-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
I figured you would have some lame answer and did not mention Brain cancer or drug addiction. Yes people can reconcile on there own. But what about diseases. Repeatable cause it happens all the time when the Cross is preached people are set free. My mother in law was diagnosed with brain cancer and science gave her 6 months to live that was 21 years ago. My mother had a what they call a mild stroke and Science said that she would not walk again. She drives and walks. My Fathers doctor said that he would not live to be twenty years old He is now 79 years old as he was struck by lighting at 12 and fused his back bones together., It is all because of their faith in the work of the cross. you can't make this stuff up and you didn't mention Israel as normal.
You are mistaken Nl. You won't find the answers on your creationist web sites though.
Why does this particular hummingbird have this colour pattern? Honestly, I can't tell you definitively, but my hunch is that it has to do with sexual selection. Is this the male of the species? Is the female far less colourful? If so, then it probably means females have been selecting males with brighter colours. I could tell you of some very interesting studies that confirm this type of selection takes place.
Some males are randomly born with brighter colours. Females then selectively mate with these males thus spreading the gene for this colouration through the population. It is that simple.
Seeing this sort of comment is somewhat frustrating for me because I know the answer, and I know you have not seriously investigated evolution or you would know it as well. You will not find answers on creationist web sites. Their goal is keep you ignorant.
Here is how natural selection in the case of this hummingbird might work. Just by chance some males in a clutch are born with brighter colours and some with the usual colouration. If females overwhelmingly select males with brighter colours to mate with then over the generations males will become more colourful. Studies with peacocks have shown that females do select males with larger more colourful tail feathers. This is a fact. Overtime male peacocks, as a result, have acquired this phenotype.
Nl, natural selection simply means that something within the environment favours a particular phenotype. If more animals with particular characteristics pass on their genes then we say they were acted on by natural selection. It is a very simple process to understand.
Not so Nl. Studies have shown that within any given species, males with more sheen and colour to their plumage are healthier individuals. Females pick up on this. So they look to mate with more colourful males. The more colourful the better. However, there is a trade off. Colourful males are more readily spotted by predators, which is why female birds often are dull in appearance. They need to be camouflaged while incubating their eggs.
Fitness relates to success in spreading ones genes. So if colourful male hummingbirds have more offspring then they are said to be more fit.
Why does this particular hummingbird have this colour pattern? Honestly, I can't tell you definitively, but my hunch is that it has to do with sexual selection. Is this the male of the species? Is the female far less colourful? If so, then it probably means females have been selecting males with brighter colours. I could tell you of some very interesting studies that confirm this type of selection takes place.
Some males are randomly born with brighter colours. Females then selectively mate with these males thus spreading the gene for this colouration through the population. It is that simple.
Seeing this sort of comment is somewhat frustrating for me because I know the answer, and I know you have not seriously investigated evolution or you would know it as well. You will not find answers on creationist web sites. Their goal is keep you ignorant.
Here is how natural selection in the case of this hummingbird might work. Just by chance some males in a clutch are born with brighter colours and some with the usual colouration. If females overwhelmingly select males with brighter colours to mate with then over the generations males will become more colourful. Studies with peacocks have shown that females do select males with larger more colourful tail feathers. This is a fact. Overtime male peacocks, as a result, have acquired this phenotype.
Nl, natural selection simply means that something within the environment favours a particular phenotype. If more animals with particular characteristics pass on their genes then we say they were acted on by natural selection. It is a very simple process to understand.
Not so Nl. Studies have shown that within any given species, males with more sheen and colour to their plumage are healthier individuals. Females pick up on this. So they look to mate with more colourful males. The more colourful the better. However, there is a trade off. Colourful males are more readily spotted by predators, which is why female birds often are dull in appearance. They need to be camouflaged while incubating their eggs.
Fitness relates to success in spreading ones genes. So if colourful male hummingbirds have more offspring then they are said to be more fit.
Actually, I don't visit creationist web sites often. I have been disappointed a few times, particularly when I went searching for specific information. I have seen live presentations by speakers and authors in the areas of Intelligent Design, Christian Apologetics and, yes, Creation Science. Some were well-known and others were less well-known. I have sampled presentations from others via audio recordings or video recordings or books. Preachers and other sermon-makers will touch some of these topics occasionally. I have recalled some conventional science acquired as part of my education. One-on-one conversations have also taught me a few things. I sometimes learn from new presentations given by different points of view. I may soon start a course series on Cosmology (astronomy topics) given by a faculty person from a US public university and published by a well-known course publisher. Would you like to join me?
The colours and shapes and patterns need to be developed before they can be selected. I don't see the naturalist mechanism for doing that.
In the area of selection, you are assigning a high level of power to the selectivity of females. I have observed some of that in action and it's a healthy thing.
.
I recently read a sizable chunk from "The God Delusion" book by Dr. Richard Dawkins. As I observed it, Dr. Dawkins exalted and praised the wonderful creating powers of natural selection without explaining it. My thought while reading was that natural selection was being praised as sort of a "god" or even a "god of the gaps" to explain a vast array of mysterious unknowns in biology and beyond.
Cycel, thank you for sharing the detailed response..
I can see sustaining powers related to natural selection but I don't see any creating powers.
The colours and shapes and patterns need to be developed before they can be selected. I don't see the naturalist mechanism for doing that.
In the area of selection, you are assigning a high level of power to the selectivity of females. I have observed some of that in action and it's a healthy thing.
. I recently read a sizable chunk from "The God Delusion" book by Dr. Richard Dawkins. As I observed it, Dr. Dawkins exalted and praised the wonderful creating powers of natural selection without explaining it. My thought while reading was that natural selection was being praised as sort of a "god" or even a "god of the gaps" to explain a vast array of mysterious unknowns in biology and beyond.
Cycel, thank you for sharing the detailed response.
.I can see sustaining powers related to natural selection but I don't see any creating powers.
Almighty God alone can know hearts and minds and motives.
However, I try not to be "naive".
I have observed behavior that seems inclined towards "any explanation except a god".
If a god becomes necessary, then the inclination seems to be towards following "any god except the narrow way proclaimed by Jesus Christ".
However, I try not to be "naive".
I have observed behavior that seems inclined towards "any explanation except a god".
If a god becomes necessary, then the inclination seems to be towards following "any god except the narrow way proclaimed by Jesus Christ".
I mingle with believers because 75% of americans and 90+% of people I personally know are believers. It would also be simply ridiculous to refuse to mingle with someone just because they believe in God. I argue with them because discussing differing viewpoints is how we learn. If you never talk about anything, you are never going ot learn about the other position.
The difference between atheists and satanists? Well, satanists are atheists, and they don't believe in an actual satan either. They see the biblical character of satan as fictional, but symbolic for the things they believe are virtuous. Satanists follow the Satanic rules of Earth, avoid the 9 Satanic sins, and identify with the 9 Satanic statements. Atheists who don't call themselves satanists don't do these things. That's a pretty obvious difference. You might as well ask what's the difference between and atheist and anybody of any belief other than christian. They all deny your god. But they all believe different things.
The difference between atheists and satanists? Well, satanists are atheists, and they don't believe in an actual satan either. They see the biblical character of satan as fictional, but symbolic for the things they believe are virtuous. Satanists follow the Satanic rules of Earth, avoid the 9 Satanic sins, and identify with the 9 Satanic statements. Atheists who don't call themselves satanists don't do these things. That's a pretty obvious difference. You might as well ask what's the difference between and atheist and anybody of any belief other than christian. They all deny your god. But they all believe different things.
Kerry, nobody ran anywhere. Your responses show a lack of humility. If you want to have an actual discussion, you should stop pretending like people have been scared off and declaring yourself the winner if they don't respond within the hour. I'm sure most people including yourself don't stay on this website all day everyday. There are other things to do.
No that's just not true. Unless you are claiming that Satanists don't believe what they say they believe, but instead believe what you have decided is more likely that they believe. According to the Church of Satan and according to Satanists, they are atheists. They don't believe in God, they don't believe in Sata, and they don't worship Satan. They admire the character of Satan in the Bible, who they regard as fictional, as representing the qualities they think are good qualities. They don't believe in the supernatural, magic, gods, etc. Anybody who spends a little time on the official church of Satan website can see this for themselves. You don't just get to make up your own defintion of what people believe.
Free will is a confusing issue. It seems to be one of those things where if you look at it one way, the answer is one thing. Change the way you look at it and it becomes something else. For example, I entirely believe that people make decisions, weigh pros and cons, analyze factors, etc. and make an informed decision. We do this all the time, and can learn to do it more effectively. And I don't believe that there is any supernatural agent that influences these beliefs in a way that eliminates control of the person.
But then, you can look at it considering all the factors that led to that decision, your raising, your ethics, morals, preferences. All these factors were the way they were, and were out of your control, and ultimately these factors that determined your choice did so in a way that you could never had altered. So maybe in hindsight, it looks like free will isn't completely under your control.
I would say on a pragmatic level, yes, we all make choices and we know this. There have been times when everyone has two or more choices and almost made one choice, but something made them decide to go a different way. People are obviously responsible for these choices, and always have been. That's just how we know things work and how we interact with the world. But I suppose if you want to get into some abstract, quantum, impractical look at free will, it isn't under your control completely, at least the way you define it. Me being a pragmatist, I recognize that at a given time, yes, I could decide to go left instead of right without any factor changing. Really, all you can do is hypothesize about whether or not it is actually a possiblity that my brain could have made the opposite desicion under the same circumstances.
But then, you can look at it considering all the factors that led to that decision, your raising, your ethics, morals, preferences. All these factors were the way they were, and were out of your control, and ultimately these factors that determined your choice did so in a way that you could never had altered. So maybe in hindsight, it looks like free will isn't completely under your control.
I would say on a pragmatic level, yes, we all make choices and we know this. There have been times when everyone has two or more choices and almost made one choice, but something made them decide to go a different way. People are obviously responsible for these choices, and always have been. That's just how we know things work and how we interact with the world. But I suppose if you want to get into some abstract, quantum, impractical look at free will, it isn't under your control completely, at least the way you define it. Me being a pragmatist, I recognize that at a given time, yes, I could decide to go left instead of right without any factor changing. Really, all you can do is hypothesize about whether or not it is actually a possiblity that my brain could have made the opposite desicion under the same circumstances.
Can you answer two things...
1 How can you have a quantum view of free will...(I underlined and made bold the sentence for your ease.)
2, Can you answer this next question in a yes your no:Is this definition possible in your philosophy,
yes or no?
Free will:the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
1 How can you have a quantum view of free will...(I underlined and made bold the sentence for your ease.)
2, Can you answer this next question in a yes your no:Is this definition possible in your philosophy,
yes or no?
Free will:the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Last edited: