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.
And you have no evidence that it can't. I can freely admit that it may have been designed, but you are in a position to have to prove that it must have been designed.but you have no evidence that a genome can evolve naturally.
No. We do.but you have no evidence that a genome can evolve naturally.
humans also designed genomes. so by this criteria we need to conclude that a genome is the result of design?
Not really, because creation was a long time ago. They imagine some desolate primordial world, where there was no animals or man. They just can't and don't actually cover the time.
If you do not consider evolution, cosmology and all origin 'sciences' science, fine. They are part of what most consider science.Then "they" aren't having an issue with science. They have an issue with a specific area of study. That is not what you said "they" say.
Oh. Ok. So long as they study the current state of creation on and near earth...fine. That would not include the origin sciences.I meant the whole world as the creation, not the origin of it all.
Not really. Both are designed wonderfully. Yet differently. The commonality is that they are fearfully and wonderfully made...not that they are made the same.Remember:
"Humans build dams."
"Beavers build dams."
Therefore:
"Beavers are actually tiny humans."
You logic is obviously flawed.
So what? That is just passing what it was created with.No. We do.
Every animal in the wild has a genome that it can pass slightly changed to its offspring.
No. Creation shouts out that it was designed. All we need to do is stop ignoring it.And you have no evidence that it can't. I can freely admit that it may have been designed, but you are in a position to have to prove that it must have been designed.
What part of "slightly changed" don't you understand?So what? That is just passing what it was created with.
Wait, what?No. Creation shouts out that it was designed. All we need to do is stop ignoring it.
What if they want to study last Tuesday? That is no longer current. Are forensic scientists out also? Anybody who examines the crime scene based on scientific evidence is not fine and needs to be excluded from science?Oh. Ok. So long as they study the current state of creation on and near earth...fine. That would not include the origin sciences.
Not really. Both are designed wonderfully. Yet differently. The commonality is that they are fearfully and wonderfully made...not that they are made the same.
You are just saying that. You don't have evidence, just a gut feeling that your reading of the Bible makes all your intuitions correct.Not really. Both are designed wonderfully. Yet differently. The commonality is that they are fearfully and wonderfully made...not that they are made the same.
But it changes. We have mutations and random selectionsSo what? That is just passing what it was created with.
When I read this comment I honestly assumed it was an atheist being unkind to Christians.Christian: "The wrath of God is falling on mankind, as prophecied!"
Scientist: "Don't bother me, I'm studying a new microscopic biological community in this polluted lake water."
My beaver comments are to point out the flaws in xianghua's logic.Beavers are cool. They are actually designed to do what they do.
That is an example of bad logic.
Just because humans have created biological compounds does not necessarily mean that all biological compounds are made by humans.
I hope you can see that point.
its actually very simple. if the antibiotic target is say a ribosome (the complex that make a peptide bond) all we need is a simple mutation on the ribosome to change its structure a bit and then the antibiotic will no longer can bind to the ribosome (the result- a bacteria that cant be effected by the antibiotic). of course that this step need at least several generations till the bacteria get the correct mutation.So you think that bacteria simply "choose" to be killed by various antibiotics until they get tired of it and decide to use systems they have there all along?
So now you need to explain to me why any bacteria would "choose" to die due to poisoning if they can easily just NOT die.
that was actually your criteria: "How, exactly, do you know this? (Hint: because humans make robots. We design them."
its actually very simple. if the antibiotic target is say a ribosome (the complex that make a peptide bond) all we need is a simple mutation on the ribosome to change its structure a bit and then the antibiotic will no longer can bind to the ribosome
(the result- a bacteria that cant be effected by the antibiotic). of course that this step need at least several generations till the bacteria get the correct mutation.
Wait, what?
Cancer, maleria, starvation, and mosquitoes shout that it was all designed?
I would have thought otherwise.
true. but we never seen a creature that evolve into a different kind of creature. so we never seen a genome (which contain many genes) that evolved by a natural process.No. We do.
Every animal in the wild has a genome that it can pass slightly changed to its offspring.
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?