Creation vs. Evolution

[Tyrathca]

However, Darwins ideas popularized....or made it seem that racism, eugenics, genocide was justified by 'science'.

Made it seem justified is not the same thing as justifying.

Quantum physics made it seem (to idiots) that Deepak Chopra was justified in his kooky ideas, but it didn't actually justify them.

I think you would agree with evolutionist Stephen J. Gould that racism increased by orders of magnitude after Darwin published? The eugenics movement started By Darwins cousin Galton, was influential in the holocaust

I have no idea if that is true and I don't think it is relevant enough to care.

Also Tyrathca... Re. your comment that "Nazism didn't worship Darwin"... That may be partially true, but there certainly were influential people within Germany such as Haeckel, Spencer, Huxley and others who loved Darwins ideas. Haeckel loved Darwinism so much that he stooped to fraud to promote the belief system. And Darwin praises Haeckel for his work in "Nazi biology".

They liked it so much and were so influential that Darwin's book still got banned?

And was Darwin even alive at the right time to be able to praise anything nazi?




All this still dodges the question of if we assume you are right about Darwin and Nazism, so what? What does this have to do with it evolution is true? Would you stop believing in gravity if it was shown it increased discrimination of fat people?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Made it seem justified is not the same thing as justifying.

Quantum physics made it seem (to idiots) that Deepak Chopra was justified in his kooky ideas, but it didn't actually justify them.

I have no idea if that is true and I don't think it is relevant enough to care.
They liked it so much and were so influential that Darwin's book still got banned?

And was Darwin even alive at the right time to be able to praise anything nazi?




All this still dodges the question of if we assume you are right about Darwin and Nazism, so what? What does this have to do with it evolution is true? Would you stop believing in gravity if it was shown it increased discrimination of fat people?

Dear Tyrathca,

You just love to argue for the sake of it and I believe that's true. Read what follows and see how it suits you.

A Copy of My Post To Freelight For You All:

Are you trying to defy the True God or His decisions? I'll tell you what I know about the matter. Then decide for yourself what you want. These are the days when we decide what we want: God or Satan. This is it!! There is little time left.

God created a Heaven for those of us who choose Him and who love Him and agree with Him. We can't be like the angels if we don't put God first, including what He wants from us.

The bottomless pit is Hell. I was told by an angel that hell is in the regions of the center of the Earth, where it is very hot with lava and magma. This is where Satan was to call home for awhile. The Earth has a top and a Center, but no bottom. This is, because of gravity, everyone thinks they are on Top of the Earth. Thus, symbolically, it is called the 'bottomless' pit. That is not the end of it.

Our Sun is the 'lake of fire' mentioned in Rev. 20:10,15KJV. Also in Rev. 19:20KJV. So there is a hotter place than even Hell. The Sun burns hotter by far. You have read that it is written that they shall be cast into the lake of fire and burn 'forever.' So yes, there is Eternal Conscious Torment, the words you use to describe it all, to suit your needs. To make it sound like God is a terrible Being.

Those who are sent to the lake of fire deserve it, or else the Lord God would not send them there. Do you expect them to be allowed into Heaven with those who have done the Will of God?? Well, there is an opposite place of Heaven and that is Hell. Even those in Hell will be given up and judged according to their works, so even some from Hell may make it to Heaven. But some not. God is Extremely Fair about it all.

If there were no 'lake of fire,' then everyone would go to Heaven, the good and the bad, the believers and the unbelievers, those who Love God and those who don't, those who obey God and those who don't. That's just not going to happen, freelight. You are just on your own planet hoping that it's not true because you want to believe in the Urantia book, instead of the Bible, and still go to Heaven. You are headed for disaster, freelight. I realized you were so into your Hindu and Urantia stuff so deeply, so that it why I cut off ties with you, because I gave you up to your wrong beliefs. There was no way to talk you out of those ways or talk some sense into you. So I knew I should just forget it and let God take care of it. You are definitely on the wrong road. The god you call God is not the True God that Christians and Jews believe in. OK, I will close for now. Good luck sticking with your errant beliefs. I only feel sorry for you and I regret the path that you insist on walking. I believe that Lightning is 5 or so times hotter than the Sun. Eeeek!!

May God Change Your Mindset Soon,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Given you quoted me to post this I'm going to take it as an invite for me to respond to it

Are you trying to defy the True God or His decisions?

No. Intentionally acting against a vindictive being of immense universe dominating power would be highly irrational if I value self-preservation. Fortunately for me I don't think such a being is at all likely to exist.

I'll tell you what I know about the matter.

Let's be clear here Michael, you know very little about anything regardless of how much you claim otherwise. Claiming you know something isn't the same as knowing something or what you claim to know being true.

Then decide for yourself what you want. These are the days when we decide what we want: God or Satan. This is it!! There is little time left.

I choose neither.

God created a Heaven for those of us who choose Him and who love Him and agree with Him. We can't be like the angels if we don't put God first, including what He wants from us.

If God was proved to me tomorrow I'd put him first (he's a scarier fictional character than Voldemort and Sauron combined). But at present no such proof is forthcoming so I choose not to waste the one life I have on such a fools errand as following a fictional creation.

Our Sun is the 'lake of fire' mentioned in Rev. 20:10,15KJV. Also in Rev. 19:20KJV. So there is a hotter place than even Hell. The Sun burns hotter by far. You have read that it is written that they shall be cast into the lake of fire and burn 'forever.' So yes, there is Eternal Conscious Torment, the words you use to describe it all, to suit your needs. To make it sound like God is a terrible Being.

ETERNAL torment for crimes which do not by any sane human standard match the severity of punishment. Yeah your god is almost by definition a terrible being, by any measure of "terribleness" in any society he would top the list if you just looked at his claimed actions.

Those who are sent to the lake of fire deserve it, or else the Lord God would not send them there.

I deserve ETERNAL suffering? What could I possibly have done to deserve such a horrible fate? We humans don't subject even our most hated individuals to anything even resembling such a fate, yet we are meant to think a god doing it is somehow "good"?

Do you expect them to be allowed into Heaven with those who have done the Will of God??

At the very least do the humane thing and let them die rather than ETERNAL torment.

Well, there is an opposite place of Heaven and that is Hell. Even those in Hell will be given up and judged according to their works, so even some from Hell may make it to Heaven. But some not. God is Extremely Fair about it all.

None of this sounds very fair. It sounds perversely unnecessary and primitive.

If there were no 'lake of fire,' then everyone would go to Heaven, the good and the bad, the believers and the unbelievers, those who Love God and those who don't, those who obey God and those who don't.

So god isn't all powerful enough to create obvious alternative options?




Your god sounds horrifying and if I thought he existed I would be terrified of him. Fortunately I think he is a work of fiction and thus I can sleep easy tonight

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik,

I prefer to spend time on specifics, as opposed to responding to vague claims. Accordingly, since your last post was almost bereft of any specific evidence, I will let most of it pass.

How magnanimous of you. You were the one that brought up the topics and like usual, I answered directly and completely but thanks for passing.

If you are convinced you are right in what you said, then I would recommend you contact the Dr. Phil show.

Oh. I guess you were less magnanimous and more patronizing.

Based on the depth and breadth of the claims you make would it probably warrant two full programs for Dr. Phil to diagnose what is amiss, and to decide what course of counseling might be effective in restoring you to a balanced view of reality. Plus, just think, a national audience before whom you could lay out your evidence for massive deceit and pervasive collusion within the world of science. Dr. Phil would be delighted to have a few of your home-schooled prodigies prove they can defeat the arguments from common descent professors. Dr. Phil is also a product of the public school system. I wonder if he concurs in your disdain for pubic education.

Wow, you are really sensitive about the idea that government schools are not necessary for society to function. This is an outgrowth of the idea that you are god. Good luck with that.

Do homeschooled students generally prove to be more productive as scientists? Not necessarily in the disciplines we might have disputes over (age of the earth and common descent fields), but in mathematics, computers, engineering, chemistry, and so on?

More likely than not. Based solely on better academics, it wouldn't be a surprise if it were true.

It doesn’t help much for a smart student to become a hum-drum worker bee. Do you have figures on how well home-schooled students do in the scientific workplace?

There is certainly evidence that homeschoolers, per capita, run their own businesses more than government schoolers. I know that isn't evidence they make good scientists, but they don't seem to like being worker drones either.

What is weak about co-option?

First; It isn't demonstrated, i.e. there is no evidence of it. There is not even a theory as to how making new IC parts from similar functioning parts is normal, common, and done over and over through the ages.

Second; The old part is non-functional, and the new part, during the construction of the new IC part. It requires a great deal of DNA changes, meaning the function of the old part is lost while making the new part. If you don't believe that the you tell us how many DNA changes, on average, are required to go from one part to a new IC part?

Third; While the new IC part is being constructed, the very specific changes required to accomplish the task must be done without the benefit of natural selection.

I see you making the talk, now do the walk. Come back with specifics

I did, as you addressed...

Better, but I await you moving past vague allusion to undefined “important things”.

Not knowing how the solar system is so active. Like how so many planets have magnetic fields. And that's just the beginning of questions of activity where most of the bodies in our solar system should be cold and dead by now since the sun simply does not supply the power to sustain all the activity.

We're not sure of the big bang because we just don't have enough information.

Biology is not my field. If gcthomas or Jose Fly or one of the others wants to address this, I invite them to.

What is your field. I'll do my best to keep up.

Just remember, don't write off the YEC people too quickly on the topic of biology in the context of common descent since you've said you aren't qualified to talk about it.

 

[Yorzhik]

Unfortunately for Yorzhik YECs now have to deny gravitational waves, as a new addition the global scientific conspiracy perhaps?

Are you saying if a scientist questions the results or conclusions of gravitational waves they will be drummed out of their positions?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm only claiming that Shannon pioneered digital transmission techniques which aimed to maintain fidelity and increase efficiency within a digital transmission system. However I will await enthusiastically for you to explain just how this applies to the natural process of genetic transcription that unlike telecom systems didn't actually require Shannon to opine anything.

The beauty of Shannon is that his work applies to all messages that are encoded, transmitted, and decoded. Obviously. If there were a physical way transmit information better, we'd use that method instead.

You are clearly presenting nothing here but bovine scatterings Yorzhik and you know it. lain:

Since you've just been shown to be wrong, instead of being prideful you should at least pay attention.

 

[Yorzhik]

Oops, I re-answered your previous post to this one. Not that it matters to someone of your glazed-eyed proclivities.

No he didn't, he pioneered digital transmission techniques that you are disingenuously attempting to purloin as a red herring for YECism.

I answered this in my previous re-answer.

Nice display of faux arrogance Yorzhick btw, I enjoyed the laugh, of course on the internet we can all be legends in our own lunch times.

Well... I am right.

Genetic transcription is a mechanical process of direct contact, without a specific transmission sequence, so where does Shannon theory apply :liberals:? :

Genetic Transcription

When the message is moved from the DNA to the protein. Mutations can enter, and the information sent can be measured by Shannon. Beyond that DNA cannot act as protein, because it isn't protein. And one protein cannot do what another protein does. But they are all coded with the same DNA. Thus, it is a messaging system and Shannon applies.

This is continuously happening countless billions of times over without error or "noise" since there is no separate transmission part. DNA to RNA to protein.
While this continues there will be no change to the information or the amount. Do you really need to ask this?

Um... you should realize that mutations are noise. Just because the system is robust doesn't mean anything to Shannon.

As with other mechanical processes the occasional error may happen, genes may be duplicated, altered or mis-transcribed, a random mutation occurs. An increase of information or just a change has happened. Natural selection will put any such inherited mutations to the test in the real world and any beneficial traits will tend to proliferate. All the kind of thing other people (better people?) have told you about many times before Yorzhik.

Sure, they tell us that noise is more information, but at least admit that Shannon proves differently.

Please would you now explain where and how exactly do you think Shannon information fits in to this given that its purpose is to maintain fidelity, not to allow change and to correct any changes that nevertheless occur?

I couldn't have said it about the DNA->protein system any better.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes..... Not sure I would use the word tyranny but definitely many evolutionists are against freedom of choice...pushing indoctrination.

It's the principle that if they can't have free reign over the children's primary instruction that they become quickly angry. It's a sure recipe for tyranny.

 

[Yorzhik]

I am left to conclude that your propensity for demonizing your opponents is a mental condition that cannot be cured. Indeed, you do have my pity.

Wow... quick to anger.

 

[Yorzhik]

Please, Yorz, look up the meaning of the term information that Shannon used - it has nothing to do with 'meaning' or 'semantic content' or 'better/worse' or 'function'. It is merely a measure of how many bits are needed to specify it. You have claimed to be using Shannon information ideas in this post, and others, then you go on to reference the usefulness of the information content.

You cannot talk about the function of DNA and still refer to the information in it in terms of Shannon information without looking like you need to do more thinking or research about the topic. (I have tried to point you in the right direction, but your unwillingness to correct this technical point is looking more like a deliberate obfuscation than accident now.)

When I use the term "it works" so far, it is only referring to it as a test of whether the message was received correctly. However, realize that Shannon and Weaver understood there was a semantic component overarching to the theory otherwise communication wouldn't need a theory.

But more importantly, you are saying noise is desirable because that is what evolution needs to change an organism. That's OK as long as you realize that means you understand that Shannon theory applies to messages in the cell.

To help you along, here is a snippet from MIT:

Shannon quantified the amount of information in a signal, stating that is the amount of unexpected data the message contains. He called this information content of a message ‘entropy’. In digital communication a stream of unexpected bits is just random noise. Shannon showed that the more a transmission resembles random noise, the more information it can hold, as long as it is modulated to an appropriate carrier: one needs a low entropy carrier to carry a high entropy message

So you are saying Weaver didn't understand Shannon either. He said

Uncertainty which arises because of errors or because of the influence of noise is undesirable uncertainty. It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information. Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion.

 

[Jose Fly]

First; It isn't demonstrated, i.e. there is no evidence of it.

Thanks to 6days, we know you're wrong. He cited the Pink et al. 2011 paper that reviewed the work on pseudogenes that had been done up to that point, including research showing how in some cases, the regulatory regions of pseudogenes had been co-opted to regulate other genes (while the original protein-coding regions of the pseudogene remained non-functional).

Also, for all your talk about IC parts and systems, I don't think I've ever seen you actually name such a specific example of one. How about you pick one?

Or is this going to be like the previous case where you despite all your claims about "genetic information" and different amounts of it, you never could provide a means by which we could tell which of two genomes had more "genetic information"?

 

[alwight]

I'm only claiming that Shannon pioneered digital transmission techniques which aimed to maintain fidelity and increase efficiency within a digital transmission system. However I will await enthusiastically for you to explain just how this applies to the natural process of genetic transcription that unlike telecom systems didn't actually require Shannon to opine anything.

The beauty of Shannon is that his work applies to all messages that are encoded, transmitted, and decoded. Obviously. If there were a physical way transmit information better, we'd use that method instead.

Except that Shannon applies to information transmitted via an actual transmission system where noise and errors are to be expected during transmission. When errors do occur then the information can be re-sent and the information fidelity is thus maintained.
Genetic transcription however is without a transmission system and is typically flawless, but when an error/change does occur it simply remains uncorrected, there is no correction process, no Shannon.
Pontificating about Shannon in genetic transcription is imo a rather obvious disingenuous misapplication designed only to obfuscate not to clarify or show anything, iow it's all just smoke and mirrors.

You are clearly presenting nothing here but bovine scatterings Yorzhik and you know it. lain:

Since you've just been shown to be wrong, instead of being prideful you should at least pay attention.

I may be wrong that all you have is bovine scatterings Yorzhik if perhaps all you do have is the king's new clothes, i.e. nothing at all. lain:

 

[gcthomas]

When I use the term "it works" so far, it is only referring to it as a test of whether the message was received correctly. However, realize that Shannon and Weaver understood there was a semantic component overarching to the theory otherwise communication wouldn't need a theory.

But more importantly, you are saying noise is desirable because that is what evolution needs to change an organism. That's OK as long as you realize that means you understand that Shannon theory applies to messages in the cell.


So you are saying Weaver didn't understand Shannon either. He said

Uncertainty which arises because of errors or because of the influence of noise is undesirable uncertainty. It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information. Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion.

Two things, Yorz.

First is that you have quote-mined the source (standard YEC deceit tactic). From Weaver's article,

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.

... which is exactly what I said.

The beginning of the paragraph you quoted from has this:

It is generally true that when there is noise, the received signal exhibits greater information - or better, the received signal is selected out of a more varied set than is the transmitted signal. This is a situation which beautifully illustrates the semantic trap into which one can fall if he does not remember that "information" is used here with a special meaning that measures freedom of choice and hence uncertainty as to what choice has been made. It is therefore possible for the word information to have either good or bad connotations.

So, unless you think that Weaver doesn't understand Shannon, then 'noise is information', and 'information can have good or bad connotations'.

YOU assume that all noise (mutation) is bad, whereas the knowledge that genomes are not the perfect and environments are not static tells us that there are mutations (new information) that could be beneficial.

Second: I keep asking, but you continually avoid answering clearly, where do you think you are going with this? What is it that you think Shannon Information Theory does to damage evolutionary theory? Without that information, this whole discussion is pointless.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Given you quoted me to post this I'm going to take it as an invite for me to respond to it

Yes, I meant for you to respond to this. Good decision on your part.

No. Intentionally acting against a vindictive being of immense universe dominating power would be highly irrational if I value self-preservation. Fortunately for me I don't think such a being is at all likely to exist.

Unfortunately, you don't think He exists. That is your problem. Wait until you find out He does exist. I wonder how things will go then.

Let's be clear here Michael, you know very little about anything regardless of how much you claim otherwise. Claiming you know something isn't the same as knowing something or what you claim to know being true. I choose neither.

Oh, but I do know more than you purport. You don't know how much I know. You've barely even 'met me' to put it mildly. I could be a fountain of information and you wouldn't know until it's too late. Just because you refuse to believe me doesn't make it all go away, you know?

If God was proved to me tomorrow I'd put him first (he's a scarier fictional character than Voldemort and Sauron combined). But at present no such proof is forthcoming so I choose not to waste the one life I have on such a fools errand as following a fictional creation.

Well there; now you wonder what angers God; that being that you don't believe He even exists and that you use the terms 'fools errand' and 'fictional creation.' He'll show you who is fictional! Ha!!

ETERNAL torment for crimes which do not by any sane human standard match the severity of punishment. Yeah your god is almost by definition a terrible being, by any measure of "terribleness" in any society he would top the list if you just looked at his claimed actions. I deserve ETERNAL suffering? What could I possibly have done to deserve such a horrible fate? We humans don't subject even our most hated individuals to anything even resembling such a fate, yet we are meant to think a god doing it is somehow "good"? At the very least do the humane thing and let them die rather than ETERNAL torment.

What did you expect? God is a pansy??!! He is careful and fair about His decisions. If you continue down the road that you're choosing, then you get that reward. Do you understand that?? You MOCK GOD and you proclaim it to others by speaking it all in their presence. What kind of reward did you expect for that? You don't just die as an alternative. God made every soul and spirit eternal. In other words, not able to die. Now, some do rest in the 'dirt' for a while, but then they are raised and if their names are not written in the "Book of Life," they are cast into the 'lake of fire." It's that simple.

None of this sounds very fair. It sounds perversely unnecessary and primitive.

So god isn't all powerful enough to create obvious alternative options?

Your god sounds horrifying and if I thought he existed I would be terrified of him. Fortunately I think he is a work of fiction and thus I can sleep easy tonight

It sounds fair for the rest of us who have sacrificed our lives to accommodate Him in our lives rather than cast Him aside or not believe that He guides us and Saves Us. It is not primitive whatsoever.

God created His alternative options. First you go to Hell. It's cooler than the 'lake of fire/the Sun,' but still quite hot indeed. You will be totally more than parched, for there is no water there. But those in Hell will relinquish those within Hell to be judged according to their works on Earth and then it will be decided whether they should go to the 'lake of fire' permanently or not. You are playing with fire. At the rate you are going, you will taste Hell. You don't give Him many options considering how you treat Him.

So you think He is a work of fiction. That excuse won't cut it. You tell Him that on your way to the fire. For some people, I have no love lost between us. You don't think you deserve it, but now, you aren't the One making that decision. Too bad.

There are some agnostics here, even atheists, of whom I pray to God to forgive them in spite of themselves and my heart believes He will hear my words and know that I love them. Jesus wasn't sent to the saints. He was sent to the sinners, in other words, those who needed saving. Now I am not sent to those who are already saved. It am to concentrate on those who are not saved yet. Those who show improvement, I love much. But you are a very different, ornery, mean, horrible, sacrilegious atheist whom I do not want to pray for in the slightest. If someone says it's light outside, you gripe to them that no, it is dark, even though it is light. In other words, you like to speak the opposite of what anyone says. You get off on it. You deserve whatever you get. You reap what you sow/plant. Go and live your eternal life in the fire forever. Like I said, a soul does not die. It lives forever.

I Hope You've Had All Of Your Fun Out Of This Earthly Life Rejecting God And Jesus!!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Unfortunately, you don't think He exists. That is your problem. Wait until you find out He does exist. I wonder how things will go then.

I'll be very surprised?

Imagine both our surprise when we find out "he" is actually Vishnu :think:

Oh, but I do know more than you purport. You don't know how much I know. You've barely even 'met me' to put it mildly. I could be a fountain of information and you wouldn't know until it's too late. Just because you refuse to believe me doesn't make it all go away, you know?

I still find it perplexing how you don't understand why people don't just believe you. It's like you think that just telling people something is true should be enough for them. Never mind how ignorant you are about the nature of the world around you.

Have you heard the phrase "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? That summarises my thought on your claims.

What did you expect? God is a pansy??!! He is careful and fair about His decisions. If you continue down the road that you're choosing, then you get that reward. Do you understand that?? You MOCK GOD and you proclaim it to others by speaking it all in their presence. What kind of reward did you expect for that? You don't just die as an alternative. God made every soul and spirit eternal. In other words, not able to die. Now, some do rest in the 'dirt' for a while, but then they are raised and if their names are not written in the "Book of Life," they are cast into the 'lake of fire." It's that simple.

I don't expect any reward, though I would also be surprised if an all powerful being of the universe were so petty as to be insulted by my lack of belief. I don't get insulted when people don't believe I exist...

And I know you claim that I wont die, but what I've never understood is why god in your stories doesn't let them die. Excuse the pun but it would be more "humane".

It sounds fair for the rest of us who have sacrificed our lives to accommodate Him in our lives rather than cast Him aside or not believe that He guides us and Saves Us. It is not primitive whatsoever.

Yeah no, still don't see how it is fair. It's not like I'm hurting anyone. What twisted morality is it that someone else experiencing eternal torment is your reward for making sacrifices? Can't you just get rewarded and me not? Inflicting the worst punishment imaginable on me because I didn't know to make a certain sacrifice you did is just sadistic.

God created His alternative options. First you go to Hell. It's cooler than the 'lake of fire/the Sun,' but still quite hot indeed. You will be totally more than parched, for there is no water there. But those in Hell will relinquish those within Hell to be judged according to their works on Earth and then it will be decided whether they should go to the 'lake of fire' permanently or not. You are playing with fire. At the rate you are going, you will taste Hell. You don't give Him many options considering how you treat Him.

How is my treatment of him so bad? Seriously what is so bad about what I do?

So you think He is a work of fiction. That excuse won't cut it. You tell Him that on your way to the fire.

OK I will if I see him. Personally I think it's a pretty good excuse and a super intelligent master of the universe would probably see that too and laugh at your bronze age mythology about it.

But you are a very different, ornery, mean, horrible, sacrilegious atheist whom I do not want to pray for in the slightest.

Awwwww thanks.... that's so sweet of you

If someone says it's light outside, you gripe to them that no, it is dark, even though it is light. In other words, you like to speak the opposite of what anyone says. You get off on it. You deserve whatever you get. You reap what you sow/plant. Go and live your eternal life in the fire forever. Like I said, a soul does not die. It lives forever.

Wow, you hate me that much don't you?

I Hope You've Had All Of Your Fun Out Of This Earthly Life Rejecting God And Jesus!!

Nah there is so much more fun to be had, most of it has nothing to do with your god though

 

[alwight]

It sounds fair for the rest of us who have sacrificed our lives to accommodate Him in our lives rather than cast Him aside or not believe that He guides us and Saves Us. It is not primitive whatsoever...

Clearly some people have spent a lot of this life believing in a supernatural Christian God for whatever reasons. Had they been born into a different culture then I have no doubt at all that they would have spent the same time believing in the god(s) and religiosity of that particular culture.
I understand that those who are sceptical of all such religious beliefs, not just your one, who worry your faith by their criticism of it, are probably very unlikely to be welcomed. Accepting that long held beliefs may not be particularly valid beliefs after all are clearly not something that you at least would ever want to contemplate now.

...There are some agnostics here, even atheists, of whom I pray to God to forgive them in spite of themselves and my heart believes He will hear my words and know that I love them. Jesus wasn't sent to the saints. He was sent to the sinners, in other words, those who needed saving. Now I am not sent to those who are already saved. It am to concentrate on those who are not saved yet. Those who show improvement, I love much. But you are a very different, ornery, mean, horrible, sacrilegious atheist whom I do not want to pray for in the slightest....

Non-believers here have explained to you many times that they don't believe in your God because they don't think that evidentially there is any justification for such belief, not that they somehow spurn or wilfully reject your God.
You however continue on your merry way blithely assuming that threats of awful eternal dire consequences will result, and almost delighting in it, are an actual fact that requires nothing but your say so to verify its truth.
If your God was in fact true then such a god would indeed be terrifying and awful, not content with a measured response to what may or may not be "sins" in this life, but a god who would inflict eternal agony for it.

Well, it simply doesn't matter what nonsense you personally believe, your belief isn't evidence of anything imo other than that you probably believe in nonsense. If your God exists then hiding away intangibly and then being all surprised and deeply hurt that some people don't happen to believe He actually exists is the biggest nonsense of all.

 

[6days]

Thanks to 6days, we know you're wrong. He cited the*Pink et al. 2011*paper that reviewed the work on pseudogenes that had been done up to that point, including research showing how in some cases, the regulatory regions of pseudogenes had been co-opted to regulate other genes (while the original protein-coding regions of the pseudogene remained non-functional).

And that seemed to surprise many evolutionists. Functional 'pswudogenes' did not fit the talking points. However... sophisticated, complex functionality does fit with the Biblical account. We are wonderfull made by an omniscient Creator.*

 

[Jose Fly]

And that seemed to surprise many evolutionists.

And for other "evolutionists" it was exactly the sort of thing they expected.

 

[6days]

And for other "evolutionists" it was exactly the sort of thing they expected.

Those who expected it were perhaps the ones who realized scientists such as J. Woodmorappe were correct. We should expect to find purpose...functionality and design.
In the beginning...God.
j17_1_47-52.pdf
( another correct creationist prediction)

 

[gcthomas]

Those who expected it were perhaps the ones who realized scientists such as J. Woodmorappe were correct. We should expect to find purpose...functionality and design.
In the beginning...God.
j17_1_47-52.pdf
( another correct creationist prediction)

Well, you have found function, but only assumed purpose and design. So creationists predicted that functioning organisms exhibit function. Well done you.