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.
Ok, I was just wondering because it looks like your either ignoring the evidence or having a twisted understanding of the evidence to support your own illusions, delusions or preconceived notions.
At the high school level they offer advanced biology. An the college level an advanced course would be less general and more specialized. I just looked at the courses required for a Biology degree. It is really more generalized and not all that specialized. Other then maybe high requirements in Chemistry. So an advanced Biology course could be evolutionary biology or Cell & Molecular Biology.There is only one college biology book?
There is only one college Biology book. Anyways, never mind I found it. Actually the whole section on evolution is surprising a small part of the book. The chapter is called: "The Molecular Processes that Underlie Evolution". I am beginning to think that people are making much ado out of nothing.
At the high school level they offer advanced biology. An the college level an advanced course would be less general and more specialized. I just looked at the courses required for a Biology degree. It is really more generalized and not all that specialized. Other then maybe high requirements in Chemistry. So an advanced Biology course could be evolutionary biology or Cell & Molecular Biology.
All I got right now is that retrovirus have targeted sites so they could attach themselves at the same place in the DNA in two different species. But I am pretty sure that he will knock that down pretty quick. I really don't have an argument against retrovirus insertion as evidence for evolution. My argument is that virus and mutations are evidence for Creationism, more exact evidence that creation is in a fallen state.Let us know when you will address the evidence, that Loudmouth has been providing for you.
How many times are we going to go around this mayberry bush? A lot of what they call mutations are little more then pre-existing variation. They consider frame shift a mutation and I don't. So it has a lot to do with the terminology used. When you mix truth and error together they way they do it becomes difficult to sort it out. Even though they claim the objective is to sort out the error to get at the truth.Which book might this be? Do you now accept that mutations are natural and occur many many many times in your body every day?
Whatever, if Amazon has an Advanced Biology that is not specialized then give me the link and show me what book your talking about.How does this answer my question about your claim that there is only "one" biology text book?
All I got right now is that retrovirus have targeted sites so they could attach themselves at the same place in the DNA in two different species. But I am pretty sure that he will knock that down pretty quick. I really don't have an argument against retrovirus insertion as evidence for evolution. My argument is that virus and mutations are evidence for Creationism, more exact evidence that creation is in a fallen state.
Ok listen as long as we are here lets look at this: "Recent studies have shown that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and murine leukemia virus (MLV) favor integration near different chromosomal features. HIV preferentially targets active genes, while MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription" http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.0020060 If the virus favor integration at a targeted site then what is to keep a retrovirus from inserting itself at the same place in two different species. Textbook 101 stuff I know, but I was just wondering what the answer is for this.
There is only one college Biology book. Anyways, never mind I found it. Actually the whole section on evolution is surprising a small part of the book. The chapter is called: "The Molecular Processes that Underlie Evolution". I am beginning to think that people are making much ado out of nothing.
R U talkin to me or are you talking to yourself? The evidence your presenting shows we live in a fallen world in need of repair and redemption.
This does not look like evidence for evolution to me.
I understand that the virus is just a marker and not used as an agent for evolution. But that is because they are still depending on the controversial mutation theory as an cause.
My argument is that virus and mutations are evidence for Creationism, more exact evidence that creation is in a fallen state.
Please show me a single thing that I have said about ERV's that isn't true.
It does little good, since people who believe everything Science says, don't know that they are mistaken UNTIL another scientist points it out to them. That may be years or millions of years BEFORE what you THINK is true is shown to be wrong. Science never proves anything.
God's Truth in Genesis has never been refuted because it's the Literal Truth. The problem is with mortal man's changeable interpretation of God's Holy Word. In the end, when everyone learns the correct interpretation, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth in every way. God Bless you
It does little good, since people who believe everything Science says, don't know that they are mistaken UNTIL another scientist points it out to them. That may be years or millions of years BEFORE what you THINK is true is shown to be wrong. Science never proves anything.
God's Truth in Genesis has never been refuted because it's the Literal Truth. The problem is with mortal man's changeable interpretation of God's Holy Word. In the end, when everyone learns the correct interpretation, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth in every way. God Bless you
1. We make assessments of reality based on the evidence currently available to us. What would you propose instead? Right now, the evidence we have suggests that vaccines don't cause autism. Evidence later on may show this to be wrong, but right now, the evidence we have suggest that they don't. Should we abstain on the slim odds that our current evidence is totally wrong? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
2. So, basically, the knowledge we take from Genesis changes constantly based on what we know from other sources, but Genesis is still right. Okay. Couldn't you do this with every story? And how can you tell the difference between "reinterpreting" Genesis and Genesis being wrong?
1. God's Creation story is the Literal Truth scripturally scientifically and historically IF you realize that God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation. IF He failed to tell us the Truth in Genesis, then He's NOT God. Therefore, I seek to find God's Truth which AGREES in every way with EVERY discovery of mankind, including the temporal Science of Medicine which keeps me alive today, NOT forever, but temporarily.
2. God hid His Literal Truth from ancient men. This assured that they could NOT be saved except by Faith in Him. IF the traditional religious story was true, Jesus would have NOT have been Crucified. Here is HOW God hid this Truth from ancient man's Theology, from which, so many denominations have come to be:
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
The increased knowledge available today, some of which is just now being discovered by scientists, but is clearly listed in Genesis Chapter ONE, if you have the proper interpretation. I call it God's Truth because it agrees with ALL of man's discoveries. It's a deeper Truth which comes only in our time and with the help of the Holy Spirit, MUST be studied in order to understand. It's empirical (testable) PROOF of God. Amen?
1. None of this even comes close to addressing my argument. In fact, I'm kind of wondering why you even brought it up, honestly.
2. Um... Again, the question. You're not addressing it. Try again.
How many times are we going to go around this mayberry bush? A lot of what they call mutations are little more then pre-existing variation. They consider frame shift a mutation and I don't. So it has a lot to do with the terminology used. When you mix truth and error together they way they do it becomes difficult to sort it out. Even though they claim the objective is to sort out the error to get at the truth.
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?