R
rossum
Guest
To you, yes, but I was discussing Pascal’s Wager. Taking just the wager, then maximising the number of gods is the best way to beat the odds.
rossum
rossum
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
You cannot use “design” in a definition which you are trying to use to show the presence of design. That is assuming what you have to show.
Natural processes can produce Poly-A DNA by reverse transcription of the poly-A tail on a piece of mRNA, it is present in most genomes. Poly-A contains raw information. It is complex, it can extend for hundreds of base pairs. It is specified “AAAAA…AAAA”. It is functional because it functions to reduce the rate of deleterious mutations in coding DNA.
That is FCSI produced by a known natural process.
You will need to find a better argument.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Is your claim now teleological?
B
buffalo
Guest
This is what a few here are denying and trying to convince us that given enough time this all will develop. It is now getting absurd.
E
edwest211
Guest
That is the equation. Time + random events = all living things. Adam and Eve were special creations. Original Sin was a literal event and we all have it since it was passed on to us. Why was Jesus Christ born? Why did He have to die as a sacrifice?
Romans 5:10:
New International Version
For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
New Living Translation
For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son.
English Standard Version
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
5:11:
New International Version
Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
New Living Translation
So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.
English Standard Version
More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
5:12:
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Romans 5:10:
New International Version
For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
New Living Translation
For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son.
English Standard Version
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
5:11:
New International Version
Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
New Living Translation
So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.
English Standard Version
More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
5:12:
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah… saying random mutations does everything is just too vague .
B
buffalo
Guest
The evo promoters have given two experiments done before DNA (Watson and Crick) was discovered as their laboratory proof.
I asked if that was it, before I rebut. Dead silence, so I can conclude that if I successfully rebut their experiments they will give up evolution.
Think so?
I asked if that was it, before I rebut. Dead silence, so I can conclude that if I successfully rebut their experiments they will give up evolution.
Think so?
T
Techno2000
Guest
The evolution people will always have to set us ignorant people straight.The evo promoters have given two experiments done before DNA (Watson and Crick) was discovered as their laboratory proof.
I asked if that was it, before I rebut. Dead silence, so I can conclude that if I successfully rebut their experiments they will give up evolution.
Think so?
B
benjamin1973
Guest
As opposed to the super-detailed and specific Biblical accounts of speciation?
Tell me more!
Tell me more!
P
PaladinSword
Guest
Yeah this is why I kinda think Padre Pio was onto something when he said he would refuse to enter heaven until all his children went with him…
Heroic act and Bodhisattva path are like similar concepts I suppose.
Heroic act and Bodhisattva path are like similar concepts I suppose.
G
Glark
Guest
But “your loved ones” will soon be gone too, so no one will remember you. If there are no gods, it doesn’t matter if you live a “noble life” or not (whatever “noble” means). Ted Bundy and Mother Teresa get the same reward - eternal oblivion.
B
buffalo
Guest
Deleterious mutations cause speciation. Sin and corruption entered the world after Adam sinned.
G
Glark
Guest
How would you know what’s in the fossil record? You’ve probably never examined even a single real fossil., let alone the millions that have been dug up. As far as I know, you have zero qualifications and zero experience in paleontology.
But I didn’t ask for proof of the theory of evolution. I asked for proof that the theory that all life evolved from microbes is useful to applied science.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
For some reason your posts often show up without any indication of which post you are responding to. So when you talk about “laboratory proof” above, I have no idea what proof you are talking about. Same thing for your reference to rebutting something. What?The evo promoters have given two experiments done before DNA (Watson and Crick) was discovered as their laboratory proof.
I asked if that was it, before I rebut. Dead silence, so I can conclude that if I successfully rebut their experiments they will give up evolution.
Think so?
P
PaladinSword
Guest
Lol. I stare in the face of oblivion and laugh
G
Glark
Guest
They’re not silly at all. I would imagine that the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution is more than 99%.
There are no arguments within the scientific community about whether microbe-man evolution is true or not - it is regarded as an indisputable fact. Even the Catholic Church as been fooled by their unanimity.
Since I am a Christian, I am highly likely to defer my interpretation of reality to the Bible and divine revelation.
I don’t have a general distrust of science - I have a general distrust of pseudo-science, the kind that places assumptions and a philosophical world-view above facts … evolution, for example
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
You consider it irrational to believe that extremely complex systems require an intelligent First Cause? If you believe extremely complex systems build themselves, then I suggest it is you who is thinking irrationally.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I know what’s in the fossil record because I can read about it and see pictures of the fossils. I have in fact seen at least several real fossils, and even owned one as a kid.
Your focus on qualifications is a bit silly, since those who DO have qualifications almost exclusively agree with the position of evolution. I don’t need to have a doctorate degree in evolutionary theory to know that whales with finger bones are interesting, or that dinosaurs with feathers indicate that birds are likely closely related to dinosaurs.
As for “proof that the theory that all life evolved from microbes is useful to applied science,” that’s quite the red herring. Nobody here is arguing that position-- you have introduced it as a straw man argument, and keep going on about it.
Since people are inquisitive, the use of knowledge is the knowledge itself-- no other purpose is necessary for attempting to know than the desire to do so. Evolutionary theory gives us an infinitely more detailed, interesting and useful account than “And then God made the fish.” Even if the accounts of Genesis are true, they are obviously a summary. Where’s the “And then God mad whales with 5 finger bones” or “and then God made giraffes, such that verily they eateth from the highest trees”?
I don’t have a problem with the Bible. It is a rich and interesting part of our culture, with many interesting stories and ideas-- some real wisdom is to be found in it. However, when it is insisted that the Bible be used as the only source of knowledge about animals, then we will have a truly deprived and lacking science manual, indeed.
Your focus on qualifications is a bit silly, since those who DO have qualifications almost exclusively agree with the position of evolution. I don’t need to have a doctorate degree in evolutionary theory to know that whales with finger bones are interesting, or that dinosaurs with feathers indicate that birds are likely closely related to dinosaurs.
As for “proof that the theory that all life evolved from microbes is useful to applied science,” that’s quite the red herring. Nobody here is arguing that position-- you have introduced it as a straw man argument, and keep going on about it.
Since people are inquisitive, the use of knowledge is the knowledge itself-- no other purpose is necessary for attempting to know than the desire to do so. Evolutionary theory gives us an infinitely more detailed, interesting and useful account than “And then God made the fish.” Even if the accounts of Genesis are true, they are obviously a summary. Where’s the “And then God mad whales with 5 finger bones” or “and then God made giraffes, such that verily they eateth from the highest trees”?
I don’t have a problem with the Bible. It is a rich and interesting part of our culture, with many interesting stories and ideas-- some real wisdom is to be found in it. However, when it is insisted that the Bible be used as the only source of knowledge about animals, then we will have a truly deprived and lacking science manual, indeed.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
When most people think of biological evolution, they think of apes evolving into humans and dinosaurs evolving into birds, etc. So when they hear a statement such as Dodzhansky’s, “Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution”, they think that monkey-men kind of macroevolution must be essential to the science of biology. But the opposite is the truth - nothing in biology depends on the theory that humans evolved from apes or that whales descended frm rodents. Biology isn’t advanced by empty theories and tales about what happened billion of years ago, but by facts.
That is why I emphasis the of uselessness of microbe-man macroevolution - so many people have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise. You, for example. I think part of the problem can be attributed to the fact that some folks don’t want to admit that they’ve been duped by the pseudo-scientific cult of evolution.
Do you know the difference between a theory and a practical use? Evidently not. You think that an evolutionary explanation for something means it is useful. You’re wrong.
Can you tell me of what practical use is it to theorise about why we supposedly have “vestigial organs”, or why whales have “finger bones”? What use has medical science, for instance, found for such evolutionary tales? I can tell you - none; and that’s because applied science relies on facts, not stories and theories.
Apart from that, you really need to upgrade your understanding of these two words - “useful” and “knowledge”, as you misuse them. Here’s a helpful hint: Both these words relate to facts, as opposed to stories about what someone thinks happened millions of years ago.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
God created the world to be in perfect balance.
Bacteria and molds to exist in harmony have built-in mechanisms to make their relationship work within the environment that they share. When sin entered the world, it not only brought suffering to all creation, but also impacted on God’s healing grace as we, the crown of creation put ourselves rather than Him, at the Centre of the garden that represents our being-in-the-world. So everything decomposes - the effects of randomness on the order He established.
From an initial state of bacterial genomic perfection, random change took away those aspects of the bacteria’s nature that kept it in balance within the environment. So we get antibiotic resistance due to a decrease in porins and greater susceptibility to antibiotics, through a loss of beta-lactamase production.
Random mutations take away traits. In both cases above, they disrupt the homeostasis of the environment. In the case of porins it is to the benefit of bacterial overproduction. In the second having to do with a particular lack of enzyme production, it is to the bacteria’s detriment.
That may be the best I can do to explain it.
Bacteria and molds to exist in harmony have built-in mechanisms to make their relationship work within the environment that they share. When sin entered the world, it not only brought suffering to all creation, but also impacted on God’s healing grace as we, the crown of creation put ourselves rather than Him, at the Centre of the garden that represents our being-in-the-world. So everything decomposes - the effects of randomness on the order He established.
From an initial state of bacterial genomic perfection, random change took away those aspects of the bacteria’s nature that kept it in balance within the environment. So we get antibiotic resistance due to a decrease in porins and greater susceptibility to antibiotics, through a loss of beta-lactamase production.
Random mutations take away traits. In both cases above, they disrupt the homeostasis of the environment. In the case of porins it is to the benefit of bacterial overproduction. In the second having to do with a particular lack of enzyme production, it is to the bacteria’s detriment.
That may be the best I can do to explain it.
Last edited:
- Status