are not new.
I will discuss, not argue. Let me know.
Dizredux
Tell, I read your next post. Oh well, never mind.
Since evolution does not occur through hybridization, I have no idea why anyone brings it up in the discussion at all.
It is?
Could you please define "genetic information" and provide us a quantifiable metric by which we can determine "added" or "increase", "decrease", "loss", etc.
TYIA.
The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs.
A male horse and a female donkey have a hinny. A female horse and a male donkey have a mule.
But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs.
They have trouble making sperm or eggs because their chromosomes don't match up well. And, to a lesser extent, because of their chromosome number.
A mule gets 32 horse chromosomes from mom and 31 donkey chromosomes from dad for a total of 63 chromosomes. (A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62).
To make a sperm or an egg, cells need to do something called meiosis. The idea behind meiosis is to get one copy of each chromosome into the sperm or egg.
For example, let's focus on chromosome 1. Like I said, we have one from mom and one from dad. At the end of meiosis, the sperm or egg has either mom's or dad's chromosome 1. Not both.
This process requires two things. First, the chromosomes have to look pretty similar, meaning they are about the same size and have the same information. This will have to do with how well they match up during meiosis.
And second, at a later critical stage, there has to be four of each kind of chromosome. Neither of these can happen completely with a mule.
Let's take a closer look at meiosis to see why this is. The first step in meiosis is that all of the chromosomes make copies of themselves. No problem here...a mule cell can pull this off just fine.
So now we have a cell with 63 doubled chromosomes. It is the next step that causes the real problem.
In the next step, all the same chromosomes need to match up in a very particular way. So, the four chromosome 1's all need to line up together. But this can't happen in a mule very well.
Like I said, a donkey and a horse chromosome aren't necessarily similar enough to match up. Add to this the unmatched chromosome and you have a real problem. The chromosomes can't find their partners and this causes the sperm and eggs not to get made.
So this is a big reason for a mule being sterile....
The word you're looking for is "equate".
1. make aware: to make somebody, or yourself, aware of or familiar with something
2. introduce somebody: to introduce somebody or make somebody known to somebody else
1. consider as equivalent to something: to treat, show, or consider something as equivalent to something else
2. reduce something to the same level: to reduce something to the same level or value as something else
3. form something into equation: to put something into the form of an equation involving an equality
"Tellastory" does not determine what is, or is not macroevolution.
1. theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution,.....
It is not necessarily easy to see macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. ....
And you're going to need to provide us with that quantifiable metric by which we can measure "genetic informaiton" before we talk about gains or losses of it.
A male horse and a female donkey have a hinny. A female horse and a male donkey have a mule.
But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs.
They have trouble making sperm or eggs because their chromosomes don't match up well. And, to a lesser extent, because of their chromosome number.
A mule gets 32 horse chromosomes from mom and 31 donkey chromosomes from dad for a total of 63 chromosomes. (A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62).
To make a sperm or an egg, cells need to do something called meiosis. The idea behind meiosis is to get one copy of each chromosome into the sperm or egg.
For example, let's focus on chromosome 1. Like I said, we have one from mom and one from dad. At the end of meiosis, the sperm or egg has either mom's or dad's chromosome 1. Not both.
This process requires two things. First, the chromosomes have to look pretty similar, meaning they are about the same size and have the same information. This will have to do with how well they match up during meiosis.
And second, at a later critical stage, there has to be four of each kind of chromosome. Neither of these can happen completely with a mule.
Let's take a closer look at meiosis to see why this is. The first step in meiosis is that all of the chromosomes make copies of themselves. No problem here...a mule cell can pull this off just fine.
So now we have a cell with 63 doubled chromosomes. It is the next step that causes the real problem.
In the next step, all the same chromosomes need to match up in a very particular way. So, the four chromosome 1's all need to line up together. But this can't happen in a mule very well.
Like I said, a donkey and a horse chromosome aren't necessarily similar enough to match up. Add to this the unmatched chromosome and you have a real problem. The chromosomes can't find their partners and this causes the sperm and eggs not to get made.
So this is a big reason for a mule being sterile....
Huh? Are you talking about Hand2 and Sonic Hedgehog genes?
How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » News » University of Florida
The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in todays spotted dolphins, they didnt have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.
The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt.
By integrating data from fossils with developmental data from embryonic dolphins, we were able to trace these genetic changes to the point in time when they happened, Thewissen said.
And mutation does not involve added genetic information.
Like the Catholic catechism with their double talk and many words, that quote is simple enough to cite what macro evolution actually is which defers from micro evolution greatly
Yes, they go on about gradual change and with their many words, they make that simple quote not mean what they said it means.
All I see here is atypical response of no information about how you define those laws in correcting my layman's definition of it.
Hmmm... lessee.... chromosomes.
How many chromosomes do people have? - Genetics Home Reference
Humans have 23 chromosomes.
In comparisons of apes of 24 chromosomes to humans' 23 chromosomes at an evolutinist's site.
Human and Ape Chromosomes
If we had evolved from apes: where is our extra chromosomes? Wopuld that not suggest a de evolution rather than macro evolution?
The point is; even if you have one speculated as ascending; where is that chromosome going to come from? Nowhere? From nothing?
Seems the quote verifies that regardless of the different kinds of apes, they all have 24 chromosomes and always will have 24 chromosomes just as a human will always have 23, even though it continues with the assumption that somehow, we had evolved from apes.
The problem is micro evolution is the law of Bio Genesis whereas macro evolution is only theoritical, is not observed, and cannot be proven.
The above quote of yours is the law of biogenesis.
By your own quote above, you are opposing yourself in the next quote below.
Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?
The use of microscopic to prove the existence of macroscopic things is hardly the same thing after all when it involves seeing them whereas we are talking about how the microscopic becomes the macroscopic as in micro evolution will become macroevolution if given enough time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?