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.
No, I am claiming that even materialists and atheists see design in the systems and structures of organisms. Evolution as defined is not the issue.Red herring.
You are claiming that it is only materialism and atheism that prevents us from seeing that evolution is false. Francis Collins demonstrates this to be false. His position supports our position that those who actually understand the science fall on the side of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence.
This does nothing for the issue at hand, nor does it provide anything for the discussion."Eric Green at the Genome Institute has looked at this same region in many other species and, in fact, you can find this same CAPZA2 gene in everything from chimps down to zebra fishes and a lot of things in between (see Figure 4). Notice the pattern. The chimpanzee is almost 100% identical to the human, except the chimp has a deletion just before exon 2 that we do not have. Otherwise the match-up, as in most cases of human and chimp comparison, is about 98.5% to 99%. You can see that the baboon is starting to diverge. The cat and the dog and the cow all look a lot alike, and again if you look at the CAPZA2 exons, you will see that every one of those species has a nice conserved little segment there. But as you get further away to rats, mouse, chicken, two different kinds of pufferfish and then a zebra fish, about the only thing you see is the protein encoding regions, while the rest of the scattered noise goes away. Again, this is a very compelling kind of pattern in terms of what one would expect from evolution."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
What in ID would prohibit them?How does ID/creationism explain this divergence, especially in introns?
That's a two edged sword you are swing there.
So do you. You don't admit that life appears designed.Baloney. The real scientists are the ones who do science. That is all the CV is there for, to confirm that they do science.
All you are doing is admitting that you hold a position that scientists don't hold.
I have never deny my faith nor have I said faith is not credible as I think that would be against the rules here. I don't try to put myself above everyone else as I have to accept things on faith just like every human being does.You have already stated that if something is believed through faith that it isn't credible. You cut yourself swinging in that direction. You then try to swing the other way and claim that science is on your side, but have to ignore the scientists. Cut yourself again.
No, I am claiming that even materialists and atheists see design in the systems and structures of organisms. Evolution as defined is not the issue.
This does nothing for the issue at hand, nor does it provide anything for the discussion.
What in ID would prohibit them?
How does evolution explain how the information is found in DNA?
If someone such as Dawkins makes the determination that the design is not real then it is incumbent on them to show it is not real.I will ask again, what does a belief in God have to do with whether a scientist does good work and has excellent credentials?
I agree with Collins conclusion regarding science, that evolution is correct and has overwhelming evidence to support it. His belief in God, is irrelevant.
If someone uses Dawkins statement on "appearance of design" as evidence, they would need to ignore his conclusion, that design is not real and there is no evidence of design.
If one can't see the difference here, it is just more of the same, denial.
If someone such as Dawkins makes the determination that the design is not real then it is incumbent on them to show it is not real.
Why would life not fall into a nested hierarchy if ID is true?
What you don't understand is that we have knowledge that you don't have. God. Scientifically we don't know either. We don't know how God created life. Science might help show us and maybe not.
2.2 billion people and 32% is a good portion of the world. Among Christians there are very few and I mean few that don't believe that God created the universe and all life in it.
I don't put biologist above everyone else just like preachers and politicians.
I don't put biologist above everyone else just like preachers and politicians. I have great respect for my pastor but I don't agree with him on everything.
Here you go again, you make a claim and then expect the other person to carry the burden. You made the claim it is your burden to prove. Why if ID is true would life not fall into a nested hierarchy?You still can't produce a single reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if ID is true.
This is ridiculous, you make the claim that ID would not allow life to fall into a nested hierarchy and then tell me I have the burden to prove it. It is your burden.Shifting the burden of proof. You need to explain why we would necessarily see a nested hierarchy.
Your claim, your burden. Why would ID prohibit life falling into a nested hierarchy?Shifting the burden of proof. Why would we?
The evidence is the design in life forms.WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS????
Here you go again, you make a claim and then expect the other person to carry the burden. You made the claim it is your burden to prove. Why if ID is true would life not fall into a nested hierarchy?
This is ridiculous, you make the claim that ID would not allow life to fall into a nested hierarchy and then tell me I have the burden to prove it. It is your burden.
The evidence is the design in life forms.
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?