Thread: Biblical Flood

Well, if you are asking about the Biblical Flood -- based on the Scripture -- I will suggest to you that it did NOT happen on this planet. Noah's world was completely destroyed by the universal flood. It's beyond our cosmos.

As you know, IF this Planet were covered with water, above Everest, the water would still be here. A fig tree could not have germinated, grown, and put forth leaves within the week Scripture requires. Gen 8:10

The first Earth was in the first Heaven (Garden of Eden), which was made on the 2nd Day, in the midst of the water. Gen 1:6-8. Our planet was made on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9

The first Earth, the world of Adam and Noah is gone forever. The sin and violence of men, brought about it's destruction. ll Peter 3:5-6. The heavens and the earth, which are Now, will be burned. ll Peter 3:7

The 3rd Heaven is where Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. It's where all Christians will live forever. ll Corinthians 12:2tells us of the 3rd Heaven.

But of course, I understand your predicament in trying to comprehend the Scripture. They are spiritually discerned. Poor, misguided, "arrogant scientists", are totally ignorant of 2/3 of God's Creation. Their limited "study" is confined to this World. This means that they are 2/3 ignorant of God's Truth. No wonder they get it wrong so much.

Right...

*shrug*

After 4.53 Billion years, Evolution had Not produced even 1 Human Civilization, which is confirmed by the fact that there are NO other Human Civilizations, older than Mesopotamia, just South of the mountains of Ararat. Suddenly, some 10,000 + - years ago, Noah was brought to this Planet -- because of their world was totally destroyed by the flood -- the 1st evidences of Human Civilization are observed in Mesopotamia. NO man could have told us that our 1st Civilization is traceable to Noah and his grandsons, but God told us this more than 3,000 years ago.

It should be obvious that the "sons of God" (prehistoric mankind) , who were already here for millions of years when Noah arrived, were as highly evolved, in intelligence, as any animal, but they had never written their name, had math, nor ever built a City, after millions of years of Evolution. Prehistoric Mankind was too ignorant to write his History until Noah arrived some 10,000 years ago.

Noah's grandsons produced Offspring who built the 1st Human Cities on this Planet. That's what happens when you combine the physical DNA of the sons of God (prehistoric mankind), with the Human Intelligence of Adam's descendants. We get today's Human Beings, and you don't have to wait for Millions of years to become Civilized

For years, Evols have searched in vain for a Human Civilization older than that which is written in Scripture. There is NONE, because Noah brought Human Intelligence and Civilization to this "Planet of Apes", after their World was destroyed by Water.

This, of course, means that Macro is a Lie and God's Holy Word is the Truth. We did not Evolve our Human Intelligence. We inherited it from Adam, exactly as God told us we did. If Noah had not left his world and came to this "Planet Apes" (other scientists term), we would still be innocent Animals, because Evolution does NOT produce Humans. Human Intelligence must be inherited from another Human. EvolutionISM is the odd man out.

Evols, please list your so called "evidences" down below....

Thanks

tbh, i've listed the evidences so many times that on this occasion i can't be arsed

see the radio isotope dating question thread in Earth Sciences

Perhaps, you misunderstood my post. Just to clarify my position, the age of this earth is apx. 4.5B years old and in complete accord with Scripture. As you might have known the outward expansion of this present (our) Universe is some 15 Billion light years from it's beginning. However, the 1st Universe (the world of Adam-Noah), which was destroyed by water, is beyond our Cosmos, which would make it more than 15 Billion light years away.

Today's feeble scientists know of No matter which exists beyond the 15 Billion light years they can "see", today. That's also the reason why I said arrogant scientists, are totally ignorant of 2/3 of God's Creation. Their limited "study" is confined to this World. Sorry.

Try again?

Um tools have been used by humans for much longer than 10,000 years, thus denoting that human intelligence existed prior to sedentary lifestyles. You're argument is absurd, North American natives were nomadic so they never built cities or had a written language, but they are just as intelligent and "evolved" as any other human. Moreover, cities arrose independently in several parts of the world, notably in South America. How would you propose that the Mesoamericans developed cities (if this is somehow a sign of higher intelligence rofl) while being completely isolated from the Middle East.

Where are you getting all this nonsense from? Are you pulling your figures from thin air? Where does it say that Earth 1 was 15 Billion ly away? Do you have any idea how many planets probably exist in OUR Cosmos? You are a FAKE! Don't waist our time. Nobody will take you seriously here.

how do you envisage that the earth would be destroyed by water ? was it made of blotting paper that then fell apart when it had soaked up too much water ?

+ where was the 2nd earth kept while the 1st one orbited the sun ? and did god just pluck the old one out of its orbit and replace it with the stand-in ?

+ why does the 2nd earth exhibit all the evidence that it has been around for billions of years when it was only brought out of storage a few thousand years ago ?

just the application of some basic logic raises so many questions that occam's razor tells me it's far simpler to accept that there's only been 1 earth and that any tales of a global flood are a vast inflation of some local floods near the persian gulf

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Um tools have been used by humans for much longer than 10,000 years, thus denoting that human intelligence existed prior to sedentary lifestyles. You're argument is absurd, North American natives were nomadic so they never built cities or had a written language, but they are just as intelligent and "evolved" as any other human. Moreover, cities arrose independently in several parts of the world, notably in South America. How would you propose that the Mesoamericans developed cities (if this is somehow a sign of higher intelligence rofl) while being completely isolated from the Middle East.

There were NO Humans, on this planet, until Noah arrived, which is confirmed by the fact that there are NO other Human Civilizations, older than Mesopotamia, just South of the mountains of Ararat. Perhaps you mistake me telling the Truth, that Noah was the first Human to step on this Earth, for "brushing off" the accomplishments of the ancient people (prehistoric mankind).

I do Not mean to imply that the ancient people, the "sons of God", were any different than ourselves. They looked the same, could produce offspring with Humans, and were the pinnacle of evolutionary growth BUT they were Not Human. The ancient mankind were INNOCENT beings because they did Not know good and evil, and they had Never built a City, wrote a book, or worked one math problem.

The offspring of the union of the sons of God and the descendants of Adam brought Human Civilization to this Planet of innocent animals. EvolutionISM is the odd man out. We did not evolve our human intelligence from mindless nature. We inherited it from Adam.

Are you ready to admit your error?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Where are you getting all this nonsense from? Are you pulling your figures from thin air? Where does it say that Earth 1 was 15 Billion ly away? Do you have any idea how many planets probably exist in OUR Cosmos? You are a FAKE! Don't waist our time. Nobody will take you seriously here.

Scripture says that those who have not been born again have eyes which CANNOT see, and ears which CANNOT hear. Tell us of your mysterious ability to see into the mind of another. I am all ears.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Where are you getting all this nonsense from? Are you pulling your figures from thin air? Where does it say that Earth 1 was 15 Billion ly away? Do you have any idea how many planets probably exist in OUR Cosmos? You are a FAKE! Don't waist our time. Nobody will take you seriously here.

Scripture says that those who have not been born again have eyes which CANNOT see, and ears which CANNOT hear. Tell us of your mysterious ability to see into the mind of another. I am all ears.

Scripture tells us that those who do not use their brains are as good as dumb and deaf. Tell us of the provenance of your scripture. We're all agog.

Originally Posted by marnixR

how do you envisage that the earth would be destroyed by water ? was it made of blotting paper that then fell apart when it had soaked up too much water ?

+ where was the 2nd earth kept while the 1st one orbited the sun ? and did god just pluck the old one out of its orbit and replace it with the stand-in ?

+ why does the 2nd earth exhibit all the evidence that it has been around for billions of years when it was only brought out of storage a few thousand years ago ?

just the application of some basic logic raises so many questions that occam's razor tells me it's far simpler to accept that there's only been 1 earth and that any tales of a global flood are a vast inflation of some local floods near the persian gulf

If I cite you the Scripture you won't believe it anyway. Plus, I don't deal with the why's simply because it's hypothetical question which deals with assumptions.

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: v6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, PERISHED (Greek- totally destroyed): v7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

I don't know about you but, in my Father's house there are many mansions (see my signature at the bottom - John 14:1~2). If it were not so, I would not be arguing with you right now.

However, the bone of contention here is -- after 4.5B years of allege EvolutionISM - no human civilization can be trace untill Noah was brought to this Planet of Apes - some 10K years ago. Don't you find it coincidental that the Cradle of Civilization, the home of writing, math, and Civilization, on this Planet, is just South of the mountains of Ararat? God's Truth is the Truth in every way.

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Well, if you are asking about the Biblical Flood -- based on the Scripture -- I will suggest to you that it did NOT happen on this planet. Noah's world was completely destroyed by the universal flood. It's beyond our cosmos....

Does it say the whole planet was covered in water? Noah's people understood what a planet was?

Or maybe it was the world they knew was covered in water. Everywhere they went it was covered in water. And considering they walked or rode an animal everywhere that wouldn't be far.

Originally Posted by Orleander

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Well, if you are asking about the Biblical Flood -- based on the Scripture -- I will suggest to you that it did NOT happen on this planet. Noah's world was completely destroyed by the universal flood. It's beyond our cosmos....

Does it say the whole planet was covered in water? Noah's people understood what a planet was?

Or maybe it was the world they knew was covered in water. Everywhere they went it was covered in water. And considering they walked or rode an animal everywhere that wouldn't be far.

The 1st Firmament or Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8 It was formed in the midst or middle of the Water, and Water was above and below it. IOW, the 1st Heaven, was surrounded by water. It was later destroyed, totally and completely, by that same Water, when the "windows of heaven were opened. Gen. 7:11

Our Heaven or Universe was made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-5 Our own planetary explosion or "Big Bang" happened on the 3rd Day, the same Day Jesus made our Heaven or Kosmos, and also the 3rd Heaven.

Perhaps, Noah' family didn't know the difference "what a planet was", but, certanly, the sons of God did! Do you want Scripture?

Next please...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

...Perhaps, Noah' family didn't know the difference "what a planet was", but, certanly, the sons of God did! Do you want Scripture?

Next please...

so the person who wrote genesis knew what a planet was? I'm sure they knew by the time the King James version came out. Is that who you are talking about? Those sons of god who wrote that version of scipture?

Originally Posted by Orleander

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

...Perhaps, Noah' family didn't know the difference "what a planet was", but, certanly, the sons of God did! Do you want Scripture?

Next please...

so the person who wrote genesis knew what a planet was? I'm sure they knew by the time the King James version came out. Is that who you are talking about? Those sons of god who wrote that version of scipture?

Of course not. That's NOT how God has chosen to reveal His Truth. Look at all the Chrtistian denominations. If you look at Christianity as a big Pie, and see all the denominations as slices in the pie, you will find that God's Truth is in the whole pie, and that each slice teaches only part of God's Truth.

Why? Because ONLY those who have Faith, not knowledge, can enter the Kingdom of God. The complexity of views of the various denominations assure that we must come to God by Faith alone, no matter the denomination.

But that's off the topic already.

If you already have faith, then you need not be convinced, thus you are deluded.

Convince me there is a God.

Originally Posted by Obviously

If you already have faith, then you need not be convinced, thus you are deluded.

Convince me there is a God.

I don't have to, since, I have a gut feeling that you are already a reprobate. Look..

"The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."

So, there's no hope for you at this time.

So because I don't believe in God, I'm a bad person?

why is everybody responding to Hiramabbi he's a trolling nutjob.
just ignore him and he'll go away.

Originally Posted by Obviously

So because I don't believe in God, I'm a bad person?

You know yourself better than I am so you can judge yourself. You don't need me to confirm that, besides, you're off the topic of discussion.

Anyway, are you ready to admit that Evolution did Not produce Human Intelligence? Can you see that the agreement of Scripture and History outweights the assumptions of scientists, which have little or No Evidence to support them concerning How or When we obtained our Human Intelligence? Is it just a coincidence that the first City, on this Planet, was built by one of Noah's descendants?

And your answer please....

My answer is that you're an arrogant and ignorant fool who knows nothing of science, yet claim it to be wrong.

my answer to the question "am i bad ?" is by definition "no"
i doubt whether there's a single person on earth who doesn't think of him or herself as good, proper and right

hence, anything and anyone i disagree with must be bad - that makes an awful lot of bad people, all of whom think of themselves as being good

the only way out of this conundrum is to equate good with bad, i.e. the ultimate relativism
that's what religion makes you do : to believe that black is white because a book says so

Originally Posted by Obviously

My answer is that you're an arrogant and ignorant fool who knows nothing of science, yet claim it to be wrong.

OK, tell us every thing you know about "science". We have a minute, I promise I will not laugh so hard. :-D

Originally Posted by Obviously

My answer is that you're an arrogant and ignorant fool who knows nothing of science, yet claim it to be wrong.

Acceptance by Blind Faith is typical for most Evols. With little or No evidence, these zealous worshippers claim they don't have Evol Religion, but their own words betray them. Accepting that we "evolved" our Human intelligence from that which has NO intelligence, is pure Evol Religion. Just Believe, these false Religionists teach.

First we spontaneously sprang forth Chemically.... POOF... and then we magically changed from animal to Human intelligence, after Mystically Morphing from Amoeba to Man.

Such Mother Goose fantasy is available only from True Evol Believers. Don't laugh, for they are Force teaching their laughable Religion to our children, while screaming for "evidence" that they are wrong.

Presuming that they know more than God, they become fools.

Next please...

Science works through the scientific method, not by blind faith. Obviously you are oblivious to what you're talking about, for example:

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

First we spontaneously sprang forth Chemically.... POOF... and then we magically changed from animal to Human intelligence, after Mystically Morphing from Amoeba to Man.

Not going to comment on such stupidity and inaccuracy.

How the scientific method works can be easily summed up by Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The "religious method" if you will consists of guesses and wishful thinking concocted of personal convictions which is not backed up by evidence of any kind.

Evol Religion is being taught to our children in Elementary School. Kids are taught that we "evolved" our Human intelligence along with our bodies. There is NO evidence for such a Lie. Therefore, Evols are teaching their "BELIEFS" or RELIGION as fact, when in fact, it is a Lie from the Pits of Hell.

Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen. Godless Evols, placing their worship in "Natural Science" see their position as "lofty", when in Truth, they are praising their own great destroyer. Only those who are ignorant of Satan's ways, would fall for such tripe.

Next please....

Here's some proof for human evolution:

Ken Miller on Human Evolution

Genesis 7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Then how did the dove come back with an olive branch?

Originally Posted by Orleander

Genesis 7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

You should get somebody to help you comprehend what you're trying to read. The text says ALL those who were IN THE DRY LAND (Noah' world) DIED - not the ones in the Ark.

Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. v23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Originally Posted by Orleander

Then how did the dove come back with an olive branch?

As I have asserted before, there are numerous earth being spoken in the Scripture. Read my previous post. Noah was brought to this planet similar to the way our Apostle Paul was taken to the 3rd heaven. IOW, this earth is not the same earth where Noah came from. The dove got the "olive branch" from this planet.

Nice try but no cigar. Next please...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by Obviously

My answer is that you're an arrogant and ignorant fool who knows nothing of science, yet claim it to be wrong.

OK, tell us every thing you know about "science". We have a minute, I promise I will not laugh so hard. :-D

BUMP TO: Obviously - The Pretender.

What? I already told you what science is about. Science is used, by the means of the scientific method, to explain natural phenomenons.

Originally Posted by Obviously

What? I already told you what science is about. Science is used, by the means of the scientific method, to explain natural phenomenons.

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by Obviously

What? I already told you what science is about. Science is used, by the means of the scientific method, to explain natural phenomenons.

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

Like all those things that make your computer function o.O

Edit: Anyway we really should just be ignoring this troll.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

You're not being intentionally dense are you? All phenomenons like gravity, chemical interactions, explosions, consciousness, diseases, origin of species, light etc, etc.

You want me to list all phenomenons in the world? Science seeks to explain how things work and how they come to be.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by Obviously

What? I already told you what science is about. Science is used, by the means of the scientific method, to explain natural phenomenons.

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

Like all those things that make your computer function o.O

Edit: Anyway we really should just be ignoring this troll.

OIC, then, I might as well make the following claims too...

I present You as factual evidence that God made everything that moves, including Humans. All Humans descended from Adam, the first Human. Science has NO idea How or When we inherited our Human Intelligence, but Moses knew, and told of it more than 3,000 years ago.

This evidence, which agrees with every true discovery of Science, History, is True to Scripture, and shows that Evols would Not be here, to post their ideas, if Noah had not brought Human Intelligence to this "Planet of Apes". The fact that they can organize a thought, and type it into their computer, separates them from all other animals, and identifies them as "Human".

Mindless Evolution nor Uncaring Nature produced Human Intelligence. That's the Big Lie and that's Evolutionism, the Evol Religion. No Un-Intelligent entity, nor Flawed Theory, ever produced anything. Jesus made it or it's Not here.

Evols, please state factual evidence for EvolutionISM here:

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

I present You as factual evidence that God made everything that moves, including Humans. All Humans descended from Adam, the first Human. Science has NO idea How or When we inherited our Human Intelligence, but Moses knew, and told of it more than 3,000 years ago.

This evidence, which agrees with every true discovery of Science, History, is True to Scripture, and shows that Evols would Not be here, to post their ideas, if Noah had not brought Human Intelligence to this "Planet of Apes". The fact that they can organize a thought, and type it into their computer, separates them from all other animals, and identifies them as "Human".

Mindless Evolution nor Uncaring Nature produced Human Intelligence. That's the Big Lie and that's Evolutionism, the Evol Religion. No Un-Intelligent entity, nor Flawed Theory, ever produced anything. Jesus made it or it's Not here.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Evols, please state factual evidence for EvolutionISM here:

Here's an whole article with evidence for evolution:

Evidence of evolution

Either ignore facts and claim absurdities, or read and educate yourself.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

You're not being intentionally dense are you? All phenomenons like gravity, chemical interactions, explosions, consciousness, diseases, origin of species, light etc, etc.

You want me to list all phenomenons in the world? Science seeks to explain how things work and how they come to be.

I don't think any one of the above "example of phenomenoms" nor the links you have presented have been properly articulated by you -- in your own words - therefore, I believe you're only pretending to know more than what your capable of, right now. Sorry.

Try Again?

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

You're not being intentionally dense are you? All phenomenons like gravity, chemical interactions, explosions, consciousness, diseases, origin of species, light etc, etc.

You want me to list all phenomenons in the world? Science seeks to explain how things work and how they come to be.

I don't think any one of the above "example of phenomenoms" have been properly articulated by you -- in your own words - therefore, I believe you're only pretending to know more than what your capable of, right now. Sorry.

Try Again?

Lol you're a very irritating troll.

Chemical interactions are complex thus why some people devote their entire life to chemistry o.O

Explosions are rather simple since they are just the oxidation of a gas.

Consciousness is not completely understood because we do not completely understand the brain as of yet.

Disease is very well understood, otherwise doctors wouldn't be very useful would they?

Origin of species is another topic you could fill books with, so it can hardly be articulated on an online forum.

Light is made of photons and travels in waves, what more does a person need to articulate on light o.O

follow my example guys, and save yourself some aggro : place this joker on your ignore list
oh, and if any of the moderators or he admin team happen to pass by, a demotion of this thread to the trash can wouldn't go amiss

Originally Posted by marnixR

follow my example guys, and save yourself some aggro : place this joker on your ignore list
oh, and if any of the moderators or he admin team happen to pass by, a demotion of this thread to the trash can wouldn't go amiss

Who we talking about?

PS, hows Philosophorum going? I've been playing COD 4 quite a bit over the last month so haven't really dropped in. Actually I think I'll have a butchers now.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

I don't think any one of the above "example of phenomenoms" nor the links you have presented have been properly articulated by you -- in your own words - therefore, I believe you're only pretending to know more than what your capable of, right now. Sorry.

Try Again?

Try again? Well, if you're going to ignore the things that I say on the basis that it's "not well enough articulated", then I see no point in continuing this conversation. If you're unable to decipher my "articulation" then it's a problem that you have, which I am sadly unable to do anything about. And this accusation of me "pretending to know more than I'm capable of" is nothing more than an empty excuse for "I don't care what you say", which only testifies to your ignorance.

Said the pot to the kettle Obviously, said the pot to the kettle. You've done that to me and others on numerous occasions. You don't seem to do it to atheists though for some reason. There is no yin without yang, his/her actions and words are parallel to your own.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Said the pot to the kettle Obviously, said the pot to the kettle. You've done that to me and others on numerous occasions. You don't seem to do it to atheists though for some reason. There is no yin without yang, his/her actions and words are parallel to your own.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Name once I've ignored someones statement because it hasn't been "articulated" well enough. The only statements that hold true value are those based on evidence and logic. I can name one example where I have disagreed with other atheists (whenever babies are born atheists or not), and I can name one example where I have agreed with a theist (when me and mitch where discussing). The only reason why I discuss with others is to reach objective conclusions. I have both agreed and disagreed with some and I hold only to the side which has backed up claims and reason.

I like you as a person svwillmer and respect who you are. But your judgment of me is not objective, and it therefore holds little value to me. My beliefs are confined to rules of; balance, truth and understanding. The worst thing I can be called is a hypocrite, which is why this is kind of a sore point for me

Well, enough insane rambling. At least tell me what I can do better

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Who we talking about?

i was talking about Hiramabbi

as for philosophorum, it's down while it's being moved to another server, which seems to take longer than the originally planned 3 days (which would have been fab, since it would have gone down on Good Friday and been resurrected on Easter Sunday ! - what an opportunity lost ...)

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

such as..... ? hello ((((((((((((( can you here me now?

You're not being intentionally dense are you? All phenomenons like gravity, chemical interactions, explosions, consciousness, diseases, origin of species, light etc, etc.

You want me to list all phenomenons in the world? Science seeks to explain how things work and how they come to be.

I don't think any one of the above "example of phenomenoms" have been properly articulated by you -- in your own words - therefore, I believe you're only pretending to know more than what your capable of, right now. Sorry.

Try Again?

Lol you're a very irritating troll.

Chemical interactions are complex thus why some people devote their entire life to chemistry o.O

Explosions are rather simple since they are just the oxidation of a gas.

Consciousness is not completely understood because we do not completely understand the brain as of yet.

Disease is very well understood, otherwise doctors wouldn't be very useful would they?

Origin of species is another topic you could fill books with, so it can hardly be articulated on an online forum.

Light is made of photons and travels in waves, what more does a person need to articulate on light o.O

It good that you finally admit that science can explain everything in our universe naturally, the origin of the universe and the origin of life are the 2 biggest examples that science has not been able to explain with any validity. Oh and I'm not attacking science, I'm attacking YOUR definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism, when the fact is evolutionism is just as guilty of the things you have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth a priori.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Said the pot to the kettle Obviously, said the pot to the kettle. You've done that to me and others on numerous occasions. You don't seem to do it to atheists though for some reason. There is no yin without yang, his/her actions and words are parallel to your own.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Name once I've ignored someones statement because it hasn't been "articulated" well enough. The only statements that hold true value are those based on evidence and logic. I can name one example where I have disagreed with other atheists (whenever babies are born atheists or not), and I can name one example where I have agreed with a theist (when me and mitch where discussing). The only reason why I discuss with others is to reach objective conclusions. I have both agreed and disagreed with some and I hold only to the side which has backed up claims and reason.

I like you as a person svwillmer and respect who you are. But your judgment of me is not objective, and it therefore holds little value to me. My beliefs are confined to rules of; balance, truth and understanding. The worst thing I can be called is a hypocrite, which is why this is kind of a sore point for me

Well, enough insane rambling. At least tell me what I can do better

You are apparently unaware that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution (observable and repeatable). What we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).

You want Scriptural claim or evidence that is validated by true science of today and logic, correct? Here's just an example of one Biblical claim about Micro-Evolution - during the creation process - even before any one of your so called scientist ever born into this world. Obviously, you will eat your heart out after reading this... sorry

Note: Insertion are mine for presentation and better understanding of my thought.

Genesis 2:21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam (sedation), and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof (surgery); v22 And the RIB, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman (duplication and recombination process), and brought her unto the man. v23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

The fact the Scripture had already documented us how Eve was formed from Adam’s rib should indicate to all Godless Evols that the process was dealing with “cloning” (our term) even before any of them (scientist) is born into this world. Do you agree?

Also, do you see the process of gene duplication and recombination with new function created (female sex organ) = Micro-Evolution? But notice, NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION ADDED (still the same kind of human flesh) – for Macro-evolution to advance it’s stupid claim, correct? Of course, Macro-Evolution is a lie. However, micro-evolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born.

I would also suggest that your Biblical ignorance is surpassed only by your hypocritical nature to our belief, unless, of course you prove me wrong. Do you want to try again?

Next please.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

...I would also suggest that your Biblical ignorance is surpassed only by your hypocritical nature to our belief, unless, of course you prove me wrong. Do you want to try again?

Next please.

lord love a duck. You actually think you're 'winning' this little discussion don't you?
Interesting.

Just leave it alone and maybe he'll go away. There is no point in discussing. Let him think what he wants, I couldn’t care less.

Humans construct all sorts of weird notions in their silly thoughts, but that doesn't make the thoughts Infallible. Your praise is misplaced. Such devotion should be reserved for Religion....and is, in your case......sadly placed in Evolutionism.

Since you also stuck your nose into the discussion, you should also try to tell us How and When mankind changed from animal to Human.......or admit your ignorance....or would you have us believe that we have been Human from the beginning?

Deal with the issue directly and quit attacking the messenger for your own stupidity and ignorance of the Scripture?

Hello(((((((((((( any rebuttal from Godless evols? Thanks.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Just leave it alone and maybe he'll go away. There is no point in discussing. Let him think what he wants, I couldn’t care less.

watch your blood pressure, kalster

do as i advised you before, and press the ignore button - c'mon, you know you want to

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Humans construct all sorts of weird notions in their silly thoughts, but that doesn't make the thoughts Infallible. Your praise is misplaced. Such devotion should be reserved for Religion....and is, in your case......sadly placed in Evolutionism.

Since you also stuck your nose into the discussion, you should also try to tell us How and When mankind changed from animal to Human.......or admit your ignorance....or would you have us believe that we have been Human from the beginning?

Deal with the issue directly and quit attacking the messenger for your own stupidity and ignorance of the Scripture?

Hello(((((((((((( any rebuttal from Godless evols? Thanks.

Scripture isn't evidence.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Scripture isn't evidence.

BUMP TO OBVIOUSLY .... ANY REBUTTAL OR ARE GOING TO ADMIT THAT YOU'RE JUST BLUFFING? WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO DO?

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Said the pot to the kettle Obviously, said the pot to the kettle. You've done that to me and others on numerous occasions. You don't seem to do it to atheists though for some reason. There is no yin without yang, his/her actions and words are parallel to your own.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Name once I've ignored someones statement because it hasn't been "articulated" well enough. The only statements that hold true value are those based on evidence and logic. I can name one example where I have disagreed with other atheists (whenever babies are born atheists or not), and I can name one example where I have agreed with a theist (when me and mitch where discussing). The only reason why I discuss with others is to reach objective conclusions. I have both agreed and disagreed with some and I hold only to the side which has backed up claims and reason.

I like you as a person svwillmer and respect who you are. But your judgment of me is not objective, and it therefore holds little value to me. My beliefs are confined to rules of; balance, truth and understanding. The worst thing I can be called is a hypocrite, which is why this is kind of a sore point for me

Well, enough insane rambling. At least tell me what I can do better

You are apparently unaware that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution (observable and repeatable). What we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).

You want Scriptural claim or evidence that is validated by true science of today and logic, correct? Here's just an example of one Biblical claim about Micro-Evolution - during the creation process - even before any one of your so called scientist ever born into this world. Obviously, you will eat your heart out after reading this... sorry

Note: Insertion are mine for presentation and better understanding of my thought.

Genesis 2:21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam (sedation), and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof (surgery); v22 And the RIB, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman (duplication and recombination process), and brought her unto the man. v23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

The fact the Scripture had already documented us how Eve was formed from Adam’s rib should indicate to all Godless Evols that the process was dealing with “cloning” (our term) even before any of them (scientist) is born into this world. Do you agree?

Also, do you see the process of gene duplication and recombination with new function created (female sex organ) = Micro-Evolution? But notice, NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION ADDED (still the same kind of human flesh) – for Macro-evolution to advance it’s stupid claim, correct? Of course, Macro-Evolution is a lie. However, micro-evolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born.

I would also suggest that your Biblical ignorance is surpassed only by your hypocritical nature to our belief, unless, of course you prove me wrong. Do you want to try again?

Next please.

Small changes over small periods of time equals large changes over large periods of time.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Small changes over small periods of time equals large changes over large periods of time.

IOW, I take you don't have any rebuttal to the above cited Scriptural evidence of micro-evolution being mentioned in the Scripture -- even before any of your scientist eve born into this wold, correct? I thought so.

OK, let's get more serious now and talk about your allege knowledge of evolutionISM.

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence. Therefore, having a rich imagination doesn’t make an event repeatable, but it does demonstrate that non-repeatable events of the past are subject to speculation, which is what macro-evolution is.

I do hope you can give us an example. What I am looking for is not just new COPIES of existing genetic information, those are not “new genetic information”, what I am looking for is an example of an evolutionary process whereby a sightless creature, for example, gained new genetic information such that this creature can then see.

Please cite and articulate your "evidences" in your own words here.

In nature you can see intermidiate stages of the eye, and you'll be able to determine that the eye evolves through gradual steps:

* Photosensitive cell

* Aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

* An optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

* Pigment cells forming a small depression

*Pigment cells forming a deeper depression

*The skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

Through natural selection, the eye evolves to become more and more complex. But I'll make an simpler explanation later on...

Evolution works like this:

Fact 1: Living organisms reproduce

Fact 2: Reproduction causes populations to grow at an exponential rate

Fact 3: Exponential growth unckecked will cause a population to infinity

Fact 4: All life requires energy and space

Fact 5: The earth contains a finite amount of space and recieves a finite amount of energy (from the sun)

Equation 1: Exponential growth + finite resources = competition

Fact 6: Mutations happen. Radiation and imperfect DNA replications guarantee it.

Fact 7: Most of an organism's traits are coded in its DNA

Equation 2: DNA + mutations = variation

Combining equations 1 and 2 gives us equation 3:

Variation + competition = Natural selection.

Equation 4: Natural selection + time = evolution

This is how evolution works.

Evolution of the eye made simple:

* You start of with a photosensitive cell. You can tell if it's day or night.
* The cell expands into a patch of cells. You are now more sensitive.
* The patch of cells become concave. You have some directionality
* The patch of cells become even more concave. You have better directionality.
* Clear cells form over the opening. Your proto-eye is protected.
* The clear cells refract the light. The image gain more detail.
* The clear cells focus the light. The image gains more detail.

There are no such thing as irreducible complex systems. All examples of irreducible complexity given by creationists have been REFUTED. I'm sure there's refutation of the immune system and the bacterial flagellum being IC in one of the links I gave you.

Now I'm sure this isn't going to convince you. You allready possess two recognizable hallmarks of close-mindedness, which is arrogance and ignorance.

Your quote still fails to meet the challenge...

Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed). To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing. (source)

IOW, "Different genes" is not the same as "new genes", you still don't get any new genetic information, just less...

Here are some of what Carl Sagan, a prominent evolutionist, admitted to in case you missed it...

Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.)

Things reproduce according to their kind, just like the Bible says (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). They always have and they always will—while ever this world exists.

… But no new 'kinds'
There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. If there are no genes present for producing feathers, you can breed reptiles for a billion years and you will not get anything with feathers! Polyploidy (multiplication of the number of chromosomes), chromosome translocations, recombination and even (possibly) mutations can generate 'new species', but not new information, not new characteristics for which there were no genes to start with. (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London)

Try again?

Ring species are an example of speciation in progress.

You can take the salamanders in California, as you follow the populations north around the mountain ranges they can interbreed, eventually as you make your way around the mountain the salamanders can no longer breed with the first salamander population in the series, but can breed with the ones immediately behind them. They form a closed ring in the south, where the starting population and end population are genetically different enough that they can't breed with each other. This shows how genetic drift can occur through geographic seperation as species migrate enough to make the salamanders different enough that they can't breed. If all the intermediate populations were to go extinct you would have two salamander populations closely related but different species.

I believe I have address and articulated that similar issue directly above. Read them or get somebody to help you explain my post.

Again, Microevolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. It is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs.... cats remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind".

Example: Cat's Family - A Lion (male) and a Tiger (female) producing Giant "LIGER". See link (scroll all the way down).

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers.html

It's really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago -- Genesis 6:4 - the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) producing GIANT offsprings - Mighty Men of old, men renown - AFTER their union with the Daughters of Men, as documented in Genesis 6!!!

On the other hand, Macro-Evolution is a Lie from the pits of Hell and excludes God from His own Creation. The fact that God continues to Create confuses those who believe wolf like ungulates evolved into Whales.

Except that they don't stay within their own kind o.O The salamanders become a destinct kind that can no longer breed with their distant relatives. I was not talking about breeds here, the salamanders are literally biologically incapable of having viable offspring with the other salamanders. I don't see how giving an example of two breeding closely related cats is somehow refutes the fact that those salamanders are becomming new species.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Except that they don't stay within their own kind o.O The salamanders become a destinct kind that can no longer breed with their distant relatives. I was not talking about breeds here, the salamanders are literally biologically incapable of having viable offspring with the other salamanders. I don't see how giving an example of two breeding closely related cats is somehow refutes the fact that those salamanders are becomming new species.

Exactly my point. Either you are not reading my responses or you're too slow to comprehend what I have been saying all along. This is the last time I will repeat myself to you.

All you've given us is an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time = macro-evolution. Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion. But maybe you've never heard of the General Theory of Evolution (a.k.a. macro-evolution)...

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " [note: micro-evolution] and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments.

On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" [note: macro-evolution] and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960, p.157).

Once again, having a rich imagination doesn’t make an event repeatable, but it does demonstrate that non-repeatable events of the past are subject to speculation, which is what evolution is.

Here's a good quote to describe the situation:

When discussing the topic [macroevolution], creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution. Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution".[

So what is macroevolution by your definition, Hiramabbi? The real definition is this:

Originally Posted by Dictionary

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Stop victimising Hiramabbi. Or suffer the consequences.

lol That's very funny. I like that. lol

Originally Posted by Obviously

Here's a good quote to describe the situation:

When discussing the topic [macroevolution], creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution. Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution".[

So what is macroevolution by your definition, Hiramabbi? The real definition is this:

Originally Posted by Dictionary

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Because creatures are made up of INFORMATION. It's just like a magazine, no amount of time and copying will ever turn it into an encyclopedia book. To believe that micro translates into macro (especially via natural selection mainly) is a LEAP OF FAITH in light of modern genetics. Evolutionism merely PRESUMES that macro-evolution is an ongoing process, as long as they can cite micro-evolution for evidence they think they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

You want a clear distinction? Here's one:

"Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.

Is that all you have Obviously? Either debate or run but we don't need your whining around here. Sorry.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Stop victimising Hiramabbi. Or suffer the consequences.

what consequences ?

Actions have consequences, you know that. I don't know what they are, but there is always something that comes back.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

"Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.

If those are the definitions you wish to use that's fine. Unfortunately, that usage is limited to the scienceless realms of creationism.

For the purposes of this discussion, of course, it would be simple to replace it all with 'evolution', or as I sometimes like to think of it ENS (Evolution through Natural Selection).

If you have a problem with ENS, fair enough, again. But you will have a tough time showing that there is any mechanism that prevents a lineage evolving to a state in which it is unrecognisable as the same population that started it. Most JWs and others with whom I have discussed this give up arguing and science at this point and instead revert to claiming that 'God would not allow it'.

If that's what you choose to believe that's fine. Just tell me what technology or science you are creating or maintaining and I will avoid it, preferring the reliability of empiricism.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

"Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.

If those are the definitions you wish to use that's fine. Unfortunately, that usage is limited to the scienceless realms of creationism.

For the purposes of this discussion, of course, it would be simple to replace it all with 'evolution', or as I sometimes like to think of it ENS (Evolution through Natural Selection).

If you have a problem with ENS, fair enough, again. But you will have a tough time showing that there is any mechanism that prevents a lineage evolving to a state in which it is unrecognisable as the same population that started it. Most JWs and others with whom I have discussed this give up arguing and science at this point and instead revert to claiming that 'God would not allow it'.

If that's what you choose to believe that's fine. Just tell me what technology or science you are creating or maintaining and I will avoid it, preferring the reliability of empiricism.

Well, I am not a JW, therefore, that does not impress me at all. Sorry.

Now, the reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species. Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have. IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

"Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.

If those are the definitions you wish to use that's fine. Unfortunately, that usage is limited to the scienceless realms of creationism.

For the purposes of this discussion, of course, it would be simple to replace it all with 'evolution', or as I sometimes like to think of it ENS (Evolution through Natural Selection).

If you have a problem with ENS, fair enough, again. But you will have a tough time showing that there is any mechanism that prevents a lineage evolving to a state in which it is unrecognisable as the same population that started it. Most JWs and others with whom I have discussed this give up arguing and science at this point and instead revert to claiming that 'God would not allow it'.

If that's what you choose to believe that's fine. Just tell me what technology or science you are creating or maintaining and I will avoid it, preferring the reliability of empiricism.

Well, I am not a JW, therefore, that does not impress me at all. Sorry.

Now, the reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species. Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have. IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs.

That this oft-quoted Creationist canard is a load of coswallop is demonstrated by a simple example from a familiar species: Homo sapiens.

Human blood all started out (in the ABO system) as neutral, ie 'O'. Over time, allelles developed that included the A and B types - extra information that has been shown (in the case of B, for instance) to provide some protection against malaria.

That's why we have to be careful about blood group when transfusing, and why O is the universal donor and AB the universal recipient.

1. An evolutionary process

2. As far as we can tell, mediated by natural selection

3. Involving the adding of information to the genome

You may not be a JW, but you show much the same signs when arguing about evolution.

Is that an eveidence of macro-evolution? Come on now, I assume from your post that by “evolution” you mean macro-evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, correct me if I’m wrong. Well for you to VERIFY for us this theory you will have to show evidence that organism can change genetically from simple organisms to more complex organisms that we human beings are -- or any of those blood type you mentioned above turning into salt water.

"Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function, they have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, that is, building upon the existing DNA which must be required for evolution to advance. In other words there has never been a mutation that has increased or added to the genetic information of an organism."

"The fact is that since mutations only scramble the existing DNA to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the enviroment, this cannot be evolution! In fact, within the observable science we have on mutations, it is creation that predicts the types of changes we see created by them."(source)

(Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996) "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology," Developmental Biology 173, 1996, pg. 361.)

Natural selection can (given the right population circumstances, etc.) preserve traits that confer a survival advantage, and it is very effective at weeding out traits that are disadvantageous. But natural selection can only act upon what mutations provide. Thus, we can’t account for the survival of particular mutations until we account for the arrival of particular mutations. We cannot account for the increase in information content of genomes until we consider how random mutations produce the raw fuel that natural selection can preserve. (source)

We all know that mutations must provide the raw fuel upon which natural selection can act. As Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff write:

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved. (source)

Try again?

Instead of lifting references and arguments from some website maybe you should actually read those articles, or at least read the entire thing o.O. The Gilbert et al. article doesn't say that macroevolution is not caused by microevolution, it only says that microevolution is not the sole cause and goes on to explain how homeoboxes and allometry can also help explain macroevolution. Moreover, you should not place a citation after a quote which is not actually part of that article without clearly showing that the first quoted paragraph did not come from that article.

What are you whining about now? All of my reference' quotes are indicated before or after the paragraph marking as (source). Are you legally blind?

Either produce your evidence or write down and support your objection with facts. However, do not employ your tactical word games on me, example -- "The Gilbert et al. article doesn't say that macroevolution is not caused by microevolution". Do you really understand the whole "context" of the article?

As I have said before, you should get somebody to help you understand what you are trying to read.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

(Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996) "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology," Developmental Biology 173, 1996, pg. 361.)

This is the only source you provide.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved. (source)

Try again?

And this is the only paragraph from that article that you put in that post, I have no idea where you got the rest. Moreover, that one paragraph is taken out of context, it is followed immediately by:

"This reexamining of the Modern Synthesis has led to three great re-discoveries in modern biology. These are the simultaneous rediscoveries of macroevolution, homology, and the morphogenetic field. A new synthesis is emerging from these three areas, and this developmentally oriented synthesis may soon be able to explain macroevolutionary as well as microevolutionary processes."

He is proposing more evidence for macroevolution, and was saying that in the 1970s there was a lack of evidence. Moreover, he goes on to say that the underlying principles of macroevolution are the same as microevolution, just that additional processes are also required.

Edit: Also, stop being a condescending jackass if you want me to continue being civil towards you who has no scientific education as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

(Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996) "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology," Developmental Biology 173, 1996, pg. 361.)

This is the only source you provide.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved. (source)

Try again?

And this is the only paragraph from that article that you put in that post, I have no idea where you got the rest. Moreover, that one paragraph is taken out of context, it is followed immediately by:

"This reexamining of the Modern Synthesis has led to three great re-discoveries in modern biology. These are the simultaneous rediscoveries of macroevolution, homology, and the morphogenetic field. A new synthesis is emerging from these three areas, and this developmentally oriented synthesis may soonbe able to explain macroevolutionary as well as microevolutionary processes."

He is proposing more evidence for macroevolution, and was saying that in the 1970s there was a lack of evidence. Moreover, he goes on to say that the underlying principles of macroevolution are the same as microevolution, just that additional processes are also required.

Edit: Also, stop being a condescending jackass if you want me to continue being civil towards you who has no scientific education as far as I can tell.

Look, "Jackass" (your term), the fact of the matter is, the author himself admitted that there is NO hard evidence to support the claim of macro-evolution at this time, therefore, you don't have a basis nor foundation to support your stupid objection to the quotes I provided.

Either prove me wrong and stick to the issue at hand, but, don't accuse me of your own DELUSION.

next please

You have yet to provide sources for those other quotes, which you may have well fabricated, and a lack of conclusive evidence, is not a lack of evidence. Unlike the total lack of evidence to support your invented theories derived from biblical scripture. Moreover, most people do not deny the fossil record as evidence for macroevolution o.O. Unless you believe God engages in multiple instances of creation over and over, which is not said in the Bible.

How much more stupid could your common sense be? In fact, it's does not matter whether who the other sources are, if there's any or if I invented it according to your stupidity, what matter is the context of the assertions whether you agree or not -- if not then provide your own reasoning and come up with a rebuittal intead of jerking around and whining like pussycat, "Jackass" (your own term).

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Unlike the total lack of evidence to support your invented theories derived from biblical scripture. Moreover, most people do not deny the fossil record as evidence for macroevolution o.O. Unless you believe God engages in multiple instances of creation over and over, which is not said in the Bible.

I have God's Word but you have only Bluff. How did you measure the difference in intelligence when your animal evolved into Human? You cannot. You can only assume, from fossils, that the physical is about the same as our physical. You CANNOT measure When and How we obtained our Human Intelligence, which is the difference between us and innocent animals. This means that you do Not know when we inherited our Human Intelligence, so quit bluffing, "Jackass" (your term) and don't waste my time anymore.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

I have God's Word but you have only Bluff.

god does not exist - so in essence what you're saying is you have the word of your own or somebody else's imagination

I can't understand why creationists demand evidence for macroevolution or something similar when their rebuttle for everything is "it's god's word" or "the bible says this..."

Microevolution is fact. The first website I came across on a google search for macro-evolution was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. The title of this website is 29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution. Give me 29+ evidences for the existence of God.

Originally Posted by BumFluff

I can't understand why creationists demand evidence for macroevolution or something similar when their rebuttle for everything is "it's god's word" or "the bible says this..."

Microevolution is fact. The first website I came across on a google search for macro-evolution was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. The title of this website is 29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution. Give me 29+ evidences for the existence of God.

Watch out, he/she/it's probably going to ignore you because you didn't "articulate" this, in your own words, well enough.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Is that all you have Obviously? Either debate or run but we don't need your whining around here. Sorry.

lol, I wonder where you got that from. Either way, it was funny enough to make me laugh.

Originally Posted by BumFluff

Microevolution is fact. The first website I came across on a google search for macro-evolution was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. The title of this website is 29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution. Give me 29+ evidences for the existence of God.

No, actually the title should have been “The 29 + Predictions of Macro-Evolution". It's another vain attempt by Godless Evols of making evolution an "operational science". Dream on.

Read my lips.... Being able to test a speculative theory is not the same as a known recurring event which characterizes “operational science”. IOW, macro- evolutionists have no evidence to back-up their claim except exploitation and appeal to micro-evolution when ask for hard evidence, correct? If so, please quit bluffing.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Is that all you have Obviously? Either debate or run but we don't need your whining around here. Sorry.

lol, I wonder where you got that from. Either way, it was funny enough to make me laugh.

Are you still PRETENDING to know more than what your brain capacity could handle at this moment? Come now, give me a break. The records on this forum already confirmed your predicaments and hypocrisy of the matter but I am amazed with your audacity - no shame, correct?

Where is your rebuttal to the ones I brought up to you directly? Your bluff has been called -- therefore, you have two choices -- either fold and admitt your errors or raise the bet by providing us your reasonings to support your claim of macro-evolution. So, what are going to do, now? Fold? I thought so.

Next please.....

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Is that all you have Obviously? Either debate or run but we don't need your whining around here. Sorry.

lol, I wonder where you got that from. Either way, it was funny enough to make me laugh.

big, fighting talk for someone who only joined the forum a few days ago and has a grand total of 50-odd posts to his credit (or should that be debit ?)

may i suggest you PM HomoUniversalis and tell him how his forum should be run ? and while you're at it maybe also tell him to add the following lines to the forum rules : "Whinos (as defined by Hiramabbi) can clear off"

Obviously, Godless Evols do NOT like to take back their own medicine. They thought all Creationists are the same and will just tolerate their BS.

Sorry

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

or raise the bet by providing us your reasonings to support your claim of macro-evolution. So, what are going to do, now? Fold?

Since your incapable of logical deduction, have a poor understanding of genetics and have a strong faith that leads you to believe you're allknowing, I can only say that there's no hope for you.

Sorry...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

They thought all Creationists are the same

correction : i KNOW that all creationists are the same (bullshitters)

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

or raise the bet by providing us your reasonings to support your claim of macro-evolution. So, what are going to do, now? Fold?

Since your incapable of logical deduction, have a poor understanding of genetics and have a strong faith that leads you to believe you're allknowing, I can only say that there's no hope for you.

Sorry...

You think repeating your Lie will give you more credibility. Your hypocrisy and pretension has been exposed. Is desperation setting in?

Sorry

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

They thought all Creationists are the same

correction : i KNOW that all creationists are the same (bullshitters)

If a Godless Evol disagree, you can be sure that it his/her allege "correction" is a Lie.

Next please...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

You think repeating your Lie will give you more credibility. Your hypocrisy and pretension has been exposed. Is desperation setting in?

Sorry

You think putting a smiley face at the end of every post makes your points valid.

Sorry, try again

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Is that an eveidence of macro-evolution?

Nope. I was just pointing out the foolishness of the Creationist claim that 'micro-evolution' is only maintenance, or decline, without information addition.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Is that an eveidence of macro-evolution?

Nope. I was just pointing out the foolishness of the Creationist claim that 'micro-evolution' is only maintenance, or decline, without information addition.

I thought so. The arrogant, unsupported, views of people who cannot show us evidence of their flawed theory of macro-evolution, are not worthy of any study of true science.

Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen. Ignorance is a bliss to Godless Evols. I guess we are lucky to have few them around here as an example.

Next please...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Is that an eveidence of macro-evolution?

Nope. I was just pointing out the foolishness of the Creationist claim that 'micro-evolution' is only maintenance, or decline, without information addition.

I thought so. The arrogant, unsupported, views of people who cannot show us evidence of their flawed theory of macro-evolution, are not worthy of any study of true science.

Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen. Ignorance is a bliss to Godless Evols. I guess we are lucky to have few them around here as an example.

Next please...

How is your response apropos? You said that micro-evolution cannot add information to the genome. I used human blood types to show it can. I'd be more than happy to continue that discussion if you are.

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

No, actually the title should have been “The 29 + Predictions of Macro-Evolution". It's another vain attempt by Godless Evols of making evolution an "operational science". Dream on.

Read my lips.... Being able to test a speculative theory is not the same as a known recurring event which characterizes “operational science”. IOW, macro- evolutionists have no evidence to back-up their claim except exploitation and appeal to micro-evolution when ask for hard evidence, correct? If so, please quit bluffing.

You still did not provide me with 29 evidences for the existence of God.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

How is your response apropos? You said that micro-evolution cannot add information to the genome. I used human blood types to show it can. I'd be more than happy to continue that discussion if you are.

What "new information" is derived from those blood type you mentioned - - did one of them turned into salt water? lol

You could not even respond to issues brought directly to you in my previous post, yet, we're suppose to take your word for it just because you said so, right? Are you being a comedian by any chance?

Sorry pal, but being part of the Godless Evols here do not give you the corner on scientific truth. You have to do better job than simply boast about yourself here. I look forward to more exchanges with you on these issues as you are inclined to do so.

I will be waiting!!! Next please ...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

How is your response apropos? You said that micro-evolution cannot add information to the genome. I used human blood types to show it can. I'd be more than happy to continue that discussion if you are.

What "new information" is derived from those blood type you mentioned - - did one of them turned into salt water? lol

You could not even respond to issues brought directly to you in my previous post, yet, we're suppose to take your word for it just because you said so, right? Are you being a comedian by any chance?

Sorry pal, but being part of the Godless Evols here do not give you the corner on scientific truth. You have to do better job than simply boast about yourself here. I look forward to more exchanges with you on these issues as you are inclined to do so.

I will be waiting!!! Next please ...

Protection from malaria. But I already pointed that out.

Sorry pal, but that is classified as micro-evolution - adoptation to enviroment - as I have discussed many times. Is that all you have, flawed theory and claims? If so, get out of here and run.

The fact is macro-evolution from simple to complex creatures requires more than beneficial mutations and natural selection, it also requires the creation of NEW genetic information. The difference between a simple and a complex creature isn't just that the latter has more beneficial genetic materials than the other, it's that complex creatures have greater amounts of genetic information than simple creatures. Mutations and natural selections will not yield new genetic information. Go ahead, refute that.

Next please ...

Originally Posted by Hiramabbi

I thought so. The arrogant, unsupported, views of people who cannot show us evidence of their flawed theory of macro-evolution, are not worthy of any study of true science.

Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen. Ignorance is a bliss to Godless Evols. I guess we are lucky to have few them around here as an example.

i've taken the liberty of using your own words to present a different viewpoint (something you seem to be incapable of)

I thought so. The arrogant, unsupported, views of people who cannot show us evidence of their flawed theory of creation science, are not worthy of any study of true science.

Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen. Ignorance is a bliss to Fundy Creationists. I guess we are lucky to have few them around here as an example.

you see ? i didn't have to change many words for it to make perfect sense ...