klutedavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 7, 2013
- 9,346
- 4,337
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
We can influence our own genetics, what's the difference?
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.
We can influence our own genetics, what's the difference?I think the point is that the rats can't stimulate their evolution.
Looks like you're SOL then (short on luck).If you're presenting those bones as evidence, then I'm making the claim that science mislabeled them.
And I'm also stating why I think science mislabeled them.
No, you are merely relying on your personal interpretation of the Bible. You should not blame God for your actions.You're letting man determine what's a crime and what is not, not God.
but it's the other way around.
God defines what is wrong and what is not wrong, not man.
So yes, what is sin is a crime, it's against the law of God.
You mean "acronyms"?No, you have that backwards. Is it okay to misuse anagrams too?
That's news to me.Subduction Zone said:The anagram that you used is technically banned here.
Hey! You caught me in an error. I dah a feeling that I saw wrongIs it okay to misuse anagrams too? You mean "acronym"?That's news to me.
I don't think that was the point being made. But it was just a suggestion. Maybe you'd do better to ask the person that made the point in the first place.We can influence our own genetics, what's the difference?
I am not saying you and others don't believe they were people with plagues only that you are doing so as a belief and w/o any scientific evidence.No, they weren't.
They were people with plagues.
I have the exact same evidence as is available to the entire world.I am not saying you and others don't believe they were people with plagues only that you are doing so as a belief and w/o any scientific evidence.
Are you claiming crime is synonymous with sin?You're letting man determine what's a crime and what is not, not God.
but it's the other way around.
God defines what is wrong and what is not wrong, not man.
So yes, what is sin is a crime, it's against the law of God.
Sorry, but you can claim that as much as you like but you will always be demonstrably wrong. You need to learn the difference between beliefs and evidence.I have the exact same evidence as is available to the entire world.
The difference is, I believe most people mislabel that evidence.
I agree with you in a sense. Many people do mislabel belief as evidence.I have the exact same evidence as is available to the entire world.
The difference is, I believe most people mislabel that evidence.
Cars out of alignment are dangerous. My feet work just fine.Lol! If cars ended up looking that wonky just by everyday driving, without being crashed into, I'd call that terrible design
Then if I'm "demonstrably wrong," so is everyone else.Sorry, but you can claim that as much as you like but you will always be demonstrably wrong.
Not with respect to what we're talking about though.I agree with you in a sense. Many people do mislabel belief as evidence.
No. They are not. There are standards for evidence and you do not appear to understand them. Belief is not evidence.Then if I'm "demonstrably wrong," so is everyone else.
I use the same demonstrations as anyone else does.
Only labeled differently.
Historical events are exceptions, of course.
But with respect to what we're discussing, if science labels something as "Homo erectus," then I believe it is actually a "Homo sapiens."
(Not that I agree with that term, you understand.)
Not with respect to what we're talking about though.
Take Neanderthals for example.
Someone finds a jawbone and labels it as coming from a Neanderthal.
I would label the same bone as coming from a plagued person.
King David at one time, if he would have died before he repented would, in my opinion, and if his bones were dug up ... would probably be labeled as a Cro-magnon or Neanderthal.
Read Psalm 38, where -- in my opinion -- God plagued him accordingly.
Psalm 38:7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.
Note what he says here:
Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
He repents in Psalm 39 and requests healing:
Psalm 39:10 Remove thy stroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thine hand.
And God forgives him and heals him.
Psalm 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
Are you claiming crime is synonymous with sin?
Even if you are, different Christian denominations have differing views on what constitutes a sin. Would you take the word of what constitutes sin from a Christian brought up in a different denomination than you?
I don't need to understand them; since whether I understand them or not, they are still there.No. They are not. There are standards for evidence and you do not appear to understand them.
That is correct.Subduction Zone said:Belief is not evidence.
Then so is yours.Subduction Zone said:And your belief about Homo erectus is also demonstrably wrong.
If you want me to, I'll go hunt up my conversation with Split Rock about cranial size and the "burning ague" in the Bible.Subduction Zone said:There are more factors than this but one of the factors that show it is not Homo sapiens is very related to the name of our species. The cranial volume of the two species is measurably different.
Let me point this out again.Your claim might be valid if only one example was found.
Sorry, but to use evidence one must be able to understand it.I don't need to understand them; since whether I understand them or not, they are still there.
Just because I believe differently than you, doesn't mean those bones (or DNA or whatever) are going to go away.That is correct.
And in the case of what we're talking about, which came first? the evidence or the belief?
And just to be clear here, we're talking about Linnaenan labels here -- not beliefs.Then so is yours.If you want me to, I'll go hunt up my conversation with Split Rock about cranial size and the "burning ague" in the Bible.
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?