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.
nyjbarnes said:I am sorry I just disagree. I think your arguments are intellectually lazy.
Split Rock said:Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.
Arikay said:And how is that? Or is it just a lazy way to ignore my comments?(wahoo, irony again)
Would you like me to provide you with a correct definition of the theory of evolution?
So I suppose this was ME being insulting;Brahe said:Why is that creationists bring this line out whenever it's clear that the only ones combining godlike arrogance and crippling ignorance is them? It's as though they think that by quoting a part of the Bible, they can ignore all the inconvenient evidence that's been set out before them.
nyjbarnes, if you have an argument, make it. If you lack the necessary knowledge to discuss evolution, feel free to read some FAQs or just read the threads here without responding. As it is, all you've done is given several PRATTs and been easily refuted. Instead of responding substantively, you've either ignored them to repeat your unsupported assertions or you've become needlessly insulting. The standard right-wing projection, far from enhancing your case, only makes it all the more clear you've nothing more than useless creationist rhetoric.
I have made my arguement, so far no one has been able to refute it. There were a couple good beginning arguments...I liked the one about the ark, about the flood..nyjbarnes, if you have an argument, make it. If you lack the necessary knowledge to discuss evolution, feel free to read some FAQs or just read the threads here without responding. As it is, all you've done is given several PRATTs and been easily refuted. Instead of responding substantively, you've either ignored them to repeat your unsupported assertions or you've become needlessly insulting. The standard right-wing projection, far from enhancing your case, only makes it all the more clear you've nothing more than useless creationist rhetoric.
In light of your knowledge of retroviruses, perhaps you could tell us just how creationists explain the presense of endorgenous retroviral sequences.nyjbarnes said:So is DNA replaced or added to?
UPDATE
I found the answer myself
No, nyjbarnes. From the link: "However, all full-length endogenous retroviruses described to date in humans are sufficiently old that all humans examined were homozygous for their presence [1]. Moreover, none are intact; all have lethal mutations [1, 3, 4]."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11591322&dopt=Abstract
This says that all mutations are lethal....
Do note the "Preview Post" button.nyjbarnes said:So I suppose this was ME being insulting;
CUT AND PASTED FROM YOUR LINK
(numerous tags and such snipped)
Like I showed, and like you once again ignored, your "arguments" have been solidly refuted. Yelling "nuh-uh!" at the top of your lungs simply won't make that fact go away.nyjbarnes said:I have made my arguement, so far no one has been able to refute it. There were a couple good beginning arguments...I liked the one about the ark, about the flood..
Yes, we are all well-aware of creationist tactics. Do note that you've been warned against insulting Christians because they accept science. Oh, I see you've ignored that as well.But it seems that most peoples method of debating on this board is to call you names, insinuate a lack of knowledge on a topic or just generalize about Christians.
The reason I brought up the point that you were breaking a forum rule, was because you did so in response to my previous post. It is true that others in this forum use insulting terms, and that should not be tolerated either.nyjbarnes said:First, I will not suspend my beliefs or my call to action when I recognize sin. If I need to address it a different way that's fine. Now just to be clear there was a person who called me an idiot and used that word....funny, no one said anything. Me being a nice guy I laughed it off.
nyjbarnes said:That would be a good start. You have quite a backfill of posts that have no emperical data. I should would like to eat soon, so if you could pass me somthing I could chew on I would appreciate it.
It actually says to look at the oak or tree trunk in your own eye before you look at the splinter in someone elses.Arikay said:Oh the irony is killing me.
Here we go definition of evolution,"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."This change comes from two basic mechanisms,
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Mutations,
"Mutations (or mutagenesis, both words originating in the Latin word mutare, to change) are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations
Natural Selection
"The basic concept of natural selection is that environmental conditions (or "nature") determine (or "select") how well particular traits of organisms can serve the survival and reproduction of the organism;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Other
"Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift, gene flow and mutation."
Shouldn't you have researched this yourself before coming here and making claims? This is basic knowledge that you should have before debating, or you should ask questions to learn about it. You shouldn't expect people to put in intellectual thought when you obviously haven't. Especially considering your rude and insulting posts that are devoid of data (something you complain about our posts lacking) or anything to back them up.
You can quote the bible, but have you really read it? Do you realize that Jesus says (paraphrased) that you should look to yourself for error before others and that you should treat others the way you want to be treated?
nyjbarnes said:It actually says to look at the oak or tree trunk in your own eye before you look at the splinter in someone elses.
Honestly, there was no new discovery here. I was arguing from these same points. Though I have just a thought that I need to look up speciation.
Arikay said:Actually it is more than just a specific verse, its a theme that runs through out the entire NT.
Really? Now its your turn to present evidence to back up your statements.
Show us how a watch in a box is the same as life and the environment. show us How mutation and natural selection can act on that watch.
Your argument completly ignored the basis of evolution (this basis is accepted by pretty much every creationist group, they don't argue against evolution, but against non constrained evolution which is basically what creationism is about).
Out of curiousity, where are the verses in the bible that predict jesus will be born in a manger, and then the verse that says he is born in a manger? (were you the one talking about that, or was it someone else?)
nyjbarnes said:Yep it was me. I can't seem to find the reference to being born at the inn
But I did find this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html
So I had this whole thing written out as a reply...but my browser deleted it...2nd time this has happend tonight..or this morning rather. So I will attempt to re-write it tomorrw.
nyjbarnes said:Yep it was me. I can't seem to find the reference to being born at the inn
But I did find this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html
So I had this whole thing written out as a reply...but my browser deleted it...2nd time this has happend tonight..or this morning rather. So I will attempt to re-write it tomorrw.
I like that passage a lot. Especially when you read it In context instead of quotemined. Last time it was John who did that if I recall correctly.nyjbarnes said:The Bible has a verse crafted specifically for you.
Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
nyjbarnes said:Prove we share a common anscestry. Cite your sources
the_gloaming said:Endogenous retroviruses. Stating these 2 words usually results in silence from creationists and the death of a thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t96639
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses
nyjbarnes said:So is DNA replaced or added to?
UPDATE
I found the answer myself
Retroviruses, unlike other viruses, are RNA-based. In addition to two single strands of RNA that constitute its genome, a retroviral particle also carries several copies of reverse transcriptase. After invading a host cell, the reverse transcriptase is used in a process called reverse transcription to decode its RNA into DNA, which it then inserts into the host cell's chromosome. With the newly created viral DNA in place, the host cell's RNA polymerase is used to make more virus RNA, both as templates for the RNA new particles will carry into other cells, and mRNA, which produces the viral proteins. The new copies of viral RNA and proteins are collected together into a new virus particle, and set free to infect other cells.
For more see the retrovirus article.
The reality is how is this different than the host/parasite relationship? I think what you will find is that the organisms that have this happen beyond a single generation will either weed out the code or not be able to reproduce.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract
This says that all mutations are lethal....
And they would have us believe this because? Your conspiracy theory is showing.nyjbarnes said:This parallels what scientists would have you believe about the earth and the origins of life.
Google "anthropic principle". If the conditions were different, we would be different and you would be arguing that conditions had to be exactly that way. Or if conditions were different, we wouldn't be around to comment on the fact.The simply by things being in the right place at the right time, the earth formed exactly in the right place to support life and exactly on a 23.5 degree axis, so perfect in fact that if were to move just a few degrees closer to or away from the sun we would burn up or freeze respectively.
No it doesn't relate directly to life because it is not believed that live and watches came about by the same processes. You are assuming the watch to be much different from a bryophyte (true) and then claiming they must have come about by the same processes, which you have not demonstrated. This is the fallacy of assuming the consequent.This they would have you believe happend all by chance. Now, the illustration of the watch is a good one, because a good watch has life,(it tells time or ticks) and a good watch has complex moving parts. Things that are dependent on each other for the overall goal of telling time. This relates directly to life.
Bingo!I expect that won't be enough for some of you.
You are starting from your conclusion and using faulty arguments.But that is the start of the debate.
To be specific, the crystal is an orderly arangement of molecules. So is the watch, but the watch also has a higher level of organization.Also, why the crystal doesn't have any significance to what I am talking about is because as crystal is a formation of rock.
You seem to be saying that watches aren't made today. And any living thing is more complex and requires more levels of organization than the crystal. Your analogy is flawed.There are no complexities to it. It's caused by a number of different things that can be easiliy accounted for and repeated today. Not similar. Thanks for playing though.
It should be easy for you to provide biblical citations. (Be careful. I have anticipated your answer.)Now for the predictive nature of the Bible. The Bible predicts over 300 things that relate specifically to Jesus Christ. I will name a couple.
That Jesus' legs would not be broken during his crusifixion
That Jesus would be born in a manger
No. It is also legislation and census information.Now here is the significance. This is recorded history. The torah is not just a book of stories.
Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are based on the pre-existing scripture they do not provide independent verification. That's like saying that my freshman literature book verifies the Iliad.It is a document that is corroborated many places not the least of which is the dead sea scrolls.
I don't think you can demonstrate that.That said, these prophecies were written 2000 years before Christ's brith.
Where did you get the numbers you are using?If you just took 8 of these prophecies, the odds of a person coincidentally fulfilling all eight of these would be one in 10 to the 17th power.
Since we can't easily picture what that means, I'll give this illustration: Suppose you took the state of Texas and spread silver dollars two feet deep across the whole state, then marked just one of them and buried it somewhere in the state. Then, if you chose one person, blindfolded him, and told him to pick just one silver dollar, his chances of getting the marked one on his first try would be one in 10 to the 17th power
Lets start with the two you mentioned above. You can list these three hundred prophecies and we can examine them one or two at a time.And for the most powerful part, Jesus fulfulled all of them. Not just 8, not 18, not 180. All of them. Well not all of them, because he has to return yet again, but that will be fulfilled.
The chance of any randomly shuffled deck of cards occuring is one in 52! (fifty-two factorial), which is to say there are 52 possibilities for the first card, 51 possiblities for the second, etc, 2 possibilities for the 51st card and one possibility for the last card. So the odds are 1 in 52*51*50*...*3*2*1. (* means times) This is around 1 in 8*10^67. (10^67 means 10 raised to the 67th power) so if what you say were true, any randomly shuffled deck of cards is "scientifically absurd". And so are you.Now just for reference, scientific absurdity is 10 to the 25 power. It might be less but I can't seem to find my reference.
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?