JesusFollowerForever
Disciple of Jesus
- Jan 19, 2024
- 1,271
- 869
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
thank you 1956 but I dont know how to change it...You worked in a research lab since you were 10? (One of these things, 35 years of experience, or age 45 is not true.)
Yes, very nice, but before you go would you please answer my two questions from post #93.this is my last entry for this thread, i will exit by a poem I just wrote;
In the splendor of the dawn, God's handiwork displayed,
Creation's symphony, in glory arrayed.
Mountains rise, and oceans roar,
Each creature woven, each star He bore.
Yet some in ignorance, their minds confined,
To theories of men, their hearts inclined.
They speak of evolution's tale,
Denying truth, their souls grow frail.
Oh, how can they not see,
The divine artistry, the mystery?
In every flower, in every tree,
God's fingerprint for all to see.
The heavens declare His majesty,
The earth resounds with His decree.
But blinded by their worldly view,
They miss the grandeur, the eternal truth.
Let wisdom dawn, let hearts awake,
To marvel at each sunrise break.
For in God's creation, His glory shines,
Eternal truth, forever divine.
Oh, let us praise with joyful voice,
The Creator God, our souls rejoice.
For in His beauty, we find our rest,
In Him alone, we are truly blessed.
1. Which field of science are you expert in? I'm not asking for your speciality, e.g. carbonatite lavas of East Africa; or, generalities, e.g. geologist; but something in the middle, e.g. vulcanologist.
2. Since you know evolution is not possible how did you go about falsifying it?
You are, again, playing games with words. Your choice to use the word "error" to characterize mutations is not a coincidence - I suggest you chose it because it is laden with baggage might trip up the uncritical reader. You are, of course, implying that is absurd to think that "errors" lead to functional complexity.
Well, that is an effective, and almost certainly intentionally misleading way to characterize what is happening. What you call an "error" could legitimately be called "an unexpected change in genetic coding". With this more neutral, less deceptive wording, the ability to generate complexity from mutations is much more plausible.
Strawman - no one is suggesting all mutations are good - many, perhaps the significant majority are bad. But the ones that confer a survival benefit - and clearly such mutations are indeed possible - are the ones that will be passed onto the next generation.
Dishonest no, logical yes. No proof evolution exists, the classic, what came first the chicken or the egg?
I am not the only scientist ( 35 yrs experience in the best research labs in the world, with many published papers including Nature, plos one etc...) who knows evolution is not possible.
on a personal note, why do you believe evolution is possible?
Could make sure it's inderstood that's sarcasm,You write exactly like I would expect from someone who has wide scientific knowledge and experience with scientific publishing.
Particularly when you compare Nature with an open access journal, and refer to Evolution by Natural Selection as "just a theory" and talk about "proof" when it comes to scientific theories.
You are playing a highly deceptive game with words, intentionally or otherwise. Let me assume you are correct in claiming that DNA has these mechanisms. Here, from the reputable Cleveland is the even-handed, fair, and non-deceptive way to frame things (I added the bolded part):DNA has error correction mechanisms to weed out many copying errors, so yes they ARE indeed errors. Errors for example that cause cancers, not confer advantages as true Darwinists believe.
Both animals and eggs evolved in time. No "complete" egg-laying animal was in the beginning, nor a "complete", today's egg. You are still forcing your instant creationism ideas into it.ok dino's... then who laid the dino egg if the egg came first?
Dinosaurs are descended from egg laying reptiles who are descended from base amniotes, the egg laying ancestors of both mammals and reptiles.so the dino came first then where was it from an egg?
Really disappointed that you won't answer my question.DNA has error correction mechanisms to weed out many copying errors, so yes they ARE indeed errors. Errors for example that cause cancers, not confer advantages as true Darwinists believe.
How does "Creation" explain how the moth got its eye spots? I mean specifically? And when?
How does "Creation" explain how the moth got its eye spots? I mean specifically? And when?
How does "Creation" explain how the moth got its eye spots? I mean specifically? And when?
Really disappointed that you won't answer my question.
You could of been in on the ground floor of the greatest discovery perhaps of all time !
With this acquiring after the flood you basically rendered your 4004 BC creation and the Flood in 2348 BC totally irrelevant to the topic.If you want it from a creationist perspective, how does this sound:
In 4004 BC, God creates the Noctua kind.
Fast forward to 2348 BC, and the Noctua board the Ark.
After the Flood, the Noctua fly off and, if it doesn't have them yet, they acquire these "eyes" as a defense mechanism against predators.
With this acquiring after the flood you basically rendered your 4004 BC creation and the Flood in 2348 BC totally irrelevant to the topic.
You have no idea how would the process of this acquiring look like, do you?
What mechanism would it be based on, if not the mechanism proposed in the evolution model?
Sorry it came to mind and could not resist.
When you say the moth could acquire it after the flood, then the creation or the flood or their dates are irrelevant to the topic/question. It was just a needless showing off you are an YEC fan.Why?
I realize the question is about what happened in 4004 BC, not 2348 BC, but the two do go hand in hand.
Not a single clue.
That's up to scientists to figure that out, and I'm not a scientist.
But I am a creationist.
And I (okay, someone else) was asked to give a creationist perspective.
So I did.
The only other thing I can think of, is that when God created the Noctua kind in 4004 BC, He created them with "owl eyes" already on them.
As opposed to my first scenario, where I said they were acquired after the Flood.
Either way, there they are -- just as God intended.
When you say the moth could acquire it after the flood, then the creation or the flood or their dates are irrelevant to the topic/question.
It was just a needless showing off you are an YEC fan.
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?