|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
TF49 you are going to incite another emotional Darwinian meltdown. Very difficult to convince a seagull to stop squawking.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
interesting stuff, never realized there was so much controversy in a reference frame.
Just a question, so humor me if you would anybody.
There was mention about calculations and probabilities of mutations etc.
Question Are these regular probabilities type calculations, or are they using stochastic differential equations (Markov chains)? the later to create a "tempo" or phase relation sort of speak?
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
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. You keep saying this but if you actually studied flood accounts you would find some similarities in other flood accounts far away from the Mesopotamian area. How do you account for those? Do you really think it was all a borrow? If you still illogically do, then you are not taking into account the stark differences between the Genesis account and all other accounts. The Egyptian and Babylonian accounts establish creation on the basis of wars and jealousy between the gods. No one today would even debate the credibility of those accounts. Tell me where on the internet I can go to find 80 pages of debate between pagans supporting the ancient pagan views of creation vs modern science? The Genesis account shows the unity of the Godhead in starting creation in the context of creating good. This assertion is not logical and ahistorical. Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible. The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
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. And worse logic by an educated man is to assume that no one did it when it was clearly done. Education entails a reasonable understanding of logic. Logic tells us that all the contradictory beliefs that are held on faith cannot be true. Logic tells us that a conviction of truth should be justified with evidence, and that evidence is a body of information that anyone can access and come to a similar conclusion. ...and that what it says in this or that holy book is not evidence for the truth of their claims, Allah, Brahma, Shiva or whatever else supernatural.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
TF49 you are going to incite another emotional Darwinian meltdown. Very difficult to convince a seagull to stop squawking. Said with a straight face?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
TF49 you are going to incite another emotional Darwinian meltdown. Very difficult to convince a seagull to stop squawking. Said with a straight face? Yep, take a look at your last three posts. Bafflegab.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
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. Just because you think something does not make it true. As far as "History tells us", you wish it were that way. Which story sounds more like the original? Noah's ark used a naval ratio of 6:1 length to width. The supposed one most try to use was a cube. As far as Israel borrowing from other cultures, that would not be unheard. No culture is an island.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
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. Science does not speak. Science is a discipline. Where did you get the idea God is not part of the natural world? He created it and maintains it. Science is the study of His world and cosmos.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
Stories? Yes, it would seem so.
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. Let me help you. It won't happen at all. If you get enough changes the species becomes extinct.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
Of what use is RNA outside of a cell?
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: LinkGod created a universe within which organization and increasing complexity is natural. You are grasping at straws. A flock of starlings are complete beings. RNA is nothing but a molecule; albeit a very complex molecule.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
What's the purpose of snowflake organizational complexity? ![[Linked Image]](http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/nm52a52510.jpg) To glorify God!
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine. Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20 |
Where did you get the idea God is not part of the natural world? The natural world (the entire universe) is God's creation. He is no more part of it than a potter is part of the pot he makes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20 |
What's the purpose of snowflake organizational complexity? To glorify God! Then why cannot RNA glorify God?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20 |
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
So there was one species of equine, and it became at least the three that remain today, yes? Ok, so how? By what process? Families aren't species. They are one category up from species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species. So lets go one more category up from there, to Perissodactyla, the order to which equine belongs. Are all members of Perissodactyla also a mere diversification of the original created species? How'd we get all the horses, the two or three types of rhinoceros, and tapirs from that? What was the process?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes. The Flood did happen. The story is possible because it did happen. Because you don't believe it and maybe even read others don't believe it makes no never mind to the facts.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
Logic tells us that a conviction of truth should be justified with evidence, and that evidence is a body of information that anyone can access and come to a similar conclusion. ... You wish this is true. Every evolutionist I read about was refuted by another evolutionist. Evolutionists refute creationist even when they have the facts. Therefore your logic is flawed. People will not come to a similar conclusion. They are people, after all.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
Where did you get the idea God is not part of the natural world? The natural world (the entire universe) is God's creation. He is no more part of it than a potter is part of the pot he makes. Omnipresent! There is nowhere where God is not.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
What's the purpose of snowflake organizational complexity? To glorify God! Then why cannot RNA glorify God? It serves a function in a complete cell. Therefore its action glorifies God.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,750 Likes: 20 |
Where did you get the idea God is not part of the natural world? The natural world (the entire universe) is God's creation. He is no more part of it than a potter is part of the pot he makes. Omnipresent! There is nowhere where God is not. Sure, he permeates his creation, but is not part of it. That's impossible. He's uncreated being.
|
|
|
|
|
531 members (10Glocks, 219 Wasp, 21, 1minute, 260madman, 1OntarioJim, 58 invisible),
2,426
guests, and
1,208
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,431
Posts18,489,256
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
