Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

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

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    You can ridicule it all you like. It's reality.



    Notice which finger horses have left?
    I notice that you make tons of speculative claims that you cannot prove.
    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 JudgeRightly View Post
      No more access to the Tree of Life.

      It's literally the reason God kicked them out, stated EXPLICITLY in scripture.
      It's a reason, it's not the only reason. Also note, to till the ground. The garden produced food on its own, outside the garden, not so. The garden was a special place, not just because of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

      God didn't prohibit marriage between close relatives until Moses' time (most likely due to the genetic harm it would bring to the offspring).

      Cain married his sister, so did Seth, so did each of their descendants. All it would take is for each married couple to have more than two kids each and the population would grow very quickly.

      In other words, there's a perfectly biblical explanation for where the people came from that DOES NOT require God to have createfd other people besides Adam and Eve.
      Except, that's not what the scripture is implying. You have to make up an unsaid explanation otherwise. Plus it's genetically impossible for the human race to have come from literally two people, only 6000 years ago. You would have only a tiny amount of genetic diversity. Humans would be as bad off as cheetahs. Not to mention all the other organisms after an only two survive global flood. No genetic evidence for either event.
      “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


      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        I notice that you make tons of speculative claims that you cannot prove.
        Not speculation. They are homologous structures. All vertebrates have the same bones in their limbs. They start off as almost identical embryos. What makes the difference is how they develop and how the bones grow differently. Some are longer in one species and not another. This comes from a basic biology text, the one I normally use in fact.



        Denying what is obvious is your problem.
        “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


        • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
          Of course. And the way to tell if that's true is by examining his claims. And certainly, you can't look at everyone's claims. But you should look at notable claims like Yale's Dr. Gelernter. Turns out, his claims are very rational.
          And the claims are?

          But, no, I didn't bring up one person's opinion as a destroyer of a scientific theory. What you're doing is projecting because you are afraid the idea of common descent, despite it's popularity, is very fragile. Stop over-blowing what is simply evidence.
          Oh, you're serious. Wow, that's some class A level delusion and projection. Have you been taking lessons from Trump? Common Descent is not remotely fragile. It gets stronger all the time. It's very difficult not to run into in biology.

          Then admit that Dr. Gelernter isn't a science (with no qualifier) denier, but an "evolutionary biology" denier. Outside of that discipline, he is 100% consistent with good science in general.
          I'll say it again. If you deny evolution you're not consistent with good science. People have all kinds of reasons for rejecting evolution. None of them are based on objective evaluation of the evidence.

          Thirdly, saying biology is analog doesn't remove the symbol-to-physical state of biology. By saying the code is analog you are inferring that the code is magic. But just because the code is more sophisticated then anything we've been able to create so far doesn't make it magic.
          Never said it was magic. It's far more complex than computer code and relies on a lot of chemical interactions. The analogy really isn't a very great one for the purposes of evaluating evolution. Partly because I don't believe you understand biology or computer code so . . .
          “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


          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            It's a reason, it's not the only reason. Also note, to till the ground. The garden produced food on its own, outside the garden, not so. The garden was a special place, not just because of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

            Except, that's not what the scripture is implying. You have to make up an unsaid explanation otherwise. Plus it's genetically impossible for the human race to have come from literally two people, only 6000 years ago. You would have only a tiny amount of genetic diversity. Humans would be as bad off as cheetahs. Not to mention all the other organisms after an only two survive global flood. No genetic evidence for either event.
            Cheetahs are adapted from a cat kind. With adaptation comes a cost to genetic integrity. Adam and Eve had unadapted DNA; its integrity was as good as it gets.

            We know you've heard this a hundred times, but it still hasn't gotten through: Diversification is bad for genetic integrity.

            Even if you don't agree, at least show some respect for the other side by allowing our ideas a seat at the table.
            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 Alate_One View Post
              It's far more complex than computer code.
              Are you going to explain how extra complexity makes a code fundamentally different from its expression in binary?

              Are you retracting your admission that the code of DNA could be written as 1's and 0's?

              [It] relies on a lot of chemical interactions.
              I can write a code that relies on water flowing. I can create a code that relies on the angles between faces on diamonds. I could write a code that relies on literally any interaction between physical things. The complexity is irrelevant.

              The analogy.
              You keep making things up to describe DNA that we don't agree with. It's not a thought experiment; it's not an analogy; DNA is a code — it's information.

              ...really isn't a very great one for the purposes of evaluating evolution.
              You don't get to reject reality to protect your ideas. DNA is a code. Evolution needs to deal with that fact.

              I don't believe you understand biology or computer code so.
              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 Alate_One View Post
                Not speculation. They are homologous structures. All vertebrates have the same bones in their limbs. They start off as almost identical embryos. What makes the difference is how they develop and how the bones grow differently. Some are longer in one species and not another. This comes from a basic biology text, the one I normally use in fact.



                Denying what is obvious is your problem.
                And you ASSUME that the structures indicate a descendant relationship.
                I assume of common designer.
                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
                  And you ASSUME that the structures indicate a descendant relationship.
                  I assume of common designer.
                  When you also find fossils in the ground that show intermediate steps between forms, when the same genes are found in fish, when every organism has the same pattern of bones just modified, why assume a common designer in the human-like sense?

                  A single human designer when making machines for different purposes would not use identical engines to run everything from a submarine to a semi truck to an airplane. But we do see that in evolution.

                  If it's all about common design, why don't bats have feathers? Why don't whales have scales and breathe water?
                  “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


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Cheetahs are adapted from a cat kind. With adaptation comes a cost to genetic integrity. Adam and Eve had unadapted DNA; its integrity was as good as it gets.
                    You just asserted the existence of "genetic integrity". There is no such thing.

                    We know you've heard this a hundred times, but it still hasn't gotten through: Diversification is bad for genetic integrity.
                    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. A thousand times wrong. Without genetic diversity, an organism is clonal. The first environmental change that appeared would wipe out the species. WE have such things without diversity. They're called inbred lines.

                    Even if you don't agree, at least show some respect for the other side by allowing our ideas a seat at the table.
                    It's like asking to give a car with square concrete blocks for wheels a "seat at the table". Some ideas are just clearly stupid.

                    I'm sorry you feel it is essential to your religious beliefs but biology doesn't care what you believe. It either works or it doesn't.
                    “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


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Are you going to explain how extra complexity makes a code fundamentally different from its expression in binary?
                      It depends on what you're going to do with it. If you're going to pretend that because mutating computer code usually breaks it, therefore because DNA can also be represented in code, mutations usually break DNA, there's a serious logical flaw in that assertion. This is because mutating code representing DNA is not the same as mutating DNA because they are fundamentally different structures.

                      Are you retracting your admission that the code of DNA could be written as 1's and 0's?
                      You never explained what you mean by "the code of DNA". I told you to properly model function you'd have to model chemistry.

                      You don't get to reject reality to protect your ideas. DNA is a code. Evolution needs to deal with that fact.
                      It's not the same as computer code. Representing it using computer code doesn't make it one and the same. That's like creating artificial flowers, then complaining that they don't photosynthesize. A representation is not the same thing as the thing itself.

                      I see the straw man you're trying to build.
                      “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


                      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        You just asserted the existence of "genetic integrity". There is no such thing.
                        Of course there is. For instance, a randomized ATCG string will never code for organisms that can replicate themselves.

                        To make the quoted claim, you would have to believe that any sequence is as good as the next, which is obviously nonsense.

                        Without genetic diversity, an organism is clonal.
                        Thanks for moving the goalposts. We were talking about the process of diversification, not asserting that every organism of the same kind were clones (which they obviously weren't, despite that being what Darwinists believe).

                        The first environmental change that appeared would wipe out the species. WE have such things without diversity. They're called inbred lines.
                        Nope. Organisms adapt to their environment. This adaptation degrades their ability to adapt. The closer we go back to the genome of the created kinds, the better the genetic integrity.

                        Simple entropy.

                        It's like asking to give a car with square concrete blocks for wheels a "seat at the table". Some ideas are just clearly stupid.
                        This is bigotry. It doesn't matter how stupid your idea is: If you're willing to be rational and honest with the subject, the scientific approach can deal with 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 Alate_One View Post
                          It depends on what you're going to do with it.
                          No, it doesn't. You need to explain what you believe and respond rationally to challenges. You know: Science.

                          If you're going to pretend that because mutating computer code usually breaks it, therefore because DNA can also be represented in code, mutations usually break DNA, there's a serious logical flaw in that assertion. This is because mutating code representing DNA is not the same as mutating DNA because they are fundamentally different structures.
                          Before you invent something else that makes no sense, first deal with the challenge that was actually issued. Your explanation about codes showed that you have at best a superficial understanding of what a compiler does.

                          You never explained what you mean by "the code of DNA".
                          Is English your second language?

                          I told you to properly model function you'd have to model chemistry.
                          We know. It's complex beyond belief. This is irrelevant to the conversation.

                          It's not the same as computer code.
                          So you're retracting your admission that a genome could be represented in binary.

                          I see the straw man you're trying to build.
                          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 Alate_One View Post
                            Notice which finger horses have left?
                            By your plural noun, "horses", here, do you mean individual horses, or do you mean populations of horses?

                            Did you mean: "Notice which finger [individual horses] have left?"

                            OR

                            Did you mean: "Notice which finger [populations of horses] have left?"

                            Which did you mean?

                            You're saying that something changed from previously having more than one "finger" to now having only one "finger". Would you call such a change, "evolution"?

                            Does an individual lose a body part, or does a population of more than one individual lose a body part? Which is it?
                            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              No, it doesn't. You need to explain what you believe and respond rationally to challenges. You know: Science.
                              Uhh I did that in the OP.

                              Is English your second language?
                              Nope. But biology seems to be your third or fourth at best. You implied that we were only talking about the code of DNA but not all DNA. What parts are excluded then?

                              So you're retracting your admission that a genome could be represented in binary.
                              You could, only in the sense of modeling the underlying chemical basis.
                              “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


                              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Of course there is. For instance, a randomized ATCG string will never code for organisms that can replicate themselves.
                                Highly improbable but that's not what evolutionary theory says. So you're setting up yet another straw man. Dishonesty is your favorite tactic still.

                                Thanks for moving the goalposts. We were talking about the process of diversification, not asserting that every organism of the same kind were clones (which they obviously weren't, despite that being what Darwinists believe).
                                What are you even talking about? If everything is genetically identical (without any genetic diversity), as per your assertion, that's clonal.

                                Nope. Organisms adapt to their environment. This adaptation degrades their ability to adapt. The closer we go back to the genome of the created kinds, the better the genetic integrity.
                                Assertion. Zero evidence. How about you provide some evidence. Any evidence.

                                Simple entropy.
                                Heat is the entropic cost for an organism. Mutations do happen. But most are neutral, some are negative, some are beneficial. Selection removes the detrimental alleles fairly efficiently, depending on the species.


                                This is bigotry. It doesn't matter how stupid your idea is: If you're willing to be rational and honest with the subject, the scientific approach can deal with it.
                                And when you start dealing in scientific approaches to ideas rather than just asserting and ridiculing I'll be happy to discuss them.
                                “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