Are you goading me? Maybe it's okay to goad Christians on this board, but don't make the mistake of goading an atheist agnostic or phony.
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.
And yet every time I give you a direct quote from the KJV you ignore it. How dishonest are you?
Priceless. "Their kind" and "his kind" are refering to incarnations of god, but "her kind" refers to female birds?What is obvious is that a female heron is a her kind, since male herons are not her kinds. There is absolutely NOTHING about God the "her kind" as you posted earlier.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His (temporary) kind, and cattle after Their (eternal) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (temporary) kind: and God saw that it was good.(perfect)
Gen 6:20 Of fowls after Their (eternal) kind, and of cattle after Their (eternal) kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after His (temporary) kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Remember that God the Trinity made fowls and cattle after THEIR kind. Gen 1:25
Lord God/Jesus made the beasts and creeping things of this Earth but God the Trinity did NOT create them eternally. If He had, Heaven would be filled with varmits, mosquitoes and all sorts of other vermin. Thanks for pointing this out. It helps one learn the difference between temporary life on Earth and Eternity in Heaven. God bless you
Priceless. "Their kind" and "his kind" are refering to incarnations of god, but "her kind" refers to female birds?
Let's just agree I've refuted your nonsense.
Sorry, handwaving really isn't an acceptable response. I've presented you with a problem you cannot resolve, so rather than admit you've got it wrong you lamely try to claim it's my motivation which is at fault.No. You are confused. You looked up "her kind" looking for a reference to God being female and got the heron "her kind". Your faux confusion is refuted.
I posted some of what you claim to be Truth and you couldn't deal with it. Your denial is not refutation, it is denial.In your dreams. I post of God's Truth which agrees with every other discovered Truth of mankind. Faith plus Fact equals an un-refutable Truth.
Lol.When Pigs fly. The false judgment of someone who cannot tell us whether or not he believes, means little. That and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at some McDs.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Lol.
You were refuted, you don't like it (which is understandable), but you don't have the grace to accept it. It's there for all to see.
Edit: I haven't judged you. I've simply shown your argument to be false.
It's funny. I've admitted to being wrong on this forum, I've seen other non-creationists do the same. I have never seen a creationist admit an error. Even worse is the dishonesty. Silence would be taken as tacit acceptance, but the dishonest denial is just so sad to see."When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom"
It seems some people get so tied up in their own theology they lose sight of the bigger picture. It's not pretty.
It seems some people get so tied up in their own theology they lose sight of the bigger picture. It's not pretty.
It's called "repurposing of traits".
You might need the 3 things for function X, but the individual things might have a function in something else by themselves. Or be neutral and piggy back on other traits.
Irreducible complexity has been refuted so hard so many times already, it's like beating a dead horse. I'm amazed people still bring it up.
Where exactly has it been refuted? Do you even know what IC is? Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?
Let me explain where most people get this wrong: they don't understand that it is a probabilistic argument.
But then, I guess, most people don't understand probability.
Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:
Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.
Yeah, so good-bye chance.
That is just one of the reasons why 'the third way' has been established which reflects researchers and authors who have, in one way or another, expressed their concerns regarding natural selection’s scope and who believe that other mechanisms are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.
Among them James Shapiro, Denis Noble and Evelyn Keller.
The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.
Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.
How about no, you are in fact wrong on all points.
Well you have written yourself off as a serious contender. Provided no evidence whatsoever, not that you can.
Also, a nihilist who cares? logical contradiction.
You must have missed the part where I said, "Sometimes such duplications retain the original functions, e.g. multiple leg segments of centipedes, millipedes; and sometimes they are modified by evolution, providing novel functions, e.g. grasping forelimbs."duplications will not help since they are only a duplication of existing parts. so its not a new complex system. think about this: can you mix several parts in a car to add it a gps sytem for instance?
Priceless. "Their kind" and "his kind" are refering to incarnations of god, but "her kind" refers to female birds?
Let's just agree I've refuted your nonsense.
Thank you for backing me up. It doesn't happen often.Yes, nonsense is easily refuted
Deuteronomy 14:18 Interlinear: and the stork, and the heron after its kind, and the lapwing, and the bat;
Since "her" is not in the Hebrew.....
Although the Hebrew word they translate as Heron simply means a ceremonially unclean bird.
Where exactly has it been refuted? Do you even know what IC is? Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?
Let me explain where most people get this wrong: they don't understand that it is a probabilistic argument.
But then, I guess, most people don't understand probability.
Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:
Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.
Yeah, so good-bye chance.
That is just one of the reasons why 'the third way' has been established which reflects researchers and authors who have, in one way or another, expressed their concerns regarding natural selection’s scope and who believe that other mechanisms are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.
Among them James Shapiro, Denis Noble and Evelyn Keller.
The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.
Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.
homologous proteins of the bacterial flagellum are still functional even when the individual proteins do not make up a whole flagellum.
Once again you forgot that cars do not reproduce. Your analogy is worthless.3 things:
1) homologous proteins arent the same proteins. they are actually different.
2) we can also remove parts from a car (like a gps system) and the car will still be functional. but it doesnt mean that a gps system can evolve a step by step.
3) as far as i remember the ttss sysem has some parts that the flagelum doesnt has. so its not true that we can remove parts from the flagellum and get a ttss.
Where exactly has it been refuted?
Do you even know what IC is?
Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?
Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:
Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
[
An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.
Yeah, so good-bye chance.
The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.
Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.
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?