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.
This is because all change through time is incorporated into Darwinian theory.
Except that when God's involved more than one understanding can be true, and all imperfect.
Where ever people are involved subjectivity is - and science is both established by people and conducted by them.
Where ever people are involved subjectivity is - and science is both established by people and conducted by them.
If science was as subjective as religion, there would be thousands of theories of gravity.
If science was as subjective as religion, there would be thousands of theories of gravity.
This is exactly it. If science were subjective as interpretations of scripture, we would never be able to land a robot on Mars because we would be too busy deliberating over opinions of kinematics.
Interpretations of scripture are varied - they are not all subjective.
The Bible does not mean whatever we feel it means, God does not exist only if we reckon He does.
You are selecting objective aspects of one, and the citing subjective aspects of the other and then saying that means one is objective and the other not.
I think that is unrealistic.
There is nothing subjective about the objective reality of God's existence either.
This question is relevant how?
There might well be -- and maybe we could find out if you didn't keep refusing to answer basic questions. Does the creation of antibodies create new information in DNA or not? Is it meaningful information or not? (And no, the bulk of mutations are not deleterious. If they were you'd be dead.)Maybe if I express mathematically? New antibodies <> evolution of a new body plan.
Can you recognize there is a major different between the creation of antibodies and creating a new body type using random mutations (which are almost always deleterious) + natural selection?
And I've been trying to get you to do more than make that assertion.I've been saying that the kind of new information needed to produce new novel body plans does not happen in evolution.
Axe did one study, the only study the IDists ever point to about how hard it is for a random protein to achieve some kind of function. How often have you seen them cite the studies that show that the same function Axe studied can be detected in random proteins quite easily -- 68 orders of magnitude more frequently than Axe's study supposedly showed. In short, you're basing your conclusions about evolution on a wildly skewed understanding of the actual scientific situation. That's a problem if you're relying on the ID people as your source of information.I don't have a specific study in mind :[
Wait, yes I do - Doug Axe did a 14-year study at Cambridge University and continues to do work with the Intelligent Design group with similar studies showing that evolution does not produce the kind of effect imagined in creating new complex life forms.
No, that doesn't answer the question at all. The question was, "what is your explanation for this fact?"As to when new genes appearing in a species that look like mutated versions of noncoding sequence in a closely related species, I think you've partially answered the question: "that look like mutated versions" - just because it "looks" like something, was this observed or just proving my point that this is an unobserved assumption?
The DNA you were born with had the ability to produce some antibodies. You now have DNA that has the ability to produce many other antibodies, tuned to the pathogens you've actually faced. Are you claiming that the DNA coding for those antibodies doesn't contain information?DNA has the ability to create an antibody, but I wouldn't call this a "random mutation" or creating "new information", but rather a predetermined or 'pre-programmed' response to an external/foreign agent.
What thread are you reading? I have never claimed that a universal common ancestor either is a fact, or is accepted as a fact.Prove that a universal common ancestor IS a fact (not just 'accepted as fact').
So why not focus on the issue where it matters and where we have better information -- on the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, rather than on the origin of body plans in the distant past? Humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan.It depends on the extent to which common descent is stretched. If we're talking about all hares having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is all canines possibly having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is saying fish grew legs, became a tetrapod, became a reptile, became a bird, I have an issue.
In some cases there are places, historically corroborated with scripture. Physical places that we can go, where Jesus walked.
In those cases, we have physically real corroborating entities. Just as in science, there are physically real corroborating entities.
But in the case of things like... Judges like Samson, nobody has super strength based on the length of their hair. As an example.
A lot of the stories that involve supernatural concepts, aren't physically apparent in today's time.
You said:
Except that when God's involved more than one understanding can be true, and all imperfect.
Sorry.
The subjextive nature of scripture comes with the fact that it speaks of events in the past. Science can also speak of events in the past, however the difference is that life and the earth, still exist today for research and understanding. .
You assume it requires "historical corroboration" or it must be subjective. What it says is not a matter of opinion, that was the point that NobleMouse made. This is true regardless of it's references to the supernatural, it is also true regardless of personal, denominational or expert interpretation.
Science is not the only subject where there is objectivity and religion is not all subjective all the time. That is the point that I am making.
The existence of God is not a matter of opinion.
The existence of the atom bomb is not either.
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?