You are correct sir...CID1990 wrote:Everything we don't know is a mystery
Mystery = Jesus
If you want to call a shit vindictive theory that, sure.kalm wrote:In other words, right wingnut political correctness....SeattleGriz wrote:
So how did finding complexity in what was formerly considered junk DNA bolster that prediction?
I appreciate you taking the time to read the article.
If you read through my posts, I didn't say this disproved evolution, but that a really bad prediction shows there is something lacking with the current hypothesis. This was more about how a prediction is 100% accurate, until the science shows the opposite.
But to be honest, this was never about junk DNA. It was about the evolution field using the term like a pejorative to stick their fingers in the eyes of those who believed in creation. Non-functional would have been appropriate and obviously more technical.
I thought it was feeble in absolute terms, but pretty good for you. CID pretty much /threaded you in his previous post - the same way that all your brief and uninteresting threads seem to end. Someday maybe one of your descendants (assuming you can trick a female into breeding with you) will move past your inability to comprehend that holes in the theory of evolution don't mean that intelligent design is proven, or is even a theory (I've never heard it stated), or even means anything at all. Its like you're JSO with less knowledge of both science and the ability to troll. Try not to try so hard.SeattleGriz wrote:No, you are. How'd you like that comeback?!houndawg wrote:
Pussy.
One doesn't "tow the line", one "toes the line", SG.SeattleGriz wrote:No need for that either, because it is already happening (the scientists running screaming part). Evolutionists attacking other evolutionists because they aren't towing the company line anymore.Chizzang wrote:
It's chaos...
scientists running through the streets screaming
crashing through plate glass windows
jumping off of buildings
The fallout from this will be world changing
everybody that used to just use the scientific method and chart the results
will now automatically convert to Christianity and await the rapture
REPENT THE END IS NEAR !!!
"You're not in our club anymore!"
SeattleGriz wrote:No need for that either, because it is already happening (the scientists running screaming part). Evolutionists attacking other evolutionists because they aren't towing the company line anymore.Chizzang wrote:
It's chaos...
scientists running through the streets screaming
crashing through plate glass windows
jumping off of buildings
The fallout from this will be world changing
everybody that used to just use the scientific method and chart the results
will now automatically convert to Christianity and await the rapture
REPENT THE END IS NEAR !!!
"You're not in our club anymore!"
Thanks for the "heads up".SeattleGriz wrote:So how did finding complexity in what was formerly considered junk DNA bolster that prediction?JohnStOnge wrote:BTW I went ahead and took the time to read it this time and I don't see how that discredits the overall theory of evolution in any way.
If you've known me for many years you know that I think people can get a bit over the top with respect to the certainty associated with the overall body of theory. I don't like the dogmatic approach some people have taken.
But I don't see this as discrediting the body of theory at all.
I appreciate you taking the time to read the article.
If you read through my posts, I didn't say this disproved evolution, but that a really bad prediction shows there is something lacking with the current hypothesis. This was more about how a prediction is 100% accurate, until the science shows the opposite.
But to be honest, this was never about junk DNA. It was about the evolution field using the term like a pejorative to stick their fingers in the eyes of those who believed in creation. Non-functional would have been appropriate and obviously more technical.
By the way, not saying evolution in it's entirety is incorrect, just that the Darwinist version needs something added to it, to help it make better predictions. You are starting to see that now in the field. Many are realizing the theory is lacking something.
"A Methodist is just a Baptist that can read." I bet it was a Protestant that said that.CID1990 wrote:I think we may be distinguishing Catholics from Christians
I know Protestants do lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SeattleGriz wrote:No Jesus necessary for this one.CID1990 wrote:
Aha!
Therefore, Jesus
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All those years of the required evolutionary mutations and our DNA should look like a trash heap, or better yet, let's call it Junk DNA. Too bad this horrible prediction is being battered to death and now the evolutionists are eating their own over this problem.
Seems all that junk DNA has a function.
Trouble with the pope is this:Chizzang wrote:If you believe in Evolution you're not entirely Christian by definitionGil Dobie wrote:
Christian based doesn't mean anti-evolution. There are millions of Christians that believe in evolution. You are trying to lump anti-evolution into a Christian belief. Over half Catholics and over half main stream protestants believe in evolution according to PEW. The 5 groups that have a majority that doesn't believe in evolution is Muslim, Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Historically Black Protestant and Jehovah's Witness. Oh, and 77% of the Jewish population believe in evolution.
Christianity has been dancing madly backwards for 400 years
in 100 years just believing that Jesus existed at all will be defined as Christian
The current Pope gets this and is working had to move with the times
A current model evolution believing Christian of today
would not be recognized as anything other than a heretic of yesterday
and end up hanging from a rope
Christianity has morphed to suit science
and that is just a cold hard fact
If evolution had never been discovered they'd still be referencing genesis verbatim
css75 wrote:Trouble with the pope is this:Chizzang wrote:
If you believe in Evolution you're not entirely Christian by definition
Christianity has been dancing madly backwards for 400 years
in 100 years just believing that Jesus existed at all will be defined as Christian
The current Pope gets this and is working had to move with the times
A current model evolution believing Christian of today
would not be recognized as anything other than a heretic of yesterday
and end up hanging from a rope
Christianity has morphed to suit science
and that is just a cold hard fact
If evolution had never been discovered they'd still be referencing genesis verbatim
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. In other words he never changes.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What the hell does any of that mean? Finally, something useful coming from you. Trivia.houndawg wrote:One doesn't "tow the line", one "toes the line", SG.SeattleGriz wrote:
No need for that either, because it is already happening (the scientists running screaming part). Evolutionists attacking other evolutionists because they aren't towing the company line anymore.
"You're not in our club anymore!"
The term comes from prize fighting, not tugboats.
There was a Star Trek Next Generation episode where the crew was exposed to something and it caused the introns to start expressing. The crew started to revert back to their evolutionary progenitors.Pwns wrote:It doesn't make any sense to me that you could just rely on random mutations to create new and useful alleles and variants in a population. That would just be way too slow. Nature needs to cast a wide net and try a lot of different new things to come up with something useful by chance.
I'm guessing introns are sort of a library of experimental DNA that can sometimes gain promoter regions and become active.
Ibanez wrote:css75 wrote:
Trouble with the pope is this:
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. In other words he never changes.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why can'y you people just accept that 1000s of years ago, people had a lot of questions they couldn't answer so it was attributed to a God. Since then, we've learned that some things happen for a reason and wasn't b/c God did it. God doesn't create lightening storms or kill your 1st born at random. Why can't you understand that they were trying to understand something that was a mystery to them. As we learn, perhaps attribute to God-given logic the revelation that a disease from the putrid water killed Timmy and not God.
It's the like laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Those asinine laws might have been the best wisdom of the day but they are wrong and/or un reasonable by any modern standard. We don't need to burn people for wearing a poly/cotton blend. We certainly don't sanction slavery or killing people that work on the Sabbath.
Jesus remains a liberal, peace and neighbor loving, socialist hippie?css75 wrote:Ibanez wrote:
Why can'y you people just accept that 1000s of years ago, people had a lot of questions they couldn't answer so it was attributed to a God. Since then, we've learned that some things happen for a reason and wasn't b/c God did it. God doesn't create lightening storms or kill your 1st born at random. Why can't you understand that they were trying to understand something that was a mystery to them. As we learn, perhaps attribute to God-given logic the revelation that a disease from the putrid water killed Timmy and not God.
It's the like laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Those asinine laws might have been the best wisdom of the day but they are wrong and/or un reasonable by any modern standard. We don't need to burn people for wearing a poly/cotton blend. We certainly don't sanction slavery or killing people that work on the Sabbath.
The New Testament abolished the rule of law of the Old Testament. Those laws are kaput.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Jesus was awesome; he's the most liberal and progressive person in human history.kalm wrote: Jesus remains a liberal, peace and neighbor loving, socialist hippie?
Cool! I like that guy!
Everything okay out there ..?Ibanez wrote: Why can'y you people just accept that 1000s of years ago, people had a lot of questions they couldn't answer so it was attributed to a God. Since then, we've learned that some things happen for a reason and wasn't b/c God did it. God doesn't create lightening storms or kill your 1st born at random. Why can't you understand that they were trying to understand something that was a mystery to them. As we learn, perhaps attribute to God-given logic the revelation that a disease from the putrid water killed Timmy and not God.
It's the like laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Those asinine laws might have been the best wisdom of the day but they are wrong and/or un reasonable by any modern standard. We don't need to burn people for wearing a poly/cotton blend. We certainly don't sanction slavery or killing people that work on the Sabbath.
Yeah... I’ve heard that. If that were so, we wouldn’t have Christians trying to hang up those useless 10 Commandments everywhere. Hell, my neighbor 5 houses down has a statue in his front yard, easily 4 ft high, with those commandment.css75 wrote:Ibanez wrote:
Why can'y you people just accept that 1000s of years ago, people had a lot of questions they couldn't answer so it was attributed to a God. Since then, we've learned that some things happen for a reason and wasn't b/c God did it. God doesn't create lightening storms or kill your 1st born at random. Why can't you understand that they were trying to understand something that was a mystery to them. As we learn, perhaps attribute to God-given logic the revelation that a disease from the putrid water killed Timmy and not God.
It's the like laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Those asinine laws might have been the best wisdom of the day but they are wrong and/or un reasonable by any modern standard. We don't need to burn people for wearing a poly/cotton blend. We certainly don't sanction slavery or killing people that work on the Sabbath.
The New Testament abolished the rule of law of the Old Testament. Those laws are kaput.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Not all, Cleets. I’m good. I get irked when people don’t use their God given logic and reasoning when reading the Bible or trying to Understand it in its proper context. I blame the public school systemChizzang wrote:Everything okay out there ..?Ibanez wrote: Why can'y you people just accept that 1000s of years ago, people had a lot of questions they couldn't answer so it was attributed to a God. Since then, we've learned that some things happen for a reason and wasn't b/c God did it. God doesn't create lightening storms or kill your 1st born at random. Why can't you understand that they were trying to understand something that was a mystery to them. As we learn, perhaps attribute to God-given logic the revelation that a disease from the putrid water killed Timmy and not God.
It's the like laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Those asinine laws might have been the best wisdom of the day but they are wrong and/or un reasonable by any modern standard. We don't need to burn people for wearing a poly/cotton blend. We certainly don't sanction slavery or killing people that work on the Sabbath.
You seem a little bit on edge
So how are we "supposed" to read the books of the Bible..?Ibanez wrote:Not all, Cleets. I’m good. I get irked when people don’t use their God given logic and reasoning when reading the Bible or trying to Understand it in its proper context. I blame the public school systemChizzang wrote:
Everything okay out there ..?
You seem a little bit on edge
It’s a history book with allegorical stories. I’d start there.Chizzang wrote:So how are we "supposed" to read the books of the Bible..?Ibanez wrote: Not all, Cleets. I’m good. I get irked when people don’t use their God given logic and reasoning when reading the Bible or trying to Understand it in its proper context. I blame the public school system
And why would you expect logical readings of completely illogical ancient literature
If you were to actually apply logic and reason to it you'd dismiss it like anything else from that period
as iron age gibberish and superstition
Out of curiosity, what goal do you speak of?Ibanez wrote:It’s a history book with allegorical stories. I’d start there.Chizzang wrote:
So how are we "supposed" to read the books of the Bible..?
And why would you expect logical readings of completely illogical ancient literature
If you were to actually apply logic and reason to it you'd dismiss it like anything else from that period
as iron age gibberish and superstition
It’s also written by men with a certain goal, so there’s a bias.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The books of the Bible were written and chosen for inclusion to present a picture of Christianity and convert people. Certain books were chosen/discarded depending on how mortal like or God-like Jesus appeared. Certain books didn't fit in with the overall theme, but present different aspects of Jesus or his humanity.SeattleGriz wrote:Out of curiosity, what goal do you speak of?Ibanez wrote: It’s a history book with allegorical stories. I’d start there.
It’s also written by men with a certain goal, so there’s a bias.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you read the New Testament..?Ibanez wrote:It’s a history book with allegorical stories. I’d start there.Chizzang wrote:
So how are we "supposed" to read the books of the Bible..?
And why would you expect logical readings of completely illogical ancient literature
If you were to actually apply logic and reason to it you'd dismiss it like anything else from that period
as iron age gibberish and superstition
It’s also written by men with a certain goal, so there’s a bias.
Chizzang wrote:Have you read the New Testament..?Ibanez wrote: It’s a history book with allegorical stories. I’d start there.
It’s also written by men with a certain goal, so there’s a bias.
Maybe we should start there because you sound confused
Whew! Thank you. I was afraid you were going to say it was written to oppress women, for I've heard that many times.Ibanez wrote:The books of the Bible were written and chosen for inclusion to present a picture of Christianity and convert people. Certain books were chosen/discarded depending on how mortal like or God-like Jesus appeared. Certain books didn't fit in with the overall theme, but present different aspects of Jesus or his humanity.SeattleGriz wrote:Out of curiosity, what goal do you speak of?
The books were written and chosen by flawed humans.
Cue JoltinJoe to say there are divinely inspired and there for 100% truthful.
