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.
In your studies, did you learn that sometimes when comparing genes, not all sequences are complete?
Are you suggesting that a Christian biologist will be biased against the Bible?
Okay. So you didn't even see the shower running? Must be ghosts...
Job 38:16 says "springs OF the sea", not IN the sea. Nothing about trenches. Besides, people back then knew of water coming from springs. Not a hard leap to make to think they thought of the sea the same way. I mean, living in a desert environment, they wouldn't think there was enough rain to fill up the sea. So springs is the next option for them.
There is nothing in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously states some scientific knowledge that would have been impossible for them to come to.
Great!Absolutely! I also learned that sequences that differ are not always "incomplete" just different in different creatures. For example, if we have an AT where there is no AT in the other creature's genome this does not necessitate a mutation OR an insertion or deletion event (the assumption of the "ancestor of the gaps" crowd) though that is certainly one way of interpreting this data and thus the opinion of those who hold to a particular preconceived conclusion.
Had you considered the possibility that those 'same genes' were not sequenced to the same extent?pshun2404:
Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...
Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long
Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.
The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.
Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!
When I was in graduate school, we we comparing 2 introns from a gene across several species. We used the human gene - the entire coding region, plus introns, plus 3' and 5' flanking regions - as a reference. For some taxa, our genomic DNA samples were old and we had limited success in sequencing the introns. In others, we had no problems at all. The primers we used to generate PCR fragments were in exons because they were fairly well conserved, and so for some taxa we had not only the introns, but parts of exons as well. several taxa had extensive repetitions in their introns, making one, for instance, nearly 1kb larger than all of the others.
By your implicit logic, we should have concluded that these sequences were not from the SAME GENE, despite the fact that we have amplified fragments using identical primers (30+ years of reading on these subjects should be sufficient for your understanding of the above).
I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).
In fact, I am willing to bet on it.
What say you?
By doing it over and over again to see if the results were anomalous or typical.
That objects fall according to their surface area rather than their weight - just because an object falls faster doesn't mean it is heavier.
But there is some conceivable test which would falsify it, isn't there - if I pumped your stomach and found strawberry remnants, or got you to poop in a cup and found strawberry seeds, or strawberry seeds between your teeth. I can conceive of something which would indicate that you didn't.
I don't think you understand what falsifiability actually means...
But it should not be accepted as a fact if you can't think of something that proves it wrong.
I mean, if you can just handwave away any evidence that suggests it is wrong, you have something that can't be disproven, but that doesn't make it a fact, does it?
Great!
So maybe you can address this - I have asked you about 3 times now:
Already down it twice already. If you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now, and I've got better things to do than waste my time.
One group believes that creationism is factual, and the other group accepts that it all happened on it's on.
We could go on and on about the science used in your version of the question but since science is just our opinion of what the natural is telling us, . . .
Next common sense comes into play. I have never ever, even once, seen anything come from nothing, on it's own, yet I have seen things created. As a matter of fact, everything beyond what we call the natural, was created by man...everything.
That would cover the basic answer to your question, but if one wanted to go a step further, common sense also dictates, if someone created me, a living thinking being just like my creator, that someone (God) would want to let me know all about my creator and why he created me/us...hence the biblical God being the actual creator, and that bible being his explanation to us all.
I see nothing in that passage about the trinity making creatures, only blessing them.
Actually I did consider the example you provided and I thought it equally possible that each organism has and repeats this gene as they individually require (as the different organism needs in order to be what it is)...in other words (which was my point) a similar gene across genomes in different creatures does not imply a lineal relationship just some degree of similarity (for reasons of form or function).
Scientists can DEMONSTRATE that the evidence is consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Creationists can't come up with any predictions for creationism, much less show that the evidence is consistent with their claims.
When confronted with the historic evidence for the SUDDEN arrival of Humans on this planet,
I'm with you on the possibilities ofAs for UFOs (though I have no solid opinion), UFO’s are a curious topic. If one thinks of space travel in only a mechanical sense, some beings able to travel here is seems unfathomable. With the viewing capabilities of today’s telescopes and computers and satellites wouldn’t we see them entering the atmosphere?
But why should we assume this is the only way they may travel? It is so un-economical! Sci FI has offered some interesting possibilities. And why not? Even many scientists speculate. Maybe they can transverse space dimensionally, or suspend time, or quantum leap like electrons...
Studies done in the 50s and early 60s by the US Air Force (Project Blue Book) were able to explain most claims, but when they were shut down in 1969 they had concluded that about 3% of the 12,618 cases could NOT BE explained. The cases they covered included sightings questioned or observed by groups of people not expecting what they saw, and also the reports of pilots. Some of the “explained” cases were simply referred to as Identified Flying Objects and thus not categorized as UFOs for the study. Perhaps these were experimental in nature.
So we do have many people through history (even before people thought there may be alien space creatures or crafts) in every culture that claim to have seen some unusual objects in the sky and in no time or culture have ALL seen these. We also know many are hoaxes and many people making the claim are fanatics who are making this stuff up but that does not mean they are not real or have not been observed. 3% of 12,617 is about 375 cases that even the US Government declared unexplainable by natural means though this itself does not prove they are other worldly. Finally none of this demonstrates they do not exist or that all people who have seen them are wackos or liars.
You have never presented this evidence.
I'm with you on the possibilities of
transversing space dimensionally, or suspending time, or quantum leap likeelectrons. This would go against my original theory, but now you got me wondering if maybe there could be a blurring of the lines of both theories! I wonder if it's possible if we might run into some type of argument of semantics...like perhaps a 'Spirit' entering and leaving that 2nd floor bathroom you talked about, imagine if that spirit accomplished the goal of getting to that shower knob using the same technique as an alien who traverses space dimensionally??
Also speaking of blurred lines, could there be a point in technological knowledge/ability where the 'Supernatural' technically doesn't even violate laws of nature? What if God, although he can violate laws of nature, doesn't even need to do so because 'Miraculous' possibilities are already pre-packaged into the universe? Thoughts? If I'm even making sense lol.
All you have to do is observe the geological column. If you go with what we can actually observe you can INTERPRET the data in either direction.
That may be true, but it's also true that it's not possible to be certain that an experience was of some externally real event; it's also possible (even fairly common) to be certain of having had an experience that never occurred, i.e. a false memory.... The factual REALITY of experience can never be denied by any who have had such experience. All testing is irrelevant.
Okay. So you didn't even see the shower running? Must be ghosts...
Job 38:16 says "springs OF the sea", not IN the sea. Nothing about trenches. Besides, people back then knew of water coming from springs. Not a hard leap to make to think they thought of the sea the same way. I mean, living in a desert environment, they wouldn't think there was enough rain to fill up the sea. So springs is the next option for them.
There is nothing in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously states some scientific knowledge that would have been impossible for them to come to.
Do you understand how scientists test their hypotheses? do you understand what the null hypothesis is for? what the p-value means?...In my studies most scientists I have read either do tests to show their hypothesis was correct, or else to obtain data (which then may change or shape the hypothesis) or to determine a fact.
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?