These are all empty claims. Nowhere have you shown that God gives us anything, except to claim it. That gets us nowhere. You might as well claim that Prometheus gave us fire.
Upvote
0
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 gives us the ability to understand the world that He created. God sends His rain on the just and the unjust. There are gifts from God that are irrevocable. That means you get to keep the gift EVEN if you do not use the gift to honor and glorify God.
They had medicine for a very long time. Even 20,000 years ago they found people with a medicine pouch on their belt with up to five medicines. Like aspirn which is the inside if the white willow bark. So God has provided medicine from the very beginning.
I do not have a high regard for what you call modern medicine. I tend to prefer to stick to the ancient natural medicines.
If they are empty claims, don't you think it's coincidental that people throughout the ages have made some of the same claims?These are all empty claims.
If they are empty claims, don't you think it's coincidental that people throughout the ages have made some of the same claims?
I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material; something which MUST BE COMMON for evolution to be true. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.Another example of why scientists do not take creationists seriously. For example:
"mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional good mutation!"
Can anyone point any scientific research that backs this claim?
I am just telling you want the Bible says. If you want to accept or reject the Bible is your choice to make.These are all empty claims.
Clearly you know nothing at all about the history of medicine.Modern medicine has come from humans doing science.
Loudmouth said:Nearly 200 posts and not a single creationist can produce viable scientific research to support their claims. Is it any wonder that creationism is ignored by scientists?
Dieselman said:I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material; something which MUST BE COMMON for evolution to be true. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.
"It must be assumed that duplications and mutations lead to new information/genes in order to state that the beta globin gene cluster is the evidence of multiple duplication events followed by mutations resulting in the different globin genes. It cannot be evidence for evolution if evolution must be assumed prior to examining the evidence. This is an example of circular reasoning."
source
Show me verifiable example of a creature with no genetic information for a trait that sudden sprouts that information by the Magical Mystery Mutation and I'll congratulate you on doing what nobody has ever done yet.
Since new genetic information cannot be fabricated by recombining existing information, THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL PROCESS FOR EVOLUTION. You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing. Show me a cat with wings or a hamster with gills.
If mutations can result in a loss of information and cannot result in the manufacturing of information, then adaptation is, in fact, a state of either degeneration or homeostasis.
I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material; something which MUST BE COMMON for evolution to be true. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.
If mutations can result in a loss of information and cannot result in the manufacturing of information, then adaptation is, in fact, a state of either degeneration or homeostasis.
They had medicine for a very long time. Even 20,000 years ago they found people with a medicine pouch on their belt with up to five medicines.
I realize that comprehension is not exactly common with evolutionists, but perhaps you overlooked the statement "You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing."Rubbish. There have been MANY observed examples.
Consider the frame shift mutation (a quite blatant kind of copying error if there ever was one!) which produced the new enzymes in flavobacteria which manufactured nylonase.
The topic on the table for discussion is the magical mutation that creates new genetic information. It doesn't exist, has never been observed or replicated, yet it's the cornerstone of your religion. If gills can't turn into lungs and legs into wings then your religion has no biological foundation.If you bothered to research the issue, you would have found many more examples of beneficial mutations.
So if you lose $5,000 playing poker but you GAIN $4,000 playing Blackjack, does that show a net gain? If so, come on over and we'll play some cards. How is reclaiming the same information that was "lost" the same as generating new information? It isn't. It doesn't happen, and your religion is pure rubbish.More rubbish. You didn't bother to check the facts.
Consider this: You affirm that mutations can lose information. So consider this: some detrimental mutations are followed by a new mutation which REVERSES the information loss. Now wouldn't you agree that when a LOSS of information is REVERSED, that would constitute a GAIN in information?
Show me the peer reviewed research that shows any advanced species of animal generating new genetic information and becoming even more advanced. They tried that with fruit flies, remember? Know what they got? Messed up fruit flies.Most mutations are "neutral" and just don't make much difference. But mutations do add information to genomes and when those mutations help survival of the organism, natural selection works to preserve those mutations to successive generations. We know this happens with evolution because we can observe it.
I've noticed that you simply like to declare various things; like mutations advancing a species, as if they are facts when they are not. Such things have NEVER been observed. Either you are ignorant of this fact or you're lying. Which is it? Please post for me the information I requested.I've noticed that you simply like to declare various things as if they are facts---but they aren't. You are either uninformed of the facts OR you are lying. Which is it?
Blatant lie. No scientific "fact" is ever inescapable. Consensus is the antithesis of science. Theories of evolutionary sequence change daily.Scientists affirm the facts of evolution because the evidence is inescapable.
Yo, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle. Y'all got a lot in common!Denying the evidence is simply living outside of reality. (And lying about the evidence is living outside of Biblical morality.)
I realize that comprehension is not exactly common with evolutionists, but perhaps you overlooked the statement "You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing."
I realize that comprehension is not exactly common with evolutionists, but perhaps you overlooked the statement "You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing."
The topic on the table for discussion is the magical mutation that creates new genetic information. It doesn't exist, has never been observed or replicated, yet it's the cornerstone of your religion. If gills can't turn into lungs and legs into wings then your religion has no biological foundation.[/color]
Breaking news: They can't.
Ah, that's right. Digestion has nothing whatever to do with the process of eating. One involves taking in nourishment and the other involves... well... taking in nourishment. But I understand why denial and playing with words is necessary to sustaining your religion. On cannot be a good atheist without denying the fundamental truths of the universe.You referred to "eating", the act of gathering materials into the body for purposes of sustenance. I wrote about DIGESTION.
Yeah, that whole God thing is pretty fantastic. What's your belief again? That everything created itself by simple application of time and natural forces... that also created itself?YOUR belief system could better be described as magic
... who just happens to disbelieve everything in the Bible. So let me get this clear. Your belief affirms the Bible that you know to be a book of myths. And you think this is a religion worth promoting?As to my religion, I'm a Bible-affirming evangelical Christian.
No, actually I think small minds are influenced by the religion of evolution, not by my statement that it is religion and not scientific.Yet you assume that small minds will be impressed by your silly "evolution is a religion" nonsense.
Show me the one where they create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system.I could give many other examples of beneficial mutations.
Easy. Mutations cannot create new genetic information and encode it into the reproductive systems. Such an event has never been observed, validate or reproduced. It is, then, not scientific and not common; boith of which would have to be true for evolution to have a basis in scientific observation.If you mean in one overnight change, no they can't. Which is why NOBODY believes they do that. But if you are going to declare the long series of changes impossible, DEMONSTRATE/EXPLAIN WHY you believe it is impossible.
That's called adaptation, which is actually a conservative process and certainly NOT evolutionary. So DOCUMENT for us why your explanation of a conservative process has anything to do with our the advancement of a species through the acquisition of new genetic information. You can't. You can only pretend.But the problem is that evolutionary processes "sustain" the advantageous mutation and usually ignore the disadvantageous allele because it has no survival value.
Yes, because the task at hand was to show the peer reviewed research that shows any advanced species of animal generating new genetic information and becoming even more advanced. You failed to do so. You have nothing but rubbish for your arguments.I cited the nylon-digesting flavobacteria and you simply ignored it
Okay, so the FACT that abiogenesis is impossible as Louis Pasteur proved is not in dispute. Move on.Rubbish. DATA are FACTS.
Nope. Only if it's within the gravitational force of the earth. Let go of the object on the moon and it is NOT drawn to the center of earth's mass. Gravity is a universal condition; not specific to the earth.You would concur that when you let go of an object, it falls toward the center of the earth's mass.
No, I just made a statement hoping you would be able to comprehend it. Sorry. I should have used smaller words.You just changed topics hoping that nobody would notice the deceit.
Evolutionary sequence is the sequence in which things are said to evolve. Not a particularly hard definition, I thought.>Theories of evolutionary sequence change daily.
Define "evolutionary sequence" so that we can evaluate your statement.
You didn't a moment ago.But if you are saying that science gathers more data and formulates new hypotheses and experiments to test them DAILY, then I would heartily agree.
Kind of like the blind adherance to the theory of evolution that bends all information to conform with its predictions.It is the very scientific method upon which science depends. Only those addicted to blind adherence to a cherished tradition demand rigid stasis that ignores new information.
No. This is a discussion. When i make a point, and you dodge it, and I call you on it, that is NOT ridicule. That is NOT getting it off my chest. It IS you dodging even further. This is a discussion, try to act like it is.Fair enough ... let's keep dancing then. I'm sure you've got a lot of ridicule you need to get off your chest.
Again, a dodge. First, are you saying that god's will can so easily be thwarted? god: I wanted this form of cancer to be cured in 2012, but the person to cure it was aborted in 1960... before Roe vs. Wade! Dang, stopped again by random human chance! I thought this omnipotence was supposed to count for something!That's right. The [future] doctor He may have had lined up to do the job may have been aborted.
This is a ridiculous response. You do not show good faith here.If you ever get cancer ... and I pray you don't ... ask your mom to cure it.
Non sensical.Not even close ... as Bobby Fischer would say to someone who would ask for an early draw, "There's still plenty of play in the position."
This word, "ridicule", i do not think it means what you think it means. Because you think ridicule is any phrase that disagrees with you.Unless, of course, you want to keep up the ridicule. Then I may bow out of the conversation and go to read-only mode.
Stop it. You are not a child on a playground.Yes.
Get it off your chest.
It is not God's will that any should perish, is it? people perish, don't they?Again, a dodge. First, are you saying that god's will can so easily be thwarted?
Then I'll take my toys and go home.Stop it. You are not a child on a playground.
Science excludes the supernatural and will only accept natural explanations and so it will never come to an understanding of the truth.
Logic tells us that everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself. Since the natural world had a beginning, it requires a cause outside of itself which by definition would be a supernatural cause.
Design and information in nature tells us this cause is intelligent.
Unfortunately science, while presuming design in nature, which would be necessary for anything to be deciphered from studying it, will never be able to come to an understanding of who the designer is because they have excluded the creator from consideration and will only consider causes within the creation which logic tells us could not have created itself.
I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material;
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?