lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
"Creation or Evolution - Do We Have to Choose?" by Denis Alexander.
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.
Wow, that has no context.
What book is that? Is it a book arguing for God? A book arguing against YEC? Why can't you just answer with a yes or a no?
'No' to your previous post (#222), which was incorrect.I'm sorry...I don't understand the "So, no."
What are you saying "no" to?
You need to present some evidence.
Where did you come from and how do you conclude your answer?
And when you say testable, do you mean the tests show a certain proof?
My evidence is things are created all the time, and I have never seen things come about otherwise.
What things are created?
Everything in my view, but for the purpose of the point....everything beyond what is refered to as the natural.
I think that the reading of any book is understood by the application of common methods of interpretation.So you think that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?
Genesis only fits as prose so it is a discription of what happened.
Really? How do you know that?
Yes, I know the OP, but you have a distinct tendency to scamper off from threads where you are asked to explain your accusations and assertions.
Quite an opinionated assertion.
Just like evolution allows for.
Great - I will copy your response there and address it.
So you did not bother to look at the link?Wow...
Apparently, when you plagiarized those SAME GENES from Yahoo Answers, you failed to actually check up on them.
Nope! I do not read Yahoo answers...maybe they read the same comparison somewhere.
From the same source that you plagiarized from? That could be. But at least the person on yahoo Answers put parts in quotes, at least indicating that it was not his original work. And he provided an original source link (which is now, not surprisingly, dead)...maybe they read the same comparison somewhere.
So you did not bother to look at the link?
The 'SAME GENES' described there are the same exact ones you did here, AND with the same descriptions.
Here is what pshun2404 posted on this forum:
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!
and here is what I found on yahoo answers from 10 years ago:
For example, Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) is a "High density lipoprotein-binding protein, also known as vigilin, is a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules and may function in the removal of excess cellular cholesterol." It is 87092 base pairs long.
In other species it is:
(Rat) Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) - 68238 base pairs - also performs a similiar function.
(Fly) D. melanogaster Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB) - 9119 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Roundworm) C. elegans Gene C08H9.2 (C08H9.2) - 3900 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Yeast) S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) - 3669 - where it is thought to be used in cell division
I highlighted the areas of 100% similarity...
I find it next to impossible to think that you and the person that made that posting at Yahoo answers independently picked, out of the blue, the same examples, using the same identity codes, with the same bp numbers (as I already indicated, the rat designation NM_172039] returns only the mRNA sequence, 4414 bp), and the same general means of describing them (to include many instances of verbatim depictions).
Totally independently. I ran into another creationist that had provided a lengthy quote from I think it was Richard Lewontin, which had 2 sets of ellipses in it, which I thought odd. So, I googled the quote and darned if I did not get a dozen returns for creationist websites, each with the ellipses in the exact same spot. That guy also expected me to believe that it was just a coincidence.
From the same source that you plagiarized from? That could be. But at least the person on yahoo Answers put parts in quotes, at least indicating that it was not his original work. And he provided an original source link (which is now, not surprisingly, dead).
You provide no links.
This calls many things into question, frankly.
When we have students that simply copy paste wholesale from other sources, we often get the old 'I was going to change it later but forgot' excuse. Depending on the believability of their sob story, we may accept that they had intended to come back to it later and transform it into their own words, or use the plagiarized parts for 'ideas.' They still get nailed for plagiarism, but the punishment may be less severe. When we see students that have plagiarized but change just a few words here and there, and try to deny that they plagiarized, well, that goes to their intent. we usually nail them.
"Creation or Evolution - Do We Have to Choose?" by Denis Alexander.
I think that the reading of any book is understood by the application of common methods of interpretation.
There are parts of the bible written as prose, other parts as poetry and others as figerative.
Genesis only fits as prose so it is a discription of what happened.
Not so since Genesis chapter one is also a description of what will happen when Jesus returns in the last days. Gen 1:28-31 Genesis is LITERALLY the scientific and historic proof of God since it was written more than 3k years ago. Amen?
Right. Religion is a whole other epistemic 'game' than science. So, one will approach one sphere of knowledge not only in separate fashion, but ALSO with a different mode of inquiry.In other words, there's no consistency.
In the empirical sense, one in which a proposition is demonstrated via the senses, religion (particularly Christianity) will not amend itself. Unlike science, religion has both a human component, in which a person can undertake inquiries, and a 'God' component in which the religious person has to await for God to orchestrate the finality of belief. This may or may not allow some historical claims to be seen as 'facts.' So, religion (again Christianity in particular) will epistemically float somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity. There might be some things that religious people will come to agree is 'factual' about their faith, but there will be other things that they do not agree on, and the nature of the faith will be such that even IF two Christians agree on a 'fact,' this perception may or may not be enjoined by a person who is outside of the faith.How, then, can you ever claim something as religious fact?
Well, you can call it that if you want, but that isn't what it would be. To say that it's just "handwavium" is itself a statement that seems to indicate a tendency to wave away looking into any possible levels of religious cogency. But, correct me on that if I'm wrong.Sounds like a good way to get around the lack or results. The element of handwavium.
What excuses. What Eugenie C. Scott provides (again, as an atheist) is no excuse, but the nature of mainstream science [we call it Methodological Naturalism]. Those who adhere to a Philosophical Naturalism (like Dawkins) are in the minority.These excuses haven't been complicated so far.
Right, because since we start with Methodological Naturalism in our approach to science, we assume for inquiry sake that no God or other supernatural elements are either at play in our experiments or that if they were to exist, they are not controllable variables.Funnily enough, the problems doesn't seem to exist so much when it comes to science...
I'm not sure I even understand your statement and questions here. Sorry. You may have to reiterate.So you can figure out what it means metaphorically. Doesn't make it real though, does it?
I explained some of this at the top of the post. As far as religion is concerned, and as far as the human side of religion is concerned, if one wants to apply some probability, then that isn't excluded. The caveat is that is Christianity is true, then by definition our human inquiries will be curtailed and/or affected by God Himself, unlike in mainline science.Varying degrees of objectivity? How does that work? What's objectivity measured in? Is it anything like a plausibility unit? How can something be more objective than another thing?
Go back and read my comment on that, pay close attention to what I said and whether it was my shortcoming or yours in understanding it, if you still do not see, let me know.Ah, I misunderstood. Natural things are created?
Go back and read my comment on that, pay close attention to what I said and whether it was my shortcoming or yours in understanding it, if you still do not see, let me know.
I really thought I was clear.
Everything is created?
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?