Asteroid Strike

Herman Hedning

Hiking is fun
Mar 2, 2004
503,922
1,572
N 57° 44', E 12° 00'
Visit site
✟732,703.00
Faith
Humanist
I wonder why it matters so badly to academia where the Ark landed?

(Actually I don't.)
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..."
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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 believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

And for the most part, It alerts the reader to a vision, parable, dream, whatnot.

In other instances, It uses standard terminology so any child can understand (eg: rising of the sun).
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
There were no carnivores before the fall.
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?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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?
Not to mention that we have animal containing coproliths dating to over 23mya.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,302.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That's awesome. OK if I use this?
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.)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.)
What chapter in the Bible is an acrostic?
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,613
Utah
✟713,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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?

like was stated .... in the biblical account ... before the fall of mankind that is everything God created (before the fall) There was no harm with/from anything God created before the fall of mankind. Everything was in perfect harmony.

And yes ... as stated ... biblically ... food for everything was plant life at creation.

"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?"

Were these originally created as such by God? No.

Again .... biblically

Genesis 1

30And to every beast of the earth and every bird of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth—everything that has the breath of life in it (everything that breathes) — I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.…

Again, AFTER the fall of mankind ... All of Gods original creations were and are adversely effected. Everything changed (became corrupted) and will continue to be adversely effected.

Romans 8

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until the present time.

and ... is that not what we see? The gradual corruption/breakdown of everything?

Seems to me to be so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You see USincognito, {snip}
I'm going to go ahead and waste my time responding to this spam, so let's see what comes of it.

for a trend to evolve lots of mutations are required.
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?

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.
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.

Considering the large size of the DNA (3-3.5 billion base pairs in humans) and the extreme rarity of so called beneficial mutations
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.

the ability for the information to increase and the trend to evolve...
This is false. You do not need a so-called "increase" in information in order for evolution to happen.
I have given you examples of increases in information: SRGAP2C, ARHGAP11B
I have given you pseudogenes that are evidence for common ancestry: GULOp
I have given you pseudogenes that changed form and function: Shh/Hand2.
It is dishonest and disingenuous to keep asking for examples of something I have already provided to you in spades.

especially to the level of complexity and sophistication we see today renders descent with modification impossible.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,865.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
global-flood-cartoon.gif

Rainbows are produced by refraction and dispersion of light through raindrops; they are not created by God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,302.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
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".
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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".

Great point.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,267
Pacific NW
✟242,386.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
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?

Well, 1 and 2 aren't needed if you already have 3.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,865.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
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. 6592_fig17_11.jpg
2. In that case, all the laws of nature would have been different and we should have more serious things to worry about than a world-wide Flood.
3. There are fossil raindrop impressions in rocks dating back to 2.7 billion years old (late Archaean time). See Raindrop impressions - Wikipedia, Fossil raindrop impressions reveal Earth's early atmosphere - TGDaily and Robert Metz (1981), 'Why not raindrop impressions?', Journal of Sedimentary Research, 51(1), 265-268. 1280px-Raindrop_impressions_mcr1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0