Do you agree with these statements?

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" is an English word. The Bible wasn't written in English.

You were there when Genesis 1 was written?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well except for the parts written in Jacobean English

That is correct.

Genesis 1-10 to be exact.

 

[pitabread]

TOE is such a leaky vessel. And, just when you get the argument to a point where they’re in a corner, evolutionists have no qualms about changing definitions and processes to fit their need, 'rejigging' ranks, whatever it takes to continue promoting it…

This isn't about changing anything to fit any needs. It's simply about recognizing the reality of what things are.

Taxonomic classifications have always been arbitrary in the sense that they are human-assigned categories with no strict biological reality. Species do not come with drosophila melanogaster or canis lupus stamped on their undersides. These are just human-assigned labels.

You seem to be expecting that such classifications are absolutes. But that isn't how things work.

 

[pitabread]

You were there when Genesis 1 was written?

The Bible texts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, although they appear to have likely started/passed down as oral tradition.

IIRC, English likely didn't even exist as a language at that time (certainly not as the modern English language).

At any rate, this is rather off-topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct.

Genesis 1-10 to be exact.

No one can tell a joke like you.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind, i don't care.

 

[AV1611VET]

IIRC, English likely didn't even exist as a language at that time (certainly not as the modern English language).

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

In your opinion, when Adam wrote Genesis 1, what was that language?

Please be specific.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one can tell a joke like you.

I think I have a challenge thread on this somewhere.

I hunt around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I have a challenge thread on this somewhere.

I hunt around.

No need to bother. Once again all of your challenges that I have seen have been failures on the part of the OP.

 

[pitabread]

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

In your opinion, when Adam wrote Genesis 1, what was that language?

Please be specific.

I think this is taking this thread off topic and needs to go to one of the other forums (e.g. Apologetics or something).

As it is, I've decided it's a pointless conversation to have right now.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think this is taking this thread off topic and needs to go to one of the other forums (e.g. Apologetics or something).

As it is, I've decided it's a pointless conversation to have right now.

Fair enough.

 

[Speedwell]

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

In your opinion, when Adam wrote Genesis 1, what was that language?

Please be specific.

The question assumes that a person named Adam wrote it, an assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question assumes that a person named Adam wrote it, an assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So you're just assuming then that no one can tell a joke like I?

 

[Kylie]

So you're just assuming then that no one can tell a joke like I?

Very often we can't tell if you are joking.

 

[SelfSim]

Very often we can't tell if you are joking.

I'm reminded of Star Trek's 'Data' who couldn't distinguish what was and wasn't a joke himself, until someone laughed at what he'd just said ..
In this instance its quite possible the analogy of Data <=> AV, might work in the same way(?)

 

[cutterfl]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

2. Hardly. In a herd it would be mostly chance. Its far more likely genetic mutations would be disadvantage and help it get eaten.
3. Have to disagree. Not all changes are due to genetics. Some are morphological. More pronounced in humans. They had a better diet and grew taller. Something even Darwin knew, modern diet in humans makes human jaws smaller and teeth crowded up, because you don't have to chew as much, which causes problems with wisdom teeth coming in. Just learned a few days ago, it causes respiratory problems, because we're designed to eat soft food.
4. As I said no above, no, only mutations are passed on to next generation. But another level of design inherent in the system is epigenetics. And this is new science, apparently genetics passed on to next generation can be altered by environment by master control genes...this occurs in environment females when born, due to eggs starting as far as their component of genome, but males its the environment they gestate the eggs.
5. No I dont agree. You are stating hypthetical gene that is beneficial, vs other mutated genes which mutated genes are general bad. It's why you don't have sex with cousins now. You are promoting bad mutations hidden by dominent good genes.
6. The most beneficial mutation to date, is sickle cell anemia...yeah prevents you from getting malaria, with 20% death rate and gives you 25% death rate and 50% weakened.
7. Wishful thinking. We see in reality, a reduction of healthy generations. You need only look at what once a proof for evolution, artifical selection. Its a fact the more a dog is bred, the less healthy it is. Hip dysplesia is most common disease. Some dog breeds can only give birth by C section, can barely breath. The healthy dog is a mutt. YES OR NO>

 

[pitabread]

6. The most beneficial mutation to date, is sickle cell anemia...

Um, what? How does one even define the "most beneficial mutation to date"?

Wishful thinking. We see in reality, a reduction of healthy generations. You need only look at what once a proof for evolution, artifical selection. Its a fact the more a dog is bred, the less healthy it is.

This is due to inbreeding depression and the fact that traits are being selected for based on appearance, not health.

Artificial breeding of show dogs is not a good example to use if you're trying to argue against natural selection.

 

[Speedwell]

.
7. Wishful thinking. We see in reality, a reduction of healthy generations. You need only look at what once a proof for evolution, artifical selection. Its a fact the more a dog is bred, the less healthy it is. Hip dysplesia is most common disease. Some dog breeds can only give birth by C section, can barely breath. The healthy dog is a mutt. YES OR NO>

Not "wishful thinking' but exactly what is predicted by the theory of evolution. Selection, whether natural or artificial, reduces the information content of the gene pool. Artificial selection reduces it faster than it can be replenished by natural means and so randomly distributed variation is reduced and further change becomes erratic or impossible.

 

[Kylie]

2. Hardly. In a herd it would be mostly chance. Its far more likely genetic mutations would be disadvantage and help it get eaten.

Why do you think that any small change MUST be detrimental?

3. Have to disagree. Not all changes are due to genetics. Some are morphological. More pronounced in humans. They had a better diet and grew taller. Something even Darwin knew, modern diet in humans makes human jaws smaller and teeth crowded up, because you don't have to chew as much, which causes problems with wisdom teeth coming in. Just learned a few days ago, it causes respiratory problems, because we're designed to eat soft food.

I never said genetics were the ONLY way such changes could happen. I'm trying to keep it simple here.

4. As I said no above, no, only mutations are passed on to next generation. But another level of design inherent in the system is epigenetics. And this is new science, apparently genetics passed on to next generation can be altered by environment by master control genes...this occurs in environment females when born, due to eggs starting as far as their component of genome, but males its the environment they gestate the eggs.

You say no, the genes that cause slight changes can't be passed on, but then you say only mutations are passed on, and yet those mutations are the very changes I'm talking about.

5. No I dont agree. You are stating hypthetical gene that is beneficial, vs other mutated genes which mutated genes are general bad. It's why you don't have sex with cousins now. You are promoting bad mutations hidden by dominent good genes.

How can bad mutations be promoted when any individual that carries them is more likely to die before it can pass those mutations on? You yourself said that any detrimental mutation is likely to get the individual eaten or something (see your response to point 2).

6. The most beneficial mutation to date, is sickle cell anemia...yeah prevents you from getting malaria, with 20% death rate and gives you 25% death rate and 50% weakened.

Giving an example of one mutation doesn't actually address the point.

7. Wishful thinking. We see in reality, a reduction of healthy generations. You need only look at what once a proof for evolution, artifical selection. Its a fact the more a dog is bred, the less healthy it is. Hip dysplesia is most common disease. Some dog breeds can only give birth by C section, can barely breath. The healthy dog is a mutt. YES OR NO>

Stop muddying the water. That's an example of artificial selection by Humans, not natural selection as a result of environmental pressures.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has had a minor cleaning of a few posts. Please avoid doxxing or attempting to do so.

ADMIN HAT OFF