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.
Because for personal reasons most dismiss the notion of a creator as a possibility before they even address the issue.
I know, right...........Of all the shallow, condescending, pathetic, self-righteous garbage I see from creationists, this sort of BS probably annoys me the most.
Easy there fella! And it's Captain Kirk, with capitals to you.
This is the Star Trek Laser Rifle:
... as it was used by Captain James R. Kirk:
Question: What powers this thing?
Give them a few billion years, monkeys and typewriters.Whenever cars start reproducing by passing along genetic material to offspring, you might begin to have an analogy.
No. That would be incorrect.David Menton reminds you of Piltdown man? well, he does have crazy eyebrows...
I take it that you accept, at face value, tales of conspiracies and intrigue churned out by your favorite creationist organizations?
Really? I've already answered that. My something is pretty much your something.
I'm done with this nonsense. You proffered two options, I demonstrated that there were more. Therefore you presented a false dichotomy.
This is a vanishingly small point. My correction of your oversight was not intended to lead to the Spanish Inquisition. The sensible thing for you to have done would have been to say, "Good point" and we could have moved on. But instead you are trying to herd cats. Ridiculous.
Unless you post something so eloquent, erudite and unexpected that stops me in my tracks, I have nothing further to say on the matter.
I was responding to this question:So, you have 'researched' (data mined?) this all on your own, yet you still imply that it was a big lie... OK...
And the model keeps changing.
When I think of evolution theory and all the changes that must be made as new discoveries are made, I'm reminded of Ptolomy.
Something else I think about when people mention evolution theory is my old 2001 Chrysler 300m. Imagine some race of beings coming to our planet a couple of million years from now, long after mankind is extinct or has left the planet a Mars-like hulk. They find my car perfectly preserved in ice or many layers of rock, etc.
Now, imagine they find a 2001 Dodge Neon from the same year, but catastrophies have placed it in a layer of rock they determine to be a million years older. As they look at the makeup of both cars, they notice that they share the same, exact door handle (they do). When analyzing the qualities of the cars and the suggested age of each, they deduce that the 300m evolved from the Neon. And to further complicate things, they later find a 2001 dodge intrepid and announce they have found the missing link!
Except what really happened was this:
1. Both cars were designed for human occupants.
2. Both cars were designed to be effectively useful for humans to transport humans and some of their stuff.
3. Both were designed for the same road conditions and environment.
4. Both were designed by the same company with the same general goals.
5. The company believed in efficiency of production and economy, and saw no reason to design two separate door handles when one design and manufacturing process was sufficient.
i.e. the similarites between species do not prove evolution. They prove design.
"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." --- Peter Gabriel (The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Genesis)
I was responding to this question:
"I take it that you accept, at face value, tales of conspiracies and intrigue churned out by your favorite creationist organizations?"
And my answer is, no, that would be incorrect.
And the model keeps changing.
When I think of evolution theory and all the changes that must be made as new discoveries are made, I'm reminded of Ptolomy.
Something else I think about when people mention evolution theory is my old 2001 Chrysler 300m. ... And to further complicate things, they later find a 2001 dodge intrepid and announce they have found the missing link!
i.e. the similarites between species do not prove evolution. They prove design.
"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." --- Peter Gabriel (The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Genesis)
Opinions vary.And amazing - ANOTHER absurd and irrelevant car analogy.
Opinions vary.
You are correct. I use them for the same reason Jesus used parables.Analogies are not evidence.
"Completely new arrangement" is so ambiguous that it could be anything from 1 base pair deletion to two chromosomes fusing. This is not a standardized scientific term.
Right. As usual, this discussion is not about theism vs atheism. It's about a Protestant minority vs everybody else, theist and atheist alike.
narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:14
What does "completely new arrangement" mean though? I ask, because DNA mutations are based on replication of prior sequences. And while something like a single nucleotide substitution can have a dramatic effect on gene function, the sequence itself may be still similar to the sequence that came prior.
which appears in part at least to be the result of novel mutations in those strains.
Selective pressures are invariably a result of environment and a "controlled" environment implies one which is artificially controlled; and thus subject to artificial selection pressure.
Whether or a not a particular mutation is known to exist beforehand or not seems somewhat irrelevant.
The word "firmament" refers to a dome above the earth. You can only have a dome above a flat earth. The notion of the earth as a sphere did not appear until long after Genesis was written, with the early Greeks.The Bible does not state the shape of the earth. As a result, I accept that it is spherical because it has been proven to be spherical.
I'm not at all. It takes just 1 base pair deletion or addition to shift the reading frame of a gene, resulting in the production of a potentially drastically different protein than the original gene produced. One could consider that a completely new arrangement. It is entirely possible for something that small to produce a gene that is entirely new. That, or one could interpret "completely new arrangement" as referring to the DNA as a whole, and it would take a much bigger change for all the genes on the DNA to change their relative positions.You’re blowing a smoke screen here.
I'm not a UCA supporter, so no comment on that. The rest of it is an ok interpretation, though you neglect that traits which are detrimental also have a huge influence on this.Look your theory says that all life on this planet is the result of many Universal Common Descents and the mechanism is random mutations creating new traits in which natural conditions favor (aka natural selection).
Oversimplifying anything can make it sound stupid. Here is gravity: people don't float into the sky because their bodies and the planet are drawn together. It's a way to misrepresent a concept without outright lying about it.The theory says that single celled life became multi celled life in the water, which became fish that breathe through gills, which became amphibians with lungs that could breathe air, which developed a warm blooded system and became mammalian, and eventually developed higher levels of thinking and moved into condominiums.
-_- I don't have the tact to respond to this nicely.It is literally a frog to prince fairytale.
Don't see how where you are from is relevant, but I am doing a 10 year long evolution experiment. Feel free to participate by voting for 2 traits to be selected for, and if you are so inclined, perform the experiment independently for yourself along with me. I specifically designed it so that the whole thing costs significantly less than $100.All I am saying is I’m from Missouri…SHOW ME!
Which measurably happens. Every human born, for example, has 40-60 mutations that neither of their parents do.All these changes obviously require a whole lot of new genetic information to have been added over time.
Participate in my experiment, then! I'm using Triops, which are multicellular.I just want an example of the process observed at work in a multi celled organism.
Too slowly to observe in our own species, since our lifespan is only about 5 of our generations at best. But for an organism that has a new generation every 3 weeks? That's a different story, good sir. The longer the experiment, and the harsher the selective pressures, the more change in less time. I calculated it out, and one should be able to see a difference between my experimental population and the control group within less than 2 years if the mutation rate of this species is decent.If it happens too slowly to be observed just say so and I’ll accept that. But then you have to stop claiming you have biological evidence for evolution.
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?