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.
Which words that I used are confusing to you?What do you mean by that?
Which words that I used are confusing to you?
What you meant by your words.
"
That doesn't pose a problem from the theistic evolutionist standpoint."
Theistic evolution doesn't view what he described as a problem of any kind. It explains it in an evolutionist way but sees an intelligent designer behind it.
Theistic evolution doesn't view what he described as a problem of any kind. It explains it in an evolutionist way but sees an intelligent designer behind it.
Theistic evolution has no problem with that.What is your view on those articles about a hair color?
Theistic evolution has no problem with that.
From a bibical standpoint, how do you explain or interpert that article and its topic?
Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin: eumelanin and pheomelanin. Generally, if more eumelanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less eumelanin is present, the hair is lighter. Levels of melanin can vary over time causing a person's hair color to change, and it is possible to have hair follicles of more than one color on the same person. Both of these proteins don't form blue, green! while yellow(Blond) and red is possible!
https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-human-hair-naturally-blue-green-red-or-yellow
You mean this?
That's the way the intelligent designer made things.
The specific reason is that's the way that the intelligent designer wanted it to be.Do you think it's just the way things are or there's a specific reason?
How does it apply?Does this remind you of 1 Corinthians 14:40?
The specific reason is that's the way that the intelligent designer wanted it to be.
Justifiable inference.How on earth have you figured out what the supposed designer wants or that he even has wants and needs?
<staff edit>
Behe clearly states that the flagellum is evidence for intelligent design because the flagellum could not have evolved.
Do you agree with Behe or not?
Justifiable inference.
BWE
I didn't say that the ID is a he, or her, or it-YOU did.
You have not demonstrated that your inference is justified. I don't see the connection from "This looks designed to me - therefore I know what the designer wants". What about when the designer is not a being? Can something without a mind have wants and needs?
ID doesn't delve into those minute details.
All that ID does is to propose an organizing mind evident in nature
Of course I recognize your right to simply dismiss the whole display by saying simply that the chemicals did it. But since I personally find your explanation of mindless genious unsatisfactory, I cannot.
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?