Moderator: Community Team
Is it only 2s now for all kinds or 2 plus 7 for the "clean" kinds, `cuz Genesis 7:2 is quite precise about the 7? Or are there even different versions of the bible? Would Dinosaurs be clean or unclean?universalchiro wrote:Negative. Two of every kind went into the Ark Genesis 6:19-22. The larger creatures would of been younglings to reduce capacity & logistics.Steiner75 wrote:Well, "there is a book out there" which tells us:GoranZ wrote:UC in another thread you said that there were dinosaurs in Noah's ark(or better said they survived)... If they survived the flood how did they got extinct? U can correct me if I misunderstood something from your previous post about the issue with the dinosaurs... the question stays tho. How did the dinosaurs become extinct?
The First Book of Moses, Called GENESIS 7
So if I interpret the above correctly Dinosaurs may have been neither clean nor not clean and thus extinct in the big flood, or they were either clean or not clean and on board which then leads us to the question which GoranZ asks above...Spoiler
1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Interestingly, the instruction given by god were not adhered to completely:
Spoiler
4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. 6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Big questions: where did the "sevens" (c.f. above) go? I am sure this cannot be an inconsistency in the Bible, can it?
Dinosaurs survived the flood.
Dinosaurs are reptiles, if after the flood the O2 levels dropped 33% & gravity increased 20%, what do you think T-Rex would look like today? Name a reptile that has the same image and characteristics of T-Rex. Same Velaceoraptor. I doubt dinosaurs are extinct. I think they arw living among us in plane sight.
Evolutionist have very creative imaginations thinking dinosaurs evolved into birds, yet they can't connect the dots to see dinosaurs are still living yet smaller. As man once lived 900+ years, so too did dinos. Man adapted to changes from the flood, so too did dinos. They are just much smaller.
To say dinos would have tore mankind to shreds is missing important info. God has given man to have dominion over the creatures. So the same reason that a bear would rather avoid human: contact is the same reason dinos avoided human contact.
I never knew that ZIP or RAR can be such nasty tools...universalchiro wrote:Negative. Two of every kind went into the Ark Genesis 6:19-22. The larger creatures would of been younglings to reduce capacity & logistics.Steiner75 wrote:Well, "there is a book out there" which tells us:GoranZ wrote:UC in another thread you said that there were dinosaurs in Noah's ark(or better said they survived)... If they survived the flood how did they got extinct? U can correct me if I misunderstood something from your previous post about the issue with the dinosaurs... the question stays tho. How did the dinosaurs become extinct?
The First Book of Moses, Called GENESIS 7
So if I interpret the above correctly Dinosaurs may have been neither clean nor not clean and thus extinct in the big flood, or they were either clean or not clean and on board which then leads us to the question which GoranZ asks above...Spoiler
1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Interestingly, the instruction given by god were not adhered to completely:
Spoiler
4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. 6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Big questions: where did the "sevens" (c.f. above) go? I am sure this cannot be an inconsistency in the Bible, can it?
Dinosaurs survived the flood.
Dinosaurs are reptiles, if after the flood the O2 levels dropped 33% & gravity increased 20%, what do you think T-Rex would look like today? Name a reptile that has the same image and characteristics of T-Rex. Same Velaceoraptor. I doubt dinosaurs are extinct. I think they arw living among us in plane sight.
Evolutionist have very creative imaginations thinking dinosaurs evolved into birds, yet they can't connect the dots to see dinosaurs are still living yet smaller. As man once lived 900+ years, so too did dinos. Man adapted to changes from the flood, so too did dinos. They are just much smaller.
To say dinos would have tore mankind to shreds is missing important info. God has given man to have dominion over the creatures. So the same reason that a bear would rather avoid human: contact is the same reason dinos avoided human contact.
Nope, he will have different answer, answer that evolutionist cant imagine.ooge wrote:He keeps saying "adapted"replace with "evolve" Without evolution everything would look the same as it did day 1.It can not adapt or change.plague outbreaks would still be killing people and at this point we would become extinct.Go talk to the Aztecs.Thank evolution for the human race not being extinct.
I hate to do this but if we were to ask him why the Aztecs met their demise,would his response be because they were "non Believers"
Correct. I don't see it. I guess my degree in Genetics isn't accepted by UC.universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist that are not aware of the difference between adaptation and evolution, really should stop posting that you know about the topic. You are embarrassing yourself and you don't see it.
There are no such limits.Adaptation already has the information for adapting to external stimulus already in the DNA coding. There are limits to how far a creature can adapt, the limits of adaptation are set by the DNA code, if one gets too close to the edge of adaptability, they become sterile, still birth, premature death from disease, sickness, climate or predators.
That is not embedded anywhere I have seen. Can you point to the genes to which you refer?Evolution requires NEW information in the DNA coding that was not there, to produce new function and new kind. The problem: Imbedded in the DNA code of creatures is to not select another creature that has inability to adapt to changes in external stimulus, to not select a mutated kind. So evolutionary theory that mutated DNA gets passed on, is not reality, for creatures select the strong, not the weak (and all mutations produced a loss of function, not an enhancement).
Nope.The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".
So...What is observable: Mutations produce a loss of function, weakness, shortness of life, and loss of desirability for reproduction. And what evolution requires is trillions upon trillions of mutations that enhance, improve function, make one stronger, increase longevity, make one more desirable to the opposite sex for reproduction, not just one instance, but trillions upon trillions.
Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and give a rebuttal to the facts presented.WidowMakers wrote:This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.
But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc
READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist
There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell
I will if you read one of the books above and give answers to them as well.......Metsfanmax wrote:Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and give a rebuttal to the facts presented.WidowMakers wrote:This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.
But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc
READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist
There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell
This whole idea that trusting basic history has anything to do with your metaphysics is absurd. I don't care if you're an atheist or a theist; you can't make any claims about the history of life on Earth if you haven't actually inspected the evidence for it. Even that last book, if I can trust the Amazon description, isn't attempting to counter the history of evolution, instead looking for evidence that this process was intentionally initiated by some entity in some way.WidowMakers wrote:I will if you read one of the books above and give answers to them as well.......Metsfanmax wrote:Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and give a rebuttal to the facts presented.WidowMakers wrote:This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.
But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc
READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist
There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell
FYI. The book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is a book written to counter the God Delusion by Dawkins. So any "facts" he has in both of his books are countered very well in this one.
Include voting if you have balls... let we all see who is embarrassing.universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist that are not aware of the difference between adaptation and evolution, really should stop posting that you know about the topic. You are embarrassing yourself and you don't see it.
Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your explanationuniversalchiro wrote:Adaptation already has the information for adapting to external stimulus already in the DNA coding. There are limits to how far a creature can adapt, the limits of adaptation are set by the DNA code, if one gets too close to the edge of adaptability, they become sterile, still birth, premature death from disease, sickness, climate or predators.
Evolution requires NEW information in the DNA coding that was not there, to produce new function and new kind. The problem: Imbedded in the DNA code of creatures is to not select another creature that has inability to adapt to changes in external stimulus, to not select a mutated kind. So evolutionary theory that mutated DNA gets passed on, is not reality, for creatures select the strong, not the weak (and all mutations produced a loss of function, not an enhancement).
The number you mention is joke compared to the number of stars in the universe... So I dont recommend using numbers to explain probability.universalchiro wrote:The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".
Usually you are correct but only usually... Vast majority of mutations are for waste and are not necessary, but that little percentage that is successful is driving evolution forwarduniversalchiro wrote:What is observable: Mutations produce a loss of function, weakness, shortness of life, and loss of desirability for reproduction. And what evolution requires is trillions upon trillions of mutations that enhance, improve function, make one stronger, increase longevity, make one more desirable to the opposite sex for reproduction, not just one instance, but trillions upon trillions.
That isn't adaptation. It might be if you were a Nazi of the Third Reich, but otherwise it isn't. Sorry to break it to you.universalchiro wrote:Really? Species adapt to other species all the time, Just the other day, a neighbor of mine he and his wife both have recessive brown eyes and they produced a blue eyed child. Adaptation occurs everyday.
Not really. The number of stars in the universe is this (approx)GoranZ wrote:The number you mention is joke compared to the number of stars in the universe... So I dont recommend using numbers to explain probability.universalchiro wrote:The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".
The numbers you are mentioning are for observable universe. In reality we have no idea how big the universe is. and we are adding zeroes over timeWidowMakers wrote:Not really. The number of stars in the universe is this (approx)GoranZ wrote:The number you mention is joke compared to the number of stars in the universe... So I dont recommend using numbers to explain probability.universalchiro wrote:The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".
And so, if you multiply the number of stars in our galaxy by the number of galaxies in the Universe, you get approximately 10^24 stars
That’s a 1 followed by twenty-four zeros.
http://www.universetoday.com/102630/how ... -universe/
Much much much smaller than odds of evolution of a protein molecule from unguided amino acids.
So while you may not like the probability numbers of the amino acid, they are larger than the number of stars.
So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?
So much wrong with this in so many different ways.WidowMakers wrote:
So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?
WidowMakers wrote:I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?
A slightly different way of making this type of anthropic principle argument is that there are many, many planets out there, many of which will have the right conditions for life. That will be a lot of planets, even if only a small fraction are capable of supporting it. So even though the formation of the first replicating molecules may be a rare event, it only needed to happen on one of those planets for life to form.DoomYoshi wrote: 2) The p-value of life happening spontaneously is 1. It happened. Life exists. Deal with it. What are the odds that I typed this sentence?
Aside from the answers DY gave, consider the problems with the argument that "God" came along and "helped out" this process, which didn't have much chance of occurring otherwise, and then let evolution play out as normal. Then you've made an unfalsifiable argument, because there's no testable difference between the worlds. We're left to choose between a rare random process happening and a guided process occurring by a (rare?) god. What difference does it make which is true? By construction, it makes no difference, so there's no point in worrying about it.WidowMakers wrote: So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?
SALVATION IS THE POINT, METS.Metsfanmax wrote:
Aside from the answers DY gave, consider the problems with the argument that "God" came along and "helped out" this process, which didn't have much chance of occurring otherwise, and then let evolution play out as normal. Then you've made an unfalsifiable argument, because there's no testable difference between the worlds. We're left to choose between a rare random process happening and a guided process occurring by a (rare?) god. What difference does it make which is true? By construction, it makes no difference, so there's no point in worrying about it.
If I was trying to argue for creatonism, I would simply say it was the canvas that God decided on. If you fire up Civilization 5 or AoM, how do you decide what world you'll play on? I always liked to play on random and let the computer decide. They all fit the purpose of what I was trying to do, yet the world I'm playing on, didn't truly exist until I started playing on it.GoranZ wrote:
And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?
You play games but you dont create thempatrickaa317 wrote:If I was trying to argue for creatonism, I would simply say it was the canvas that God decided on. If you fire up Civilization 5 or AoM, how do you decide what world you'll play on? I always liked to play on random and let the computer decide. They all fit the purpose of what I was trying to do, yet the world I'm playing on, didn't truly exist until I started playing on it.GoranZ wrote:
And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?
GoranZ wrote:You play games but you dont create thempatrickaa317 wrote:If I was trying to argue for creatonism, I would simply say it was the canvas that God decided on. If you fire up Civilization 5 or AoM, how do you decide what world you'll play on? I always liked to play on random and let the computer decide. They all fit the purpose of what I was trying to do, yet the world I'm playing on, didn't truly exist until I started playing on it.GoranZ wrote:
And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?
Software development is nothing like Gods creationism... Every line of code has a meaning, every byte has a purpose... Its like evolution but on extreme scale.
universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist always...
