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.
Yep, that happens. And when it does, they are violating Jesus' commandments, unless the person is a member of the church.No - they will force you to conform or be subject to discrimination at the very least.
I think you worship science way too much. It is a useful tool, but remember, we are modern in our understanding and knowledge. And at their time, ALL scientists were "modern" in their understanding and knowledge.Providing one approaches biology and biochemistry as a non-biologist, non-biochemist, and one who ascribes that they do not understand to their preferred deity.
Argument from observation, which is a part of the scientific method.Yes.
Not even close.
Show this.
Argument from awe?
I no longer respect your opinion on this subject.How?
How is 'complexity' evidence of 'design'?
Jesus used simple parables quite effectively. I use analogies quite effectively. I know. I use them in my line of work going on 35 years now. People rave about them. The people that don't like them always have the following two attributes:Absurd analogy.
NO biologist would ever consider that a spacecraft 'evolved.'
Why do so many creationists rely on these simple-minded, silly "analogies" that no sensible person accepts as valid?
Argument from awe.
The papers don't consider that data as evidence against evolution.
Which is the opposite of considering it evidence against evolution. Violation of nested hierarchies, would be evidence against evolution.
I like the way that you lumped all three into one grand stereotype.Jesus used simple parables quite effectively. I use analogies quite effectively. I know. I use them in my line of work going on 35 years now. People rave about them. The people that don't like them always have the following two attributes:
1. They are on the internet.
2. They simply do not agree with the point I'm trying to make with the analogy.
I've gotten quite used to that response when dealing with leftists, AGW proponents and evolution True Believers. It is to be expected.
This is a Christian forum site. If I want to get into this stuff I don't do it here.
It's not a stereotype. It is an axiom.I like the way that you lumped all three into one grand stereotype.
Yes. I agree. I'm new here and getting a feel for the other members and what and how they want to discuss this stuff. I actually had no intention of going beyond the specifically Christian threads and just threw something in here and got intellectually sucked in.No problem. However, if you're not prepared to offer any evidence for your assertions they just sound like empty rhetoric and not in the least convincing.
Depends on how you define "minimal feather", I suppose.this is another interesting question. how many mutations required to evolve a minimal feather from a scale?
Somewhat. If we genetically sequenced every bird and every organism that has scales, we could figure out the minimum amount of mutations between scales and modern feathers. However, it is uncertain if any modern bird has what would be considered "minimal feathers", so it'd err on the high side for mutation.someone can test such a change?
-_- why would all the genes pertaining to feathers need to be near each other? Generally speaking, it is exceedingly uncommon for all the genes relating to a specific function or structure to be physically close together in the genome. Not uncommon for a few to be by each other, mind you, but very uncommon for them all to be close together.even if we are talking about a single gene (actually much more) we are dealing with about 4^1000 different possible combinations. so what is the chance that those 2 traits are near each other in that huge sequence space?
And that matters how?Yep, that happens. And when it does, they are violating Jesus' commandments, unless the person is a member of the church.
Och, aye laddie. No true scotsmen, they.And that matters how?
The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work. Look at the moves the current administration is making...
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."
"“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”."
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about in that last paragraph. Regarding the first one, I was responding to your post. You are the one it seemed to matter to.And that matters how?
The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work. Look at the moves the current administration is making...
Yes. I agree. I'm new here and getting a feel for the other members and what and how they want to discuss this stuff. I actually had no intention of going beyond the specifically Christian threads and just threw something in here and got intellectually sucked in.
I intentionally avoid the political stuff too, but that is my REAL weakness, so it was easier to avoid. You guys have fun!
Absolutely. Though it is not a comfort issue. It is a time management issue.Well, on this part of the site, you will be asked to provide evidence for your claims and people with give rebuttals to the same. If this is uncomfortable, maybe another part of the site is better suited for you.
can you give a specific empirical evidence for evolution (not variation)? thanks.
creation (i dont speak about the bible now but any creation event in general) is base on scientific evidence, as you can see here:
the self replicating watch argument
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about in that last paragraph. Regarding the first one, I was responding to your post. You are the one it seemed to matter to.
Christians are specifically told to not hang around members who do stuff like get drunk, sleep around, etc. But they are NOT to apply that to the world outside the church. Paul is very specific in I Cor 5:
9 When I wrote to you before I said not to mix with evil people. 10 But when I said that I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who live in sexual sin or are greedy cheats and thieves and idol worshipers. For you can’t live in this world without being with people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to keep company with anyone who claims to be a brother Christian but indulges in sexual sins, or is greedy, or is a swindler, or worships idols, or is a drunkard, or abusive. Don’t even eat lunch with such a person.
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?