Was The Flood Story Copied From Babylonia?

[ixoye_8]

Sorry, I can not see how a mechanism which relies on mutations to operate can account for the diversity we see.

What we see in front of us is the working out of the variety built into each species to allow it to survive.

BTW there is no theory of gravity, it's a law

genetic mutation does not add information, it can only delete or alter information, and can be hereditary .. thus altering genes (mutations) cannot add chromosomes, hence no new specie can arise from another specie (evolution) ..

adaptation can be reversed and is not hereditary ..
adaptation, mutation and genetic drift are natural within a specie ..

 

[Abdicate]

Here's the big one: information is non-material... where did DNA get its information?

 

[ixoye_8]

See if you had read my statement above you might be willing to reconsider. Since anything I say will come from the scriptures, then nothing I say can change your mind. But I leave you with this:

Evolution cannot explain which came first, the chicken or the egg. Forget the chicken and the egg... which came first, proteins or DNA? Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together as God created them.

you got them there ..
DNA contains a "self replicating code" ..
therefore the code to self-replicate within the DNA coding could not arise independently ..

 

[ixoye_8]

natural selection IS suppose to be ongoing .. right ???
then intermediates (missing links) should be found in EVERY geological era, and logic dictates a minimum of 1/3 of fossils should be intermediates (an abrupt change) ..

if the "alleged change" happened slowly, then intermediates (missing links) would represent the vast majority of fossils ..

 

[TubbyTubby]

you got them there ...[/U]

If all you are interested in is re-gurgitating well used Christian vs Atheism arguments then I'm disappointed.

I'm not trying to catch anyone out, simply broadening my mind. I'm no expert in biology etc. so I'll need some time to consider these questions as I don't want to start quoting stuff for the sake of it.

 

[TubbyTubby]

just curious .. what was your motive to join a Christian forum ???

Just curious!

It's good for both of us to discuss, especially such a polarised argument as seen by atheists and christians (more so literal young earth types).

 

[TubbyTubby]

Forget the chicken and the egg... which came first, proteins or DNA?

Well I've had a quick search on this subject and it appears to be a VERY popular christian anti-evolution paradox. All the material I could find was from a christian perspective and I won't pretend to understand the complex biology/chemistry discussions I found.
So you 'got me' because I certainly can't answer that question. Well done.

Although I can't answer it and I'd rather not resort to conjecture what would it mean to you if the answer to this question was scientifically proven, one way or the other?

 

[Abdicate]

See that's the problem, I don't have an issue with believing God created. See, information is not a material object. What I type here isn't a result of random letters showing up on the screen. But it take me to type it out and convey the information I wish to send. DNA has this same issue. Where did it get its information? Who put it there? Furthermore, sciensts are finding that there's "computer code" in the make up of the universe (http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges). Who put it there?

I see the issue as moral. If "God says" and people don't like what "God says" then to eliminate God would remove the need to listen to what He says. Basically people don't like to be told what to believe, so they invent anything - even aliens - to remove God's word. Simple as that.

 

[TubbyTubby]

It can't ever be as simple as that, not to me at least.

You picked a counter evolution paradox that you know full well I have chance of answering but in another topic you expect me to believe that humans had sex with angels who gave birth to giants! And that is a fact just because you say it is.

The trouble here is, we're not really competing on a level playing field are we?

 

[Abdicate]

Not sure what you mean? I believe the scriptures 100%. Science and history have always proven the scriptures to be correct time and time again. Before Hubble in the 1950's the science community believed the universe existed in eternity past. Now they say there was indeed a beginning - Moses penned that over 4000 years ago. Before Columbus the "science" community used to believe the world was flat, yet the scriptures state the the circle of the earth is the Lord's footstool. I'm sorry they never taught you real science in school, just as they don't teach real christianity in seminaries. I don't let anyone do the thinking for me. I do my own homework.

 

[Brother Paul]

Fish to a man isn't strictly true, there were countless variations between. It's almost incomprehensible to a human because of the timescales involved (100's of millions of years). The fossil record so far supports this particular theory.

Not sure that saying science is so far behind the word of god...will convince me either. Give me an example (just the one please).

Sorry Tubby it actually does not. The geological column itself negates Uniformitarian Gradualism...as Stephen J. Gould noted
in one of his regular articles in the professional periodical, “Natural History“ (see the May 1977 issue), after actually taking a look at the facts having spent years as a Darwinian bulldog, Stephen J. Gould admitted “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“ Though trying as he did for decades to excape the obvious in favor of the accepted theory, Gould finally rejected Darwin and opted for Punctuated Equilibrium.

Now what he says is true…from the earliest appearance of life creatures such as Nautilus suddenly appear fully formed with all their interdependent biological sub-systems fully functional and in place (and there are many, many, examples) and so the layers repeat the story over and over.

But how could this have happened that so many scientists believe in uniform gradualism? Well Professor David Pilbeam explains, he states, ”...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ” (Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127) Get it? The interpretation of data is manipulated to fit the pre-conceived conclusion.

Darwin himself admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Why are you making personal insults and questioning my education? Hardly christian is it?
I also don't let anyone think for me, I always question and base my opinion on facts. Did the scriptures agree with Galileos findings?
Incidentally, I'm educated to a moderate level with a degree in Engineering although I'm a little annoyed that I should have to justify my schooling in what I thought was a friendly discussion.

 

[Abdicate]

Why are you making personal insults and questioning my education? Hardly christian is it?
I also don't let anyone think for me, I always question and base my opinion on facts. Did the scriptures agree with Galileos findings?
Incidentally, I'm educated to a moderate level with a degree in Engineering although I'm a little annoyed that I should have to justify my schooling in what I thought was a friendly discussion.

If you're referring to my comments, it wasn't a personal attack but one of general comment on the state of most, including christians. I find most people are not willing to put in the time to "do their own homework" and find it easier to go out, find some article by someone and claim it as gospel. That was my only intention.

 

[TubbyTubby]

and find it easier to go out, find some article by someone and claim it as gospel.

I agree with that, this topic is littered with links to articles and quotes almost to the point of confusion. You can hardly accuse me of that one?

Before Columbus the "science" community used to believe the world was flat, yet the scriptures state the the circle of the earth is the Lord's footstool.

Can I ask about this please, is that the only scripture reference about flat earth? To my enquiring mind it just seems quite a leap to go from that quote to saying the earth is a sphere.

 

[Abdicate]

I agree with that, this topic is littered with links to articles and quotes almost to the point of confusion. You can hardly accuse me of that one?


Can I ask about this please, is that the only scripture reference about flat earth? To my enquiring mind it just seems quite a leap to go from that quote to saying the earth is a sphere.

The scriptures say this:

Isaiah 40:22 (KJV) [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[TubbyTubby]

Gould finally rejected Darwin and opted for Punctuated Equilibrium.

Now what he says is true…from the earliest appearance of life creatures such as Nautilus suddenly appear fully formed with all their interdependent biological sub-systems fully functional and in place

Get it? The interpretation of data is manipulated to fit the pre-conceived conclusion.

[/I]“.

Very interesting, I've not read much about Gould before although it rings a bell from the past. What does Punctuated Equilibrium mean? That creatures appear fully formed OR there are periods of no (or little) change punctuated by periods of very rapid evolutionary modifications (perhaps as a result of sudden change in the environment)?

When you say "Now what he says is true" what was the deciding factor that brought you to readily agree with one theory (Gould) but dismiss another (Darwin)?

 

[TubbyTubby]

The scriptures say this:

But that refers to a circle not a sphere?

 

[Abdicate]

"Sphere" is not in the scriptures, nor is "car" but that's what this verse implies:

Nahum 2:4 (KJV) The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.

 

[TubbyTubby]

"Sphere" is not in the scriptures, nor is "car" but that's what this verse implies:

I thought the definition of a sphere was well understood during the time the bible was written?

Sorry, I don't follow your comparison here, that quote refers to a chariot, I don't read it as a prophecy of future technology. We all acknowledge the difference between a car and a chariot. Are you saying that a circle was actually a sphere, it's just that the word "sphere" wasn't invented at the time?

 

[Abdicate]

Little imagination. Have you seen a chariot go like lightning? I forget you don't believe the bible... sorry. It's late and I'm tired. Cya tomorrow...