U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-07-2008, 04:47 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,900,504 times
Reputation: 465

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by albion View Post
Good gracious somebody has really done a job on nikk have'nt they.
The bible Is supposed to be the literal word of god, not god and adam.
I'm sorry nikk but you are spouting complete drivel, your arguements are devoid of any logic.
I'm told that In Kentucky there Is a creationist museum complete with a version of noah's ark.
But on this ark there Is a T-REX, some people were amazed to see a carnavore on the ark and asked would'nt that be a risky thing to do, they were told that god changed the dinosaur Into a vegetarian for the duration of the flood.
I mean It beggers belief does'nt It that some people like nikk believe this garbage.
The bible is called the word of God. Because it is about God's relationship to man. There are many men who contributed to the writting of the bible by inspiration of God.

T-Rex is just a land dwelling animal that was created on day 6 of the creation week. All land dwelling animals including humans ate just vegetation. So, T-Rex just ate vegetation before and during the flood. After the flood animals have resorted to eating what they have to in order to get the nutrients they need which was available in the pre-flood vegetarian diet. So that is why dear in Alaska eat baby birds out of the nest. Because their brains and skeletons have the proteins and calcium they need in the northerly climate. That is why lions in some zoos will only eat porage of wheat and cooked carrots. Because a meat rich diet is not required in this envirement with the availability of nutrient rich vegetables. So your reasoning is incorrect if we look at the world around us. Animals that we think are herbavoirs can eat meat if required and animals that we think are carnivorous will eat only vegetables if available.

 
Old 10-07-2008, 05:01 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,900,504 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
If you don't think evolution has any practical benefits read this.
Not sure what you are getting at. These are examples of Natural Selection which I agree with. I disagree with natural selection working on mutations over millions of years to produce new kinds of animals.

Baramin is what I was talking about when I refer to Kinds of Animals.

The article you cited asked what is keeping one baramin from become another baramin. That is what is keeping the Grass hopper from becoming a cricket. And my answer is "I don't know", because for some reason in nature one type of animal dose not want to change.

I will give you an example. There is a test that we perform at college where we take the eggs of the Tze-Tze fly, put them on a pan and radiate them with Gamma radiation. These eggs when hatched will produce every mutation possible of the Tze-Tze fly. That would include viened wings, non-veined wings, red eyes, yellow eyes, black eyes, etc... These mutations are so common that you can go down to most college book stores and buy a poster with a picture of every mutation possible. The fact that these flys do not mutate into anything else is profound. One professor even stated "The Tze-Tze fly just wants to be a Tze-Tze fly". So, mutations have shown to produce nothing new in any species. These mutations may appear at different times in a population, but for some reason nothing new is ever produced.

Since nature does not provide us with mutations that change the population of a "Species" or Kind of animal, insect, etc.. The why am I required to prove what this barrier is. I think it is up to the evolutionist to prove that Kinds of animals will break this barrier at least once in a millenium or something in order to prove that evolution exist. Because right now I have seen nothing to prove it does.
 
Old 10-07-2008, 05:02 AM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,775,610 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
The bible is called the word of God. Because it is about God's relationship to man. There are many men who contributed to the writting of the bible by inspiration of God.

T-Rex is just a land dwelling animal that was created on day 6 of the creation week. All land dwelling animals including humans ate just vegetation. So, T-Rex just ate vegetation before and during the flood. After the flood animals have resorted to eating what they have to in order to get the nutrients they need which was available in the pre-flood vegetarian diet. So that is why dear in Alaska eat baby birds out of the nest. Because their brains and skeletons have the proteins and calcium they need in the northerly climate. That is why lions in some zoos will only eat porage of wheat and cooked carrots. Because a meat rich diet is not required in this envirement with the availability of nutrient rich vegetables. So your reasoning is incorrect if we look at the world around us. Animals that we think are herbavoirs can eat meat if required and animals that we think are carnivorous will eat only vegetables if available.
I read an article about T-Rexs being actually scavengers which cleaned up the dead bodies of larger animals when they died. Much the way vultures and other scavengers do today. That would make sense , since the design of their teeth would hardly work for eating vegatation. This article was some years ago, but I'll try and find it.

The other problem with most Creation Museums is they illustrate the Ark as being boat-like in appearance and in reality the specifications given in the Bible only allow for a large box-like structure. The Ark did'nt have to travel anywhere as a boat or ship would have. It just needed to float. The box structure would have been the perfect floating design anyway from what researchers have found. I suppose however, that the boat shape makes things more interesting as far as entertainment value goes. Same with the beast of Preditor we've come to be entertained with in the Jurasic Park versions.

Again, just interesting.
 
Old 10-07-2008, 06:11 AM
 
1,897 posts, read 3,021,984 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
I read an article about T-Rexs being actually scavengers which cleaned up the dead bodies of larger animals when they died. Much the way vultures and other scavengers do today. That would make sense , since the design of their teeth would hardly work for eating vegatation. This article was some years ago, but I'll try and find it.

The other problem with most Creation Museums is they illustrate the Ark as being boat-like in appearance and in reality the specifications given in the Bible only allow for a large box-like structure. The Ark did'nt have to travel anywhere as a boat or ship would have. It just needed to float. The box structure would have been the perfect floating design anyway from what researchers have found. I suppose however, that the boat shape makes things more interesting as far as entertainment value goes. Same with the beast of Preditor we've come to be entertained with in the Jurasic Park versions.

Again, just interesting.
My family and I are going to visit the museum in December of this year. I will reserve any comments on it until I see it first-hand! It does make me wonder, however, if those who criticize the creation museum also give the same type of scrutiny to the museums of "natural history!"

Preterist
 
Old 10-07-2008, 06:49 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,748,810 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
No gaffe here. Anti-biotic resistance is already present in bacteria.
Resistance has also developed in colonies which are a clone of a single non-resistant cell. Mutations can produce resistance in some of the descendants of the non-resistant parent cells where no resistance was present before. So to answer your question :

Quote:
Is there any new information produced?
Absolutely. When a colony cloned from a single individual non-resistant cell suddenly is resistant to antibiotics, that's a novel feature at work. Mutation provides a way to rearrange DNA, producing novel features like antibiotic resistance. This is hardly a new finding. Here's a reference to it from 1943 - MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE -- Luria and Delbrück 28 (6): 491 -- Genetics - which itself has references to prior work going back to the early 1900s.

This is an good example of what several people have mentioned about creationists turning people off towards Christianity. No one can know everything about science, but I'd hope creationists would at least know about the major findings leading to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution before trying to convince people that it is wrong. Anyone who majored in a science in college is going to know that this claim of no new information is wrong - probably because that person did the experiment themselves in one of their early classes and saw the results with their own eyes. If a creationist is wrong about something so easily verifiable that a college freshman can do the experiment on their own, why would anyone trust them with to get more complex matters of science, much less theology, correct?
 
Old 10-07-2008, 06:54 AM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,775,610 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist View Post
My family and I are going to visit the museum in December of this year. I will reserve any comments on it until I see it first-hand! It does make me wonder, however, if those who criticize the creation museum also give the same type of scrutiny to the museums of "natural history!"

Preterist
I'd say both have good points and bad points.
 
Old 10-07-2008, 07:02 AM
 
Location: England
3,225 posts, read 2,992,251 times
Reputation: 3161
For nikk I'm sorry, but I feel nothing but pityfor her/he. To go through life carrying this amount of Ignorance, should be penance enough for anybody.
Did you read her explanation of anti-biotics WELL ENOUGH SAID.
 
Old 10-07-2008, 08:11 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,900,504 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
I read an article about T-Rexs being actually scavengers which cleaned up the dead bodies of larger animals when they died. Much the way vultures and other scavengers do today. That would make sense , since the design of their teeth would hardly work for eating vegatation. This article was some years ago, but I'll try and find it.

The other problem with most Creation Museums is they illustrate the Ark as being boat-like in appearance and in reality the specifications given in the Bible only allow for a large box-like structure. The Ark did'nt have to travel anywhere as a boat or ship would have. It just needed to float. The box structure would have been the perfect floating design anyway from what researchers have found. I suppose however, that the boat shape makes things more interesting as far as entertainment value goes. Same with the beast of Preditor we've come to be entertained with in the Jurasic Park versions.

Again, just interesting.
I agree the ark was pretty much a floating box. Like an enclosed barge.

The is nothing that says tooth shape dictates diet. The Panda Bear has very sharp teeth and only eats the Eucaliptus tree. T-Rex's teeth are very suitable for serating up grass and leaves as much as any flesh.
 
Old 10-07-2008, 08:21 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,900,504 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
Resistance has also developed in colonies which are a clone of a single non-resistant cell. Mutations can produce resistance in some of the descendants of the non-resistant parent cells where no resistance was present before. So to answer your question :



Absolutely. When a colony cloned from a single individual non-resistant cell suddenly is resistant to antibiotics, that's a novel feature at work. Mutation provides a way to rearrange DNA, producing novel features like antibiotic resistance. This is hardly a new finding. Here's a reference to it from 1943 - MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE -- Luria and Delbrück 28 (6): 491 -- Genetics - which itself has references to prior work going back to the early 1900s.

This is an good example of what several people have mentioned about creationists turning people off towards Christianity. No one can know everything about science, but I'd hope creationists would at least know about the major findings leading to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution before trying to convince people that it is wrong. Anyone who majored in a science in college is going to know that this claim of no new information is wrong - probably because that person did the experiment themselves in one of their early classes and saw the results with their own eyes. If a creationist is wrong about something so easily verifiable that a college freshman can do the experiment on their own, why would anyone trust them with to get more complex matters of science, much less theology, correct?
The resistance is a switch in the DNA. This is common and everyone knows about it. This switch can be triggered and cause the bacteria to be resistant to anti-biotics, but the switch or the block is present in the bacteria prior to the presence of anti-biotics. No new information is produced. Yes it is novel that God created into each kind of animal a vast amount of information. But is it evolution? No! The anti-biotic resistance like other mutations come at a loss. Sometimes it is motility, sometimes it is being able to absorb certain nutrients. So, when the anti-biotic is removed then the resistant strain is in competition with a stronger non-resistant version This returns the population back to what it was prior to anti-biotic presence.

Also, if this is evolutions only smoking gun, then it is fooling itself. We should be tripping over examples of evolution if it existed. But we are not and it is not.
 
Old 10-07-2008, 08:28 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,900,504 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by albion View Post
For nikk I'm sorry, but I feel nothing but pityfor her/he. To go through life carrying this amount of Ignorance, should be penance enough for anybody.
Did you read her explanation of anti-biotics WELL ENOUGH SAID.
You should not pity me. I am happy and content. I know that I am secure in Jesus Christ. I know my savior and he knows me.

I am not ignorant. I am aware of the facts and the interpretations of the facts that are made. I am also aware of the axioms and world views that are in place that force people to come to the interpretations of the facts that they do.

You do not have to worry about me. If you disagree that is fine, that is your opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top