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.
Hmm.... Not sure that I can falsify God. Can't prove him either to your satisfaction. But as a theory goes common design is just as good as evolution. I choose common design.
Sorry, but they are indeed evidence for common descent. These are retroviral insertion points that are shared between species. A retrovirus insertion is an actual event that happens in the history of a species, and finding even one shared insertion would be evidence for common descent. Finding hundreds of thousands of shared insertions, with the sharing occurring between species expected from their evolutionary tree, is overwhelming evidence for common descent.Those things show common design. They are not evidence of evolution.
Unfortunately, common design is just about worthless as a theory. Common design tells you nothing about which species will share a way of carrying out a function and which ones won't. It won't tell you anything exactly what genetic differences will look like between species. It really doesn't make any predictions at all.Hmm.... Not sure that I can falsify God. Can't prove him either to your satisfaction. But as a theory goes common design is just as good as evolution. I choose common design.
Those things show common design. They are not evidence of evolution.
So...you don't believe in the authoritative word of God. Terrific.I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.
This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.
The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.
There aren't enough steps for that transition!!
Hmm.... Not sure that I can falsify God. Can't prove him either to your satisfaction. But as a theory goes common design is just as good as evolution. I choose common design.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory?
Thats news. When dr. Behe the star witness was cross examined on the stand in the dover trial, not only did he have to admit design as not a scientific theory, but he admitted if design was considered science, than astrology would be considered science as well.
Those things show common design. They are not evidence of evolution.
How do you know? Your argument appears to be based on emotion, not facts.
Hmmm sounds like common design to me. God made a lot of similarities between creatures. Makes sense there would be some commonalities just like the retrovirus issue.Sorry, but they are indeed evidence for common descent. These are retroviral insertion points that are shared between species. A retrovirus insertion is an actual event that happens in the history of a species, and finding even one shared insertion would be evidence for common descent. Finding hundreds of thousands of shared insertions, with the sharing occurring between species expected from their evolutionary tree, is overwhelming evidence for common descent.
What's particularly nice is that you can measure how long a particular family of ERVs has been present in the genome, by looking at the accumulated mutations in the different instances; more mutations means the ERVs have been there longer. When you do that, you find that the older the ERV family, the greater the range of species that share insertion points for it.
Same test you use for evolution. Common design fits the test.What evidence do you have for this claim? What test can you show that would demonstrate design and what is your falsifiable test? What should we expect to see if things weren't designed? If you cannot demonstrate this, then your claim is wrong.
I don't care if it's "scientifically accepted" or not. It just as good a proposition as evolution since evolution hasn't been observed and can't be tested either. Unless of course you know someone who was around when that thing that turned into everything else evolved.Common design is not scientific because it is an ad hoc proposition and unfalsifiable.
So...you don't believe in the authoritative word of God. Terrific.
I don't care if it's "scientifically accepted" or not.
It just as good a proposition as evolution since evolution hasn't been observed and can't be tested either. Unless of course you know someone who was around when that thing that turned into everything else evolved.
Same test you use for evolution. Common design fits the test.
Sorry---I do not have the right, scientific words to state this---nor the knowledge of this theory of evolution that you do to debate it--I read it, but see no logic in it. I believe in my God and that He created us in His image--and a gorilla ain't it. And you can draw all the little pictures you want showing all the little steps it takes to transform a tiny nothing into a gorilla and then into a human that looks like that till the cows come come---It doesn't add up, it makes no sense, I reject it and I'll stay in my so called ignorance, thank you. The gorilla is a magnificent animal--beautiful in his own way---but he's not in my family tree.
Okay, try taking the test. There are millions of genetics differences between humans and chimpanzees. What does common design predict should be the transition to transversion ratio for single-base differences? What fraction will be at CpG sites?Same test you use for evolution. Common design fits the test.
If you cannot defend the Bible, does not mean it is not defensible. In fact, it is defensible, and it even explains that each creature [did not evolve] but was created "in kind."where did I say that? And congrats on breaking site rules, I just accept the fact of evolution, I refuse to ignore what reality says just to keep some undefensible concept of 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?