Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Comments
-
... and all the explanations fall apart, once the details are examined.
The Human Appendix has at least five functions ... Embryological, Physiological, Microbiological (Bacteriological), Biochemical and Immunological.
... and you can read all about them here:-
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/the-human-vermiform-appendix/
They don't, unless you can give examples.
As for the appendix, try a little real science...
'From an evolutionary perspective, the human appendix is a derivative of the end of the phylogenetically primitive herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors (Goodman et al. 1998; Shoshani 1996). The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential function, namely cellulose digestion. Though during primate evolution it has decreased in size to a mere rudiment, the appendix retains a structure that was originally specifically adapted for housing bacteria and extending the time course of digestion. For these reasons the human vermiform appendix is vestigial, regardless of whether or not the human appendix functions in the development of the immune system.
From a nonevolutionary, typological perspective, the human appendix is homologous to the end of the physiologically important, large, cellulose-fermenting caeca of other mammals. Even though humans eat cellulose, the contribution to cellulose digestion by both the human caecum and its associated appendix is negligible. Regardless of whether one accepts evolutionary theory or not, the human appendix is a rudiment of the caecum that is useless as a normal mammalian, cellulose-digesting caecum. Thus, by all accounts the vermiform appendix remains a valid and classic example of a human vestige.'
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html0 -
Given that you've cited that paper in support of your position, can I take it that you have studied the paper and agree with it in its entirety?There are auto-correction mechanisms to keep this degradation at bay ... but there is no doubt that our genomes are degenerating
This paper says it is due to evolution ... but it seems clear to me that a better interpretation of the evidence would be that the once-perfect genes, at creation, are now in continuous decline.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030042
That's called a goalpost shift.The quality of the information has increased, in your example ... but we have applied intelligence to determining this.
I'll repeat the point again, if for no other reason than to give you another opportunity to evade it: you claimed that a random mutation can't result in an increase in information quality. You've now accepted that in the example I gave, a random mutation led to an increase in information quality. Therefore you have admitted that your previous assertion was wrong.
As to your attempt at a deflection: it doesn't matter whether intelligence is required to determine the increase in information quality. All that's required is a mechanism to select for those mutations that result in an improvement, and reject all those mutations that result in deterioration. Happily, natural selection provides just such a mechanism with no deus ex required.
Hence the mechanism for naturally selecting beneficial mutations and weeding out harmful ones.Random changes can be beneficial ... but they are not sustainably so. The next change is much more likely to be adverse ...
This is a re-statement of the assertion that every mutation necessarily produces a completely non-viable organism, which is not only untrue, but you've already rowed back on it.... and neither change will affect the total non-functionality of both intermediate sequences.
Does the phrase "circle jerk" mean anything to you?Much of it is peer-reviewed by conventionally qualified ID proponents and Creation Scientists ...
I'm not rejecting evidence. I'm rejecting assertions built on logical fallacies and pseudoscience.... and yet ye guys reject all evidence and logic put before ye ... for the intelligent design of life.
Given sufficiently compelling evidence, you would accept that the bible is wrong?Whatever about Ken Ham ... I'm certainly open to new evidence ... and indeed I was an Evolutionist for many years, so the transition back to believing in Evolutionist would be relatively easy for me ... if the evidence warranted me doing so.
What form would that evidence have to take? Because you've rejected all of science apart from that pseudoscience called "creation science", which is nothing more than a collection of confirmation biases.0 -
Not only is there no possibility that life arose spontaneously ... there is also no possibility that any of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information found in living organisms arose by non-intelligently directed means either.
All I see here is a claim that this is so. I look forward to your substantiation. If the rest of what you posted is anything go by, it will be very entertaining.The Fossil Record is a record of dead things killed catastrophically and buried in cemented rock by world-wide water-based processes.
The theory that each rock layer represents millions of years of time is disproven by polystrate fossils, the fact that fossils of current living animals are found to be exactly the same as the current animals are themselves and the fact that they were obviously laid down catastrophically (over weeks/months) rather than gradually (over millions of years).All these creatures were contemporaneous ... and not separated by millions of years ... just like extremophiles, cyano-bacteria and Man are contemporaneous today.
... and the reason that we see supposed 3 billion year old fossils that "have a striking similarity to cyano-bacteria" ... is that they were cyano-bacteria ... and they were fossilised thousands of years ago - and not billions of years ago.Basically we leap from primitive 'bottom dwelling' organisms that were the first to succumb to burial in Noah's Flood to organisms further up the oceanic ecological niches that were buried later.It is the logical equivalent of sticking a feather in the ground and proclaiming that it will 'grow' a hen ... none of these organelles have the capacity to do what Evolutionists wish they could do.You will get no disagreement from me on that ... Theistic Evolution is just as scientifically challenged, as its secular counterpart ... and with serious theological issues to boot.One enormous act of Creation (and no tinkering) ... and the bacteria are observed to still be bacteria ... that have re-combined (in a tightly pre-programmed manner) pre-existing genetic information.
I'm not the one cherry-picking or trying to 'shoe-horn' the evidence to meet my theory ... rather than following the evidence to where it logically leads.Like I say, the fossil record isn't a multi-billion year record of life ... it is patently a contemporaneous record of death in a world-wide water-based catastrophe.The lines are drawn at the selection 'walls' that appear quite rapidly when artificial or natural selection are applied to existing genetic diversity.I don't accept that we do see this ... what we see today is contemporaneous Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic life.Irreducibly complex phenomena and systems in living organisms number into the billions ... and every one of them have probabilities against their non-intelligently directed production that are vastly greater than the Universal Probability Bound ... and therefore are mathematically impossible.
Ok - so then your position is, basically:
1: All life was created in a single act of divine creation
2: All life as seen currently and in the fossil record existed at the same time as it was created at the same time.
3: A flood that lasted under a year wiped out the vast majority of these, and created what we now call the fossil record.
Do you also believe the story of Noah's ark is factual?
Either way, we hit a bit of a puzzler:
In the UK, we can find fossil layers with plants and animals we would expect to find in a sub-tropical biome, roughly equivalent to a savannah, with hippo's, elephants, hyenas and lions. However, in other layers in the same area we find the fossils of plants and animals that live in a freezing steppe: woolly mammoth, conifer forests, cave bear, elk and dire wolf.
How did a single event fossilize what must have been a cold steppe and a subtropical savannah at the same time? Why do we often find fossils of plants we normally find in completely different biomes in a small geographical area?
Did entire biomes float around and get deposited one by one in the flood in discrete layers?0 -
.Vivisectus wrote: »My answers in blue
Ok - so then your position is, basically:
1: All life was created in a single act of divine creation
2: All life as seen currently and in the fossil record existed at the same time as it was created at the same time.
3: A flood that lasted under a year wiped out the vast majority of these, and created what we now call the fossil record.
That's a good summary of my position.
Do you also believe the story of Noah's ark is factual?
Yes
Either way, we hit a bit of a puzzler:
In the UK, we can find fossil layers with plants and animals we would expect to find in a sub-tropical biome, roughly equivalent to a savannah, with hippo's, elephants, hyenas and lions. However, in other layers in the same area we find the fossils of plants and animals that live in a freezing steppe: woolly mammoth, conifer forests, cave bear, elk and dire wolf.
Just because we find animals in specific biomes today doesn't mean that they were in different biomes before the Flood. Indeed, it is thought that the temperatures across the world were much more even than they are today due to the insulating and heat distributing effects of the universal cloud cover that covered the entire earth, and was permanently destroyed at the time of the Flood.
How did a single event fossilize what must have been a cold steppe and a subtropical savannah at the same time? Why do we often find fossils of plants we normally find in completely different biomes in a small geographical area?
Did entire biomes float around and get deposited one by one in the flood in discrete layers?
We find Tigers today in biomes ranging from the steaming hot tropical jungle of India right up to the freezing wastes of Siberia. Other species (that are now localized) were widespread before the Flood.0 -
.
Where are the remains of the marsupials who must have made the trek from the Mediterranean area to Australia? Why are they only found in Australia? And if it is because they were so few from the ark how did those few survive that enormous trek?. Koala bears only eat from plants indigenous to Australia, mostly eucalyptus leaves.
'There are well over 600 varieties of eucalypts. Koalas eat only some of these. They are very fussy eaters and have strong preferences for different types of gum leaves. Within a particular area, as few as one, and generally no more than two or three species of eucalypt will be regularly browsed (we call these 'primary browse trees') while a variety of other species, including some non-eucalypts, appear to be browsed occasionally or used for just sitting or sleeping in.'
https://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/interesting-facts
How did they survive the trek?0 -
Advertisement
-
We find Tigers today in biomes ranging from the steaming hot tropical jungle of India right up to the freezing wastes of Siberia. Other species (that are now localized) were widespread before the Flood.
But we are talking about a lot more than just an animal with a wide range - we are talking about entire biomes getting deposited, neatly separated in layers, in the same place.
One of these layers just has plants and animals from a severe cold weather biome, the another one has plants and animals from a much, much warmer one.
Why are they in separate layers in a small geographical region like the UK? It cannot have been both a hot-weather landscape and a cold-weather on at the same time, and some of these animals and plants cannot possibly survive in the kind of weather conditions that some of the others actually require for survival.
Your alternative proposes that cold-weather conifers grew next to hot-weather shrubs, and entire cold-weather ecosystems co-existed with hot weather ones in a single place. Then on top of that all the hot-weather ones somehow got deposited in a different layer, neatly grouped together according to temperature preference, by a single flood event.
How are we to explain that?0 -
Just because we find animals in specific biomes today doesn't mean that they were in different biomes before the Flood. Indeed, it is thought that the temperatures across the world were much more even than they are today due to the insulating and heat distributing effects of the universal cloud cover that covered the entire earth, and was permanently destroyed at the time of the Flood.
"it is thought"? By whom, and why? Where do we see evidence for this?
If there was heavy world-wide cloud cover we would not see an even temperature at all: rather, we would see extremely violent hurricanes all over the temperate zones as the cloud gets heated up, and the warm moist air at the equator is pushed to the north and south where the atmospheric pressure would be lower because it is cooler due to the varying hours of sunshine it gets.
The amount of energy that a world-wide cloud would generate in a matter of months would be immense: the pre-flood world could not have been like that for more than a single season. And far from even temperatures it would have led to some extreme weather indeed!
But I do not see how such a cloud could have formed, or what power could possibly have held it in place! The forces generated would be immense. It goes against everything we know about basic physics and meteorology.
How could this have occurred?0 -
-
Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ... and therefore your use of current biomes to classify fossils is a classification error.Vivisectus wrote: »But we are talking about a lot more than just an animal with a wide range - we are talking about entire biomes getting deposited, neatly separated in layers, in the same place.
One of these layers just has plants and animals from a severe cold weather biome, the another one has plants and animals from a much, much warmer one.
Why are they in separate layers in a small geographical region like the UK? It cannot have been both a hot-weather landscape and a cold-weather on at the same time, and some of these animals and plants cannot possibly survive in the kind of weather conditions that some of the others actually require for survival.
Your alternative proposes that cold-weather conifers grew next to hot-weather shrubs, and entire cold-weather ecosystems co-existed with hot weather ones in a single place. Then on top of that all the hot-weather ones somehow got deposited in a different layer, neatly grouped together according to temperature preference, by a single flood event.
How are we to explain that?0 -
Why not? And how do you know? And any comment on the fact that I've demonstrated that your assertion that random changes can't possibly increase information quality was wrong? And do you fully accept all the conclusions of the paper you cited as evidence earlier?Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ...0 -
Advertisement
-
We only get storms because of the extreme lack of uniformity between cloudy and cloudless areas. If the Earth had a vapour canopy temperatures at the equator would be reduced due to reflection of solar radiation and at the poles temperatures would be increased due to its insulating effects. We still see these phenomena locally where cloud cover reduces day-time temperatures and increases night-time temperatures.Vivisectus wrote: »If there was heavy world-wide cloud cover we would not see an even temperature at all: rather, we would see extremely violent hurricanes all over the temperate zones as the cloud gets heated up, and the warm moist air at the equator is pushed to the north and south where the atmospheric pressure would be lower because it is cooler due to the varying hours of sunshine it gets.
You're drawing conclusions based on the current situation of unstable weather and temperature extremes, caused by the lack of cloud cover over most of the planet, and its continuous variability.Vivisectus wrote: »The amount of energy that a world-wide cloud would generate in a matter of months would be immense: the pre-flood world could not have been like that for more than a single season. And far from even temperatures it would have led to some extreme weather indeed!
But I do not see how such a cloud could have formed, or what power could possibly have held it in place! The forces generated would be immense. It goes against everything we know about basic physics and meteorology.0 -
There would be no reflection at the poles and no insulation at the equator?If the Earth had a vapour canopy temperatures at the equator would be reduced due to reflection of solar radiation and at the poles temperatures would be increased due to its insulating effects.
And the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the poles would equal the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the equator?
And you claim to be a scientist?0 -
We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.oscarBravo wrote: »Why not? And how do you know?
I've addressed this hereoscarBravo wrote: »And any comment on the fact that I've demonstrated that your assertion that random changes can't possibly increase information quality was wrong? And do you fully accept all the conclusions of the paper you cited as evidence earlier?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=17080 -
Where has it been established that the flood ,as mentioned in the bible, happened?We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.
I've addressed this here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »But we are talking about a lot more than just an animal with a wide range - we are talking about entire biomes getting deposited, neatly separated in layers, in the same place.
One of these layers just has plants and animals from a severe cold weather biome, the another one has plants and animals from a much, much warmer one.Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ... and therefore your use of current biomes to classify fossils is a classification error.oscarBravo wrote: »Why not? And how do you know?We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.
I know A because B.
B is shown by A.
Hence, circle.
What do I win?0 -
Not much.oscarBravo wrote: »There would be no reflection at the poles and no insulation at the equator?
The differences wouldn't be significant ... the average incident solar radiation is greater at the poles during summer than at the equator ... and the large current polar albedo wouldn't have been present pre-flood with moderate polar temperatures then.oscarBravo wrote: »And the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the poles would equal the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the equator?0 -
No, we don't know that. Some of us don't accept that the flood happened just because a magic book said so.We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.
You didn't address it, you changed the subject.I've addressed this here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
Let's go over this again. You claimed that random mutations can only possibly cause deterioration, never improvement. It was pointed out to you that mutations do, in fact, yield improvements, which you accepted, but changed the subject to claim that random changes necessarily cause a loss in information quality. I demonstrated that a random change can lead to an increase in information quality, and you started talking about the intelligence required to determine that the quality had increased. I pointed out that no such intelligence was required, and you lost interest in the discussion.
Why not? Why would there be reflection but no insulation at the equator, and insulation but no reflection at the poles?Not much.
You're joking, right? Tell me you're joking.The differences wouldn't be significant ... the average incident solar radiation is greater at the poles during summer than at the equator ...0 -
I answered everything hereoscarBravo wrote: »Let's go over this again. You claimed that random mutations can only possibly cause deterioration, never improvement. It was pointed out to you that mutations do, in fact, yield improvements, which you accepted, but changed the subject to claim that random changes necessarily cause a loss in information quality. I demonstrated that a random change can lead to an increase in information quality, and you started talking about the intelligence required to determine that the quality had increased. I pointed out that no such intelligence was required, and you lost interest in the discussion.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
It's time for bed ... and I actually meant to say not much difference at either location.oscarBravo wrote: »Why not? Why would there be reflection but no insulation at the equator, and insulation but no reflection at the poles?
I'm not ... look at the last sentence in item number 10 in the purple shaded summary here:-oscarBravo wrote: »You're joking, right? Tell me you're joking.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/0 -
No, you didn't.I answered everything here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
If there's not much difference between reflection and insulation at either location, then whether there is a difference comes down to insolation. Hence...It's time for bed ... and I actually meant to say not much difference at either location.I'm not ... look at the last sentence in item number 10 in the purple shaded summary here:-
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
OK, I missed where you said "in summer" - which conveniently ignores the fact that each pole would have six months of no solar radiation whatsoever, so if you're going to talk about average insolation, surely even you have to admit that the poles would get dramatically less solar radiation over the course of a year than the equator. Therefore, given similar reflectivity and insulation, the poles would still, of necessity, be much colder.0 -
We only get storms because of the extreme lack of uniformity between cloudy and cloudless areas. If the Earth had a vapour canopy temperatures at the equator would be reduced due to reflection of solar radiation and at the poles temperatures would be increased due to its insulating effects. We still see these phenomena locally where cloud cover reduces day-time temperatures and increases night-time temperatures.
You cannot simply apply such a local observation and imagine a world-wide variant because it suits you: clouds simply do not behave that way.
Even if we could somehow prevent the moist air at the equator from building up massive amounts of energy, drift to the temperate zones and dump quite a lot of their moisture there in some pretty intense storms,we would not see an evening out of global temperature anyway: rather, we would see a dramatic drop as in effect we are reflecting solar energy all over the world, reducing the net amount of energy the earth receives. I would expect an ice-age to follow pretty quickly.
And as we will see in the next post: evening out the temperature to a global temperate would still not allow all these biomes to co-exist.
This really will not do as an explanation.You're drawing conclusions based on the current situation of unstable weather and temperature extremes, caused by the lack of cloud cover over most of the planet, and its continuous variability.
Not at all - it is based on the simple fact that the equator receives much more solar energy, and that less of it is reflected relative to everywhere else due to it's angle.
Having an evened-out starting point would no change this. It is just a simplistic extension of the insulating effect of clouds.
But even if we put all that aside, it is very easy to demonstrate that even if we allowed this to be a special, magical cloud that does not obey the laws of physics, it still would not explain what we can observe.0 -
Advertisement
-
Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ... and therefore your use of current biomes to classify fossils is a classification error.
I do not see how: we find fossils of plants and animals which have features that make them especially suitable for specific weather conditions, such as extreme cold, heat, temperate conditions, wet climates, dry ones. We find them in discrete layers, a phenomenon which we still have not explained: if they all co-existed, you would expect to find them all mixed up.
In temperate climes, extreme weather features are more of a handicap: arctic hares that turn bright white in the winter do not do well in the Mediterranean, for instance. And cold-weather conifers cannot compete with tropical hardwoods at the equator... nor can they germinate, incidentally, as they need seasons to do so. These are just a few examples: the list goes on and on.
And yet we find fossils of such conifers at the equator, the remains of ancient deserts in Ireland, as well as the remains of tropical forests.
That has nothing to do with classification. That has to do with the fact that we need to explain how, if all these animals and plants existed at the same time, they managed to do so. Even if you planted them all there fully grown I cannot imagine the work it would take to keep them all alive for more than a year or two.
This explanation requires special circumstances: you need magic to make it work.0 -
Hold that Nobel! A blonde reality-TV star says that evolution is false and caused the Holocaust!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/reality-tv-star-jessa-duggar-blames-the-holocaust-on-the-theory-of-evolution/0 -
These animals and plants have these features today ... after natural selection has selected these characteristics ... none of which can be assessed from their fossils.Vivisectus wrote: »I do not see how: we find fossils of plants and animals which have features that make them especially suitable for specific weather conditions, such as extreme cold, heat, temperate conditions, wet climates, dry ones. We find them in discrete layers, a phenomenon which we still have not explained: if they all co-existed, you would expect to find them all mixed up.
The fossil of an Arctic Hare would look just like any other Hare ... so you are speculating about things that you don't have evidence for whilst making assumptions that present conditions existed before and during the FloodVivisectus wrote: »In temperate climes, extreme weather features are more of a handicap: arctic hares that turn bright white in the winter do not do well in the Mediterranean, for instance. And cold-weather conifers cannot compete with tropical hardwoods at the equator... nor can they germinate, incidentally, as they need seasons to do so. These are just a few examples: the list goes on and on.
They weren't like the obligate creatures we now observe due to selection and speciation ... and neither was the global atmosphere and climate the same as we see today ... and that is why we find the fossilised remains of ancient deserts and species now found in the tropics in Ireland.Vivisectus wrote: »And yet we find fossils of such conifers at the equator, the remains of ancient deserts in Ireland, as well as the remains of tropical forests.
That has nothing to do with classification. That has to do with the fact that we need to explain how, if all these animals and plants existed at the same time, they managed to do so. Even if you planted them all there fully grown I cannot imagine the work it would take to keep them all alive for more than a year or two.
No magic ... just a radically different pre-flood world.Vivisectus wrote: »This explanation requires special circumstances: you need magic to make it work.0 -
The fossil of an Arctic Hare would look just like any other Hare ... so you are speculating about things that you don't have evidence for whilst making assumptions that present conditions existed before and during the Flood
The hare is just an example of how features that allow an animal to thrive in extreme cold conditions are a handicap in even temperate conditions... which is why you do not find arctic foxes and polar bears in temperate zones today, just to name another example.
Nor am I speaking of just one fossil or animal: I am speaking of a discrete fossilization layer which features just animals and plants which we would normally find in sub-arctic conditions... which is what we can actually see. We find musk-ox, woolly rhino, woolly mammoth, dire wolf together with slow-growing conifers and almost no deciduous trees at all, together with fossilized pollen from tough sub-arctic grasses.
In the same geographical area, we also find a riverbank that had hippos in it, cheetahs, lions, hyenas, and a mix of trees and shrubs you would expect in a much hotter climate.
What we do NOT find is hippos and musk-ox together.
Your explanation is that
a) these were special animals
b) that lived in special weather
c) and were deposited in discreet layers because of special circumstances.
You have not actually explained c) yet, but I am sure that will follow.They weren't like the obligate creatures we now observe due to selection and speciation ... and neither was the global atmosphere and climate the same as we see today ... and that is why we find the fossilised remains of ancient deserts and species now found in the tropics in Ireland.
Oh I see! They were temperate deserts which at the same time supported tropical hardwoods? Were these dry-weather hardwoods? Or was it a particularly wet desert?
That must have been some amazing special weather, and those must have been amazing special plants.
No magic ... just a radically different pre-flood world.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you have proposed magical weather and magical plants... weather and plants that do not follow the laws of nature.0 -
Hold that Nobel! A blonde reality-TV star says that evolution is false and caused the Holocaust!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/reality-tv-star-jessa-duggar-blames-the-holocaust-on-the-theory-of-evolution/the bible wrote:7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Genocide is only cool if God tells you to do so.0 -
These animals and plants have these features today ... after natural selection has selected these characteristics ... none of which can be assessed from their fossils.
Teeth, J C, teeth.
those many layers of sharp teeth, and examples of tooth damage on other fossils are just lies, before the flood sharks were herbivores... and lived in a pond in Eden.0 -
Teeth, J C, teeth.
those many layers of sharp teeth, and examples of tooth damage on other fossils are just lies, before the flood sharks were herbivores... and lived in a pond in Eden.
I think some of the plant life was quite tough. Was that not the reason given for the t-rex having vicious teeth when it was supposedly a vegetarian in Eden? Maybe the seaweed the Sharks fed on was really rubbery...
MrP0 -
Got it in one, Mr P.:)I think some of the plant life was quite tough. Was that not the reason given for the t-rex having vicious teeth when it was supposedly a vegetarian in Eden? Maybe the seaweed the Sharks fed on was really rubbery...
MrP
Carnivorous behaviour happened after the Fall i.e. many many years before the fossilization events in the Flood.0 -
Genocide is never 'cool' ... and Moses was a very very bad guy indeed.Vivisectus wrote: »Genocide is only cool if God tells you to do so.
These verses go to show that the people who should know best ... are often those who behave worst.0 -
Advertisement
-
Genocide is never 'cool' ... and Moses was a very very bad guy indeed.
These verses go to show that the people who should know best ... are often those who behave worst.
Would that not also make God bad for the global genocide that was a result of the flood?If you can read this, you're too close!
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgybr7BWY-w
Advertisement