If you want to be free of this delusional HEMG religion of Evotards, then learn what real science is. Goto evolutionforum (dot) info and get the whole truth about this crap pseudo science.
Other difficulties that evolutionists have to face with regards to whale evolution is the birthing of calves underwater! What possible evolutionary advantage was gained by bringing your air breathing kids into this world underwater! Only a perfectly designed animal could pull this off, as the whales do every day. Anything less than fully perfect and you are Shark Bait! Also: What do you all do with Hitler? Was he evil or good? As a TRUE evolutionist, he practised survival of the fittest!
@samandersn "Other difficulties that evolutionists have to face with regards to whale evolution is the birthing of calves underwater! What possible evolutionary advantage was gained by bringing your air breathing kids into this world underwater! "
Water-dwelling species giving birth to water-dwelling young?? Absurd!
You know what difficulties creationists face? Dealing with actual evidence and reality. To the creationist, why are there air-breathing mammals that live underwater anyway?
Sharks are everywhere, even in rivers! How did baleen evolve? How did a grass eating cow evolve into a massive filter feeder? I bet there were several times in the transition from teeth to baleen that he wished could sink his teeth into some delicious seaweed!
Question: Why did sperm whales evolve the ability to dive deep? So many things need to happen for this to be possible. Answer: They knew that Giant Squid were down there and that's their favortie food! BTW sharks luv 2 eat dogs!
The migration of the nose on the end of the face into a blowhole on the top of the head is a miracle of evolutionary willpower! Think of all the water they breathed in every day as they waded into the seas to compete with the ancient sharks! But they were the brave pioneers of evolution, because they knew that several million years later it would be worth all the water they had to swallow, to become the sleek and swift whales and dolphins that could finally compete with the sharks.
@samandersn Points to consider: 1) Sharks are not everywhere, so the area ancestral whales evolved in could have been free of them, or just had a small number. For example, a shallow area near land, seeing as they evolved from land mammals.
2) Does a dog drown when it swims? No, it holds its head above the water. However, it's easy to see this can use up plenty of energy, which would be needed if it got into trouble. With the nose getting higher, less energy is required to hold the head up.
If you watched all of the video, they say that animals such as hippos have a higher bone density because they walk on the bottom of the river bottom. A higher bone density would imply more mass, which means the animal would be more likely to sink to the bottom of a river/ocean. Like the video said, this animal was aquatic, not a swimmer, but simply a creature that lived in the shallows of a shore.
At 4:00, the lady says that the thin bone is from a land animal, and the thick one indicates that the animal lived in water. It seems that it should be the other way around because animals in water have to deal with less gravity. In fact, I heard that competitive swimmers have thin bones because they spend a lot of time in water.
Like she said they have thick bones similar to the hippopotamus to reduce their buoyancy, so the animal effectively sinks and can walk on a river bottom.
Samopurple, do you mean the bones worked as "cement galoshes"? Then the animal would drown. Hippopotamus does not walk on river beds; it is a good swimmer. It walks on land, and that is why he needs thick bones - to support its huge mass. Elephant has thick leg bones, and it does not live in water. My point is: thick fossil bones do not mean it lived in water. To make that claim is like shooting an arrow at a wall, paint a bulls eye around it, and claim perfect shot. It is not science.
postme12, bones sink; look at soup. My point is: science must be based on knowledge, not wishful thinking. Knowledge shows that land animals have thick bones; aquatic animals, including whales, have thin, soft, spongy bones. For an aquatic animal to develop thick bones would be a miracle, not evolution.
Aeg1000, i would be careful when using the word 'miracle' when people are talking about science seriously. I wasn't stating that the bones float i was merely proposing that bone helps bouancy, well better than fat or blubber would. I could be wrong however and i do like it when im wrong so i learn something. I think you need to look at a the evolution of the whale more closley to tell you that the animals physiology evoloved to it's best means.
Another factor you don't mention is the higher pressure under water. Water creatures need thick bones in order for them to handle the higher pressure. A human swimmer don't swim very deep, therefore it don't need thick bones. Whales on the other hand do need it.
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits, "Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord SHAL BE SAVED
"Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits, "Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed."
Seeing as how Darwin never wrote a book entitled, "My Life and Letters" and this so called quote has been floating around the net for some time, I challenge you valu777 to support this claim.
Either you have been led to believe this lie or you yourself know it is a lie and just broke one of your precious commandments.
well... this is the first time on youtube that ive seen such a debate. i thought these couldnt exists cause someone would come along and say 'OMG NOOBZ! I IZ CORRECTZ U IZ FAIL!!11'
"all these words denote that there are no facts. "
Wrong. That is a blatant lie, and you know it, scum.
Whats more, thats just very ironic. You have NO "facts" to validate anything in your religion because it is something that requires faith: belief without facts.
Dont be such a hypocrite, dumbass.
Also, look up what a Scientific Theory is to destroy that ignorant claim of yours.
you son of a bitch do not know me and you fuck face would not dare stand in front of me. If a priest or rabbi f-ed you, you should not hate religion you should hate that person. I can see you have a lot of anger inside you. Yes religion is based on faith but what has that got to do with what I said? If religion is wrong, that does not make your Evolution theory right. I believe in adaptation of a specie but not sudden jump to another specie.
"I believe in adaptation of a specie but not sudden jump to another specie. "
The Theory of Evolution does not state there is a sudden jump to another species. You have to think in terms of Geological Time. Keep in mind, the Cambrian Explosion took over 10 million years.* and isn't what you or I would consider an explosion.
yes "PERHAPS" I was a bit loose with my choice of words, by SUDEN JUMP I mean to say MUTATION, I mean GENETIC MUTATION, where for some random non designed unconscious way a Gen Mutates and a whale is born with legs or without it, which happens to guarantee its survival for millions of years before it happens randomly again.
"where for some random non designed unconscious way a Gen Mutates"
Are you suggesting genes have a consciousness? Does a sodium atom consciously attach itself to chloride atom and they just know to come together and form NaCl?
And since when does a mutation like whale legs happen all at once? That isn't a claim made in this video or anywhere in ToE.
Excellent work folks - ALL of you. From the field to the lab this is a brave project whose results will one day have a major impact on the issues we perceive as reality. Many thanks from a humbled, always evolving bi-ped. That Ray Guy
Hello Schmoikel, I certainly wear Biblical glasses but I am certainly NOT BLIND.
I believe this video only confirms the words in Genesis 1:21 "And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves around, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.
This video is just prove for variation within the species, not an explanation for the origin of life !
Kind = form = species (who's members can interbreed)
By the way, I believe in creation but I am not a creationist. Let me explain why;
The Hebrew word "yohm" translated "day" can mean different lenghts of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time..." It would seem reasonable that the "days" of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time
Well you only addressed one part of my comment but at that's much more than most creationists. And you are a creationist. You are just not a Young Earth Creationist. Based on your comment, I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you accept the current age of the Earth roughly 4.6 Billion years.
So you define kind as species. And do you believe in the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark.
thanks for the compliment ! I certainly accept the current age of our planet for at least billions of years because science has proof for it AND because I don't believe in a Genesis day limited to a literal 24 hours. That harmonizes the Bible and science perfectly doesn't it ?
2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial..." so I absolutely believe in a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark. There are many folklore accounts spread over the world.
context helps us to decide what is literally and what's symbolic.
There weren't 2 million species in the Ark. Some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 kinds of mammals,74 bird species and 10 reptile species in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind -short,tall,fat,thin etc.
Why decreases it the variation concept ? The dog family has many varieties, but dogs remain dogs. As is the case in the fossil record, today there is great variety in size and shape of bone structure in humans but all belong to the human "kind". Noah's ark was big enough to accomodate pairs of representative species.
I get your point. There are a few books in the library;
The Deluge Story in Stone by B.C. Nelson & The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeologoy by A.M. Rewinkel.
Something else: The prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jesus Christ as well as the apostles Peter and Paul all spoke of Noah as a real person.
I think Jesus certainly had enough background in genetics as he was God's son ! He could have easily argued survival of mankind and animals in the Ark, but he didn't !
Temperature change caused by so much water during the flood would be the most rapid and drastic. Various forms of life were thus engulfed and preserved in frozen muck. One such may have been the mammoth that was uncovered in Siberia with vegetation still in its mouth and stomach, and his flesh was even edible when thawed out. Quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell is perfectly preserved. It makes the Ark/flood account plausible.
And do you know what type of shells these are? It might just surprise you. And guess what, these shells are also found INSIDE the mountains as well. Care to know why?
"Temperature change caused by so much water during the flood would be the most rapid and drastic."
What temperature change? Do you realize for the rain to fall at the rate needed to flood the world in 40 days the water would have turned to steam.
Are you going to answer any of my previous questions? Or just continue to move the goalposts.
Answer me this, IF a flood happened, AND everything was killed at the same time (give or take a day or two) then why don't we have any Pre-Cambrian bunny rabbits?
I removed some comments because my English grammar is not always correct so please focus on what you CAN see.
You seem to be somebody with a scientifical background so surprise me, why are these shells also find inside the mountains ?
What questions I did not answer ? I mentioned some books written by investigators who explain the possibility of surviving representative species in the Ark. I agree, you don't ! Some of your replies were kinda ironical or just statements, not questions.
"why are these shells also find inside the mountains ?"
Why do you think they are there? And can you identify exactly what type of shells these are?
This coincides with your lack of understanding in basic genetics. Please don't take this as an insult as that is not my intention. But when someone tries to discount or refute something when they don't even possess the basic knowledge on the subject, they appear foolish.
Do you know the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis?
What temperature change?
I've searched the names of those authors you listed but haven't found much. B.C. Nelson wrote a book in 1931 called The Deluge Story in Stone. The other author search was even less helpful. Who are they? Geologists? Paleontologists? Biologists? 1931? C'mon man, try and keep up with modern science.
Did a bit more research on Rehwinkel. Turns out he's not a Geologist. In fact he has no background in science at all. I'm shocked! (please note the sarcasm).
I haven't got time to do some research about bottleneck & abiogenesis so far.
About the temperature change:
The downpour "overwhealmed the earth", being accompanied no doubt by freezing winds in the polar regions. This would cause temperature change. Vast herds of big,well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold suddenly were killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much swallow a last mouthful of food.
"Vast herds of big,well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold suddenly were killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much swallow a last mouthful of food."
What are you talking about here? Are you referring to the frozen mammoth?
"How old is Darwin's Origin of Species ? "
~150 years old, written in 1859. But I'm assuming you knew that already so what is your real question?
Still waiting for you to identify the fossils on these mountain tops.
"But I'm assuming you knew that already so what is your real question?"
Yes he knew that, and his point was to try and say "OMG its so old, you believe in that??" ...what a deceitful Creationist liar, eh?
And no, just like others you've mentioned Schmoikel, he wont say what fossils are on mountain tops and what IS NOT up there because that will destroy his/her argument in its entirety.
Creationists just fail on every level, as he proved.
"Creationists just fail on every level, as he proved".
As I said earlier, I believe in creation, but I'm not a literal 24 h creationist. Is that so hard to accept ? You should be glad that I'm not, 'cause the earth's age IS much, much older. If that makes me your enemy than you' re on a witchhunt !
What did Schmoikel proof ? I think he's very focused on geology & genetics and has more background than I do, but does that make the Bible completely irrelevant ? Even science is divided !
"As I said earlier, I believe in creation, but I'm not a literal 24 h creationist."
I KNOW!!! I F#$%ING KNOW! Why? Because I have seen people like you LIE through your teeth.
You already said that, and I said that you are being deceitful BECAUSE you will put in any amount of time you need to fulfill your need to appear to agree with some level of science.
How DARE you try and play that kind of argument. Glad?? I "should" be glad? If you were a literalist who believed in 24 hour days you would be dismissed without people spending much attention on you.
You are a literalist who cherry picks what makes it sound more reasonable for you while lying to yourself about still accepting the book as "truth".
Sabianfan, I see the elements of your Christian persecution complex coming through.
You cry about me making accusations against you that you didn't even make. You spent an entire post trying to paint yourself as a good and humble "husband" and "parent".
Dragging your family into the line of fire in a debate about your religious views? Disgusting. Do you think involving them shows me you actually are trying to be a good parent? You are using them as a shield.
You used your family as a shield to try and deflect your failures. So basically you have a pretty despicable set of morals.
Also, you KNOW that I know you are a literalist. You went to find a passage in the bible that allows you to put ANY amount of time you feel you need and point it to the word "day" in Genesis.
"only ready to devour my replies and give bad meaning to my words"
Yes, because I'm looking for an HONEST Theist who is worth dealing with... you seriously fail in that regard.
YOU lied about how you read and convey the Genesis myth in your book of fairy tales.
I KNOW you lied because of the way you said what you did, and the way you are defending yourself. You are deceitful, and I recognize this BS from hundreds of other Theists who have done the same.
"I think he's very focused on geology & genetics and has more background than I do,"
That is indeed true. However, you still can answer my questions or at least be intellectually honest and say "I don't know" AND then go look them up. You reject Evolution on the basis of science, yet fail to understand the science.
i'm back. I respect people who are indeed well educated. I think the point is that the whole discussion going on about ID makes it very interesting to look for clues that Genesis isn't just an ancient creation myth. I believe that fossils can learn us much about the history of life, but it doesn't answer the question how it got there. Darwin's book was the basis for a whole new way of thinking. That life could originate by chance. What is the geological answer ?
"I think the point is that the whole discussion going on about ID makes it very interesting to look for clues that Genesis isn't just an ancient creation myth."
ID has been destroyed already. ID isn't science. ID has no 'theory' nor does it even have a hypothesis.
"I believe that fossils can learn us much about the history of life,"
Indeed they can. And ALL the evidence supports TOE.
"but it doesn't answer the question how it got there. " And it doesn't try to.
"Darwin's book was the basis for a whole new way of thinking."
Not really. Darwin wasn't the first to propose Evolution. As he stated, "I stand on the shoulder of giants." However he did suggest a mechanism for Evolution. But so did Wallace (at about the same time).
"That life could originate by chance."
COMPLETELY WRONG. Sorry for the shouting but this is a very common mistake. Random Selection + Mutation= ToE. NOT CHANCE.
Astronomer sir Fred Hoyle said; "The big problem in biology isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties...if amino acids were linked at random there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell."
That's not a hypothesis, that's a statement by Hoyle. Who by the way, as you know, is not a biologist. I'm really not sure what your intent was by posting this.
If you are going to continue to avoid questions and quote mine from 'experts' then I see no need to continue this conversation.
However, if you wish to learn something about Evolution and Genetics and Biology, then please stick to the topic.
ID (creationism) has no hypothesis. By it's very definition it can't.
Please allow me to finish the words of Hoyle he spoke lecturing at the California Institute of technology where he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins. I think last is best!
"Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act."
Excuse me for quoting "experts" who are no biologists. I think you'll agree they are at least scientists ?
Yes Hoyle is a scientist. Are you familiar with the fallacy called 'Argument from Authority'? Hoyle also rejects The Big Bang. In fact, (if memory serves) he was the one who came up with the term Big Bang as a way to mock it. For some reason, the term stuck.
Hoyle was also a creationist. And a favorite among other creationists to use as their expert. His argument is flawed for several reasons.
"However, if you wish to learn something about Evolution and Genetics and Biology, then please stick to the topic."
You're right, let's get back to the "shell inside the mountain" issue.
I asked how they got there, of course realising it should have do do something with certain geological periods but hey, you're the expert so unveil me some inside information that helps me accepting the impossibility of Noah's Ark/ flood.
When the mountain tops were ocean sea-floor, all those millions of years ago, the ocean life died off over the years and deposit their bodies on the bottom.
Due to a continuous process of deposition, older bodies are buried and newer bodies land on top of the newer layers.
Those seafloors where pushed up as other tectonic plates were subducted under their plate which brings us to where we are now.
If you somehow dont believe in tectonic plate movement, look at any ocean topography map of Hawaii.
The hotspot that created that island is stationary, and has been for a very long time. The Pacific Plate has also been moving for a very long time, and its blatantly obvious by looking at the long chain of sea mounds underwater that used to be over the hotspot.
"If you are going to continue to avoid questions and quote mine from 'experts' then I see no need to continue this conversation."
Yeah, just as I could tell from his earlier conversations with me, you probably wont get much honesty from Sabinfan, Schmoikel.
I'm looking forward to seeing you crush him over this ID bit. I hope he has the courage to actually stay here and go through it, and not run away screaming.
"When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be ?"
I'll sit by and watch Schmoikel destroy you over this ID bullshit himself after I make this comment:
Intelligent Design is a tool for undereducated fucks from the Discovery Institute who were so threatened by the large and growing exodus (lol) of people from religion that they wrote the Wedge Strategy to compensate by FORCING religion into schools so they could try another version of corruption.
Also, Sabinfan, if you really want to know more about ID, and you are an actual adult who is trying to be fair and look at everything he can to make a good choice, then go to my channel.
The featured video is a lecture about Intelligent Design and how it died in the Dover trial. Watch it.
Then, go click on the Playlists button at the top of my channel and find my "The Fall of Intelligent Design". Watch some of those 70.
ID is dead. Those who support it deserve nothing but mockery.
Welcome back ThatOneQuestion and thank you for your continues interest in this conversation.
Now that's some useful information you are giving me here. I promise I'll watch your video because I certainly want to know more about ID and want to keep an open mind. Allow me the time to watch and think ok ?
Certainly 'that one question' (creation or evolution ?) never has been more important for mankind than ever before...it influences our eternal future !
"I promise I'll watch your video because I certainly want to know more about ID and want to keep an open mind."
I linked you to my channel, which has a thousand or two videos altogether. I specifically set out two places for you to look, which have 71 individual videos.
Several are series from people like the History or Nova channel, I cant remember exactly at the moment, but yeah.
If you are only going to watch one, that will be very disappointing.
"I just started watching your VID's. I'll be back within another week or so... "
Glad to see at least one of you has the courage to actually examine the "other side" for once.
Feel free to send me PM's if you have questions or comments on any specific video. Be sure to link the video if you do so I can see it all in context.
"eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures."
Okay, so 16,000 divided by 8 is 2000 creatures to feed/water per day, per person.
So, lets say you spend one minute per animal to feed, water, and care for them (higene).
2000 divided by 60 equals 33.3 hours. That is physically impossible as there are 24 hours in a day and at least 4 of those MUST be devoted to sleep, and lets say another hour in there for eating/other.
The San Diego Zoo has over 4000 animals. How many employees do you think they have to manage those animals?
You could send them an email to ask how much time each employee devotes to each animal for the specific acts of feeding, watering, and taking care of the animal and its living quarters.
Saying 8 people can take care of 16,000 animals is simply absurd.
In his book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word specie is not equivalent to the created kinds of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. He continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.
"Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark."
Okay, now THIS is pure BS. 2000 animals as the baseline for the entire diversity of the animal kingdom today? That myth took place about 4500 years ago.
The only way he could explain the speciation rates at impossible levels are with "MAGIC MAN DONE IT!", and that is anything BUT credible.
I've watched all the vid's about the Dover trial so far, that's a start isn't it ? I still have to watch much much more, such as your other video's and the video's about Abiogenesis, Bottleneck etc.
Besides that, I also need time to translate the more difficult words and I'm also enjoying the beautiful weather in between with my family...
"Isn't life beautiful ? Have a little patience... "
What do you expect? Just like I said, you went from an empty promise (until you now validated it with what I can only assume is your honesty) to seemingly ignore everything I said.
You ignored my posts here about the math involved with tending to 16000 animals. Why?
I did the damn math for you, and you ignore it in favor of some random AiG liar using deceit to assume it could happen anyway. That isn't honest.
"I've watched all the vid's about the Dover trial so far, that's a start isn't it ?"
Only if you arn't sitting there letting it play and simply ignoring it. How do I know you are actually accepting what they are saying, even with the proof right there for you?
That is the real issue... how can anyone know you are even taking those seriously?
"eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures."
Okay, so 16,000 divided by 8 is 2000 creatures to feed/water per day, per person.
So, lets say you spend one minute per animal to feed, water, and care for them (higene).
2000 divided by 60 equals 33.3 hours. That is physically impossible as there are 24 hours in a day and at least 4 of those MUST be devoted to sleep, and lets say another hour in there for eating/other.
Holy Scriptures doesn't tell us HOW many animals were in the Ark. There are different estimations. Some say 2,000, others 16,000.
You are absolutely right about your math BUT...we don't know how many animals needed daily care. I could easily feed a lot of birds or rodents in one minute time. Not all animals were big mammals and they need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Also some animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. Survival was the primary goal.
"Holy Scriptures doesn't tell us HOW many animals were in the Ark."
This is why you will forever be mocked as ignorant.
Your "holy scriptures" DO make several claims about the flood that are absolutely ridiculous and impossible, yet here you are, brushing off the facts that discourage you with the idea that your Magic Man can do anything, and your book cant possibly be wrong.
About your video's, I was familiar with Michael J. Behe and his book Darwin's Black Box.I don't agree with Richard Dawkins who says in the 3d part of the Dover Trial;
WHEN ONE SAYS THAT IN AMERICA INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS GETTING A HOLD,IT IS NOT GETTING A HOLD IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND THE INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITY. IT IS GETTING HOLD ONLY AMONG THOSE PARTS OF THE POPULATION WHO DONT KNOW ANYTHING.
I think the Discovery Institute did a great job to embrace the idea of a designer.
I sure mentioned that in 1999 a fund raising document "The Wedge Strategy" was leaked. Prof. Barbara Forrest said IT IS A VERY CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING
So what ? The Bible doesn't exclude science. Phillip Johnson said: "The problem is that the other side doesn't want to admit that it's a scientific discussion because as soon as they do then we have a place at the table and then the critic of the evolution theory that we offer has to be taken seriously".
"There is ONLY Bronze Age "science" in that book."
Do you really believe that TOQ ?
Then I have a questions for you;
About 2700 years ago, the Bible said in Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the CIRCLE of the earth...".
The hebrew word "chugh",translated "circle", can also mean "sphere". Thus the Bible was not influenced by the erroneous, flat-earth view prevalent when it was written. How could Isaiah know the truth ?
Book: "Reasoning about the scriptures" (not available in the shops) and Wikipedia (search "Flat Earth"). It says;
"The flat Earth model is an ancient view of the Earth's shape which conceived of it as flat like a piece of paper or an infinite plane. This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is spherical."
"Why is it unavailable, and how do you have it? Who wrote it?"
It was written by the governing body of The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, all on voluntarily basis and therefore not commercial. I got it for free.
According to the online Encyclopaedia Britannica Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a Greek scientist made the first measurement of the size of Earth for which any details are known. He was born c. 276 bc. Both Encyclopaedia Brittanica and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia say that Isaiah was called to prophecy in about 742 bc coincided with the beginnings of the westward expansion of the Assyrian empire and the year of King Uzziah's death (c.742 B.C.).
"And are you still watching those ID trial videos?"
Sure I am, and thanks to you (and Schmoikel of course) I'm getting more insight in evolutionary thinking than ever before !
I'll be back on Kenneth Miller soon...I will explain why I disagree with his "Disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap" statement in the YouTube clip.
...does not remove the fact that the flagellar system still has a minimum structural requirement that cannot be reduced beyond a high threshold point without complete loss of the flagellar motility function. System reduction may leave the TTSS system intact, since the TTSS system has a much lower minimum threshold structural requirement. However, having the TTSS function in place, does not mean that the flagellar function will also be in place.
... The flagellar motility system still requires at least 35-40 genes producing a structure with at least 21 different specifically arranged proteins each requiring a minimum of hundreds of specifically arranged amino acid residues in order for the function of flagellar motility to be realized at all - even a little bit. Just because one or more subsystems may be found within the overall requirements needed to build a flagellar motility system, such as a TTSS system,...
...Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Kenneth Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."
What "mainstream scientists", like Kenneth Miller, don't seem to understand is that all systems of function are irreducibly complex regardless of whether or not a working subsystem can be found within the larger system...
Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living eukaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work...
"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
Behe chose the flagellar motility system as one of his examples of an irreducibly complex system. However, the following is an interesting reaction to Behe's concept of irreducible complexity - suggesting that the flagellar system really isn't irreducibly complex at all:
this one is about the ID trial video's (as promised), not about Noah's ark.
Prof. Behe may have lost in court but I really think the problem with Kenneth Miller is that he in fact does not prove ID is wrong.
I found the next statement from Sean D. Pitman on the web about this subject. I numbered them I to V. Credits go to him of course for this great article.
Michael Behe talks about "irreducible complexity" as:.................................cont.
I get your point. I only want you to know that from a believer's point of view, God created everything and everything is therefore in relationship to that creator. That gives science an extra dimension because man can only study Gods work and can go on eternally with it because we still have so much to learn about our beautiful planet and the universe. When evolutionists rise against ID, they weaken the public opinion to adapt creation.
"I only want you to know that from a believer's point of view, God created everything and everything is therefore in relationship to that creator."
Irrelevant to the topic. You cant attempt to validate "science" with religious "relationships", it simply doesn't work. Thats what you guys just dont understand.
"That gives science an extra dimension"
Wrong. You dont realize that you arn't even close to science with "Magic Man done it".
"The hebrew word "chugh",translated "circle", can also mean "sphere". "
Sorry Sabianfan, you are wrong. The hebrew word for circle is chuwg. And it means circle. The hebrew word for sphere (or ball) is duwr as in Isiah 22:18.
"Sorry Sabianfan, you are wrong. The Hebrew word for circle is chuwg. And it means circle. The hebrew word for sphere (or ball) is duwr as in Isiah 22:18."
This needs a further investigation, my information tree is growing and growing.
Right now therefore I'm watching the video's from YouTube user Danmill 23 (a series of 4 vid's - 5th is on the way- called "Flat Earth Bible"). Interesting stuff...interesting replies also...
I'll be back in a week or so...I'm on the plane tomorrow !
When the Bible was being written there was speculation regarding how the earth was held in space. Some, for example, believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Yet rather than reflect the unscientific views existing at its time of writing, the Bible simply stated in Job 26; "God is stretching out the north over the empty space, HANGING THE EARTH UPON NOTHING"
He didn't. People like you love to misinterpret the bible and twist it in every way to make it suit your purposes, ignoring every other creation myth in the world as well.
Many others say something similar.
You know what, Sabinfan, I hear this "science" content from many others of Islam. They say their book has just as many "scientific" aspects.
"I hear this "science" content from many others of Islam. They say their book has just as many "scientific" aspects.
How do YOU explain that?"
Islam teaches belief in 4 Holy books. Do you know what those books are ? The Bible (divided in 3 parts) + Holy Qu'oraan. So there's very much accordance between those books. Qu'oraan is written more than 500 years after the completion of the Bible, so it benefits the passing of time.
The Bible isn't a scientifical essay but nevertheless reliable
"Everything in the bible is open to interpretation by anyone who wants to twist it into anything else."
Did you really read the whole Bible ? Have you studied prophecies about Jesus ?
Is evolution theory not twisting things into anything else ? Science agrees on ID when we talk about cars, computers, even simpler things as a spoon but many scientists disagree when this is applied to life and the earth.
Oh, and do you think Muslims will have serious issue with your atheistic claims ?
"Science agrees on ID when we talk about cars, computers, even simpler things as a spoon but many scientists disagree when this is applied to life and the earth."
Bullshit, you little fool.
Dont you dare twist things around like that again.
You will only brand yourself a liar and a fool if you do.
"The Jews can tell you all the reasons why Jesus fails as the "messiah".
Dont hear it from me, hear it from those who think they know the answer as a religious fact."
That's not a direct answer TOQ. I asked you, not the Jews. Your one question "what is religion?" implicates that you should do an investigation of prophecies about Jesus for yourself instead of refering me to Islam of Judaism. Isaiah chapter 53 for instance is just only 1 reason why I do believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
"After all, their religion is older than yours, and you are adapting their book to your way of life. Didn't consider that, did you?"
That all depends on your point of vieuw. I personally accept the whole Bible. Christ is foretold in the "O. T." by jewish prophets so we can't divide the Bible in two. 2 Timothy 3:16 says: "ALL Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..."
Romans 2:29 says "But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit..."
Hello TOQ, I'm back from Crete, roasted and ready to continue so...about Noah's ark;
Do you only reject the account because it's in the Bible ? I mean, such a huge catastrophe, if it really happened, would never have been completely forgotten, agree ? Hence, in many nations there are reminders of that destruction. Consider, for example, the precise date recorded in the Bible. The second month of the ancient calendar ran from what we now call mid-October to mid-November.
"Different cultures around the world have fables and stories about floods because of one simple fact: our planet's surface is mostly water."
Come on TOQ, Disasters happen, I know that too. You still don't explain why those global flood legends have biblical details in common as mentioned earlier. A lot of those ancient peoples never had the chance to read the Bible.
It is also remarkable that the Ark's proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects.
@Sabianfan If Noah knew so much about naval architecture why didn't he know how to navigate with a crow? Civilisation means agriculture, which means flood planes. I know 6 flood stories from UK in the last year alone. The Noah story is simply silly. It's a childrens story, aand that and adult ccould take it sirously is a disgrace. Did God do it because man was wicked? NO, He did it because man was noisy. If you're going to quote flood stories please get them right.
>"If Noah knew so much about naval architecture why didn't he know how to navigate with a crow?"
You consider the Noah story to be silly, but you seem to ignore who gave Noah the instructions. So, re-read Genesis 6:15 ("And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height.") and ask yourself, who is talking to Noah about naval architecture here?
@Sabianfan "According to Sumerian religion, the flood came to eliminate the noise makers--not the sinful people, but those who were making noise so the gods couldn’t sleep," says Englund.
We have Sumerian documents, with the crows and doves, 2000 years older than any documents of the Hebrews.
Do you really prefer Sumerian religion and "making noise" as a better explanation? After noting differences between Flood accounts from the Bible & ancient Babylon, P. J. Wiseman wrote in New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis: “The Bible account is simple in its ideas, and irreproachable in its teaching about God, while the Babylonian tablets are complex and polytheistic.
>"2000 years older"? You have an overactive imagination! The Gilgamesj epic is a few hundred years older.
@Sabianfan We have Sumerian documents of Gilgamesh 2,000 years older than any Hebrew documents. 'irreproachable in it's teaching about God'? Who is this clown? This is the God who just comitted the worst genocide in mythology, mostly against the innocent. 'The Biblical account is simple in it's ideas..', simple to the point of inbicility. If he wants to make a point of polytheism I should point out that Noah worshipped Elohim, which is plural.
>"We have Sumerian documents of Gilgamesh 2,000 years older than any Hebrew documents"
The Gilgamesj-epos is dated approximately 2,000 BC.
In 2007 Biblical Archaeology Review declared that ancient Hebrew upon two silver scrolls showed the inscription of the Aaronic blessing/priestly benediction from Numbers 6:24-26. These silver scrolls date back to 7th century BC (500 years older than the Dead Sea scrolls).
@Sabianfan I would take the uncorroberated word of the BAR about nothing, as they have an agenda. I find they attempt balance frequently, and try hard, but still. If I said I find the scrolls less than impressive compared with the Sumerian documents we have, I'm sure you would understand.
As Jhwh doesn't get a mention before Exodus 3:14 Noah is left with Elohim, and thats plural.
Young is using poetic licence to enforce a unity that doesn't exist in our best estimations of originals.
@Sabianfan "According to Sumerian religion, the flood came to eliminate the noise makers--not the sinful people, but those who were making noise so the gods couldn’t sleep," says Englund.
We have Sumerian documents, with the crows and doves, 2000 years older than any documents of the Hebrews.
Incas wouldn't have the same connotations about November as you have.
Civilisation means good agriculture, which means flood planes. Of course they all have flood stories.
@Sabianfan It's the end of the summer almost everything dies, or looks like it dies, or wishes it was dead, apart from the Incas, of course, who would regard your hypothesis as absurd.
hard to trace their ancestors! Whatever their ancestor is, what is important is that I forgot all my problems just by watching them swim..
happinesson 1 month ago
One of the most difficult fossils to find and prove evolution are those of creatures under the sea.
agapitoflores001 2 months ago
what the heck
SelenaFreak01 4 months ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
Creationist: 0 - Evolution: over 9000
A11ex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to be free of this delusional HEMG religion of Evotards, then learn what real science is. Goto evolutionforum (dot) info and get the whole truth about this crap pseudo science.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Other difficulties that evolutionists have to face with regards to whale evolution is the birthing of calves underwater! What possible evolutionary advantage was gained by bringing your air breathing kids into this world underwater! Only a perfectly designed animal could pull this off, as the whales do every day. Anything less than fully perfect and you are Shark Bait! Also: What do you all do with Hitler? Was he evil or good? As a TRUE evolutionist, he practised survival of the fittest!
samandersn 1 year ago
@samandersn "Other difficulties that evolutionists have to face with regards to whale evolution is the birthing of calves underwater! What possible evolutionary advantage was gained by bringing your air breathing kids into this world underwater! "
Water-dwelling species giving birth to water-dwelling young?? Absurd!
You know what difficulties creationists face? Dealing with actual evidence and reality. To the creationist, why are there air-breathing mammals that live underwater anyway?
ChaseKittens 1 year ago
Sharks are everywhere, even in rivers! How did baleen evolve? How did a grass eating cow evolve into a massive filter feeder? I bet there were several times in the transition from teeth to baleen that he wished could sink his teeth into some delicious seaweed!
Question: Why did sperm whales evolve the ability to dive deep? So many things need to happen for this to be possible. Answer: They knew that Giant Squid were down there and that's their favortie food! BTW sharks luv 2 eat dogs!
samandersn 1 year ago
The migration of the nose on the end of the face into a blowhole on the top of the head is a miracle of evolutionary willpower! Think of all the water they breathed in every day as they waded into the seas to compete with the ancient sharks! But they were the brave pioneers of evolution, because they knew that several million years later it would be worth all the water they had to swallow, to become the sleek and swift whales and dolphins that could finally compete with the sharks.
samandersn 1 year ago
@samandersn Points to consider: 1) Sharks are not everywhere, so the area ancestral whales evolved in could have been free of them, or just had a small number. For example, a shallow area near land, seeing as they evolved from land mammals.
2) Does a dog drown when it swims? No, it holds its head above the water. However, it's easy to see this can use up plenty of energy, which would be needed if it got into trouble. With the nose getting higher, less energy is required to hold the head up.
serotoninwraith 1 year ago
If you watched all of the video, they say that animals such as hippos have a higher bone density because they walk on the bottom of the river bottom. A higher bone density would imply more mass, which means the animal would be more likely to sink to the bottom of a river/ocean. Like the video said, this animal was aquatic, not a swimmer, but simply a creature that lived in the shallows of a shore.
likeomgwtfsrsly 1 year ago
At 4:00, the lady says that the thin bone is from a land animal, and the thick one indicates that the animal lived in water. It seems that it should be the other way around because animals in water have to deal with less gravity. In fact, I heard that competitive swimmers have thin bones because they spend a lot of time in water.
aeg1000 2 years ago
Like she said they have thick bones similar to the hippopotamus to reduce their buoyancy, so the animal effectively sinks and can walk on a river bottom.
samopurple 2 years ago
Samopurple, do you mean the bones worked as "cement galoshes"? Then the animal would drown. Hippopotamus does not walk on river beds; it is a good swimmer. It walks on land, and that is why he needs thick bones - to support its huge mass. Elephant has thick leg bones, and it does not live in water. My point is: thick fossil bones do not mean it lived in water. To make that claim is like shooting an arrow at a wall, paint a bulls eye around it, and claim perfect shot. It is not science.
aeg1000 2 years ago
Im sure more bone adds to bouancy
postme12 2 years ago
postme12, bones sink; look at soup. My point is: science must be based on knowledge, not wishful thinking. Knowledge shows that land animals have thick bones; aquatic animals, including whales, have thin, soft, spongy bones. For an aquatic animal to develop thick bones would be a miracle, not evolution.
aeg1000 2 years ago
Aeg1000, i would be careful when using the word 'miracle' when people are talking about science seriously. I wasn't stating that the bones float i was merely proposing that bone helps bouancy, well better than fat or blubber would. I could be wrong however and i do like it when im wrong so i learn something. I think you need to look at a the evolution of the whale more closley to tell you that the animals physiology evoloved to it's best means.
postme12 2 years ago
Another factor you don't mention is the higher pressure under water. Water creatures need thick bones in order for them to handle the higher pressure. A human swimmer don't swim very deep, therefore it don't need thick bones. Whales on the other hand do need it.
MrKennyBones 2 years ago
Wow, Pakicetus was discovered only in 2001! This evidence is still hot of the press, so to speak.
GPLeague 2 years ago 5
darwin is the real orangotan, evolution is not give
DuMaN68cCc 2 years ago
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits, "Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord SHAL BE SAVED
valu777 2 years ago
"Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits, "Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed."
Seeing as how Darwin never wrote a book entitled, "My Life and Letters" and this so called quote has been floating around the net for some time, I challenge you valu777 to support this claim.
Either you have been led to believe this lie or you yourself know it is a lie and just broke one of your precious commandments.
Which is it?
Schmoikel 2 years ago
well... this is the first time on youtube that ive seen such a debate. i thought these couldnt exists cause someone would come along and say 'OMG NOOBZ! I IZ CORRECTZ U IZ FAIL!!11'
radicalhit 2 years ago
these are the key words used by the evolutionists "PERHAPS" "WE THINK SO" "MAYBE" "COULD BE". all these words denote that there are no facts.
tareekhnawees 2 years ago
"all these words denote that there are no facts. "
Wrong. That is a blatant lie, and you know it, scum.
Whats more, thats just very ironic. You have NO "facts" to validate anything in your religion because it is something that requires faith: belief without facts.
Dont be such a hypocrite, dumbass.
Also, look up what a Scientific Theory is to destroy that ignorant claim of yours.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you son of a bitch do not know me and you fuck face would not dare stand in front of me. If a priest or rabbi f-ed you, you should not hate religion you should hate that person. I can see you have a lot of anger inside you. Yes religion is based on faith but what has that got to do with what I said? If religion is wrong, that does not make your Evolution theory right. I believe in adaptation of a specie but not sudden jump to another specie.
tareekhnawees 2 years ago
"I believe in adaptation of a specie but not sudden jump to another specie. "
The Theory of Evolution does not state there is a sudden jump to another species. You have to think in terms of Geological Time. Keep in mind, the Cambrian Explosion took over 10 million years.* and isn't what you or I would consider an explosion.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
yes "PERHAPS" I was a bit loose with my choice of words, by SUDEN JUMP I mean to say MUTATION, I mean GENETIC MUTATION, where for some random non designed unconscious way a Gen Mutates and a whale is born with legs or without it, which happens to guarantee its survival for millions of years before it happens randomly again.
tareekhnawees 2 years ago
"where for some random non designed unconscious way a Gen Mutates"
Are you suggesting genes have a consciousness? Does a sodium atom consciously attach itself to chloride atom and they just know to come together and form NaCl?
And since when does a mutation like whale legs happen all at once? That isn't a claim made in this video or anywhere in ToE.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"these are the key words used by the evolutionists "PERHAPS" "WE THINK SO" "MAYBE" "COULD BE". all these words denote that there are no facts. "
Everything in science is tentative. Nothing in science is ever 'proven'. This is a strength and not a weakness. Do you know why?
"there are no facts"
Complete bollocks. No disrespect intended here but is it safe to assume you have no scientific background, other than perhaps high school?
Schmoikel 2 years ago
your assumption about me is based on "MAYBE" and "PERHAPS" . its scientific and tantative you are entitled to it till you see me or get to know me.
tareekhnawees 2 years ago
Sabianfan, I like how you go from "I just started watching your VID's. I'll be back within another week or so... "
to making a case about some Creationist trying to use psudo-science in validating the Noah's Ark fairy tale.
I bet you didn't even watch any of my videos. Remember, I even said you could PM me with questions or comments. I got nothing from you.
Instead, you'd rather ignore my channel and continue with silly old men talking about their magic man.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Interesting Conversation...
Diaz26IV 2 years ago
Thank you, I think it's interesting too...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
Excellent work folks - ALL of you. From the field to the lab this is a brave project whose results will one day have a major impact on the issues we perceive as reality. Many thanks from a humbled, always evolving bi-ped. That Ray Guy
ThatRayGuy 2 years ago
Quick! Give the technician more stuff to break!
Slotherder 3 years ago
Nice vid. I can't believe the nutjobs havn't found you yet.
grenangle 3 years ago 4
That's because they are all wearing their biblical glasses. It makes them blind to reality.
Schmoikel 3 years ago 3
Hello Schmoikel, I certainly wear Biblical glasses but I am certainly NOT BLIND.
I believe this video only confirms the words in Genesis 1:21 "And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves around, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.
This video is just prove for variation within the species, not an explanation for the origin of life !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I believe"
Care to back up your belief? I like how you take just one part of Genesis.
"according to its kind"
Please define 'kind'.
"This video is just prove for variation within the species, not an explanation for the origin of life ! "
Once again, a creationist confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Hello again,
Kind = form = species (who's members can interbreed)
By the way, I believe in creation but I am not a creationist. Let me explain why;
The Hebrew word "yohm" translated "day" can mean different lenghts of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time..." It would seem reasonable that the "days" of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time
Sabianfan 2 years ago
Well you only addressed one part of my comment but at that's much more than most creationists. And you are a creationist. You are just not a Young Earth Creationist. Based on your comment, I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you accept the current age of the Earth roughly 4.6 Billion years.
So you define kind as species. And do you believe in the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Hello Schmoikel,
thanks for the compliment ! I certainly accept the current age of our planet for at least billions of years because science has proof for it AND because I don't believe in a Genesis day limited to a literal 24 hours. That harmonizes the Bible and science perfectly doesn't it ?
2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial..." so I absolutely believe in a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark. There are many folklore accounts spread over the world.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"because science has proof for it"
Be careful with your wording here. Science never proves anything. Everything in science is only tentative. But I won't argue semantics.
So you don't believe in a 24 day in Genesis but you believe in Noah's Wild Ride. How do you decide what is to be taken literally and what isn't?
Care to explain how 8 people could care for ~ 2 million species for an entire year?
Schmoikel 2 years ago
context helps us to decide what is literally and what's symbolic.
There weren't 2 million species in the Ark. Some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 kinds of mammals,74 bird species and 10 reptile species in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind -short,tall,fat,thin etc.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"context helps us to decide what is literally and what's symbolic."
So it's pick and choose then. How convenient.
"Some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 kinds of mammals,74 bird species and 10 reptile species in the ark,"
And these 'investigators are? Names please.
"they could have produced the variety of species known today"
127 species produced an estimated 2 million? I guess you never heard of bottleneck....cont...
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding "
And I'm also going to assume you don't have much background in genetics. Inbreeding actually DECREASES your 'variation' concept.
"so few "kinds" following the flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind -short,tall,fat,thin etc. "
Complete and utter failure. And 'humankind'? Are you just making words up now?
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Why decreases it the variation concept ? The dog family has many varieties, but dogs remain dogs. As is the case in the fossil record, today there is great variety in size and shape of bone structure in humans but all belong to the human "kind". Noah's ark was big enough to accomodate pairs of representative species.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Why decreases it the variation concept ?"
I really don't have the time or inclination to educate you on the subject of genetics. The library is your friend.
"Noah's ark was big enough to accomodate pairs of representative species. "
No disrespect intended but that statement is so blatantly preposterous I don't even know where to begin.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
I get your point. There are a few books in the library;
The Deluge Story in Stone by B.C. Nelson & The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeologoy by A.M. Rewinkel.
Something else: The prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jesus Christ as well as the apostles Peter and Paul all spoke of Noah as a real person.
I think Jesus certainly had enough background in genetics as he was God's son ! He could have easily argued survival of mankind and animals in the Ark, but he didn't !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sabianfan 2 years ago
And there is more !
Seashells are found on high mountains !
Temperature change caused by so much water during the flood would be the most rapid and drastic. Various forms of life were thus engulfed and preserved in frozen muck. One such may have been the mammoth that was uncovered in Siberia with vegetation still in its mouth and stomach, and his flesh was even edible when thawed out. Quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell is perfectly preserved. It makes the Ark/flood account plausible.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Seashells are found on high mountains"
And do you know what type of shells these are? It might just surprise you. And guess what, these shells are also found INSIDE the mountains as well. Care to know why?
"Temperature change caused by so much water during the flood would be the most rapid and drastic."
What temperature change? Do you realize for the rain to fall at the rate needed to flood the world in 40 days the water would have turned to steam.
If these forms of life....cont...
Schmoikel 2 years ago
...strange...I don't see your comments anymore...
Are you going to answer any of my previous questions? Or just continue to move the goalposts.
Answer me this, IF a flood happened, AND everything was killed at the same time (give or take a day or two) then why don't we have any Pre-Cambrian bunny rabbits?
Schmoikel 2 years ago
I removed some comments because my English grammar is not always correct so please focus on what you CAN see.
You seem to be somebody with a scientifical background so surprise me, why are these shells also find inside the mountains ?
What questions I did not answer ? I mentioned some books written by investigators who explain the possibility of surviving representative species in the Ark. I agree, you don't ! Some of your replies were kinda ironical or just statements, not questions.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"why are these shells also find inside the mountains ?"
Why do you think they are there? And can you identify exactly what type of shells these are?
This coincides with your lack of understanding in basic genetics. Please don't take this as an insult as that is not my intention. But when someone tries to discount or refute something when they don't even possess the basic knowledge on the subject, they appear foolish.
...cont.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"What questions I did not answer ?"
Do you understand the term 'bottleneck'?
Do you know the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis?
What temperature change?
I've searched the names of those authors you listed but haven't found much. B.C. Nelson wrote a book in 1931 called The Deluge Story in Stone. The other author search was even less helpful. Who are they? Geologists? Paleontologists? Biologists? 1931? C'mon man, try and keep up with modern science.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Did a bit more research on Rehwinkel. Turns out he's not a Geologist. In fact he has no background in science at all. I'm shocked! (please note the sarcasm).
Schmoikel 2 years ago
I haven't got time to do some research about bottleneck & abiogenesis so far.
About the temperature change:
The downpour "overwhealmed the earth", being accompanied no doubt by freezing winds in the polar regions. This would cause temperature change. Vast herds of big,well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold suddenly were killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much swallow a last mouthful of food.
How old is Darwin's Origin of Species ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I haven't got time to do some research about bottleneck & abiogenesis so far."
You've spend several days commenting on this video but don't have the time to do proper research into basic genetics? Somehow I doubt your sincerity.
"The downpour "overwhealmed the earth", being accompanied no doubt by freezing winds in the polar regions."
This is an assertion on your part. You need to back it up with actual evidence.
...cont...
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"Vast herds of big,well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold suddenly were killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much swallow a last mouthful of food."
What are you talking about here? Are you referring to the frozen mammoth?
"How old is Darwin's Origin of Species ? "
~150 years old, written in 1859. But I'm assuming you knew that already so what is your real question?
Still waiting for you to identify the fossils on these mountain tops.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"But I'm assuming you knew that already so what is your real question?"
Yes he knew that, and his point was to try and say "OMG its so old, you believe in that??" ...what a deceitful Creationist liar, eh?
And no, just like others you've mentioned Schmoikel, he wont say what fossils are on mountain tops and what IS NOT up there because that will destroy his/her argument in its entirety.
Creationists just fail on every level, as he proved.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Creationists just fail on every level, as he proved".
As I said earlier, I believe in creation, but I'm not a literal 24 h creationist. Is that so hard to accept ? You should be glad that I'm not, 'cause the earth's age IS much, much older. If that makes me your enemy than you' re on a witchhunt !
What did Schmoikel proof ? I think he's very focused on geology & genetics and has more background than I do, but does that make the Bible completely irrelevant ? Even science is divided !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"As I said earlier, I believe in creation, but I'm not a literal 24 h creationist."
I KNOW!!! I F#$%ING KNOW! Why? Because I have seen people like you LIE through your teeth.
You already said that, and I said that you are being deceitful BECAUSE you will put in any amount of time you need to fulfill your need to appear to agree with some level of science.
YOU ARE DECEITFUL because of that.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"You should be glad that I'm not,"
How DARE you try and play that kind of argument. Glad?? I "should" be glad? If you were a literalist who believed in 24 hour days you would be dismissed without people spending much attention on you.
You are a literalist who cherry picks what makes it sound more reasonable for you while lying to yourself about still accepting the book as "truth".
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"but does that make the Bible completely irrelevant ?"
No, but what DOES make it irrelevant is being written by ignorant savages living in the Bronze Age.
"Even science is divided ! "
No it isn't. How dare you lie yet again. I demand you actually validate this statement and PROVE there is ANY kind of division in science.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Sabianfan, I see the elements of your Christian persecution complex coming through.
You cry about me making accusations against you that you didn't even make. You spent an entire post trying to paint yourself as a good and humble "husband" and "parent".
Dragging your family into the line of fire in a debate about your religious views? Disgusting. Do you think involving them shows me you actually are trying to be a good parent? You are using them as a shield.
Pathetic.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
You don't seem to appreciate my openness, only ready to devour my replies and give bad meaning to my words, so let's make a deal.
I'll started this with Schmoikel and I'll finish this with Schmoikel. It will save me time so I can do more research, ok ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"You don't seem to appreciate my openness"
I dont appreciate your deceitful personality.
You used your family as a shield to try and deflect your failures. So basically you have a pretty despicable set of morals.
Also, you KNOW that I know you are a literalist. You went to find a passage in the bible that allows you to put ANY amount of time you feel you need and point it to the word "day" in Genesis.
You are deceitful.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"only ready to devour my replies and give bad meaning to my words"
Yes, because I'm looking for an HONEST Theist who is worth dealing with... you seriously fail in that regard.
YOU lied about how you read and convey the Genesis myth in your book of fairy tales.
I KNOW you lied because of the way you said what you did, and the way you are defending yourself. You are deceitful, and I recognize this BS from hundreds of other Theists who have done the same.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Time is not right for us to continue this discussion.
I'm searching for mutual thoughts, people who give BOTH science & the bible a chance. You seem to have labeled every holy book unfit...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"You seem to have labeled every holy book unfit..."
Yes, because they are unfit as they have no evidence to back them up in the real world.
People who follow those books turn to making shit up to validate the continued belief in which ever fair tale they want to believe in.
Religion is a security blanket for the weak willed, Sabianfan, nothing more.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"I think he's very focused on geology & genetics and has more background than I do,"
That is indeed true. However, you still can answer my questions or at least be intellectually honest and say "I don't know" AND then go look them up. You reject Evolution on the basis of science, yet fail to understand the science.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Hello Schmoikel,
i'm back. I respect people who are indeed well educated. I think the point is that the whole discussion going on about ID makes it very interesting to look for clues that Genesis isn't just an ancient creation myth. I believe that fossils can learn us much about the history of life, but it doesn't answer the question how it got there. Darwin's book was the basis for a whole new way of thinking. That life could originate by chance. What is the geological answer ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"i'm back." - Welcome back.
"I think the point is that the whole discussion going on about ID makes it very interesting to look for clues that Genesis isn't just an ancient creation myth."
ID has been destroyed already. ID isn't science. ID has no 'theory' nor does it even have a hypothesis.
"I believe that fossils can learn us much about the history of life,"
Indeed they can. And ALL the evidence supports TOE.
"but it doesn't answer the question how it got there. " And it doesn't try to.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"Darwin's book was the basis for a whole new way of thinking."
Not really. Darwin wasn't the first to propose Evolution. As he stated, "I stand on the shoulder of giants." However he did suggest a mechanism for Evolution. But so did Wallace (at about the same time).
"That life could originate by chance."
COMPLETELY WRONG. Sorry for the shouting but this is a very common mistake. Random Selection + Mutation= ToE. NOT CHANCE.
"What is the geological answer ? "
Answer to what?
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"ID has no theory/hypothesis"
I'm shocked ! What about this hypothesis;
Astronomer sir Fred Hoyle said; "The big problem in biology isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties...if amino acids were linked at random there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell."
Sabianfan 2 years ago
That's not a hypothesis, that's a statement by Hoyle. Who by the way, as you know, is not a biologist. I'm really not sure what your intent was by posting this.
If you are going to continue to avoid questions and quote mine from 'experts' then I see no need to continue this conversation.
However, if you wish to learn something about Evolution and Genetics and Biology, then please stick to the topic.
ID (creationism) has no hypothesis. By it's very definition it can't.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Please allow me to finish the words of Hoyle he spoke lecturing at the California Institute of technology where he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins. I think last is best!
"Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act."
Excuse me for quoting "experts" who are no biologists. I think you'll agree they are at least scientists ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
Yes Hoyle is a scientist. Are you familiar with the fallacy called 'Argument from Authority'? Hoyle also rejects The Big Bang. In fact, (if memory serves) he was the one who came up with the term Big Bang as a way to mock it. For some reason, the term stuck.
Hoyle was also a creationist. And a favorite among other creationists to use as their expert. His argument is flawed for several reasons.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
Thanks to Youtube, and their 500 count limit it would easier for me to direct you here.
w w w(dot) talkorigins(dot) org / faqs / abioprob/abioprob(dot) html
Stupid youtube linking issue. Remove the spaces and replace (dot) with .
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"However, if you wish to learn something about Evolution and Genetics and Biology, then please stick to the topic."
You're right, let's get back to the "shell inside the mountain" issue.
I asked how they got there, of course realising it should have do do something with certain geological periods but hey, you're the expert so unveil me some inside information that helps me accepting the impossibility of Noah's Ark/ flood.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"You're right, let's get back to the "shell inside the mountain" issue."
Well, if you are going to drop the ID topic, then I'll jump in too.
Sabianfan, the fact that you only refer to one specific group of fossils "in mountains" defeats your entire argument right then and there.
If there was a flood, there would be human, dinosaur, tiger and cat fossils in there as well, all jumbled up.
Your argument is simply self-defeating.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
When the mountain tops were ocean sea-floor, all those millions of years ago, the ocean life died off over the years and deposit their bodies on the bottom.
Due to a continuous process of deposition, older bodies are buried and newer bodies land on top of the newer layers.
Those seafloors where pushed up as other tectonic plates were subducted under their plate which brings us to where we are now.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
If you somehow dont believe in tectonic plate movement, look at any ocean topography map of Hawaii.
The hotspot that created that island is stationary, and has been for a very long time. The Pacific Plate has also been moving for a very long time, and its blatantly obvious by looking at the long chain of sea mounds underwater that used to be over the hotspot.
Any questions?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"If you are going to continue to avoid questions and quote mine from 'experts' then I see no need to continue this conversation."
Yeah, just as I could tell from his earlier conversations with me, you probably wont get much honesty from Sabinfan, Schmoikel.
I'm looking forward to seeing you crush him over this ID bit. I hope he has the courage to actually stay here and go through it, and not run away screaming.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
And Fred Hoyle continues...
"When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be ?"
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"the whole discussion going on about ID..."
I'll sit by and watch Schmoikel destroy you over this ID bullshit himself after I make this comment:
Intelligent Design is a tool for undereducated fucks from the Discovery Institute who were so threatened by the large and growing exodus (lol) of people from religion that they wrote the Wedge Strategy to compensate by FORCING religion into schools so they could try another version of corruption.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Also, Sabinfan, if you really want to know more about ID, and you are an actual adult who is trying to be fair and look at everything he can to make a good choice, then go to my channel.
The featured video is a lecture about Intelligent Design and how it died in the Dover trial. Watch it.
Then, go click on the Playlists button at the top of my channel and find my "The Fall of Intelligent Design". Watch some of those 70.
ID is dead. Those who support it deserve nothing but mockery.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Welcome back ThatOneQuestion and thank you for your continues interest in this conversation.
Now that's some useful information you are giving me here. I promise I'll watch your video because I certainly want to know more about ID and want to keep an open mind. Allow me the time to watch and think ok ?
Certainly 'that one question' (creation or evolution ?) never has been more important for mankind than ever before...it influences our eternal future !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I promise I'll watch your video because I certainly want to know more about ID and want to keep an open mind."
I linked you to my channel, which has a thousand or two videos altogether. I specifically set out two places for you to look, which have 71 individual videos.
Several are series from people like the History or Nova channel, I cant remember exactly at the moment, but yeah.
If you are only going to watch one, that will be very disappointing.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Okay, I'm done with you for now.
"Certainly 'that one question' (creation or evolution ?) "
The one question is not "creation or evolution". That is utterly ignorant.
The one question that defines every generation and culture, in many aspects, is about religion.
My question is "What is religion?".
I think its fairly obvious that religion is an irrational security blanket, and the last few years here has proven that to me beyond a doubt.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Okay TOQ,
I just started watching your VID's. I'll be back within another week or so...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I just started watching your VID's. I'll be back within another week or so... "
Glad to see at least one of you has the courage to actually examine the "other side" for once.
Feel free to send me PM's if you have questions or comments on any specific video. Be sure to link the video if you do so I can see it all in context.
And yeah, dont use AiG. They arn't a good source.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures."
Okay, so 16,000 divided by 8 is 2000 creatures to feed/water per day, per person.
So, lets say you spend one minute per animal to feed, water, and care for them (higene).
2000 divided by 60 equals 33.3 hours. That is physically impossible as there are 24 hours in a day and at least 4 of those MUST be devoted to sleep, and lets say another hour in there for eating/other.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
The San Diego Zoo has over 4000 animals. How many employees do you think they have to manage those animals?
You could send them an email to ask how much time each employee devotes to each animal for the specific acts of feeding, watering, and taking care of the animal and its living quarters.
Saying 8 people can take care of 16,000 animals is simply absurd.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"dont use AiG. They arn't a good source"
Ok, how about this one ?
In his book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word specie is not equivalent to the created kinds of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. He continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Ok, how about this one ?"
No.
Did you even read my comment on the physical numbers and time relating to the Ark fairy tale?
Scroll down. Remember? Its the post I made about spending even 1 minute for ALL needs of the animal, per animal.
Can you even do math? Will you simply ignore the post and remain willfully ignorant?
COME ON!!! Do the damn math!
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark."
Okay, now THIS is pure BS. 2000 animals as the baseline for the entire diversity of the animal kingdom today? That myth took place about 4500 years ago.
The only way he could explain the speciation rates at impossible levels are with "MAGIC MAN DONE IT!", and that is anything BUT credible.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Hello TOQ,
I've watched all the vid's about the Dover trial so far, that's a start isn't it ? I still have to watch much much more, such as your other video's and the video's about Abiogenesis, Bottleneck etc.
Besides that, I also need time to translate the more difficult words and I'm also enjoying the beautiful weather in between with my family...
Isn't life beautiful ? Have a little patience...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Isn't life beautiful ? Have a little patience... "
What do you expect? Just like I said, you went from an empty promise (until you now validated it with what I can only assume is your honesty) to seemingly ignore everything I said.
You ignored my posts here about the math involved with tending to 16000 animals. Why?
I did the damn math for you, and you ignore it in favor of some random AiG liar using deceit to assume it could happen anyway. That isn't honest.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"I've watched all the vid's about the Dover trial so far, that's a start isn't it ?"
Only if you arn't sitting there letting it play and simply ignoring it. How do I know you are actually accepting what they are saying, even with the proof right there for you?
That is the real issue... how can anyone know you are even taking those seriously?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"How do I know you are actually accepting what they are saying,"
You don't know (yet). The only ones who know right now are God and me !
"...even with the proof right there for you?"
You talk about proof already ? I haven't reacted on the vid's so far ! Aren't you reacting a bit tendentious here ?
"You ignored my posts here about the math involved with tending to 16000 animals. Why?"
I'm not ignoring anything but I need time to think things over and do research.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I'm not ignoring anything but I need time to think things over and do research."
Excuse me? Research? I JUST gave you the PROOF, and yes, in mathematics there is PROOF.
16000 animals between 8 people, just spending a single minute per animal would take each person 33 hours.
That is impossible. I did the math for you. You have your proof.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures."
Okay, so 16,000 divided by 8 is 2000 creatures to feed/water per day, per person.
So, lets say you spend one minute per animal to feed, water, and care for them (higene).
2000 divided by 60 equals 33.3 hours. That is physically impossible as there are 24 hours in a day and at least 4 of those MUST be devoted to sleep, and lets say another hour in there for eating/other.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Why are you ignoring that?
What possible "research" could you do? You made a baseless assertion with your claim that 8 people could take care of 16,000 animals.
Simple math proved you wrong.
Why are you ignoring that?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Hello TOQ,
Holy Scriptures doesn't tell us HOW many animals were in the Ark. There are different estimations. Some say 2,000, others 16,000.
You are absolutely right about your math BUT...we don't know how many animals needed daily care. I could easily feed a lot of birds or rodents in one minute time. Not all animals were big mammals and they need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Also some animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. Survival was the primary goal.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Holy Scriptures doesn't tell us HOW many animals were in the Ark."
This is why you will forever be mocked as ignorant.
Your "holy scriptures" DO make several claims about the flood that are absolutely ridiculous and impossible, yet here you are, brushing off the facts that discourage you with the idea that your Magic Man can do anything, and your book cant possibly be wrong.
Thats willful ignorance.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
About your video's, I was familiar with Michael J. Behe and his book Darwin's Black Box.I don't agree with Richard Dawkins who says in the 3d part of the Dover Trial;
WHEN ONE SAYS THAT IN AMERICA INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS GETTING A HOLD,IT IS NOT GETTING A HOLD IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND THE INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITY. IT IS GETTING HOLD ONLY AMONG THOSE PARTS OF THE POPULATION WHO DONT KNOW ANYTHING.
I think the Discovery Institute did a great job to embrace the idea of a designer.
cont.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I don't agree with Richard Dawkins who says in the 3d part of the Dover Trial;"
Why not? Its true. ID is a complete lie based on deception.
Behe was publically embarrassed at the trial, by the way, for his ignorance and arrogance.
"I think the Discovery Institute did a great job to embrace the idea of a designer."
Dont you f@#$ing get it? They lied out their ass to FORCE it into schools. THAT is the whole point. Way over your head, boy.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
All I need to point to so I can validate the claim that the "Intelligent Design" movement is a religious based lie:
Wedge Strategy
Book- Of Pandas and People
ID is based on deceit. It was proven in the Dover Trial how much these despicable assholes care about truth and knowledge.
Anyone supporting ID needs to be made public and embarrassed for the idiots they are.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
I sure mentioned that in 1999 a fund raising document "The Wedge Strategy" was leaked. Prof. Barbara Forrest said IT IS A VERY CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING
So what ? The Bible doesn't exclude science. Phillip Johnson said: "The problem is that the other side doesn't want to admit that it's a scientific discussion because as soon as they do then we have a place at the table and then the critic of the evolution theory that we offer has to be taken seriously".
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"The Bible doesn't exclude science."
The Bible was created by Bronze Age myths, modified from older cultures even still.
There is ONLY Bronze Age "science" in that book.
There is nothing else.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"There is ONLY Bronze Age "science" in that book."
Do you really believe that TOQ ?
Then I have a questions for you;
About 2700 years ago, the Bible said in Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the CIRCLE of the earth...".
The hebrew word "chugh",translated "circle", can also mean "sphere". Thus the Bible was not influenced by the erroneous, flat-earth view prevalent when it was written. How could Isaiah know the truth ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Do you really believe that TOQ ?"
Yes.
"How could Isaiah know the truth ? "
Then why was it common knowledge that the world was flat until Columbus proved everyone wrong?
The Greek's proved the world was a sphere through using their brains and math, NOT because some Magic Man told them.
Your "evidence" is based on assumption.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Then why was it common knowledge that the world was flat until Columbus proved everyone wrong?"
Because Catholic church didn't want the common people to read the Bible and was against translating in other languages than Latin.
"The Greek's proved the world was a sphere through using their brains and math, NOT because some Magic Man told them."
The Greek's proved it for at least 200 years after Isaiah wrote his book.
"Your "evidence" is based on assumption."
Was Isaiah right ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Because Catholic church didn't want the common people to read the Bible and was against translating in other languages than Latin."
Yes, because THEY had the power. It wasn't about a god, it was about power.
"The Greek's proved it for at least 200 years after Isaiah wrote his book."
I think you just lied. What is your source?
And are you still watching those ID trial videos?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"I think you just lied. What is your source?"
Book: "Reasoning about the scriptures" (not available in the shops) and Wikipedia (search "Flat Earth"). It says;
"The flat Earth model is an ancient view of the Earth's shape which conceived of it as flat like a piece of paper or an infinite plane. This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is spherical."
Isaiah was a 8th-century BC prophet.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Book: "Reasoning about the scriptures" (not available in the shops)"
Oh this is rich! Why is it unavailable, and how do you have it?
Who wrote it?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Why is it unavailable, and how do you have it? Who wrote it?"
It was written by the governing body of The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, all on voluntarily basis and therefore not commercial. I got it for free.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Isaiah was a 8th-century BC prophet. "
Not all agree on that. Some say around 6th century, which also coincides with:
"The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BCE in ancient Greek philosophy[1] and possibly ancient Indian philosophy.[2]"
Its rather pointless though. Its amusing to see you try though. Please, keep going.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
According to the online Encyclopaedia Britannica Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a Greek scientist made the first measurement of the size of Earth for which any details are known. He was born c. 276 bc. Both Encyclopaedia Brittanica and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia say that Isaiah was called to prophecy in about 742 bc coincided with the beginnings of the westward expansion of the Assyrian empire and the year of King Uzziah's death (c.742 B.C.).
Sounds like reliable history to me...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"And are you still watching those ID trial videos?"
Sure I am, and thanks to you (and Schmoikel of course) I'm getting more insight in evolutionary thinking than ever before !
I'll be back on Kenneth Miller soon...I will explain why I disagree with his "Disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap" statement in the YouTube clip.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
""And are you still watching those ID trial videos?"
Sure I am,"
Good. Are you ready to admit the obvious? Are you even willing to say that ID was a religious deceit trying to force its way into schools?
If not, you havn't been paying attention and you need to explain why you are lying.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
PART V
...does not remove the fact that the flagellar system still has a minimum structural requirement that cannot be reduced beyond a high threshold point without complete loss of the flagellar motility function. System reduction may leave the TTSS system intact, since the TTSS system has a much lower minimum threshold structural requirement. However, having the TTSS function in place, does not mean that the flagellar function will also be in place.
That makes a lot of sense to me TOQ !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
PART IV
... The flagellar motility system still requires at least 35-40 genes producing a structure with at least 21 different specifically arranged proteins each requiring a minimum of hundreds of specifically arranged amino acid residues in order for the function of flagellar motility to be realized at all - even a little bit. Just because one or more subsystems may be found within the overall requirements needed to build a flagellar motility system, such as a TTSS system,...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
PART III
...Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Kenneth Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."
What "mainstream scientists", like Kenneth Miller, don't seem to understand is that all systems of function are irreducibly complex regardless of whether or not a working subsystem can be found within the larger system...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
PART II
Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living eukaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work...
Sabianfan 2 years ago
PART I
"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
Behe chose the flagellar motility system as one of his examples of an irreducibly complex system. However, the following is an interesting reaction to Behe's concept of irreducible complexity - suggesting that the flagellar system really isn't irreducibly complex at all:
Sabianfan 2 years ago
Hello That OneQuestion,
this one is about the ID trial video's (as promised), not about Noah's ark.
Prof. Behe may have lost in court but I really think the problem with Kenneth Miller is that he in fact does not prove ID is wrong.
I found the next statement from Sean D. Pitman on the web about this subject. I numbered them I to V. Credits go to him of course for this great article.
Michael Behe talks about "irreducible complexity" as:.................................cont.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Prof. Behe may have lost in court but I really think the problem with Kenneth Miller is that he in fact does not prove ID is wrong."
Dont be an idiot, again, Sabinfan.
ID doesn't make a claim, it simply asserts that "Magic Man done it". You cant "disprove" that because it is an opinion, nothing more.
Irreducible Complexity has been destroyed as well, sorry Sabinfan.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Hello TOQ,
I get your point. I only want you to know that from a believer's point of view, God created everything and everything is therefore in relationship to that creator. That gives science an extra dimension because man can only study Gods work and can go on eternally with it because we still have so much to learn about our beautiful planet and the universe. When evolutionists rise against ID, they weaken the public opinion to adapt creation.
By the way, it's Sabianfan, not Sabinfan.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"I only want you to know that from a believer's point of view, God created everything and everything is therefore in relationship to that creator."
Irrelevant to the topic. You cant attempt to validate "science" with religious "relationships", it simply doesn't work. Thats what you guys just dont understand.
"That gives science an extra dimension"
Wrong. You dont realize that you arn't even close to science with "Magic Man done it".
That is why you fail.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"The hebrew word "chugh",translated "circle", can also mean "sphere". "
Sorry Sabianfan, you are wrong. The hebrew word for circle is chuwg. And it means circle. The hebrew word for sphere (or ball) is duwr as in Isiah 22:18.
Schmoikel 2 years ago
"Sorry Sabianfan, you are wrong. The Hebrew word for circle is chuwg. And it means circle. The hebrew word for sphere (or ball) is duwr as in Isiah 22:18."
This needs a further investigation, my information tree is growing and growing.
Right now therefore I'm watching the video's from YouTube user Danmill 23 (a series of 4 vid's - 5th is on the way- called "Flat Earth Bible"). Interesting stuff...interesting replies also...
I'll be back in a week or so...I'm on the plane tomorrow !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"The Bible was created by Bronze Age myths..."
Another question TOQ:
When the Bible was being written there was speculation regarding how the earth was held in space. Some, for example, believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Yet rather than reflect the unscientific views existing at its time of writing, the Bible simply stated in Job 26; "God is stretching out the north over the empty space, HANGING THE EARTH UPON NOTHING"
How did Job know ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"How did Job know ?"
He didn't. People like you love to misinterpret the bible and twist it in every way to make it suit your purposes, ignoring every other creation myth in the world as well.
Many others say something similar.
You know what, Sabinfan, I hear this "science" content from many others of Islam. They say their book has just as many "scientific" aspects.
How do YOU explain that?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"I hear this "science" content from many others of Islam. They say their book has just as many "scientific" aspects.
How do YOU explain that?"
Islam teaches belief in 4 Holy books. Do you know what those books are ? The Bible (divided in 3 parts) + Holy Qu'oraan. So there's very much accordance between those books. Qu'oraan is written more than 500 years after the completion of the Bible, so it benefits the passing of time.
The Bible isn't a scientifical essay but nevertheless reliable
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"The Bible isn't a scientifical essay but nevertheless reliable "
That is a lie.
Everything in the bible is open to interpretation by anyone who wants to twist it into anything else.
Oh, and I think a great many Muslims will have serious issue with your claims about their holy book.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Everything in the bible is open to interpretation by anyone who wants to twist it into anything else."
Did you really read the whole Bible ? Have you studied prophecies about Jesus ?
Is evolution theory not twisting things into anything else ? Science agrees on ID when we talk about cars, computers, even simpler things as a spoon but many scientists disagree when this is applied to life and the earth.
Oh, and do you think Muslims will have serious issue with your atheistic claims ?
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Science agrees on ID when we talk about cars, computers, even simpler things as a spoon but many scientists disagree when this is applied to life and the earth."
Bullshit, you little fool.
Dont you dare twist things around like that again.
You will only brand yourself a liar and a fool if you do.
Pathetic idiot.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Did you really read the whole Bible ? Have you studied prophecies about Jesus ?"
The Jews can tell you all the reasons why Jesus fails as the "messiah".
Dont hear it from me, hear it from those who think they know the answer as a religious fact.
After all, their religion is older than yours, and you are adapting their book to your way of life.
Didn't consider that, did you?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"The Jews can tell you all the reasons why Jesus fails as the "messiah".
Dont hear it from me, hear it from those who think they know the answer as a religious fact."
That's not a direct answer TOQ. I asked you, not the Jews. Your one question "what is religion?" implicates that you should do an investigation of prophecies about Jesus for yourself instead of refering me to Islam of Judaism. Isaiah chapter 53 for instance is just only 1 reason why I do believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"After all, their religion is older than yours, and you are adapting their book to your way of life. Didn't consider that, did you?"
That all depends on your point of vieuw. I personally accept the whole Bible. Christ is foretold in the "O. T." by jewish prophets so we can't divide the Bible in two. 2 Timothy 3:16 says: "ALL Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..."
Romans 2:29 says "But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit..."
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"2 Timothy 3:16 says: "ALL Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial...""
There are many stories and sections we could bring up to invalidate that little quote of yours.
Biblical contradictions, for starters. Claims of "understanding" the bible to elude the accusations of contradictions will not be accepted.
Oh, and using your bible to validate the bible doesn't really count either, look up Circular Logic.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Ok, this all started with Noah's ark. With already 154 comments counting I suggest we have a break now, I'm off to Crete today. CU !
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Ok, this all started with Noah's ark"
Yes, and you were thoroughly embarrassed on that subject.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Hello TOQ, I'm back from Crete, roasted and ready to continue so...about Noah's ark;
Do you only reject the account because it's in the Bible ? I mean, such a huge catastrophe, if it really happened, would never have been completely forgotten, agree ? Hence, in many nations there are reminders of that destruction. Consider, for example, the precise date recorded in the Bible. The second month of the ancient calendar ran from what we now call mid-October to mid-November.
cont..
Sabianfan 2 years ago
"Do you only reject the account because it's in the Bible ?"
I reject blatant lies, in any culture, especially ones we can prove are such.
"Hence, in many nations there are reminders of that destruction. "
Wrong. Different cultures around the world have fables and stories about floods because of one simple fact: our planet's surface is mostly water.
Dont be a fool.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Different cultures around the world have fables and stories about floods because of one simple fact: our planet's surface is mostly water."
Come on TOQ, Disasters happen, I know that too. You still don't explain why those global flood legends have biblical details in common as mentioned earlier. A lot of those ancient peoples never had the chance to read the Bible.
It is also remarkable that the Ark's proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects.
Sabianfan 2 years ago
@Sabianfan If Noah knew so much about naval architecture why didn't he know how to navigate with a crow? Civilisation means agriculture, which means flood planes. I know 6 flood stories from UK in the last year alone. The Noah story is simply silly. It's a childrens story, aand that and adult ccould take it sirously is a disgrace. Did God do it because man was wicked? NO, He did it because man was noisy. If you're going to quote flood stories please get them right.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
>"If Noah knew so much about naval architecture why didn't he know how to navigate with a crow?"
You consider the Noah story to be silly, but you seem to ignore who gave Noah the instructions. So, re-read Genesis 6:15 ("And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height.") and ask yourself, who is talking to Noah about naval architecture here?
>"NO, He did it because man was noisy."
?????????
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan "According to Sumerian religion, the flood came to eliminate the noise makers--not the sinful people, but those who were making noise so the gods couldn’t sleep," says Englund.
We have Sumerian documents, with the crows and doves, 2000 years older than any documents of the Hebrews.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
Do you really prefer Sumerian religion and "making noise" as a better explanation? After noting differences between Flood accounts from the Bible & ancient Babylon, P. J. Wiseman wrote in New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis: “The Bible account is simple in its ideas, and irreproachable in its teaching about God, while the Babylonian tablets are complex and polytheistic.
>"2000 years older"? You have an overactive imagination! The Gilgamesj epic is a few hundred years older.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan We have Sumerian documents of Gilgamesh 2,000 years older than any Hebrew documents. 'irreproachable in it's teaching about God'? Who is this clown? This is the God who just comitted the worst genocide in mythology, mostly against the innocent. 'The Biblical account is simple in it's ideas..', simple to the point of inbicility. If he wants to make a point of polytheism I should point out that Noah worshipped Elohim, which is plural.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
>"We have Sumerian documents of Gilgamesh 2,000 years older than any Hebrew documents"
The Gilgamesj-epos is dated approximately 2,000 BC.
In 2007 Biblical Archaeology Review declared that ancient Hebrew upon two silver scrolls showed the inscription of the Aaronic blessing/priestly benediction from Numbers 6:24-26. These silver scrolls date back to 7th century BC (500 years older than the Dead Sea scrolls).
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan I would take the uncorroberated word of the BAR about nothing, as they have an agenda. I find they attempt balance frequently, and try hard, but still. If I said I find the scrolls less than impressive compared with the Sumerian documents we have, I'm sure you would understand.
As Jhwh doesn't get a mention before Exodus 3:14 Noah is left with Elohim, and thats plural.
Young is using poetic licence to enforce a unity that doesn't exist in our best estimations of originals.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok
> "Jhwh doesn't get a mention before Exodus 3:14 Noah is left with Elohim, and thats plural."
What about Genesis 2:4 in:
American Standard Version? (...in the day that Jehovah God..)
New World Translation? (...in the day that Jehovah God..)
Darby Translation? (...in the day that Jehovah Elohim..)
Reina-Valera 1960? (...el día que Jehová Dios..) etc. etc.
Oh, and Elohim must be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan I understand why YOU have to translate it that way. I'm more interested in the truth.
gamesbok 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamesbok
>"I understand why YOU have to translate it that way.
My friend, I didn't translate anything "that way", I just read what it says.
>"I'm more interested in the truth."
John 8:32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.
John 14:6a Jesus said to him: "I am the way and the truth and the life.
John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth
And what about the whale? Do you believe this video is truth?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamesbok
>"I understand why YOU have to translate it that way.
My friend, I didn't translate anything "that way", I just read what it says.
>"I'm more interested in the truth."
John 8:32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.
John 14:6a Jesus said to him: "I am the way and the truth and the life.
John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth
And what about the whale? Do you believe this video is truth?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@gamesbok
>"If he wants to make a point of polytheism I should point out that Noah worshipped Elohim, which is plural."
Genesis 6:8 clearly says who Noah's God was:
And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah (Young's Literal Translation). יהוה/Jehovah/Jahweh/YHWH/JHVH etc. is NOT plural.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan "According to Sumerian religion, the flood came to eliminate the noise makers--not the sinful people, but those who were making noise so the gods couldn’t sleep," says Englund.
We have Sumerian documents, with the crows and doves, 2000 years older than any documents of the Hebrews.
Incas wouldn't have the same connotations about November as you have.
Civilisation means good agriculture, which means flood planes. Of course they all have flood stories.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@Sabianfan It's the end of the summer almost everything dies, or looks like it dies, or wishes it was dead, apart from the Incas, of course, who would regard your hypothesis as absurd.
gamesbok 1 year ago