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.
I'm sorry, but you're entirely too irrational to talk to. I'm not going to believe for one second that you're that stupid.
The fool is the one who accept what someone says with no supporting evidence. To date you have not offered one bit of evidence for you you accept by faith alone.
If you want to continue this discussion, present some evidence you accept. Stare with the evidence Collins offered. So far all you have done is blow smoke.
I am not going to continue this discussion unless you start offering some evidence for what you or others say.
-_-
really? You do understand that Time is an intrinsic property of this universe, right? Time started when this Universe started, therefore the entire concept of 'Before' the big bang is a non-sensical one. To even talk about 'before' this universe is to broadcast your complete ignorance of our fundamental understanding of the cosmology that underpins it.
I see what you are saying. In what I've read and listened to on the website we are talking about they appear to be Biblical Creationists and use ID as a point as to why the Bible is correct in it's teachings and why evolution as not.
Another name for God is "The Judges". In order to Judge, one MUST have the highest intelligence in Creation. Lord God is saying that man/Adam has become like one of the Trinity. Those who have inherited Adam's superior intelligence over ANY other living creature have also received the Free Choice to believe God or Not. Adam's/mankind's destiny is to have dominion or rule over EVERY living creature including Angels. That is WHY we have the highest intelligence in Creation.
False, since prehistoric people were on planet Earth for Millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived bringing the first Humans (descendants of Adam) to this Earth. Their bones are found for Millions of years before the Ark arrived 11k years ago.
Infinite in Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit." This is actually a negative meaning God has no limit, no restrictions. Otherwise we are looking at all of the ages. God knows the end from the beginning. You have to have an end before you can have a beginning and every beginning has an end. Infinity is a Greek term and in the Bible it means all of the ages. But there is still a beginning and an end to time. So infinity for God means he is outside of time and has none of the restrictions of time that the universe has.
Gerold Schroeder talks about when time grabbed a hold of the universe.
It only points out that the evidence suggests there is an Intelligent Designer.
If so, then logic dictates that THAT something has to have something external to IT. No?
By this I presume you are hinting at Dembski's CSI?
It serves no intended purpose. The car key on the other hand aligns the pins in my cars starter lock to unlock it and allows me to start my car. That my friend is specificity.
Remember when I raised the point (much) earlier about 'keys' that are designed to not actually open any locks? You can't necessarily use functional appearance to determine human design and manufacture.
Unfortunately the context reinforces the quote. I can't post links on my phone, but there are several places in the book where he questions the role of mutations in evolution. But as a neo-Lamarkian that's to be expected.How do I know, you won't provide the context, which is all important as we've seen by the way Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye has been abused by shady creationists.
I do find it strange though as Grasse accepted evolution.
I go by NASA, when they screw up people die. If you need surgery who do you go to?
Do you understand the definition of "infinite?" If it is something or someone that is infinite then it/He requires no beginning.
No I consider Dembski's CSI to be flat wrong.
Specificity by definition is anything that an observer can see was formed for a specific use or purpose.
If we compare the pattern of a snow flake to the one in a car key we find the snow flake wins in complexity hands down. However the pattern of a snow flake doesn't do anything specific. It serves no intended purpose. The car key on the other hand aligns the pins in my cars starter lock to unlock it and allows me to start my car. That my friend is specificity. And it has only been observed originating from intelligent sources...period.
So much so that other sciences use specificity all the time for detecting intelligence.
Yes, because they know what to look for in terms of markings and such - made by humans.Archaeologists use it to identify actual artifacts at a dig site from naturally occurring objects.
Marine biologists use it to identify specific sound patterns made by dolphins and have concluded that they actually have a sophisticated language.
Even SETI uses it to look for specific radio or light bursts coming from deep space which they say would indicate an intelligent source.
Go ahead, this will be entertaining.
Yes it is very easy. None of that research resulted in a change of the species.The only 'assumptions' are those that even creationists admit are true - mutations happen; some mutations are heritable; patterns of shared inherited mutations are indicative of parent-offspring/ancestor-descendant relationships.
rs had blown it all off claiming 'yes mutations happen... blah blah blah', totally missing the implication.
The implication is that since these methods can reproduce known relationships, then using these methods on unknown relationships and accepting the conclusions is warranted.
Unfortunately the context reinforces the quote. I can't post links on my phone, but there are several places in the book where he questions the role of mutations in evolution. But as a neo-Lamarkian that's to be expected.
So then we should consider footnotes to be a mandatory part of posting? Is there a difference between implied plagiarism and blatant plagiarism? Every reference to any source should be documented in posts?
Most of the discoveries made by science in the last 50 years refute evolution. Fundie evolutionist try to use similar DNA to support common descent. However DNA separates species, not links them.
DNA will show you and I are not biologically related, but that we are the same species. It will also show we are not related to apes.
I would seriously lighten the standards of 'Plagiarism' inside of a forum.
Should we seriously be footnoting our posts now? Our posts already get too long too quick. @Uber Genius isn't writing any articles here. I actually at one point started making side comments in my posts if I was getting a point out of this book or that book, but then I kept getting the feeling that nobody else was doing it. If someone has worded an argument perfectly, and you feel like you couldn't say it any better, and your in a forum where replies are coming in fast, I don't see the problem.
...
Some posters in here are cut & paste maniacs, if what they are cutting & pasting makes sense I don't care who's brainchild it is. Give me the best technical points in this forum please, I don't need originality points.
Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.
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?