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.
God is, of necessity, infinite in nature. And God is, of necessity, the origin of God. (Nothing else is great enough)
God as the origin of God is God the Father. God as originated by God is God the Son. God as the organizer of His origin from Himself is God the Holy Spirit.
God is, of necessity, infinite in nature. And God is, of necessity, the origin of God. (Nothing else is great enough)
God as the origin of God is God the Father. God as originated by God is God the Son. God as the organizer of His origin from Himself is God the Holy Spirit.
please please, that's not really trueI also don't claim that my hands are FULLY me, but rather a part of me. If that's how you see the trinity, fine, but you'd find plenty of disagreement among your peers.
still think you are being overly simplisticIt also doesn't really solve the problem, though. Still three entities which are each fully the one and only god (origins of each are irrelevant). And you utilize an oxymoron in your definition when you talk about the "origin" of something infinite.
I'm not sure the invitation is being extended to creationists but I've fielded these arguments for years. The two most common arguments are homology (things alike), specifically transitional hominid fossils and comparative genomics. There are only two explanations for the origin of man, creation and naturalistic processes, between the two of them they exhaust the possibilities.Please read.
List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.
Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.
I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.
I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.
I'm not sure the invitation is being extended to creationists but I've fielded these arguments for years. The two most common arguments are homology (things alike), specifically transitional hominid fossils and comparative genomics. There are only two explanations for the origin of man, creation and naturalistic processes, between the two of them they exhaust the possibilities.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things." D. Futuyama, Science on Trial. 1983)My argument is simply this, if things alike argue for common ancestry then differences argue against it. The single most important being, the human brain:
APE VS. HOMININ SKULLS
The scenario is invariably there are five million years of continuous evolution that explains the gradual transformation which is contrary to what we know from the fossil record. The hominid doesn't start until about 2 mya and for a million years just prior to their appearance on the scene this is the only transitional available:
The Genus Paranthropus, P. aethiopicus
The is also over a hundred million base pairs of divergence including about 70% of the protein coding genes that diverge by at least 1 codon per lineage but that's the gist of it. The human brain would have emerged virtually over night when the only other transitional in the evolutionary background being a transitional between the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas.
Grace and peace,
Mark
It also doesn't really solve the problem, though. Still three entities which are each fully the one and only god (origins of each are irrelevant). And you utilize an oxymoron in your definition when you talk about the "origin" of something infinite.
Sorry, you have misunderstood what you quoted. An allele introduced by hybridization - already existed in a parent. Therefore it is not "created" by mating, as you assert, but merely inherited. The rest of your claims of error are equally dubious.No, it is created. It is your misunderstanding, it's what your evolutionary biologists are trying to explain to you. It is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two.
No, sadly you are the one mistaken.Missed this originally. On what planet does ANY of that gibberish make sense?
Thus the creationist lays bare his level of genetics understanding for all to laugh at.
Just to reiterate:
"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."
LOL!No, sadly you are the one mistaken.
Just as the combination of two entirely different chromosomes from two different parents combine into a unique gene from the two.
LOL!
OK...
As you do not seem to grasp the difference between "chromosome" and "gene", I see no reason to give the rest of your gibberish the time of day. It is possible, though not very common, to produce a hybrid gene from homologous recombination, but these genes are basically merged alleles. But this is not what is described in the Grant paper, and it is not something you would understand.
Let us all know when you get around to taking that community college genetics course, OK?
Have to wonder why you left that second sentence on there since it totally demolishes your rather idiotic new take on alleles (they are not genes).Says the guy that thinks an single allele is a gene.....
Allele
"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.
An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."
You continue to ignore the science...
I think I have asked before - do you understand much about development? Embryo to fetus to child to adult?My argument is simply this, if things alike argue for common ancestry then differences argue against it. The single most important being, the human brain:
APE VS. HOMININ SKULLS
The scenario is invariably there are five million years of continuous evolution that explains the gradual transformation which is contrary to what we know from the fossil record. The hominid doesn't start until about 2 mya and for a million years just prior to their appearance on the scene this is the only transitional available:
The Genus Paranthropus, P. aethiopicus
The is also over a hundred million base pairs of divergence including about 70% of the protein coding genes that diverge by at least 1 codon per lineage but that's the gist of it. The human brain would have emerged virtually over night when the only other transitional in the evolutionary background being a transitional between the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Have to wonder why you left that second sentence on there since it totally demolishes your rather idiotic new take on alleles (they are not genes).
This is a great example of how stupid it is to do "research" , creationist-style, by googling a keyword, then only reading returns for 'juicy quotes' that can be snatched out of context to try to prop up one's already-written ignorance.
From this wizard's own link above:
ALLELE
"An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."
That should have been enough. But there is more, just 2 sentences later:
"An example is the gene for blossom color in many species of flower — a single gene controls the color of the petals, but there may be several different versions (or alleles) of the gene."
I have written as much before, and it is time to revisit -
Is it possible that justatruthseeker is a really a massively successful, long-term Poe, just posing as a creationist to try to make them look stupid?
Exactly, hence your idiotic belief that it is only mutations which cause change, even when the Grants showed you that repeated backcrossing combined alleles and created more genetic variation by a factor of two to three magnitudes than mutations did.
Try finding evolution in the fossil record.
There fossil record shows evolution never happened once.
The best you can present is mixed and matched fossils that represent macro-assemblages.
Missing are the fossils between the macro-assemblages.
The foundation of observed evidence to state evolution occurred is missing.
Evolution is based on conjecture not evidence.
in principle, the GRADUAL emergence of fully formed modern mankind ...
is completely COMPATIBLE with a hypothetical supernatural agent guiding that evolution and so crafting humanity thereby
Except you can’t even understand the difference between an allele introduced by mutation and one introduced by hybridization, so no one needs to listen to your fantasies.So precious that even as you try to avoid having to admit your clear ignorance on basic genetics, you bring up yet another example of it:
The 'idiotic belief' that your precious Grants ALSO HAVE?
I suppose I would have to go back into my post archive to find the several times that I have demonstrated that those alleles you refer to are produced BY MUTATIONS in the first place, as even your oft-quoted Grant paper indicates.
You are beyond laughable, and "inquiring mind" [sic] also demonstrates her abject ignorance of anything other than being trollish and annoying by rating your nonsensical gibberish as 'winner.'
Help with a genetics claim...
"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II
"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
Scientific vs Wrong
"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
Beyond hope.
Your fanaticism has kept you blinded to reality.
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?