(December 12, 2014 at 12:19 am)Sionnach Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 12:16 am)tonyintheLight Wrote: The oldest recorded man who ever lived was 969 years old.

The bible is not historically accurate. No man has ever lived that long, and you are continually displaying your ignorance by referring to it as though it is more than rubbish fiction.

If someone could live that long the mind the brain will suffer.
the person would suffer from many mental illnesses.

(December 12, 2014 at 12:22 am)Tombochan Wrote: You are merely citing scripture again and we here give it little or no credence. Try again.
What is it about evolutionary science(s) that you find unconvincing?

Ive already mentioned in previous posts. I dont believe something can be created out of nothing. All things point back to a divine creator.

besides also if biblical people were so smart they could have made guns explosives and other types of modern day weapons.
but no a crappy sword and shield.

One point should be made here. Homosapiens has not evolved in the 4000 or so years covered by the bible. It is typically a much slower process than that but might be punctuated by rapid mutations in some species throughout geologic time. So, no-one would argue that Bronze Age man was intellectually inferior to us today. Our health and lifespan has increased continually in history, most notably so with the advent of modern medicine and improved nutrition.

---

Your last response adresses biogenesis, not evolution.

---

Do you know the difference?

(December 12, 2014 at 12:30 am)Tombochan Wrote: One point should be made here. Homosapiens has not evolved in the 4000 or so years covered by the bible. It is typically a much slower process than that but might be punctuated by rapid mutations in some species throughout geologic time. So, no-one would argue that Bronze Age man was intellectually inferior to us today. Our health and lifespan has increased continually in history, most notably so with the advent of modern medicine and improved nutrition.

---

Your last response adresses biogenesis, not evolution.

well modern medication at least you accept that.
modern humans have been around for 200,000 so they are older than the bible, modern humans anyways. Evolution taken place over hundreds and millions of years for humans to well be humans. we have code in our dna to grow fur all over our bodies and one for tails but our body sees we don't need it and shut it off. there is lots of code in dna that can do pretty much what our ancestors can do.

And........Abiogenesis, life arising from organic matter,is a hairbreadth away from being accomplished in the laboratory.

---

@dyresand.
Your posts are difficult for me to understand and I believe you have misunderstood some of mine. I don't mean to be rude, but is english your first language?

(December 12, 2014 at 12:36 am)Tombochan Wrote: And........Abiogenesis, life arising from organic matter,is a hairbreadth away from being accomplished in the laboratory.

---

@dyresand.
Your posts are difficult for me to understand and I believe you have misunderstood some of mine. I don't mean to be rude, but is english your first language?

Artificial abiogenesis
In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. Le-Chatelier's principle states that protein synthesis is not possible on water since it requires a condensation reaction. The UV radiations from the Sun would've made it impossible on land. Today, it is generally accepted that Abiogenesis happened in neither land nor oceans, but a combination of both, in mud. Also, the primordial Earth conditions are now thought to be different than those at the time of Miller's experiment, which makes it outdated. "Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup" (National Geographic, "The Rise of Life on Earth", March 1998, p.68). There have been, however, more successful, newer experiments based on these conditions. There is only one major problem with Miller's experiment: "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy." (Earth, "Life's Crucible", February 1998, p.34)[7] Comedian George Carlin suggested that making plastics was the reason for the existence of humans. Creationists have "criticized" the experiment due to the amino acids produced being racemic mix, aka being completely useless to life, even though that wasn't the point of the experiment.

Have you left us, Tony?

Seeking guidance from the mothership, perhaps?

Or perhaps he found the deep end too challenging for his apologetics.

Yes, dyresand...you confirm my point about abiogenesis.

---

Cthulhu, I think you're right.