Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

http://www.ethiomedia.com/adroit/4175.html

Huh?

:heartbeat:

AR

It must be God FOOLING US with the appearance of age.

Right?

:D

I am non plus with the comments, I cannot see in any way how this information helps the rapid creation belief?

Hi Derek

It doesn't help, but 99.5% of the readers of that article will accept what they are being told, without questioning the underlying PREMISES.

I do not really think God put it there to fool humans, any more than I believe the Universe allegedly appears billions of years old to fool humans.

No, the real answer lies in looking at the premises, including in this case (a) accepting that all 125 pieces were from the same creature, (b) accepting that humans evolved from this thing, and (c ) accepting the dating systems used, along with their premises.

This is the mistake Darwin made - he saw variation in finches beaks, for example... correctly observed natural selection taking place, but then incorrectly extrapolated that idea, along with mutations, to explain how ALL life got here.

Combine that with James Hutton's uniformitarian error in the 1790's, and we have seen error built upon error from there.

We need to get back to the sources of the errors, which are often to be found in the underlying assumptions made.

Hi Int,
Nether do I think God creates to mislead us in any way.

Why do you think man has 50% of the genetic make up of a worm?

I am interested in what you think is the reason for us sharing our genetic make up with animals, even to the extent we share some of the errors in their gene structures.
I am not really interested in an explanation of why you think a particular theory is wrong...just the fact of our genes.


Why do we use very similar arguments to evolutionists when we find anomalies in MSS and then construct MS 'families' where the same error or phrasing over time is perpetuated?

Derek

Quote of the week

http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...php?tid=71

What is MS and MSS? An it aint multiple sclerosis.

methinks it is 'manuscripts' (singular and plural).

If you listened to some of the girls I have worked with it actually explains quite a bit ;)

Good morning brother iso:

Duh:redface: I used to know that :funnyface:

Thank you and you too sis man hu for all the help you give and all the insights and research you share. Between beautiful "worms" and "Truth Masters" you and many others just make my day, every day a blessing to be among you! :D

Much Christian Love and Appreciation to You, your families and ALL:grouphug::heartbeat:
sis

Got it in one, Iso! ;) ;)

Great one Wolfie! :) :) :)

Hi Derek :friends:

The opening was just too great to resist :rofl: ...
actually, it was a gift :D

Hi Derek

I have some programming experience, and you'll find the same thing is true of programming code.

Programmers have entire routines that other programs use, because that routine has been designed to something that the other program also needs to do.

In fact, programmers often refer to collections of these routines as "libraries", because they serve a common function that lots of other programs can use.

It's quite possible that the 50% we share are simply DNA "libraries" that all living creatures, from worm to man, need in order to live.

Sure, I'm speculating... but it's true of programming code (which is quite a close analogy to DNA)... and until we can read and understand DNA exactly like a programming code (which is basically what it is), it's always going to be a speculative answer, by both scientists and creationists.

But let's not commit the fallacy of thinking that, because we share elements with the worm, we have common ancestors! It could be that they have a common Designer.

Ford and BMW cars share common elements, but that's because those common elements serve the same purpose - ie. 4 wheels. Does that mean the Ford evolved from the BMW, or that they have common evolutionary ancestors? No. (At least, not in the naturalistic sense.)

As to errors, I am skeptical of whether they are actually "errors". If I recall, up until recently scientists routinely referred to the bulk of DNA as "junk DNA" - until they more recently realized it wasn't junk, and it fulfilled a purpose.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I know that geneticists have had to revise many of their expectations several times over the last two or three decades, such as with how many genes they expected to find, the purpose of specific genes, etc.

I do know that people like Richard Dawkins like to peddle the fact that, because we share 98% (actually, this figure is being reduced over time) of our DNA with apes, we therefore have a common ancestor.

Yet he refuses to consider the possibility that we have a common Designer, just as a Ford and BMW share very similar features, but did not evolve from one another.

"But let's not commit the fallacy of thinking that, because we share elements with the worm, we have common ancestors! It could be that they have a common Designer."

And for this go round repetition and replication seem fairly useful.

Nothing new under the sun ya know.

How many triangles can you find?
OR maybe in our case Circles?

I wonder if all the planets share a common ancestor planet?

I used to study with an elderly lady and she had evolution sussed.
Men evolved from apes then women were created.