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.
How did it evolve through a process of random chance?
The physical evidense shows you to be incorrect. You too should review post 3.
The problem is that when Atheist observe nature going about its complex organized business to them it simply proves that nature is quite capable of winging it on its own while to a believer in a creator it shouts design. In short, the atheist mind seems totally incapable of making the required inductive leap from general to specific that most of mankind effortlessly manages to make.
So I and many, many others say. Can you refute it?
So I and many, many others say. Can you refute it?
Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime?
From what I read...The term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.
I also read...
First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2 So, if these viral-like sequences are not millions of years old, then where did they come from?
You can read more about them here and here and here
.....but then again those links are from creationist sites.....so they really don't count.
Then you should have no problem explaining how the process evolved.
That is a crass misrepresentation of how the conclusion that intelligent design is involved is reached. Which goes to show once again the total inability of the atheist mind to make the necessary inductive leap if it requires the conclusion be intelligent design. Actually, it really isn't an intellectual deficit as much as it is an involuntary, emotionally-induced phenomenon stemming from an extreme aversion to anything that is deemed to smack of the religious although it might not necessarily be of a religious nature. Ironically, such a modus operandi is the antithesis of the scientific method which demands a totally objective approach in the systematic search and discovery of truth.No.
In this context, the main difference between an atheist (or intellectually honest theist) and a creationist, is that an atheist will say "I don't know, let's try and found out" when confronted with an unexplained phenomena of reality. While the crationist will be very quick to simply assert that "we don't know, so god must have done it".
I make a distinction between the "intellectually honest theist" and the "creationist", because in reality, most theists actually have no problems at all with science.
Read my signature for a great example.
Refute what? All you have said is that it's too complicated, it can't have evolved. You're welcome to your opinion but don't pretend it's anything more than that.
Edit: That was a weird DH, we both replied to the same post simutaneously.
That is a crass misrepresentation of how the conclusion that intelligent design is involved is reached. Which goes to show once again the total inability of the atheist mind to make the necessary inductive leap if it requires the conclusion be intelligent design. Actually, it really isn't an intellectual deficit as much as it is an involuntary, emotionally-induced phenomenon stemming from an extreme aversion to anything that is deemed to smack of the religious although it might not necessarily be of a religious nature. Ironically, such a modus operandi is the antithesis of the scientific method which demands a totally objective approach in the systematic search and discovery of truth.
No.
In this context, the main difference between an atheist (or intellectually honest theist) and a creationist, is that an atheist will say "I don't know, let's try and found out" when confronted with an unexplained phenomena of reality. While the crationist will be very quick to simply assert that "we don't know, so god must have done it".
I make a distinction between the "intellectually honest theist" and the "creationist", because in reality, most theists actually have no problems at all with science.
Read my signature for a great example.
Just for the record...at this point I stopped reading your reply. For you to make such a claim...deception must be your ploy. You certainly weren't honest with that reply.
It's not misinformation just because you really really want it to be.Listen to you. You were caught presenting the same type of "misinformation". At least be honest. Sheeze.
The authors of the NT present them as true.
I'm afraid you're gonna get Abaddon aka Apollyon instead.I will wait to hear what Kang and Kodos have to say on the matter AV
Sfs, please explain a loaf of raisin bread created ex nihilo (since it contains aged grapes), and/or explain a bunch of bananas created ex nihilo (since they are man-made hybrids), using all that gobbledygook science.There's a reason professional creationists avoid ever actually explaining any genetic data.
I can post a picture of a fossilized hat. Now I don't think it happened in a year. But it could of.
My head, for starters.
Anyway, given the possible pressures involved with the amount of water and the large amount of dirt & debris, I'm sure it set the stage for some of it to be solidified over a much shorter period of time. There were man-made objects found embedded in solid lumps of coal, so either mankind is hundreds of millions of years old(not!), or we do not have a very clear picture of how these things were formed and the specific environment involved.
I'm also of the opinion that the 6-day creation period covered a much greater expanse of time as opposed to it consisting of a literal 24 hours for each day. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord.
ASSUMING it didn't happen as documented, then Homer lied.And Homer presents the Odyssey as true. So what?
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?