Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Then the definitive answer to the universal existence is ...........?
Hold the gobbledygook to an absolute minimum.
I knew a few people that claimed to be atheist, but when they got real close to the river they all started to cover their bases. Every one of them. Why? They not trust all the theologians?
I'd rather die in a BAD gunfight than a GOOD nursing home.
Speaking of trippy. And TV too I suppose. I recently caught an episode of NOVA looking at our lowly solar system. What a trip. Just wow. While Uranus is pretty boring Neptune is getting it on. Bammmmm Powwwww! The Creator really came up with some interesting stuff!
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Then the definitive answer to the universal existence is ...........?
Hold the gobbledygook to an absolute minimum.
I knew a few people that claimed to be atheist, but when they got real close to the river they all started to cover their bases. Every one of them. Why? They not trust all the theologians?
You miss the point. As there is no definitive answer to ''the universal existence'' making up stories about a Cosmic Magician who 'did it' does not help. But if it keeps you happy, knock yourself out.....
"The psyche, as a reflection of the world and man, is a thing of such infinite complexity that it can be observed and studied from a great many sides. It faces us with the same problem that the world does: because a systematic study of the world is beyond our powers, we have to content ourselves with mere rules of thumb and with aspects that particularly interest us. Everyone makes for himself his own segment of world and constructs his own private system, often with air-tight compartments, so that after a time it seems to him that he has grasped the meaning and structure of the whole. But the finite will never be able to grasp the infinite"
- Carl Jung.
The infinite Jung references is the numinous quality of the mysterious and powerful [or what some call holy], which provides the underlying allure of mythological tales and themes because it gives a final meaning to human existence. The concept of something greater and more powerful than one’s self gives one the hope of direction and protection in an uncertain world.
scholar Joseph Campbell stated,.. Mythology explains, empowers, stabilizes,and elevates the life of a believer from a mundane existence to one imbued with eternal meaning. On the most basic level, a myth explains a phenomenon, tradition, place-name, or geological formation but can also elevate or emnbelish a relatively normal past event to epic and even supernatural status.
With the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions, came the new mythological division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual, eternal soul...Mankind in his inventive mind, has repeatedly added and altered mythology to suite himself.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Interesting thesis. The human psyche is so complex that any thought of a deity must be myth. Can that complexity be indicia that a deity is at work? Of course not, for we presuppose that there is no deity. That at least is Campbell's starting point.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
Evidence is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
The evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself. It is the bias the scientists bring to the lab or field that determines their interpretation of the evidence.
Originally Posted by DBT
Biogenesis is a work in progress. That's how science works. It is the creationist who adopts and endorses a set of beliefs and waves them around as if it was profound knowledge.
You still have not answered the question of Abiogenesis. The scientists have more or less proven life comes from life. (See above.) The simplest cell is considerably more complex than anything man has made; including entire cities. They don't spontaneously come into existence. Time is not the hero of this story. The more time, the more entropy.
It has been shown that entropy can, and is reversed within a system given energy input, loss in one, gain in the other....the system losing energy feeding the system which gains energy and evolves complexity.
Plus you are invoking the fallacy of irreducible complexity again. Whole cells did not pop into existence fully formed...organic molocules, RNA, etc.
Of what use is RNA outside of a cell?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Last edited by TF49; 08/19/19.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
Well....nah, I don't think so. Try again. History tells us that some of the stories, A&E, the Flood, etc, in the OT/Torah were borrowed from older religions and cultures, Sumer, Babylon and modified to build a culture and identity for the tribe of Israel.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Simply not true. Science is the study of the natural world....which says nothing about supernatural entities. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods.
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Accrue enough 'micro changes' and you have a different animal. It won't happen overnight.
Your question assumes that everything has a purpose in itself. What's the purpose of the mathematical organization of large flocks of starlings? Organization is just something that happens, given the right circumstances.
It's like asking, what's the purpose in these patterns: Link
God created a universe within which organization and increasing complexity is natural.
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
OK, first of all let me note, that I missed that this site has writers who come from the Intelligent Design perspective (that is my bad and I apologize for that). I specifically chose an article that provided more analysis than the typical news agency. The article I was citing was not advocating for Intelligent Design it was only reporting on a study and offering pros and cons and even pointing out other possibilities for interpreting the evidence. Other news agencies reported on the same study. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
Therefore the study by Stoeckle and Thaler on the DNA evidence for origins is still a DNA study requiring careful attention. The authors were conducting an objective study and were not expecting the evidence to point where it did. The known evolutionary bottlenecks do not explain away the findings of the DNA research. The desire to dismiss the findings rather than engage with it illustrates that hard core Darwinists are not really looking for facts or evidence unless it supports their pre-suppositional theories. Their extreme prejudice at times leads them to promoting hoaxes such as the Piltdown Man and then Lucy as one of the missing links. Emotional outbursts over objective findings are usually good evidence of the willingness to dismiss good evidence if it does not agree with the Darwinian faith which gave birth from too long marooned on the Galapagos Islands.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Simply not true. Science is the study of the natural world....which says nothing about supernatural entities. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods.
You cannot logically study design and design intent without considering a Designer--otherwise it is not science at all. We would not operate so obtusely in any other field of study.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
What on earth makes you think the fossil record doesn't show transitional speciation?? It's chock full of such examples. Have you never studied the biological sciences?
Quote
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Micro evolution refers to adaptational changes within a species (as in different strains of a species that have only recently in time become isolated from one another). Accumulations of such changes, through long term genetic isolation, sufficient to prevent reproduction (i.e., speciation), is macro evolution.
It's not complicated. We have all sorts of living examples that make this easy to understand. Donkeys, zebras, and horses are a great example of macro evolution, because they've been sufficiently isolated over a long enough period of time such as to no longer be able to produce fertile offspring cross species, yet it's quite evident that they are all three closely related species. Some species have been so long isolated from one another that they can't even produce infertile offspring, such as the panda bear and the grizzly (still evidently closely related, just not as closely as the horse, donkey, and zebra), although the grizzly can still reproduce with the polar bear, indicating that their isolation occurred more recently in time, and that they are very closely related indeed.
The latter example, in fact, bridges the gap between micro and macro evolution, since while they can produce fertile offspring, cross species, those offspring have adaptational problems and tend not to thrive in nature.
