Originally posted by timebombtedThan I suggest you stop reading my posts and quit boring me with
I already understand the evidence for evolution, I don't need to research it again! You continually and boringly request for examples of big changes, this is just one, if you really want to know then I have provided more than enough for you to educate yourself. Although from reading your previous posts you are either beyond education or unwilling to asse ...[text shortened]... e the effort we can continue a logical discussion until then I will not waste my time with you.
do some research posts; say something that adds to the discussion
or just fall into the insult and run group, I don't care, just don't be
lazy about whatever it is you are going to do. Spewing get some
education might make you feel better, and get a cheer from certain
among us, but it does not add to the discussion at all.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat have you added to the discussion Kelly? Any facts? Any actual information?
Than I suggest you stop reading my posts and quit boring me with
do some research posts; say something that adds to the discussion
or just fall into the insult and run group, I don't care, just don't be
lazy about whatever it is you are going to do. Spewing get some
education might make you feel better, and get a cheer from certain
among us, but it does not add to the discussion at all.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt is my hope that I added, simply saying go read a book or look up
What have you added to the discussion Kelly? Any facts? Any actual information?
this word, isn't really saying anything. If I am asking for their points
of views, being told to read a book does not let me know what they
think. They may offer a good book to read, they may say look this
up with a link and a reason to look it up, that is adding something
useful, but for me to claim you don't know what you are talking about
and the only thing I say to back it up is find a good book and read it
is lazy.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI did offer a book, please read my last post and you will see it states any book on Vertebrate Evolution with specific reference to Kardong. As for journals surrounding the subject there are too many to quote, its as simple as using google scholar and looking for Incus / malleus / stapes + orgin / evolution etc as I first suggested. You will be overwhelmed by the number of papers to digest........ or in your case probably ignore with your blind faith.
It is my hope that I added, simply saying go read a book or look up
this word, isn't really saying anything. If I am asking for their points
of views, being told to read a book does not let me know what they
think. They may offer a good book to read, they may say look this
up with a link and a reason to look it up, that is adding something
useful, but ...[text shortened]... about
and the only thing I say to back it up is find a good book and read it
is lazy.
Kelly
Yes I can tell you in detail about how the bones of the inner ear have evolved from reptilian jaw bones and post a reference, but 1 article will never be enough for a goddunit mentality....... thats why I was directing you to discover the vast evidence for yourself, so if you want to learn open your eyes to the overwhelming evidence infront of you.
Although it looks like your a non action type of individual that I'm wasting my time with.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionTele,
I know you argue that a day in Genesis need not have been 24 hours, but when it gets right down to it you still believe in magical plants. We've been through all this before.
I just read this in my book Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder about the seemingly contradictory time line of the plants created on the third day and then our sun on the fourth day.
"On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. Here, in Genesis 1:10, it is described as the substance that fills the seas. Prior to this time, the term referred to the primordial substance from which all matter of the universe was to be formed. Because it was only on the fourth day that luminaries appeared in the firmament of heaven (Gen 1:14), the presence of plant life on the third day might seem out of order. Light is one of the prerequisites for photosynthetic growth of plants. Resolution of this seeming conflict is found in the use of the word luminaries rather than light in Genesis 1:14. Prior to the appearance of abundant life, the Earth's atmosphere was probably clouded with vapors of the primeval atmosphere. THis would be in accord with information relayed from Soviet and US spacecraft investigating the cloudy atmosphere of Venus. There was light on the third day, in the sense that the atmospheric vapors transmitted radiant energy. The atmosphere, however, was translucent, not transparent. Therefore, individual luminaries were not distinguishable. It was this diffuse light that provided energy from the initial plant life. Nahmanides states that the firmament, formed on the second day, initially intercepted the light that existed from day one. He was not willing to comment concerning the compostition of the firmament, because he considered it as one of the deep mysteries of the Bible. The early plant life actually helped clear the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis, which removed CO2 and nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere and incorporated them into cellular material..."
Here is an explanation of who Nahmanides was. "Only a few biblical commentators have withstood time's test. Four are accepted by Jew and Christian alike as guiding lights in the interpretation of the book of Genesis. It is on these four that I rely. They are Onkelos (ca. C.E. 150), Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac, C.E. 1040-1105, France), Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon, C.E. 1135-1204, Spain, Egypt; also known as Rambam), and Nahamanides (Moses ben Nahman, C.E. 1194-1270, Spain, Israel; also known as Ramban). Because their commentaries were written long before the advent of modern physics, we avoid the folly of using interpretations of tradition that may have been biased by modern scientific discoveries."
Just thought it might be of some interest.
Originally posted by whodeyFunny, I never knew N was fixed during photosynthesis - but then again I've only been studying the process intensely for the last 5 years.
Tele,
I just read this in my book Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder about the seemingly contradictory time line of the plants created on the third day and then our sun on the fourth day.
"On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. Here, in Genesis 1:10 ...[text shortened]... en biased by modern scientific discoveries."
Just thought it might be of some interest.
Originally posted by whodeyI still haven't heard any reasoning from anyone as to why they believe that the oldest known version of genesis in its original Hebrew, must be 100% correct word for word even though it is not the original, and will jump through hoops to prove it. (Clearly modern English translations are just plain wrong.)
I just read this in my book Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder about the seemingly contradictory time line of the plants created on the third day and then our sun on the fourth day.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIndeed, it's the Rhizobium bacterium. Although, the algae Noctoc also can fix N. Completely unrelated to PS in any way though (other than as an energy source).
legumes do not fix nitrogen on their own, they use bacteria (I think). On which day were viruses invented? Or did the Devil do that and thus it never got recorded.
Originally posted by timebombtedI'm very sure you can tell me a story on how you believe the bones
I did offer a book, please read my last post and you will see it states any book on Vertebrate Evolution with specific reference to Kardong. As for journals surrounding the subject there are too many to quote, its as simple as using google scholar and looking for Incus / malleus / stapes + orgin / evolution etc as I first suggested. You will be overwhelm ...[text shortened]... .
Although it looks like your a non action type of individual that I'm wasting my time with.
of the inner ear have evolved from reptilian jaw bones, and even give
me a reference. I can tell you about how God created the heavens
and earth and give you references too. You want to point to a specific
piece to read, please give a link, and better yet quote those parts
that have to do with what we were talking about as well.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe difference is his book is based on evidence - things that are real.
I'm very sure you can tell me a story on how you believe the bones
of the inner ear have evolved from reptilian jaw bones, and even give
me a reference. I can tell you about how God created the heavens
and earth and give you references too. You want to point to a specific
piece to read, please give a link, and better yet quote those parts
that have to do with what we were talking about as well.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo is the Bible, there are real things within in it too, if you want to
The difference is his book is based on evidence - things that are real.
go that route, and there are things in the Bible that must be
believed they cannot be proven. So there isn't a difference if you
want to say there are some facts within the books and other things
that must be accepted as true, yet cannot be proven only believed.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzROTFL. Give ten examples please (possibly with their peer reviewed postulations of how this clear violation of the thermodynamic and matter-conservation laws occurred).
There are millions of scientists alive who will tell you that in the case of the BB it is only logical to get something from nothing. Stop trying to twist the issue.