FrenchyBearpaw
Take time for granite.
It also depends on the ignorance of the reader. Those who publish understand exactly what it is they're saying.
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.
It also depends on the ignorance of the reader. Those who publish understand exactly what it is they're saying.In a sense, you are right.
So the only way is to prove that everything evolution says is not correct. Every research work which is used to support evolution, is also saying that evolution is wrong. It depends on how do you read it.
Presenting some evidence would be a nice start.They don't admit it. What can I do?
That's certainly not my impression as a geneticist who studies natural selection. I thought you denied having expertise in biology -- do you know more about biology than the biologists or not?They have tried (to prove evolution) for decades and the situation did not improve a single bit, but is getting worse.
It's about a year old.Hey, I recently heard that we are partially Neanderthals. Is that new?
Okay, here's a paper from 1970 that I happen to have on my computer, titled "Primary Adult Lactose Intolerance and the Milking Habit: AThe proof is, in fact, everywhere. Find a journal article decades old and read its conclusion.
You may say: they did not know.
But I say: the conclusion was wrong !!
He then makes several good suggestions about where to look to further support his conclusions. His conclusions were, of course, correct.Tile evidence overwhelmingly supports a genetic basis for primary adult lactose intolerance, and a form of selection under which tolerance became commonplace among adults in an ethnic group after consumption of lactose-rich forms of milk over many generations.
Can you look at the snowflake and say it is not a design? Yes I do believe that the grand Designer takes the time to designs every little snowflake. The Bible suggest that there is nothing to small for God. Isn't it interesting that every one of them shows a uniqueness in appearance. Since everyone of them is unique, in this case the laws of physics you talk about appear not follow any set pattern. For what reason, if any, do the laws of physics, in this case, show such diversity? Where did the laws of physics originate? Did they formulate themselves? A computer can spit out snowflake designs all day long. But the computer can do nothing of itself unless it is first programed to do so by someone who has the concept of what a design is.Only if you consider misinformation and deliberate falsehoods to be "compelling."
You put your primary agrument last. Do you really believe that your god designs every single snowflake individually? Rather, snowflakes follow specific laws of physics and chemistry.... not design.
Except, of course, when they were correct.The proof is, in fact, everywhere. Find a journal article decades old and read its conclusion.
You may say: they did not know.
But I say: the conclusion was wrong !!
What research do you do again?I have a friend (atheist), he gave up research 10 years ago. Why? because he discovered that doing scientific research is simply another way of make living. No more than that. Well, a little bit over exaggerated, but is mostly true.
I still do research, not because of science, but because of God. Otherwise, I would quit too.
Maybe your problem is not using the language the papers are written in?In a sense, you are right.
So the only way is to prove that everything evolution says is not correct. Every research work which is used to support evolution, is also saying that evolution is wrong. It depends on how do you read it.
Can you look at the snowflake and say it is not a design? Yes I do believe that the grand Designer takes the time to designs every little snowflake. The Bible suggest that there is nothing to small for God. Isn't it interesting that every one of them shows a uniqueness in appearance. Since everyone of them is unique, in this case the laws of physics you talk about appear not follow any set pattern. For what reason, if any, do the laws of physics, in this case, show such diversity? Where did the laws of physics originate? Did they formulate themselves? A computer can spit out snowflake designs all day long. But the computer can do nothing of itself unless it is first programed to do so by someone who has the concept of what a design is.
Data? Facts? Evidence? Who needs those things when you have faith?
selfinflikted said:Data? Facts? Evidence? Who needs those things when you have faith?
Good question.
It also depends on the ignorance of the reader. Those who publish understand exactly what it is they're saying.
Presenting some evidence would be a nice start.
That's certainly not my impression as a geneticist who studies natural selection. I thought you denied having expertise in biology -- do you know more about biology than the biologists or not?
It's about a year old.
I understand how ignorance may lead someone to believe this. Conspiracy theories usually begin with they're "NOT" telling us something mentality.True. They also know exactly what they are NOT saying, which, in most cases, will overshadow what they said.
Okay, here's a paper from 1970 that I happen to have on my computer, titled "Primary Adult Lactose Intolerance and the Milking Habit: A
Problem in Biologic and Cultural Interrelations", by Frederick J. Simoons. I have it because I've studied lactose tolerance in humans, and I wanted to look at the earliest suggestions that natural selection was responsible. After an excellent summary of a wide range of evidence, his conclusion begins:
He then makes several good suggestions about where to look to further support his conclusions. His conclusions were, of course, correct.
So what was your point again?
I understand how ignorance may lead someone to believe this. Conspiracy theories usually begin with they're "NOT" telling us something mentality.
Good on ya'.
True dat!I know why creationism doesn't depend on data... it would sink like a stone if it did.
Since snowflakes and their different patterns are real and the laws of physics are real and God is the Creator of all that there is I think both can be true. A programer can program a computer causing it spite out a million different designs. Technical you could say he is not physically creating them but he did program the computer to creating them.First you say that God designs every single snowflake individually. Then you claim he is instead responsible for the laws of physics which allow for snowflake patterns to differ. Which is it?
Since snowflakes and their different patterns are real and the laws of physics are real [and since I choose to believe] God is the Creator of all that there is I think both can be true. A programer can program a computer causing it spite out a million different designs. Technical you could say he is not physically creating them but he did program the computer to creating them.
Bolded text are mine, and NOT part of the original post.
What you basically have said is... 'snowflakes are a bunch of really hard things to completely understand... ergo god.' Sorry, that don't fly.
I find The Jersey Shore really hard to understand, ergo....
(I swear, I'm making a bumper sticker out of that snowflake saying)
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?