Wrong. You need to learn the difference.
Ice floating, refutes nothing, it does admit that the flood did happen.
Wrong again. And I see that you still can't bring yourself to ask the right question. The fact that ice floats negates the flood.
There are many different versions of Christianity and god, yes....you notice not capitalized....just because someone says they are Christian doesn't' mean they are. If they believe in a god, who wouldn't send them to hell for sin...false god.
If they believe in a god, that loves and has no wrath...false god.
if they believe in a god, that didn't create....false god.
if they believe in a god, who didn't come down in the form of man and died for our sins....false god.
And yes, these gods are man made and have been refuted by the True God of the Bible. Jehovah.
Yeah, there are many different, false gods. But there is only one True God. The God that is love, who is also just, who is also wrathful, who is also a judge, who is also angry, who is also sinless and so much more. Most especially a God who came to down to earth in the form of a man, called a hypostatic union. He was fully God and fully Man, and He showed that.
That same God's son Christ, came so that we may be saved. Even you, so that you can have your sins cleansed by the blood He shed, because He paid our price for salvation by His Death.
Now you are making the mistake of assuming that your personal version of God is the right one, even though you have no real evidence that supports you.
What evidence do you have that you will wake up tomorrow?...you don't have any...yet you expect to get up...that's called faith.
Wrong again. You have simply shown that you do not understand the concepts of evidence and logic. I have woken up in the past. It is when someone claims that there will be a change that evidence is needed. So let's look at what could cause a change. People that are aged sometimes do not wake up. I am not that old ... yet. People with poor health sometimes do not wake up, but my health is good. People in war areas sometimes do not wake up. But I am in a rather safe area. Yes, there is always a possibility that I could die, but experience and my current state indicates that my waking up tomorrow is merely a reasonable conclusion and not an act of faith.
You see, your under the delusion that you know everything. Not so. If you did, you wouldn't be here talking to me, because you would already know what I was going to say before I said it.
No. That seems to be more your fault and not mine. I know what is a reasonable belief and what is not. You don't seem to have that ability.
I say that because you say you have no faith. For you to have no faith, would mean that you know what's going to happen before it happens. that you already have the evidence before you that it will happen. Not possible.
Wrong again. Reasonable deductions based upon past events is not "faith".
Never claimed to be the best at grammar. suck at it really. but the logic of the flood and ice floating...solid.
Thank you for admitting that I am correct. So I hope we are done with this flood nonsense.
Wrong. You are projecting again.
Please don't act like an ass. That is very rude on your part.
population bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts) or human activities (such as genocide).
Other words, there was a population bottleneck after the flood, because the population of the earth was destroyed during the flood, only leaving Noah and his family left to populate the earth. Exactly as I explained earlier.
That is only part of it. It is also a sharp reduction in the diversity of life as measured by the DNA of that species. We can measure how fast new mutations enter the genome of a species and use that to aid in giving a minimum population in the past. Please note that it is a minimum number. Here is an article that may help you understand the concept:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...opulation-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/
Please note that the most severe bottleneck that can be found for the human race is actually restricted to the non-African population that fell to an effective population (the actual population was probably larger) of about 1,200 people between 20,000 to 40,000 years ago. There was a population bottleneck among the African based humans down to about 5,700 people about 50,000 years ago:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...opulation-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/
There is written history. Plenty of it. and it being a fairy tale is your really bad opinion.
There is no written history of the Flood. The Bible is not a book of history, just as it is not a book of science. Some of the more recent events in the Bible are correct, but that does not mean that the whole book is valid.
Again, your conclusion was incorrect as this statement is also. PB is understood quite easily.
No, my conclusion was correct since you just demonstrated that you do not understand population bottlenecks. You ignored the most important aspect of them, that of genetic diversity of species. Another term that is synonymous is "genetic bottleneck". Cheetahs underwent one on the order of Noah's family, not just two individuals, it was dated to about 10,000 years ago and they are still suffering from it today. When any two Cheetahs breed it would be roughly equivalent of human brothers and sisters breeding today. In fact it is even worse than that. Cheetahs are all so similar that you can make a skin transplant from almost any one cheetah to another and there will be no rejection of tissue.
Everyone, including creation scientists agree that species change over time. The fundamental difference is that evolutionists believe that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor and creation scientists believe that all the diversity of life arose from the originally created kinds. This variation includes speciation, but only within the created kinds. Science bears this out as one kind of creature has never been observed to change into another kind despite literally billions of generations that have been scrutinized
The big difference is that scientists have evidence that supports evolution. Creationists have no scientific evidence.
Wrong again. Apes are not of the human species. Yes, they are mammals, so are dolphins, why didn't we evolve from them, so are whales and cows anything that has a vertebrae and produces milk for it's young fall under the categorie of mammals. but just because they do, doesn't mean we evolved from them. What it does show though is a Common Creator, God.
So therefore we couldn't have come from them. Why? interbreeding wouldn't have been able to happen. Also, there is no transitional fossils to show the change from ape to man.
Nope, we are apes. You don't understand what apes are. Let me help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
"
Apes (
Hominoidea) are a
branch of
Old World tailless
anthropoidcatarrhineprimates native to
Africa and
Southeast Asia. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of
brachiation. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the
gibbons, or lesser apes; and the
hominids, or
great apes."
Do you have a tail? What traits do you have that says you are not in that group? If you want to use more scientific terms you are a hominid, and so are other great apes.
You want an honest question. here ya go....Where did the first mammal come from?
It is a poorly asked question. It shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. There was no "first mammal". Mammals as a group evolved from synapsida. They are perhaps the earliest group that was separate from the reptiles. Odds are that if you saw an early synapsida you would think that it was a reptile, but they did not have any descendants that became what we would call reptiles today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
Gladly, you know the rules. Start a separate post where you deal only with this topic. No Gishing allowed.
You don't understand. You are the one that has been Gishing. If you want an answer is detail, and I went into more detail than I planned to in response to this long Gish of yours then you need to start a new post. You have been the one "sinning' here not me. A little honesty on your part would be appreciated.
individuals change over time. As do populations. They also adapt. They just don't change kind, from one species to another. that we agree.
No Adam and Eve, what evidence do you have that shows otherwise? Opinion on your part.
Your claim is of course wrong and shows that you still don't understand evolution. You were unable to define "kind". All you gave was a screed that had no definition. And populations do not change kind, but we have observed them undergo speciation. That is where a population splits into two different species. And the Adam and Eve tale is negated by the fact that at not time in human history there were not only two individuals as shown by population bottlenecks.
That man is good enough.....we're not
You do not even understand by what is meant by "good enough". The fact that humans still exist tells us that you are wrong. The fact that non-avian dinosaurs do not exist tells us that they were not "good enough".
Then quit saying things have been refuted without showing the evidence that it has.
Sorry, but you are still Gishing. If you want detail ask in a separate post. In long posts like this all you get are the basic facts. If you want details I am willing to do so if you ask one question at a time. I am sure that you have not forgotten your "evidence" for a flood failure. That was still a Gish. When you want detail you need to go over one topic at a time.
Wrong and answered earlier.
No, you were clearly wrong. That you won't let yourself understand is not my fault.
Calling the Bible "God's word" is blasphemous to say the least. It portrays God in a very poor light in the Old Testament. And not even the Bible says that it is "God's word". At best all you can do is to quote out of context in supporting that claim.
straw man
I'm not talking about the god the flat earth believers believe in. I'm talking of the one from the Bible God Jehovah
No, that was not a strawman. I never claimed that was your version of God. And you merely have another version of God that has been refuted just as the version of God that the flat Earthers have has been refuted. Your arguments are no different from theirs by the way. They think that their version of God is the one true version, just as you do. At least they are a bit more consistent in their beliefs. They are obviously wrong, but at least they have consistency going for them.
God does answer prayers....sometime is answer is ....NO
Opinion on your part.
And there a much more who believe than who don't. That really doesn't make any difference really. God's still there, you'll see one day.
And we have all heard that weak excuse before. And the number of people that believe in an idea does not tell us the idea's validity. And please, no weak threats. When people make threats that is a sign that they know that they are wrong. Your fate is the same as my fate.
