Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Alate is claiming that God is warring against Himself by having two mutually exclusive ways of educating people about Himself that leads to two opposite conclusions. This right here is a clear revelation of Alate's agenda.
    Are you saying we shouldn't try to examine the creation God has given us? That we can't learn anything from it? Or that the creation itself was created to deceive us?

    In your opinion should we be using vaccines and antibiotics since those came from this mutually exclusive knowledge?
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      This is reasonable. But Exodus 20:11 walks right into the middle of the conversation and says, "What about me?" Because with Exodus 20:11 in the mix, as it were, authoritatively interpreting the otherwise ambiguous Genesis, then the apparent conflict you mention, where you call the evidence of the earth's age "very clear," how clear is it really, compared with the clarity of Exodus 20:11?
      The seven days are numerologically significant. St. Augustine too thought the idea of seven days wasn't actually literal but a useful way of organizing the concepts of creation. The fact that the number and story were used again doesn't mean it has to be a literal, play by play story.

      Again this is modern culture failing to grasp what an ancient document meant to people of the time.
      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        Are you saying we shouldn't try to examine the creation God has given us? That we can't learn anything from it? Or that the creation itself was created to deceive us?

        In your opinion should we be using vaccines and antibiotics since those came from this mutually exclusive knowledge?
        LOL. You are certainly using the party line.

        When God's creation is "examined" by people who deny His existence what other conclusion can they reach other than "God didn't do it"? They certainly aren't going to examine the evidence with an open mind or look at both sides of the issue for their minds are already made up on the issue as to whether or not God is the source of all life. They start with an autonomous nature and deny any supernatural intervention as a matter of course. They call that "religion" and it must be excluded in their examination of the world around them.

        You do the same thing, yet claim to love God. You say you love Him, yet deny He has the power to create life in all it's forms. Every bit of dna evidence that you claim "proves" evolution can also be seen as the product of design. If you had an open mind on the subject you would explore that evidence from both sides but you do not. In no area of life other than God's creation do people look at what are clearly systems that show great evidence of design and claim the systems all came about by chance. Did your computer come about by chance? Did the car you drive come about by chance? Did the house or apartment building you live in come about by chance?

        How many millions/billions/trillions of years would it take if you dumped all the raw materials it takes to make a computer in one spot for a computer to just happen?
        “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

        “One and God make a majority.”
        ― Frederick Douglass

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          I notice you didn't respond to my point about lactose tolerance in humans. Is it because it's an actual example of a clearly beneficial trait arising by mutation?

          Here's an educational video that explains it, for those interested.

          Is "lactase persistence" the genetic mutation or is "lactose intolerance" the genetic mutation?

          The real answer is that neither is a real genetic mutation, but lactose intolerance is the result of other factors shutting off the lactase gene.

          Can changing the microbiome reverse lactose intolerance

          Normally, the activity of the gene that produces lactase, LCT, declines after infancy. New evidence suggests that this decline occurs not because the genetic code is changed, but because the DNA is chemically modified so that the lactase gene is switched off. Such modifications that affect gene activity while leaving the DNA sequence intact are called epigenetic. The epigenetic modification that turns off the lactase gene does not happen in lactose-tolerant individuals. This new finding gives an important insight into how lactose intolerance develops with age or after trauma to the intestinal tract.

          I’m a microbiologist, and I became interested in the causes of lactose intolerance because it afflicts a close friend. He is of Norwegian descent and, like most Norwegians, is genetically lactose tolerant. But, he became permanently lactose intolerant at the age of 45 after a long regimen of antibiotics.

          The ability of adults to digest lactose appeared in humans relatively recently. Specific genetic changes – known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs – conveying lactase-persistence arose independently in various populations around the same time as their domestication of dairy animals. None of these SNPs are in the lactase gene itself, but instead are in a nearby region of the DNA that control its activity. Scientists have been trying to figure out how these changes exert their influence over this gene’s behavior.

          Recently researchers have shown that one of the SNPs changes the level of epigenetic modification of the DNA in the lactase gene control regions. Specifically, the SNP prevents small chemical units, called methyl groups (which consist of one carbon and three hydrogen atoms) from being attached to the DNA. Methyl groups are especially important in regulating gene activity because when they are added to the DNA, they turn off the gene.

          These studies imply that after early childhood, the lactase gene is usually shut off by DNA methylation. The SNPs that alter the DNA sequence in the control region, however, prevent this methylation from happening. This, in turn, results in the production of lactase because the gene is kept on.

          Learn to read what is written.

          _____
          The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
          ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            You haven't posted any evidence.
            You just keep telling yourself that.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
              Is "lactase persistence" the genetic mutation or is "lactose intolerance" the genetic mutation?
              Yeah, I heard this somewhere before, but can't recall the source. Basically the idea is that people were designed to grow out of milk, but because they started drinking it too much, they adapted to be lactose tolerant.

              Notice how the change is always environment dependent.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #82
                Is't it funny how they keep bringing up trivial mutations and then claiming to extrapolate that into a change from a single-celled creature to a man?
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data
                  Evolution might be well supported by scientific data. I wouldn't know because nobody knows. That's because what "evolution" means is so vague that there is no use talking about it.

                  If you want to talk about scientific data, then you'll have to talk about common descent. Or maybe the supposed mechanism of common descent which is random mutation plus natural selection.

                  Or, you could tell us the definition of "evolution" that is more than "change over time". Because "change over time" means nothing because both sides of the argument agree to it. YEC even believe that allele frequency of a population will change over time. Why do you continue to use that useless definition?

                  I know why. It's because you cannot discuss the evidence because the evidence for common descent is thin. I didn't say there is not evidence for common descent, because there is some. It's just not very strong. It consists of homology and radiometric dating.

                  Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

                  Fossils

                  DNA evidence

                  Biogeography

                  Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)



                  So here's a piece of evidence here:



                  A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?


                  Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?

                  Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

                  I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
                  by Denis O. Lamoureux
                  Does your book focus on homology too?

                  I hope it doesn't try to focus on DNA, Biogeography, or evo-devo, because those are huge losers for common descent. The only way to call those evidences for common descent is to ignore all contra evidence.

                  Also of interest: Dobzhansky: 40 Years Later Nothing Makes Sense

                  And one more thing. You never answered the question of what percentage, a rough range is fine, of how much of human DNA is useful. Now that you've had some time, certainly a biology teacher can give us an answer to that question. My guess is that you will either not answer, or you will weasel the discussion about what "useful" means. In the spirit of the latter, give us word you prefer and define what you mean by it if you like.
                  Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                  Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    The seven days are numerologically significant. St. Augustine too thought the idea of seven days wasn't actually literal but a useful way of organizing the concepts of creation. The fact that the number and story were used again doesn't mean it has to be a literal, play by play story.

                    Again this is modern culture failing to grasp what an ancient document meant to people of the time.
                    OK but now you've moved the goalposts a bit. You've introduced some evidence to suggest speculation that Exodus 20:11 is as literal and unambiguous that it on its face appears to be. The text itself certainly doesn't grant any metaphorical interpretation, so the idea that it is metaphorical in some way (where metaphorical means the direct opposite of literal) comes from outside of the text itself.

                    fyi, I consider science to be a branch of the general human endeavor of determining whether any proposition is fact or fiction. Other branches are the criminal justice system, logic, and math. And this is how I know that science is incapable of establishing the proposition that the universe is billions of years old, but science is capable of establishing the proposition that the universe appears to be billions of years old.
                    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                    @Nee_Nihilo

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Yeah, I heard this somewhere before, but can't recall the source. Basically the idea is that people were designed to grow out of milk, but because they started drinking it too much, they adapted to be lactose tolerant.

                      Notice how the change is always environment dependent.
                      Part of this specific problem, and many other digestive issues is due to the modern diet of foods being basically dead. All processed foods, baked foods, cooked foods, frozen foods, etc... have no living enzymes in them as temps over 120-150 degrees kill the enzymes in the food. This leads to all kinds of health issues. If we ate mainly raw foods, not eliminating all cooked foods, we would find that many of the health issues modern man suffers from would go away for consuming a broad base of enzymes in our food helps the body produce the digestive enzymes we need.

                      Raw milk has naturally occurring lactase in it. But the government has mandated that out of existence due to requiring milk products to be pasteurized. The temps associated with pasteurization kill the enzymes in milk. As human beings drank raw milk for thousands of years with few problems and lactose intolerance was unknown, we see the cause of lactose intolerance: government legislation.

                      The same goes for gluten intolerance. The enzymes necessary to properly digest gluten are no longer found in the modern diet, and gluten intolerance is something that was unknown 40-50 years ago. Our diet has changed that much due to government mandated regulation of food processing that kills enzymes in our foods that gluten intolerance has become fairly common. Just eating the right foods will eliminate gluten intolerance. Just the regular eating of foods with bromalain and other enzymes that digest protein, for gluten is a protein, stop the symptom of gluten intolerance.

                      Alate's arguments are pointless. These symptoms are caused by our modern diet and government regulations concerning the processing of foods.
                      “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                      ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                      “One and God make a majority.”
                      ― Frederick Douglass

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        https://celiac.org/about-celiac-dise...eliac-disease/
                        All of my ancestors are human.
                        Originally posted by Squeaky
                        That explains why your an idiot.
                        Originally posted by God's Truth
                        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                          That's like asserting the Bible is fake because someone came up with a bad interpretation of Revelation . . .
                          no
                          The problem with the soft tissue issue (teehee) is that it comes from only one lab. The science actually comes from a Christian lab manager, who doesn't doubt evolution btw. I'm skeptical of anything in science that hasn't been repeated by other labs. And so far the "soft tissue" hasn't really. But it could be true. Doesn't disprove evolution either way though.
                          one lab ? where have you been ?

                          link to extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals

                          https://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissu...erial#research

                          After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutionists. (Further, as of June 2019, the existence of dinosaur soft tissue, likely the greatest paleontology discovery ever, remains unknown to the vast majority of the public as anyone can extrapolate by asking a couple dozen people.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
                            no
                            Why because you said so? I guess you're retracting your "fake" assertion then?

                            After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutionists.
                            I'll note your reference to KGOV has links that are conspicuously marked "non Schwitzer lab". Someone is aware of the very issue I raised. I'll grant you there's been more work on it than I have looked at in the past few years. However most of the papers are of protein residue, mostly keratin, of which I have been quite well aware. I have been telling students about feathered dinosaurs that were so well preserved scientists could determine feather coloration from them.

                            Of course most people still don't know there are feathered dinosaurs so . . .

                            You ignored my second point though. Even if there is some "soft tissue" remaining, it really has no impact on evolutionary theory. So . . .

                            If you really think that fossils preserving some biological material more than previously anticipated is some kind of death knell for an old earth and evolution, you really have no idea how much clear and convincing evidence there is for evolution. Science doesn't work that way.
                            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                              Is't it funny how they keep bringing up trivial mutations and then claiming to extrapolate that into a change from a single-celled creature to a man?
                              Eh no. He asserted there were no beneficial mutations. I gave him some examples.

                              There are, as you have implied, a huge number of steps from a single celled creature to complex life on earth. I can certainly walk you through them, many of them still have modern parallels. But I'm sure you're not actually interested in that.
                              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                                OK but now you've moved the goalposts a bit. You've introduced some evidence to suggest speculation that Exodus 20:11 is as literal and unambiguous that it on its face appears to be. The text itself certainly doesn't grant any metaphorical interpretation, so the idea that it is metaphorical in some way (where metaphorical means the direct opposite of literal) comes from outside of the text itself.
                                I'm saying that Exodus may have taken a metaphorical text and used it as the basis for the literal.

                                Again, numbers like seven are symbolic of perfection and point to God. If you look you'll see them all over scripture. Sevens and multiples of seven. Indeed the week may have been to remind people of the creation story, the point of which is more to tell people, God made the earth and it has a purpose and is good. Unlike the peoples around the ancient Israelites who thought the world was run by angry deities and the earth was made by accident.

                                fyi, I consider science to be a branch of the general human endeavor of determining whether any proposition is fact or fiction. Other branches are the criminal justice system, logic, and math. And this is how I know that science is incapable of establishing the proposition that the universe is billions of years old, but science is capable of establishing the proposition that the universe appears to be billions of years old.
                                If you take the appearance of age argument, the world could have been created two seconds ago and we'd never know it. It's kind of a pointless argument in my opinion. It offers no useful predictions that technologies can be built on, so why bother with such an idea?
                                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X