The TRVE history of the Flood...

Go back and read what I wrote. I did not say Phocas declared him Antichrist. I put in parentheses the IMPLICATIONS of his being declared Universal Bishop. You vicious liar. Peter was never a Pope and that is one of the biggest lies of the RCC. There IS no "apostolic succession." that's another big fat lie. It is not claimed for any purpose than instruction, unless you're a tyrant like the Pope who given the opportunity kills people who disagree with him. Which was intended to counter the usurped authority of the Pope over kings, Neither is defensible but King James didn't murder 50 million Bible believers either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You posted "The RCC is a deviation from the true Church, starting with the declaration of the Bishop of Rome as Universal Bishop (Pope/Antichrist) in 606 AD."You did not say anything about the part in parens being the rantings of nutjobs from over a thousand years later.

quote:

---

Whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, is the forerunner of the Antichrist

---

That was a Pope. A few decades later, another Pope got the Byzantine Emperor to agree he was a universal priest. This is not a modern idea. Nonsense. Find yourself a book on the history of communism, and I can guarantee the opening chapters will be full of fundamentalist Christians arguing that we are all equal before God. Christianity has been used to support James' autocratic ideas of a Divine Chain of Being; but it has also been used over and over and over and over and over again to support the idea of universal equality.

The fact that you label the changes in trilobites as "microevolution" - despite them clearly qualifying as macroevolution by scientific standards doesn't really say much without a clear way of telling the distinction between micro- and macro-.

quote:

---

It's the creatures in the fossil record that persist the longest that also evolve the least. That is a highly significant fact that gets ignored.

---

Is it ? The trilobites underwent a good deal of change. However according to you mammals underwent significantly greater change - and mammals are still here. And even more changed from their ancestors who lived at the time of the first trilobites.i'd be interested if you can come up with a version that is still a fact and is highly significant. I think that you count the trilobites as persisting because you consider them to have changed only a little which makes the point somewhat tautologous. Those that survive longest with "little" change will naturally show "little" change.

You called me a liar for a stupid mistake YOU made. I could have been clearer but what I meant is clear enough -- they are synonyms, they are in parentheses BECAUSE Phocas didn't use those words, and your calling me a liar is way out of bounds.

The point I was trying to make (apparently badly) is that the trilobite 'kind' ismore like the tetrapod 'kind'; than it is the mammal 'kind'. I am unclear on your point here. That isn't meant as a dig - I just don't understand.I grant that is a lot of variation, but I would put all of it into the built-in trilobite genome assuming the much greater genetic diversity in ancient creatures that has been severely decreased since the Flood. All those variations do not appear to be gradations over generations, but complete systems in themselves. I would also point out that the BASIC STRUCTURE of the trilobite remains unchanged and that is what defines the Kind, not its various faculties and organs. [/qs]But the 'basic structure' remains the same across animals that you flatly refuse to accpt are related. This was recognised long before Darwin - its the basics of Linnaeus' classification. Without any evolutionary ideas he recognised that the basic structure of a mouse is the same as that of a horse. Everyone should know more about trilobties. Trilobites are amazing. And when mammals evolved, THEY REMAINED CLEARLY AMNIOTES. Again, you're only seeing trilobites as all the same despite some variation because you don't have the same visceral understanding of how they differ from one another that you do for, for example, a crocodile and a horse. I will try to expand on this point either tomorrow or at the weekend, since now I need to stop this for one evening. Bear with me.

Of course. the point is that Christianity has NEVER been a monolithic power. It's been used politically by Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox to build a power base, a political stance, garner wealth and even rarely for humanitarian efforts.The important point is to get folk to stop claiming "this is Christianity" because there are almost no areas where Christians and Christianity are not represented on both sides.

If you had been clearer I would not have pointed out your misrepresentation.I'm sorry if you get your panties in a wad but the reality is that neither Protestant nor Romanist nor Orthodox nor Christian nor atheist have any grounds to claim some moral high ground.And the Biblical Flood still never happened.AbE: And I am not Jar but simply jar.Edited by jar, : see AbE

That is your own wrong opinion. There is a true Christianity and I'll keep saying it in the teeth of your utterly stupid ignorant lying objections as long as I want whether you agree or not, and you have no right whatever to tell me to stop it. You autocratic dictatorial self-inflated liar. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well we are having trouble communicating. I really don't understand this point. I am just making the same distinction again I think, that trilobites persist for a huge span of time according to the Geo Time Scale, although they remain trilobites, while the reptile is assumed to be able to evolve into a mammal in much less time. Well, I have a much more precisely defined structure in mind then. More on the level of how the structure of a cat differs from that of a dog. On that level they are clearly entirely different creatures. So are a reptile and a mammal. We can tell them apart by their basic structure and basic behavior even though yes of course all four-footed creatures also share a basic structure in a much broader sense. I am trying to point to a structural difference that is much more specific. It seems quite obvious to me but apparently I need a better way to make the difference clearer. The reptile does not look like the mammal at this level, but the trilobites all look like trilobites. The cat does not look like the dog at this level. Spiders all look like spiders despite their great variations. I think I can recognize a beetle no matter how outlandish its variations (maybe I'm wrong). A gnat looks like a fly but not like a bee. I don't know how to define this more precisely unfortunately. I'm tempted to say that whatever you tend to call it is the level I'm defining. You wouldn't mistake a cat for a dog or a horse for a mouse or a mouse for a salamander. Not to say there wouldn't be some difficult calls but I'm trying to define a general category by which structure defines the creature.So when I say the trilobite remains a trilobite I mean it always has three lobes and other characteristics that link it to other trilobites and to no other creature despite their great variation in other respects. I'm happy to bear with you because you are sincerely thinking about all this and you remain polite. I may have my limits, however, just because evolutionist thinking can drive me crazy, so we'll see. But I think this last paragraph of yours is answered by my paragraph above it, my attempted definition of the classifications I have in mind. I would suppose you think in different classifications because you habitually think as an evolutionist. I'd be happy just to get the category I have in mind well defined. abe: I suppose it's the Kind itself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have not seen you present any scientific arguments for a recent global Flood in this thread. All I've seen are some general observations that, in your opinion, seem to make sense in a global Flood context.If you are interested in actual arguments, I've given you a number of links to Christian professional geologists who debunk "flood geology" arguments and claims. You certainly have the personal freedom to reject the authority of experts in the field, to reject scientific data, to reject history, and to add extra-biblical teachings such as "flood geology" to Scripture. But I don't recommend it.

The idea that there ever was a Biblical Flood is of course simply silly and the evidence that it never happened is overwhelming.Just a few but remember that is even one of these exist the whole Biblical Flood nonsense is refuted. The Methuselah Bristle Cone Pine germinated around 2700 BCE and is still alive today.The Old Kingdom of Egypt ran from 2700 BCE to about 2100 BCEThe Unified Indus valley Civilization began around 2500 BCE and various civilizations have continued there without interruption sinceThe Golden Age of Ur ran from about 2475 BCE through about 2000 BCE when it may have been the largest city in the world

All your dates are off by a few hundred years; they refute nothing.

And your evidence is?Remember, the first one is a firm date and it alone refutes the silly flood nonsense.All it takes is one single piece of evidence and the flood myths get tossed on the trash heap.AbE: We are back in reality forum territory now so the Bible is worthless as evidence. Edited by jar, : see AbE:

My evidence is the Biblical dates then. Yours are the product of the fallen mind. End of subject.