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.
False premise, evolution is a fairy tale, a joke, no one who is intelligent believes in the fairy tale evolution anymore, even Flawkins is jumping ship claiming "aliens did it!" anything but God.
It is scientifically impossible. Only those desperate religious fanatic clingers still subscribe to it blindly believing in a dead religion.
I see that paranoia schizophrenia is a common threat among evotards.
You have a problem with clarifying? There have been numerous claims made in this discussion.If you can't understand normal human discourse, just say so.
It doesn't matter what I believe or claim. The claim presented was Dawkins.You have claimed that life is designed. If you can't admit to something so obvious . . .
It sure could have been. It was shown not to be put there by an intelligent agent by new technology. If it so happened that with this new technology it could be shown that it appeared the same when viewed "close up and personal" it would probably be thought to be put there by an intelligent agent rather than what they actually found...natural occurring phenomena. The same would hold true for molecular machines. If when we got the technology to observe these systems and they lost the appearance of design due to the fact of natural occurring phenomena it would show no design. However, that has not been shown to be true. No evidence has been presented that provides this appearance is not design but is produced by evolutionary processes.Does the appearance of a face on Mars mean it was put their by a designer?
Don't put words into my mouth, I never claimed that biologists claim life is designed, although some most certainly think so. Don't call me a liar when I didn't say what you claim I did.That is a flat out lie. Not all biologists claim that life is designed. Only a tiny minority of scientists make this claim. Stop putting words in their mouth.
It is obvious who is being dishonest and it isn't me.Until you can show some basic honesty, what more is there to say?
The bible states "Let us create man in our own image" If you looked up "us" in the Hebrew, you would find that that means "elohim". Elohim is found some 2,700 times in the bible and represents the begotten sons of God who, outside of passing through the flesh but once, live and reside with the Father. Adam was the first Elohim to pass through the flesh on earth. All descendants of Adam will return to that state of being in the celestial plane, for they can go nowhere else. Flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, only those who came from there can return. Look up Luke chapter 3 verse 38, Adam was a son of God, which means all his descendants are also sons of God, right down to the present day.Did you notice the boldness of the Scriptural references I gave? Would you like me to show you this Scripturally with the verses I posted? Notice that Adam was "formed" by the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) on the 3rd Day and "created" by the AGREEMENT of God (the Trinity) on the 6th Day. Do you know the difference between Jesus and God?
You have a problem with clarifying?
It doesn't matter what I believe or claim. The claim presented was Dawkins.
It sure could have been.
Don't put words into my mouth, I never claimed that biologists claim life is designed,
No, since you falsely believe that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes and God tells us that is UnTrue. Adam was "formed" physically on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 but was NOT "created" in God's Image or born again in Christ, until the present 6th Day. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2
Evolution believers disagree because they are "willingly ignorant" that Humans were NOT made on the present Earth and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes but the sons of God (prehistoric people) did, and scientists have falsely classified them as Humans (descendants of Adam). Adam was First made. Amen?
Man is a creation of God, on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth day and is NOT a creation, for God rested on the seventh from all He created and made, and if you pay attention, you will find much repetition as to God having finished creating and making things as to underscore the fact. After this , God says there is not a man (Adam) to till the ground. Out of all the people He had made, there was not a single race that were farmers, for God gave them food that they could easily find. Look up the word "Man" in the Hebrew, for it denotes whether man is Adam or Enosh. Enosh are the created races and Adam is a separate race, who were instructed to be a separate people unto God. Adam is "Ish" for Issue and Eve was "Isha". Ish is the masculine and Isha is the feminine. Son, or daughter. These terms do not apply to the enosh.
Enosh were and are all the people God created before Adam, and when they were created, God said it was good, but as Adam fell, they did also, during Satan's rebellion, for Satan affected everyone. The Assyrians also noted this war in heaven, going back about 74,000 years and referred to Satan as "Murdock" = the chaos monster.
It was perfectly clear the first time. Read it.
The claim is Dawkins. No one is twisting your arm here, if you don't want to support that claim then don't I don't care one way or the other. Dawkins doesn't support it and that is the point being made.The claim of design is yours. If you can't even honestly take on your own claims, then we are done here.
It wasn't but it took further research to determine that. I never made any claims about its appearance, I just said that it could have been a product of design but it was shown not to be. It has nothing to do with my subjective opinion because I didn't claim it was design ever. I said it could have been.It wasn't. Just goes to show how faulty your subjective opinion of appearances is.
I said they see the design, I didn't say they ever said it was designed. Your twisting things again.Yes, you did.
"Now as we see, the design is visible, understood and obvious because all biologists agree that it is.
Let us not call names, I don't like when they do that to me and I certainly don't want to do it myself. I agree that this discussion is very much a example of bias and even as I pointed out bigotry I don't want to go to that level. Thanks for your support though, I appreciate it.Don't bother reasoning with Evotards, they just double down on their idiocy. It's a straight up pearls before swine and dogs scenario.
Over 99% of all biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct. That leaves your side with only a handful of nuts and kooks.
In the Hebrew text after each creature is created it says, "after its kind" except when it gets to man. It doesn't say man was created "after its kind" but it says in the image of God. Look up the Hebrew text at this link and take note of the words "after its kind": http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
Loudmouth has given you evidence. What exactly are you asking for here? What "illusion of design" are you talking about?
This is in reference to evolution.Probably because there were many "kinds" of vegetation, things that creep, swim, fly, or beasts that walk. There was only one "kind" of human being. "Of their kinds" or "after their kinds", i.e. of the diversity of "kinds" of plants and fruit, of the diversity of "kinds" of things that swim in the sea and fly in the air. There are not "kinds" of men.
What does this have to do with anything?
-CryptoLutheran
This is in reference to evolution.
The "kinds" reference in Genesis 1 is about evolution?
No it's not. The writers of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution.
-CryptoLutheran
Probably because there were many "kinds" of vegetation, things that creep, swim, fly, or beasts that walk. There was only one "kind" of human being. "Of their kinds" or "after their kinds", i.e. of the diversity of "kinds" of plants and fruit, of the diversity of "kinds" of things that swim in the sea and fly in the air. There are not "kinds" of men.
What does this have to do with anything?
-CryptoLutheran
The bible states "Let us create man in our own image" If you looked up "us" in the Hebrew, you would find that that means "elohim". Elohim is found some 2,700 times in the bible and represents the begotten sons of God who, outside of passing through the flesh but once, live and reside with the Father. Adam was the first Elohim to pass through the flesh on earth. All descendants of Adam will return to that state of being in the celestial plane, for they can go nowhere else. Flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, only those who came from there can return. Look up Luke chapter 3 verse 38, Adam was a son of God, which means all his descendants are also sons of God, right down to the present day.
What makes you so certain that it doesn't reference what we call evolution?The "kinds" reference in Genesis 1 is about evolution?
No it's not. The writers of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution.
-CryptoLutheran
You were obviously home schooled by creationists who deliberately kept you ignorant of evolution, if you weren't then your education was sadly lacking the very basics, you were either taught badly or you didn't listen.
Either way it's not our job to teach you what you should already know.
I seriously doubt that. If you can't provide a link all you have is an unsupported allegation. Hitchens was a very well educated man and knew the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. You on the other hand do not seem to have that understanding.
Again, you made the claim. When challenged the burden of proof if upon you. If you can't find support fro your claim the wise thing to do is to admit your error and no longer make the claim.
Actually you spewed all sorts of nonsense. Now as to how did life begin that is a problem that is still being worked on. It is far from a simple question. But the origin of life does not bear on the evolution debate. It is simply a shifting of the goal posts. Regardless of the source of life, whether natural, poofed into existence magically by a god, or the result of ET doing a drive by we know that once life was here that it evolved.
I am not asking if one can observe evolution, I am asking for the evidence that evolution could produce the illusion of design with purpose apparent in molecular machines. Evidence is suppose to be required to support a claim that evolution could produce this apparent design with a purpose making it an illusion.
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?