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.
Nope. I'm gonna bow out for now on this subject.Which still has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution.
So again, are you going trying to win an award for the most number of non sequiturs in a thread?
God.The origin of DNA is the origin of life.
its also true according to science:Creationism must have such explanatory power as well as it can also answer this question.
The Chicken, because it was created fully formed and already capable of reproducing it's own kind.
From the scientific theory of evolution POV, yes, the egg came first. From the creationist POV, the chicken came first.Only if you arbitrarily factor deep time into the equation.
If you get a scientist to say anything concrete, then "reverse engineer" his mindset, he will eventually say something wrong.and guess who is correct?
If you get a scientist to say anything concrete, then "reverse engineer" his mindset, he will eventually say something wrong.
Scientist: The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen.
Creationist: Where did the atmosphere come from?
Scientist: Outer space.
Scientist: The moon is full tonight.
Creationist: Where did the moon come from?
Scientist: [One of about ten different answers ... all wrong.]
Mathematics, of course, would be an exception.
Either that, or all it shows is that there was a first chicken."A study into how chicken eggs are formed discovered that a protein found in the chicken's ovaries, ovocledidin-17, is vital for shell production. According to the researchers, this means the chicken must have come first"
-_- you do know that abortion rates have drastically decreased in recent years without any changes to the legislation related to abortion, right? Plus, there were a lot of deaths happening due to botched abortions before it was legalized; you aren't saving any lives or souls by making it illegal. Heck, you aren't a catholic, so I don't even understand why you have a problem with it. From your perspective, all those involved in the procedure can still attain salvation, and the souls of the unborn aren't destroyed or sent to hell. That's why I've said before that if I was a believer, I'd want to be an abortion doctor, because I'd save more souls by killing the unborn than I would by preaching. Dark, but true.Nope. I'm gonna bow out for now on this subject.
But I'll reiterate:
Thanks to science, abortions occur without conviction.
But then you would be a murderer. It would be like saying a 5 year old will go to Heaven if you murder it so you'd be doing the kid a favor. A child that weighs less than a pound can suvive outside the womb. If you kill it while it is hooked up to the machine you'd go to jail for murder. Do you really think that killing a baby inside the womb that weighs four times as much is not murder?-_- you do know that abortion rates have drastically decreased in recent years without any changes to the legislation related to abortion, right? Plus, there were a lot of deaths happening due to botched abortions before it was legalized; you aren't saving any lives or souls by making it illegal. Heck, you aren't a catholic, so I don't even understand why you have a problem with it. From your perspective, all those involved in the procedure can still attain salvation, and the souls of the unborn aren't destroyed or sent to hell. That's why I've said before that if I was a believer, I'd want to be an abortion doctor, because I'd save more souls by killing the unborn than I would by preaching. Dark, but true.
Also, the decision to legalize abortion was a political move, not a scientific one. After all, from a scientific prospective, an embryo is definitely alive, albeit not capable of living independently. The legal definition of life is drastically different from the scientific definition. It's no wonder that plenty of atheists are prolife.
I dont really think evolution has that great an explanatory power. It can make claims about the egg coming first but it cannot explain how that happened. Natural selection is not an all powerful creative process that can make the impossible happen. It is good at explaining the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Even then there is a lot that is assumed about its ability.Isn't it true that the scientific theory of evolution has such explanatory power that it can finally answer the question: what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Which is clear the egg, because the ancestors of the chicken were laying eggs eons before there ever were any chickens. So, eggs had a long time to wait before their contents were chickens.
its also true according to science:
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? – Scientific Scribbles
". This is the reason chickens form shell (6g per 24h) faster than any other species. Therefore according to this research an egg can only form if it has been inside a chicken."
I dont really think evolution has that great an explanatory power. It can make claims about the egg coming first but it cannot explain how that happened. Natural selection is not an all powerful creative process that can make the impossible happen. It is good at explaining the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Even then there is a lot that is assumed about its ability.
Besides the analogy is silly. The concept of what came first the chicken or the egg is not just about the chicken. It is about the symbolic egg and creature that can lay eggs. So even the ancestors of the chicken need to be included in that analogy. Going right back to the beginning how can a creature lay an egg without a reproductive system that can produce an egg.
A terrible designer then, considering the number of genetic defects that cause not only spontaneous abortions but untold suffering for living children through a large number of horrible genetic disorders and diseases.God.
Those came as a result of the Fall.A terrible designer then, considering the number of genetic defects that cause not only spontaneous abortions but untold suffering for living children through a large number of horrible genetic disorders and diseases.
And what if God gave us Charles Darwin to find a cure for cancer?Gabbleduck said:And those of us that do survive to an older age, thanks to modern medicine the days, are quite likely to die of another flaw created by this deity you think designed DNA, cancer.
And what if God gave us Charles Darwin to find a cure for cancer?
He abandoned his studies and his family for a cruise, then brought home a communicable disease.
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?