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.
I was talking about the "I don't like it because it's not in the Bible" excuse for being against certain things.
True.And we have completely different conclusions.
Talking about doctrine is completely different to things like electronics or physical things not yet invented at the time.
Computers and such are tools, they can be used for ill or for good. Physical items are neutral.
What 'certain things' are you thinking about anyway? I doubt I've ever said it.
I fear you are making the analogy too specific. Many times I've heard people claim that they are against something because it wasn't in the Bible. I don't see how you can justify that ideas don't count just because they aren't physical. I once knew someone who refused to fly because she believed they were unbiblical.
Again, special pleading.
If man was meant to fly, he would have given us wings!
Not quite.
The Bible talks of God creating animals fully formed from the water, then entirely different animals fully formed from the land. That is not in agreement with the scientific description.
Using their commonly accepted definitions, both are observed and neither is speculated. Of course, you have a non-standard definition of at least one of those terms which allows you to make these silly assertions.
That is a truly awful analogy. It is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know which failing to pick on first. Let's start with the obvious point that DNA is not a man made computer programming language and only bears a passing resemblance to one if you try really hard to force it into that box.
Okay if it is "evidently nonsense of a high order" present the evidence?
You arrive at the conclusion of intelligent design... what is the evidence that brought you to that conclusion?
Anyone can declare anything to be truth or not truth, or science or not science.
However science has actual definitions... you need evidence. Many an accomplished scientist has strayed from actually performing science for personal reasons, they are only human.
However science has an inbuilt advantage. No matter how shocking or different to the accepted facts, if you can present coherent repeatable evidence then it's science.
The real problem is that genetic information can trivially be created by random mutations.
Sections of DNA can be changed or repeated in the reproduction process, this allows new functions.
No pre-loading required.
Let us accept that there are pre-determined limits to the variability permitted by random variation in DNA.
- What evidence do you have that these limits preclude evolution of the biosphere from a simple common ancestor?
- What evidence do you have that these limits are not subject to change as a consequence of certain, earlier random changes?
Thus far, all I can see is you asserting that neither of these possibilities are valid, but offering nothing in support of the claim. It looks very much like the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.
I am not making an argument. I am questioning your assertion. I am making no assertion of my own. I am asking you to provide support for your assertion. Now please stop with the avoiding tactics. They may work on fools - lets work on the premise there are no fools here.well first that's a 'prove it ain't so' argument- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1. We have the mountains of evidence for evolution that fully support the production of the biosphere through mechanisms that include copying errors. You have produced no evidence to counter this other than your incredulity. Please ante up, or retreat.What evidence do we have that a bacteria like organism CAN produce the biosphere through accidental copying errors? So far we have been able to show bacteria evolving into- more bacteria, that leaves a tiny bit of a gap in terms of direct demonstration of the larger claim!
Good analogies can be used to educate, clarify and explain. They cannot be used to support, or prove a point. Bad analogies - of the type you have offered here - are a waste of electricity.But it's still an information hierarchy problem- in an even simpler analogy- an old analogue radio has a capacity for variation- you can randomly turn the dials and get different signals and sound quality. But a trillion years of experimentation with these variations will never create a CD player- no matter how lucky you get.
Seen in fully functioning creatures that are already here.
They haven't observed some other creature turn into a snake, they assume it.
That's evolution in it's common definition.we can observe variety being bred in dogs
As I said, you have a non-standard definition of at least one of the terms.we cannot observe a single celled bacteria-like organism becoming a human being, through accidental copying errors.
You obviously don't understand the difference between computer engineering and programming languages. Interesting coming from somebody who claims a background in coding.Interesting point of view!- Tell that to Richard Dawkins and Bill gates:
"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . ": Dawkins
Bill Gates is not a geneticist. I'll go with the geneticists who say that the more we discover about DNA, the less like a computer language it looks.“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Gates
Special pleading for what?
Again, I've never said anything like that so it makes your argument kind of pointless.
So not everything at once- but in a specific order- the forms life takes, change over time- point being: that's a description of macro-evolution, if not by Darwinian processes. How exactly the change happened is still a question of course.
Sure. That's all that we have to study.
However, I challenge your assertion that creatures are "fully functional". For instance, did you know humans (and bats and guinea pigs) have an error in their metabolic system that the ~6000 other species of mammal don't?
Funny you should say that, I've got an amazing book recommendation for you: https://www.amazon.com/How-Snake-Lost-its-Legs/dp/1107621399
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?