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.
If you think that evolution has been proven so conclusively then we need discuss your lunacy no further.So let's say that you are on a jury for a murder trial. The prosecution shows that the defendant's bloody fingerprint was found on the knife sticking out of the victim's chest. On top of that, the defendant's bloody shoe prints were found leading away from the crime scene. In the parking lot the scientists found prints that matched the tires found on the defendant's car. At the crime scene they also find fibers from defendant's clothes, and even his DNA. At the defendant's home they find clothes soaked with the victim's blood.
The defense attorney in his closing statements says that evidence can be brought forward to support nearly any claim, so you should just find the defendant not guilty. Would you be convinced? Or do you see the absolutely lunacy of your statement above?
If you think that evolution has been proven so conclusively then we need discuss your lunacy no further.
I said there is no proof, not there there is no evidence. Evidence can brought forward to support nearly any claim, however outlandish.
What would it matter when the person obviously has no knowledge or understanding in the first place? How does one interpret something he's never read and knows nothing about?
The Bible actually DOES speak of things unseen, but thank you for admitting that there are no passages which support T.E.
It's news to the New York Times:Yes, ToE has been proven, conclusively. Is this really news to you?
In regard to ''Evolution Theory's Foes Win Textbook Battle in California'' (front page, Nov. 10): It is past time that those who purport general evolutionary theory to be fact be brought into the light. Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.
The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated. Charles Darwin clearly delineated the differences between speciation and general evolution, and noted that the support for general evolution would have to come from the fossil record.
In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.
No theory has ever been formally proven. You are thinking, perhaps, of theorems.
Then this:No theory has ever been formally proven. You are thinking, perhaps, of theorems.
... can take a hike.Yes, ToE has been proven, conclusively.
Ya ... and Hitler invaded Poland and hijacked a bunch of their stuff too.If you want evidential proof beyond reasonable doubt though, go to http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257/
Adam? Fall? You've been at your fiction again, haven't you? Mistaking it for reality.Then this:
... can take a hike.
Ya ... and Hitler invaded Poland and hijacked a bunch of their stuff too.
That doesn't mean we all came from Aryans.
Prior to Hitler invading Poland, Poland was not invaded by Hitler.
Thus, by comparison, you need to show that Adam had these 'invading and hijacking' cells prior to the Fall.
And even if you could, all it would show is 'invading and hijacking' cells -- not deep time.
It's news to the New York Times:
I don't know if you were around when I pwned e-scientists with this, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt:Adam? Fall? You've been at your fiction again, haven't you?
Scientists disagree on how reality is configured, don't they? I believe it is called 'peer review'?Mistaking it for reality.
Unless a Common Designer put them there.There is no way in which humans and chimps can come to have had thousands upon thousands of ERVs in common locations without inheriting them from common ancestors.
Then I won't arbitrarily pick a point in time ... I'll go with 4004 BC for the creation week; and Adam didn't inherit anything, he was created ex materia.If you arbitrarily pick a point in time where you say, "These were the first humans", they will have inherited ERVs in common with chimps, your imaginary "Adam" included.
Well if the ToE was being opposed as late as 1989, I guess that should be good enough to say that the ToE was being opposed as late as 1989 ... don't you think?A personal opinion by a medical doctor in a newspaper back in 1989 is the best you have got to oppose the ToE?
I don't know if you were around when I pwned e-scientists with this, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt:
Wouldn't matter a bit to me. You can stick it in the Sword and Sorcery section for all I care. Actually, I think it's in the 'Mind, body and spirit' section at the local discount book store where I live, which is where they have all the yoga and New Age manuals.Question: If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the Bible in any section other than non-fiction, would you?
Not exactly, no.Scientists disagree on how reality is configured, don't they? I believe it is called 'peer review'?
Which at best makes Him a practical joker with an odd sense of humour. Still, your God, your problem.Unless a Common Designer put them there.
Then I won't arbitrarily pick a point in time ... I'll go with 4004 BC for the creation week; and Adam didn't inherit anything, he was created ex materia
Then you are calling the Common Designer a Liar.Unless a Common Designer put them there [common ERVs].
It would have to be, compared to what is taught in higher aceldama today.You do live a rich fantasy life.
I didn't ask if it mattered, I essentially asked if you would obey a direct order from your boss.Wouldn't matter a bit to me.
I asked what you would do with It.You can stick it in the Sword and Sorcery section for all I care.
This is about you now.Question: If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the Bible in any section other than non-fiction, would you?
It's not your call though. I'm sure your boss doesn't really care where you would like to place It. I'll just cut this merry-go-round out and consider your answers no better than the others.Actually, I think it's in the 'Mind, body and spirit' section at the local discount book store where I live, which is where they have all the yoga and New Age manuals.
What's that supposed to mean? Is it peer-review or isn't it?Not exactly, no.
Because He didn't do it the way you were taught, He's a practical joker?Which at best makes Him a practical joker with an odd sense of humour.
He's your God too; you just don't know it.Still, your God, your problem.
Better than on a merry-go-round ... and where do you think I get all that sand in the first place?Translated as: I'll keep my head in the sand thank you very much.
CabVet, was it you who asked me for a link to a specific post where I said people say God would be a deceiver if He didn't configure this universe the way they were taught?Then you are calling the Common Designer a Liar.
Not a good idea to worship liars.
Why did it mimic retroviral insertions so meticulously? What's the reverse transcriptase and integrase for? Why the apparent repetition of host DNA either side of the apparent integration?Unless a Common Designer put them there.
* Paging CabVet *
CabVet, was it you who asked me for a link to a specific post where I said people say God would be a deceiver if He didn't configure this universe the way they were taught?
If so ... does this answer your request?
I mean, all over this forum there is the recurrent theme of evolution, and I know a couple of people who don't believe in evolution to begin with.
So I'm feeling at odds.
I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?
If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?
I give up ... why?Why did it mimic retroviral insertions so meticulously?
I give up ... what?What's the reverse transcriptase and integrase for?
I give up ...why?Why the apparent repetition of host DNA either side of the apparent integration?
Only if God (that's why the caps) did it your way ... in my opinion."The Common Designer (why the caps?) put them there" is idiocy.
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?