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.
Right so man made objects have purpose, but God made objects don't?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.
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.Right so man made objects have purpose, but God made objects don't?
You made that false accusation once in your post; no need to repeat it.You would infer man created things have purpose, but God created things don't?
I believe through faith that "God created things" have a purpose, not through science.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.
You have to decide which one you want to talk about. Function can be observed; purpose can only be inferred.Both. Because things are designed with purpose and function. Such as a door or window in a house or a motor in a car.
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.
Really? You're going to try to argue that retroviral insertions aren't insertions at all?
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?
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)?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
and they are still not random as speedwell claimed. and not for free you add quotation marks.
why not? can you falsify this 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".
When you agree there is common design then you are required to consider who the designer is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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'?
Perhaps part of the problem comes from thinking of yourselves as the only "true" Christians rather than just another branch of a diverse Christendom.We remember that the true Christians were cast out of the early church, and it seems be happening here as well.
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.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.
Yes.Can you prove evolution?
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?