|
Author
|
Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 264 of 312 (325975)
06-25-2006 12:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 260 by nwr
06-25-2006 12:49 AM
|
|
Re: that same old deception again
The messages of the Bible we are discussing are not ambiguous.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 260 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 12:49 AM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 267 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 1:01 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
That's true, creationists have thought about what actually exists and understand it in relation to the Flood. A single floodplain is what you get from a local flood, not a flood that involves ocean currents and the dissolving of whole continents and disturbances of the sea floor. Tell me exactly what the genetic evidence for a bottleneck 4500 years ago should look like. Be specific. Include genetic evidence for known recent bottlenecks.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 274 of 312 (325985)
06-25-2006 1:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 271 by nwr
06-25-2006 1:11 AM
|
|
Re: that same old deception again
I'm wondering you you would do workaday meteorology on the Genesis 1 model. Exactly the way it is done now.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 271 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 1:11 AM | | nwr has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
No, the universe isn't wrong, but the people who read it are wrong about some aspects of it. It might help if you reviewed more of the thread. You are coming in in the middle of things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 279 of 312 (325992)
06-25-2006 1:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 267 by nwr
06-25-2006 1:01 AM
|
|
Re: that same old deception again
I agree. The description of the sky as a luminous domed ceiling above the earth is quite unambiguous. The description that the luminosity of the sky is independent of the sun is umambiguous. I'm talking about the events of the Flood and the Fall as the unambiguous messages. Other messages may be ambiguous. I read the domed ceiling as poetic imagery based simply on the way it looks. It's not meant to be scientific. It's not like giving all those specific details about a worldwide flood and a very specific vessel to float on it, clearly facts, something that could be directly contradicted as science now does. Or the details about the Fall. The light that preceded the creation of the sun was not necessasrily physical light, although it's not impossible for that to exist without a particular source, either, God being God, but no doubt heavenly or spiritual light. When you close your eyes hard in a dark room and press on your eyelids you see light without an external physical source? I know that's explainable but is it really understandable since there is no actual light source? But I don't mean that to be an explanation of the phenomenon you brought up, just an example of light without a source.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 267 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 1:01 AM | | nwr has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
Why don't you read the damned thread? No, they are wrong where and ONLY where the Bible says so. And the point of the thread is that they are MOSTLY right according to the Bible. Or that WAS the topic until it got dragged off by one rogue admin and his accomplice.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
creationists have thought about what actually exists and understand it in relation to the Flood. A single floodplain is what you get from a local flood, not a flood that involves ocean currents and the dissolving of whole continents and disturbances of the sea floor.
pointless speculation and special pleading. a flood looks like a flood because there is no single current, or because the current is violent and multi-directional. this mixes things into a single strata, not multiple. And you know this because you witnessed the Noachic Flood, right? Speaking of pointless speculation.
Tell me exactly what the genetic evidence for a bottleneck 4500 years ago should look like. Be specific. Include genetic evidence for known recent bottlenecks.
being able to trace all mitochondrial dna of each "kind" to a single individual, within the last 6,000 years. there was a such a bottleneck in the human genome under discussion somewhat recently, "mitochondrial eve" showing that every female alive today is descended from a single individual. if the ark story is true, we should expect similar results in every "kind" of animal, all of which line up to the same general timeframe. More specificity is needed Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
I don't know the PRECISE date. Somewhere around 4500 years ago.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
Maybe it's because I should be in bed but I could have sworn you'd spent large parts of the last four pages of posts whining about this thread not being for specifics. I gave up. The delinquents refused to reform.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 284 by MangyTiger, posted 06-25-2006 1:51 AM | | MangyTiger has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
Thanks for the link.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 284 by MangyTiger, posted 06-25-2006 1:51 AM | | MangyTiger has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
Don't you need to know exatly how many generations intervene? How does number of years tell you anything? Why a single individual? Bottlenecks may reduce to a small number of individual that interbreed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
That's only the unclean beasts. The clean were taken in sevens.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
well, since you accept population genetics... it has something with family trees, and at what point they diverge And that's about number of actual generations, not years.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
Where do you get that five of each Kind were sacrificed? Sounds like ONE of each was taken, leaving six, or three pairs. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: that same old deception again
Weird deuplicate. sorry Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2