childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 5,869
- 3,304
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Moreover I am defining God so that we can agree and believe.Ah, so what you really mean is ‘believing in God’?
Not even remotely evolution... the gross equivocation between mutation within a single kind (in this case the virus did not become a bacteria or any other such thing... still a virus) -- is mutation not evolution.
So you claim. But you have yet to give a reason for the accuracy of your claims.There is One Truth for all of mankind to learn and trust in, even as we share one planet.
Defining something does not make it real. You can assign any qualities to God you wish but that does not providence evidence for his existence.Moreover I am defining God so that we can agree and believe.
Love others as you would want to be loved is proof of this common Truth wherein there is a common faith.So you claim. But you have yet to give a reason for the accuracy of your claims.
No we can't assign qualities to God according to our wishes. The defining we do must come from proclaiming what is self evident for all people.Defining something does not make it real. You can assign any qualities to God you wish but that does not providence evidence for his existence.
Interesting. What do you think the new Covid19 strain is that let’s it spread more easily if not evolution ?
Which we have now observed.
That is like saying the first meter of 100 meter sprint is not running.
Because we see bacteria turn into horses all the time?
As Dawkins admitted - evolution is observable -- it just never happens while we are observing.
So we "observe" that it never happens while we are observing.
================================
As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network
==========================
How does that differ from:
Child: “It has been observed that the Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”
Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?
Child: “no you can never see it happen it does not happen while you are observing – but I say it has been observed anyway. ”
==============================
By contrast Creationists have evidence
(Infinite Creator makes matter transforming living "machines" where plant turns dirt into leaf "every day" and rabbit turns leaf into "more rabbit" every day).
And just as the guys promoting BB will claim that an expanding universe seen today - show them the BB extrapolated far in the past... so also the dirt-to-rabbit matter transformation in-a-single-day that we see in everyday life above - provide the "evidence" that an infinite being can do the whole thing for the entire rabbit in one single evening-and-morning just as He said.
As Dawkins admitted - evolution is observable -- it just never happens while we are observing.
So we "observe" that it never happens while we are observing.
================================
As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network
.
That is evolution in action. A change in allele frequency over time. Which is a fundamental building block of TOE. .
Allele Frequency
In a simplified scenario, p and q are the only alleles in the population, and the population is not developing any mutations. If this is the case, the sum of the allele frequencies of p and q must equal 1 because with only two alleles the combined frequency must equal 100%.
...
A common misconception of allele frequency is that it is directly related to the evolutionary fitness of a particular allele. Just because an allele is frequent or infrequent has no bearing on the fitness of that allele. For example, many recessive traits that are deleterious “hide” in a population. This can mean that while it appears to exist at really low levels, it is in fact just hiding in the hybrids of the population.
Other times, a new beneficial mutation will have a very low allele frequency. A new allele must establish itself in a population by outcompeting other alleles. To do this is must be continuously replicated across many generations. In this way, many beneficial alleles are still highly underrepresented in the population because the population has not had time to evolve.
to simplify even more
the point is to take a starting point that evolutionists and creationists will both agree on... and then point to an end point that both evolutionists and creationists agree on (which I do here in this post).
And to keep in mind that significant level of the term "evolution" that Dawkins references as quoted in post #2 as we contrast the essential argument in the two contrasting solutions for getting from point A - to - B.
.
But you haven't answered my question about the voicing.
Defining something does not make it real. You can assign any qualities to God you wish but that does not providence evidence for his existence.
A. Everyone (both Creationist and atheist) agrees that there was a time on Earth where it is a barren planet - no LIFE of any kind on it.
B. Everyone (both Creationist and atheist) agrees that we exist on earth today with lots of diverse life forms.
Creationists claim that the Bible Creation account shows that an infinite Being (infinite in wisdom and power) created all life on earth - with all land animals appearing in a single evening-morning "day" like the days in the Legal Code found here Ex 20:9, 11 - at Sinai.
C. Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust in a single day. That is a given. (at something far below blast-furnace temp 3400 degree F)
So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom such as the Bible Creation account speaks of - can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day. As noted here #2
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"
The contrast noted in more detail here -- #12
=====================
Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such talented rock exists"
=====================
Hint: those who get stuck arguing that an infinitely wise and powerful being would most certainly not be capable of assembling biomolecules from dust - are not paying attention to these details or grasping the points being made here -- but of course we agree they can choose to ignore all the details that they wish.
I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above.
to simplify even more
the point is to take a starting point that evolutionists and creationists will both agree on... and then point to an end point that both evolutionists and creationists agree on (which I do here in this post).
And to keep in mind that significant level of the term "evolution" that Dawkins references as quoted in post #2 as we contrast the essential argument in the two contrasting solutions for getting from point A - to - B.
.
So you don't have a reason why the voicing switches to the third person at 16:20. OK. I suppose it wouldn't make any difference to you if your believed in Plenary Verbal Inspiration to start with.whaaat? "The voicing"? seriously?
BobRyan said: ↑
If we delete the salient point of evolution and reduce it down to "a change happened" then having your fingernail grow is under that broad anything-qualifies form and it proves nothing.
Why would we do that?
If we took out the salient point of Salvation and reduce it down to ‘believing in the supernatural’ then belief in ghosts qualifies and proves nothing.
So you don't have a reason why the voicing switches to the third person at 16:20. OK
My point was that Ex 16:20 seemed to be an explanatory note inserted by the transcriber rather than the quoted speech of God, as indicated by the voicing, a suggestion which you rejected out of hand--without offering any other explanation for it. Normally (and especially in a language without quotation marks) that change would be a "close quotes" marker. A related change occurs at the beginning of the chapter, where the transcriber tells us "God spake these words and said" followed by a change from third to first person voicing, where quoted speech begins.Do you mean Genesis 16:20? If so... what is your point?
The person that knows nothing about aerodynamics and "Gets on the plane anyway" is on the right path to truth.
IT is the everybody-including-atheist sense for the plane... that was the point.
It’s a nice rule to live by but it’s not evidence Rory the claims of the Bible. Anyone can live that way.Love others as you would want to be loved is proof of this common Truth wherein there is a common faith.
People live that way because Love exists in all and upholds us all in the faith thereof, wherefore Love is God.It’s a nice rule to live by but it’s not evidence Rory the claims of the Bible. Anyone can live that way.
Repeating one's errors does not make them any better.
No, not at all. One does not need to understand aerodynamics to know that air travel is safe. One only needs to study the statistics of travel.
If I only had a nickle for every time someone thought they could avoid the point and just repeat themselves.
one does not need to know how to BE God before they can greet another human made by God.
My point was that Ex 16:20 seemed to be an explanatory note inserted by the transcriber
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?