oh puh-leeze Zoo...coming from the "here check my link" guy because I really rely on others to tell me what the truth is? You gotta be kidding!



yep, and you would be right!   



of course there is...look outside. There's your evidence. Everything has a designer...everything.



Who's attacking Science here? No Christian should ever attack Science. It's not Science we have a problem with. It's humanism wrapped up in the pretty package of evolution we have a problem with. It looks fancy dancy on the outside but when you open the package it's nothing but an empty present.



ya...I'm game...go for it.

I think you do not understand molecular homology or you would see that it is evidence for evolution.



I'd rather they did this... it beats the ordinary "god made it because i said so" argument.



The theology, the ad ignorantiam debacle, of irreducible complexity opposes the science of evolution.



Good guess considering that is the only legitimate study of science. If Francis Collins believes in IC, I'll eat my hat right before I send a letter requesting his resignation.




That's not evidence. You propose because no one was actually there and thus there is some doubt as to how evolution occurred that it must not have occured at all. Irreducible complexity, at its core, is not a valid argument; it's a refusal to investigate and a reliance on ignorance. You might as well say that God made the creatures of the earth because anyone who does not believe so is a looney.

And yet you rely on the Bible......

Which, if taken different ways, means: Either man wrote it. "God" wrote it. Man interpreted Gods will/words.

Each way, you're getting your truth from others...

"....Different branches of biology have different theoretical interests and goals
and thus employ the homology concept in a different manner...."

"Homology is what I call an investigative kind concept. An investigative kind is a group of things that are assumed to belong together because they share a structural feature or mechanisms that generates the characteristic features of the kind...."

"The homology concept is an investigative kind concepts because its historical origin stems
from the fact that biologists perceived and perceive a unity of form among different groups of organisms (Riedl, ’78; Wagner, ’86; Young, ’93; Müller, 2003)."

http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/radiation.pdf

Apperantly you are trying to make a supposition a fact!
I reiterate: Every "argument" has not been thoroughly rebutted. I will grant you that fact is relative to the individual’s perception of it, and apparently you have obtained a perception based on the religion (theory) of evolution. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that true science does not support evolution nor Creation. However, it does weigh more towards intelligent design. I would be willing to bet your study of science has been through pro-evolution material.

molecular homology. I'm not talking about, "wow, that animal sure looks a lot like the others." I mean, "wow, that animal's DNA is certainly similar to another's, albeit a little more complex."

Ultimately, though, indirect evidence can only slant probability in a certain direction. While the probability of evolution is certainly high, I cannot make you accept it. On the other hand, I do wonder why your alternative is far less likely.

There is a unity of form among all organisms, and I perceive it. Why do you not?

Welcome to my hell, cscoles.

~Zoo

birds of a feather zoo?  ;p 

but at least it doesn't change SP. It's just as good today as it was 2500 years ago.

Thats a subjective opinion if ever there was one. Incidentally, I appreciate Zoo's and other's efforts to support their discussions. At least there is a wide range of ideas being traded, not the singular idea that the bible is the be all and end all of any literate discussion.

Oh but it has changed, through interpretations, translations, transliterating, etc...

I wonder why we didn't think of doing this with the United States constitution? People always make the mistake of leaving perfection open to debate. But not with the bible. It says the land produced animals, and it means that.

no, actually it's very objective. The bible has not changed one iota. We still have the same 5,000 GK and Hebrew original copies from which all translations come. As the languages change....for instance we don't say "thee" and "thou" in everyday langauage this does change, but that doesn't mean the bible changes. To put a you and your instead of a thee and thou doesn't constitute change.

I have a friend who has a 1700's bible. It has the same stuff in it my new modern one has. We put them side by side and read them. I've seen very old bibles from the very first century, some in German and other languages, but they still all say the same just in a diff dialect.



no it didn't. Man can say whatever he wants...doesn't change the bible. There are plenty of bibles out there that stay true to the original Gk and Hebrew originals.



no it doesn't and I already showed you how. So you are just saying you want to ignore all the rest and pick out what fits your theory best. Is that fair?



exchanging ideas is fine, but to throw out something just because it doesn't fit your ideas isn't right either is it? How subjective is that?

That's what you are doing. I am a genuine prophet of God, so my opinion counts for more.

really? How do you know this?

And your opinion counts more than the Word of God written by Moses who was the greatest Prophet of God ever?

I am merely interpreting what Moses really meant. You, not being a prophet of God, might have more trouble doing this, leading you to erroneous beliefs like that evolution could not have occured.

I know I am a prophet of God because when I look into the mirror, I see the evidence for it. How else could I look so much like a prophet of God if I weren't?

Fighting fire with fire, eh?

Logical fallacy party!!!

~Zoo

Zoo, stop being heretical.

Heh, heh...my bad.

~Zoo

The likelyhood of your bible being exactly as it was meant to be, is slim. You have the fact that there are various interpretations of Hebrew words, etc... A monk that was transcribing the book could easily have wrote what they thought the bible meant, and therein drastically altering what "God's word" is. To believe that there actually are bibles out there that - according to you - are staying true to the original, is all on faith. I honestly would love to see the day where the folly that is blind faith is pointed and laughed at, by God himself. He tells us to use our minds as well, and honestly KFC, all I see from you is resorting to your faith, not your mind. Your faith overcome logic and facts.

Not meant as an insult btw, just an observation. We still good?

Very slim, actually. You know English has a lot of intricacies, layered meanings, allusions, and all kinds of cool stuff. The thing is all languages have that and many times they're hard to translate into another language.

A great deal is lost in translation. To fully enjoy something, it's better to read it in the original context...i.e. learn Greek or Hebrew to "get" the Bible or whatnot.

I believe if you had a talk with SanCho, he'd tell you that something written in Spanish is meant to be read and appreciated in Spanish. The original language carries much more weight than a translation ever will.

~Zoo

Really? You both seem pretty dogmatic. Are you sure? And how much have you two researched this? Have you even read the bible? Have you studied the Gk and Hebrew to be making such claims?



and you're writing this SP shows me you haven't a clue. The bible had nothing to do with monks nor do the over 5,000 original copies out there.

EVEN if the monk did write what he wanted....how many GK scholars came behind this monk to study the original transcripts? They had over 5,000 original copies to study and all of these different copies from all over were very well preserved and written in total agreement. The scribes (Jewish btw) who kept these scriptures were meticulous in transcribing the scriptures over the centuries.

Umm, give me a few days cause I'm going to be writing a long-ish reply. Your comment is making me think more, and while it's not converting me (since I'm semi christian already), I want to make sure I hit all the points.

:LOL:

Okay, I'm done. No, wait.

:LOL:
:LOL:
:LOL:

:LOL: Care to join and make KFC see the error of her ways - I mean see the flaw in, oh hell, forget it. :p (Just playing kfc)

But seriously, like I said above, give me a couple days.