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.
There are only two allelles for any gene in any individual animal. On the ark, there can only (at the most) have been 14 different alleles for the clean "kinds," four different alleles for the unclean kinds, and 16 for humans.
It is genetically impossible to include all the different alleles in a single breed of dog into the single pair that would have been carried in the ark, let alone all dogs, wild dogs, wolves, foxes and jackals.
Your theory can only be compelling to people who did not know the first thing about genetics.
You're basing your belief on the outdated notion that genes are always expressed in one way, but we now know that's not always the case. For example, it was once thought that a person would always get the hair color of one of their parents. However, as has been seen, other factors do play a role. A person can receive a broad range of hair colors within the range of both parents.
Likewise, two hybrid alleles from both parents for hair length, hair color, as well as the various other traits could express themselves in a multitude of ways.
Given incomplete dominance, which does affect these traits, and it is becoming to be seen more and more as time goes on, a variety a traits could be produced, and stay that way, given isolation and further reproduction of said organisms. It was once thought that dark was always dominant, but sometimes that is not always the case.
So, we have
Parents: Hybrid x Hybrid
Offspring: two mixed (could be any range of colors as we now know), one dark, and one light.
From further interbreeding, would come the various traits within the kind.
If it can be done with color of fur, then it can likely be done with other traits.
Last edited by Sound of Reason; 03-15-2013 at 05:49 PM..
-" He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness"
This verse makes no sense if the idea is that the earth is flat, because if the earth was flat, there would be no point of the horizon being described as a "boundary between light and darkness".
Nonsense. That is the only way it makes sense. The horizon on a spherical earth is not a boundary of anything at all, let alone light and darkness. It is simply the greatest distance one can see.
But in the flat earth model, the sun retreats underneath the disc of the earth at night, having passed through the "windows of heaven" described in the book of Enoch. In that case, and only in that case could the horizon be a real boundary between light and dark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
That language clearly describes a rotating earth and a changing boundary dependant on the Earth's relationship to the Sun - impossible with a flat earth.
Oooohhh now you're going to **** off your fellow Christians in the geocentric movement.
I am an educated person and I do not ignore anything that is obvious.
I would dispute both counts based on your posts.
Indoctrinated, yes - educated, not so much.
Based on the sum of your posts, you ignore EVERYTHING except the drivel the uneducated rubes wrote thousands of years ago, and for which neither you, your compatriots, nor science have found a scintilla of evidence in support of.
Question, and please try your best to answer honestly.
Is there any level of evidence collected via the scientific process that would cause you to abandon your dogma and accept evolution as fact, and if so, give us an idea what it would take.
More nonsense ... first of all, to use the term "evolution" in such a definitive manner, shows that you know very little about the subject, or you have been trained to use the circular reasoning necessary to promote it. The fact is, there are a multitude of variations in evolution theory, and a lot of double talk and semantic gamesmanship always at the forefront of evolution proponents. This is deliberate, in that it is difficult to shoot down a moving target who's basic premises change moment to moment.
The term "evolution" in the Darwinian sense of the term, means a change from less complexity to more complexity ... i.e. a single, self replicating cell mutating over time and becoming a higher order life form. In this definition exists the fundamental problem with Darwinian evolution, because mutation is by nature, subtractive, not additive. And it takes little mathematical prowess to understand that you cannot expect a long period of successive subtractions to result in "more".
Exactly right, and a point they will always avoid discussing, because they know they are on the wrong side of physics.
I often wonder how much more our science might be advanced if it were persued from a perspective of "intelligent design" (creation) instead of clinging to the nonsensical notion of "evolution."
These alinskeyites love to ridicule Christians for their belief in creation. It's arrogance, really. They must justify their rejection of God. It gives them an excuse for their ignorance, and it's easy to make the claim that those who believe in an intelligent creator are nothing but "flat earthers." After all, they have gotten beyond such childish and outdated notions.
As for the post above about gravity, I suspect that is a spoof, nothing more. Christians understand that the laws of physics are God's laws. He is the creator of all things, including the laws of physics.
You're basing your belief on the outdated notion that genes are always expressed in one way, but we now know that's not always the case.
Nope. I am making no such mistake. The complexities of gene expression have nothing to do with the fatal flaw of your argument.
I am not talking about the number of different ways genes can express, I am speaking specifically and objectively about the number of alleles that exist today for each gene. If your claim is true, there can be no more than four alleles for each gene the "dog kind" possesses. Instead, there are thousands.
What you suggest is genetically and mathematically impossible.
Exactly right, and a point they will always avoid discussing, because they know they are on the wrong side of physics.
I often wonder how much more our science might be advanced if it were persued from a perspective of "intelligent design" (creation) instead of clinging to the nonsensical notion of "evolution."
These alinskeyites love to ridicule Christians for their belief in creation. It's arrogance, really. They must justify their rejection of God. It gives them an excuse for their ignorance, and it's easy to make the claim that those who believe in an intelligent creator are nothing but "flat earthers." After all, they have gotten beyond such childish and outdated notions.
As for the post above about gravity, I suspect that is a spoof, nothing more. Christians understand that the laws of physics are God's laws. He is the creator of all things, including the laws of physics.
I don't know if you have ever been to a Medical School or a Medical Library, but peruse some books on pathologies of the human being. They are legion upon legion, from simple "oops" like the appendics, to bad eyesight, to ALS, to cancers, to other genetic diseases etc., etc., etc., etc.,
The amount of human effort in preventing, treating and curing diseases, as well as burying the dead victims of disease, consumes a tremendous percentage off all of mankinds productive efforts.
Yet you dare utter the term "Intelligent Design"!!!!!!! Insanty Itself.
An all-knowing, all-seeing, all-intelligent creator, had he or she or it, existed, would do a much better job, but no, that is not the case, as well all have experienced.
Life is anything BUT intelligently designed. It, in its various manifestations, we find so may examples of downright stupid designs. For example a common breathing tube that establishes a pathway from acid-laden stomach to sensitive lung tissues. Positively Brilliant - NOT!!!!!!!
Nonsense. That is the only way it makes sense. The horizon on a spherical earth is not a boundary of anything at all, let alone light and darkness. It is simply the greatest distance one can see.
But in the flat earth model, the sun retreats underneath the disc of the earth at night, having passed through the "windows of heaven" described in the book of Enoch. In that case, and only in that case could the horizon be a real boundary between light and dark.
Utter nonsense.
If Job 26:10 were referring to the edge of a flat earth, it wouldn't state that it is a boundary between light and darkness - it would describe a precipice. In a flat earth scenario, such a "boundary: would serve multiple purposes.
Instead it refers to the horizon being the "boundary between light and darkness" which can only mean one thing - a moving line demarcating where the sun is shining on the earth's surface due to the rotation of the earth.
Furthermore, the verse is describing an aspect of God's creation. Since we know that the earth is spherical, it is also clear that the writers of the Bible agreed that it was spherical as well.
Ignorant people deviated from the truth, twisting the plain language of the Bible over time, and the funny thing is that today the same thing is done by atheists in their foolish attempts to discredit the Bible.
The Bible describes a spherical Earth - that is a fact.
Sad that your dogma has cauterized your mind against learning.
Religious zealotry stops a thinking brain.
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.
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.
