nPeace
Veteran Member
@IndigoChild5559 I haven't forgotten you.
I will try to respond this weekend.
I will try to respond this weekend.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
And how many beneficial mutations are required for evolution to be possible? The harmful mutations die out. The neutral mutations stay around. The beneficial one, however rare, lead to new possibilities. As long as the population continues to survive, the few beneficial mutations that arise can be preserved and increase survivability.
Where is the contradiction?
1. Do you realize that a cell is not an organ? You were asked for an organ that cannot be formed by numerous successive slight modifications. Your question about the formation of a cell did not answer that question.
Well, yes, it is classic. You were asked for an example of a phenomenon. Your proposed an example of a completely different situation and failed to show any connection to the original question.
Plus, in the case of a cell, you failed to show it cannot be formed by numerous successive slight modifications from previous cells.
We are talking about evolution, NOT abiogenesis. So, we already have living cells. The question you were asked has to do with complex *organs*, which are collections of tissues, which are in turn collections of cells.
So, yes, it is classic because it shows how little of this material you really understand. A confusion between and organ and a cell is a HUGE confusion.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That doesn't mean the majority of mutations are harmful, or even a significant amount. It just means the combined number of neutral and harmful mutations form the majority of mutations.
Because I genuinely have no idea what you're asking me and why you're presenting sources which don't seem to contradict what I've written.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
With due respect, that question was a direct response to you quoting Darwin, when he said evolution would be proven wrong if it could be demonstrated that there was an organ that couldn't have arisen through gradual, successive changes. I asked you to provide an example of such an organ, and you asked me how the first cell formed - which is not an answer to the question, nor is it related to the question.
You never really explained why you did that.
nPeace
Veteran Member
It says it right there.
Matthew 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Sorry. I assumed you had read it.
So which Jews are you speaking for... keeping in mind that all Jews of a particular sect don't necessarily agree on the same things?
Whoa. Let's slow down first of all, so that I am sure I am not writing for nothing.
Why do you say I have esoteric understandings?
Where and when did I say I am not a Christian?
Jesus said, not to a Jew, but a Samaritan, "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth."
The Samaritan responded, “I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one comes, he will declare all things to us openly.”
We know how Jesus responded... “I am he, the one speaking to you.”
(John 4:23-26)
What did Jesus mean, by his words in verse 23?
What did Jesus mean, when he said, "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets." in response to the question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Matthew 22:38-40
The commands Jesus gave were all linked to the truth he came to teach.
It is clear from Jesus statements what the truth did not involve.
(Matthew 11:12, 13) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it. For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John;
(Luke 16:16) “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it.
Who said these words. Was it not John, who reported other things about Jesus.
(John 1:17) Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ.
(John 18:37, 38) For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.”
(John 14:6) Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
(John 8:31, 32) Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
What about Peter? Are you saying Peter was not directed through holy spirit to carry on Jesus' work?
Are you saying that the outpouring of holy spirit, on the congregation, which Peter reported on, had no connection to Jesus?
Are you saying Peter was not commission by Jesus, to go to the Gentiles and present to them the teachings of the Christ?
Are you saying the increase and spread of the Christian congregation had nothing to do with Christ and his teachings?
What are you really saying IndigoChild5559?
This is what I was referring to, when I said...
A person who hears Christ, but does not follow him - stick around long enough, that is. Can they be considered a follower of Christ? I think we agree, no.
A person who hears Christ, but does not do what he says, is not a follower of Christ, are they.
The only way to really get the sense of what Jesus says, is to "stick to the plot", so to speak... to the end.
So taking his early followers as an example, they did not understand everything he said, or how it applied, and even on some occasions, to whom it applied (Luke 12:41, 42). Yet, they stuck it all the way, right up to the time when he told them... "Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me..." (Acts 1:4), and beyond.
.... If one follows the sayings of Christ, from start to finish, they would get the sense of it. They would understand that the Law was until the Christ, and thus the old covenant would be replaced. The Law of Moses would be replaced by the Law of Christ.
So gradually, the law which was rightfully kept, was fading off the scene.... to be replaced by the Law of Christ - the mediator of the new covenant. (Galatians 3:19-29)
Those who followed Christ understood what the Law of the Christ, and obeying his commands meant.
Some have apparently stopped short at what Jesus said, and so they really do not get the sense of the sacred secret of the kingdom.
Actually the apostle Paul said at Romans 16:25-27...
Now to Him who can make you firm according to the good news I declare and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret that has been kept in silence for long-lasting times but has now been made manifest and has been made known through the prophetic Scriptures among all the nations according to the command of the everlasting God to promote obedience by faith; to God, who alone is wise, be the glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.
The rich man neglected one important thing, which if he had done it, he would have come to understand the sacred secret of the kingdom of God.
Jews were obligated to do what God instructed under the Law of Moses. Under the Law of Christ, they were to follow his teachings - all of which were associated with the sacred secrets of the kingdom.
The law of Christ, is based on two principles - Matthew 22:36-40 - There is no particular list, as was the case with the law of Moses.
Christ's followers were to be guided by love - as learned from Christ.
1. John 13:34, 35; John 15:10, 12-14
Following Jesus' instructions meant they would...
Stay separate from the world (John 15:17-19) and carry out Jesus instructions to preach and teach about his coming kingdom (Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20) They were also to be clean in thought word and deed. (Matthew 5-7), among other things.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What's your point. Evolution occurs without beneficial mutations.
Really? Maybe tell that to the fruit flies - an extensive study, by the way.
Example? A rabbit producing rabbits? Still a rabbit.
If you don't see it, and I haven't just pointed it out, then nothing I write will make a difference.
Well true, the cell is not an organ. That was an error on my part. However, the user I was addressing made no complaint, so that's irrelevant to the point being made.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That's exactly what I said!!! It discourages me when I write something to you and you don't read it. I then replied what Jews consider the Kingdom is and what Jesus probably considered the Kingdom to be. Do you remember that at all?
As I explained (again you did not read] I was referring to what most religious Jews believe, and that includes all denominations.
More than once you have made the comment that most of those who are Christian do NOT follow the teachings of Christ, while you do. IOW you do not identify with the group that calls itself Chrisitan (since they do not follow the teachings of Christ as you do, or at least not in the same way).
Jesus is referring to the last days, when those of many nations will grasp the hem of the Jew and say "Take us with you, for we have heard that God is with you." Jesus believed that the last days were imminent and that he was the messiah. But he was wrong. He simply didn't fulfill the necessary prophecies.
He is quoting from the Torah. Rabbis teach that these two are the heart of the Law. Jesus was not being original.
Funny that your two best translations (NIV, NASB) say, that the law and prophets were PROCLAIMED until John. Do you honestly believe that the prophets were no longer good? Then why would you think that the Torah was no longer in effect?
John said them, not Jesus. And btw, it was God who gave the law, not Moses. Moses was the go between.
Jesus. So?
What about Peter? Peter wasn't Jesus.
See it's remarks like these that have led me to think you are not a Christian. First, because you do not identify with the group that calls itself Chrisitan. Secondly, because you continually call yourself a "follower of Christ" rather than a Christian.
There is nothing new about the law of love. As I noted for you earlier, loving others (as well as God) is the heart of the Torah, according to standard Rabbinical interpretation. Jesus was not saying anything unique.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
No one said any of that. The article didn't say that either. That would be your opinion and interpretation.
It seems to me, the article is clear. The vast majority are either neutral or harmful could never mean the combined number of neutral and harmful mutations form the majority of mutations. That's so obviously wrong.
We have been to school, haven't we? When we use either or, we never combine as a total, they are separate.
I think if one wants to understand, they will simply ask me to explain, and I would try.
Really? I did twice.
I think communication between us don't always seem to be smooth. I do try.
nPeace
Veteran Member
@ratiocinator
I hope we can reason together.
I am going to use this article to do so.
After reading through the article, let's extract.
Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Of the approximately 4,000 genes that have been studied, less than 10 are found in one species but not in the other.
Question : Why did the article say the species are closely related? Is it not primarily by sequencing the genes. So isn't that circular?
Presupposition / presumption - All life share a common ancestor, therefore all life is related. The genome of various organisms would show various measures of similarities.
Findings - The genome of all organisms are similar, and vary in measure according to relation. Therefore all life is related, and originated from one universal common ancestor.
More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences.
Question :
1. Is 90% of the genome of no account because it is "Dark Matter" to scientists?
2. If scientists are in such a huge gulf of darkness where the genome is concerned how much can they really claim to know about why similar genes exists in organisms, and how, why, and when switches are activated?
3. Can they really claim to have the answers to the origin of genes in DNA?
Finally...
Human, mouse and other mammals shared a common ancestor approximately 80 million years ago. Therefore the genomes of all mammals are comparably similar.
Circular - The genomes of all mammals are comparably similar. Therefore all animals shared a common ancestor millions of years ago.
Conclusion
The fact that there are shared genes in organisms does not prove they are related by common descent. Nor does it prove that those genes needed to be used. A mutation in any one of those genes is no indication that it was activated and interrupted. Even if it was activated by a mutation, no one can say. Though we can say that it would take a miracle for mutations to occur, and create all benefits guided in one direction towards an almost perfect end result. That's where national selection becomes a magic wand.
The blueprint of every organism is in its DNA. That's why we all have DNA.
There are switches and genes that control the building of the organism's parts.
Does all this seem to be by accident to you? It might.
To me, it indicates a different story. It is evident all of this is by design.
The genes are purposely this way by design. They work as they were designed to work.
Sexual differentiation in humans - Wikipedia
We either get a male or female from the genes available, even if they are errors.
Similarly, we either get chickens or humans, mice or gorillas, despite errors.
That's why there are similarities in structure.
Just as an architect plans the designs, draws up the blueprints for the designs, and sees to the construction of each design... which varies from design to design, this is the same pattern we see in nature.
I think the story that mutations, which are random - don't decide where to occur, when to occur, and how to occur - and national selection, producing the diverse organism in their amazing... I mean amazing abilities, is entirely based on wishful thinking, and fairy tale story telling, and not on observable evidence.
Like I said before, it is purely guesswork, and speculation.
We obviously have different beliefs, but...
What you have presented as an argument is moot really.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you point to and say, "Hey. Look at this. This evidence says ABCD."
The evidence may well be screaming "CREATION", but you ere interpreting it to say something other than that.
What do you think of creation as the correct explanation for the evidence?
We can see how that works in reality.
However, there is no evidence of mutations adding up to produce such amazing diversity.
What we usually see are demonstrations of failed excuses of life.
Scientists grow eyes on flies bodies.
... and some of these are human directed.
Really, this is evidence against the theory that mutations and natural selection worked to produce these...
With all the knowledge about genes, don't you think scientists should be able to demonstrate how beneficial mutations could add up to produce what we see, when we look at nature?
I know you don't understand why I don't believe as you do, but I understand why you can't understand why. Perhaps one day you will.
I hope we can reason together.
I am going to use this article to do so.
After reading through the article, let's extract.
Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Of the approximately 4,000 genes that have been studied, less than 10 are found in one species but not in the other.
Question : Why did the article say the species are closely related? Is it not primarily by sequencing the genes. So isn't that circular?
Presupposition / presumption - All life share a common ancestor, therefore all life is related. The genome of various organisms would show various measures of similarities.
Findings - The genome of all organisms are similar, and vary in measure according to relation. Therefore all life is related, and originated from one universal common ancestor.
More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences.
Question :
1. Is 90% of the genome of no account because it is "Dark Matter" to scientists?
2. If scientists are in such a huge gulf of darkness where the genome is concerned how much can they really claim to know about why similar genes exists in organisms, and how, why, and when switches are activated?
3. Can they really claim to have the answers to the origin of genes in DNA?
Finally...
Human, mouse and other mammals shared a common ancestor approximately 80 million years ago. Therefore the genomes of all mammals are comparably similar.
Circular - The genomes of all mammals are comparably similar. Therefore all animals shared a common ancestor millions of years ago.
Conclusion
The fact that there are shared genes in organisms does not prove they are related by common descent. Nor does it prove that those genes needed to be used. A mutation in any one of those genes is no indication that it was activated and interrupted. Even if it was activated by a mutation, no one can say. Though we can say that it would take a miracle for mutations to occur, and create all benefits guided in one direction towards an almost perfect end result. That's where national selection becomes a magic wand.
The blueprint of every organism is in its DNA. That's why we all have DNA.
There are switches and genes that control the building of the organism's parts.
Does all this seem to be by accident to you? It might.
To me, it indicates a different story. It is evident all of this is by design.
The genes are purposely this way by design. They work as they were designed to work.
Sexual differentiation in humans - Wikipedia
The development of sexual differences begins with the XY sex-determination system that is present in humans, and complex mechanisms are responsible for the development of the phenotypic differences between male and female humans from an undifferentiated zygote.
At an early stage in embryonic development, both sexes possess equivalent internal structures. These are the mesonephric ducts and paramesonephric ducts. The presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the development of the testes in males, and the subsequent release of hormones which cause the paramesonephric ducts to regress. In females, the mesonephric ducts regress.
At an early stage in embryonic development, both sexes possess equivalent internal structures. These are the mesonephric ducts and paramesonephric ducts. The presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the development of the testes in males, and the subsequent release of hormones which cause the paramesonephric ducts to regress. In females, the mesonephric ducts regress.
Similarly, we either get chickens or humans, mice or gorillas, despite errors.
That's why there are similarities in structure.
Just as an architect plans the designs, draws up the blueprints for the designs, and sees to the construction of each design... which varies from design to design, this is the same pattern we see in nature.
I think the story that mutations, which are random - don't decide where to occur, when to occur, and how to occur - and national selection, producing the diverse organism in their amazing... I mean amazing abilities, is entirely based on wishful thinking, and fairy tale story telling, and not on observable evidence.
Like I said before, it is purely guesswork, and speculation.
We obviously have different beliefs, but...
What you have presented as an argument is moot really.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you point to and say, "Hey. Look at this. This evidence says ABCD."
The evidence may well be screaming "CREATION", but you ere interpreting it to say something other than that.
What do you think of creation as the correct explanation for the evidence?
We can see how that works in reality.
However, there is no evidence of mutations adding up to produce such amazing diversity.
What we usually see are demonstrations of failed excuses of life.
Scientists grow eyes on flies bodies.
... and some of these are human directed.
Really, this is evidence against the theory that mutations and natural selection worked to produce these...
With all the knowledge about genes, don't you think scientists should be able to demonstrate how beneficial mutations could add up to produce what we see, when we look at nature?
I know you don't understand why I don't believe as you do, but I understand why you can't understand why. Perhaps one day you will.
Huh???? That is *precisely* what it means!
I'm hard pressed to find another interpretation of it. What do *you* think it means?
Yes, when we use *or*, we mean one side *or* the other. The combination is obtained by adding.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Are you accusing me of not reading? Just so?
If you read something, and someone who don't even know that you read it, accused you of not reading it - as if they are God, or some sorcerer looking through a crystal ball, would that be discouraging to you?
Try Matthew 7:12.
Tell me. Are these two statements the same?
a) The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.
b) The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven.
If yes, please explain how they are the same.
<sigh>
...and you are accusing me of not reading...!
I explained the definition of Christian that identifies Jesus' first century followers, which differs from how Christian is defined today. If one follows the former, as opposed to the latter, that does not automatically translate to "they are not Christian". They are Christian, just not "Christian" as defined today.
I though I was clear in my explanation.
It was long, so maybe you missed the quotation marks, and other important details.
Okaaaay then.
What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law?
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies - every one of them was wrapped up in him.
(2 Corinthians 1:20) For no matter how many the promises of God are, they have become “yes” by means of him. Therefore, also through him is the “Amen” said to God, which brings him glory through us.
So the truth Jesus taught was what the Jews were now obligated to keep, in order to gain salvation.
Peter was an instrument of Jesus. Therefore Jesus used Peter, as well as others - including Paul - to carry on the work Jesus initiated.
Please, read my post again. I'm not going to repeat. I don't know how you read it - if you took time or not.
Yes there is. Where in the Mosaic law does it say one should sacrifice his life for his brother?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Nothing to say.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
@nPeace
After reading your post again (thank you for supplying the link) I have a different summary to offer.
It appears you are employing the "True Scotsman" fallacy (you can google that if you want." IOW you do claim to be a Christian, but you claim to be a true Christian, unlike all those false Christians who do not follow the teachings of Jesus.
What you don't realize you are doing is somehow redefining what Jesus taught, reinterpreting it. It's difficult for me to say how, since you are reluctant to give me a list of your exact beliefs on this matter which diverge from general Christianity, except for example the sharing of all goods in common. Mostly you sound the same, such as with your claim that the Mosaic law is past, replaced by the law of Jesus and the gospel. So I say you must be reinterpreting it because that is the only thing that would give your "I am a true Christian and they are not" claim any validity. But it could be you are completely imagining it.
Jesus never commands it. He merely describes it.
It doesn't take being a psychic. It's more like being a teacher and realizing that the student didn't read the book. You either didn't read what I wrote, or you read it and your reading comprehension is incredibly low.
Yes they are the same. They have to be. The secrets have to be revealed. If the secrets are so obscured that they are only known to an elite group, then what you have is Gnosticism, not Christianity. As you are aware, the Early Church fought tooth and nail against Gnosticism.
Yes, it was long, and I was going by memory, and remembered only a part. My apologies.
After reading your post again (thank you for supplying the link) I have a different summary to offer.
It appears you are employing the "True Scotsman" fallacy (you can google that if you want." IOW you do claim to be a Christian, but you claim to be a true Christian, unlike all those false Christians who do not follow the teachings of Jesus.
What you don't realize you are doing is somehow redefining what Jesus taught, reinterpreting it. It's difficult for me to say how, since you are reluctant to give me a list of your exact beliefs on this matter which diverge from general Christianity, except for example the sharing of all goods in common. Mostly you sound the same, such as with your claim that the Mosaic law is past, replaced by the law of Jesus and the gospel. So I say you must be reinterpreting it because that is the only thing that would give your "I am a true Christian and they are not" claim any validity. But it could be you are completely imagining it.
Fulfilling the law meant simply that he kept the law and taught others to do the same. This was standard for Rabbis.
So? It is true that the Torah doesn't mention any life after death, and eternal life is therefore not part of the promises of the covenant. However, the prophets do speak of the wicked not having a share in the world to come, that the righteous will walk upon their bones.
Peter and the other disciples often had difficulty understanding Jesus, did he not?
Actually it says friend, not brother. But regardless, it doesn't apply to everyone.
Jesus never commands it. He merely describes it.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Firstly, remember that the theory of evolution was initially developed before genetics was discovered and many of the relationships had been deduced from other evidence.
Secondly, there are actually a number of features in the genome that we would expect from common ancestry (not just that they'd be rather similar) that we do in fact observe. Not least being the pseudo-genes of the type I indicated before. It's also not just the presence of pseudo-genes but we can also look at the exact mutations that disable them and use those to confirm relationships.
The article I linked before (Genesis and the Genome - pdf - it's not all that long, I suggest you read through it) explains how humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas have hundreds of mutated (non-functional) olfactory receptor genes (sense of smell), and that the shared disabling mutations can be used to independently confirm the evolutionary relationships between them that we had deduced from other evidence.
- The estimate of the percentage varies, but I don't know quite what you're asking. What's ""Dark Matter" to scientists" (other than dark matter)?
- They know what we have been able to confirm from the evidence. We know how many genes work via experiments and observations.
- Again, I'm not sure what you're asking. The origin of genes, as in the first life?
No, see above; and also all the other (non-genetic) lines of evidence.
Evolution doesn't have a destination or an intended result, so there was no guiding. Natural selection isn't a magic wand, it explains exactly why beneficial mutations spread and deleterious ones die out. It's startlingly simple and has huge explanatory power. The results from evolution are far from perfect.
This is simply not the case. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, rather than design, and what we've touched on here is only a tiny part of even the genetic evidence. Also recall that this is the conclusion of pretty much everybody who actually studies these things for a living and most of the tiny number of dissenters have an obvious religious vested interest.
If there was a designer, we would have to ask why it had gone to so much trouble to make everything look exactly like it had evolved. Why the pseudo-genes is just one of the huge problems for anybody suggesting design.
nPeace
Veteran Member
There are many different kinds of teacher. Some think they are right, when they are not, but they push their nose in the air and look down their noses at those they think they can teach. They do look pathetic.
Your statement apparently puts you in that class, because I am not your student, and you are not my teacher.
As I said before, anyone who reads Genesis 2, and argues that it is written in chronological order cannot teach me anything. If you are thinking that you are here to teach me, then I think you chose the wrong forum... and the wrong individual.
I did read what you wrote, and I understand it very well.
You said we agree that Jesus is talking about the knowledge of the kingdom of God.
I disagree. He specifically said that some were able to understand... some translations say, the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God.
A secret is something that is kept until revealed, and is usually revealed to a those considered worthy of hearing. That is different to knowledge about the particular thing which has hidden secrets.
The secrets are not the knowledge.
Also secrets are not obscure. People who think they are so educated, and brilliant. The proud is how they are defined, think that they must be able to know this secret... and why? They are so brilliant and educated. Ha Ha. God laughs at them.
Jesus spoke of them in Matthew 13. He also said quite pointedly... (Matthew 11:25) . . .“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children."
Then I suggest you be a babe IndigoChild5559, and stop trying to put on airs.
No. I am not your teacher. The teacher is Jesus Christ, and he reveals the secret to babes - not elites. What a wrong concept to have, Perhaps because you think of yourself as elite?
You read it,.. It's funny how people say things about others (You either didn't read what I wrote, or you read it and your reading comprehension is incredibly low), but fail to see that it seems to fit them best.
So someone describes real money, and counterfeit money. They pull some money out their pocket, and says, "This is real money." Is it not left to individuals who examine the money, to use the descriptions previously given to confirm or refute the claim?
I don't recall anywhere in my post, redefining anything. So if you think I did, you will have to prove it. Can you do that? Then please do.
Fulfilling the law means keeping it.
So Jesus came to keep the law? So was he the only one who kept the law?
What does that have to do with what is the truth Jesus taught?
On occasion, So what... What does that have to do with their being instruments of Jesus?
Jesus never commanded what?
(John 13:34, 35)
34 I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.”
(John 15:12, 13)
12 This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you. 13 No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends.
Brothers in Christ are not friend?
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think you are missing the point. I'll explain later, but thanks for this response. I appreciate it.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm sorry you feel I have patronized you. I have not meant to put myself over you or to indicate that I am your teacher. I have only meant to say that the instinct that I learned as a teacher I have generalized to life.
The idea that there are secrets known only to an elite deserving few is not Christianity for Gnosticism, as I said before. Indeed Christianity battled Gnosticism. The Collosian "heresy" was an early form of Gnosticism which Paul dealt with, and he deals with it in his other letters as well.
I suggest you google Gnosticism and read up on it, and read up on how the Early Church was at odds with it.
No, Jesus was not the only person to keep the Law. It is quite possibe, especially when you grow up with the Law, to keep it, as it is habitual. There are only 613 laws. Think of the fact that your State has thousands of laws that you keep every day without thinking about it. The Torah states that it is easy to keep the Law. Is the Torah wrong?
Deuteronomy 30
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
It means Peter cannot be trusted to accurately represent the exact teachings of Jesus. Heck, the teachings of Peter changed over time. Which of his teachings at what time were the teachings of Jesus?
That you lay down your life for a friend. He merely described it as "the greatest love.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Again, nPeace, your tone dips to ridicule.
Improve your tone, then try again.
Then please do.
No, you didn't. You have yet to present a single example of an organ which can be demonstrated to have not developed through successive alteration.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Basically every thread on this forum is a repository of creationist statements demonstrating that by and large, 1. they do not understand what they rail against, 2. they do not care about correcting that, 3. despite multiple explanations of their errors, they continue to repeat the same erroneous claims literally for years simply because they feel compelled to argue against that which they fear undercuts their religious beliefs, and 4. they do not care that they are horrible ambassadors for their beliefs by virtue of 1-3..
nPeace
Veteran Member
@ratiocinator
Okay. Here we go.
I will only say this once, so I will try to make it as simple and clear, as I think possible.
By the way, I read you information, and don't see how pseudogenes rule out creation. Furthermore, I don't see how it favors all life from LUCA idea, as I will explain.
First. What do I mean by 90% Dark Matter in the genome.
2012
The Human Transcriptome: An Unfinished Story
...bioinformatics challenges posed by the vast quantities of transcriptomic data...
...studies that have tried to determine how much of the human genome is transcribed.
Recent evidence has suggested that more than 90% of the human genome is transcribed into RNA. However, this view has been strongly contested by groups of scientists..
...we conclude that the full extent of transcription remains an open question that will not be fully addressed until we decipher the complete range and biological diversity of the transcribed genomic sequences.
2014
Less than 10% of human DNA has functional role, claim scientists
More than 90% of human DNA is doing nothing very useful, and large stretches may be no more than biological baggage that has built up over years of evolution
The researchers looked for sections of DNA that humans shared with the other animals, which split from our lineage at different points in history. When DNA is shared and conserved across species, it suggests that it does something valuable.
...other scientists take a broader view of what it means for DNA to be functional. Most of the 92% that Lunter's group says is not functional DNA is still active in some way in the body.
Some of these have human-specific functions, some are involved in late-onset diseases like Alzheimer's, and others are simply missed by current comparative genomics methods...
Okay. Here we go.
I will only say this once, so I will try to make it as simple and clear, as I think possible.
By the way, I read you information, and don't see how pseudogenes rule out creation. Furthermore, I don't see how it favors all life from LUCA idea, as I will explain.
First. What do I mean by 90% Dark Matter in the genome.
2012
The Human Transcriptome: An Unfinished Story
Despite recent technological advances, the study of the human transcriptome is still in its early stages. Here we provide an overview of the complex human transcriptomic landscape, present the bioinformatics challenges posed by the vast quantities of transcriptomic data, and discuss some of the studies that have tried to determine how much of the human genome is transcribed. Recent evidence has suggested that more than 90% of the human genome is transcribed into RNA. However, this view has been strongly contested by groups of scientists who argued that many of the observed transcripts are simply the result of transcriptional noise. In this review, we conclude that the full extent of transcription remains an open question that will not be fully addressed until we decipher the complete range and biological diversity of the transcribed genomic sequences.
...bioinformatics challenges posed by the vast quantities of transcriptomic data......studies that have tried to determine how much of the human genome is transcribed.Recent evidence has suggested that more than 90% of the human genome is transcribed into RNA. However, this view has been strongly contested by groups of scientists.....we conclude that the full extent of transcription remains an open question that will not be fully addressed until we decipher the complete range and biological diversity of the transcribed genomic sequences.2014
Less than 10% of human DNA has functional role, claim scientists
Large stretches may be no more than biological baggage, say researchers after comparing genome with that of other mammals
More than 90% of human DNA is doing nothing very useful, and large stretches may be no more than biological baggage that has built up over years of evolution, Oxford researchers claim.
The scientists arrived at the figure after comparing the human genome with the genetic makeup of other mammals, ranging from dogs and mice to rhinos and horses.
The researchers looked for sections of DNA that humans shared with the other animals, which split from our lineage at different points in history. When DNA is shared and conserved across species, it suggests that it does something valuable.
Gerton Lunter, a senior scientist on the team, said that based on the comparisons, 8.2% of human DNA was "functional", meaning that it played an important enough role to be conserved by evolution.
"Scientifically speaking, we have no evidence that 92% of our genome is contributing to our biology at all," Lunter told the Guardian.
.....
But other scientists take a broader view of what it means for DNA to be functional. Most of the 92% that Lunter's group says is not functional DNA is still active in some way in the body.
"Many [DNA] elements that play important roles in human disease are not evolutionarily conserved. Some of these have human-specific functions, some are involved in late-onset diseases like Alzheimer's, and others are simply missed by current comparative genomics methods," said Manolis Kellis, a computational biologist at MIT who was not involved in the study. "We cannot simply ignore the remaining 90% of the genome that is not evolutionarily conserved."
"Evolution can tell you whether something is important or not important, but it doesn't tell you what that something actually does," he added.
More than 90% of human DNA is doing nothing very useful, and large stretches may be no more than biological baggage that has built up over years of evolution, Oxford researchers claim.
The scientists arrived at the figure after comparing the human genome with the genetic makeup of other mammals, ranging from dogs and mice to rhinos and horses.
The researchers looked for sections of DNA that humans shared with the other animals, which split from our lineage at different points in history. When DNA is shared and conserved across species, it suggests that it does something valuable.
Gerton Lunter, a senior scientist on the team, said that based on the comparisons, 8.2% of human DNA was "functional", meaning that it played an important enough role to be conserved by evolution.
"Scientifically speaking, we have no evidence that 92% of our genome is contributing to our biology at all," Lunter told the Guardian.
.....
But other scientists take a broader view of what it means for DNA to be functional. Most of the 92% that Lunter's group says is not functional DNA is still active in some way in the body.
"Many [DNA] elements that play important roles in human disease are not evolutionarily conserved. Some of these have human-specific functions, some are involved in late-onset diseases like Alzheimer's, and others are simply missed by current comparative genomics methods," said Manolis Kellis, a computational biologist at MIT who was not involved in the study. "We cannot simply ignore the remaining 90% of the genome that is not evolutionarily conserved."
"Evolution can tell you whether something is important or not important, but it doesn't tell you what that something actually does," he added.
More than 90% of human DNA is doing nothing very useful, and large stretches may be no more than biological baggage that has built up over years of evolutionThe researchers looked for sections of DNA that humans shared with the other animals, which split from our lineage at different points in history. When DNA is shared and conserved across species, it suggests that it does something valuable....other scientists take a broader view of what it means for DNA to be functional. Most of the 92% that Lunter's group says is not functional DNA is still active in some way in the body.Some of these have human-specific functions, some are involved in late-onset diseases like Alzheimer's, and others are simply missed by current comparative genomics methods...