Almost there
Well-Known Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 3,571
- 1,152
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
Facts drive my opinions. attitudes about specific events will then followAttitudes, typically drive opinions.
Facts drive my opinions. attitudes about specific events will then follow
You are correct. After I posted I thought that what I should have said was "facts, as I interpret them", but I had to go to a meeting.No facts dont drive everyones opinions and human psychology bears this out.
I hit a pedestrian about 12 years ago with my car. I was driving past a long row of cars parked in the left turn lane waiting for a light to change. the guy darted out from that line of cars right in front of me. I didn't even have a chance to hit the brakes.No facts dont drive everyones opinions and human psychology bears this out. In some folks, facts are too painful to acknowledge, so they must manufacture their own personal reality (typically void of facts) to protect their beliefs. In other folks, it is too painful to have to deny facts, and play psychological gymnastics with themselves and they acknowledge facts.
Lastly, if established facts (that can be verified) drove the opinions of all, everyone would agree on most issues. Clearly, this is not the case.
I don't who wrote what you have attributed to me, but it wasn't me.so if i will test about several genes\proteins and check their phylogeny, i will get the same tree by another several genes\proteins? is that your prediction? if not: where is the limit that you will agree that those genes point to an independent design?
I hit a pedestrian about 12 years ago with my car. I was driving past a long row of cars parked in the left turn lane waiting for a light to change. the guy darted out from that line of cars right in front of me. I didn't even have a chance to hit the brakes.
My mind "interpreted" the facts with two questions:
1. How did that guy get out of his car without opening his door?
2. How did he get out of his car on a dead run?
Of course, immediately afterward I realized what happened, and my opinion lined up with the "actual" facts.
I'm a pretty binary thinker - aka black and white thinker. Most people consider it a negative. But in my job in IT it is very much a positive. It makes it very easy to identify in and out of scope issues. It makes it easy to see when a meeting is going off the rails. It also makes it very easy for me to see facts and change my opinion when new facts present themselves.
I do it a lot more than most people. In fact, it becomes a challenge when, though we were all in agreement before, when a new fact presents itself that forces me to change my mind I can have a real challenge making the case for everyone else that they need to come along with me. This is why I use white boards and "bench test" theories, designs, etc. so much.
Nobody's perfect, but I have found that my opinions stick to the facts much more than most of the people I know. And it is largely because of my weakness: I'm a binary thinker. Everything is "if, then, else" for me.
One of the interesting results is that I've found that whether one comes from an ID paradigm or an evolutionary paradigm, both will serve them well regarding interpreting the makeup of DNA, usually for the most part. And in a true sense, if it WAS DESIGNED and we are witnessing permanent positive results from mutations, we can at least speculate that this may have happened in the past.
What we can't say is that it "has happened" in the past.
You are correct. After I posted I thought that what I should have said was "facts, as I interpret them", but I had to go to a meeting.
When I need to walk across the street and it starts raining, it causes me to form the opinion that I need to get my umbrella. But it is based on my interpretation of the facts: It will keep raining until I get to my destination and I'll get wet if I don't get an umbrella.
It was addressing the issue of the brain misunderstanding or misinterpreting facts. And it was an anecdotal example of exactly that.Completely irrelevent.
Yes, really, you simply refuse to accept emperical observation of how new forms arise.
Not as interesting as implying that a Chinese myth that does not mention ANYTHING but a flood somehow props up a middle eastern tall tale. Interesting. Sort of like if I were to present Lamarck's claims regarding acquired characteristics in support of Darwinian evolution.Interesting. Usually they argue against biblical accounts and what supporting evidence ffrom other sources. Then when given other sources complain its not from the Bible. interesting.
Not as interesting as your inability to explain whee the Asian and the African came from in the first place, seeing as how if we are to accept the bible tales, the first humans were basically Arabs.Then how do you propose 'new races' came to be?
You refuse to say or provide any evidence.
You say an Asian and an African mating becomes an Afro-Asian - great!
You answered the question. You propose mutation when no new race has been observed to come about except by mating, regardless oif mutations at every birth. Interesting.
WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN ALL HUMANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR MYTHS, AROSE FROM A CLONED INBREEDING PAIR WITH 'PERFECT' GENOMES??????
Hmm, interesting. Where did you get the idea of cloned?
Clearly God took half the chromosomes from that perfect genome and used it to create the woman.
So where did God get the other half from to make Eve? interesting. Interesting - the tangled webs of internal contradiction the creationist weaves.You know, half the chromosomes from the male, half from the female, make one flesh?
And where did Africans come from in your bible-based beliefs?
EXPLAIN how we got the "allies" associated with being African from a cloned inbreeding pair (Adam and Eve) without mutation.
I have, you just havent been paying attention.
Interesting.Right - the whole Asian+African=Afro-Asian.
WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????
From Noahs descendants.
So now you are arguing FOR mutations?
Whats this? Misrepresentation? Strawman nonsense? Shocking!
It is hilarious that you expend so much energy arguing AGAINST mutation-based change, and then argue FOR mutation when you are stuck.
You people are something else.
you are confused, I understand. No it is you that purposes if I randomly acquire a mutation it somehow becomes fixed in the entire population.
I propose only my descendants share that mutation. So if only my descendants share this mutation, then how do mutations in your fantasy world get fixed in the entire human population if that population doesn't come from just my descendants?
Oh that's right, the only ones are from before recorded history, from Noah and their descendants.
What appearance of evolution? Asian remains Asian. African remains African. Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff.
But you mean how a genetic engineer might splice in genes from different pea varieties, call it a new species, then evolutionists claiming it supported evolution while ignoring it supported an intelligent designer?
Have you forgotten already that Asian remains Asian despite mutations at every birth in every generation?
What does my post have to do with Trump. I've been saying this for over 15 years. And what attitude? I'm stating an opinion, not an attitude. It is an opinion on how our government should protect its citizens from hostile outside forces. It is why the Federal Government exists.
How doe one differentiate between Asian and African, since they are the same subspecies then?
No, you don't "got it". That is not who I am.So, you are one of those folks that picks and chooses which biblical teachings to ascribe to depending on the situation. Got it.
I thought you were out of here?
Or did you mean that you were just not going to open yourself up to us asking you to support your scientific claims with science?
If what you believe is nonsense, why on earth should others want it in the schools?Just as long as only what you believe is enforced on others through the school system, correct?
Because one of his sons settled in what we call Africa today, namely Ethiopia. That they may have been a mixture, the son had a wife, and then interbred specific traits to get what we see today. I expect they were neither Asian, nor African, but merely had those traits that were later fixed due to interbreeding.
False since Gen 1:21 agrees with last year's discovery that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things
It's proof of God UNLESS you can explain How ancient men knew and correctly wrote this and other scientific Truths, thousands of years before Science. It also defines the difference between Humans and Apes and totally destroys the false ToE. Amen?
Evolution says the same thing.
We have known for a long time that life originated billions of years ago in water.
Of course, if you actually read Genesis 1:21 you would see that it says nothing like your claim.
(* In practice things are admittedly a little fuzzier. For example, constructing gene phylogenies technically shows ancestral evolution of the specific gene which may not be completely in line with species divergence. As well, there are also mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer which can violate ancestral hierarchies. And of course like any statistical approach, there are going to be implicit assumptions and error margins associated with the output. All that said, we never do observe anything with respect to these reconstructions which would blatantly point to independent design.)
but according to the bible the sequence of creations is different from evolution theory. also remember that evolution is basically a natural process. so if evolution is true then we basically dont need a designer to explain nature exsitence.Evolution says the same thing. We have known for a long time that life originated billions of years ago in water. Of course, if you actually read Genesis 1:21 you would see that it says nothing like your claim.
By the way, the Theory of Evolution does not deny the existence of G-d. In fact, it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of G-d.
but according to the bible the sequence of creations is different from evolution theory.
also remember that evolution is basically a natural process. so if evolution is true then we basically don't need a designer to explain nature exsitence.
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?