"The answer is no, bacteria do not have recessive traits." ...
766 posted on 01/24/2005 2:28:33 PM CST by js1138
Yawn... Yet another pitiful little Darwinist falls after tilting at their imaginary windmills of psuedo-science.
Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
ID has no tools of its own, other than the Big Lie, and they didn't invent that. Science, on the other hand, uses verifiable data and reason.
"The answer is no, bacteria do not have recessive traits." ...
766 posted on 01/24/2005 2:28:33 PM CST by js1138
Yawn... Yet another pitiful little Darwinist falls after tilting at their imaginary windmills of psuedo-science.
That's a keeper for the annals of human irrationality!
You're not asking if I believe the Bible. You're asking if I believe what men tell me to believe.
" You do a great deal of violence to the texts. For example, you pit Jesus against Moses."
God came here in person to teach. God said what He did and I posted it. You can analyze what He said and give us an alternate meaning for the logical plain English posted.
"I can hardly wait to hear your explanation for how Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day."
Matt 12:31-32,
But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
God tells a story where both He and the Abraham are present.
Luke 16:19-31,
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
Abraham witnessed God Himself tell the story while sitting with God in Heaven. Abraham already lived out that part of the trinity he now watches God live.
" I also wonder how you would explain Sodom remaining until Jesus' day IF they had seen the works He did (because they would have repented)."
Matt 12:31-32
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Why would you argue with the one who knows what's in their hearts?
"Jesus treats the characters of a story (in your opinion) as real people.
It is a story. The important parts are not the details and claims of men. They are what God intends to teach through the use of the story.
Matt 13:34-35
"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[Psalm 78:2]
" You do recognize how the Holy Spirit is an evidence of the resurrection"
Yet you asked me if I beleived the Bible.
Let's go back to Moses and Jesus. John 8:1-11,
"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
God wrote this with His finger before the world was. He said once before that Moses gave the law from the hardness in men's hearts. Abraham saw this story being told also. He would watch again as He returned to the Mount of Olives and would appear in the temple courts in the AM. This time it would be God on trial. They did not head the law He had written. Abraham rejoiced not only for his life, but his life with God who would write and promote such things.
" The Holy Spirit can and does demonstrate God's existence through miracles and healings IF HE SO CHOOSES."
Matt12:39, ...none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
" You seem to deny the supernatural."
That's correct. God is real.
"I believe whether God speaks or His word is scarce, whether He delivers from the fiery furnace or does not. "
I beleive in God, because He has spoken, else I would not.
" We agree that man came from dust. I think you will find some disagreement with the evolutionists who think life came from the ocean, and man evolved from this. So do you believe evolution is wrong about this?"
Dust is dust. Dust can be anyhwere.
" You claim to know what happened on 9/11 scientifically rather than historically. How? The facts of what happened do not contradict the laws of nature as we currently understand them. That is altogether different than saying we know what events took place through science. "
I don't think you understand that all truths are subject to logic and reason. That the event happened and was caused by certain people, that did certain things is verifiable, because the evidence exists to look at.
"if you know what happened on 9/11 through science, I have great news. You are entitled to a lot of money. All you have to do is deduce where Osama Bin Laden is, using science of course, then notify your local law enforcement."
I fail to see how logic led you to make this claim and conclusion from what I said.
" The rainbow appeared, according to the Bible, after the deluge.
Accoridng to the Bible sure, but not according to reality. I said previously that the rainbow was due to Raleigh scattering. It's more complicated than that. Lossless scattering of light is analyzed by 3 different considerations. They all fundamentally amount to the interaction of EM fields with matter. Raleigh scattering is the simplest, it is when the scatterers are ~< 1/10 of hte wavelength of light. It is why the sky is blue. Mie scattering is when the scatterers are ~ the size of a wavelength. Mie scattering causes clouds to appear white and if the size of the scatterers is large enough, rainbows are seen. Such would occur with mists, rings and rainbows around the moon, sun and other light sources(reflectors). Geometric scattering is when the scatterers are >> than the wavelength of light such as with raindrops. Both Mie and geometric scattering cover the rainbow. The rainbow existed, before the flood and during it.
" Before this there was no record of rain.
It rained beore the flood and the Earth is not 6K y/o. Rainbows also occur in mists due to Mie scattering. Sat. night in SW WI, the full moon was surrounded by a rainbow. That was due to Mie scattering off condensed ice crystals generated from evaporations from the huge dump of fresh snow.
" The Bible is also clear that a large portion of the water currently on the earth was, before the deluge, suspended above the first firmament, i.e. the atmosphere."
With what, sky hooks and baggies? The DOD's been all over Iraq. It's understandable that they can't find Zarcowie, since they can't even find a churubim waving a flaming sword back and forth.
" The very idea that we can learn and affect the future though our choices is Biblical. The idea that all is not fate is Biblical."
No it's not. Fate is not a universal beleif for those outside the Bible. Ever here of coyote and grandfather?
"Non-biblical thinking might evaluate all existence as nothing more than cause and effect"
God believes in cause and effect. Satin will try to convince you otherwise.
There is this other creationist that thinks the earth was formed before the stars and another that thinks angels hold airplanes aloft. Go figure.
These maps are clearly marked with their orthographic designation in addition to containing the appropriate lat/long lines.
A think you have put yourself into a "corner" ...
Sex is another term that has it's own meaning when used with bacteria. Bacteria containing an f-factor(fertility factor) are called male types and those w/o it are called female types. Normally they are not refered to as male and female, because of the great difference that exists with the normal biological meaning-bacteria don't get pregnant and have babies, eggs and sperm. Bacteria are refered to as with and w/o f-factor. f-factor allows a cell to donate an some chromosomal mat'l to another bug.
The paradox is that you are using tools created by intelligent design to debunk intelligent design.
No. I notice you used lower case on both occurrences of "intelligent design," the better to commit the fallacy of equivocation. Please Google that for yourself. Science would be using tools created by intelligent design (as opposed to stupid design) to debunk Intelligent Design (a political activist front movement for creationism).
Reading on ...
Sex is another term that has it's own meaning when used with bacteria. Bacteria containing an f-factor(fertility factor) are called male types and those w/o it are called female types. Normally they are not refered to as male and female, because of the great difference that exists with the normal biological meaning-bacteria don't get pregnant and have babies, eggs and sperm. Bacteria are refered to as with and w/o f-factor. f-factor allows a cell to donate an some chromosomal mat'l to another bug.
You are simply repeating your assertions at greater and greater length whenever I point out the fallacy within them. Look closely below.
"The use of intelligence to design something" does not equal "Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Johnson, Wells, or their theories."
Variation 2:
"intelligent design" /= "Intelligent Design"
Variation 3:
Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Johnson, Wells, etc. have contributed nothing to the tools and techniques of modern science and their discrediting will pull nothing down with them.
You are not addressing these points. Please, in your next reply, do not simply state the same dumb-ass thing in 16 paragraphs instead of eight. Please address the charge that your supposed paradox is a simple fallacy of equivocation.
I didn't. I said that it was religious philosophies like yours (stars and sun were formed after the earth) that scientists want to keep religion out of the science class.
Secondly, why do you insist on insults rather than having a rational discussion?
It is a insult to state that your views are contrary to basic science and do not belong in the science class?
I don't understand. Johnny says to take it literally and you don't. Which one of you is correct?
You have twisted the thrust of this thread. If you go back in my posts, you will see I am not fixated on particular words or passages and do not believe in a literal interpretation. I was just remarking how you were interpreting the bible based on what you know to be scientific fact and not what is written. In this case, the word is that the earth has four corners. Take it or leave it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.