- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,179
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
My sincerest apology.57 was responding to HermanHedning, not me.
Upvote
0
My sincerest apology.57 was responding to HermanHedning, not me.
I'm sure you know that it doesn't really matter to us. However, it does seem a little strange when we hear things like "I believe every word of the bible is literally true, except that when it says Ararat I read Catskill..."I wonder why it matters so badly to academia where the Ark landed?
(Actually I don't.)
I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.I'm sure you know that it doesn't really matter to us. However, it does seem a little strange when we hear things like "I believe every word of the bible is literally true, except that when it says Ararat I read Catskill..."
This assertion has always sort of amused me. It’s just so wrong, for so many reasons.There were no carnivores before the fall.
Not to mention that we have animal containing coproliths dating to over 23mya.This assertion has always sort of amused me. It’s just so wrong, for so many reasons.
Like, what did carnivorous plants eat? Other plants? Why give animals venom, if all their supposed to eat is plants? Were great white sharks snaking on kelp?
What chapter in the Bible is an acrostic?By all means. It's been rattling around in my head for fifty years, so it seemed time to give it an airing.
(Alliteration always accentuates and aids any attempt at aspirational announcements.)
This assertion has always sort of amused me. It’s just so wrong, for so many reasons.
Like, what did carnivorous plants eat? Other plants? Why give animals venom, if all their supposed to eat is plants? Were great white sharks snaking on kelp?
I'm going to go ahead and waste my time responding to this spam, so let's see what comes of it.You see USincognito, {snip}
What in the world do you mean by "trend"? That makes no sense. And all of us know that for large changes to body plans, there will need to be a number of mutations. Why do you think you're telling anyone something they don't know?for a trend to evolve lots of mutations are required.
This is false. Since populations evolve, not individuals or specific lineages, the mutations can happen in many different members of the population through time as long as they all fix.In the animals progeny a second, third, fourth..etc....mutation has to occur in the organisms DNA that effects the evolving trend in a way that it enhances the fitness of the trend.
Beneficial mutations happen less often than harmful and both of them happen less than neutral, but beneficial mutations do happen. And most of genomes are non-coding DNA. Those 3,000,000,000 bp only code about 30,000 genes and some of those are pseudogenes. Appealing to big numbers doesn't change the fact that we understand the process and have observed it happen though the eons by analyzing genomes.Considering the large size of the DNA (3-3.5 billion base pairs in humans) and the extreme rarity of so called beneficial mutations
This is false. You do not need a so-called "increase" in information in order for evolution to happen.the ability for the information to increase and the trend to evolve...
And as I have told you three times now, your incredulity does not make this claim a fact. In fact given what we know about mutation and how many mutations offspring have that differentiate them from their parents, descent without modification is impossible.especially to the level of complexity and sophistication we see today renders descent with modification impossible.
White light, I take it?Rainbows are produced by refraction and dispersion of light through raindrops; they are not created by God.
White light, I take it?
Creationists have an embedded belief in teleology. They expect changes to be leading somewhere. They presume that changes that evolutionists claim led to flight for example, were always going to lead to flight.What in the world do you mean by "trend"?
Creationists have an embedded belief in teleology. They expect changes to be leading somewhere. They presume that changes that evolutionists claim led to flight for example, were always going to lead to flight.
They do not understand the contingent aspects of evolution. You know that trends can only be identified in retrospect. They think the trends must be there from the beginning and "how can that be, without intelligent intervention".
Honest questions:Yes, of course, white light.
Honest questions:
1. And what if the sunlight wasn't white until after the Flood?
2. And what if refraction and dispersion didn't operate back then like they do today?
3. And do you realize that, before the Flood, it had never rained?
1. Even the coolest stars (M-type giants and supergiants) emit enough blue and violet light to produce rainbows. The luminosity, temperature and spectral energy distribution of a star depend on its mass; any main-sequence star with the same mass as the Sun will emit what we call white light, that is light with the same spectral energy distribution as the Sun. Our eyes have evolved to be sensitive to the same range of wavelengths as those in sunlight, so we are bound to see sunlight as white light.Honest questions:
1. And what if the sunlight wasn't white until after the Flood?
2. And what if refraction and dispersion didn't operate back then like they do today?
3. And do you realize that, before the Flood, it had never rained?