Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

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

  • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    So you are still promoting the failed idea that ERRORS are improvements?
    Well, let's test your assumption.
    A few hundred years ago, a man in Italy was born with an error in his genes. It changed the structure of an Apolipoprotein:

    Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano

    So this error was a fortuitous one, which protects the people with it, from cardiovascular disease. I'd say that was an improvement. Wouldn't you? BTW, a little genetic sleuthing has revealed the individual in which the error occurred.

    The mutation was traced to one man, Giovanni Pomarelli,[3] who was born in the village in 1780 and passed it on to his offspring.
    ibid

    So God improves things by making errors?
    See above. Turns out, God is a lot smarter than some people imagine. Of course, there are those who don't think God is capable of using random variation to improve fitness. That is just about the exact definition of foolishness.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post

      But this is not a very satisfying position, given that we can never be sure that we are entirely logical, which suggests that proof is impossible for any being that is not omniscient.
      Are you saying that knowledge can not be accessible by logical analysis? If I by faith choose the logic of an omniscient being does that disprove my knowledge that I received displayed by His omniscience.

      Proof is possible and undeniable for beings that are not omniscient through time tested omniscience of another from the being of time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Well, let's test your assumption.
        A few hundred years ago, a man in Italy was born with an error in his genes. It changed the structure of an Apolipoprotein:

        Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano

        So this error was a fortuitous one, which protects the people with it, from cardiovascular disease. I'd say that was an improvement. Wouldn't you? BTW, a little genetic sleuthing has revealed the individual in which the error occurred.

        The mutation was traced to one man, Giovanni Pomarelli,[3] who was born in the village in 1780 and passed it on to his offspring.
        ibid

        See above. Turns out, God is a lot smarter than some people imagine. Of course, there are those who don't think God is capable of using random variation to improve fitness. That is just about the exact definition of foolishness.
        And to someone as simple as you.... this means that molecules can turn into a molecular biologist.... funny stuff.

        One tiny error that disrupts the existing design and that in some very minor way is slightly advantageous in a specific instance is your idea of confirming molecules to man?

        And, in the process, you ignore the VASTLY more numerous deleterious mutations that stop the process in its tracks.

        Your knowledge of science is sorely lacking.
        Last edited by Right Divider; September 29th, 2019, 06:56 PM. Reason: typo
        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


        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
          What either you're too dull to understand, or too prideful to admit, is that when you say "theory", or "scientific theory", you are doing nothing more than meaninglessly parroting a word or phrase that you have no hope of explaining. If you imagine you actually mean something by the word "theory", and by the phrase "scientific theory", then by all means start trying to teach us, Professor. The truth is, though, you mean nothing by such things: they are merely slogans with you, that you are conditioned to chanting. It's all an emotion-driven language game that you play. A parrot--a literal bird--conditioned to make the noise, "scientific theory", through its beak, stands no worse a chance at speaking coherently about its use of the phrase than you do. The Barbarian has long since had me on "ignore", because he is unable to coherently answer even the simplest questions regarding the jargon he is proud to litter up his posts with, and that angers him.
          You should have had a comma after the word "what" at the start of this post. I'm reckoning that pointing out this grammatical error of yours is going to irk you a bit and to be fair, it's pedantic on my part but where it comes to science and an understanding of the appropriate terminology it's paramount to the subject. Be my guest in correcting syntax or some such on my part as I make mistakes all the time.

          Why do you consider yourself to be "engaging rationally" by meaninglessly parroting the phrase, "scientific theory"?
          I don't, so I don't need to. I've merely pointed out what a theory is where it comes to science and the understanding of the word in that context.

          Why can't YOU (as you say) "acquaint" me with what (if anything) YOU imagine YOU mean by the word, "theory", and the phrase, "scientific theory"? That's right: Because, again, you do not mean anything by them.
          See above. Why do you feel the need to type out words in Caps when there's no need or any point or emphasis?

          I guarantee you that you will, indeed, continue to gabble as a parrot whenever you say the phrase, "scientific theory", because, as a Darwin cheerleader, that is what you are conditioned to do. I grant you, though, that there is no point in you doing so.
          It seems to me as it's you who has a penchant for parroting pointless phrases that don't actually mean anything, this whole "Darwin Cheerleader" for one...

          The word, 'evolution'? I've no hangup with it. See, I can type the word, 'evolution', just as easily as you can, Professor. Your hangup with the word, 'evolution', is that you mean nothing by it, but you're too ignorant, or dishonest, to be able to admit that you mean nothing by it. You're too proud of yourself to be able to say, "Well, you're right: I really am just senselessly making noise when I say things like 'evolution', 'evolve', 'science', 'scientific theory', 'the theory of evolution'." If you imagine you actually mean something by any one, or more of these words/phrases, why, by all means, feel free to try to say exactly what you imagine you mean.
          Hmm, thanks for the word salad, any chance of some dressing with it next time?

          For you, and many others, your problem with the word 'evolution' is that you do not mean anything by it, which is why, when you utter a phrase like "theory of evolution", you're not talking about a theory. Well, that, in itself, is not the whole of your problem with the word 'evolution': the worst of it is that, while you say such things meaninglessly, you're either too ignorant, and deluded into thinking you actually do mean something by them, or you're too prideful and dishonest a poser to admit that you mean nothing by them.
          Well, no, you've had the theory explained numerous times on this thread as it is and from someone who professes her own Christian faith along with being a biology professor and why the two aren't mutually exclusive. If there's any pride going on then you really should start looking in your own corner as to why you have such a problem with it.
          Last edited by Arthur Brain; September 29th, 2019, 08:15 PM. Reason: typo
          Well this is fun isn't it?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            Occasionally, a gene gets copied with an error. If this happens in an egg or sperm cell, then it's passed on as a change in genome in the offspring.
            Think about what you said...."a gene gets copied with an error".

            That alone disproves your theory unless you can offer how DNA gets copied in error. Amoeba becomes a monkey and monkey becomes man. It's sick for sure. I wonder how with all that sickness we even exist as a higher form based on evolution. Sickness (error)is a precursor to extinction in any environment.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              A theory in science becomes a theory because of the amount of tested and supportive evidence that corroborates hypotheses. It isn't just an unsupported notion or idea at that point. Doesn't mean to say it can't be modified or in some cases even discarded.
              Typical Darwinist: Asserts his theory as a fact; presumes to lecture on what a theory is when called on his most egregious of mistakes.


              Supposing new evidence came to light whereby the theory explaining gravity needed to be modified?
              Is reading your second language? Newton's law of gravitational attraction is not a theory. We don't work to overturn laws.

              We do work to overturn theories.

              We are right to question evolution, as it is just a theory. It's not a law. We don't overturn those.

              Please read 70 times and don't argue.

              It's not "my idea".
              Then butt out of the conversation.
              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


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Typical Darwinist: Asserts his theory as a fact; presumes to lecture on what a theory is when called on his most egregious of mistakes.
                I've never asserted any "theory of mine" as "fact" and have merely pointed out what a theory is where it comes to science and not the generalised usage of the term, just as plenty others have done previous. If that bothers you then it certainly isn't my fault.


                Is reading your second language? Newton's law of gravitational attraction is not a theory. We don't work to overturn laws.

                We do work to overturn theories.

                We are right to question evolution, as it is just a theory. It's not a law. We don't overturn those.

                Please read 70 times and don't argue.
                No, it isn't. By all means, do get around to overturning the theory of evolution if you can. Science itself would benefit.

                Then butt out of the conversation.
                Or you could simply stick to the discussion and not personalize it?
                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  IBTW, evolutionary theory is quite easy (in principle) to falsify. The simplest means is to show that one or more of Darwin's four points is not true. The problem there is that all of them have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. This is why most creationists organizations admit the evolution of new species and even higher taxa.
                  As you've been told, Darwin's four points are irrelevant nonsense and creationist organizations explicitly deny evolution.

                  You want everything to be Darwinism, so you pretend that what we are arguing against is concepts like "change."

                  Nope. Evolution is just a theory. When you're willing to concede that it is just a theory, you are allowed a seat at the table of scientific discourse. Until then, you're just a troll. :troll'
                  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


                  • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                    No, it isn't. By all means, do get around to overturning the theory of evolution if you can. Science itself would benefit.
                    A theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory.

                    Therefore it's just a vague idea.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                      A theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory.

                      Therefore it's just a vague idea.
                      No, and you've had the explanation in detail already so hey. Look, just believe that the earth is young if you want to, what difference does it really make? Be happy with that belief.
                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post

                        And, in the process, you ignore the VASTLY more numerous deleterious mutations that stop the process in its tracks.

                        this is the epitome of foolishness, to imagine that God uses random variation, which more often causes pain and disfigurement to "improve fitness"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                          No, it isn't.
                          Evolution isn't a theory.

                          Got it.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                            A theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory.

                            Therefore it's just a vague idea.
                            he still doesn't understand the concept of falsifying a theory

                            barbie gets it

                            artie never will

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              No, and you've had the explanation in detail already so hey. Look, just believe that the earth is young if you want to, what difference does it really make? Be happy with that belief.
                              Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion with that post.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                                this is the epitome of foolishness, to imagine that God uses random variation, which more often causes pain and disfigurement to "improve fitness"
                                Indeed it is.

                                We might remind those "error"folks that God declared His finished creation very good and NOT a work in progress.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X