JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised you're twisting scripture into something you want it to mean. That seems to be a common practice among those opposed to facts.
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.
Yes.
The data provided by evolutionists, to wit, fossils of subhumans, are actually humans that died of God's "wonderful [bone altering] plagues."
Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
King David died under one (see Psalm 38), and I would assume if they dug his bones up today, he would be mistaken for Neantherthal Man or Cro-magnon.
What are you talking about. Of course it does.The data do not support your conclusion.
How many and what kind of bacteria did he introduce? You don't know. The article doesn't say. You speculate that there must have been some other kind of bacteria. That's all it is–speculation.
At the end of the experiment, Burd isolated the microorganisms that were eating the plastic. You think that the other organisms might have been dead. You speculate at the very least that those microorganisms that were eating the plastic had become more numerous. That's all it is–speculation. The article doesn't say that. It doesn't say much of anything. I guess this is good for you. Why have your preconceived biases restricted by actual facts? Fact free environments make things much easier for you.
100Jorge bought some fruit at the market. He spent $600 on fruit. Bananas cost $1 each. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. How many of each kind did he buy?
After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line. By 2009, he had done a complete reversal: “[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the writings of an ancient culture that looked at life poetically, not scientifically,” he wrote in an op-ed supporting evolution from a Christian perspective. In 2014, Kramer became managing editor at BioLogos. This year, he started a blog called “The Evolving Evangelical.” Today he still considers himself a creationist—just one who happens to embrace evolution and who helps others do the same.
“We call ourselves creationists, and we’re stubborn about that,” says Kramer of BioLogos. “We purposely live between the cultural categories, because we disagree with the way in which the lines are drawn.” If you asked Kramer whether he believes in the words of Genesis or the words of Origin of Species, in the biblical God or the science of evolution, he knows what he would choose. It’s the same answer he’d give if you asked him whether the recent Homo naledi discovery is scientific or divine, or whether his 2-year-old daughter Josephine is a gift from God or nature. “I’d say both,” he says. “One hundred percent both.”
You had to misinterpret my post to try to bring in Lamarck.
And your link only refers to epigenetics. That is misinterpreted as Lamarckism by creationists, but long term changes do not occur due to epigenetics.
The problem is underdetermined. Jorge might have bought 600 bananas. He might have bought 300 apples. He might have bought 200 oranges. He might have bought 100 bananas, 100 apples, and 100 oranges. He might have bought 199 oranges, an apple, and a banana. I could sit around all day listing new possibilities for how many and what kind of fruit he bought.
That's the point of the word underdetermined.
All right. Let's try a little harder. Let's suppose that we have a series of data points. The data points are (1,1), (2, 3), and (3,5). The question is what is y in (4,y)? Most people will say 7. They decide that y=2x-1 and go with that.I asked you to provide an explanation for your claim and you used an inconsistent comparison.
Please support your claim. Above is unrelated to the question. Just gibberish nonsense.
Take the data that applies to evolution by natural selection and provide these 'infinite number of alternate explanations'.
No, you're assuming things that weren't in the article. The article does not say what you want it to say.What are you talking about. Of course it does.
You don't seem to understand the nature of bacteria. They are quite commonplace. Odds are that he introduced many different species of bacteria. You need to take a biology class. That two thrived and had an effect on the plastic was obvious. Now if he had a full lab he may have been able to limit the number of bacteria. but without that ability you can safely assume that he introduced quite a few species. This is not speculation, it is a reasonable conclusion based upon what is observed in nature. Now if we knew nothing of bacteria then the conclusion may have been speculation but that is far from the case.
...Wat?* Space and time always was, is and always will be
* Infinity is real and there is more than one size
* 0=Null
* Effect and cause
* The laws of physics are impossible to break and they are being enforced without an enforcer.
...Wat?
This isn't a necessary precondition for the big bang theory. Nothing about the big bang theory demands that you assume that Space always existed or always will exist.
So are you arguing that there was a point in time where time and space did not exist? because I would love to hear any theories about a time when time did not exist.
...Wat?
"Infinity" as a mathematical concept is real, and as it is defined, it is trivial to demonstrate that infinity comes in multiple sizes. This is not an assumption, this is mathematically proven.
Infinity is real as a mathematical concept I agree. The different sizes are mathematically proven because it fits within the scope of the mathematical concept!!! (judge, jury, executioner)
The original statement I made was it takes more faith to believe in evolution and so far you have a theory (BBT), an exception to the rule (laws of physics being broken) and a concept ( Infinity which is as you said a concept that is only proven within the concept of this particular concept). So the amount of faith it takes to believe in any origin of evolution is astounding.
...Wat?
I have no idea what this has to do with the big bang theory, to be honest.
either eternal things exist or they don't. so either null is possible or it is not. So right back to the point that infinite space and time are in fact a precondition of the BBT just not vice versa. otherwise you are again stating there was a point in time where time did not exist.
...Wat?
You have to have faith in cause and effect? Wow, what an extravagant metaphysical leap! Right up there with "The sun will probably rise in the east tomorrow" and "The universe outside myself exists".
I said effect and cause not cause and effect. I understand cause and effect is easy to understand. Faith in effect and cause is ludicrous.
...Wat?
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "The laws of physics" means. The laws of physics are descriptive laws. We are describing the way we observe reality behaving. If they are "broken", all that means is that our description of how reality behaves is, in some way, wrong. Unless you are somehow challenging the, again, extravagant metaphysical assumption that reality behaves in a way which is in any way comprehensible, in which case I'm left wondering why you would make the ridiculous assumption that the box of electricity and metal in front of you won't spontaneously overload and catch fire.
...Beg your pardon? What observations are my claims based on which are not constant?
I would argue science requires more faith than the mere idea that God exists and created everything.
The Bible has an exact origination for how everything came to be but evolution does not.
"The laws of physics are descriptive laws. We aredescribing the way we observe reality behaving. If they are "broken", all that means is that our description of how reality behaves is, in some way, wrong"
On one hand you are arguing theories that are derived from the need for reality to behave in a very specific way
but on the other hand you are claiming reality at times can behave in a way that is contradictory to the way it was previously behaving.
also, you are stating "we are now observing the ways things were previously observed and decided it was wrong before but we are certain the way we are observing it now is right."
No, I am making reasonable deductions based upon what I know of bacteria and what the article says.No, you're assuming things that weren't in the article. The article does not say what you want it to say.
You do realize it is your bias and speculative assumption that labels it as a mutant gene.
I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?
I wish someone would explain how. From what you post you seem to believe evolutionism happens...because you were indoctrinated into that faith.
Nope. Natural selection does just the opposite of evolution.
Adaptation,
the other supposed source of evolution cannot pass the kind
barrier.
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?