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.
Nothing we do here, nothing at all proves there is no creator. The only thing that is proven is that it didn't happen as YEC creationists said it did. Some of the most intelligent people on this forum are christians and evolutionists at the same time - it's really not a big deal, most of the christians I know personally are also theistic evolutionists.w81minit said:
Are you going to back this up, John? Or will you leave this particular assertion undefended, as you have all the previous times you've told it?JohnR7 said:
John, I responded to this post because this quote of is unbearably stupid, even for you. You cannot arbitrarly declare the Bible's factual statements to be true. You must test them against evidence. If the Bible and our observations contradict each other, it is the Bible that is wrong and not our observations. If germ theory does not line up with the Bible, then it is not germ theory that is inaccurate.
You have it exactly backwards. There can be no contradiction between the Bible and a observation anyways. The problem begins when people start to try and explain the observation or develop opinions about their observation.Brahe said:
Hey good one. I meant to say yecreation. I of course believe I am created. Though I think I've got my mom and dad to thank for that.JohnR7 said:
Then again you sidestepped everything I replied after that. Could you now make with the evidence allready?JohnR7 said:
Yeah so? What evidence do you got for that? There were 6 ice-ages before that one, so what makes this one "so freaking special"? And where does it say in the bible that this was done 7000 years ago?JohnR7 said:
What words are those? The scientific terms that explain the signifigance of the evidence? Are you saying that studying science clouds the issue?w81minit said:
Genetic drift has nothing whatsoever to do with entropy. The laws of thermodynamics pertain the the distribution of heat, not the background mutation rates of organisms. Genetic drift is the consequence of OBSERVED mutations over time. After a long period of time, these mutations can lead to breeding incompatibilities between species which allows for the isolation of gene pools. Mutations are caused by mistakes in the DNA replication system, insertion of viral genes, or chemical alterations caused by mutagens. This has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
You have it completely wrong. The virus is the one that messed up. An ERV is a record of a virus incorrectly inserting itslef into the host genome.
I don't think the canine genome has been done. However, if you go to www.pubmed.com you can find all of the canine sequences done to date and do your own analysis. If you would like, I could pick out a few genes at random that have homologs in both chimps and apes, such as the cytochrome genes.
Remove the sarcasm and I agree. Even better yet, it is a theory that is testable unlike the ideas put forth by creationists. If you think we are designed by a common designer, can you show me the experiments I can run to test these ideas?These similarities do not make them identical. They merely reinforce how similar they are. Now to say that they are so similar so as to make them have to decend from a common ancestor well doesn't that take the cake! What a great theory to explain how similar they are.
Your arrogance is stunning, John. For a while there I thought that you simply could not be serious.JohnR7 said:
It has nothing to do with arrogance, it has everything to do with simply knowing the truth. As christians we can know the truth, because we have the Holy Spirit of Truth in us. If you do not know God, then you do not know the truth.Brahe said:
I paid $1500 for this computer and $600 for my monitor. But I would not give you five cents for the theory of evolution because it is a worthless theory to me. I simply have no use for it. Of course I am still listening, so if you want to show me where it would have some value to me, go for it.Brahe said:
I do not "arbitrarly" declare the Bible to be true, I have tested it and found it to be true. The Bible is filled with promises from God, we have a covenant relationship with God. Do you know anything at all about contract law? If we do out part, then we can be sure that God will keep His promises and He will deliver on what He says He will deliver on and He will do what He says He will do.Brahe said:
You can't test something to be true if you automatically assume that it is true and that anything that doesn't "line up" with it is false.JohnR7 said:
Since sedentary civilizations, language, agriculture, irrigation, domesticated plants and animals, and relatively sophisticated tools and structures existed prior to 6,000 years ago, you don't have a leg to stand on in this regard, as has been shown to you in past threads on this subject.JohnR7 said:
Have you ever seen "Dude, Where's My Car?" It would be scary to see what calamities humans could create with 5 heads instead of one. Although an opposable big toe would be pretty cool for picking stuff up off of the floor.brightlights said:
John, you simply declare your statements to be true regardless of evidence. That's not just arrogance, that's hubris. What's more, you have shown no interest in finding the truth. All you do is repeat you assertions.JohnR7 said:
I've always liked this assertion because it is self-refuting. If you had the Holy Spirit of Truth, you would be able to present a logical argument with relevent evidence in support of your claims. Since you cannot, you do not have the Holy Spirit of Truth. Therefore, your claim to have the Holy Spirit of Truth is shown false by the fact that you use this claim at all.
More of your arrogant nonsense, John?
Your attempts to redirect the discussion are as obvious as they are expected, John. Your previous statement was this:JohnR7 said:
Explain to me how this can be anything but an anti-science attitude.
Oh? You've tested the Bible's factual statements? Then tell me John, just what did you mean by these previous statements?JohnR7 said:
Gee, that doesn't sound like you tested the Bible John. That doesn't sound like you're even interested in testing the Bible. If anything, I think that if someone tested a factual statement from the Bible and the result "did not line up with the Bible," you would simply ignore the test.
Sounds good. Let's take a look at some of these promises.
This sounds like a purely psychological effect, John. Is God supposed to be some sort of supernatural Valium? From various descriptions, I had somehow expected something more material and less subjective. But more to the point, how can you be sure that this peace that you experience is the result of God and not merely your own self? For that matter, what is your explanation when a Christian does not find peace? Or what if a non-Christian finds peace. In your specific case, how was this test carried out?
Again, this sounds like a purely psychological effect. Previous questions apply.
And just how does one know what God's plan is? Personages like Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, and Mother Teresa thought they were carrying out God's orders. Were they? How can you distinguish someone who's genuinely carrying out God's plan from someone who is just saying that to someone who's simply mistaken? What happens when a Christian performs actions that are detrimental to society? What happens when a non-Christian performs actions that benefit society? In your case, how was this test carried out?
The desires of the heart, eh? Could you perhaps be more specific? Usual questions regarding Christians and non-Christians apply.
Uh, gee. This is perhaps the most vague promise I've heard. If anything, it's more of an indescript sentiment. How do you test this, John?
The only one peddling anything is you, John. Frankly, I'm wondering if you understand what constitutes testing, and why it's done. I'm also wondering why you apparently changed your mind about testing the Bible.
