I could go along with that, but what is the source being used by the BLOG?
The motivation doesn’t matter. Go where the evidence takes you. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush, the fossil record shows abrupt appearance then stasis, DNA is a complex language readable both froward and backwards, convergent evolution of many features over and over again, DNA actively fights against mutations, natural selection is a consrvative process not a creative one, we are devolving (human genome in meltdown), junk DNA has bit the dust, chromosome fusion - gone, and Adam and Eve lived at the same time (they just didn’t know each other) to name just a few.The trouble is though, if Creationists reject evolution because it doesn’t adhere to their literal interpretation of the Bible, why don’t they then accept the whole allegorical cosmology given
in the Bible as literal? Talking flat Earth, Dome Sky, Pillars Under the Earth, etc.
Look here for more.I could go along with that, but what is the source being used by the BLOG?
70% doesn’t make a big enough difference, really, but where is that from?
We are still member of the Family of Hominidae
along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and
orangutans.
No, God is not a trickster.Four days now, and still no answer from those who oppose evolution: Is God a trickster?
That would seem reasonable.The presence of similar genes in different species, according to ID folks could be attributed to a reuse of the same design.
DNA isn’t perfect, believe it or not. Things do happen which are not normallyThe motivation doesn’t matter. Go where the evidence takes you. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush, the fossil record shows abrupt appearance then stasis, DNA is a complex language readable both froward and backwards, convergent evolution of many features over and over again, DNA actively fights against mutations, natural selection is a consrvative process not a creative one, we are devolving (human genome in meltdown), junk DNA has bit the dust, chromosome fusion - gone, and Adam and Eve lived at the same time (they just didn’t know each other) to name just a few.
As the question itself concerning God being a tricckster was used to support evolution, it seems illogical to answer the evolution position first before making up your mind on what is considered to be a support.Okay, take a moment then to clarify your position: Evolution - For or Against?
THEN, answer us all this: Is God a trickster?
What are you talking about? “…believing what they wish despite evidence to the contrary”?No, God is not a trickster.
In most cases, it is ourselves that are the tricksters.
Human’s are very good at believing what they wish despite evidence to the contrary.
I find it interesting that we are supposed to know and understand what is actually meant behind inaccurate word use. But it would appear opposition using inaccurate terms is considered uneducated.We both know that the point is that we have four limbs, not necessarily four feet. I hardly call the case closed simply because you choose to jump on my poor choice of words as though it were an argument.
Human Chromosome Fusion DebunkedDNA isn’t perfect, believe it or not. Things do happen which are not normally
supposed to happen. “Chromosome Fusion - Gone”? Where’d you get that?
This following video may be of interest: How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists
- Ken Miller On Chromosome 2. And what does “Adam and Eve lived at the
same time (they just didn’t know each other)” even mean???
Motivation does kinda matter, it really does.
Scientists’ motive is to find out what the evidence says.
Creationists’ motive is to make the Bible appear 100% literal and tear down what science says to the contrary.
Scientists view the world based on the evidence.
Creationists view the evidence in light of the Bible and their modernistic views.
uh . . . thanks, but that’s like saying “God said this and that,” I ask where, andLook here for more.
At what point did a theory become the whole of science?John Doe denies evolution.
Evolution IS science.
Therefore, John Doe denies science.
The God is a trickster argument is bogus. He is under no obligation to reveal everything to us. What we do observe we have to properly reason.What are you talking about? “…believing what they wish despite evidence to the contrary”?
What do we believe “…despite evidence to the contrary”? Does that not describe a Creationist?
Scroll down for the reason resources. Most link to the original papers.uh . . . thanks, but that’s like saying “God said this and that,” I ask where, and
I’m given an entire Bible to plow through. That’s like over 50 links I think (100?)
I was asking for the source of that particular thing about Chimps and 70% in common with humans.
That’s been my question the whole time.At what point did a theory become the whole of science?
It describes humans in general.What are you talking about? “…believing what they wish despite evidence to the contrary”?
What do we believe “…despite evidence to the contrary”? Does that not describe a Creationist?
Can I use this argument when someone attempts to claim a question was answered days ago in this thread?uh . . . thanks, but that’s like saying “God said this and that,” I ask where, and
I’m given an entire Bible to plow through. That’s like over 50 links I think (100?)
Interesting, why is it when I type “site:designed-dna.org intelligent” in a Google Search, I get about 127Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked
…
…
What? Rephrase.As the question itself concerning God being a tricckster was used to support evolution, it seems illogical to answer the evolution position first before making up your mind on what is considered to be a support.
No, because the link regarding the supposed 70% difference between humans and chimpsCan I use this argument when someone attempts to claim a question was answered days ago in this thread?