IF there had been such an ice sheet over the entire earth everything would be extinct but maybe some bacteria.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not a global flood, however apparently millions of years ago there was a global sheet of ice over the Earth, its called Snowball Earth hypothesis.
1. I believe in what the Bible teaches - creationism.
2. I believe in polygenism.
I reject ToE on the basis of my Biblical interpretation, but also because i do not believe monogenism is scientific. I also already listed the holes in the evolution theory. Macroevolution has never been observed anyway, so for me to convert to an evolutionist is the same chance i start to believe in the tooth fairy...
Let not thy left brain know what thy right brain doeth?
Walking by faith, are you?We never observed a mounatins washed to the sea either.
Tell that to Picasso: http://www.christianforums.com/t7543350-4/#post56969436
A lot more observed it than you think -- like a few quadrillion angels?
First of all, this has nothing to do with the point I'm making, that angels did not evolve.And like I said in regards to God, if the angels count for having observed Creation, then they could also be counted as observers of macroevolution (under theistic evolution), therefore the claims that macroevolution has not been observed is bunk.
First of all, this has nothing to do with the point I'm making, that angels did not evolve.
The prediction of a global genetic bottleneck is directly stated in Genesis, so long as you assume that God didn't go about creating more species or individuals afterward (which seems reasonable because otherwise taking them on the ark is pointless). A genetic bottleneck is by definition when the number of alleles is reduced drastically, and since an individual can only carry a certain number of genes a genetic bottleneck will be roughly equivalent to a population bottleneck. The genetic bottleneck will always be worse than the population bottleneck, because the population will probably contain some redundant copies of alleles, meaning the genes will be even more limited.
No. I would not think it would be a deviation from what goes on today. I would think that the fundamental laws of the universe changed, and that the cells and etc were affected. The result is what we have today. We would be the change.Yes, some assumptions are made about mutation rate and generation time, which can't be directly observed but are expected to be the same. First, the genes must be read to determine a distribution and rate of variation in an allele. The mutation rate analysis will give a number of generations, and the generation time of current species is used to turn that number into a number of years. If you go by the Bible, I'm guessing you'd predict that any deviation from what is observed now would be toward longer lifespans and less mutation, right?
No. You calculate using how it now works as the basis! Doesn't apply then.Reduced mutation rate will increase the number of generations required to explain variation, and a longer lifespan will mean the age calculated using current lifetime is an underestimate. Both these effects would mean the calculated bottleneck time would be even longer ago than calculated. Higher mutation rate and shorter generation times would have the opposite effect.
There's an additional measure of bottleneck, which is genetic drift. Genetic drift occurs in all populations but is by far more powerful in small populations. It is a result of the randomness of Mendelian genetics which you should have learned in school, and can cause alleles to be lost in a chance process because only a random half of an organism's alleles are passed on to each offspring. The final result is more commonly called inbreeding.
Of course...I accept them too......here and now! So?Both these processes are observed and accepted even by young earth creationists, and in any case are a mathematically necessary result of how we reproduce.
Now then, do you want to find whether the literal flood happened? If it did, where are all those genetic bottlenecks that must have resulted, and do they match the date of the flood?
Ok. Correction. Bible Worshipers damage faith.
This is why I stop listening to anyone who tries to speak for it.
I'm done with them. Completely.
And not a one of them ever has it occur to them that maybe THEY are the ones reading it wrong... or that there isnt any correct reading.
it does seem tho if there were some way to cross check, maybe they'd want to look at it. They love it when archaeologists confirm some detail from the bible.
When tho, science shows that something isnt being read right-like, say, noahs ark-why they they go into denial! CANT BE!!! Strawmen, ad homs, dark hints of satan deluding the minds of the researchers; falsehoods, quote mining, equivocation, anything anything at all but look at themselves and see if maybe just maybe they (gasp shudder oh epiphany that it would be) are not infallible!
how hard is that? For our members of the brotherhood of theocreologists it seems impossible.
I would think that the fundamental laws of the universe changed, and that the cells and etc were affected.
The data has to exist. What I want to know is whether anyone gathered it, and whether anyone analyzed it to check the prediction I made. If not, someone should.
And not a one of them ever has it occur to them that maybe THEY are the ones reading it wrong... or that there isnt any correct reading.
it does seem tho if there were some way to cross check, maybe they'd want to look at it. They love it when archaeologists confirm some detail from the bible.
When tho, science shows that something isnt being read right-like, say, noahs ark-why they they go into denial! CANT BE!!! Strawmen, ad homs, dark hints of satan deluding the minds of the researchers; falsehoods, quote mining, equivocation, anything anything at all but look at themselves and see if maybe just maybe they (gasp shudder oh epiphany that it would be) are not infallible!
how hard is that? For our members of the brotherhood of theocreologists it seems impossible.
Well YEC + ToE are both the same...
Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.
Well YEC + ToE are both the same...
Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.
A remarkable thing even from your fairyland, where the entire scientific community of every country on planet earth, as well as the educated classes of all nations are all religious fundies. Everyone but members of your particular cult of old earth creationists!evolutionists are religious fundies
Well YEC + ToE are both the same...
Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.
change the word God for Thor and it means just as much,
Any one with half a brain in their head, all those who are not afraid or desperate to believe or have not been indoctrinated into believing in myths and fantasies.To whom?
No argument there.change the word God for Thor and it means just as much,
To whom?
Any one with half a brain in their head...
No argument there.
Why would you even begin to think that your myths and fantasies are any better than any of the thousands of others?
is it because the one that gets to you first makes all of the others wrong?
I'll pass.So are you going to answer the question that was posed to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?