i have gone through the ones on here, i have read so much about it and everyone seems to have a different idea as to what the creed actually came up with in the sense of explaining it, religious leaders from most denominations seem to try to explain it and are all different, it does your head in just trying to read half their stuff.
when i was going door to door, i knew how to argue against it, but now trying to learn about it.. i was reading an article of the net about this and how christ emptied himself of all deity and that, but with all the statements made and arguments to and for it, one question was brought up.
when jesus was asked by his disciples about the time of the end, jesus replied neither i nor the angels know the hour, only the father.
It is impossible to state the trinity clearly in your own words without contradicting yourself and/or committing heresy.
Therefore it is gibberish.
The early church found itself in the embarrassing position of worshipping Jesus in practice. They pulled a veil over their polytheism by coming up with a form of words that nobody was allowed to question on pain of death.
This is not a good way to discover truth.
can't believe it - gb is currently second in the medal table, with more golds and silvers combined than even china.
given the size of the nation it's an incredible achievement and we have won in some sports where other countries typically dominate.
i can't imagine we will stay in second but i am happy to enjoy the moment.. well done to the whole of team gb!.
Absolutely awesome!
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Vidqun - I have covered every one of your other objections in detail already.
Encode, neutral mutations, "junk DNA", evolution of DNA, Cambrian "explosion" etc.
You are too lazy or dishonest to do a google search to find the answers and too superstitious to consider them. You are the scientist who thinks that your fellow scientists who accept the fact of evolution are disciples of Dagon!
All of them have been or will be covered in my Evolution is a Fact series...
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Is this a paradox or what? Is evolutionism not based on chance? - Vidqun
No. If you were not lying when you claimed to be a professional microbiologist you would not even ask that question.
The differences in sequence of cytochrome C between different species - caused by neutral mutations over millions of years - exactly reflects the evolutionary relationships we already knew from other fields.
The chances of this happening without evolution by natural selection being the reason is literally impossible. Therefore evolution is a fact.
our views are not so far from each other
They could not be more different.
don't worry, i'm taking the piss.
it's just another jw.org video promoting one of their own who had the benefit of a university education and medical training before they became a witness and letting him try and debunk years of research with an appeal to emotion about the placenta.
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/vodintexp/pub-jwbiv_201608_1_video.
very strange behavior by the attendants and elders after the duluth, ga, rc.
on the first link the attendants start to exit the arena, then line up and turn their backs on the street preachers.
(around the 6:00 mark).. elders and attendants after duluth rc.
It was more like the way Scientologists respond to challenges.
don't worry, i'm taking the piss.
it's just another jw.org video promoting one of their own who had the benefit of a university education and medical training before they became a witness and letting him try and debunk years of research with an appeal to emotion about the placenta.
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/vodintexp/pub-jwbiv_201608_1_video.
Every creationist argument ever -
1 - x is very complex.
2 - I don't know (because I am too lazy to research) how x could have evolved.
3 - Therefore it must have been made by Jesus (but let's not mention his name at this stage).
4 - People who accept evolution want to do bad stuff and not answer to Jesus.
5 - Therefore I don't have to learn anything about the evidence.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
ha! You are citing a paper on genetics from 1950.
I know you are a bit behind the times but that is incredible!
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Your post does nothing to support your false claim that there are no neutral mutations.
An animal that has a harmful near-neutral mutation...
I am not talking about a "harmful near-neutral mutation" - whatever your made up term is supposed to mean? I am talking about totally neutral mutations.
You are refusing to reply to the evidence of DNA functional redundancy and Protein functional redundancy.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
in fact, we now know there is function and effects
No you don't. The human genome has a huge proportion of DNA that has no function. There is a single-cell archezoa that has an order of magnitude more DNA than humans. There are onions and rice plants that have bigger genomes than microbiologists. Obviously it is mostly freeloading junk. But that is another thread.
You claimed that there is no such thing as a neutral mutation. I proved that this is false with the example of Cytochrome C.
As usual you changed the goalposts - the irony.
