Nothing changes in this forum.

[rjs330]

I believe it does, but I can't prove it with science. I am certainly not interested in proving it with science just to shove my ideas about the Bible up somebody else's nose.

I infer a purpose because they are man-made objects.

The heart, the door and the window all have observable function, of course.

Right so man made objects have purpose, but God made objects don't?

You would infer man created things have purpose, but God created things don't? I know you infer that God created things do have a purpose. So if that is true who is right and who is wrong? If you and I are correct and God created things have purpose that is truth. And truth is not fluid.

 

[Speedwell]

Right so man made objects have purpose, but God made objects don't?

What a twister you are. I never said anything even close to that. What I have been trying to explain to you is that purpose is not necessarily directly detectable in an object or phenomenon.

You would infer man created things have purpose, but God created things don't?

You made that false accusation once in your post; no need to repeat it.

I know you infer that God created things do have a purpose. So if that is true who is right and who is wrong? If you and I are correct and God created things have purpose that is truth. And truth is not fluid.

I believe through faith that "God created things" have a purpose, not through science.

You want to make a liar out of me so that when I say that purpose is not detectable by science you misrepresent it as saying that there is no purpose. I'm tired of your blatant dishonesty; go shove your Bible up somebody else's nose.

 

[Speedwell]

Both. Because things are designed with purpose and function. Such as a door or window in a house or a motor in a car.

You have to decide which one you want to talk about. Function can be observed; purpose can only be inferred.

 

[xianghua]

They're still 'random' in the sense that they aren't inserting into identical locations each and every time. If you look at the graph in that paper you linked (Figure 1), it shows the insertion points for HIV, MLV and ASLV. They're all over the genome.

and they are still not random as speedwell claimed. and not for free you add quotation marks.

Really? You're going to try to argue that retroviral insertions aren't insertions at all?

why not? can you falsify this claim?

 

[rjs330]

Amen and He told us that the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL Truth. Looks like you have stopped searching.

Jesus:>>Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth:



It's common design by Jesus. The ERVs we inherited from our prehistoric ancestors contaminated our Human blood when Noah's grandsons married and produced children with prehistoric women...UNLESS you can explain WHO they married.

The Lord told Daniel that the people of the last days, with the increased knowledge of our time, would unseal God's scientific Truth, which has been hidden in Genesis for thousands of years. Dan 12:4 Can you tell us HOW God will show the entire world His Truth, which agrees with Science, in the last days? Including Atheists? Scripturally?

One of the things we have to be very careful of is pulling scriptures out of context and making them fit our beliefs rather than fitting our beliefs to scripture. Let's look at at context of Daniel.
“When that time comes, Mikha’el, the great prince who champions your people, will stand up; and there will be a time of distress unparalleled between the time they became a nation and that moment. At that time, your people will be delivered, everyone whose name is found written in the book.Many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth will awaken, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting shame and abhorrence.But those who can discern will shine like the brightness of heaven’s dome, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.“But you, Dani’el, keep these words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rush here and there as knowledge increases.”Then I, Dani’el, looked; and I saw in front of me two others, one on this bank of the river and the other on its other bank.One of them asked the man dressed in linen who was above the water of the river, “How long will these wonders last?”The man dressed in linen who was above the water of the river raised his right and left hands toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times and a half, and that it will be when the the power of the holy people is no longer being shattered that all these things will end.I heard this, but I couldn’t understand what it meant; so I asked, “Lord, what will be the outcome of all this?”But he said, “Go your way, Dani’el; for these words are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the end.Many will purify, cleanse and refine themselves; but the wicked will keep on acting wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand. But those with discernment will understand. - Daniel 12:1-10 Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 12:1-10 - Complete Jewish Bible

No where in that passage does it mention "scientific truth". Neither does the previous chapter. In fact it says none of the wicked will understand. It's not about scientific knowledge. It's about knowledge if the events that will take place in the last days. Daniel is a companion book to Revelations.

We need to confine our beliefs to what scripture says rather than try and make scripture fit our beliefs.

 

[rjs330]

Maintaining the status quo doesn't make any sense for two reason:

1) In academia, scientific advancement would grind to a halt. All it takes is a quick skim of the history of scientific advancement to see that those who challenge the status quo are those who sometimes forge an entirely new path that everyone else ends up following.

2) In industry (which is what I'm talking about in my prior questions), you see the same. In fact you want to know what happens in industry to people who buck the trend? They're the trailblazers, the risk-takers, and the ones more likely to become billionaires.

Arguing that people want to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo makes no sense. Especially when you're talking about industry (as I am) where there is money to be made via competitive advantage.

In fact, the best recent example of that has been cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. On the one hand, lots of people have laughed at the idea. On the other hand, you have people who have started businesses based on the concept.

If the best argument you have is that people don't want to be laughed at, that doesn't hold water at all.



Lose their jobs or funding doing what though?

It's also strange to bring up climate change when you're talking about maintaining the status quo, since arguing against climate change is doing just that (particularly for those in oil&gas industries which are typically at odds with environmental protection). Climate change science is an example of something disrupting the status quo, not preserving it. It's a contradiction to your prior argument.



Cast out from what though? It may come as a shock, but evolution isn't a secret club people get membership to. There's no secret handshake or clubhouse here.

Again, I'm referring to profit-driven industries here. If those in biology-related industries have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible, why wouldn't they want the best understanding of biology taught (if evolution is as false as you and other creationists claim)?

The difficulty here is challenging the status quo in this case is the designer. Scientists today will NEVER accept design because it's "unscientific". It's not merely a change if scientific findings. Its a violation of scientific definition. When you agree there is common design then you are required to consider who the designer is. And as we have been told a billion times the designer cannot be falsified therefore cannot be considered scientifically. It's a conundrum.

As I have pointed out. Evolution is not necessary. And you have yet to show it is. Common design works just as well but will never be considered because if the designer.

 

[rjs330]

ERVS are random virus infections. Why would your designer do that? Why would the designer using common components use infected ones instead of the components as originally designed? Unless he was doing it with evolution.

You're forgetting that death entered the world after Adams sin. All disease, sickness, broken genes and the problems of this world came after that. God just didn't go into great details to describe every little thing. Did you really expect him to?
Even everything Jesus said and did isn't written down and explained. God doesn't tell us everything. He tells us what is necessary. He did tell us what happened, just not every single little detail.

 

[rjs330]

What a twister you are. I never said anything even close to that. What I have been trying to explain to you is that purpose is not necessarily directly detectable in an object or phenomenon.

You made that false accusation once in your post; no need to repeat it. I believe through faith that "God created things" have a purpose, not through science.

You want to make a liar out of me so that when I say that purpose is not detectable by science you misrepresent it as saying that there is no purpose. I'm tired of your blatant dishonesty; go shove your Bible up somebody else's nose.

Hold on I never said you were are liar. I know you're not. Please take our discussion as a discussion rather than an attack on integrity. I believe you are a person of integrity. I just think you are mistaken about evolution.

It seems I have struck a nerve. Well probably more than one. Cannot purpose ever be detectible? Let's just say you are are right and purpose can only be inferred. Inference is obvious in many cases. What's the purpose if a door? It's obvious.

Man creates with purpose. If we create with purpose, isn't it reasonable to say that the God who created everything also created with purpose? Like I said I know you believe that.

I know that God's purpose cannot be discovered by science because God cannot be falsified by scientific methods. But that doesn't change truth. Truth is not something that can be set aside for science. If something is true and science cannot be used to show it's true it doesn't make something less true. It also doesn't make science more valid. It just makes science limited.

 

[Speedwell]

I know that God's purpose cannot be discovered by science because God cannot be falsified by scientific methods. But that doesn't change truth. Truth is not something that can be set aside for science. If something is true and science cannot be used to show it's true it doesn't make something less true. It also doesn't make science more valid. It just makes science limited.

Right. I believe there are truths which science will never be able to demonstrate. But you have "struck a nerve." The only people who are trying to use science to prove the presence of intelligent design in natural objects are doing so for base political purposes; treasonous purposes, as I believe.

 

[pitabread]

and they are still not random as speedwell claimed. and not for free you add quotation marks.

I think you're splitting hairs at this point.

why not? can you falsify this claim?

Honestly, I don't really care.

 

[pitabread]

The difficulty here is challenging the status quo in this case is the designer. Scientists today will NEVER accept design because it's "unscientific".

Design isn't unscientific. It's supernaturalism that is unscientific, since supernatural explanations are not bound by anything. Be careful not to conflate the two.

When you agree there is common design then you are required to consider who the designer is.

I'd say it raises the question, but I don't think it's necessarily something that is "required". I think the how is a lot more important than the who.

Regardless, I don't think this is the barrier you perceive it to be.

As I have pointed out. Evolution is not necessary. And you have yet to show it is. Common design works just as well but will never be considered because if the designer.

You don't have a scientific theory/model of common design. It can never work "just as well" if you don't have anything to begin with.

 

[pitabread]

Well look if you asking me to write a scientific paper on common design your in for a disappointing time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I'm not a scientist who has gone to school as a career, but I am a thinker. I am an observer. I have common sense and I do read.

How long did it take Darwin to come up with the theory and write it down?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that if I wrote the theory down on this board you wouldn't accept it as scientific enough and start asking me to have it peer reviewed and stuff. So no thanks.

Now if you would be willing to accept my wording and my explanation then I might take a crack at it. But I highly doubt you would be satisfied as it wouldn't be "scientific" enough for you.

I'm not asking for a thesis paper on the subject and I'm not even saying you have to come up with it all yourself. But you need to present something of substance. You keep using the term "common design", but it's entirely nebulous as to what that means and how it relates to biology (and in this case ERVs specifically).

If you want to make the claim that "common design" is predicting things with respect to genetics, you first need to outline or at least provide a source for a "common design" framework/model/theory.

If you don't have the latter, then you can't do the former.

 

[Jimmy D]

As I have pointed out. Evolution is not necessary. And you have yet to show it is. Common design works just as well but will never be considered because if the designer.

I asked about this earlier and got no response.

Evolution appears to explain the diversity of species, how does design do that?

What are the processes involved?

How can we differentiate between mere adaption and divine intervention?

What evidence have we got for special creation of the original kinds?

How is this reflected in the fossil record?

What predictions does "common design" make"?

How can "common design" help us in the field of medicine,agriculture, technology?

 

[Aman777]

No where in that passage does it mention "scientific truth". Neither does the previous chapter. In fact it says none of the wicked will understand. It's not about scientific knowledge. It's about knowledge if the events that will take place in the last days. Daniel is a companion book to Revelations.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Scriptural knowledge must come by finding agreement with other verses, other witnesses. In the last days God is going to pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh:

God's Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. Jhn 15:26

When God pours out His Spirit of Truth upon atheists agnostics and phonies, Can you tell us HOW God will convince the unbelievers? Is it through the discoveries Science? If not, then please tell us your idea of HOW His Truth will get to them.

 

[Aman777]

You're forgetting that death entered the world after Adams sin. All disease, sickness, broken genes and the problems of this world came after that.

Correction: Adam's sin brought death to mankind.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Darkness or death was upon the air, dust and water God created in the beginning. Gen 1:2

 

[Phred]

One of the problems creationists have in addressing evolution is that they have a hard time overcoming their incredulity about the theory. I think a lot of it is simply defending our turf on the CF. We remember that the true Christians were cast out of the early church, and it seems be happening here as well.

I don't believe that to be true at all. As I've found very, very few of the people who don't accept evolution who actually understand evolution. Most of the lack of acceptance comes from refusing to believe that we aren't special creations of a special creator in a special way as described in a special book. Anyone who actually understands what evolution states and how it works isn't the least bit freaked out by it. It's a long, slow, tedious process.

And then yes, there's the turf aspect. I'll give you that.

 

[Phred]

That's the only way we could have come into existence.

Odds of creation: 100 percent.
Odds of evolution: Too small to calculate.

Doesn't science believe that the first life form appeared 'suddenly'?

This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. There's no evidence for creation. No evidence a god even exists. But the odds of creation are 100%. Evolution on the other hand has been observed and experimented with in all sorts of species all over the world but the odds of it happening are too small to calculate. All because a cat never gave birth to a dog... which isn't evolution anyway. Welcome to the creationist mindset. Create a strawman, tear it down and declare victory.

 

[Speedwell]

We remember that the true Christians were cast out of the early church, and it seems be happening here as well.

Perhaps part of the problem comes from thinking of yourselves as the only "true" Christians rather than just another branch of a diverse Christendom.

 

[Phred]

So conveniently slow/gradual that it can't be observed, so we are to take your word for the idea God didn't make us as we are, we came about by all these unseen, unproven actions.

Now isn't that just like something an Atheist would like us to believe...no agenda there.

But it is observed. You just want the entire thing to be observed from end to end. That can't happen but we have observed each and every part. They're not unseen or unproven. They're exactly the opposite. When we show them to you you either create some ridiculous thing that isn't a part of evolution and tell us that can't be observed so everything is false or you demand evidence for something that's not part of evolution. Like the "transitional fossil" nonsense. We show you a transitional fossil and you want a transitional that can't ever have existed. Or you want one between the ones we just showed you.

Your agenda is simple. Refuse to accept anything that doesn't confirm the Bible and God. Period. Except for one tiny little thing. The universe. If, as you say, your god created it then it's the evidence your god left behind of his creation, right? Why would it lie?

 

[Phred]

Can you prove evolution?

Yes.