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.
Oncedeceived: Loudmouth there is no way to list angles, however, if we use Feduccia; he believes (wrong or right doesn't matter) has a different angle than other scientists.
Me: Scientists have already looked at that angle, and found that the evidence does not support it.
Does it make sense now?
That is why I keep asking you to explain yourself which you rarely do. I askedy you what you meant by angles, and you were as etheral as usual. It would really help if you would start filling in the blanks instead of floating all over the place.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ANGLES? You said in a previous post, "Really? There are many angles to every facet of science." What does that mean?
When you say that there are separately created kinds, how can that mean that they were not separately created?
Then explain what you are arguing.
Because they found transitionals with a mixture of theropod and avian features which supported the theropod origin of birds.
Comparative morphology of living birds and extinct non-avian dinosaurs.
HGT moves exact copies of genes or chunks of genome from one species to another. We have sequenced the human and mouse genome, as one example. If there were a gene in mice that was nearly identical to a human gene while being much different in other primate and rodent species then it would be exceedingly easy to detect. Nothing like that has been found outside of ERV's.
Recombination events involve DNA that is already in the genome, and epigenetics does not even change DNA sequence (it involves DNA methyloation and histone ubiquitination). Epigenetics is also short lived and needs constant stimuli to stay on the same track. None of these are considered HGT in and of themselves. HGT involves the movement of genetic material from one species to another.
But you just said that you did know.
"It is not an accurate depiction of the Biblical kinds.
So at first you say that a depiction is not accurate, and the next you are playing dumb. Why is that?
Different ways of looking at something.
Like I said there are separated kinds. Kingdoms etc. we been through this.
What does Feduccia say about that?
So Feduccia is not qualified to determine such things?
Where?
Why did you pick species?
Evidence supporting something is not evidence of that something according to your worldview.
I didn't. YOU DID!!!!
Um, yes it is. That is why it is called evidence.
So what are the different ways of looking at the production of biodiversity, and how is it scientific?
What makes kingdoms separate kinds? Is a chihuahua a separate kind since chihuahuas give birth to chihuahuas? Are siblings each a separately created kind?
In some cases, he goes as far as claiming that feather impressions are not really feather impressions. It gets quite comical, actually. It is nothing more than denial at this point.
Being qualified and being right are two different things.
In the post where you said:
"It is not an accurate depiction of the Biblical kinds."
It is just a few posts above. Am I talking to a person with multiple personalities?
So is he lying?
I don't know. He's making a wild claim and doing nothing to support it. There's no reason to simply take him at his word.
I don't know. He's making a wild claim and doing nothing to support it. There's no reason to simply take him at his word.
So you know that there isn't anything to support it? Just curious.
So you know that there isn't anything to support it? Just curious.
No, and I don't need to know. The burden of proof is on him to support the claim, not on me to prove a negative.
Just like it was for Einstein, right?Well for an example, Dr. Feduccia, I am sure you have heard of him; he has disagreed with the dino/bird evolutionary path. He is not a creationist, however he is labeled as such just because he disagrees with the findings. He has been slammed by the scientific community due to his stance. That to me is not what science is about. It is about taking those arguments and varying opinions and doing the science to show it.
It seems that too often, if someone in the scientific community disagrees with the consensus it can be deadly for their careers.
Does the bible say that? The universe being the set of all things, where was your god then?The universe was not in progress.
How did you reach that conclusion?There is no evidence to support the universe-already-in-progress.
Failed. It is clear that what happened "prior" to the instantiation of the cosmos may not be accessible to science.False. It is clear that the evidence we currently have supports a beginning to the universe.
Yes, you are cherry picking the bible. Are you a Floodist?
Where have you determined that the bible is "Bible is the living word of God"?The Bible doesn't claim the earth is flat. The scripture you are referring to about the four corners of the earth is talking about the compass directions. This is shown in another part of Isaiah:
Isaiah 43:5-6 "Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth
Which is a fulfilled prophecy by the way.
From the east: Many Jews living in the Middle East moved to Israel by the early 1900s.
From the west: During mid-1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the United States) began moving to Israel.
From the north: The former Soviet Union (Russia) is north of Israel. It refused to allow its Jewish residents to move to Israel. But, after years of pressure from other countries, Russia finally began to allow Jews to return to Israel during the 1980s. So far, hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews have moved to Israel.
From the south: Ethiopia, which is south of Israel, also refused to allow its Jews to return to Israel. But, in 1985, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia's communist government to allow the Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. On the weekend of May 25, 1991, 14,500 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel.
Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the north (Russia) and the south (Ethiopia) would have to be persuaded to give up their Jews. Many countries pressured Russia for years before it began to allow its Jews to leave. And Ethiopia had to be paid a ransom to allow its Jews to leave.
Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the Jews would return "from the ends of the earth," and Isaiah said that many centuries before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, have moved to Israel.
I understand your frustration. The Bible is the living word of God and it is also translated from the original language to others and sometimes the original word doesn't have a corresponding word in our language or the translator used one that can be taken in a different way. It is important to understand that.
Yes, the weak anthropic principle. The fallacy is trying to use it to demonstrate design.If the universe did not have the laws that govern it, we would not be here to observe them.
What doesn't support creationism? If everything supports "creationism", the word becomes meaningless. Unfalsifiable. Without significance.It supports Creationism. You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it supports creationism.
I said, as you did not include a way to test or falsify these predictions, there is no point in going further with them.Does it give us light? Does it light up the night sky? It doesn't matter that it doesn't produce the light itself. If you want to nit pick, fine.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepan...-for-saying-the-moon-reflects-the-sun-really/
The predictions would be false if we find the universe always existed. IF the largest portion of the universe was visible and not made up of invisible undetectable "matter" it would prove it false.
I don't think what the bible says matters, but you keep bringing it up.What does that matter?
True. Your claims were neither testable nor falsifiable.False.
Whatever. Another unfalsifiable claim.God is responsible for holding the universe together.
Only if you can show the how-to instructions for flush toilets detailed in the bible.You can thank Him when you see him.
God-of-the-gaps: "God is responsible for holding the universe together."It is in no way that.
Read them. No excuses.
Address my question: By what testable criteria do you determine if something is designed?If it can be proven that it is fine tuned according to its existence and the life forms on earth. Which has been tested to be true.
No time like the present.I don't know.
Not with "How does one determine that God would be of no significance?".I gave it, you just don't like it.
Yes it is. Even in the complete absence of any theories to explain the diversity of biology on this planet, theists like yourself are still on the hook for the responsibility to establish the veracity of their claims.No it isn't. There are numerous details that ToE has no evidence for, but scientists use supportive evidence to support there ideas.
Pascal's Wager? lol. How do you know you've got the right god?Well my friend we are only human. Fortunately, there is a way to find out. When we die if I am lying in my grave and totally unaware and there is no after life, I will have no concern if I was wrong. However, if I am right, you will find yourself in God's company and you can make your case to Him. In the mean time, we can all discuss our positions in the best way we can or we can discontinue our conversation. The choice is yours. I believe you have a choice.
And irrelevant, for the purposes of living day to day.It may be consistent and testable but if it is all illusion, you could never know.
Disappointing.Of course.
You get to use the "it's in a book" argument. Why not me?Don't waste your time.
Which is why I asked, are you going to present your evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, or not? Don't just delete this line from my post as you did last time.Our God is a personal God that has made His words known and they can be tested to see if they fit with our reality. In that way He can be detected. He is known by the universe. It is balanced in such a way that you can see His work if you choose to and you can deny it as well. That is the choice that God gave us. You choose to believe there is no God and look at the evidence of the wonder of the universe and think it just is. I look at the wonder of the universe and think how wonderful God is. But we both have the same evidence.
As I have shown so.If you say so.
You have not, other than saying that is was nonsensical. Do you not have free will? Can you choose to not believe in deities for a week? Or a different one?I've already answered this.
No problem.
oookkkk
What do you mean?
Post #300, Davian: "I know the context that you are working in, but be aware that you have (by your own free will ) chosen to post this in a physical sciences subforum, and not Exploring Christianity.
So again, how did you determine that the universe is designed? By what testable criteria?"
Your response, post # 338, ignores what I said and goes right back to your worldview, even altering my post to that effect... Oncedeceived: "Well lets see what we can predict in the Christian worldview."
Then you say "Truth is truth and it should always be the first and foremost foundation of any area."
I agree with your statement. When we make progress there, we can take up discussion of your worldview in Exploring Christianity.
All of the evidence I gave supports the design in the universe. It was tested scientifically.
I've got another Einstein quote for you just so we understand him completely.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -Albert Einstein
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
All of the evidence I gave supports the design in the universe. It was tested scientifically.
I chose my signature for the fact that it to me explained my views. I did not take the quote and claim he was religious or a Christian.
That does not address my point.
Again, how did you determine that the universe is designed? By what testable criteria?
And here's another Einstein quote for you; you could put it in your signature:
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.
So you're basically taking him out of context.
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?