Questions about noah ark

[Chas]

Just to clarify, I am purposefully ignorant of the BS taught in the various school systems engulfed in naturalism.
The geologic column is a concoction developed to give validity to the lie of evolution.
Real science can never validate the lie of evolution.
You are involved in a humanistic faith who cling to it.
Drich nailed it that you guys are operating by faith.

All the earth was without great mountains prior to the flood, at the ending of the flood - they were raised up.
That is the reason for sea fossils found on mountains, it is also the reason great whale remains are found in deserts.

The earth is very old but the re-creation stated in Genesis One is not.

You are a religiously insane, ignorant blowhard.

[thesummerqueen]

Just to clarify, I am purposefully ignorant

You could have stopped here, but even that was superfluous.

[Esquilax]

Just to clarify, I am purposefully ignorant of the BS taught in the various school systems engulfed in naturalism.

So you don't know what it is, but you know it's wrong? Why should any of us seriously engage with the rest of what you wrote here, when you start out with a statement like this?

The geologic column is a concoction developed to give validity to the lie of evolution.
Real science can never validate the lie of evolution.
You are involved in a humanistic faith who cling to it.
Drich nailed it that you guys are operating by faith.

Especially when the next four statements out of your mouth are merely baseless assertions?

[vorlon13]

Don't confuse the Professor with the facts, he's already made up his mind.

[downbeatplumb]

Just to clarify, I am purposefully ignorant of the BS taught in the various school systems engulfed in naturalism.

That's it boy. Where your lack of education with pride.

The geologic column is a concoction developed to give validity to the lie of evolution.

It's interesting that all the links found when googling the term geologic column are to creationist sites. It's almost like the term is used to create strawmen.

The geologic time scale is a method of measuring time scales and linking them to layers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

As you can see there is a vast amount of supporting evidence of which you will blind yourself to because you want to stick with you bronze age superstition.

Real science can never validate the lie of evolution.

Evolution has been validated and is considered to be as much as a fact as gravity exists.

You are involved in a humanistic faith who cling to it.
Drich nailed it that you guys are operating by faith.

No science is the anti-faith. It is a process that negates what you believe and deals with what can be proved.

All the earth was without great mountains prior to the flood, at the ending of the flood - they were raised up.
That is the reason for sea fossils found on mountains,

Plate tectonics pushed what was sea bed up. This is a well understood and observed process.

it is also the reason great whale remains are found in deserts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26343894

The evidence strongly suggests the whales all ingested toxic algae.

The dead and dying mammals were then washed into an estuary and on to flat sands where they became buried over time.

The earth is very old but the re-creation stated in Genesis One is not.

You try to retro-fit what you can't avoid to try to cram in your stupid beliefs.

Instead of taking pride in your ignorance try to end it by learning actually things not what some religious person tells you, they lie.

[Esquilax]

As old as you or 'science' needs it to be. Makes no difference to me, or God.

Science doesn't need the Earth to be any age; it calculates its theories based on the evidence at hand, not on some conspiracy to deny your god.

Actually if 'he' can show you don't know, yet you believe science hold the answer, then "he" can demonstrate that you are a man of faith.

Science is probabilistic, and so is my view on knowledge. Outside of very simple things, absolute certainty is nearly impossible, as a rational person one must always be honest about the limits of the evidence and the possibility that new evidence will be discovered. I'll change my position the moment new evidence is presented that contradicts what I believe, and that is why no faith is required; faith is belief in spite of evidence, and I refuse to have that.

However, it's equally true that poking holes in what I believe is not evidence for what you believe, Drich. Even if what you say here is one hundred percent true, even if you did show that I'm a "man of faith," all that is is a tu coque fallacy, and it's no more reason to believe in your god than if you'd said nothing at all.

If your are indeed a man of faith, then I ask why not God?

Because "some evidence that isn't absolutely certain," which is what science has, is not the same as "no evidence at all," which is what god has. Do you seriously not see that the statement "if you're willing to believe in one thing based on incomplete evidence, then why not this other thing that has no evidence period?! Some evidence and no evidence are the same thing!" is completely insane?

How so? The flood bottle necks humanity killing of monkey man leaving to fossilize in the mud while man with a soul moves on.

Because if you're going to accept that evolutionary biology happened then you also need to accept the realistic biological frameworks that would support that; biologically speaking a genetic bottleneck of the kind that the flood would end us up with would lead to a population collapse, even not factoring in predation and other realities of the ecosystem. A global flood could not result in the diversity and fossil record we see today, but rather the continuation of the mass extinction the flood itself would have caused.

[Cyberman]

If all the energy that goes into distorting reality to prop up increasingly irrelevant mythology was channelled into proper research, we'd probably be out exploring the Galaxy at this point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It makes me sad to know that the prof was born with a working brain that got perverted by taking mythology as fact.

One more casualty of theism.

[goodwithoutgod]

Just to clarify, I am purposefully ignorant of the BS taught in the various school systems engulfed in naturalism.
The geologic column is a concoction developed to give validity to the lie of evolution.
Real science can never validate the lie of evolution.
You are involved in a humanistic faith who cling to it.
Drich nailed it that you guys are operating by faith.

All the earth was without great mountains prior to the flood, at the ending of the flood - they were raised up.
That is the reason for sea fossils found on mountains, it is also the reason great whale remains are found in deserts.

The earth is very old but the re-creation stated in Genesis One is not.

" I am purposefully ignorant "

I agree

Real science has, and does validate evolution, perhaps you should take a science class or two, or three, may I recommend evolution SCI 115 from saint leo university?

Now let me assist you, since you seem to be learning challenged, or perhaps even the very definition of ineducable tyro.

Mountains, by no means, have always been mountains. Mountains take enormous geological time to form. On the grand scale of the Earth's existence and as fish are incredibly old creatures, it should be no surprise that fish are found on or even at the top of mountains. Once again, mountains grow and fish that may have been alive before the mountain exists as presently may have died and their skeletons fossilized in a place where a mountain grew. Also, mountains grow as plates are pressed together by tectonic forces and the land is pushed upward. Any fossil deposited would necessarily move up the mountain as the mountain formed. This is why we find dinosaur fossils of all sorts in the sides of mountains more than we find them in flat land. Theres nothing about finding fish fossils on or in mountains that necessitates a world wide flood. Such a flood is proved to never have happened and to not have been possible in the first place. Fish fossils on mountains lend nothing to the creationists' argument.

Here are five examples of evolution occurring right now, totally observable.

1) As the huge array of drug resistant pathogens grows we are learning that evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented. With samples of each population taken regularly the accumulated genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E. coli under similar conditions.

2) Studying evolution can take decades, but occasionally change happens incredibly rapidly. The Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) of the Samoan islands was being attacked by a parasite which destroyed male embryos. This led to a gender imbalance whereby males made up only 1% of the butterfly population. However, within ten generations (~1 year) males had returned to 40% of the population. This is not because the parasite has disappeared, it is still present, but it is no longer deadly to male embryos. This case shows how a mutation giving an advantage can rapidly spread throughout a population. Any male with the ability to survive infection would be able to mate with a great many females, due to the paucity of other males, and spread his immunity through the gene pool.

3) The medium ground finch was well established on the isle of Daphne, and had been studied in depth. Its beak was suited perfectly for cracking large nuts. In 1982, the large ground finch from a neighboring island arrived. These larger finches could drive away the native medium ground finches and would eat all the large nuts. Over the period of study, the medium ground finches of Daphne island were found to have developed smaller beaks more suited to the smaller nuts, ignored by the invading larger finches. This is a classic study in evolutionary biology.

4) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

5) The example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy. This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.



The lines of evidence for evolution can be broken down into 4 groups.
a) Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

b) Homologies: Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms. Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

c) distribution in time and space: Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

d) Chronology utilizing relative and numerical dating methods.

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. If you want to deluge yourself with data, there are copious amounts of websites, check out berkeley's evolution page, it even has pictures

2. Big bang, first off, a common misconception is there was some type of massive explosion 13.8 billion years ago creating the big bang. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was an concentrated universe, something happened and now it is in a state of (and continues to be) expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for.

Because evolution has withstood test after test after test, scientists have elevated it from a hypothesis to a theory. A theory according to the United States National Academy of Sciences is “… a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” This is dramatically different than the more common use of the word to mean conjecture, filled with uncertainty. Evolutionary theory is a well-supported and scientific explanation of the way the natural world functions.

Here is a link to a pretty picture page with 101 reasons evolution is true...I think you may find it educational.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reas...oftheEarth


Read, think, evolve.

[Cyberman]

"Read, think, evolve"?

You tripped him at the first hurdle.