LordReed:


What tactic? The tactic of sticking to a point while you on and on about something else?

Adding humanity and taking it off again is not change?

You are free to claim whatever you want. It's a free world


Did you read "does not change his divine nature" in my post?
So much for sticking to point

Pelecius:

and that no newly formed specie is more complex than it's ancestor.

Really? Interesting.

budaatum:


Really? Interesting.

Have anything contrary to it? I'll love to see it

Pelecius:

You are free to claim whatever you want. It's a free world


Did you read "does not change his divine nature" in my post?
So much for sticking to point

And did you not see my question? Is Jesus taking and putting off humanity change or not?

Pelecius:

One does not "necessarily" need to ask that as there are several ways to point out to the person that he is wrong. One is to provide evidence that prove the opposite of what the person is saying. Figures don't lie, they say.
Even Einstein was provided with evidence that was opposite of his steady state model of the universe, which then convinced him.
Simply asking "have you used a telescope?" Won't do anything.

By the way, I am still awaiting the answer from the "informed" one. Since it looks like you've been avoiding the question.
You could "open" someone's eyes with your answer, who knows?

lol, let me engage you a bit.

How is speciation accompanied with loss of information that will lead to reduced complexity? Discuss the genetics and molecular biology aspect of that.

Workch:
It’s no surprise that I am an atheist, but one thing people don’t know about me is that I was a Christian for 28years. Yes 28years.

I was not just a Christian, I had full membership in my church and was a member of the choir. I was born into a Christian home, we had morning and evening devotions everyday as a child. My dad personally tried indoctrinating us a lot, we read the Bible every single day and then he explains but seriously even as a child a lot of the stories didn’t add up but I was scared that I was being blasphemous.
I remember a day my dad was teaching us about Noah’s flood and then we got to that point where god said he’s using the rainbow as a sign to remind humanity that he would never destroy earth with flood. Even as a 9years old, that part didn’t make sense to me, because I see it in the news frequently of flood destroying farms, properties and even killing people. I asked my dad and he didn’t give me a reasonable explanation.
As a teenager, I started teaching Sunday school to kids in church, I taught them that god never change but in my mind, I wasn’t convinced because while reading the Bible, there many instances of god changing his mind and even regretting his decisions. I always think about it that the god of Old Testament seems different from what is portrayed in the New Testament, something changed. I kept a lot of things to myself because people around were so religious and would quickly rebuke me for such reasoning.
As time goes on, I joined the choir, I learn drums and keyboard, I sang choir ministrations and even wrote songs for my church choir. All these while, it wasn’t clear, I was just scared to come out fully.

I got admitted into the university to study biochemistry. Being someone that is very inquisitive, I started asking so many questions in respect to the relationship between living organisms. After having background knowledge in genetics, molecular biology and biological metabolism, it was clear that every living thing are the same basically. At this point, I didn’t even understand the theory of evolution properly but I had seen the a fairly clear picture. I had to go back and then study the theory of evolution properly (took weeks), because the impression I had from secondary school was that an ape turned into human. Our biology teachers, just like every other biology teachers in Nigerian schools, were so bad at teaching the theory of evolution. Seems like a lot of them didn’t even understand it.

Fast forward, I graduated, I still believed god existed. since after I properly studied the theory of evolution, I started holding the notion that God presided over evolution and the Bible is somehow consistent with the theory of evolution. This idea was born out of the sheer fear of not wanting to sound blasphemous to my beloved ones. After I graduated, I started reading wide, I didn’t like physics in school but I started reading physics (specifically quantum and astrophysics), I discovered about Big Bang theory, theory of relativity, string theory etc, it took a lot of time before I could grasp them but when I did, it became clearer that the Bible is not consistent with anything in reality.

It was difficult for me to accept this truth because I didn’t want to be seen as a blasphemer, not until I had the opportunity to run my masters degree abroad in clinical biochemistry. I met with lot of renown and brilliant people in the field of biochemistry. They were realistic in their beliefs and will not believe anything unless you can back it with evidence. I became bolder with time, we shared ideas as I studied. Th society gives everyone liberty and I was very free to come out clean with my realistic traits. A lot of my lecturers didn’t believe in god. I became a full fledged atheist in Europe by the time I finished my program.


Today, I have done several works and I still keep reading to find the truth, so far I haven’t seen anything consistent with the Christian God. I am back in Nigeria and trust me, I don’t have lot of friends for this reason. I have just two friends and they are both agnostic ( I made them agnostic because they are open minded and also brilliant Phd holders in biochemistry).

Hello, I am Uchenna by name.
God is real. This thing called evolution is in the book of Genesis chapter one. What do we as humans gain, if we die not knowing the truth?
God is called Ancient of Days. If someone has lived for 10000 years, how to we call that Ancient of Days? This means God has been creating other things before our own creation.
There is a sermon message that Apostle Joshua Selman, preached that has your evolution answer accurate.
But I was in a similar situation like yours. Almost ran mad. I was questioning the unquestionable, It was like trying to grind pure fine gold to see inside, which is impossible.

Please stop questioning facts and already proved formulas.
From your stories, I saw a lot of biblical errors. Please your Daddy did his best. Even my own Daddy is doing his best, but I have to now run this heavenly race and clean up the biblical errors in my life and learn the way.
I know we might not see the life of God well in our pastors, but let us also know that they are still running the race.
I would rather become a fool for God, than to doubt him one day. There is only one God and only him is true. This is my cry everyday. Before I ran mad, He picked me up. I praise his name.

Jacksparrow7:

Hello, I am Uchenna by name.
God is real. This thing called evolution is in the book of Genesis chapter one. What do we as humans gain, if we die not knowing the truth?
God is called Ancient of Days. If someone has lived for 10000 years, how to we call that Ancient of Days? This means God has been creating other things before our own creation.
There is a sermon message that Apostle Joshua Selman, preached that has your evolution answer accurate.
But I was in a similar situation like yours. Almost ran mad. I was questioning the unquestionable, It was like trying to grind pure fine gold to see inside, which is impossible.

Please stop questioning facts and already proved formulas.
From your stories, I saw a lot of biblical errors. Please your Daddy did his best. Even my own Daddy is doing his best, but I have to now run this heavenly race and clean up the biblical errors in my life and learn the way.
I know we might not see the life of God well in our pastors, but let us also know that they are still running the race.
I would rather become a fool for God, than to doubt him one day. There is only one God and only him is true. This is my cry everyday. Before I ran mad, He picked me up. I praise his name.

lol

Pelecius:
Have anything contrary to it? I'll love to see it

Specie usually refers to:
Coins or other metal money in mass circulation
Bullion coins
Hard money (policy)
Commodity money
Specie Circular, 1836 executive order by US President Andrew Jackson regarding hard money
Specie Payment Resumption Act
And some are definitely superior to their ancestors, but I'd assume you mean species, which is one of the basic units of biological classification, in which case I'd have pointed to yourself being a newly formed specie more complex than your own ancestor but I'm certain you'd argue you are not a newly formed specie or not superior to your ancestors, but if you had studied Biology you'd have definitely been taught about evolution.

That said, Workch is adequately educating you so I'd let him get on with it, but after he's done, here's Evolution 101 to further your education.

And remember, Jesus is Lord.

LordReed:


And did you not see my question? Is Jesus taking and putting off humanity change or not?

Your question is a subtle red herring to what I said. I said there is no change IN HIS DIVINE NATURE.
Other theists and I have been explaining the context of change according to the Bible, but you are bent on importing your own concept.

Workch:
lol, let me engage you a bit.

How is speciation accompanied with loss of information that will lead to reduced complexity? Discuss the genetics and molecular biology aspect of that.

Great. It's obvious to anyone going through this now that you don't have answer to the simple question, as I have asked it about ten times and you never provide any evidence, but only avoid or deflect.

I'll be willing to answer your question, not until you provide yours first. (Your NECO candidate could help )

budaatum:


Specie usually refers to:
Coins or other metal money in mass circulation
Bullion coins
Hard money (policy)
Commodity money
Specie Circular, 1836 executive order by US President Andrew Jackson regarding hard money
Specie Payment Resumption Act
And some are definitely superior to their ancestors, but I'd assume you mean species, which is one of the basic units of biological classification, in which case I'd have pointed to yourself being a newly formed specie more complex than your own ancestor but I'm certain you'd argue you are not a newly formed specie or not superior to your ancestors, but if you had studied Biology you'd have definitely been taught about evolution.

That said, Workch is adequately educating you so I'd let him get on with it, but after he's done, here's Evolution 101 to further your education.

And remember, Jesus is Lord.

Smiles
Of course, the context of my discussion clearly showed that I was talking about biological species since I talked about speciation.

That I'm complex than my ancestor is simply begging the question at hand already. I've been asking for evidence of how speciation leads to complexity - the mechanism involved and if possible, empirical evidence that demonstrate this. But my "learned" one has not for once provide any.

Speciation is mostly a BRANCHING OFF from a lineage, so that changes due to selection pressure causes such population to be unable to breed with the parent population. And this change is definitely controlled mostly by genes. A classic example is the Darwin's finches. The different beak size and shapes are controlled mostly by the time, place and amount of expression of a certain gene during embryonic development. So a certain species which have completely adapt to a niche becomes "specialized" than a parent population which still has the variability to adapt to various habitats. Hence, the new species born have lost the ability to thrive in another environment (due to loss in genetic info).
Another classic examples is the flightless beatles which thrives in the windy desert. They lost the ability to produce wings from a winged parent population. And of course thrive since the winged ones in such habitat would be blown away by wind into the see. But then, for most which have completely lost the genetic mechanism required for producing wings would be unable to produce it again. Thus, we say that they are less complex than the winged ancestor.

That I am being complex genetically than my ancestor is really begging the question at hand.

Pelecius:

Smiles
Of course, the context of my discussion clearly showed that I was talking about biological species since I talked about speciation.

That I'm complex than my ancestor is simply begging the question at hand already. I've been asking for evidence of how speciation leads to complexity - the mechanism involved and if possible, empirical evidence that demonstrate this. But my "learned" one has not for once provide any.

Speciation is mostly a BRANCHING OFF from a lineage, so that changes due to selection pressure causes such population to be unable to breed with the parent population. And this change is definitely controlled mostly by genes. A classic example is the Darwin's finches. The different beak size and shapes are controlled mostly by the time, place and amount of expression of a certain gene during embryonic development. So a certain species which have completely adapt to a niche becomes "specialized" than a parent population which still has the variability to adapt to various habitats. Hence, the new species born have lost the ability to thrive in another environment (due to loss in genetic info).
Another classic examples is the flightless beatles which thrives in the windy desert. They lost the ability to produce wings from a winged parent population. And of course thrive since the winged ones in such habitat would be blown away by wind into the see. But then, for most which have completely lost the genetic mechanism required for producing wings would be unable to produce it again. Thus, we say that they are less complex than the winged ancestor.

That I am being complex genetically than my ancestor is really begging the question at hand.

Well, I'd claim you have adapted to survive in an environment your ancestors couldn't even dream of, so I'd tentatively say you are more complex than your ancestors pending an assessment of said ancestors.

Complex is an odd word to use however I must say, because I don't really see how humans are more complex than say chimpanzees, especially since it opens one up to complexity due to colour, or differences in ability between humans of the same time. An example would be like claimimg an Ijaw person is more complex than an Ibo, or to be absurd, that an atheist is more complex than a theist.

Pelecius:

Great. It's obvious to anyone going through this now that you don't have answer to the simple question, as I have asked it about ten times and you never provide any evidence, but only avoid or deflect.

I'll be willing to answer your question, not until you provide yours first. (Your NECO candidate could help )

Damn, this is a very cheap way to chicken out.
You still haven’t seen that your question is ridiculous and someone who knows speciation wouldn’t ask that.

Pelecius:

Smiles
Of course, the context of my discussion clearly showed that I was talking about biological species since I talked about speciation.

That I'm complex than my ancestor is simply begging the question at hand already. I've been asking for evidence of how speciation leads to complexity - the mechanism involved and if possible, empirical evidence that demonstrate this. But my "learned" one has not for once provide any.

Speciation is mostly a BRANCHING OFF from a lineage, so that changes due to selection pressure causes such population to be unable to breed with the parent population. And this change is definitely controlled mostly by genes. A classic example is the Darwin's finches. The different beak size and shapes are controlled mostly by the time, place and amount of expression of a certain gene during embryonic development. So a certain species which have completely adapt to a niche becomes "specialized" than a parent population which still has the variability to adapt to various habitats. Hence, the new species born have lost the ability to thrive in another environment (due to loss in genetic info).
Another classic examples is the flightless beatles which thrives in the windy desert. They lost the ability to produce wings from a winged parent population. And of course thrive since the winged ones in such habitat would be blown away by wind into the see. But then, for most which have completely lost the genetic mechanism required for producing wings would be unable to produce it again. Thus, we say that they are less complex than the winged ancestor.

That I am being complex genetically than my ancestor is really begging the question at hand.

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors. We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case. Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.


You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?

Pelecius:

Your question is a subtle red herring to what I said. I said there is no change IN HIS DIVINE NATURE.
Other theists and I have been explaining the context of change according to the Bible, but you are bent on importing your own concept.

So his divine nature accommodates him being able to age and die after you pointed out that this same divine nature makes him ageless and undying? Your cognitive dissonance is so glaring. LoL. Which is why you introduced the concept of divine nature after claiming that his being and attributes undergo no changes. LMFAO!

budaatum:

Well, I'd claim you have adapted to survive in an environment your ancestors couldn't even dream of, so I'd tentatively say you are more complex than your ancestors pending an assessment of said ancestors.

Complex is an odd word to use however I must say, because I don't really see how humans are more complex than say chimpanzees, especially since it opens one up to complexity due to colour, or differences in ability between humans of the same time. An example would be like claimimg an Ijaw person is more complex than an Ibo, or to be absurd, that an atheist is more complex than a theist.

Well, I'd claim you have adapted to survive in an environment your ancestors couldn't even dream of, so I'd tentatively say you are more complex than your ancestors pending an assessment of said ancestors.
I decided to use this (hectic) method so as to stay on course and address points, in order not to commit the non sequitur.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).

Complex is an odd word to use however I must say, because I don't really see how humans are more complex than say chimpanzees,
Though, size of genome is not necessarily a factor in determining complexity, but the difference in our genome and the ability of humans (from a Christian perspective, that we are created in God's image. Hence can think better, have a soul, respond to feelings, understand language, music etc) makes us more complex than them. Of course, an atheist who definitely subscribes to evolution would argue that and believe we are not complex than them. It's left for such to explain from his worldview.

especially since it opens one up to complexity due to colour, or differences in ability between humans of the same time. An example would be like claimimg an Ijaw person is more complex than an Ibo, or to be absurd, that an atheist is more complex than a theist.
Of course, this is a straw man as I have not define complexity in such manner, but have subscribed largely to genetic information (though not the only factor).

Workch:
you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors. We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case. Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.


You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?

You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?
Is your arrogance not alarming and its level astronomical?
I'll ask (though I know you CANNOT provide answer) to provide where I copied and paste this from.
Again, if you are really the "LEARNED" one as you've been implying since, you should see that what I wrote was not very precise (in the sense that saying "a MAN gave me money" is different from saying "FRED gave me money) as I was writing from memory.
I'm surprised you don't have any rebuttal to that and maybe was even impressed, such that you believed that I wouldn't be able to write that. And WRONGLY concluded that I copied it somewhere.

This just exposed you totally with your "he doesn't understand evolution" or "have you ever entered a lab" defense for your inability to provide evidence for what you believe and claim to be well informed on. It's pathetic.

Now I'll address your points again by His grace, though you hardly do that (at least, not without logical fallacies)

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors
This has not been my argument with you in the first place. And if I grant you this statement, what ancestors are you talking about?

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors.
So as not to reap your post out of context, I reproduce the statement in full.
Now, I'm not sure you read my response to Budaa or if you did, you clearly did not comprehend what I wrote.
I'll just post my response to him, if it'll help you understand my point.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).
I'll advise you read it clearly and with my previous post as background.

We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case.
Of course, anything that would cause stumbling block must be avoided (junk DNA comes to mind). Again, saying it as if evolution is an absolute reality only beg the question of the discussion at hand.

Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.
Here he is with question begging epithet and elephant hurling.
Again, since I don't believe that humans are result speciation from monkeys, you are only attacking straw man. And if you claim of not referring to me (the surest defense mechanism), then it's still a non sequitur. Since it has no relevance to what we are discussing

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.

I have to laugh at the "learned" one here. For heaven's sake, my argument is that "no newly formed species (especially, those accompanied by loss of genetic information) is complex than their ancestral parent population".

So you are only attacking what? Your response does not just address what I am talking about.
And to address the logical error in the post. Darwin (and the new Neo-Darwinsm) provided mutation plus natural selection as the mechanism that will make a SIMPLER life form become complex. Though there has not been any empirical evidence for that (all the "evolution in action before our very eyes" hype has largely been evidence for design or loss of information). With this small background, Darwinists know that a mammal is a higher live form than E. coli for example. So how does the exposure of a mouse to deadly radiation from an asteroid impact on earth change the fact that it is a higher life form even according to Darwinists than the bacteria which can have population in a place where they won't be exposed to such deadly event?

And finally, it's not because they are adaptable to such deadly event (though, there are extremophiles which thrives in extreme climatic condition, but don't definitely thrive in other condition because they have been specialized to such extreme climate), but what ever survives could be organisms who thrives in extreme heat or those which does not have exposure to the event at all.
That they survive such cannot be solely attributed to them being adaptable to it. Else, you'll be commiting the fallacy of affirming the consequent, O "learned" one

Pelecius:

Well, I'd claim you have adapted to survive in an environment your ancestors couldn't even dream of, so I'd tentatively say you are more complex than your ancestors pending an assessment of said ancestors.
I decided to use this (hectic) method so as to stay on course and address points, in order not to commit the non sequitur.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).

Complex is an odd word to use however I must say, because I don't really see how humans are more complex than say chimpanzees,
Though, size of genome is not necessarily a factor in determining complexity, but the difference in our genome and the ability of humans (from a Christian perspective, that we are created in God's image. Hence can think better, have a soul, respond to feelings, understand language, music etc) makes us more complex than them. Of course, an atheist who definitely subscribes to evolution would argue that and believe we are not complex than them. It's left for such to explain from his worldview.

especially since it opens one up to complexity due to colour, or differences in ability between humans of the same time. An example would be like claimimg an Ijaw person is more complex than an Ibo, or to be absurd, that an atheist is more complex than a theist.
Of course, this is a straw man as I have not define complexity in such manner, but have subscribed largely to genetic information (though not the only factor).

So is someone with Down Syndrome genetically more complex than you?

Pelecius:

You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?
Is your arrogance not alarming and its level astronomical?
I'll ask (though I know you CANNOT provide answer) to provide where I copied and paste this from.
Again, if you are really the "LEARNED" one as you've been implying since, you should see that what I wrote was not very precise (in the sense that saying "a MAN gave me money" is different from saying "FRED gave me money) as I was writing from memory.
I'm surprised you don't have any rebuttal to that and maybe was even impressed, such that you believed that I wouldn't be able to write that. And WRONGLY concluded that I copied it somewhere.

This just exposed you totally with your "he doesn't understand evolution" or "have you ever entered a lab" defense for your inability to provide evidence for what you believe and claim to be well informed on. It's pathetic.

Now I'll address your points again by His grace, though you hardly do that (at least, not without logical fallacies)

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors
This has not been my argument with you in the first place. And if I grant you this statement, what ancestors are you talking about?

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors.
So as not to reap your post out of context, I reproduce the statement in full.
Now, I'm not sure you read my response to Budaa or if you did, you clearly did not comprehend what I wrote.
I'll just post my response to him, if it'll help you understand my point.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).
I'll advise you read it clearly and with my previous post as background.

We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case.
Of course, anything that would cause stumbling block must be avoided (junk DNA comes to mind). Again, saying it as if evolution is an absolute reality only beg the question of the discussion at hand.

Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.
Here he is with question begging epithet and elephant hurling.
Again, since I don't believe that humans are result speciation from monkeys, you are only attacking straw man. And if you claim of not referring to me (the surest defense mechanism), then it's still a non sequitur. Since it has no relevance to what we are discussing

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.

I have to laugh at the "learned" one here. For heaven's sake, my argument is that "no newly formed species (especially, those accompanied by loss of genetic information) is complex than their ancestral parent population".

So you are only attacking what? Your response does not just address what I am talking about.
And to address the logical error in the post. Darwin (and the new Neo-Darwinsm) provided mutation plus natural selection as the mechanism that will make a SIMPLER life form become complex. Though there has not been any empirical evidence for that (all the "evolution in action before our very eyes" hype has largely been evidence for design or loss of information). With this small background, Darwinists know that a mammal is a higher live form than E. coli for example. So how does the exposure of a mouse to deadly radiation from an asteroid impact on earth change the fact that it is a higher life form even according to Darwinists than the bacteria which can have population in a place where they won't be exposed to such deadly event?

And finally, it's not because they are adaptable to such deadly event (though, there are extremophiles which thrives in extreme climatic condition, but don't definitely thrive in other condition because they have been specialized to such extreme climate), but what ever survives could be organisms who thrives in extreme heat or those which does not have exposure to the event at all.
That they survive such cannot be solely attributed to them being adaptable to it. Else, you'll be commiting the fallacy of affirming the consequent, O "learned" one

he still didn't get it even after explaining in dummy language

LordReed:


So his divine nature accommodates him being able to age and die after you pointed out that this same divine nature makes him ageless and undying? Your cognitive dissonance is so glaring. LoL. Which is why you introduced the concept of divine nature after claiming that his being and attributes undergo no changes. LMFAO!

I had the feeling that it'll lead to me explaining Biblical concepts to you, and it'll be meaningless since you clearly don't want the Bible, especially if it'll be used to explain what you reject a priori.

Secondly, you seem to love this "cognitive dissonance", just that your inability to understand Biblical concepts (and sometimes, ignorance of what many Bible believing Scientists actually teach), I believe, make you to use such phrase. Whereas you have been the one fond of doing gymnastics and changing ground to keep up.

Now, the Bible explained that Jesus added humanity to himself (Paul explained that in Phil 2: 7-.
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! NLT

Hence, he was fully Divine and human at same time, which was necessary for him to fulfil the role of the mediator between the God and man.
So the man Jesus died, but he never lost his divine attributes as explained in 1 Peter 3:18. It says he died in flesh but was alive in Spirit

In turns out that you don't have the simple knowledge of this, else you won't jump to use your (favorite?) Phrase.
Sorry Bro, you could attack the Bible or question the explanation with a materialistic bias as a defense mechanism, I won't be dragged into that with you. It's simply a case of conflicting worldview

Workch:
he still didn't get it even after explaining in dummy language

I really can't stop laughing

Pelecius:


I really can't stop laughing

I have meant scientifically illiterates but yours is outstanding

Pelecius:


I really can't stop laughing

What is the essence of all of these back and forths?

LordReed:


So is someone with Down Syndrome genetically more complex than you?

Smiles
I'll ask that does having an extra copy of a page in your text book make it have more INFORMATION than same text book of another, that doesn't have any duplicate page?

Workch:
I have meant scientifically illiterates but yours is outstanding

Enjoy your self delusion Bro

Pelecius:

I had the feeling that it'll lead to me explaining Biblical concepts to you, and it'll be meaningless since you clearly don't want the Bible, especially if it'll be used to explain what you reject a priori.

Secondly, you seem to love this "cognitive dissonance", just that your inability to understand Biblical concepts (and sometimes, ignorance of what many Bible believing Scientists actually teach), I believe, make you to use such phrase. Whereas you have been the one fond of doing gymnastics and changing ground to keep up.

Now, the Bible explained that Jesus added humanity to himself (Paul explained that in Phil 2: 7-.
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! NLT

Hence, he was fully Divine and human at same time, which was necessary for him to fulfil the role of the mediator between the God and man.
So the man Jesus died, but he never lost his divine attributes as explained in 1 Peter 3:18. It says he died in flesh but was alive in Spirit

In turns out that you don't have the simple knowledge of this, else you won't jump to use your (favorite?) Phrase.
Sorry Bro, you could attack the Bible or question the explanation with a materialistic bias as a defense mechanism, I won't be dragged into that with you. It's simply a case of conflicting worldview

What you don't understand is that it is your cognitive dissonance that leads you to these half baked explanations. When did you start to talk of divine nature if not when you realised that Jesus' death was going to rubbish your position on the unchanging nature of your god. You stated quite clearly that he doesn't change his being yet he became a human being, what is that if not change of being but no you bring "divine nature" to fill in the gap. Which still holds no water because he aged and died, if he was fully divine how is that then possible.

What I do have knowledge of is that your book of favourite mythological tales is a jumble of half assed concepts that you will continue to struggle to explain to yourself in the mess of cognitive dissonance you choose to ride in.

Pelecius:

Enjoy your self delusion Bro

Self delusion is when you believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Comment of the year

Pelecius:

Smiles
I'll ask that does having an extra copy of a page in your text book make it have more INFORMATION than same text book of another, that doesn't have any duplicate page?

What then is this genetic complexity you speak of because you seem to think loss of traits makes an organism less genetically complex, conversely I am pointing out if gain of extra genetic information indicates increasing genetic complexity. You can clarify, I am all eyes.

HellVictorinho:


What is the essence of all of these back and forths?

I really can't say. But anyone reading our exchanges should see what's happening.

He never address or refute anything I say most time. If he tries to do, it'll be filled with inconsistencies. And when I show such errors, he revert back to not addressing my point, but revert to subtle adhominem.

That's how I can explain the back and forth.

It's difficult for folks to agree that they can err, especially when arrogance is high. And in this case belief is more important.
FYI, he made a challenge, promising to change his mind about his initial write up. I addressed it and you man just ignored it, just to hold on to his faith, I believe.

LordReed:


What then is this genetic complexity you speak of because you seem to think loss of traits makes an organism less genetically complex, conversely I am pointing out if gain of extra genetic information indicates increasing genetic complexity. You can clarify, I am all eyes.

You clearly didn't get my question.
There's no gain of genetic information for down syndrome. It's just duplication of a certain chromosomes and not addition of a NEW chromosomes.
That's why I asked if duplicating a page of your text book add any new information to such text book

Pelecius:
from a Christian perspective

This, Pelecius, would be the issue here. The truth should not have a perspective, or at least, one should not colour it with perspectives, but if one does, one must acknowledge that those with other perspectives would hardly agree with one since a perspective is a kind of blindness that stops one seeing other's perspectives. It's an allegation I'd make against you and those debating with you by the way, myself included.

Still, here's a perspective for you. Unless one becomes an unbeliever of all that which one has been taught to believe, one would not understand God. Sound familiar? "As a child", is how the text puts it, but we must know we are not expected to literally degenerate to childhood, but just clear our minds of junk.

Evolution is not only genetic. One evolves when one becomes born again. You take on a new body (they might have written genes if they'd evolved to genetics, and it spiritually can mean mind), and become a new 'species'. Societies socially evolve or de-evolve too, in which case complexity may increase or degenerate just as a born again person may lose their born againism if they do not watch and pray.

Sceptism is healthy, is the point here, or one would just keep going in the path one has been told to, thereby repeating the errors of one's ancestors.

This is of course a perspective, and not a Christian one I dare say, and in no way truth.

LordReed:


What you don't understand is that it is your cognitive dissonance that leads you to these half baked explanations. When did you start to talk of divine nature if not when you realised that Jesus' death was going to rubbish your position on the unchanging nature of your god. You stated quite clearly that he doesn't change his being yet he became a human being, what is that if not change of being but no you bring "divine nature" to fill in the gap. Which still holds no water because he aged and died, if he was fully divine how is that then possible.

What I do have knowledge of is that your book of favourite mythological tales is a jumble of half assed concepts that you will continue to struggle to explain to yourself in the mess of cognitive dissonance you choose to ride in.

When did you start to talk of divine nature if not when you realised that Jesus' death was going to rubbish your position on the unchanging nature of your god.
Now you just described what you are calling another. I never for once have what you said in mind when I was addressing your friend's fallacy. Now, giving explanation to your objections seem not okay with you and said earlier that you want to apply gymnastics on his behalf.
Now, if you had done a little home work to check when I used divine nature, you'd have seen that I used it as early as using being. But you have to find a way to justify not being wrong, I believe to the extent of forcing your favorite phrase?

You stated quite clearly that he doesn't change his being yet he became a human being, what is that if not change of being but no you bring "divine nature" to fill in the gap. Which still holds no water because he aged and died, if he was fully divine how is that then possible.
This can work only if you rip my statements so as to fit what you want. Go back to read how I first explained unchanging nature of God. I didn't invent "divine attributes" along the way as you WRONGLY claim now.
Secondly, you are doing same thing of ripping out of context so as to force your claim the he changed his being. If you had either read clearly, the last post, you should see "ADDING" humanity to his being, not just becoming human. Explaining further that this qualify him to be the mediator of God and man. And that the last scripture reference talks about his flesh (humanity) dying, yet, alive in Spirit (divinity).
Either you didn't understand (hence taking the pain to explain again) or your are doing what you do best: changing grounds to hold on to what you believe in your head (talk about cognitive dissonance)

What I do have knowledge of is that your book of favourite mythological tales is a jumble of half assed concepts that you will continue to struggle to explain to yourself in the mess of cognitive dissonance you choose to ride in.
I predicted this, so I'm not surprised.
I only need to clear myself for anyone reading to understand what I'm saying. I knew you would reject any explanation from it anyway