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.
such as? check also my signature link for evidence against it.
The pronoun you highlighted - "its" . . . refers to the birds, not to God or Jesus. You are not making sense at all.
There is no "its" in the KJV but only in the later "altered" versions.
NEVER trust a professional, until what is said is proven true by testing.
NEVER trust the flesh, mankind, society, for that matter, in any case.
YHVH curses everyone , believers and unbelievers, who trust in the flesh.
That was not really evidence. That was an attempt to disprove by relating it to a watch.such as? check also my signature link for evidence against it.
again: if we will change about million bases at once we will get a dog genome out from a cat genome. right?
its like saying that design cant explain a broken mirror in a car.
therefore the car just evolved. see the problem?
It is called the "theory" of evolution.
Is it possible the "evidence" is being misinterpreted?
What "evidence" is one looking at?
Except that there is.Science: There is no "evidence" of gradualism in the fossil record.
That's like saying that you don't age, if the only photographs you can show are 4 pics of when you were 8 years old and 7 pics from when you were 19 years old.The history of most fossil species includes two features in consistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
One believes in evolution (Darwins)
.... ok .... however has one spent very much time considering intelligent design as well and really looking at the complexities of life?
It reveals complexity more and more all the time but science does not "prove" evolution.
Life is very complex .... for me .... difficult to believe the odds of millions of random "happenings" produced over millions of years is a pretty far reach in comparison of the complexity of life as we see and experience.
The more complex ... the more evidence of intelligent design.
Here's one - Science and creation: Evidence from Science | The Institute for Creation Research
Just saying ..... consider the "evidence" of intelligent design
, which is shown through science as well.
There are many out there, consider them as well.
right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?That was not really evidence. That was an attempt to disprove by relating it to a watch.
A watch does not have DNA.
A watch does not show Crossing over.
Also, a self replicating watch seems more like an axexually reproducing organism like Hydra, Plasmodium, etc.
They don't exist xianghua, so drop it for pete's sake...right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?
To answer the question though, I'd answer "natural process", because it would be apparent that they reproduced naturally.right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?
are you saying that the retina isnt an example of a good design?It's more like saying that an intelligent Sony camera engineer would not put all the wiring in front of the photon sensitive lense, creating a blind spot which would then have to be rectified by adding additional energy consuming software to the camera to "fill in the blanks".
It's more like saying that an intelligent electrician who needs to connect 2 points that are only 1m apart, would not run the cable from point 1 all the way to the basement, all the way up again to the attic, then 3 times around the house only to end up in point 2, right next to where he started out.
It's more like saying that an all-intelligent creator of species would not give a bipedal species like humans a spin that isn't actually fit for bipedalism, which causes lower back pains in about 70% of humans at one point in their life. Or wouldn't give a species a mouth that isn't big enough to accomodate all the teeth, which is why a lot of people need to have their "wisdom teeth" pulled, to avoid immense pain and infection.
Etc etc etc.
Ow, I see the problem all right.
It's called "willfull ignorance".
the retina doesn't even seem to be intelligently designed, let alone present as a good example of it...are you saying that the retina isnt an example of a good design?
right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?
are you saying that the retina isnt an example of a good design?
i refer to dawkins claim about the retina structure. do you agree with him saying that the retina is example of a bad design since its designed backward?If "good design" means things like:
- efficient
- working well
- durable
- etc
Then the human eye most definatly is not an example of that.
If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm gonna have to ask you to define what you mean by "good" in "good design".
i refer to dawkins claim about the retina structure. do you agree with him saying that the retina is example of a bad design since its designed backward?
Neither. There is no watch that replicates itself.right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?
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?