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.
is this supposed to be a come back. sounds like a lot of come backs of evolutionist. ask a guestion that cant be logically answered therefor you win.Who are you to say what God would or wouldn't do? How do you know? What properties does this God have that get him to make these decisions?
...in 1966. And guess what? The probability of something forming is going to be highly dependent upon the process assumed to be used in the formation. Find a different formation mechanism, and the probability becomes much larger.I found an interesting quote:
That's the point. I'm trying to show you that you haven't explained why there is this nested hierarchy by saying that God did it. Since you haven't explained the nested hierarchy by saying that God did it until you've explained why God did it, and since that can't be explained, your explanation is not an explanation.is this supposed to be a come back. sounds like a lot of come backs of evolutionist. ask a guestion that cant be logically answered therefor you win.
"Nested hierachy" is just another one of man's lame theorys that attempt to describe something in a totally non related way. It is another failure on the part of science to explain the evidence. There is no "hierachy" in evolution.I'm trying to show you that you haven't explained why there is this nested hierarchy by saying that God did it.
creation but creation doesnt claim a nested hierarchy from ome ansector. SO you will not except it. which is my point.
why would we find a speciea that doesnt fit in it.
all it is is showing how all the animals share similiar things or traits or whatever.
GOd would not make a world that DIDNT do this.
we all live on the same planet with the same laws to govern us. none of you seem to be content with that though.
like God would have created a fantisy world or something. good science is not coming up with something so simple it cant be falsifiable. the hierarchy just arranges them in a way to help us THINK the theory was plausible.
creation but creation doesnt claim a nested hierarchy from ome ansector. SO you will not except it. which is my point.
why would we find a speciea that doesnt fit in it. all it is is showing how all the animals share similiar things or traits or whatever.
GOd would not make a world that DIDNT do this. we all live on the same planet with the same laws to govern us. none of you seem to be content with that though.
the hierarchy just arranges them in a way to help us THINK the theory was plausible.
A hierarchy is a man made attempt to try and organize something.
It is an attempt that is doomed for failure because of their disregard for the God that created them.
again saying nothing to refute me. we dont have a hiearchy, we have similiarities you have arranged them to make your theory plausible.no, creationism does not predict a nested hierarchy. if there was no nested hierarchy, that would be perfectly consistent with creationism. there is no reason we would have a nested hierarchy of all species other than common ancestry. that is why i accept this as evidence for evolution, and not for creationism. your point is thus refuted.
no it is just the way you arrange it so you wont see the other possibility. and there could be and we may yet find it thats the great thing about science it always adjust itself later. it is funny how you cling to it as solid proof untill it changes then you recling to the adjusted work and then readjust to the next readjusted work.most importantly it shows a pattern in the way similarities appear. but even beyond that, the hierarchy we get from morphological similarities perfectly matches the one we get from ERV insersions. there is no reason this would happen unless evolution is true.
not when he created the earth and its laws FIRST. seeing how your theory relies on random mutation and nature it is actually the other way around. as long as it works it sticcks around. so any mish mash should work if nature lets it. So it has NOTHING to do with your nested hierarchywhy not? he could easily have created a horse with bird wings, or a centaur, or a bat with feathers on its wings, or ANY mix of features. if god designed creatures the way they are today, then he could have reused any design anywhere he wants. he could mix and match. any mish mash of traits would be perfectly consistent with creationism. evolution, on the other hand, would be falsified by ANY violation of the nested hierarchy, and no species has ever been found that violates it. then of course we have the ERV hierarchy which confirms this as well.
. ever thing will be similiar in structure and chemicals and everything else because we all live on the same planet with the same laws applying to everything. so you insistance on God beoing able to make things that would not fit our earth and laws is stupid. and which is why we can create such a hierarchy list becasue things will be so similiar it would be easy to mix and match it to fit what you want.i have no idea what you are trying to say here
no it is not thats the beautyty of it for you. the ones you keep listing you know cant happen we know cant happen. because they break the laws of nature. evolution is good science the theory is not.the hierarchy is falsifiable, and there are many other ways to falsify it too. evolution is good science, and that is why it is accepted as such by the vast majority of biologists worldwide. you really don't know what you're talking about here. i suggest you do some reading.
again saying nothing to refute me. we dont have a hiearchy, we have similiarities you have arranged them to make your theory plausible.
no it is just the way you arrange it so you wont see the other possibility.
not when he created the earth and its laws FIRST.
seeing how your theory relies on random mutation and nature it is actually the other way around. as long as it works it sticcks around. so any mish mash should work if nature lets it. So it has NOTHING to do with your nested hierarchy
ever thing will be similiar in structure and chemicals and everything else because we all live on the same planet with the same laws applying to everything.
so you insistance on God beoing able to make things that would not fit our earth and laws is stupid.
and which is why we can create such a hierarchy list becasue things will be so similiar it would be easy to mix and match it to fit what you want.
no it is not thats the beautyty of it for you. the ones you keep listing you know cant happen we know cant happen. because they break the laws of nature. evolution is good science the theory is not.
again saying nothing to refute me. we dont have a hiearchy, we have similiarities you have arranged them to make your theory plausible.
no it is just the way you arrange it so you wont see the other possibility.
it is funny how you cling to it as solid proof untill it changes then you recling to the adjusted work and then readjust to the next readjusted work.
not when he created the earth and its laws FIRST.
seeing how your theory relies on random mutation and nature it is actually the other way around. as long as it works it sticcks around. so any mish mash should work if nature lets it. So it has NOTHING to do with your nested hierarchy
ever thing will be similiar in structure and chemicals and everything else because we all live on the same planet with the same laws applying to everything.
They have tried to explain it, yes, according to their beliefs, and world views, and how things work now. Basically, a package deal that icludes the pill of no God under the sugar coating of present based assumptions. It is just as valid to consider the ervs as leftovers of what became viruses, that may have been otherwise employed, it seems. Could they have been benefitial? Could they have been quite different than the present variety?. The theory of evolution puts forth the proposition that the nested hierarchies are due to common ancestry, but even if the theory never existed the nested hierarchies would still be real and factual.
If we assume the viruses are what they now are, and were transferred as they now are, one would arrive at conclusions different from what would be the reality if things were different then. What evidence do you have that things then were the same?The downward arrows indicate an ERV. Every species to the right of each arrow has that ERV in an orthologous position in their genome.
Amen!What I think you do not understand is that nested hierarchies and common ancestry are two different things.
I disagree. The facts have a role to play. The fact is that we really don't have any facts as to what the past was like in a lot of ways. We can see that there was something infecting, or existing in many creatures, that left traces. ERVs. It seems that what form these existed in exactly thenm before adaping, and evolving, is unclear?The ERV's listed in the diagram above will never change. They are facts. However, if new shared ERV's are discovered that do not fall into a nested hierarchy then the THEORY must be readjusted. Science doesn't change the facts, it changes the theories that explain the facts. This is the opposite of creationism which can not change it's explanation no matter what the facts are.
The bible says we lived almost a thousand years, so it is obvious that viruses didn't just come in and sicken and kill us like they now do, to the same degree, at least. Those are the facts.
Looking at 'traces' of ancient viruses therefore does not tell us what you claim!
No. Just don't read the evo jeebies into it!Random mutation, natural selection, and speciation HAVE BEEN OBSERVED to create nested hierarchies. Are we supposed to ignore these observations?
The law of the created order of God, however that may have had to adapt to this sinful world in the last 6000 years.What physical law prevents birds from having teats? What physical law prevents bats from having feathers?
Those Dr Frankensteins that would tinker with the creation of God, playing little gods themselves in my opinion, are monsterous. We look at some horrible creatures in Revelation, apparently that will be on earth, and attack men. Some may be figurative, but some seem quite real as well. That is where, I suggest the tinkering is leading. Goats and spiders, and all kinds of nightmarish man made mix and matching God's creations! Horrible.
They have tried to explain it, yes, according to their beliefs, and world views, and how things work now.
Basically, a package deal that icludes the pill of no God under the sugar coating of present based assumptions.
It is just as valid to consider the ervs as leftovers of what became viruses, that may have been otherwise employed, it seems.
Could they have been benefitial? Could they have been quite different than the present variety?
If we assume the viruses are what they now are, and were transferred as they now are, one would arrive at conclusions different from what would be the reality if things were different then. What evidence do you have that things then were the same?
The fact is that we really don't have any facts as to what the past was like in a lot of ways. We can see that there was something infecting, or existing in many creatures, that left traces. ERVs. It seems that what form these existed in exactly thenm before adaping, and evolving, is unclear?
The bible says we lived almost a thousand years, so it is obvious that viruses didn't just come in and sicken and kill us like they now do, to the same degree, at least. Those are the facts.
Looking at 'traces' of ancient viruses therefore does not tell us what you claim!
Those Dr Frankensteins that would tinker with the creation of God, playing little gods themselves in my opinion, are monsterous.
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?