Mutation gives mouse poison resistance

[dad]

Man has evolved to reach conclusions based on rigorous testing of assumptions and reviewing objective evidence.

Nonsense. You are talking belief there. The conclusions based on rigorous testing are not relevant to any claim that a mouse is able to evolve and mutate because of any reason other than God's creation. Get a grip.

 

[bhsmte]

Nonsense. You are talking belief there. The conclusions based on rigorous testing are not relevant to any claim that a mouse is able to evolve and mutate because of any reason other than God's creation. Get a grip.

You believe what you will. I am referring to empirical evidence that determines the voracity of assumptions.

Absent the above, you believe what you do on faith. No problem with that by the way, to each's own.

 

[dad]

You believe what you will. I am referring to empirical evidence that determines the voracity of assumptions.

That all depends on the assumptions and what the heck you are talking about.

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

You have none of that for any claim that a mouse does not have created traits! Nor that Jesus did not come on cue, where He came and when He came. Etc etc...praytell, what DO you have exactly??

Absent the above, you believe what you do on faith. No problem with that by the way, to each's own.

You clearly are absent the above for anything topical here. Anything else to say??

 

[biggles53]

The Bethlehem story sets the calendar. .

Umm....which Bethlehem story...?

Matthew's....? Luke's...? Given the discrepancies and contradictions, that must be one whacky calendar you have there...!

 

[biggles53]

Objective in not something that you can take with you thousands of years ago, and is a useless concept and irrelevant here. Unless you have objective evidence that Jesus never lived and none of the prophets?

Ummmm.......you have it backwards.....the responsibility for evidence lies with he who makes the claims.....

Jesus lived, performed miracles, died and was resurrected...?

Fine.....where's YOUR evidence for that...!? Why do we ONLY find those claims in the Bible (which conflicts itself)...? Where is ANY contemporary report of these events...? Why do we have to wait decades (centuries in some cases) for these supposed events to be recorded, and even then through third-hand hearsay accounts...?

 

[biggles53]

You have none of that for any claim that a mouse does not have created traits! Nor that Jesus did not come on cue, where He came and when He came. Etc etc...praytell, what DO you have exactly??

Nor do we have evidence that a magical gnome doesnt live at the bottom of my garden...

So, by your logic......it must...!

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus lived, performed miracles, died and was resurrected...?

Fine.....where's YOUR evidence for that...!?

What evidence would you be expecting? footprints?

Any evidence found would be interpreted as either anachronistic or evidence for something else.

My opinion is that God is smarter than scientists and knows that they will use evidence against Him (as they do the Bible).

Thus He didn't preserve the evidence, He preserved the recordings of the evidence.

This is why I think Noah's Ark no longer exists.

Else scientists would be all over it and end up claiming it belonged to someone else, or it leaked and couldn't have floated, or it has evidence of having 30 people on board, or some other such nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nor do we have evidence that a magical gnome doesnt live at the bottom of my garden...

Actually we do -- in a way.

If you did have a gnome at the bottom of your garden, the Harold Cooks would be all over your garden chasing him to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Unless, of course, you've been keeping said gnome a secret; in which case you wouldn't be dropping a hint or using your garden as an example on the world-wide web.

 

[bhsmte]

What evidence would you be expecting? footprints?

Any evidence found would be interpreted as either anachronistic or evidence for something else.

My opinion is that God is smarter than scientists and knows that they will use evidence against Him (as they do the Bible).

Thus He didn't preserve the evidence, He preserved the recordings of the evidence.

This is why I think Noah's Ark no longer exists.

Else scientists would be all over it and end up claiming it belonged to someone else, or it leaked and couldn't have floated, or it has evidence of having 30 people on board, or some other such nonsense.

Another creative explanation AV, good job.

 

[dad]

Umm....which Bethlehem story...?

Matthew's....? Luke's...? Given the discrepancies and contradictions, that must be one whacky calendar you have there...!

Perhaps some lack of understanding or misinformation led you to wrongly assume that the accounts in the gospel somehow disagree. No. They sing together like a band of birds.

The city of David is any gospel is still the city of David. It seems ludicrous to claim that some different Bethlehem is meant.

 

[dad]

Ummmm.......you have it backwards.....the responsibility for evidence lies with he who makes the claims.....

No one is making the claims of the bible. They were made long ago. You have no objective ability to dispute God's word. Face it. So don't tout some silly 'objectivity'!

Jesus lived, performed miracles, died and was resurrected...?

Fine.....where's YOUR evidence for that...!?

Same closet as the evidence for last week.

Why do we ONLY find those claims in the Bible (which conflicts itself)...?

We don't. Some reference to Jesus and certain events and people are found in secular records. Obviously. Jerusalem was the record center, and central place for Jews. There was apparently, for example, a complete genealogy in the temple. This was referred to by some in the New Testament it is felt. However, the temple and city were destroyed. The rulers of the land also were the ones that had Jesus killed, and were enemies of God and gospel. The very fact that we have the best record on earth regardless of all the insane opposition and impossible circumstances screams out all the louder..'this is truth'!

Why do we have to wait decades (centuries in some cases) for these supposed events to be recorded, and even then through third-hand hearsay accounts...?

"
If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post-death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54.
So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.
We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die.
Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things:

• Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4),
• Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)
• Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8).
• Jesus was buried and rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person simply to believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9."


1 Cor. 15:3-4 demonstrates a creed too early for legend to corrupt. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[bhsmte]

No one is making the claims of the bible. They were made long ago. You have no objective ability to dispute God's word. Face it. So don't tout some silly 'objectivity'!
Same closet as the evidence for last week.We don't. Some reference to Jesus and certain events and people are found in secular records. Obviously. Jerusalem was the record center, and central place for Jews. There was apparently, for example, a complete genealogy in the temple. This was referred to by some in the New Testament it is felt. However, the temple and city were destroyed. The rulers of the land also were the ones that had Jesus killed, and were enemies of God and gospel. The very fact that we have the best record on earth regardless of all the insane opposition and impossible circumstances screams out all the louder..'this is truth'!


"
If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post-death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54.
So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.
We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die.
Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things:

• Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4),
• Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)
• Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8).
• Jesus was buried and rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person simply to believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9."


1 Cor. 15:3-4 demonstrates a creed too early for legend to corrupt. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

There exists an abundance of reasons to doubt the credibility of the bible. All you have to do is make an objective venture into biblical historicity and scholarship.

If you want to believe it on faith, then knock yourself out.

 

[dad]

There exists an abundance of reasons to doubt the credibility of the bible.

Nope. None at all.

All you have to do is make an objective venture into biblical historicity and scholarship.

You can't do that! Your facts and abilities won't allow it! All you can do is doubt unreasonably.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope. None at all.

You can't do that! Your facts and abilities won't allow it! All you can do is doubt unreasonably.

I can't do what exactly? Look at something objectively and with a critical eye?

I bet I can and I have.

 

[dad]

I can't do what exactly? Look at something objectively and with a critical eye?

I bet I can and I have.

You cannot go back to Israel and talk to us about how Bethlehem was not where a virgin gave birth to the savior of the world. You cannot say Paul was a liar. You cannot say Peter did not walk on water. What CAN you do? Cut the 'I am so objective' routine!

 

[bhsmte]

You cannot go back to Israel and talk to us about how Bethlehem was not where a virgin gave birth to the savior of the world. You cannot say Paul was a liar. You cannot say Peter did not walk on water. What CAN you do? Cut the 'I am so objective' routine!

And neither can you do any of those things (personally) and state they did happen, now can you?

In absence of actually "being there" historians rely on the historical method, to determine "what likely" happened in the past. Man can write whatever he wishes in an ancient book (or really a bunch of ancient writings in which the true authors are really unknown) and then the powers at be can make the determination, of what they want to use to put in a book. Jesus wasn't the first messiah to be born of a virgin, crucified and risen form the dead, man made up several before him, do you believe in any of those?

Some christians don't like a critical OBJECTIVE eye placed on the bible and I can understand why, but it doesn't change reality. it is what it is.

 

[CabVet]

And here I was thinking that this topic was about beneficial mutations...

 

[dad]

And neither can you do any of those things (personally) and state they did happen, now can you?

In absence of actually "being there" historians rely on the historical method, to determine "what likely" happened in the past. Man can write whatever he wishes in an ancient book (or really a bunch of ancient writings in which the true authors are really unknown) and then the powers at be can make the determination, of what they want to use to put in a book. Jesus wasn't the first messiah to be born of a virgin, crucified and risen form the dead, man made up several before him, do you believe in any of those?

Some christians don't like a critical OBJECTIVE eye placed on the bible and I can understand why, but it doesn't change reality. it is what it is.

The education that people get today is a malevolent mutation!

Yes, a mouse might undergo mutations, but first we need a mouse to be able to mutate!

 

[CabVet]

Yes, a mouse might undergo mutations, but first we need a mouse to be able to mutate!

So, there you accept the existence of beneficial mutations after all. Thanks for admitting.

 

[florida2]

Perhaps, like my mother, they also trusted the scientists who created nicotine and the big corporations who kept selling cigarettes, and the government, who didn't shut them down?

After all, if cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, wouldn't the government ban cigarette smoking? was her philosophy.

Don't make it look like it's our fault.

I'm sure scientists worked hard to perfect nicotine -- not to mention heroin, marijuana, and LSD.

What on are you on about? Nicotine is a natural substance found across the nightshade family of plants. That's why you have to smoke the leaves - the nicotine is in there to begin with! Smoking goes back hundreds of years in Europe, even further back with Native Americans. No scientist or corporation ever 'created' nicotine. Stop trying to pin anything bad on science, AV.

As a result of such long-standing origins, smoking gained a very important social role making moves against it difficult. When smoking in public places was banned over here in 2007 there was a huge debate and lot of strong feeling on both sides - and this is decades after the health facts were known!

I agree with your mother than if something is that bad then smoking should be banned, but that puts you in a very difficult spot. Firstly, there's the whole freedom of choice matter. Secondly, on the other hand, you could argue that 30,000 to 40,000 just in the USA alone die every year on the roads so shouldn't the government ban cars?

I do wholeheartedly agree that more should be done to stop/dissuade smoking because of the health risks to individuals and those around them, but don't blame it on scientists in the first place, please.

Oh, and marijuana is natural, too.