Originally posted by twhiteheadYea I'm not 100% on this one, a friend is a genetic biologist thou and from what I can remember its not really to do with pre existing faults or defects.... And thats where I got the 72 breeding pairs from also....
I think the problem has to do with recessive genes, not specifically similar genetic makup. Maybe a biologist can enlighten us?
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't let another's opinions stopping me from thinking by myself.
Well go away than if it isnt' about what you think, you don't matter!
If the 95% of the best minds in the world want to come here and
talk we can talk to them; however, you and I are here now and I do
think what you 'think' matters, even if you don't! Don't let anothers
opinion stop you from thinking yourself, I don't care what side of the
debate your on that is pure and simple WRONG.
Kelly
And you didn't answer my question.
You have 99% of the best minds in the world saying one thing, and justifying. You have a different opinion that collides with those INDEPENDENT scientists, that is a biased one. But you still believe yours it the correct one.
What makes you believe YOUR personal interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? I'm sure it wasn't by independent thinking...
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't say "evolution". I was explicit about "Theory of Evolution".
You should really read the posts here before you speak about what
others believe! I have never said I don't believe in evolution, ever!
I have said I dont' give it the same amount of credit others here do
for the changes that life has gone through. If you think that isn't true
I suggest you read the posts again.
Kelly
You distorted things. Again. And you denied theory of evolution dozens of times.
Originally posted by serigadoWhere do you get your 99% best minds from? You have a magic
I don't let another's opinions stopping me from thinking by myself.
And you didn't answer my question.
You have 99% of the best minds in the world saying one thing, and justifying. You have a different opinion that collides with those INDEPENDENT scientists, that is a biased one. But you still believe yours it the correct one.
What makes you believe YOUR ...[text shortened]... terpretation of the Bible is the correct one? I'm sure it wasn't by independent thinking...
wand that tells you who these people are? It isn't a popularity game
here, it does not matter how many people agree with any one point
if they are wrong they are wrong! I'd like to see the poll of these
so called 99% and see their names and how they really feel about
the details of the issues we have been discussing. I doubt you'd
get complete agreement as you seem to be suggesting.
With respect to the Bible and my complaints about evolution, one
has next to nothing to do with the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by serigadoYou need to read what was being written I'm not going to repeat
I didn't say "evolution". I was explicit about "Theory of Evolution".
You distorted things. Again. And you denied theory of evolution dozens of times.
myself because you don't want to take the time to read. If you can
be specific as to what I have said that denies evolution I'll be
impressed, but I’m not gong to hold my breath. I doubt you will
actually take the time to even try.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
And it was not a question I asked - which explains my confusion over your Bible verses. To repeat my post:
Originally posted by twhitehead
Just as a matter of interest. Do you believe that?
If so:
How do you explain the existence of meat eaters today? Did God create them after the flood, or did they evolve from animals living before the flood ...[text shortened]... at maybe all animals alive today are descended from a tiny number of species collected by Noah?
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that! The time before
the flood not much was dying due to old age, not much of a chance
to evolve, after the flood things moved along quickly after that.
With respect to all animals evolving from those on the Ark, yes that is
what I think had to happen if life was created by God according to
Genesis and later came through the flood on the ark. So with respect
to changing one life form unto another I believe more in variety than
brand new creatures as if we had to go from a single cell to a whale,
or an oak tree.
Kelly
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayUhm . . . KJ why are you trying to explain a miracle? Once you get away from "Goddunnit because the Bible says so" you run into big trouble.
As I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that! The time before
the flood not much was dying due to old age, not much of a chance
to evolve, after the flood things moved along quickly after that.
With respect to a ...[text shortened]...
brand new creatures as if we had to go from a single cell to a whale,
or an oak tree.
Kelly
The whole idea that lions and wolves and sharks were eating plants is just ridiculous. You could say that God magically changed them and made their entire physiology adapted to animal hunting/consumption. But then you have to ask yourself would the pre-flood version still be something would recognize as a lion, wolf, or shark?
Originally posted by serigadoNo I don't think they have anything against Christianity; they are just wrong.
It's not about what I think.
It's about what 99% of the best minds in the world studying the subject think.
Or do you think all of them have a lobby against Christianity?
Think about this one...
(That "best minds in the world" line makes me chuckle. Wonder how many times THAT's been used to declare something to be true!)
Originally posted by PinkFloydSo whats Correct then? And more to the point whats your justification for your answer?
No I don't think they have anything against Christianity; they are just wrong.
(That "best minds in the world" line makes me chuckle. Wonder how many times THAT's been used to declare something to be true!)
Originally posted by KellyJayC'mon, seriously now Kelly, you really don't believe this crap.
As I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that! The time before
the flood not much was dying due to old age, not much of a chance
to evolve, after the flood things moved along quickly after that.
With respect to a ...[text shortened]... new creatures as if we had to go from a single cell to a whale,
or an oak tree.
Kelly
Kelly
Only an absolute moron would, surely.
As an Australian, I'm interested in how Noah incorporated the many native marsupial species from Australia into his ark collection, when the entire continent was unknown by those living in the middle east at the time the biblical stories were written ... sorry, created by God. (Gotta laugh at that one.)
Originally posted by amannionThat's a very good point. How did all the possums end up here (Currently in WA)?
C'mon, seriously now Kelly, you really don't believe this crap.
Only an absolute moron would, surely.
As an Australian, I'm interested in how Noah incorporated the many native marsupial species from Australia into his ark collection, when the entire continent was unknown by those living in the middle east at the time the biblical stories were written ... sorry, created by God. (Gotta laugh at that one.)
And more importantly how did all the Isolated evolution happen? Such as the unique tasmanian devil.... Or even the incredibly stupid but none the less pervasive Kangaroo.....
Also how do you explain the evolutionary convergence between these Isolated species and those seen elsewhere. Many of them fill the exact same modes of life as their counterparts. But do so with very different methods and morphology........
come on let me strap in I want to hear your explanation for this one.....
Originally posted by telerionRec'd.
I think trial lawyers should always ask potential jurors if they believe the Flood really happened just like Genesis 7 says. If the person answers, "Yes," then the prosecutor should toss them immediately. The defense would have a field day with so much gullibility.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, especially that one who believes in the Flood, the ...[text shortened]... e was walking on the moon with Elvis Presley at the time in question. Thank you."
Originally posted by serigadoIf you get personal then they'll just write you off as being an god hate who's opinion doesn't matter...... Thats how people who think theres logic behind a completely irrational belief work; they'll argue you in circles till you get frustrated then they use your frustration to make themselves feel like they've won through logically argument. Its quite a brilliant argument technique...
I give up.
If someone's stupid enough to believe that stupid arc stuff, he/she doesn't deserve my time.
You might have some acceptance in your fundamentalist group, but know that the whole world laughs at your ridiculous beliefs.