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.
No, ToE does not know the first man came from. That's why. unlike religious beliefs, scientific research continues.
Sorry but I can't get past this statement. Where do you get this "day/age" notion from? Specially since the Bible makes it crystal undeniably clear that the creation week was 6 literal 24 hour days not day ages.
The Hebrew word translated day here is yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. It is almost always associated with an actual 24 hour day and in every single case where it is modified with a number it does in fact mean a literal 24 hour period. It is found this way 359 times. So why would Genesis 1 be any exception?
Can yom mean a long period of time? Absolutely it can. So context is everything. In Genesis 1 Moses had several other words he could have used to mean long periods of time if that was what he was trying to convey. However he used the one and only Hebrew word that can mean a literal 24 hour day. He also carefully couched this word in the phrase "evening and morning" which he knew we would associate with a literal 24 hour day. And in case we were still a little fuzzy on what he meant, when he wrote down the ten commandments in Ex.20:8-11 he told them that in six days God worked and rested on the seventh and so they were to do likewise. Obviously he didn't mean the Jews were only to rest every 7 day/ages.
Nope.After the kind is proved thousands of times every day. That refutes evolution.
DNA does not link species, it separated them into their exact species.
Our DNA will show we are not related biologically but that we are the same species.
What is a silent mutation? How does it provide the means for a change of species? The only tenable truth is that evolution is genetically impossible.
That simply isn't true.
9 years of college and ~20 years teaching it are, I think, enough.Take your won advice.
Talk is cheap. Provide your evidence. Just make sure it is scientific and can be verified.
Right, the point being that intention (design) cannot be directly detected. What is detected is evidence of intentional manufacture. For example, if I go camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer--but you would not be able to find it after I moved on. Even if I shaped it a little for the purpose by banging it against another rock you would be hard-pressed to find it after I moved on. Ask any paleontologist who tries to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for is not evidence of purpose, but evidence of manufacture--production by non-natural forces. Consequently, when presented with an object or phenomenon we can reach only two conclusions: we know it was designed, or we don't know whether it was designed or not.
You had made a similar remark about the 'specificity' of a key being designed to fit a lock. I pointed out that there are many key-like objects not built to actually fit locks: props, jewelry, etc.
I also remember asking if an object can lose its specificity. For example, if a key is built to fit a specific lock, does the key lose its specificity if the lock is destroyed? Is the specificity of a key dependent on the lock?
Exactly so. If we observed a rock behaving in that way we could reasonably assume that there was intention. The problem with ID is that, in effect, they want to assume intention just by observing the rock lying there. Again, the point is this: design can be inferred under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances it cannot. Denying the validity of ID is not the same as denying the presence of design, it is only a denial that design can be inferred without the usual indications. Sometimes we can detect design, sometimes we can't; that's all. Design is purpose. It is not complexity or functionality or superficial resemblance to objects known to be designed. If we can determine that an object is produced by intention, we can infer design. Sometimes we cannot reasonably so infer--but even then design cannot be ruled out.You are only touching on one aspect of specificity. Truly something which an observer could tell was manufactured by non natural forces would be specificity however there are other aspects to this. For example when marine biologists observe those dolphins make certain sound patterns which correlate with certain behaviors they can be certain they are observing an intelligent language...even though they do not understand it. Your rock hammer example would be observed specificity if an observer could witness your use of the rock in action and understand what you were intending to do with it. So besides the manufacture of something it is the actual use or function that is specified. We would never see a rock lifted by natural wind forces and pounded back down by gravity perfectly on the head of eight to ten tent stakes around a tent in such a way as to drive them into the ground and hold the tent down but cause no harm to the tent. So just because we (the later observer) couldn't pick the rock out of a line up to save our life later, doesn't mean that the one was not used at one point for a very specific purpose.
And that gets us back to the issue: scientists believe they have identified a competent natural mechanism for producing that code.Sometimes we observe "manufacture" where we don't expect it and this is what gets atheists really flustered. For example the arrangement of the code in DNA creates an incredibly intricate and code that is highly specified. It warps our most sophisticated software programs by comparison. It is called by some scientists the language of life. Though today we are merely seeing copies of copies of copies hundreds of times over, there is simply no way to logically account for the originals apart from an intelligent source.
Once again in what reality do we ever see a complex thing and say it was not designed? No complex thing is ever not designed. Every complex thing has a design and the design is built for a purpose for the thing to exist and function. Yet we can look at the most complex thing in existence as we know it and suddenly see no design? It is a purposeful failure to see reality. Like I said, Paul told us it would happen.Design is purpose. Complexity is not design; functionality is not design. Design is purpose. I am a believer; I believe that the universe embodies God's purpose. In that sense, everything that exists is "designed." But design cannot be directly detected in an object. It is an unfalsifiable proposition and cannot be tested for.
The problem with ID is that it is an attempt to demonstrate the presence of design directly, by falsely conflating design with functionality so that the existence of God may be forced onto non-believers in aid of a political agenda.
In this one. We look at a complex thing and say, "are there any signs of intentional manufacture?" If, not, we can't tell if the object was designed. Notice, there can be no claim that it was not designed, only that we can't tell.Once again in what reality do we ever see a complex thing and say it was not designed? No complex thing is ever not designed. Every complex thing has a design and the design is built for a purpose for the thing to exist and function. Yet we can look at the most complex thing in existence as we know it and suddenly see no design? It is a purposeful failure to see reality. Like I said, Paul told us it would happen.
What God? Also, you do know we experience the actual effects of relativity (i.e. different things at different locales, velocities and distances) Otherwise GPS for one thing, wouldn't work. I think you conflate "man made" with the label we give something we observe. Do you understand that time, space and matter as we understand it came into being at the beginning of this universe? Do you also understand we have observations all over that time does indeed tick over at different rates relative to the observer? Do you understand why a black holes are not visible to us?
Exactly so. If we observed a rock behaving in that way we could reasonably assume that there was intention. The problem with ID is that, in effect, they want to assume intention just by observing the rock lying there. Again, the point is this: design can be inferred under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances it cannot. Denying the validity of ID is not the same as denying the presence of design, it is only a denial that design can be inferred without the usual indications. Sometimes we can detect design, sometimes we can't; that's all. Design is purpose. It is not complexity or functionality or superficial resemblance to objects known to be designed. If we can determine that an object is produced by intention, we can infer design. Sometimes we cannot reasonably so infer--but even then design cannot be ruled out.
And that gets us back to the issue: scientists believe they have identified a competent natural mechanism for producing that code.
Uh, no, that is not all that is really said in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
The one page you quoted from shows that all life has the same basic structures for basic functions, indicating a common source. You might argue that common source is a common creator, but then why do creatures not share other things in common? For instance, Cytochrome C is a common protein in animals, but there are many different codes for making this protein. The closer animals are together in the evolutionary tree, the closer their codes are for making this protein. If a common creator used the exact same basic structures for all life, why would he not use the exact same structures for making Cytochrome C?
This difference is expected with evolution. Basic structures cannot change without radically reworking the organism, so they remained constant with time. Protein coding could change with evolution, so it did. Evolution would expect basic codes to remain the same, but coding for things like proteins to change with time. This is what we find.
Creationism would predict the creator uses the same basic structures, and the same coding for proteins that is known to work. This is not what we find.
If all creatures were being created from scratch, then a creator could have easily used different basic structure for each creature, just like he used different coding for proteins. But no creator did that. Instead the basic structures remain constant, while the protein coding varies.
Do you have any way of explaining this from Creationism?
How do you know? I thought the cambrian explosion was fast evolution. Couldn't the cat have been the same. And by the way, please show the evolution of a cat all the way back to it's ancestor please.How many millions of years will you give me to do the demo? Cat evolution took a long time.
I have quit reading evo links. The never provide any evidence for what the say. Without reading your link, I will say it offers no scientific evidence for what they say. Cut and paste the evidence they offered and prove me wrong.
I think we agree on the deceit involved as a student, but disagree towards the seriousness of posting. I actually talked about this with another member that there are Christians in here who don't view it as trying to win an argument as much as thinking about the non-participants reading along. They might feel like if they can't say it any better that it's best to post the most articulate way of saying something possibly. Keep in mind that conversion is the ideal scenario for a lot of Christians. But I do agree with you that you should however 100% understand the material that you are posting from your 'Hero.'Probably because you don't get what is behind the act of plagiarism.
Remember Monica Crowley? Fox News darling, Trump lover. Was pegged to be an advisor of some kind for Trump, citing her 'expertise' due to her having received a PhD. Then someone scanned her dissertation and found that she had plagiarized a bunch. tsk tsk tsk. No longer a Trump advisor.
I sit on a college honor committee. Students suspected of cheating or plagiarism come to this committee. If we find them guilty, they go before a student honor committee.
Students plagiarize for 3 main reasons in my experience - they procrastinated to the point that, out of desperation, they copy-paste from the internet or a friend; they start out trying to do the work themselves, they soon discover they are in over their head and copy-paste; they want to try to impress their instructor, but realize that their own writing is falling short of their desires, so they copy-paste.
And if we find the accused guilty, the student honor committee generally fries them - even students realize how sleazy plagiarism is.
That is why it annoys me so much in discussions like this - it is lazy and dishonest and is often used to try to 'impress' those that that the plagiarist suspects will not know any better.
What discussion?
It was presented as a major 'gotcha' - Uber simply assumes that whatever his heroes wrote is 100% true and accurate - did you not see his lead-in posts? Taunting and condescending?
"You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.
Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps. [sic] "
and
"So you are unfamiliar with the findings since the late 1980s and respond with "50 million years seems like a long tme [sic] to me."
30-seconds of research is all I ask. Not even one college class. It's so simple.
Think we are way past opps [sic] here. "
And that one was, in fact, to this comment - from me:
"How so?
Do you not think 50 million years is along time?
Are you ignoring the Precambiran on purpose?
Oops..."
And then out came the plagiarism.
Why waste time with a plagiarizer?
Especially one that should 1. know better and 2. tries to justify it?
Where was his move to explain why the plagiarized material was so important? Why did he ignore the actual citations I provided showing that HIS source was behind the times?
Why the double standards?
False, since God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or In Christ Spiritually today.
No, only that design can be proven in the absence of evidence of intentional manufacture. You and I are believers. In common with all other believers--including scientists who are believers--we understand that everything in the universe is designed, that is, everything is infused with divine Telos. We believe this is true of everything, even those objects and phenomena which have "natural" causes. But, like the existence of God, that is an unfalsifiable proposition, which science cannot deny.And those same scientists do not adhere to reality. ID is the only reality based understanding of the complex system of life. You may look at a single stone and not see a purpose for that stone. And maybe for the single stone there is none. But we are not talking about a single stone. We are talking about a planet and life. The purpose of stone. It's the foundation of land and mountains which effect the winds and water flowing through the land. There is much more to a stone. There is a purpose to water, to stone, to all things. I may not readily be able to identify a specific purpose now, but that only shows my inability or lack of understanding. Like I said, ID, points to the design of all things and the complexity of life. It's only thing that fits reality. In all other cases we recognize the purpose and design of things, but for some reason some refuse to acknowledge the most complex system of all as designed.
So you don't believe the Bible then? Okay then let me tell you about the God of the Bible which is easily demonstrated to be divinely inspired rather than human in origin. He tells us He created us to have relationship with Him and finished with all of His creation and rested from all work on the 7th day.
Adam sinned by yielding to the deception of the serpent who was the devil, and sin and death entered into the world. But God predicted that a Savior would come, born of the seed of the woman, who would crush the head of the serpent but receive wounds in the process.
Later other prophecies came telling us of this Savior saying He would be born of the Jewish lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He would be born of a virgin mother, and born in the town of Bethlehem. He was given called by the Jewish term "Messiah" which is translated in Greek as "Christ." This means that the first true "Christ-ians" were Adam and Eve because they demonstrated their faith in the predicted Christ to come. Christianity is not the newest kid on the block it is actually the oldest of all faiths.
The prophets said that the Christ would begin His ministry on the shores of Galilee. They predicted that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. They prophesied He would be treated like a common criminal. That His hands would be pierced through, that He would be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities and by His stripes we would be healed. These are all prophecies concerning the crucifixion that the Christ would endure to atone for our sin. All who would trust in the work done on the cross, rather looking forward to it as in Abraham's day, or looking back to it as in ours, would be accounted as righteous in God's sight. As sinners saved only by God's grace we are now being conformed daily to His image, but we are NOT being "created." Not in the sense of the creation of Adam and Eve. We are being conformed...big diff. Us who are in Christ will one day be resurrected and our bodies transformed to be like Him, but still not "created."
not realy. the hand in both a watch and a compass is used for a different function. but it doesnt mean that we have a stepwise way from a compass into a watch:Here are two examples of evolution repurposing something existing for a new function:
Reuse, recycle, repurpose …. how evolution makes do.
How evolution repurposed a bone gene for brain development | November 10, 2016 Issue - Vol. 94 Issue 45 | Chemical & Engineering News
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?