PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-20, 23:09:23
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Author Topic: The Reality of Evolution?  (Read 4366 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1498
It is true that some do not believe what is written
in The Book (Bible) either in part or in its entirety.

What do people think, however, about the Church of
Satan?  That many big name entertainers have
admitted to "making the deal with Satan" for fame
and fortune?

What about the Secret Societies which are devoted
to Satan?  What about the survivors of Satanic Ritual
Abuse?  There are many who have spoken out.

Are there any who believe that Satan exists but do
not believe that an Almighty Creator too exists?

Quote from: F6
Respect, love, it is only in their speech, never in their
behaviour. Outside the hypocrites, there are enough
sites dedicated to religions where you can display your
nonsense. Forget the others, we're talking about free
energy here.

All Energy, including Free Energy which is very abundant,
has a common origin/source.  Do you know what it is yet? 8)

By the way, Dogmatic Institutional Science has itself
been transmogrified into a Religion. :D


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613

                                   15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

"Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

IN BRIEF
__________________
Despite definitive legal cases that have established the unconstitutionality of teaching intelligent design or creationist ideology in science class, the theory of evolution remains consistently under attack.

Creationist arguments are notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary science and evidence.

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.
__________________

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 158 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere—except in the public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as “intelligent design” to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. When this article first went to press in 2002, the Ohio Board of Education was debating whether to mandate such a change. Prominent antievolutionists of the day, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial, admitted that they intended for intelligent-design theory to serve as a “wedge” for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

The good news is that in 2005 the landmark legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover in Harrisburg, Pa., set binding precedent that the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools is unconstitutional because the idea is fundamentally religious, not scientific. The bad news is that in response, creationists have reinvented their movement and pressed on. When they lost the ability to claim that creationist ideas are valid science, they switched to arguing that they were only supporting “academic freedom.” Worse, to further obscure the religious roots of their resistance, they now push for “critical analysis” of climate change, cloning research and other scientific endeavors that they paint as culturally oppressive.

Consequently, besieged teachers and others are still likely to find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism, by whatever name. Creationists' arguments are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution. Nevertheless, even if their objections are flimsy, the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. The following list recaps and rebuts some of the most common “scientific” arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom. These answers by themselves probably will not change the minds of those set against evolution. But they may help inform those who are genuinely open to argument, and they can aid anyone who wants to engage constructively in this important struggle for the scientific integrity of our civilization.

 
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.

The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

 
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist, then at the University of Washington, surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. Surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss, now at Arizona State University, were similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals—which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to Earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on Earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” A million hypothetical monkeys, each typing out one phrase a second on a keyboard, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.


Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California, Davis, demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. An amazing fossil creature from 375 million years ago named Tiktaalik embodies the predicted and long-sought transition of certain fishes to life on land. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominins (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels—that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

This “argument from design” is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution—what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even “incomplete” eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

“Irreducible complexity” is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California, San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind—“specified complexity”—is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of author William A. Dembski in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally."

John Rennie


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613


That's exactely the mistake or the trickery from CITFTA writing on ou.com (it is definitely everywhere that he does his childish off topic religious propaganda):
"The eye involves several mechanisms that all have to work together and without all of them the rest of them are useless.  So how could they have slowly evolved over time?  And by the way this is exactly the example Darwin himself used when he clearly stated he had doubts about his theory of evolution."

More here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
As far as life just popping into existence some 2 billion years ago not being possible,and no mixture of chemicals over any period of time could lead to life,well it turns out that in mans very short period of time here on earth,we have done just that--and computer uploaded to boot  ;)

But in reading the whole article,im not to sure this is a good thing  :-\
Sometimes i think we should leave the making and evolution of life to mother nature.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Of course they had to slip the word !GOD! in there  C.C

So i guess that the theory on life not being able to come about through the right chemical mixtures,under the right conditions is out the window--but we all new this day was coming.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
And so the side step begins.

The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.


I did not post this article,a person who believes the bible did.
So to say i have twisted things around is complete garbage,but i would expect nothing less from anyone who throws out years of science,evidence,and repeatable experiments for 1 single story book,in which there has not been one single solid example of Gods existance provided to validate said book-the bible.

I can hop in my car,travel 35km down the road,and show you living organisms that lived over 2 billion years ago.
I can let you talk to a living decendent of the very first humanoids to leave Africa over 60 000 years ago-my daughter is married to one.

So what evidence can you provide that is outside your own beliefs Mags, that is clear evidence that the bible is correct,and God exists ?.

Give me 1 single piece of evidence,and i will listen.
But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me.

Hi Brad,

I posted the link to the article even though it said that mankind was 100,000 years old because of the facts they discovered from the DNA that clearly shows that all animals and mankind came into existence at the same time.  And because that same SCIENTIFIC evidence shows there are clear genetic boundaries between the species just like the Bible says there are.

Which is closer to the time of the Bible?  The 100,000 years the DNA appears to show or the 3 million years the evolutionists claim.  They are still learning about DNA so that 100,000 years may not be totally accurate but even then it is only off by a factor of 10 not a factor of thousands like the evolutionists claim.

I did watch the couple of videos you posted.  The one supporting evolution was actually nothing I had not seen before.  The idea that a variation within species can somehow magically morph into a change from one species to another is only wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

The video about the fake claims about Noah's ark is no surprise.  There have been many many people who have made fake claims about almost anything you can name.  We have certainly seen that many times in the area of OU.  But just because someone makes false claims and pretends to have something they don't doesn't mean that the real thing does not exist.  It only means THEY don't have it.  The video that GK posted in the other thread that you apparently did not watch was about a real expedition permitted by the Turkish government to start excavation on the site on Mt. Ararat where ground type x-ray and other equipment has shown a large ark like structure that matches perfectly the description of the ark as found in the Bible and it is within a short distance from where the Bible said it came to rest.  It has apparently over the years slipped down the mountain some so it is not at the top anymore but still pretty close.

Claim:  The Bible says we all, including animals, were created within a short time.
Fact:  The DNA evidence says we all, including animals, came into existence within a short time.

Claim:  The Bible says that the ark was a certain size and came to rest on Mt. Ararat
Fact:  A large structure matching the same size as the ark described in the Bible has been found on Mt. Ararat

Claim:  The Bible says the Jewish people would be scattered all over the world for a period of time and then regathered back to their homeland.
Fact:  The Jewish people were displaced by the Romans in 70 AD and forced to flee to places all over the world.  In 1948 they began returning to their homeland.

Claim:  The Bible says the nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE day.  Something that has never been seen before or since.
Fact:  In 1948 in ONE day the nation of Israel was reborn.

Claim:  The Bible says there was a world wide flood.
Fact:  The geological evidence, the fossil evidence and world wide culture all attest to the fact there was a world wide flood.

Well Brad,  I have been enjoying our discussions.  I hope I have not said anything that would in any way offend you.  I appreciate that you have tried to only talk about the science and your doubts without dragging a lot of emotionalism into the discussion.  Unfortunately our discussion seems to be offending at least one person.  Of course they don't have to read about our discussion but our just trying to have a reasonable discussion seems to be a real problem for them.  If you want to continue this I will be glad to continue and they can go away or just have to put up with us.  I  know there is nothing you can show me that will change my mind about what I believe.  I actually have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior and that will never be changed.  He has proven Himself to me many many times so I have no choice but to believe in Him.  That is probably a topic more suited for another type of forum.  But I just wanted to make it clear I will always believe in my Creator because I have personally experienced His grace and mercy.


Take care,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
...
Claim:  The Bible says...

Claim : The Bible says "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material". Leviticus 19:19"

Claim : The Bible says "All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". Leviticus 9:10

Claim : The Bible says "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk". Exodus 23:19

Claim : The Bible says "When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean". Leviticus 15: 19-20

Claim : The Bible says "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand". Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Claim : The Bible says "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered." Matthew 21:18-22 NIV

Claim : The Bible says "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves". Numbers 31:17-18

Claim : The Bible says  "He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them.... He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since". 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". Ephesians 6:5 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Claim : The Bible says  "If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed". Leviticus 20:15 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD". Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV

Claim : The Bible says  "Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries". Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV


All this is definitely very intelligent....  C.C

Oh, my God, how stupid! But the ultimate stupidity is that even today the book of these absurd, barbaric, proslavery, sexist or violent texts, which represent the customs and thoughts of an archaic era, described by men of that era, is still taken as a reference!


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
As far as life just popping into existence some 2 billion years ago not being possible,and no mixture of chemicals over any period of time could lead to life,well it turns out that in mans very short period of time here on earth,we have done just that--and computer uploaded to boot  ;)

But in reading the whole article,im not to sure this is a good thing  :-\
Sometimes i think we should leave the making and evolution of life to mother nature.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Of course they had to slip the word !GOD! in there  C.C

So i guess that the theory on life not being able to come about through the right chemical mixtures,under the right conditions is out the window--but we all new this day was coming.


Brad

Hi Brad,

Very interesting link. I knew that's this was the near future but I ignored it had been already made.

Nevertheless there is no point to try to enlighten religious fundamentalists. Their only method is to use arguing.
They will tell you that without the original DNA that was copied, no life could have been created, and it was God who created that DNA.
When we succeed in doing this without DNA model, believers will tell you that it was done through the atoms and molecules of nature, and that God created them to be compatible with life... and so on.

Their principle: they put God at the limits of our knowledge. When we knew nothing about germs, they saw epidemics as divine punishment. When our knowledge improves and they realize that they will really look like morons if they maintain their old statements, then rather than learn from the past, they move their superstitions further. And since it is likely that our knowledge will never be complete, they will always find a rat hole to place their god in.

It's endless. The religious mind is a big brain bug, especially small brains severely formatted by the cultural context from which they come, without ever having been able to take a step back.
It is certainly linked to evolution: the need to find meaning is a condition for survival, but in them meaning is imaginary, and becomes nonsense. They enjoy believing in their survival after death with an almighty dad who will bring them back to life if they have lived according to rules they create themselves and attribute to God.  C.C
They have never dared to think that after their death, it will be like before their birth, it is far too complicated and it takes a little courage. Cowardice of believing is much easier.

If superstition is widespread in the world, monotheists are still the worst of all religious minds, it is incredible the amount of damage they have caused in the world and still cause. This is to the point that it was necessary, as in times of war, to create resistance with atheism. When will they leave the others alone?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
 author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74767#msg74767 date=1558697561]




Quote
I posted the link to the article even though it said that mankind was 100,000 years old because of the facts they discovered from the DNA that clearly shows that all animals and mankind came into existence at the same time.  And because that same SCIENTIFIC evidence shows there are clear genetic boundaries between the species just like the Bible says there are.

Carroll
No matter the differences we have in what we believe,you will always have my respect--please know that.
And as i have respect for you,i will be very straight forward when it comes to either questions to you,or answers for you that provide proof of my beliefs.

In saying that,we should be accurate about anything either of us post.
For example-Quote: I posted the link to the article even though it said that mankind was 100,000 years old
To be accurate,the article clearly states !between! 100,000 and 200,000 years old.
Quote:all animals and mankind came into existence at the same time.
Once again,the article stated 90% came into existence at the same time.
This leaves 10% unaccounted for.


Which is closer to the time of the Bible?  The 100,000 years the DNA appears to show or the 3 million years the evolutionists claim.  They are still learning about DNA so that 100,000 years may not be totally accurate but even then it is only off by a factor of 10 not a factor of thousands like the evolutionists claim.

I see you have chosen the lower of the years,being 100,000.
But what if we choose the  200,000 years as the number to use?
If we do the math then,it looks like this--
200,000/6000(bible's years)means the bible is out by a factor of 33.3
Now 3 million years--3,000,000/200,000 give us a factor of just 15
So you see how quickly things can change,depending on which part of the provided information you choose to use.

The video about the fake claims about Noah's ark is no surprise.  There have been many many people who have made fake claims about almost anything you can name.  We have certainly seen that many times in the area of OU.  But just because someone makes false claims and pretends to have something they don't doesn't mean that the real thing does not exist.  It only means THEY don't have it.

On that we can agree  O0

I did watch the couple of videos you posted.  The one supporting evolution was actually nothing I had not seen before.  The idea that a variation within species can somehow magically morph into a change from one species to another is only wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Well that is not quite true,and it depends on what was injected into the mix between two variations of the same species.

To try and explain this,i could use my recent experiments with my fuel mixing.
So gasoline and diesel maybe our similar specie-as in a large dog and a medium size dog,and they can mix.
Water will not mix with either gasoline of diesel. But when i add the right component to both the water and gasoline/diesel mix,we find that they all mix together,and we have a new fuel.

A species is defined as only being able to bread with the same of it's kind.
Like all dogs are of the same species.
We can have a large dog like the husky breed with a small dog like a pomeranian,and we get a pup called a pomsky-as pictured below. Now who'd a thought that two vastly different looking animals could bread-but they can because they are the same species.

But now check out the video's below,and see how new species can and do form in a very short time.
Now this is not fiction,this is observable fact--we were around to see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8csCJ94kdvo

And one of the reasons i love my country,as it offers so many answers toward evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPQF9BQnw2A

But it can get even more tricky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnfaiJJnzdE

So after watching all those video's,you can clearly see how new species can form from other species well under the 100,000 years.

The video that GK posted in the other thread that you apparently did not watch was about a real expedition permitted by the Turkish government to start excavation on the site on Mt. Ararat where ground type x-ray and other equipment has shown a large ark like structure that matches perfectly the description of the ark as found in the Bible and it is within a short distance from where the Bible said it came to rest.  It has apparently over the years slipped down the mountain some so it is not at the top anymore but still pretty close.

I will go and watch that video now  O0
However,if it is as you say-the ark,we now know how high the water level had to be in order for it to come to rest up there. So my question still remain's-->where did all the water go ?.

Claim:  The Bible says we all, including animals, were created within a short time.
Fact:  The DNA evidence says we all, including animals, came into existence within a short time.


Claim: that is what the bible claims
Fact: The DNA evidence you provided clearly states 90%,leaving over 15,000 species existing beyond the 100,000-200,000 year time period.

Claim:  The Bible says that the ark was a certain size and came to rest on Mt. Ararat
Fact:  A large structure matching the same size as the ark described in the Bible has been found on Mt. Ararat


Claim: I believe the bible states that the ark came to rest !somewhere! in the ararat mountain range area,not the actual mountain named Mt Ararat ?.
Fact: Has it yet been proven to be the Ark ?.

Claim:  The Bible says the Jewish people would be scattered all over the world for a period of time and then regathered back to their homeland.
Fact:  The Jewish people were displaced by the Romans in 70 AD and forced to flee to places all over the world.  In 1948 they began returning to their homeland.


I believe the indians were displaced all over there great land as well shortly after the europeans arrived.
Also Africans were torn away from there country to become slaves in another.
Dose the bible mention these examples?.

Claim:  The Bible says the nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE day.  Something that has never been seen before or since.
Fact:  In 1948 in ONE day the nation of Israel was reborn.


Please clarify -reborn

Claim:  The Bible says there was a world wide flood.
Fact:  The geological evidence, the fossil evidence and world wide culture all attest to the fact there was a world wide flood.


Claim: yes it dose
fact: No it's not,and never could be. The laws of physics are very clearly defined,along with the laws of thermodynamics. These alone say a world wide flood could never-and never has happened.
The fossil evidence shows no such thing ever happening,and the only culture that believes it did happen is the religious culture.There is also no geological evidence that supports such a flood.
Here is a video of the never ending impossibilities to a world wide flood.
I believe i have asked on a number of occasions now for someone-anyone,explain to me as to where that extra water came from,and where it went after the flood. Also,i would like to see some of this fossil and geological proof of the great flood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZtbZGtiGA

Well Brad,  I have been enjoying our discussions.  I hope I have not said anything that would in any way offend you.  I appreciate that you have tried to only talk about the science and your doubts without dragging a lot of emotionalism into the discussion.  Unfortunately our discussion seems to be offending at least one person.  Of course they don't have to read about our discussion but our just trying to have a reasonable discussion seems to be a real problem for them.  If you want to continue this I will be glad to continue and they can go away or just have to put up with us.  I  know there is nothing you can show me that will change my mind about what I believe.  I actually have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior and that will never be changed.  He has proven Himself to me many many times so I have no choice but to believe in Him.  That is probably a topic more suited for another type of forum.  But I just wanted to make it clear I will always believe in my Creator because I have personally experienced His grace and mercy.

I am happy to keep the discussion going,but i -like you,have my beliefs that will not be change.
You see,i live in the country where the very first humanoids migrated to.
Most here-in fact,most of the world think Australia is very young,as far as human population go's.
But the fact is,we are only second to Africa--we are the second oldest civilization in the world,where i am referring to the original inhabitants-the Aboriginals that we share our land with today. We are also home to an organism that lives today that was also living 2 billion years ago. I can drive there,and see them for my self. These organisms are the very reason you have air to breath.

You see,my creator is mother nature,and there is nothing more powerful than mother nature,and she adheres to all the known laws of science and physics--she makes the law of science. Mother nature is proven through science--she is the creator.

As far as those that get there knickers in a twist when they dont agree with what either of us have to say,well there are plenty of other threads for them to read. If you are to post in this thread,then post your thoughts in a respectful way.

Some of the videos i post-like the last,will have stabs toward those that believe in God. Please ignore those parts,as i only posted them due to them also including absolute science explaining as to why such things just cant and did not happen.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

Very interesting link. I knew that's this was the near future but I ignored it had been already made.

Nevertheless there is no point to try to enlighten religious fundamentalists. Their only method is to use arguing.
They will tell you that without the original DNA that was copied, no life could have been created, and it was God who created that DNA.
When we succeed in doing this without DNA model, believers will tell you that it was done through the atoms and molecules of nature, and that God created them to be compatible with life... and so on.

Their principle: they put God at the limits of our knowledge. When we knew nothing about germs, they saw epidemics as divine punishment. When our knowledge improves and they realize that they will really look like morons if they maintain their old statements, then rather than learn from the past, they move their superstitions further. And since it is likely that our knowledge will never be complete, they will always find a rat hole to place their god in.

It's endless. The religious mind is a big brain bug, especially small brains severely formatted by the cultural context from which they come, without ever having been able to take a step back.
It is certainly linked to evolution: the need to find meaning is a condition for survival, but in them meaning is imaginary, and becomes nonsense. They enjoy believing in their survival after death with an almighty dad who will bring them back to life if they have lived according to rules they create themselves and attribute to God.  C.C
They have never dared to think that after their death, it will be like before their birth, it is far too complicated and it takes a little courage. Cowardice of believing is much easier.

If superstition is widespread in the world, monotheists are still the worst of all religious minds, it is incredible the amount of damage they have caused in the world and still cause. This is to the point that it was necessary, as in times of war, to create resistance with atheism. When will they leave the others alone?

We must take care when including all religious people as being the same,as they are not
I have a few very good friends who are religious,and we get along fine,even though we have our different beliefs.
There are wicked people in all walks of life,not just in religion.

Yes, we have seen many wars fought over religion,and we have also seen many fought over oil and control by our governments.

The title of this thread calls my belief a myth,but thats all good.
If thats as bad as it gets this year,then im happy  O0

I dont mind,as i have science on my side.
You see,you cannot include magic in reality when it comes to science.
I am happy that i am providing actual proof,and as yet the stories of the bible have provided none.

But oddly enough,for some reason unknown,i am really hoping that the Ark if found.
Im not sure why,but how cool would that be--a farmer of some 600 years old,manages to build a bigger wooden ship than any of our well versed engineers have ever been able to build,and get it to float-with over 1 000 000 animals aboard-including dinosaurs,and all the food and water for there 372 day journey.

But what after they finally make land fall,and the waters have receded.
What do all these animals eat and drink,due to all the plants and tree's being wiped out from the flood,and all fresh water contaminated with salt from the oceans.

There are so many facts that say the great flood could never happen,and i am yet to see one shred of evidence that it did--maybe we will?\


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1469
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
But again:
Quote
One has just to research the Ark of the Covenant to see the most powerful, destructful weapon on the planet.

The description talks about radiation poisoning, EMPs, resonant-reflective matter disassociation, electrocution, special suits for handling and a special group of technicians(Levites) to carry the device.

Now if the Bible is as you say a myth, then how did all of the 'Latest' technologies even have a chance to be documented in old fairy tales.

If, as the like of you nonbelievers believe, that this isn't ancient knowledge but mere contrivances my medieval conmen then answer this riddle: the contrivances still prevail any understanding of current technology.


This simple quote is not an experiment in thinking. It is a time frame of speech where the technology described is way before any understanding.
So, when someone states: 'Prove to me there is a god', i say 'Don't you understand the impact of what the statements of technology mean and the sequence of events outside of mankind's own thinking?'

We can go into soapbox boundaries ad infinitum.
The expositions about beliefs are always the fall back when groups don't achieve what they are pursuing.
The Israelites did it for 40 years. The claim by society is they were lost in their minds and complaining all the time.
The real goal of God was wiping any trace of witness to the usability of the Ark of the covenant technology in Egypt. Then is was taken to Jerusalem.
When the marauding hordes came to take the city Jeremiah was told to hide it under the city, which he did.
To this day it waits till the final hour. The size of the Giza pyramid sarcophagus is the same size as the hole in the floor of the Temple mount.

The guy that found Noah's ark also found the Ark of the Covenant. He was a phlebotomist. The blood of above the chamber had no Y(male) chromosomes because Jesus had no earthly father. Its all documented. Know thy history...


---------------------------
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
We must take care when including all religious people as being the same,as they are not
I have a few very good friends who are religious,and we get along fine,even though we have our different beliefs.
There are wicked people in all walks of life,not just in religion.

You're right. But these ones do not come to forums dedicated to any subject except religion, to talk to us... about their religious beliefs. Nor do they make sites militant against evolutionism.
I know such people, especially from a religious congregation (the Lassalians) who have responsibilities in the management of their high school network. They are very educated, and make no secret to say that the Bible is a fable written by men, not the word of God, especially the Old Testament. Not one believes that dynosaurs would not have existed or that we would be descended from Adam and Eve! Their high schools have the same programs validated by the Ministry of Education as public high schools, and of course evolutionism is part of the program, not creationism.

Quote
Yes, we have seen many wars fought over religion,and we have also seen many fought over oil and control by our governments.

There is a big difference. The governments do not preach love, while christian believers can be blamed for doing the opposite of what they say.
Secondly, there are already enough real causes of war for us not to create them artificially with religions. A religion is a cause of more war, without any added value for the rest.

Quote
But oddly enough,for some reason unknown,i am really hoping that the Ark if found.
...

Um... I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Even the existence of Jesus Christ is questionable, so the ark....
We know more about Vercingetorix, a Gallic chief who lived before J.C, than about J.C. So if J.C. had really done everything that was said, he would surely have left his mark in the archives of the Roman administration. If he really existed, he was at most a small political agitator without any scope. But with publicity and fantasy, a myth can be made of him. If he existed he had good press attachés! And now that his sect has worked well, we call it religion.    :)

« Last Edit: 2019-05-24, 20:49:46 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
And so the side step begins.

The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.


I did not post this article,a person who believes the bible did.
So to say i have twisted things around is complete garbage,but i would expect nothing less from anyone who throws out years of science,evidence,and repeatable experiments for 1 single story book,in which there has not been one single solid example of Gods existance provided to validate said book-the bible.

I can hop in my car,travel 35km down the road,and show you living organisms that lived over 2 billion years ago.
I can let you talk to a living decendent of the very first humanoids to leave Africa over 60 000 years ago-my daughter is married to one.

So what evidence can you provide that is outside your own beliefs Mags, that is clear evidence that the bible is correct,and God exists ?.

Give me 1 single piece of evidence,and i will listen.
But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me.

"But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me."



Carrol posted the article here....   https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74723#msg74723

"For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html


Respectfully,
Carroll "



And then you posted this in reply to Carrol...   https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74731#msg74731

"Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.

Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.


Brad "



In the article it says this....

"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution."



Clearly the article is not lending itself to proof of evolution. Even some comments on the article page lean toward Carrols and my understanding of the article....

But you clearly respond to Carrol with..."Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation."


So yeah, by evidence of text here in this thread, your are saying the article explains evolution and disproves the Bible, of which it does nothing of the sort.  If it is not a twist in your description of the article, then what is it? A pretzel?

You only state that it explains evolution and disproves the Bible, without any particulars from the article that explain your assertion. And why no particulars?? Because nothing in the article proves your statement about the article..   So yes.  I am calling you out on that.  I dont do it because I dont like you. I do it as argument that your statement is incorrect and only a biased, what did you call it, "side step" of what the article is really about.  And side step is not what I did.  Im sticking to what I said

If you are going to enter conversations on these subjects, and insult God to our faces and not accept rebutals to your inaccuracies, well tough cookies. ^-^  Im not a liar as you claim. I read it exactly how it is, just as well as any readers here can see.. ;)

Mags

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1498
It is true that the adherents of Religion, including the
Religion of Atheism/Evolution, can be quite intolerant
towards those who have differing beliefs.

This intolerance to me seems unreasonable.  Why should
it matter at all what others choose to believe, so long as
those beliefs are non-threatening to life and limb?

Debate is one thing, but going to the extremes of passing
judgment and issuing uncomplimentary opinions meant
to denigrate the integrity of others is foolish.  Especially
when those who claim to be Christian make the claim:
"You'll go to Hell for sure unless you change your ways!"
or words to that effect.  Hasn't anyone noticed that we are
in Hell even now?


Here is a refreshing and entertaining talk on the subjects
presently under discussion in this thread.  Enjoy!

I care not what anyone believes because all of the confusion
we suffer is only temporary.  All who seek Truth will ultimately
find Truth so long as they remain sincere in their quest and do
not become ensnared in deceptive propaganda.  When they become
ready in their hearts to receive Truth it shall be given them.


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
And so the side step begins.

The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.


Who is to say that the Bible does not explain that there were others here before Adam and Eve? ;)

In Genesis 4:14  Cain expresses fear that someone else will be aware of his vulnerable position and kill him.

So whom was Cain afraid of? Does this prove that God made another race of people before Adam and Eve? Because the text doesn't mention any other people (except Cain's wife in verse 17).

Genesis 1:23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


Now this was on the 6th day.  It does not explain that this work was to make Adam and Eve specifically at that time. But it was where the idea to 'make man in our image' is first brought up. Could it mean that there were other 'men' that were not made in 'their' image before Adam and Eve?  I say 'their' because the passage states ""Let us make man in our image".


Genesis 2:2   And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Then...

Genesis 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

How would one interpret "These are the 'generations' of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" ?   In the first chapter on the 6th day God says 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'.   Maybe there were others before Adam and eve that were not created in 'their' likeness, Neanderthals, etc. 

And there are other parts of the Bible that talk about time before Adam and Eve, and even of another full flooded earth that happened before Noahs time. ;)  Can you find those scriptures?  ^-^ O0

Mags



   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
"But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me."



Carrol posted the article here....   https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74723#msg74723

"For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html


Respectfully,
Carroll "



And then you posted this in reply to Carrol...   https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74731#msg74731

"Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.

Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.


Brad "



In the article it says this....

"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution."



Clearly the article is not lending itself to proof of evolution. Even some comments on the article page lean toward Carrols and my understanding of the article....

But you clearly respond to Carrol with..."Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation."


So yeah, by evidence of text here in this thread, your are saying the article explains evolution and disproves the Bible, of which it does nothing of the sort.  If it is not a twist in your description of the article, then what is it? A pretzel?

You only state that it explains evolution and disproves the Bible, without any particulars from the article that explain your assertion. And why no particulars?? Because nothing in the article proves your statement about the article..   So yes.  I am calling you out on that.  I dont do it because I dont like you. I do it as argument that your statement is incorrect and only a biased, what did you call it, "side step" of what the article is really about.  And side step is not what I did.  Im sticking to what I said



Mags

I see you are starting to twist things as most believers do when they are proven wrong.

Quote: You only state that it explains evolution and disproves the Bible, without any particulars from the article that explain your assertion.

So lets look at the article one step at a time,and feel free to show that what i say is not in the article,or what i say is not what the bible or believers say.
Now,you and those that believe in the bible and God claim that all that lives today is only 6000 odd years old.
Now,from the article
Quote:collected from 100,000 animal species
Quote:is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today,
Quote:came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago

So from this information-->that is clearly written in the article,and provided by some one who says the bible is a true account of all that exist's,we can clearly see that the bible is false,and most that lives is at least between 100,000 and 200,000 years old.
So here in plain text's,posted by a believer,the bible and the age of man is disproven to be fact.

But there is more.
From the very same article we see that only 90% (90%) of 100,000 animal species tested where shown to come into existence some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
This leaves 10,000-->yes 10,000 animal species to be older than the 100,000 to 200,000 year time period.
If they were younger than that,they would have been accounted for in the study.

The paper also says this Quote:What they saw was a lack of variation in so-called "neutral" mutations, which are the slight changes in DNA across generations that neither help nor hurt an individual's chances of survival.
This i believe was one of Carroll's main point's,which you keep pointing out.'
But what you both also failed to point out is this Quote:Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.

"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey—all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.

"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."

Now this is often where believers get things wrong,where they think evolution and diversity should happen over a very short period of time. Although it has happened in short time scale's ,which we have observed in our time,large differences between species happens over millions of years,not fractions of it.

So the paper clearly explains as to why there is very little variation in mutations,as the time scale is very small,even though you may think it's large.
There is also the fact that over 10,000 species were outside this time scale,and there variation differences were not disclosed--i wonder why?.

So,i am correct in what i stated
The bible says,and you believe that life on earth is only 6000 odd years old--correct?
The paper presented by Carroll(not me) clearly shows the bible and you to be incorrect,and god did not create life some 6000 odd years ago.
The paper also clearly states that only 90% of the 100,000 species of animals fitted into the 100,000 to 200,000 year time period,which clearly means that 10,000 different species existed beyond that time period.

So,if god did not create all life some 6000 odd years ago as the paper clearly states,and over 10,000 species of animals already existed beyond the 100,000 to 200,000 year time period,then evolution is the only explanation--unless you have another theory of your own Mags.

Quote
If you are going to enter conversations on these subjects, and insult God to our faces and not accept rebutals to your inaccuracies, well tough cookies. ^-^  Im not a liar as you claim. I read it exactly how it is, just as well as any readers here can see.. ;)

Where exactly did i insult God?
I believe in evolution and the power of mother nature.
Do you see the thread name Mag's?--> the MYTH of evolution
Is this not an insult to my belief's?-->why have you not said anything about that?-->do you see me constantly whining about it?.

What i posted was the exact words from the paper,so you must not have read it correctly,or you are !blinded by the light!
So no,i posted no inaccuracies at all,and you have it wrong.
But being the blind believer that you are,you will fail to recognise your mistake,and you will continue to twist the facts i post until they suit your needs,even though they are word for word from the paper Carroll presented.

So what do i think will happen now.
What will happen(as it always dose)is you will take little bits and pieces from that paper,and twist them to suit your needs. Then you will take other bits of that paper,like the time periods of 100,000 to 200,000 years,and say they got that bit wrong. So the paper will be accurate for the bits you need,and inaccurate when other parts of that paper are not inline with what you believe.

I on the other hand,took all of what the paper said,and presented it here as it reads.
So no,what i presented had no inaccuracies what so ever.

Facts--
1-the paper clearly gives a time period of between 100,000 to 200,000 years
2-the bible says life is only 6000 odd years old
3-the paper only accounts for 90% of 100,000 different species,leaving 10,000 different species already existing beyond that time period.
4-the paper disproves the bibles account of when life started by a huge margin
5-as we were not created(as shown by the paper),then we had to of evolved.

Please feel free to share with everyone here where i posted faulse information from that paper.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
It is true that the adherents of Religion, including the
Religion of Atheism/Evolution, can be quite intolerant
towards those who have differing beliefs.

This intolerance to me seems unreasonable.  Why should
it matter at all what others choose to believe, so long as
those beliefs are non-threatening to life and limb?

Debate is one thing, but going to the extremes of passing
judgment and issuing uncomplimentary opinions meant
to denigrate the integrity of others is foolish.  Especially
when those who claim to be Christian make the claim:
"You'll go to Hell for sure unless you change your ways!"
or words to that effect.  Hasn't anyone noticed that we are
in Hell even now?


Here is a refreshing and entertaining talk on the subjects
presently under discussion in this thread.  Enjoy!

I care not what anyone believes because all of the confusion
we suffer is only temporary.  All who seek Truth will ultimately
find Truth so long as they remain sincere in their quest and do
not become ensnared in deceptive propaganda.  When they become
ready in their hearts to receive Truth it shall be given them.

There have been many wars and atrocities in the name of religion.
As far as i aware,there have been none over evolution,mother nature, or science.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Who is to say that the Bible does not explain that there were others here before Adam and Eve? ;)

In Genesis 4:14  Cain expresses fear that someone else will be aware of his vulnerable position and kill him.

So whom was Cain afraid of? Does this prove that God made another race of people before Adam and Eve? Because the text doesn't mention any other people (except Cain's wife in verse 17).

Genesis 1:23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


Now this was on the 6th day.  It does not explain that this work was to make Adam and Eve specifically at that time. But it was where the idea to 'make man in our image' is first brought up. Could it mean that there were other 'men' that were not made in 'their' image before Adam and Eve?  I say 'their' because the passage states ""Let us make man in our image".


Genesis 2:2   And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Then...

Genesis 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

How would one interpret "These are the 'generations' of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" ?   In the first chapter on the 6th day God says 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'.   Maybe there were others before Adam and eve that were not created in 'their' likeness, Neanderthals, etc. 

And there are other parts of the Bible that talk about time before Adam and Eve, and even of another full flooded earth that happened before Noahs time. ;)  Can you find those scriptures?  ^-^ O0

Mags

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


On the first day,God created the heavens and earth
On the sixth day god created man and woman-Adam and Eve.

So yes,the bible clearly states there was nothing before the fist day,and Adam and Eve were the first humans.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
It is true that the adherents of Religion, including the
Religion of Atheism/Evolution, can be quite intolerant
towards those who have differing beliefs.



Religion is faith based,evolution and science is not,nor is it a religion.
Please do not get the two mixed up

If some one said they had an overunity device,would you you believe them,and know it is real due to only faith?
-or would it only become real when scientific tests proved that it was?.

Having faith that something is real,and having scientific proof that it is,is two very different things.

We are a scientific forum,and we demand that scientific proof be provided before anything becomes a reality.
This is not Energetic forum,where OU device become reality based on words or faith.

Evolution is based purely on scientific evidence,not here say,not faith,but testable and repeatable testing over many years.

I have been watching this guys video's,and he knows his stuff.
He delivers his arguments in a very clear and smooth presentation.
He also only uses know and proven science to deliver his proof of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEfj3LLNSY


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Hi Brad,

Sorry I have been rather slow to get back to you.  I was very busy yesterday with a lot of yard work getting ready for company for this weekend as it is our National Memorial day weekend. 

I have tried to explain to you how all the flood waters went back into the oceans after Noah's flood because of major changes to the earth's topography.  Here is an article that explains it much better than I can.

https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain

I have not had time yet to watch the last video you posted.  I may not have time today to do that either because of out of town company coming in.  But I will watch it when I have time.

Take care,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
It is when you get to know the magic man.  You have just decided an alternative path, for what ever reasons, they are yours. But that does not give you the right to impose theories as facts on others.

Mags

To clear this up,even though science calls them theories,they are also facts--only science dose not call them facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY0KmEk9aQ


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Claim : The Bible says "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material". Leviticus 19:19"

Claim : The Bible says "All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". Leviticus 9:10

Claim : The Bible says "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk". Exodus 23:19

Claim : The Bible says "When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean". Leviticus 15: 19-20

Claim : The Bible says "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand". Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Claim : The Bible says "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered." Matthew 21:18-22 NIV

Claim : The Bible says "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves". Numbers 31:17-18

Claim : The Bible says  "He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them.... He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since". 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". Ephesians 6:5 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Claim : The Bible says  "If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed". Leviticus 20:15 NLT

Claim : The Bible says  "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD". Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV

Claim : The Bible says  "Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries". Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV


All this is definitely very intelligent....  C.C

Oh, my God, how stupid! But the ultimate stupidity is that even today the book of these absurd, barbaric, proslavery, sexist or violent texts, which represent the customs and thoughts of an archaic era, described by men of that era, is still taken as a reference!

Hi Francois,

I have been ignoring your childish cartoons.  But this post I feel deserves a reply.  First,  I am glad to see you have read so much of the Bible.  Jesus said His Word is sharper than a two edged sword.  So maybe some day it will start to reach you if you keep reading.

Now I guess what you were trying to show with your many quotes from the Bible was that the it contains a lot of strange commands.  As is normal for people trying to prove the Bible is irrelevant you have taken those quotes out of context.  That means you haven't shown why or to whom those commandments were directed.  Those commandments are NOT for either you or me unless you are Jewish.  I am not, so I know they don't apply to me.  They were given by Moses to the Jewish people while they were still wandering in the desert.

Now a more important question is probably why did God give such strange commands to a group of people?  In spite of the fact I read my Bible every day I am not a Bible scholar.  But I do have some opinions as to why God gave those commands.

From the very beginning God has sought to have a relationship with us.  He even walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden until they disobeyed Him.  Many many years later God saw the Abram was very sincere in wanting to follow the Lord.  So he told him to go into a foreign place and settle there.  Abram obeyed God and went to the land that God led him to.  Because of his obedience God told him He (God) would make Abram (later called Abraham) the father of a great nation that God would bless.  And through that group of people God would bless all the people of the earth.

Now in order for that group of people to bless the whole earth that group of people had to show that somehow they lived to a higher standard than the rest of the world and they also had to survive.  As a guide for them those commands you have listed were for them only.  By following those commands they accomplished some things.  They showed they were obedient.  And they set themselves apart from the rest of the world.  And a lot of those commandments helped them to survive as a separate group of people.

Now whether you agree with those commandments or not you have to admit that even after many many attempts to destroy the nation of Israel they are still in existence.  So those strange commandments did have a purpose and that purpose is still being carried out today.  In spite of all the efforts by Satan to destroy God's chosen people they are still here.  And even after being displaced for almost 2000 years they are now back in the same land that God told Abram to go to.  And the Bible says they will never be displaced again.

Do you want proof God exists?  Just watch what happens when any nation tries to destroy Israel.  You may even live long enough to see it for yourself as thing are looking more and more like a major showdown is coming in the middle east.

Respectfully,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

Sorry I have been rather slow to get back to you.  I was very busy yesterday with a lot of yard work getting ready for company for this weekend as it is our National Memorial day weekend. 

I have tried to explain to you how all the flood waters went back into the oceans after Noah's flood because of major changes to the earth's topography.  Here is an article that explains it much better than I can.

https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain

I have not had time yet to watch the last video you posted.  I may not have time today to do that either because of out of town company coming in.  But I will watch it when I have time.

Take care,
Carroll

Ok,i once again took the time to read the story on the link you posted.



but first i need to know what exactly is going on here,as in,things just do not add up in terms of the bible's quote's,and the reasoning written in that page you linked.
For example,the bible clearly quote's that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights--Genesis 7:17-->or 150 days according to 7:24. So as to which one are we to believe ?. Seems the bible it self cannot decide as to how long it rained for. Then there is this--Genesis 8:3 say that the flood lasted for 150 days.
Your link states the flood lasted 371 days.

Then there is this-->Quote: Actually, the Bible tells us where the water went. By Day 150 of the Flood catastrophe the floodwaters had risen until they covered “all the high mountains under the whole heaven”

So it rained only 40 days and 40 night,but the waters continued to rise until day 150.
How did the waters continue to rise once the source of water(the rain) had stopped some 110 days before ?.
We also see in that paper that the !high! hills and mountains already existed.

So many contradictions it's hard to know as to which we are suppose to be looking into  ???

Then this--Quote:Logically, the only way for the water to drain from the continents into the oceans is for the continents to rise and the ocean floors to sink. As our knowledge of the structure of the earth has grown we can appreciate how that could have happened.

Anyway,here is why it could not happen as that page states.

Now,as you know,i am no scientist,nor do i claim to be.
But even very basic and testable knowledge can see all the !no go's! in that explanation in the link you posted.
And when i make a post,it will be because i can replicate what i post as fact,or i will link pages that show scientific theories(which have been,and are retestable fact,which by now i hope Mags understands)that back up what i say.
Perhaps you or other believers could also do the same,where rather than relying on faith or beliefs,you could post repeatable actual experiments that back up your beliefs?.

First,the water will only continue to rise as long as the source(in this case the rain) continues to fall.
So if it only rained for 40 days and 40 nights,then the water would cease to rise by day 41,not day 150.

Second
Now this is one we can test on a small scale,and prove not possible.
The water pressure is suppose to have pushed up the mountains and surrounding land's,so as the depth of the sea bed increased,and the flood waters receded into the now lower sea bed--correct?.

So here is the big !no go! with that belief,and one you can test your self.
First you will need a water tight container of some sort--bigger the better,but any size will show the same result.
Now make a sea bed in that container out of sand--any sand you like.
Then make some small hills out of sand(can be the same sand,or any type you like),and throw in a couple of rocks as small mountains--any rocks you like,as we know mountains have mostly a rock content,where hills are mostly sand of some sort
Now fill your container with water,so as the water just covers the hills and mountains-as stated in both the bible and the paper in the link you provided.
Now sit back and wait.
How long do you have to wait? ,well long enough for the water to push the hills and mountains up high enough,so as there sticking out of the water,and the water can recede into the now deeper sea beds.  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Nearly all cultures (as in petri dish?) have an account of a great flood similar to the biblical Genesis.  The oldest being the Eridu Genesis from ancient Sumeria described here-

http://www.piney.com/EriduGen.html

Scholars claim numbers as well as names in our present bible have meaning.  If true, what is the meaning of 40 days/40 nights?  Is our view of knowledge so limited that we are unable to debate these issues?

As for me, I know nothing really!

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1498
Quote from: TinMan
There have been many wars and atrocities in the
name of religion.

As far as i aware,there have been none over evolution,
mother nature, or science.

There is one thing All Religions have in common:
They have All been corrupted.  All religions today
are a blend of some Truth mixed with numerous lies.

Therefore, Religions are not the Answer that People of
Good Will seek.

We all have the Option of going Directly to the Source.
We are not in need of "middlemen" who are corrupt and
in service of Deception.

Evolution has indeed become a faith based religion.
Evolution has replaced a belief in God with the belief
in Man;  replaced the Book of Life with the Book of
Evolution.  Is just another Religious Cult.

Evolution (Darwin/Dawkins et al) overlooks the incredible
complexities of Life and how living organisms function in
their true to the tiniest detail processes to sustain and prolong life.

Evolution remains to this day 100% theoretical yet has acquired
tremendous academic power to enforce institutional compliance.
Evolution has become a High Control Cult.

Evolution is a temporary deviance from the Path of Truth but will
eventually find Complete Truth providing it proceeds in its search
for Truth by diligently applying the Scientific Process.

Evolution, simply put, wants there to be no God.  It is an Agenda.

All who have eyes to see and minds to comprehend look upon what
surrounds us in this Natural World with admiration and appreciation.

Our Living World is incredibly complex all the way from the tiniest
of living things to the greatest of living things.  Evolution does not
understand Life.

Evolution is really another facet of Mind Control/Behavior Modification.
As are All Religions which have become corrupted.

Events will occur Worldwide in the not too distant future which will
shake the Earth as Truth is revealed.  The Forces of Good will
overcome the Forces of Badness as their time over the Planet has
expired.  The process has begun already.

There will be one last great war.  Then Peace.
Death too is only temporary.

True Science would not have sought to develop the Atom Bomb.
True Science would not develop weapons of warfare.
True Science would not be in the Business of Death and Destruction.
True Science as an Institution does not yet exist.

Quote from: CITFTA
They were given by Moses to the Jewish people while they were
still wandering in the desert.

That seems to be a teaching of Christendom but is inaccurate.
The Israelites (House of Israel) that departed Egypt with Moses
along with a crowd of Egyptians who chose to accompany them,
were pre-Jewish.  The nation of Israel in Palestine had not yet been
formed and the land of Judea did not yet exist.  The House of Judah
came later.  The Israelites and the Jews are distinctly different in that
the House of Judah was but one of the tribes within the family.
The practice of lumping them all together as Jews is a modern
political deception, unfortunately.
« Last Edit: 2019-05-25, 22:50:48 by muDped »


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
snip

That seems to be a teaching of Christendom but is inaccurate.
The Israelites (House of Israel) that departed Egypt with Moses
along with a crowd of Egyptians who chose to accompany them,
were pre-Jewish.  The nation of Israel in Palestine had not yet been
formed and the land of Judea did not yet exist.  The House of Judah
came later.  The Israelites and the Jews are distinctly different in that
the House of Judah was but one of the tribes within the family.
The practice of lumping them all together as Jews is a modern
political deception, unfortunately.

Further more, most Jews today are Kazars. The Palestinians may have more Israelite blood in their veins.

Ron
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-20, 23:09:23