Originally posted by Proper Knobactually Noobster i have revised my stance and i am now an avowed creationist! sorry for the inconvenience, but now you shall have to contend with God, not me!
I'm good thanks, been feeling a tad unwell recently but am on top form today. You good?
Anyway formalities over and the pistol is now drawn.
If you accept the basic preimse of the evolutionary theory, which is that there can be changes in the genetic material within organisms from one generation to the next, what do you think could happen to a popu ...[text shortened]... of around 10yrs, that's 1million generations. Do you not think it could change dramatically ?
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzii supplied not only biblical verses but logical reasons, if you cannot understand it then i am sorry, but i cannot express it any simpler than i have stated it already! Perhaps this may help you, for God knows you pirates can do with every scrap of scripture you can get! read it and weep Zapansy!
holy crp on a stick you must have crazy eyes. as in eyes that instead of pupils have a swirling pink spiral.
god says: let there be light. as in let light be, come into being, stop being inexistent. not "let the light that existed for a zillion years reach earth"
"the earth and well as the luminaries were evidently created prior" what luminaries? the how about you supply some verses from the bible instead of rambling. but you won't.
Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is 'ohr', meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth 'day,' the Hebrew word changes to 'maohr', which means the source of the light.
Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In verse 3, 'ohr', translates as light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word 'maohr' in verse 14 means something 'affording light', or the source of light.
On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.
you see Zappy, when one considers the original languages rather than superficial translations one gains a rather more 'accurate', understanding of the great events unfolding', what are the odds of the writer of genesis placing these events in their exact chronological order, well why dont we consider the mathematical probability, the account lists 10 major stages in this order:
(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere;
(5) large areas of dry land;
(6) land plants;
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning;
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man.
Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic nor scientific, is it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet me get this correct.
actually Noobster i have revised my stance and i am now an avowed creationist! sorry for the inconvenience, but now you shall have to contend with God, not me!
Yesterday you accepted that genetic material within a population could change from one generation to the next, today you don't?
What happenned?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobit was the owl and its propensity for stealth flight Noobster, its such a marvel of design that it has proved insurmountable!
Let me get this correct.
Yesterday you accepted that genetic material within a population could change from one generation to the next, today you don't?
What happenned?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie this is a simple question, one which i feel you will evade and try your best not to answer but sometimes you do surprise me.
it was the owl and its propensity for stealth flight Noobster, its such a marvel of design that it has proved insurmountable!
Do you accept that genetic material can change when passing from one generation to the next?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou mean like people getting taller, etc etc - yes i think so. however as far as i am aware Noobster, this may not be the result of genetics, for it is well understood that DNA is specifically designed to withstand change and that mutations, generally, produce detrimental effects, see the fruit fly experiments conducted by Dobzhansky. this getting taller therefore may indeed by a result of more abundant and nutritious food, rather than something that is genetically inherent.
Robbie this is a simple question, one which i feel you will evade and try your best not to answer but sometimes you do surprise me.
Do you accept that genetic material can change when passing from one generation to the next?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDude it's a yes or no question.
you mean like people getting taller, etc etc - yes i think so. however as far as i am aware Noobster, this may not be the result of genetics, for it is well understood that DNA is specifically designed to withstand change and that mutations, generally, produce detrimental effects, see the fruit fly experiments conducted by Dobzhansky. this getting ...[text shortened]... result of more abundant and nutritious food, rather than something that is genetically inherent.
Does genetic material mutate?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadnow there's a surprise! ok first you want me to accept, that a few loose scales on some dinosaur, developed into the unprecedented marvel of design, the feather, then you want me to believe that as this was taking place, all the noisy owls died out cause they couldn't catch any mice leaving only the silent ones left for us to marvel at, ohhhhhhh reallllly, does this strike anyone else as rather far fetched?
With the Theory of Evolution.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is black and white Robbie, you may somehow think there are 'many factors which must be weighed in the mind', but that's just classic Carrobie evasive tactic.
not so hasty my Cornish friend, for it is not so black and white, there are many factors which must be weighed in the mind! you must accept that as yet, the jury is in recess
No it is this simple, either cell mutation occurs or it doesn't. Which one is it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"making fun and insulting retarded people might get you in hell"
i supplied not only biblical verses but logical reasons, if you cannot understand it then i am sorry, but i cannot express it any simpler than i have stated it already! Perhaps this may help you, for God knows you pirates can do with every scrap of scripture you can get! read it and weep Zapansy!
Previously, on the first “day,” the expression ...[text shortened]... without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic nor scientific, is it?
now that i repeated that little prayer in my head and in writing let's begin.
you keep ranting on and one and you don't even see you are not making sense.
you keep mentioning the meaning of light and source of light. yet you fail to demonstrate that god still uses the words "let it be". if you want to "prove" that the stars and the sun existed all along, then by all means, have some "scientist" prove that "let it be" means "let the curtains drop and the thing be seen". seen by whom? by the humans? there weren't any. by god? he already saw them? what is the point of the story of genesis then? to describe a chain of events not in the order in which they happened but in an order in which someone acknowledges their presence? even to you that cannot make sense
"getting the facts" what facts? that the stars couldn't be seen by an inexistent observe on the face of the earth until the sky was created? thank you, we already knew that. that there were gases and clouds so thick that the sun wasn't to be seen, but there was a diffuse light enought that plants survive? that the sun and the stars existed before the earth was created but the author didn't seem fit to mention them until the 4th day? that there was water on our rock from the very beginning? and there is water in heavens?
the only thing your rotheram does is interpret the bible to suit the scientific reality. in other words, him, being more intelligent than you which is not saying much, understood that genesis is a metaphor so he started twisting the text to come as close as possible to the scientific model of earth genesis. and you find this is a victory for you? why? i already admitted long ago that god created the universe. it took him about 15billion years longer than your version which is not that impressive but still impressive nontheless.
you make such leaps in logic that i am surprised you could still type. you should be in the hospital by now. you make claims, forget to prove them and then you use them as axioms in making further claims.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno it doesn't strike anyone else as far-fatched. only to the carrobies of the world
now there's a surprise! ok first you want me to accept, that a few loose scales on some dinosaur, developed into the unprecedented marvel of design, the feather, then you want me to believe that as this was taking place, all the noisy owls died out cause they couldn't catch any mice leaving only the silent ones left for us to marvel at, ohhhhhhh reallllly, does this strike anyone else as rather far fetched?
oh sorry, it was a rhetorical question, meant to make us crumble under your acidic sarcasm and unparalleled intelligence. oops, please continue then.