"Starting with a myth as a hypothesis would be considered outrageous by many many scientists." Intriguing how the hypothesis of life evolving from inorganic matter is built on the myth of spontaneous generation...yet many many scientists have a very strong faith in this myth.
The Flood was 30,000 years ago. The Garden of Eden was 20,000 before that. The six days of Genius are time periods. The Hebrew word for age is the same as for day.
The flood was local not global. God tells us this in Psalms 104. He gives account of the six days of creation. On the third day he separated the oceans from the continents, and he says that never again will the waters cover the Earth.
Mankind before the flood had not dispersed from the local region, so in that flood they all perished.
The animals in the Ark where all soulish creatures, animals that can form relationships with people.
The Hebrew word for hill is the same as for mountain. The word for elevated is the same as for high. So the Hebrew says, the water covered the elevated hills.
There where also supernatural elements including God drawing the water up above sea level, a bulge of water. The water came down in rain and up through underground aquifers.
Notice how many who refute the supernatural work of God do so in a demeaning and reviling spirit. That is not coincidental or off topic. They have a legitimate concern about God’s judgment. The God of Holiness must have judgment. Neither do they worship him in humility. What God has done he has done to separate the faithful for his purpose.
Your comments are reasonable and I wish you well. May God bless you in all that you do.
@ltbd78 So what you're saying is that deity is deliberately deceitful? So if god lies about that, why should anyone put their trust in such a creature? The Earth has no agenda. And the science is clear and easily understandable.
I have a question about the great flood. How the hell did all the fresh water plants and fungi manage to grow in land that would be saturated with brine when the flood receded? Even if the last parts of the flood evaporated, all arable land in the world would still contain salt which would prevent the majority of plant life from growing again.
In Quran: The flood was local (it was sent to Noah people), it started gradual (some people had time to run to mountains), then massive (the ship running in waves like mountains), finally the ship landed on a place referred as GUDI (no mention to a mountain) & it's an unknown Arabic word
In old Sumarian language GU is the river bank and DI is an adjective so GU-DI means the big riverbank
Because you don't accept the fact that hydrologic sorting happens. You've convinced yourself that a flood does what it doesn't in reality. You have to wake up Greg. Living in fallacy wont help you.
@PFC33 How does a flood sort fossils simple to complex. Why are dinosaus only in the middle? Why did most life on earth die off at the K-T boundry event?
You think the most complex eye on the planet, even today (in the trilobite), is the simplest?
Dinosaurs can survive flood waters better than certain creatures (such as those below it) therefore allowing time for other creatures to be killed and covered first, followed by the dinosaurs (after all they can only outrun flood waters for so long).
What makes you think life died off at the K-T boundary event if the flood happened? If the Bible is true, there is no cataclysmic extinction that way.
@PFC33 ''The dinosaurs ran half way up the hill'' That's a funny one !
Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species, except for some birds.
I see you didn't respond to the trilobite explanation. Why?
I never said dinosaurs went up a hill. Is it not obvious they can survive better than a trilobite, clam, or any other creature of that nature that you keep using as evidence because it's on the bottom? It's obvious to anyone Greg, and you didn't refute it, you just mocked it and asserted your own explanation. If this were court you would be getting blank stares at this time.
Here is the evidence, the facts, go look. The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating method used
Do you just copy and paste that? Because I've refuted that about 6 times now. So here's my facts.
I have teaspoons to cooking pots all lined up with regular spoons, ladles, measuring cups, etc. No dating method used but we can see that evolution took place for millions of years to change these teaspoons into cooking pots.
I expect you will ignore this for the 7th time I believe. We shall see, and I'll be looking below this comment, awaiting your response.
@PFC33 He ignored you because you still have yet to make any kind of rational argument. Since you seem to feel comfortable in trotting out the "mammals are faster" argument, perhaps you can explain why there are no ground sloths in the most ancient sediments and why there are no velociraptors in the more recent (or at the very least, intermingled?)? And then we can look at salt deposits and pollen.
Funny, that's what he kept asserting and yesterday he agreed with me about teaspoons evolving into cooking pots simply because they're in a pattern. If I have in irrational argument, then don't just assert it, point it out and explain why it's irrational.
Now I'm not claiming to know everything because I don't, but I do enjoy viewing both sides' information and reviewing it. I haven't done any debating for almost a year until Greg replied to an old comment.
Now, in regards to why we may not find certain things, we need to ask several questions.
1) Who's doing the excavating? People have been persecuted and lost their jobs if they're in a position to promote the theory and find evidence against it instead.
2) How can we know information is not being suppressed? If people are being persecuted, keeping information is the next thing to do.
3) Have we dug up the entire earth? How can you know the evidence isn't right beneath your feet?
@PFC33 Enjoy reviewing the evidence? Great! Let's get started: The Opeche Shale, which is a formation that runs from the Dakotas down to Texas and at the center in it's deepest part is a 91 m thick salt deposit. This salt contains no pollen from modern sources. All comes from Permian plants. Now the area of salt deposition is 188,400 sq km. Dividing by 2 to get the average thickness of about 45 meters. This equals 9 trillion cu meters of NaCl (continued)
@PFC33 The density of salt is 2160 kg/cu meter, so this represents the evaporation of 540,000 cu km of seawater. To evaporate this much sea water and leave the salt requires 10^24 joules of heat energy. That's more than twice enough to raise the temp of the Earth's atmosphere to 100 deg C. Ergo, Noah would've been cooked and all life extinguished.
@PFC33 Of course, none of this matters with out data to back it up: Wilgus, Cheryl K. and William T. Holser, 1984. "Marine and Nonmarine Salts of Western Interior, United States," AAPG Bulletin. p. 765-766, and for the chemistry info, feel free to refer to any college chemistry text. It'll have all the table for heat of formation and evaporative processes. And this is just one evaporite deposit we've examined. There are 3100 feet thick salt desposits under the city of Detroit.
Now if what you're saying is correct, then you just said the salt found in the geologic column is pure salt (or NaCl). The salt formation through evaporation today has many impurities, showing it may have been formed by another process in the past, not necessarily sea water evaporation.
I'm still researching a few things so I'm not going to be too dogmatic on everything yet.
@PFC33 While the salt under Detroit is nearly pure Halite, the Opeche deposits do contain pollen, as I've already stated. There are also trace contaminants of zooplankton and diatoms. Now while a supersaturated solution can cause spontaneous crystalization and precipitation, the only conditions that exist for that are around "black smokers" and would involve a large number of other contaminants, excluding pollen. And that brings up another question re: "Hydrological sorting". (Continued)
@PFC33 Since all pollen grains are generally of a uniform size to allow their distribution by both aeolian and insect vectors they will all respond similarly to deposition in water according to Stokes Law. Ergo, all pollen found should be found mixed in the same layer. Why then do we see deposits in which pollens are sorted by species and time? We can verify this by looking as far back as the early Cretaceous, with species appearing, flourishing, and then going extinct.
They should all be mixed "if" they are mixed in the water. We're talking about a global flood here. Do you know how massive the earth is? Just because they're in the same water does not mean they're next to each other. The oil spill is in the Gulf right now. It's not in the Arctic ocean. Now, this is another thing I've yet to research, but you need to realize you make assumptions before concluding something.
@PFC33 Oh, they were indeed mixed in water. Per the reference given, these cores were taken from the bottom of a lake in Venezuela. The Interlaken and Suigestsu Lake deposits correlate this same fact. And I note that you've yet to provide a single reference to support your suppositions. Could it be that there are none? And I've a very good idea just how big the world is. My career in the military has taken me to a great many places. But back to the subject at hand: flood geology (continued).
I've made it very clear I'm not an expert at this, and even more clear that I research both sides and enjoy doing so. After all, it's been a year since I did any debating and even then I will attest to the fact that I didn't know everything either.
Also, a majority of what I use is logical. It doesn't require references because a majority (if not all of what I say) is simple reason. If you've ever played a sudoku puzzle you'll understand what I mean. More on that later.
@PFC33 Nor am I an expert. But I do avail myself of all the data available. Including creationist texts. I've even a copy of "Of Pandas and People" that I keep around just for laughs. The part about the geology of the early earth is particulary humorous.
@PFC33 Since one of the questions asked earlier involved animals mixed in a flood layer, do you fully appreciate what this means? Since this is supposed to have occured after the "fall" why are there no modern animals found in the deeper strata? Walking thru any woodlot or forest will show carcasses in all manner of disarry and decay, and as such should've been buried with the first influx, neh? This directly in contradiction to what is found.
@PFC33 Ah yes. Your conspiracy theories. Fascinating stuff that. While I cannot answer to the first two, I can answer the last point quite well. Enough has been excavated and the results based on the chemistry and physics are quite clear. One and one still makes two.
One and one still make two because there's no factor to disprove it. There's every possibility for evolution just by digging beneath your feet. Now, sure, that possibility becomes less and less the more we dig up, but the possibility is always there.
Also, as I said, people have been persecuted. Many people have many articles on this all over the place. If memory serves correctly, Hovind has discussed it in length. So it's not necessarily that we haven't found any, maybe we have, and it's hidden
@PFC33 This is not about evolution at all, sir. Is about geology and if Genesis can be taken literally. Thus far, I've shown that it cannot. And that remains the limit of my ambitions. Now as far as Mr Hovind.....I think the depth of both his veracity and scholarship have been put to rest in a great many other forums and do not need to be regurgitated here. He'll serve his sentence and go back to fleecing his flock, as most con-men do. Me, I'll finish my degree and add to humanity's future.
No, you've shown that I do not know every detail about it. That's like saying "I've proven oranges are purple by talking to someone who doesn't fully know colors." And I'm willing to admit that I don't know all about it because quite honestly, I look at the general more than the specific so I can look at "everything," not just one part of the Bible/evolution/creation/big bang etc.
Something more is my theory doesn't call to know everything, because we cannot know everything about infinite.
@PFC33 And, as before, none of this matters without the proper documentation to back this up. Source: Valenti Rull, "High-Impact Palynology in Petroleum Geology: Applications from Venezuela" AAPG Bulletin 86(2002):2:279-300, p. 285. There is, of course, so much more to go one regarding this particular line of inquiry. The Interlaken and Suigetsu varves should be examined closely.
This is inline of the Quran version of Noah story:
The latest scientific evidence say: The flood was local to black sea, there was a sudden moment when water rushed to the Black Sea from Bosphorus. This made the sea level rise 10-100 meters (to be confirmed).
This means there was a strong current towards the north west (the big shallow land of over 20,000 sq.km. near the big Danub river delta).
So for Noah his ship will float north-west towards the big river deltas
@ziyadnour could you pls tell me in which Verse of Quran and if possibley the number of line in the verse about Noah story, as I m interested at what you said, because others as well might ask you later to verify it. thanx
@KurdstanPlanetarium - Noah versus detailing flood story in Quran are: 54:9-16, 11:41-44, 29:15, 23:27-28 .. easiest is to check them in website quran . com for various translations.
In Arabic the verse 11:44 which mention ALJUDI is exactly 3 words
wastawat = rested
AAala = on the
aljoodiyyi = ALJUDI
There is no mention of "mountain". Most translations put it in [brackets] as it was added by some translators, who were speculating that ALJUDI is a mountain.
@KurdstanPlanetarium might want to check out the Bible kjv. The quran copied the bible, So the Bible is more acurate then the quran.Check it out you'll be supirsed!
@targetisdog I m well aware of the Bible story and have read it too, after all the story of Noah is a Bible Story,but I tell you if you look for the origin of the myth its best to start with the Smerian Epic of Gigamesh as they are the one who witnessed the Flood and brought it down generation of generation till they setteled in Mesopotamia and had it on record on clay tablets...
@KurdstanPlanetarium well how is it a myth if you said it was true? or that you were well aware of the truth.(just asking a question)that it wasn't JUST a story from the Bible.That there's MANY facts like how the dinosaur bones are all under the ground and noone in humanity lived EXCEPT for Noah and some of his family.And then after words LIKE you said settled in Mesopatamia and replenished!
@targetisdog Its a myth since it came down as a story but as you kknow most of mytholgical stories do have bases in reality. In face myths are alegorical stories of real events that took place in remote times and ancient people not yet developed writting remembered them generation after generation as mythological stories.
but I said it was a Sumerian Myth of the epic of Gilgamesh and the hebrow people took it from them the time they used to live in the land of Sumer (Shinar in Bible). as Noah.
@KurdstanPlanetarium ok, so does that mean you think Noah and the flood was just a myth known from generation to generation, or actual fact that has kept ahold all these years?
@targetisdog well the reason I upoaded this scientific documentary (Noah's Flood: Myth or Reality?) is to answer your question and the question of all those like you, inculding myself, so pls watch all the 5 parts to know know all the facts and to get an answer to your question !
Very interesting and it is inline of the Quran version of Noah story
* in Quran: The flood was local (to Noah people), it started gradual (people had time to run to mountains), then massive (the water rushed massively out of the water basin (FAR ATANOUR) and the waves were like mountains), the ship landed on a place called ALJUDI (no mention it was a mountain).
Very interesting and it is inline of the Quran version of Noah story
* in Quran: The flood was local (to Noah people), it started gradual (people had time to run to mountains), then massive (the water rushed massively out of the water basin (FAR ATANOUR) and the waves were like mountains), the ship landed on a place called ALJUDI (no mention it was a mountain).
@oneznzeroz sorry this was a a flood that caused by the linkage of Black Sea to the Medetteranians, so it was no where near Egypt...the one who report it to us were the Sumerians (Epic of Galgamesh), that created the first ever civilzations more than 2000 years b4 the Egyptian.
@oneznzeroz yes you are right as the flood was both global and local as far as black see concerned...
you see the melting of the last ice age caused the see level to rise and that was global. eventually the rising of the sea level is the one that caused to open the link between the Medeterraneans and the blacksea.
@oneznzeroz Unless the flood was A) Localized, not worldwide or even continent-wide and B) several thousand years before even the old kingdom and C) A story that was mostly oral tradition, albeit rooted in a cultural memory of an actual event in the past.
@oneznzeroz It could be the pyramids where built already as there is proof that the sphinx has water marks to say they where building the pyramids and there was no flood is wrong to say.Darwin is wrong the Veda text say differently.Too bad so many believe whatever is taught to them by a agenda.They want people to think we are animals who came from monkeys not that we have been here for a very long time just like there is to much proof of a great flood from stories from around the world .
@Domodeath Flood account. Not, flood "story", but "account". No big deal, a common mistake, the genesis of which more than likely started with all those cartoonish "story" book depictions that we were subjected to hanging on our grade school classroom walls in nearly every indoctrination institution scattered across the globe. Boy oh boy, i'll tell ya, the "power of suggestion" is mighty strong, is it not? Noah's ark wall hangings being a perfect example.
@flamifer1 I think 'oneznzeroz' was likely having trouble with understanding how the pyramids, built around 2700 B.C., could have survived the biblical deluge of 2348 B.C.
Not to worry though chap. I provided him a thorough explanation to help him understand they survived it. Some things are just difficult to understand if we lack the information to "believe" it. Know what i mean?
Oh, they will just say, that the pyramids were built around 2000 B.C. Creationists have long believed, that the pharaonic dynasties were in reality much shorter than archaeologists believe. They have calculated, that 350 years are long enough to multiply from 8 people to a grand civilisation. If everybody lived in egypt and surroundings, naturally.
@flamifer1 Interesting. I appreciate your acumen and would support that not only were the pharaonic dynasties much shorter than what the archaeology 'establishment' believes but indeed all of time itself. I have studied human population growth rates of various time periods, eras and dispensations and would defend the 8 person/350 yr. hypothesis considering the heightened life expectancy in the first century post-flood, compared to todays mean life span. Cheers mate!
Thank you for your comment. Can you tell me, which pharaohs did not exist and what evidence we have for a hightened life expectancy after the flood? How many people do you think, used to live in the world 2000 B.C.? Do you also have population growth data for the time after 2000 B.C.? And where did you get it from?
@flamifer1A. I'm presently not cognitive of "which pharaohs did not exist". Life expectancy after the deluge did not heighten, but rather met a gradual decline post-flood. From the time of Creation and 1st man & woman, Adam & Eve (4004 B.C.), to the yr. of the biblical flood (2348 B.C.), a period of only 1, 656 yrs, it has been estimated based on antediluvian average life span of 900 yrs., that there could have been up to 8 billion people on the planet. This may be hard imagined, but...CONTINUED
B. .... but most people can not comprehend that man could live so long. Being unaware of the many significant variables which nurtured life in the antediluvian age, promotes a state of being unable 2 reason 7 understand. Methusla, Moses' grandfather is longest lived at 969 yrs. of age, meaning the child bearing age during this time stretched multiple generations of hundreds of years, hence the expedient population growth. In the modern age we nearly reach 7 billion.. (CONTINUED)
C. ..we nearly reach 7 billion people on the planet yet we believe we are over populated. So, where did 8 billion fit? Pre-flood age was majority dry land, not 75% ocean & sea covered like today. Not all of the 2348 BC flood water assuaged or "disappeared", it's still here!! Making up a vast amount of our oceans. I mentioned previously that after the flood, human life expectancy saw a gradual decline, but i would like to correct that now by saying it would B considered drastic CONT.
D. The historical record shows decline in mean age by the recording of the deaths and age of Noah in comparison to his three sons who did not live nearly as long due to the radical changes in atmosphere, oxygen decrease, hyperbaric pressure, gravitational forces related to blood flow & cellular health, increased UV radiation exposure, and diet/nutrition all caused by the catastrophic "rebirth" of the earth the "firmament" which surrounds it. And BTW, the earth is not moving. END
@flamifer1 "How many people..to live in the world 2000 B.C.?...for the time after 2000 B.C.?And where did you get it from?"-flamifer
(a) Through the reading of the Chronicles, we can discover the age of the Earth by reading through the generations following the six days of Creation, which we discover were based on a day which we are told consists of an evening and a morning.
According to I Chronicles, from Adam's creation up until Noah are ten generations.
@oneznzeroz (A.) The pyramids of Ghiza, Cairo, Egypt are often reported to be built circa 2560 B.C, but more likely date to about 2700 B.C. placing their origin over 300 years before the biblical deluge of 2348 B.C.
There is no doubt the pyramids were engulfed by the flood as both their exterior facades and interior walls show and provide the physical evidence of the Great Flood. Geologists discovered the inner walls coated with a saline residue common to sea water. The exterior..
@oneznzeroz (B.)...the exterior facades of the pyramids provide a clear perspective of how their surfaces were effected by the erosion of the deluge flood waters & the endurance of being (nearly) under water for over a year. "GOOGLE IMAGES" Search photos of the Great Pyramids and notice the heavy erosion of the smaller 2 and the larger 3/4 up. The 3/4 mark shows the heaviest signs of erosion caused by the "lapping" of the oceanic flood waters while the top (likely protruding) is hardly effected.
@gregrutz It's the other way around, these flood stories came from the Flood Story God tells us in the Bible. It's amazing how the world is so ignorant towards the many archaeological facts that prove the story true. But then again, mankind is wise in his own wisdom.
Okay understood - that's what I thought, but I liked your presentation, and I might use a brief clip of it in a later video (if I intend to do that, I will of course ask in advance), but I didn't want to misrepresent you.
@bushonomics thanks for comment, to answer your question I have to say Yes and No, about this particular event it was a localised flood, caused by the linkage between Black Sea and the Medeterrnain, which rapidly flooded the area in between and the settlers had to migrate..but remember that one reason for the linkage was the melting of the last Ice age, that cause the sea level to rise and even the Black Sea to increase in size. the rising of the sea level mostly flooded the seashore lands.
It's estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.
@HolyRevelation The Flood is real, as most of it is about the melting of last ice age and then flooding the lands, this particular one (the Biblical one) is due to the flooding of the Black Sea and the link to the Medeterranians wich was witnessed by the ancestors of the Sumerians some 7600 years ago...
@HolyRevelation Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see.
I look at the facts, you have never looked at a geology or biology book.
@HolyRevelation Their own version? Yeah? So what? The earth directly contradicts such a thing. Farmers folklore that has passed into myth is great for bedtime stories and things like that, but it's not entirely factual. Local floods in densely populated floodplains (where the best farming is) are no suprise even today. Well, except for that one yokel who always shows up on the news talking about how many times they've been flooded out or what the tornado sounded like.
@HolyRevelation is it really a shock that different civilizations have a story of a flood? i mean how many different civilizations have stories of dragons
@isrealjason It really shouldn't shock you that the reason so many different civilizations have stories about Dragons, ie Dinosaurs, is because they actually seen Dinosaurs.
Or that the reason so many worldwide flood legends exist, is because a great flood really happened.
@HolyRevelation Very true I agree 100% Alligators and Komodo "DRAGONS" survived somehow so some dinos are still here! Did you know that reptiles never stop growing? Fast when young, growth slows with age. Look at snakes in the amazon, they can grow to be huge! Paleontology has become corrupted. I never learned as a child dinos were birds. Thats all you hear now.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!!!!
@HolyRevelation oooooooooi mate. Im hindu and there is nothing hinduic in the theory of evolution, one of the greatest achievements of mankind, I'm more into physics but I'll give the biologists that credit.
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"I'm more into physics but I'll give the biologists that credit."-mignik01
Confucius say, "Not wise for man to give credit before credit due". In other words, hold off till the theory has been proven as that day so far has not come. It's still just a "theory" friend. What's the matter, did U recently just jump in? Got your feet a little wet and throwing around assumptions prematurely before thoroughly investigating the facts of playing field? "Achievement" is a bit of a joke.
@SpencerBenedict2nd oh gimme a break. If u dont know what a scientific theory is, take some classes in science. I didnt recently jump in. I'm a researcher.
@mignik01 I'll spare U from listing my academic resume but rest assured i know what defines "theory". I was merely attesting that to propose a theory is hardly an accomplishment. Anyone could do it, even Quasimodo. Why, i'll make a bet that even you, the village idiot, could come up with one. It's not only ridiculous to aggrandize a theory by labeling it "the greatest achievement of mankind", it's downright absurd.
Not until scientific hypothesis & theories become scientific law are they great
@SpencerBenedict2nd well after seeing ur understanding of a theory, I'm not sure I wanna see ur academic resume.
so wat u mean is, the theory of gravitation, quantum theory, theory of relativity, cell theory, germ theory, ................. are all just unproven guesses.
There are no more laws in science anymore. there used to be, back in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries.
@mignik01 A scientific law must ALWAYS apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. A law is a kind of *fact*.
The Law of Gravity w/its theories, the special theory of relativity does not apply. Things fall, an observable fact.
Cell theory, like the theory of evolution, comes from biology and does amount to a scientific fact.
Olinto De Pretto's Theory of Relativity is contestable with contradictory postulates and variation in its laws.
@mignik01 Listen, i am not really interested in these things. This forum is about a flood and a supposed ark. If U would like 2 discuss this w/me, i would invite U. But please, leave God, religion & the origin of life out of it.
"I was talking about Einstein's general relativity." The equation E = mc2 is attributed to S. Tolver Preston 1875, to Jules Henri Poincaré 1900, to Olinto De Pretto 1904. Einstein was a Vatican shill dunce who plagiarized jesuit joseph boscovich's "general relativity"
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"Evolution: organisms change over time: fact."-mignik01
>Not "fact" and partly correct. Your rather simple definition feebly describes "micro"-evolution, alluding to speciation. It is "MACRO"-evolution, which suggests certain organisms or animals can become another animal over time; or one "kind" becoming a completely different "kind", which is still merely theory and not "FACT".
Now go back to school and come back when you've learned the difference between the two.
Pick one. Any one. In other words, if it's school text-books you want, how 'bout.... ALL OF THEM.
I dont know about U.S but there is no biology text that i have come across which makes such a prediction.
If there are no selection pressures acting on a organism, it is less likely to change, nobody can make such a prediction. I agree if there is such a statement, it is wrong.
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"What the hell is a kind?"-mignik
A. Long-term evolution requires “macroevolution,” which refers 2 those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf in2 a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish in2 a cow or a duck. Theres a massive difference in scale & effect between microevolution & macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes 2 transform 1 species in2 another. CONT.
@mignik01 I made a careless error and would like to retract, "does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another", to instead read "to transform one "kind" into another kind" , e.g., hippo into a whale or fish into tetrapods.
Your list is not Darwinism, i.e., anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod and so forth.
B. Species differentiates "kinds". "Kinds" differentiate species. I am of the persuasion God did this... 4 a reason.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."-Ge 1:11
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, ..(CONTINUED)
@SpencerBenedict2nd and trying to explain kinds as the species that can interbreed runs into trouble when u take ring species.
ring species are a collected series of neighbouring populations which can interbreed with closely sited related population, but there exist atleast two populations which are drifted too far apart that they cant interbreed anymore.
so we've got A, B, C, D, E, F. A can breed with B, B with C, C with D, D with E , E with F, but A and F cant.
@SpencerBenedict2nd "Would this process be the setting up of a genetic barrier which prevents interbreeding.?"
I dnt knw what u r tlking about there. Interbreeding is harmful because it destroys variations.
Take d cheetah and the giant panda for example. Cheetah has the strength in numbers but it is more endangered than the panda because of inbreeding in the recent past. this means a disease that is infectious to one cheetah can be harmful to 90% of the population. panda has better variation
@SpencerBenedict2nd Again I'd like to add. If u think the world is being threatened by "evil" scientists, go out, do some work and get some results. Until then I just cant take u seriously. As I said, its just like arguing with a flat earthist.
No speculation, no assertions, actual experiments that are reproducible and verifiable. Do that and you will get traction with me, because I work for my results and u dont.
C. "...whose seed was in itself, after his kind: & God saw that it was good."-Ge1:12
"& God created great whales, & every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, & every winged fowl after his kind: & God saw that it was good."-Ge 1:21
"& God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, & creeping thing, & beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so"-Ge 1:24
D. "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."-Ge 1:25
"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."-Ge 6:20
"They, & every beast after his kind, & all the cattle after their kind,..
E."..& all the cattle after their kind,& every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind,& every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."-Ge 7:14
Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they R taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe 2 grind against God.
@mignik01 Reply 2-"If there are no selection pressures acting on a organism, it is less likely to change,"-mignik
"selection "pressures". In nature there are no pressures for one species (kind) of animal to breed with a completely different kind (species) of animal. And if they were forced (pressured), they would not, could not, reproduce. There are rumors "selection pressures" of unnatural 'selection' have been forced in a lab at microbial levels, but indeed not natural and again only rumor.
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"..and one more thing. there is no micro or macro in the scientific community."-mignik01
What a paradox, & a humorous one at that because its both right, but mostly wrong. No wait, mostly right. Well, it really depends on who U R and how U look at it & which "scientific community" as there R distinctly two. One that is "controlled" by agenda driven "micro management. And the other is free 2 report truth.
people who make that claim fail to provide any mechanism by which dna limits its change. In short there is no portion of the genome that is not susceptible to change. ofcourse there are portions that are conserved over generations because those are essential for the health of a cell. We can even find these in us and fruit flies.
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"there is no portion of the genome that is not susceptible to change."-mignik
Agreed, but change only in the downgrade as in a loss of information; degeneration. Never change to the respect of taking on added or new information, the necessary component for the theory of "macro" evolution (the creation of a new kind of animal from another) to occur, which has never been proven or shown to occur, nor will it never for there is a God planted barrier that cannot be broke (period)
@SpencerBenedict2nd "Agreed, but change only in the downgrade as in a loss of information; degeneration."
Lets call it complexity. Genetic complexity has been shown to increase in labs and out in the wild, nylonase is a good example. it was a completely new fucnction for the gene resulting in a different species . It was tracedback to a frame shift mutation. I see no "information" lost there.
@mignik01 A random mutation didn't happen. It is a designed change for adaptation, and you will not see a change in kind. You say, "... for the gene resulting in a different species.", which is the same as variations within the same kind as i outlined in a recent response. Again, no Darwinism here. Most importantly, a new enzyme is not a new 'kind' of organism. Time is not important here--but the right DNA. This DNA was pre-existent. The point is, it's a system, not a random process.
@SpencerBenedict2nd random mutation didn't happen. It is a designed change for adaptation,
Yep and I should believe that because it was told by someone who dont know what a scientific theory is, just because he said so, and discard the work of the most briliant people for the past century and a half and thousands of papers written by them.
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"...We can even find these in us and fruit flies."-mignik
Fruit flies have been mutated and bred in laboratories for generations, but they are still fruit flies. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Experimentation through extensive selective breeding has also shown us that there is a limit to this adaptation.
@SpencerBenedict2nd if a fruit fly started giving birth to something else, then u have a point. u can defy evolution. the theory predicts how much change we should expect with certain selection pressures within certain periods of time. We are seeing that. anything more contradicts the predictions of the theory.
@mignik01 "the theory predicts how much change we should expect with certain selection pressures within certain periods of time."-mignik
>And exactly "HOW MUCH change" does the theory predict? To the extent, given "enough time", that it will produce a completely new kind of animal? Ridiculous, it's never happened while an entity desperately tries to claim it has.
>And exactly "HOW MUCH change" does the theory predict? To the extent, given "enough time", that it will produce a completely new kind of animal? Ridiculous, it's never happened while an entity desperately tries to claim it has.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Your quickly becoming a bit of a joke. Answer the question.
Me??? well i have been providing papers, explanations, examples and so on for the last couple of days and all you do is that u is claim that u know some secret. and I am a joke. Yeah right.
@mignik01 "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION"-mignik
Long-term evo, though, requires “macroevo,” which refers 2 those large-scale changes. Microevo turns a wolf in2 a Chihuahua or Great Dane. Macroevo would turn a fish in2 a cow or duck. There's a massive difference in scale & effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
@SpencerBenedict2nd This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
It does support. U dont have any data to prove it otherwise. Stop speculating and start giving evidence.
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND WELL DOCUMENTED AND IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT W/THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."-mignik
1. Are U of the mind than man "evolved" from amoebas through "speciation" or "evolution"?
(just trying 2 nail you down)
2. What's your definition of "speciation"?
and 3. If U believe we evolved from the so-called "primordial soups" , then i would like your description of each of the stages we went thru 2 get 2 where we are today. Start w/stating the # of stages.
f U believe we evolved from the so-called "primordial soups" , then i would like your description of each of the stages we went thru 2 get 2 where we are today. Start w/stating the # of stages
"Starting with a myth as a hypothesis would be considered outrageous by many many scientists." Intriguing how the hypothesis of life evolving from inorganic matter is built on the myth of spontaneous generation...yet many many scientists have a very strong faith in this myth.
TheEaglestar1 8 months ago
The Flood was 30,000 years ago. The Garden of Eden was 20,000 before that. The six days of Genius are time periods. The Hebrew word for age is the same as for day.
MikeTheMonk777 8 months ago
Question:
How did Noah’s Flood cover the Earth in water?
Answer:
The flood was local not global. God tells us this in Psalms 104. He gives account of the six days of creation. On the third day he separated the oceans from the continents, and he says that never again will the waters cover the Earth.
Mankind before the flood had not dispersed from the local region, so in that flood they all perished.
MikeTheMonk777 8 months ago
Comment removed
MikeTheMonk777 8 months ago
The animals in the Ark where all soulish creatures, animals that can form relationships with people.
The Hebrew word for hill is the same as for mountain. The word for elevated is the same as for high. So the Hebrew says, the water covered the elevated hills.
There where also supernatural elements including God drawing the water up above sea level, a bulge of water. The water came down in rain and up through underground aquifers.
MikeTheMonk777 8 months ago
Notice how many who refute the supernatural work of God do so in a demeaning and reviling spirit. That is not coincidental or off topic. They have a legitimate concern about God’s judgment. The God of Holiness must have judgment. Neither do they worship him in humility. What God has done he has done to separate the faithful for his purpose.
Your comments are reasonable and I wish you well. May God bless you in all that you do.
MikeTheMonk777 8 months ago
Comment removed
ltbd78 11 months ago
@ltbd78 So what you're saying is that deity is deliberately deceitful? So if god lies about that, why should anyone put their trust in such a creature? The Earth has no agenda. And the science is clear and easily understandable.
NorthForkFisherman 10 months ago
@ltbd78
You are so funny that you are completely NUTS.
krissyeh 10 months ago
I have a question about the great flood. How the hell did all the fresh water plants and fungi manage to grow in land that would be saturated with brine when the flood receded? Even if the last parts of the flood evaporated, all arable land in the world would still contain salt which would prevent the majority of plant life from growing again.
Zed1967 11 months ago
how did noah get time to go to australia and save two of each marsupials ......did he have a jetpack??
jamesjnr67 1 year ago
@jamesjnr67 Don't be ridiculous. Noah was a stone-age farmer. The marsupials obviously had the jet packs.
crabbieappleton 11 months ago
What is the name of the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?
No one seem to know the answer.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Part 3:
In old Sumarian language GU is the river bank and DI is an adjective so GU-DI means the big riverbank
some refernces for GU-DI are
search google for : "bank of river" gu sumerian english dictionary
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/pdf/hyphenprinciples.pdf
ziyadnour 1 year ago
Part 2:
In Quran: The flood was local (it was sent to Noah people), it started gradual (some people had time to run to mountains), then massive (the ship running in waves like mountains), finally the ship landed on a place referred as GUDI (no mention to a mountain) & it's an unknown Arabic word
In old Sumarian language GU is the river bank and DI is an adjective so GU-DI means the big riverbank
ziyadnour 1 year ago
@ziyadnour What flood? There is no evidence for a global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Because you don't accept the fact that hydrologic sorting happens. You've convinced yourself that a flood does what it doesn't in reality. You have to wake up Greg. Living in fallacy wont help you.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 How does a flood sort fossils simple to complex. Why are dinosaus only in the middle? Why did most life on earth die off at the K-T boundry event?
gregrutz 1 year ago
You think the most complex eye on the planet, even today (in the trilobite), is the simplest?
Dinosaurs can survive flood waters better than certain creatures (such as those below it) therefore allowing time for other creatures to be killed and covered first, followed by the dinosaurs (after all they can only outrun flood waters for so long).
What makes you think life died off at the K-T boundary event if the flood happened? If the Bible is true, there is no cataclysmic extinction that way.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 ''The dinosaurs ran half way up the hill'' That's a funny one !
Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species, except for some birds.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I see you didn't respond to the trilobite explanation. Why?
I never said dinosaurs went up a hill. Is it not obvious they can survive better than a trilobite, clam, or any other creature of that nature that you keep using as evidence because it's on the bottom? It's obvious to anyone Greg, and you didn't refute it, you just mocked it and asserted your own explanation. If this were court you would be getting blank stares at this time.
PFC33 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
Do you just copy and paste that? Because I've refuted that about 6 times now. So here's my facts.
I have teaspoons to cooking pots all lined up with regular spoons, ladles, measuring cups, etc. No dating method used but we can see that evolution took place for millions of years to change these teaspoons into cooking pots.
I expect you will ignore this for the 7th time I believe. We shall see, and I'll be looking below this comment, awaiting your response.
PFC33 1 year ago
Thought so.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 He ignored you because you still have yet to make any kind of rational argument. Since you seem to feel comfortable in trotting out the "mammals are faster" argument, perhaps you can explain why there are no ground sloths in the most ancient sediments and why there are no velociraptors in the more recent (or at the very least, intermingled?)? And then we can look at salt deposits and pollen.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
Funny, that's what he kept asserting and yesterday he agreed with me about teaspoons evolving into cooking pots simply because they're in a pattern. If I have in irrational argument, then don't just assert it, point it out and explain why it's irrational.
Now I'm not claiming to know everything because I don't, but I do enjoy viewing both sides' information and reviewing it. I haven't done any debating for almost a year until Greg replied to an old comment.
PFC33 1 year ago
Now, in regards to why we may not find certain things, we need to ask several questions.
1) Who's doing the excavating? People have been persecuted and lost their jobs if they're in a position to promote the theory and find evidence against it instead.
2) How can we know information is not being suppressed? If people are being persecuted, keeping information is the next thing to do.
3) Have we dug up the entire earth? How can you know the evidence isn't right beneath your feet?
PFC33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PFC33 Enjoy reviewing the evidence? Great! Let's get started: The Opeche Shale, which is a formation that runs from the Dakotas down to Texas and at the center in it's deepest part is a 91 m thick salt deposit. This salt contains no pollen from modern sources. All comes from Permian plants. Now the area of salt deposition is 188,400 sq km. Dividing by 2 to get the average thickness of about 45 meters. This equals 9 trillion cu meters of NaCl (continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PFC33 The density of salt is 2160 kg/cu meter, so this represents the evaporation of 540,000 cu km of seawater. To evaporate this much sea water and leave the salt requires 10^24 joules of heat energy. That's more than twice enough to raise the temp of the Earth's atmosphere to 100 deg C. Ergo, Noah would've been cooked and all life extinguished.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@PFC33 Of course, none of this matters with out data to back it up: Wilgus, Cheryl K. and William T. Holser, 1984. "Marine and Nonmarine Salts of Western Interior, United States," AAPG Bulletin. p. 765-766, and for the chemistry info, feel free to refer to any college chemistry text. It'll have all the table for heat of formation and evaporative processes. And this is just one evaporite deposit we've examined. There are 3100 feet thick salt desposits under the city of Detroit.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
Now if what you're saying is correct, then you just said the salt found in the geologic column is pure salt (or NaCl). The salt formation through evaporation today has many impurities, showing it may have been formed by another process in the past, not necessarily sea water evaporation.
I'm still researching a few things so I'm not going to be too dogmatic on everything yet.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 While the salt under Detroit is nearly pure Halite, the Opeche deposits do contain pollen, as I've already stated. There are also trace contaminants of zooplankton and diatoms. Now while a supersaturated solution can cause spontaneous crystalization and precipitation, the only conditions that exist for that are around "black smokers" and would involve a large number of other contaminants, excluding pollen. And that brings up another question re: "Hydrological sorting". (Continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@PFC33 Since all pollen grains are generally of a uniform size to allow their distribution by both aeolian and insect vectors they will all respond similarly to deposition in water according to Stokes Law. Ergo, all pollen found should be found mixed in the same layer. Why then do we see deposits in which pollens are sorted by species and time? We can verify this by looking as far back as the early Cretaceous, with species appearing, flourishing, and then going extinct.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
They should all be mixed "if" they are mixed in the water. We're talking about a global flood here. Do you know how massive the earth is? Just because they're in the same water does not mean they're next to each other. The oil spill is in the Gulf right now. It's not in the Arctic ocean. Now, this is another thing I've yet to research, but you need to realize you make assumptions before concluding something.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Oh, they were indeed mixed in water. Per the reference given, these cores were taken from the bottom of a lake in Venezuela. The Interlaken and Suigestsu Lake deposits correlate this same fact. And I note that you've yet to provide a single reference to support your suppositions. Could it be that there are none? And I've a very good idea just how big the world is. My career in the military has taken me to a great many places. But back to the subject at hand: flood geology (continued).
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
I've made it very clear I'm not an expert at this, and even more clear that I research both sides and enjoy doing so. After all, it's been a year since I did any debating and even then I will attest to the fact that I didn't know everything either.
Also, a majority of what I use is logical. It doesn't require references because a majority (if not all of what I say) is simple reason. If you've ever played a sudoku puzzle you'll understand what I mean. More on that later.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Nor am I an expert. But I do avail myself of all the data available. Including creationist texts. I've even a copy of "Of Pandas and People" that I keep around just for laughs. The part about the geology of the early earth is particulary humorous.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@PFC33 Since one of the questions asked earlier involved animals mixed in a flood layer, do you fully appreciate what this means? Since this is supposed to have occured after the "fall" why are there no modern animals found in the deeper strata? Walking thru any woodlot or forest will show carcasses in all manner of disarry and decay, and as such should've been buried with the first influx, neh? This directly in contradiction to what is found.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
I've already answered that, it's in the comment with a numbered list if you want to read it.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Ah yes. Your conspiracy theories. Fascinating stuff that. While I cannot answer to the first two, I can answer the last point quite well. Enough has been excavated and the results based on the chemistry and physics are quite clear. One and one still makes two.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
One and one still make two because there's no factor to disprove it. There's every possibility for evolution just by digging beneath your feet. Now, sure, that possibility becomes less and less the more we dig up, but the possibility is always there.
Also, as I said, people have been persecuted. Many people have many articles on this all over the place. If memory serves correctly, Hovind has discussed it in length. So it's not necessarily that we haven't found any, maybe we have, and it's hidden
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 This is not about evolution at all, sir. Is about geology and if Genesis can be taken literally. Thus far, I've shown that it cannot. And that remains the limit of my ambitions. Now as far as Mr Hovind.....I think the depth of both his veracity and scholarship have been put to rest in a great many other forums and do not need to be regurgitated here. He'll serve his sentence and go back to fleecing his flock, as most con-men do. Me, I'll finish my degree and add to humanity's future.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
No, you've shown that I do not know every detail about it. That's like saying "I've proven oranges are purple by talking to someone who doesn't fully know colors." And I'm willing to admit that I don't know all about it because quite honestly, I look at the general more than the specific so I can look at "everything," not just one part of the Bible/evolution/creation/big bang etc.
Something more is my theory doesn't call to know everything, because we cannot know everything about infinite.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 And, as before, none of this matters without the proper documentation to back this up. Source: Valenti Rull, "High-Impact Palynology in Petroleum Geology: Applications from Venezuela" AAPG Bulletin 86(2002):2:279-300, p. 285. There is, of course, so much more to go one regarding this particular line of inquiry. The Interlaken and Suigetsu varves should be examined closely.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
This is inline of the Quran version of Noah story:
The latest scientific evidence say: The flood was local to black sea, there was a sudden moment when water rushed to the Black Sea from Bosphorus. This made the sea level rise 10-100 meters (to be confirmed).
This means there was a strong current towards the north west (the big shallow land of over 20,000 sq.km. near the big Danub river delta).
So for Noah his ship will float north-west towards the big river deltas
Continue on next comment
ziyadnour 1 year ago
@ziyadnour could you pls tell me in which Verse of Quran and if possibley the number of line in the verse about Noah story, as I m interested at what you said, because others as well might ask you later to verify it. thanx
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium - Noah versus detailing flood story in Quran are: 54:9-16, 11:41-44, 29:15, 23:27-28 .. easiest is to check them in website quran . com for various translations.
In Arabic the verse 11:44 which mention ALJUDI is exactly 3 words
wastawat = rested
AAala = on the
aljoodiyyi = ALJUDI
There is no mention of "mountain". Most translations put it in [brackets] as it was added by some translators, who were speculating that ALJUDI is a mountain.
ziyadnour 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium might want to check out the Bible kjv. The quran copied the bible, So the Bible is more acurate then the quran.Check it out you'll be supirsed!
targetisdog 11 months ago
@targetisdog I m well aware of the Bible story and have read it too, after all the story of Noah is a Bible Story,but I tell you if you look for the origin of the myth its best to start with the Smerian Epic of Gigamesh as they are the one who witnessed the Flood and brought it down generation of generation till they setteled in Mesopotamia and had it on record on clay tablets...
KurdstanPlanetarium 11 months ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium well how is it a myth if you said it was true? or that you were well aware of the truth.(just asking a question)that it wasn't JUST a story from the Bible.That there's MANY facts like how the dinosaur bones are all under the ground and noone in humanity lived EXCEPT for Noah and some of his family.And then after words LIKE you said settled in Mesopatamia and replenished!
targetisdog 11 months ago
@targetisdog Its a myth since it came down as a story but as you kknow most of mytholgical stories do have bases in reality. In face myths are alegorical stories of real events that took place in remote times and ancient people not yet developed writting remembered them generation after generation as mythological stories.
but I said it was a Sumerian Myth of the epic of Gilgamesh and the hebrow people took it from them the time they used to live in the land of Sumer (Shinar in Bible). as Noah.
KurdstanPlanetarium 11 months ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium ok, so does that mean you think Noah and the flood was just a myth known from generation to generation, or actual fact that has kept ahold all these years?
targetisdog 11 months ago
@targetisdog well the reason I upoaded this scientific documentary (Noah's Flood: Myth or Reality?) is to answer your question and the question of all those like you, inculding myself, so pls watch all the 5 parts to know know all the facts and to get an answer to your question !
KurdstanPlanetarium 11 months ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium ok, will do! :)
targetisdog 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very interesting and it is inline of the Quran version of Noah story
* in Quran: The flood was local (to Noah people), it started gradual (people had time to run to mountains), then massive (the water rushed massively out of the water basin (FAR ATANOUR) and the waves were like mountains), the ship landed on a place called ALJUDI (no mention it was a mountain).
* continue on next comment
ziyadnour 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very interesting and it is inline of the Quran version of Noah story
* in Quran: The flood was local (to Noah people), it started gradual (people had time to run to mountains), then massive (the water rushed massively out of the water basin (FAR ATANOUR) and the waves were like mountains), the ship landed on a place called ALJUDI (no mention it was a mountain).
* continue on next comment
ziyadnour 1 year ago
Comment removed
ziyadnour 1 year ago
Funny how the Egyptians seem oblivious to any flood. They were building the pyramids while this supposed flood was in full swing. FAIL
oneznzeroz 1 year ago 9
@oneznzeroz sorry this was a a flood that caused by the linkage of Black Sea to the Medetteranians, so it was no where near Egypt...the one who report it to us were the Sumerians (Epic of Galgamesh), that created the first ever civilzations more than 2000 years b4 the Egyptian.
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium
I agree but I was responding to the Biblical account where it was global.
oneznzeroz 1 year ago
@oneznzeroz yes you are right as the flood was both global and local as far as black see concerned...
you see the melting of the last ice age caused the see level to rise and that was global. eventually the rising of the sea level is the one that caused to open the link between the Medeterraneans and the blacksea.
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@oneznzeroz Unless the flood was A) Localized, not worldwide or even continent-wide and B) several thousand years before even the old kingdom and C) A story that was mostly oral tradition, albeit rooted in a cultural memory of an actual event in the past.
jjobie 10 months ago
@oneznzeroz It could be the pyramids where built already as there is proof that the sphinx has water marks to say they where building the pyramids and there was no flood is wrong to say.Darwin is wrong the Veda text say differently.Too bad so many believe whatever is taught to them by a agenda.They want people to think we are animals who came from monkeys not that we have been here for a very long time just like there is to much proof of a great flood from stories from around the world .
ozarkmountainman01 9 months ago
@oneznzeroz You don't seem to know much about Egypt and the flood, the Sphinx is older than the Pyramids, it has been eroded by blood water, WINNING
HolyRevelation 8 months ago
@oneznzeroz Sigh...You haven't even read the flood story have you?
Domodeath 8 months ago
@Domodeath Flood account. Not, flood "story", but "account". No big deal, a common mistake, the genesis of which more than likely started with all those cartoonish "story" book depictions that we were subjected to hanging on our grade school classroom walls in nearly every indoctrination institution scattered across the globe. Boy oh boy, i'll tell ya, the "power of suggestion" is mighty strong, is it not? Noah's ark wall hangings being a perfect example.
PEACE & GOD BLESS ALL!!
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd sigh...
Domodeath 7 months ago
@oneznzeroz
How does the end of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago coincide with the construction of the pyramids?
flamifer1 7 months ago
@flamifer1 I think 'oneznzeroz' was likely having trouble with understanding how the pyramids, built around 2700 B.C., could have survived the biblical deluge of 2348 B.C.
Not to worry though chap. I provided him a thorough explanation to help him understand they survived it. Some things are just difficult to understand if we lack the information to "believe" it. Know what i mean?
PEACE & GOD BLESS ALL!!
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Oh, they will just say, that the pyramids were built around 2000 B.C. Creationists have long believed, that the pharaonic dynasties were in reality much shorter than archaeologists believe. They have calculated, that 350 years are long enough to multiply from 8 people to a grand civilisation. If everybody lived in egypt and surroundings, naturally.
flamifer1 7 months ago
@flamifer1 Interesting. I appreciate your acumen and would support that not only were the pharaonic dynasties much shorter than what the archaeology 'establishment' believes but indeed all of time itself. I have studied human population growth rates of various time periods, eras and dispensations and would defend the 8 person/350 yr. hypothesis considering the heightened life expectancy in the first century post-flood, compared to todays mean life span. Cheers mate!
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Thank you for your comment. Can you tell me, which pharaohs did not exist and what evidence we have for a hightened life expectancy after the flood? How many people do you think, used to live in the world 2000 B.C.? Do you also have population growth data for the time after 2000 B.C.? And where did you get it from?
flamifer1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer1A. I'm presently not cognitive of "which pharaohs did not exist". Life expectancy after the deluge did not heighten, but rather met a gradual decline post-flood. From the time of Creation and 1st man & woman, Adam & Eve (4004 B.C.), to the yr. of the biblical flood (2348 B.C.), a period of only 1, 656 yrs, it has been estimated based on antediluvian average life span of 900 yrs., that there could have been up to 8 billion people on the planet. This may be hard imagined, but...CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer1
B. .... but most people can not comprehend that man could live so long. Being unaware of the many significant variables which nurtured life in the antediluvian age, promotes a state of being unable 2 reason 7 understand. Methusla, Moses' grandfather is longest lived at 969 yrs. of age, meaning the child bearing age during this time stretched multiple generations of hundreds of years, hence the expedient population growth. In the modern age we nearly reach 7 billion.. (CONTINUED)
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer1
C. ..we nearly reach 7 billion people on the planet yet we believe we are over populated. So, where did 8 billion fit? Pre-flood age was majority dry land, not 75% ocean & sea covered like today. Not all of the 2348 BC flood water assuaged or "disappeared", it's still here!! Making up a vast amount of our oceans. I mentioned previously that after the flood, human life expectancy saw a gradual decline, but i would like to correct that now by saying it would B considered drastic CONT.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer1
D. The historical record shows decline in mean age by the recording of the deaths and age of Noah in comparison to his three sons who did not live nearly as long due to the radical changes in atmosphere, oxygen decrease, hyperbaric pressure, gravitational forces related to blood flow & cellular health, increased UV radiation exposure, and diet/nutrition all caused by the catastrophic "rebirth" of the earth the "firmament" which surrounds it. And BTW, the earth is not moving. END
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer1 "How many people..to live in the world 2000 B.C.?...for the time after 2000 B.C.?And where did you get it from?"-flamifer
(a) Through the reading of the Chronicles, we can discover the age of the Earth by reading through the generations following the six days of Creation, which we discover were based on a day which we are told consists of an evening and a morning.
According to I Chronicles, from Adam's creation up until Noah are ten generations.
The next ten, beginning..(CONTINUED)
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer1
(b)..The next ten, beginning with the 11th generation Shem ends with Abraham, which is the 20th, 1 Chronicles 1:27.
The next ten beginning with Isaac and ends with Boaz.
David is generation number 33.
Continuing from there, Jesus Christ is generation #66.
Since His death and resurrection, approx. 2000 years have passed.
We conclude from these figures we have a very young earth, and Darwin and evolution have no basis in fact.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@oneznzeroz (A.) The pyramids of Ghiza, Cairo, Egypt are often reported to be built circa 2560 B.C, but more likely date to about 2700 B.C. placing their origin over 300 years before the biblical deluge of 2348 B.C.
There is no doubt the pyramids were engulfed by the flood as both their exterior facades and interior walls show and provide the physical evidence of the Great Flood. Geologists discovered the inner walls coated with a saline residue common to sea water. The exterior..
(CONTINUED)
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@oneznzeroz (B.)...the exterior facades of the pyramids provide a clear perspective of how their surfaces were effected by the erosion of the deluge flood waters & the endurance of being (nearly) under water for over a year. "GOOGLE IMAGES" Search photos of the Great Pyramids and notice the heavy erosion of the smaller 2 and the larger 3/4 up. The 3/4 mark shows the heaviest signs of erosion caused by the "lapping" of the oceanic flood waters while the top (likely protruding) is hardly effected.
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
This proves noah's flood was just a local flood turned into a bible story with the whole world dying.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It's the other way around, these flood stories came from the Flood Story God tells us in the Bible. It's amazing how the world is so ignorant towards the many archaeological facts that prove the story true. But then again, mankind is wise in his own wisdom.
brokentwice78 1 year ago
@brokentwice78 Geologist went looking for evidence of a flood hundreds of years ago and didn't find any, none.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Okay understood - that's what I thought, but I liked your presentation, and I might use a brief clip of it in a later video (if I intend to do that, I will of course ask in advance), but I didn't want to misrepresent you.
Thanks for the reply!!
bushonomics 1 year ago
@bushonomics you very welcome to use any clip, but only give me credit for it, that all I ask..
let me know of your video when is ready,,,love to watch and know your ideas
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
Would it be safe to say that you subscribe to the notion of localized floods rather than a worldwide event?
Just checking - I had run across your video while doing research for mine.
Thank you!
bushonomics 1 year ago
@bushonomics thanks for comment, to answer your question I have to say Yes and No, about this particular event it was a localised flood, caused by the linkage between Black Sea and the Medeterrnain, which rapidly flooded the area in between and the settlers had to migrate..but remember that one reason for the linkage was the melting of the last Ice age, that cause the sea level to rise and even the Black Sea to increase in size. the rising of the sea level mostly flooded the seashore lands.
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
Of course the flood and the Ark existed, the Ark itself was discovered over twenty years ago in Turkey exactly where the Bible says set.
brokentwice78 1 year ago
@brokentwice78
He says the flood was 7600 years ago, that is before the bible say the earth was created. OOPS.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The flood of Noah's day occurred in the year 4990 B.C. Creation was 11,103 B.C.
brokentwice78 1 year ago
@brokentwice78 The flood was 4400 years ago, creation was 6000 years ago.
According to Kent Hovind, Banana man, and Crocoduck boy.
The Chinese history goes back 10,000 years with lots of floods recorded, but they didn't all die like the bible says.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I'm not interested in what people say about it or when they think it happened because they are all wrong. Only what God tells us is true.
brokentwice78 1 year ago
@brokentwice78 God didn't write anything down.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@brokentwice78 Yes, they have found at least 3 arks.
I belived in Santa until I saw 3 of them at the mall.
Now all you need is some evidence of a global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Do some studying as there is lots of global evidence to prove it. Noah's ark has been found.
brokentwice78 1 year ago
@brokentwice78 Next, you will tell me the Grand Canyon proves there was a flood. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz And it goes to show you how ignorant mankind really is with that pea brain of his.
brokentwice78 1 year ago
@brokentwice78 You are proof of a pea brain,
science knows more than you know, a lot more.
Stay in school, read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The great flood is real!
It's estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation The Flood is real, as most of it is about the melting of last ice age and then flooding the lands, this particular one (the Biblical one) is due to the flooding of the Black Sea and the link to the Medeterranians wich was witnessed by the ancestors of the Sumerians some 7600 years ago...
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation So there are 500 Flood legends ! So at least 500 people survived, not 8 people.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Your comment is a Logical Fallacy
False dichotomy: Reducing a set of many possibilities down to two.
I can think of anothing possibilitie, the 8 people pasted down the Flood story to there children.
You will not believe, not because there is lack of evidence, but because you DON'T WANT to accept the flood. "Willfully Ignorant"
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see.
I look at the facts, you have never looked at a geology or biology book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Do you trust what people write in books over what you see with your own eyes? I hope not!
They did not find any evidence of a global flood, lol, Atheists never do!
Not because there is lack of evidence, but because they are willfully ignorant, like youself.
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation willfully ignorant>>>>>>FUCK YOU CREATARD
gregrutz 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation Their own version? Yeah? So what? The earth directly contradicts such a thing. Farmers folklore that has passed into myth is great for bedtime stories and things like that, but it's not entirely factual. Local floods in densely populated floodplains (where the best farming is) are no suprise even today. Well, except for that one yokel who always shows up on the news talking about how many times they've been flooded out or what the tornado sounded like.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation is it really a shock that different civilizations have a story of a flood? i mean how many different civilizations have stories of dragons
isrealjason 10 months ago
@isrealjason It really shouldn't shock you that the reason so many different civilizations have stories about Dragons, ie Dinosaurs, is because they actually seen Dinosaurs.
Or that the reason so many worldwide flood legends exist, is because a great flood really happened.
HolyRevelation 9 months ago
@HolyRevelation Very true I agree 100% Alligators and Komodo "DRAGONS" survived somehow so some dinos are still here! Did you know that reptiles never stop growing? Fast when young, growth slows with age. Look at snakes in the amazon, they can grow to be huge! Paleontology has become corrupted. I never learned as a child dinos were birds. Thats all you hear now.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!!!!
I could go on forever about this subject.
BasicInsB4LvingEarth 8 months ago
@BasicInsB4LvingEarth Yes, many things about science, history, the church, etc has become corrupted.
Reptiles never stop growing, therefore they would get enormous if they lived for a long time.
Dinosaurs evolved into birds, lol
Darwinism is idealism cloaked in science and pseudo scientific rhetoric.
Evolution is nothing more than a form of eastern, Hindu, mysticism disguised as science.
HolyRevelation 8 months ago
@HolyRevelation oooooooooi mate. Im hindu and there is nothing hinduic in the theory of evolution, one of the greatest achievements of mankind, I'm more into physics but I'll give the biologists that credit.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"I'm more into physics but I'll give the biologists that credit."-mignik01
Confucius say, "Not wise for man to give credit before credit due". In other words, hold off till the theory has been proven as that day so far has not come. It's still just a "theory" friend. What's the matter, did U recently just jump in? Got your feet a little wet and throwing around assumptions prematurely before thoroughly investigating the facts of playing field? "Achievement" is a bit of a joke.
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd oh gimme a break. If u dont know what a scientific theory is, take some classes in science. I didnt recently jump in. I'm a researcher.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 I'll spare U from listing my academic resume but rest assured i know what defines "theory". I was merely attesting that to propose a theory is hardly an accomplishment. Anyone could do it, even Quasimodo. Why, i'll make a bet that even you, the village idiot, could come up with one. It's not only ridiculous to aggrandize a theory by labeling it "the greatest achievement of mankind", it's downright absurd.
Not until scientific hypothesis & theories become scientific law are they great
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd well after seeing ur understanding of a theory, I'm not sure I wanna see ur academic resume.
so wat u mean is, the theory of gravitation, quantum theory, theory of relativity, cell theory, germ theory, ................. are all just unproven guesses.
There are no more laws in science anymore. there used to be, back in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 A scientific law must ALWAYS apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. A law is a kind of *fact*.
The Law of Gravity w/its theories, the special theory of relativity does not apply. Things fall, an observable fact.
Cell theory, like the theory of evolution, comes from biology and does amount to a scientific fact.
Olinto De Pretto's Theory of Relativity is contestable with contradictory postulates and variation in its laws.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2 look mate. u r not doing urself any favours. ok here is how it goes.
Gravity: things fall. an observable fact
theory of gravitation: includes that fact, how does it affect objects. how does the the force of gravity falls off with distance.
I was talking about Einstein's general relativity.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 Listen, i am not really interested in these things. This forum is about a flood and a supposed ark. If U would like 2 discuss this w/me, i would invite U. But please, leave God, religion & the origin of life out of it.
"I was talking about Einstein's general relativity." The equation E = mc2 is attributed to S. Tolver Preston 1875, to Jules Henri Poincaré 1900, to Olinto De Pretto 1904. Einstein was a Vatican shill dunce who plagiarized jesuit joseph boscovich's "general relativity"
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
like wise
Evolution: organisms change over time: fact.
Theory of evolution: How do they change, what are the implication, how does it account for the complexity of life.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"Evolution: organisms change over time: fact."-mignik01
>Not "fact" and partly correct. Your rather simple definition feebly describes "micro"-evolution, alluding to speciation. It is "MACRO"-evolution, which suggests certain organisms or animals can become another animal over time; or one "kind" becoming a completely different "kind", which is still merely theory and not "FACT".
Now go back to school and come back when you've learned the difference between the two.
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Not "fact" and partly correct on what basis???
What the hell is a kind?
Show me a biology text which make the prediction that a "Kind" should change in to another "Kind" within so many years.
mignik01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"Not "fact" and partly correct on what basis???"mignik01
>I'm not going 2 repeat.
"What the hell is a kind?"-mignik01
>Are you a man or a monkey, mignik?
-"Show me a biology text which make the prediction that a "Kind" should change into another "Kind" within so many years."-mignik01
>Pick one. Any one. In other words, if it's school text-books you want, how 'bout.... ALL OF THEM.
If U want 2 believe your greatest grandparents went from amoebae's 2 monkeys, have at it.
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Are you a man or a monkey, mignik?
I asked for a definition, not a question.
Pick one. Any one. In other words, if it's school text-books you want, how 'bout.... ALL OF THEM.
I dont know about U.S but there is no biology text that i have come across which makes such a prediction.
If there are no selection pressures acting on a organism, it is less likely to change, nobody can make such a prediction. I agree if there is such a statement, it is wrong.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"What the hell is a kind?"-mignik
A. Long-term evolution requires “macroevolution,” which refers 2 those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf in2 a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish in2 a cow or a duck. Theres a massive difference in scale & effect between microevolution & macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes 2 transform 1 species in2 another. CONT.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes 2 transform 1 species in2 another"
It has actually. just type in "observed instances of speciation". many many times, both in the lab and in the wild.
Blackcap, Drosophila melanogaster, Hawthorn fly, Madeira House Mouse...... just some of the examples.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 I made a careless error and would like to retract, "does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another", to instead read "to transform one "kind" into another kind" , e.g., hippo into a whale or fish into tetrapods.
Your list is not Darwinism, i.e., anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod and so forth.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 "What the hell is a kind?"-mignik
B. Species differentiates "kinds". "Kinds" differentiate species. I am of the persuasion God did this... 4 a reason.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."-Ge 1:11
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, ..(CONTINUED)
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd and trying to explain kinds as the species that can interbreed runs into trouble when u take ring species.
ring species are a collected series of neighbouring populations which can interbreed with closely sited related population, but there exist atleast two populations which are drifted too far apart that they cant interbreed anymore.
so we've got A, B, C, D, E, F. A can breed with B, B with C, C with D, D with E , E with F, but A and F cant.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 Would this process be the setting up of a genetic barrier which prevents interbreeding.?
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "Would this process be the setting up of a genetic barrier which prevents interbreeding.?"
I dnt knw what u r tlking about there. Interbreeding is harmful because it destroys variations.
Take d cheetah and the giant panda for example. Cheetah has the strength in numbers but it is more endangered than the panda because of inbreeding in the recent past. this means a disease that is infectious to one cheetah can be harmful to 90% of the population. panda has better variation
mignik01 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd sorry in the lst post, I said interbreeding, when I really meant inbreeding.
mignik01 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Again I'd like to add. If u think the world is being threatened by "evil" scientists, go out, do some work and get some results. Until then I just cant take u seriously. As I said, its just like arguing with a flat earthist.
No speculation, no assertions, actual experiments that are reproducible and verifiable. Do that and you will get traction with me, because I work for my results and u dont.
mignik01 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd contd. the problem is that when a species have drifted too far apart that they cant interbreed anymore.
Larrus Gulls, Ensatina Salamanders, the greenish warbler are examples.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 "What the hell is a kind?"-mignik
C. "...whose seed was in itself, after his kind: & God saw that it was good."-Ge1:12
"& God created great whales, & every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, & every winged fowl after his kind: & God saw that it was good."-Ge 1:21
"& God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, & creeping thing, & beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so"-Ge 1:24
CONT.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 "What the hell is a kind?"-mignik
D. "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."-Ge 1:25
"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."-Ge 6:20
"They, & every beast after his kind, & all the cattle after their kind,..
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 "What the hell is a kind?"-mignik
E."..& all the cattle after their kind,& every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind,& every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."-Ge 7:14
Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they R taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe 2 grind against God.
END
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 Reply 2-"If there are no selection pressures acting on a organism, it is less likely to change,"-mignik
"selection "pressures". In nature there are no pressures for one species (kind) of animal to breed with a completely different kind (species) of animal. And if they were forced (pressured), they would not, could not, reproduce. There are rumors "selection pressures" of unnatural 'selection' have been forced in a lab at microbial levels, but indeed not natural and again only rumor.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
Respond to this video... and one more thing. there is no micro or macro in the scientific community.
mignik01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"..and one more thing. there is no micro or macro in the scientific community."-mignik01
What a paradox, & a humorous one at that because its both right, but mostly wrong. No wait, mostly right. Well, it really depends on who U R and how U look at it & which "scientific community" as there R distinctly two. One that is "controlled" by agenda driven "micro management. And the other is free 2 report truth.
"micro" speciation = true science
"macro" evolution = false science
SpencerBenedict2nd 7 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "micro" speciation = true science
"macro" evolution = false science
people who make that claim fail to provide any mechanism by which dna limits its change. In short there is no portion of the genome that is not susceptible to change. ofcourse there are portions that are conserved over generations because those are essential for the health of a cell. We can even find these in us and fruit flies.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"there is no portion of the genome that is not susceptible to change."-mignik
Agreed, but change only in the downgrade as in a loss of information; degeneration. Never change to the respect of taking on added or new information, the necessary component for the theory of "macro" evolution (the creation of a new kind of animal from another) to occur, which has never been proven or shown to occur, nor will it never for there is a God planted barrier that cannot be broke (period)
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd and I'd like to add. I havent marked ur comments as spam. In fact i have marked them as not spam now.
mignik01 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd First. What do u mean by information?
Which organism has the most information?
mignik01 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "Agreed, but change only in the downgrade as in a loss of information; degeneration."
Lets call it complexity. Genetic complexity has been shown to increase in labs and out in the wild, nylonase is a good example. it was a completely new fucnction for the gene resulting in a different species . It was tracedback to a frame shift mutation. I see no "information" lost there.
mignik01 6 months ago
@mignik01 A random mutation didn't happen. It is a designed change for adaptation, and you will not see a change in kind. You say, "... for the gene resulting in a different species.", which is the same as variations within the same kind as i outlined in a recent response. Again, no Darwinism here. Most importantly, a new enzyme is not a new 'kind' of organism. Time is not important here--but the right DNA. This DNA was pre-existent. The point is, it's a system, not a random process.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd random mutation didn't happen. It is a designed change for adaptation,
Yep and I should believe that because it was told by someone who dont know what a scientific theory is, just because he said so, and discard the work of the most briliant people for the past century and a half and thousands of papers written by them.
yeah right.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 Your beginning to sound desperate. And compared to most, you didn't take that long.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"...We can even find these in us and fruit flies."-mignik
Fruit flies have been mutated and bred in laboratories for generations, but they are still fruit flies. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Experimentation through extensive selective breeding has also shown us that there is a limit to this adaptation.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd if a fruit fly started giving birth to something else, then u have a point. u can defy evolution. the theory predicts how much change we should expect with certain selection pressures within certain periods of time. We are seeing that. anything more contradicts the predictions of the theory.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 "the theory predicts how much change we should expect with certain selection pressures within certain periods of time."-mignik
>And exactly "HOW MUCH change" does the theory predict? To the extent, given "enough time", that it will produce a completely new kind of animal? Ridiculous, it's never happened while an entity desperately tries to claim it has.
"We are seeing that."
The only thing being seen, is speciation.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
>And exactly "HOW MUCH change" does the theory predict? To the extent, given "enough time", that it will produce a completely new kind of animal? Ridiculous, it's never happened while an entity desperately tries to claim it has.
Again. No understanding of the theory.
mignik01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mignik01 Your quickly becoming a bit of a joke. Answer the question.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd Your quickly becoming a bit of a joke. Answer the question.
Me??? well i have been providing papers, explanations, examples and so on for the last couple of days and all you do is that u is claim that u know some secret. and I am a joke. Yeah right.
mignik01 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd For the last time.
1.THEORIES DONT EVER BECOME LAWS.
2.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KIND IN SCIENCE. ITS ONLY FOUND IN BRONZE AGE MYTHS.
3.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION
4.SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND WELL DOCUMENTED AND IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
5. EVOLUTION IS THE CENTRAL THEORY IN BIOLOGY AND NOTHING HAS COME UP TO EVEN TO EVEN QUESTION IT.
mignik01 6 months ago
@mignik01 "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION"-mignik
Long-term evo, though, requires “macroevo,” which refers 2 those large-scale changes. Microevo turns a wolf in2 a Chihuahua or Great Dane. Macroevo would turn a fish in2 a cow or duck. There's a massive difference in scale & effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
It does support. U dont have any data to prove it otherwise. Stop speculating and start giving evidence.
mignik01 6 months ago
@mignik01 REPLY 2-"SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND WELL DOCUMENTED AND IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT W/THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."-mignik
1. Are U of the mind than man "evolved" from amoebas through "speciation" or "evolution"?
(just trying 2 nail you down)
2. What's your definition of "speciation"?
and 3. If U believe we evolved from the so-called "primordial soups" , then i would like your description of each of the stages we went thru 2 get 2 where we are today. Start w/stating the # of stages.
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
f U believe we evolved from the so-called "primordial soups" , then i would like your description of each of the stages we went thru 2 get 2 where we are today. Start w/stating the # of stages
It is well