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.
Is it not also against the rules to falsely accuse people of having made an accusation of lying? Subduction Zone has demonstrated very clearly that he did not accuse you of lying. However, you have chosen to make a false accusation against him and to support it by accidentally, or deliberately distorting the truth through selective quoting.
No, I reject your interpretation of the example, and Dawkin's word is not law in the science community. He is but one man with an opinion, and no scientific theory hinges on what he alone says.
Darkin's example is just an idiom. No one is suggesting infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters this is just a word picture to visualize infinity. So are you rejecting the concept of infinity. Pi is an infinite number but I shows that the reason for that is that Pi does not exist. So could you clarify. Are you saying that you do not accept that infinity exists?
Filled TO the Brim means just that. There is nothing between your coffee and the cup. Pi is abstract it is an invisible line that does not exist in the real world. This is no problem on the computer. It is an issue when you use a pencil and paper on a drafting board because the line has thickness that does not exist in the real world. That is why we use to put NTS (not to scale) on all of our prints. Just the process of making a copy could change what is on paper by two or three feet in the real world. So you can not measure a drawing and think that is the proper measurement.
What is ridiculous is I put up one post and get over 20 responses from people that think I have nothing but time to answer their questions. The most I have in a day is 2 hours and I do what I can to help people with that amount of time and beyond that I simply do not have the time to deal with it.
Because IF the infinite monkey is wrong then that makes my point that the random theory of evolution is wrong and that evolution is deterministic as the Evo-devos and Theistic Evolutionists say it is. Actually even a lot of the atheist evolutionists claim that evolution is deterministic because natural selection in and of itself is deterministic.
What a joke, I can assure you that it is the atheists that lack understanding. If they understood then they would not be atheists almost by definition.
if you feel that way, then answer the part of the post that is the most important to progressing the conversation, not the part that it is easiest for you to answer.
Wrong again. Your version of God has been shown not to exist. There never were only two people in the world, there never was a worldwide flood. Your problem is that you have a limited understanding of the Bible because you demand it can be taken literally and you now know that is not true. I can at least identify the failures of the Bible.
Is it not arrogant, when corrected by half a dozen people and lacking any backing towards your position from others, that you assume it is more likely for those six people to misunderstand an example made by someone with the same position they hold than for you to make the error? Worse, you aren't even backing your position with actual evidence, you're just claiming we're all wrong and you're not. This condescending hubris of yours has no basis for its existence, and it's wearing on everyone's patience.
Ok I did misunderstand your post. I get,it. We didn't come from chimps specifically but from a common ancestor.I never said that we came from chimps. Perhaps you should reread my post:
"That isn't assumed at all. If we went back 5 million years and started with the same common ancestor, there is no expectation that chimps and humans would be the expected outcome. Things could go very differently due to the stochastic nature of evolution."
I clearly stated that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.
Also, shared ancestry between humans and chimps is not assumed. It is a conclusion supported by evidence. In fact, I discuss the evidence in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/
When you have evidence, it isn't an assumption. It's as if you are claiming that we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match or a fingerprint match.
Why are we different? Isn't it because our genomes are different?
No such assumption is used. It is very well founded conclusion that genotype leads to phenotype. Humans and chimps are different from each other because our genomes are different. You are trying to claim that changes in the genome can't lead to physical differences. The basic observation of the genetic and physical differences between chimps and humans, and our well evidenced knowledge of how genome leads to morphology, completely disproves your claim.
Whether we evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps or not, your claim that genetic changes can't lead to physical changes is completely false.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
Also, shared ancestry was already well established through the use of evidence prior to the chimp genome paper. It isn't an assumption. It is one of the most solid scientific conclusions there are, backed by mountains of evidence.
The divergence of LTR's among shared ERV's demonstrates that they evolved from a common ancestor. The divergence between these repeat sections found in endogenous retroviruses forms the same phylogeny as the one formed by morphology. This is smoking gun evidence for evolution.
"Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full
All you have proven is that you don't even know what the definition of assumption is.
Everything I have said is backed by observable and testable evidence. None of it is assumed.
