[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[spartakis]

You believe the first, but you don't accept creation God's way. If you now reject the young earth doctrine of life ex nihilo, that's commendable. Do you?

I have already told you, what I believe exactly what God says, so ya it's his way.

Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.

So do you need a lesson on wine (grape juice) and strong drink and fermentation of those days? Are you going to always take things out of context? You act like that verses is talking about strong drink and Jesus was an alcoholic.
Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.


Proverbs 23:20-21 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

Proverbs 23: 29-35 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

I don't have time to preach you a sermon on alcohol but you should know better. I see you left out the other things.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis doesn't say it's meant to be a history. You've added your own wishes to it, to make it more acceptable to you.



I know you want us to believe it. But you'll need more than insisting you're right.

Well the name of the book means in the beginning or origins depending how you want to interpret it, pretty obvious a history of the beginning. If you take it allegory it is the worse allegory anyone has seen.
Jews knew how to take it just like all Moses historical history writings. If you don't take the book literal I guess you don't take the first Adam and the fall literal. So how can you take the second Adam literal. Don't you see what Jesus tells you. We could get into this for hours, but no matter what you will always change Gods words to fit your beliefs.

How nice to be able to fully understand God and what He thinks.

You're presuming you know better than God.

Never said that. Just that Genesis was writing for simple people to understand, not to need philosophy. He could of easily wrote and simplified evolution. Just like you don't believe in a world wide flood when that is exactly what God says. Many problems with your view on that and many evidence for world wide flood. Your biggest problem is you do not accept Gods word as authority.

Barbarian observes:
Over 1500 years ago, Christians realized it wasn't a literal history, but a way of categorizing creation in an undertstandable way. Your's is a modern revision to Christianity, no older than the last century.

The unorthodox always call Christian belief "heresy." You're not unique.

Do I need to give you a history lesson. Here is some info for orthodox.

evolutionism is an ideology that is profoundly foreign to the teaching of Orthodox Christianity, and it involves one in so many wrong doctrines and attitudes that it would be far better if it were simple a heresy and could thus be easily identified and combated. Evolutionism is closely bound up with the whole apostate mentality of the rotten "Christianity" of the West; it is a vehicle of the whole "new spirituality" and "new Christianity" in which the devil is now striving to submerge the last true Christians. It offers an alternative explanation of creation to that of the holy Fathers; it allows an Orthodox Christian under its influence to read the Holy Scriptures and not understand them, automatically "adjusting" the text to fit his preconceived philosophy of nature. Its acceptance cannot but involve the acceptance also of alternative explanations of other parts of Divine revelation, of an automatic "adjustment" of other Scriptural and patristic texts to fit in with modern "wisdom."


http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

Barbarian observes:
Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

Hey look in the mirror, read Genesis and see who is not accepting his words.

Except the parts you don't like.

I accept everything whether I like it or not. It I don't like it I deal with it not twist it to fit what I want to believe.

No, and it won't help your cause by lying about it. I merely accept it the way He said it. As you learned your new interpretation is no older than the last century.

I have showed you many time with links. One more time.
The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.[11][12][13][14][15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Even if you're angry, you still shouldn't say things you know aren't true. I told you He could have done it any way He chose. What upsets you, is the way He chose to do it.

You think calling me angry is making me angry. Everything I read of your I am :toofunny. Don't know how many times in the same post you say you don't believe he did it how he said, then you say you do. It is funny and everybody can see this. Do it all you want. I like a good laugh.

In general, when someone loses all sense of caution and starts saying things he knows aren't true, that's a pretty good tip-off.

Never done this, just stating what you declare to believe. If you think he could have done it any way he wanted then why not how he said he did it? :yes Cause you don't believe he can do what he says? The evidence is pretty clear if you take off the blinders of the world view of materialism.

Barbarian observes:
You've already been reminded that isn't true, either. Nothing in science can verify or deny God.

I restored the context. No point in you denying it.

Even your twisting of His words won't hurt you at Judgement. It is what's in your heart, not what you believe about creation. The real evil of YE creationism is that it tends to make atheists of people. Notice one seeker here has previously been put off, thinking that YE was a necessary part of Christianity.

Your accusations are false. Restore all the context you like. I have told you what I think of science and God, it proves God and gives him glory. You twist his words to fit your beliefs everybody can see this. To say I take his words as a literal historical account, then to say I twist them and for you to twist them and then say you take his word as true is major contradictions. Stop wasting time.

I hope you don't do it consciously. But you do it.

Accusing me of something you do :toofunny:toofunny

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, there is no such evidence. That's just a mantra they taught you so you could resist the evidence. It's why you don't cite any "evidence" when you chant the mantra.

(denial)



Yes. As you learned, creationists can try, but they are completely unable explain analogous organs, or why homology produces entirely different things, using the same organs, or why in unrelated lines, it's done by analogy.

And the kicker, which you have repeatedly failed to answer, is why we find numerous transitionals between homologies, but none at all between analogies.

Do you think people haven't noticed that you're hiding from that question?

You accusing me of things I do not do is getting old, are you going to ever man up. I have answered all your question in which we can not say the same about you.
Homology most of the time don't even come from the same controlled genes. Once again a common creator explains all 3. You don't have but maybe a handful of doubious transitionals.

But as we established earlier, you don't accept the way He said He did it.

No I don't accept your beliefs as how he did it, cause he said he did it another way. And gave us evidence to show us.

Barbarian clears up another misconception:
We evolved from primates that didn't have tails. You've been reminded about that, too.
Apes are quadrupeds. I thought you knew. They don't have the back, hip, and knee/foot problems we do, because they don't stand upright much, and so the forces are much lower on their joints. We are bipeds, with all those structures only partially evolved to adapt. So we have a lot of trouble with them.

Where did apes come from in you common decent hypothesis. This is really getting to be a waste of time when you deny your beliefs. You have stated many of this already then you latter deny it.

You requested one mutation that would make it possible, and I showed you the most important of them. And we know it's true, because it's been directly observed to happen. No point in you denying that, either.

Stop wasting time we know what you did to dodge the question and answer. I asked for a known mutation to show an upward movement to show it possible for new features to evolve. You have shown something and made an assumption about something else. We could spend a complete thread on endosymbiosis and the problems with the theory but that is not what I asked. I am aware of the process and the assumption that are made by it. The assumptions have many problems. My time is limited I don't have all day to talk about this like you do. So stick to the details of the question.

You believe in the fairytale that everything came from the first cell, with many assumption on how it may have happened. There would of been a lot of increase in complexity. You have about what 500k DNA 'letters' stored in the simplest self-reproducing organism, and around 3 billion in each human cell nucleus. That's a great deal more and many new features. That mutations and Natural selection can not show anything close to make your microbes to man feasible.

Barbarian, regarding Sanford:
Not though, that while he was promoting his religion, he withheld from you information brought forth by the scientists he was citing. Not exactly a Christian behavior. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

You mean in one video he left out an assumption he don't believe in. And yes his finding brought him from evolution to the word of God being true.

He cited Kimura, but witheld the fact that the cited research showed that his assumption was wrong. You saw it. No point in denying it.

His assumption is an assumption and a very poor one.
The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now. This is very unlikely to occur especially over the entire population and be able to substitute out the 20,000 mutations to occur over that time.

Barbarian observes:
In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

They lied to you about that, too. The enzyme didn't "come back." An entirely new system had to evolve to replace the old one. It wasn't the same gene, or even the same structure. And the new one evolved a regulator as well.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

It basically did the same thing but at a different time, we have went over this. He deleted a n enzyme and another came about. Big deal a enzyme came back doing what it could do just with a broken internal switch.

Barbarian observes:
You recently learned how the most important step in the evolution of microbes to animals occurred. No point in denying it. Everyone saw it.

You mean everyone saw your hypothesis says it happened.

Yep. Endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve. No point in denying that, either.

Yes a well known process but with major problems with the assumptions you use it for.

Wrong, again:
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.

This was created by mans hands sorry. You can word it however you would like.

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


It's an indictment of you, who will not accept His word in Genesis.

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny Please you are showing how blinded you are. You do not believe his words not me.

Barbarian suggests:
You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

If you don't think that's enough, give me any step in common descent, and I'll see what we can do to show you how that evolved.

But since you've repeatedly declined to do it, I don't think you're going to answer.

(declines the challenge)

No surprise there.



If you had enough faith, you'd accept His word in Genesis.

I accept his words and exactly what he told us, you are the one with little faith that you can not believe what he said. Must be why you declined the thread on salvation by faith you requested me to open only to not reply because you deep down know works will not get you to Heaven. Have faith.

 

[spartakis]

You continue to post the same thing with the same contradictions and decline the point at hand. Once again you deny anything would need to develop from the first microbe to become all the diversity in life, everybody knows that is not true. Many features and complexity and information would need to develop, process of mutations and natural selection cannot account for this hypothesis. A mutation is only a copying error. It has to have information to copy to be an error, and cannot add any new complex feature. As you can see there are many complex features it would have to account for to turn a single cell into all the life you see in the world. Natural selection is the process of survival of the fittest. It cannot add things like gills, flipper, heart, backbone, lungs, eye and etc…. Even artificial breading can only remove traits not add them. So can these two processes make microbes to man feasible. Nowhere close. A mutation to add a complex body part would take thousands of letters. Not only would they have to be accidently placed in the correct location but the perfect sequence. What do you think the chances of a mutation producing a leg, wings, gills, flippers, heart, lungs, eye, what about the human brain? Are we nothing more then an accidental mutation? It is a huge assumption and not feasible at all.

If you cannot explain how your beliefs are possible and continue to contradict them stop wasting my time.

Once again.

You have made several assumptions to hold to your materialistic view. You heart issue was addressed in another thread. All you have done is made assumptions. I asked for a known mutation to show an upward movement to show it possible for new features to evolve. You have shown something and made an assumption about something else. We could spend a complete thread on endosymbiosis and the problems with the theory but that is not what I asked. I am aware of the process and the assumption that are made by it. The assumptions have many problems. My time is limited I don't have all day to talk about this like you do. So stick to the details of the question.

You believe in the fairytale that everything came from the first cell, with many assumption on how it may have happened. There would of been a lot of increase in complexity. You have about what 500k DNA 'letters' stored in the simplest self-reproducing organism, and around 3 billion in each human cell nucleus. That's a great deal more and many new features. That mutations and Natural selection can not show anything close to make your microbes to man feasible.

But you have not shown how a known mutations can account for this increase. I am talking about a mutation by definition of mutation. Obviously everything did not come in the way of endosybiosis. Your assumptions of what did come by that have many problems. But I am not wasting time addressing them. Are you going to continue to dodge this or will (can) you give an answer?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You believe the first, but you don't accept creation God's way. If you now reject the young earth doctrine of life ex nihilo, that's commendable. Do you?

(declines to say)

No surprise there.

(objects to people drinking alcohol)

Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.

So do you need a lesson on wine (grape juice) and strong drink and fermentation of those days?

All wine is alcoholic. Jesus drank wine, his first public miracle was to make wine for a wedding celebration. The hypocrites objected. They still do. They (and you) confuse drinking with addiction to alcohol, and so condemn Jesus for drinking.

(Spartakis demonstrates his ignorance of scripture)
Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:


This has nothing to do with alcohol. "Sober" has a different meaning than you suppose.

I don't have time to preach you a sermon on alcohol but you should know better.

Jesus and His example is more important to me, than your preaching.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis doesn't say it's meant to be a history. You've added your own wishes to it, to make it more acceptable to you.

I know you want us to believe it. But you'll need more than insisting you're right.

Well the name of the book means in the beginning or origins depending how you want to interpret it, pretty obvious a history of the beginning.

Nope. You're desperate, now.

If you don't take the book literal I guess you don't take the first Adam and the fall literal.

So show us how an actual event, if described in an allegory, becomes false.

(Spartakis tells us what God would really do, if He had all the facts)

Barbarian chuckles:
How nice to be able to fully understand God and what He thinks.

You're presuming you know better than God.

He could of easily wrote and simplified evolution.

Protons, too. And meteorology. But that's not what His book is about. It's about Him and us and our relationship. You're trying to make it into something else. Everyone who tries that, fails.

Just like you don't believe in a world wide flood when that is exactly what God says.

Not in His Bible, it doesn't.

Many problems with your view on that and many evidence for world wide flood.

Show us that.

Your biggest problem is you do not accept Gods word as authority.

I respect His word enough not to revise it, as you have done here. Nowhere in His book will you find a statement that says the whole world was flooded.

Barbarian observes:
Over 1500 years ago, Christians realized it wasn't a literal history, but a way of categorizing creation in an undertstandable way. Your's is a modern revision to Christianity, no older than the last century.

The unorthodox always call Christian belief "heresy." You're not unique.

Do I need to give you a history lesson.

Always willing to learn about history. Show us what you have.

evolutionism is an ideology that is profoundly foreign to the teaching of Orthodox Christianity

Evolutionary theory is completely consistent with God's word. I don't know what your new word "evolutionism" means to you. But it seems to be at odds with evolution itself.

Evolutionism is closely bound up with the whole apostate mentality of the rotten "Christianity" of the West

Christianity is God's people in His Church. BTW, most Eastern Orthodox denominations also admit that evolution is consistent with Christian belief.

it is a vehicle of the whole "new spirituality" and "new Christianity"

I'm Roman Catholic. Can't get older than that. You've been snockered on that one, too.

in which the devil is now striving to submerge the last true Christians. It offers an alternative explanation of creation to that of the holy Fathers; it allows an Orthodox Christian under its influence to read the Holy Scriptures and not understand them, automatically "adjusting" the text to fit his preconceived philosophy of nature.

You just defined YE creationism.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

(Denial)

Doesn't matter. You don't accept His word as it is.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did.

Barbarian observes:
No, and it won't help your cause by lying about it. I merely accept it the way He said it. As you learned your new interpretation is no older than the last century.

Even if you're angry, you still shouldn't say things you know aren't true. I told you He could have done it any way He chose. What upsets you, is the way He chose to do it.

In general, when someone loses all sense of caution and starts saying things he knows aren't true, that's a pretty good tip-off.

Never done this, just stating what you declare to believe.

I just showed that you weren't honest about it. I never said God was unable to do creation any way He liked. You lied about that.

Barbarian observes:
Even your twisting of His words won't hurt you at Judgement. It is what's in your heart, not what you believe about creation. The real evil of YE creationism is that it tends to make atheists of people. Notice one seeker here has previously been put off, thinking that YE was a necessary part of Christianity.

Your accusations are false.

I don't enjoy telling you this. I am sad that you won't accept His creation as it is. I am sorry that you decided to misrepresent what I said. That is unfortunate.

Barbariana observes:
Yes. As you learned, creationists can try, but they are completely unable explain analogous organs, or why homology produces entirely different things, using the same organs, or why in unrelated lines, it's done by analogy.

And the kicker, which you have repeatedly failed to answer, is why we find numerous transitionals between homologies, but none at all between analogies.

Do you think people haven't noticed that you're hiding from that question?

You accusing me of things I do not do is getting old, are you going to ever man up.

Everyone can see what you failed to answer.

Homology most of the time don't even come from the same controlled genes.

Sounds interesting. Show us your evidence that most of them don't.

Once again a common creator explains all 3. You don't have but maybe a handful of doubious transitionals.

Let's test your belief. Show me any two groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find some transitional forms. Or show me two major groups not said to be evolutionarily connected and show that there is a transitional form.

There are still a few major groups with the predicted transitionals missing. Maybe you'll get lucky.

Barbarian clears up another misconception:
We evolved from primates that didn't have tails. You've been reminded about that, too.

Apes are quadrupeds. I thought you knew. They don't have the back, hip, and knee/foot problems we do, because they don't stand upright much, and so the forces are much lower on their joints. We are bipeds, with all those structures only partially evolved to adapt. So we have a lot of trouble with them.

Where did apes come from in you common decent hypothesis.

Other primates. Do you want to see the evidence for that?

This is really getting to be a waste of time when you deny your beliefs.

You're wasting your time misrepresenting what I said. But it serves a useful purpose when I point it out.

Bartbarian obesrves:
You requested one mutation that would make it possible, and I showed you the most important of them. And we know it's true, because it's been directly observed to happen. No point in you denying that, either.

I asked for a known mutation to show an upward movement to show it possible for new features to evolve.

Organelles are a new feature, and as you learned, endosymbiosis produces them.

We could spend a complete thread on endosymbiosis and the problems with the theory but that is not what I asked.

You asked for an example of a mutation that would be critical to common descent. I showed you the most important one. What other step in common descent do you think is impossible? I could show you that, if you have another one.

You believe in the fairytale that everything came from the first cell

I accept, as God says, that life was brought forth by the Earth. For some reason, this is offensive to you.

, with many assumption on how it may have happened. There would of been a lot of increase in complexity.

Pick some other stage in common descent, and I'll see if I can show you how that happened.

Barbarian, regarding Sanford:
Not though, that while he was promoting his religion, he withheld from you information brought forth by the scientists he was citing. Not exactly a Christian behavior. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

You mean in one video he left out an assumption he don't believe in.

He cited Kimura, but witheld the fact that the cited research showed that his assumption was wrong. You saw it. No point in denying it. Sanford assumed that you wouldn't be smart enough to check for yourself.

His assumption is an assumption and a very poor one.

Barbarian observes:
In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

(excuse offered that the same enzyme "came back")

They lied to you about that, too. The enzyme didn't "come back." An entirely new system had to evolve to replace the old one. It wasn't the same gene, or even the same structure. And the new one evolved a regulator as well.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

It basically did the same thing

Nope. An entirely new enzyme, different than the old one.

He deleted a n enzyme and another came about.

New enzyme evolved, and then a new regulator evolved, making the system irreducibly complex. Exactly what you claim couldn't happen.

Barbarian observes:
You recently learned how the most important step in the evolution of microbes to animals occurred. No point in denying it. Everyone saw it.

You mean everyone saw your hypothesis says it happened.[/QUOT

Endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve. No point in denying that, either.

Barbarian shows an undesigned device:
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.

This was created by mans hands sorry.

Nope. In fact, no one even knows why it works. It evolved. Notice, it uses fewer components than anything we can design. This is why engineers are now using evolution to solve problems they can't solve by design. God was smarter than you think.

God speaks of those who cling to "life ex nihilo" instead of His word:
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


It's an indictment of you, who will not accept His word in Genesis.

Barbarian suggests:
You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

If you don't think that's enough, give me any step in common descent, and I'll see what we can do to show you how that evolved.

But since you've repeatedly declined to do it, I don't think you're going to answer.

(declines the challenge)

No surprise there.

 

[spartakis]

As I have said I believe God created the original Heaven and earth from nothing, made us from dust and eve from our rib. And created all the Animals how he said.

Yes I am against the fermented alcohol of today, its alcohol content is way more then the strong drink of the Biblical days.

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.


Proverbs 23:20-21 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

Proverbs 23: 29-35 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

I traced the usage of the word "wine" backward, from English, to Latin, Greek and finally to Hebrew. The survey shows that the four related words—wine in English, vinum in Latin, oinos in Greek and yayin in Hebrew—have been used historically to refer to the juice of the grape, whether fermented or unfermented. This significant finding discredits the claim that the Bible knows only fermented wine, which it approves when used moderately. The truth of the matter is that the Bible knows both fermented wine, which it disapproves, and unfermented grape juice, which it approves.

The "good wine" Jesus made at Cana (John 2:10) was "good" not because of its high alcoholic content, but because it was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is indicated by external and internal considerations. Externally, contemporary authors, such as Pliny and Plutarch, attest that "good wines" were those which did not intoxicate, having had their alcoholic potency removed. Internally, moral consistency demands that Christ could not have miraculously produced between 120 to 160 gallons of intoxicating wine for the use of men, women and children gathered at the Cana’s wedding feast, without becoming morally responsible for prolonging and increasing their intoxication. Scriptural and moral consistency requires that "the good wine" produced by Christ was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is supported by the very adjective used to describe it, namely kalos, which denotes that which is morally excellent, instead of agathos, which means simply good.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/1.html

Well the name of the book means in the beginning or origins depending how you want to interpret it, pretty obvious a history of the beginning.

Nope. You're desperate, now.

Once again.
The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated from Greek γένεσις, meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the] beginning"), is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Jews and all those in those days took it as literal history, and creation of the world. Sorry. I have shown you more links in my last post.

I'm Roman Catholic. Can't get older than that. You've been snockered on that one, too.

Pretty unbiblical
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/rcc.html
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

You should really check your doctrine to the Bible.

in which the devil is now striving to submerge the last true Christians. It offers an alternative explanation of creation to that of the holy Fathers; it allows an Orthodox Christian under its influence to read the Holy Scriptures and not understand them, automatically "adjusting" the text to fit his preconceived philosophy of nature.

You just defined YE creationism.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

I know Genesis is true and I believe it you don't. And that was not be but an orthodox website describing those who believe in evolution, read the link.

Just like you don't believe in a world wide flood when that is exactly what God says.

Not in His Bible, it doesn't.

Genesis 7:19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

It was a judgment on the earth to destroy everything that was not on the ark. If it was not world wide why have Noah spend so much time building an ark instead of heading to land that would not be covered, there are many other things that show it was world wide.

Once again you should really learn how to believe his word
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Barbarian shows an undesigned device:
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.

This is straight garbage and man made. I work for GM on the Chevy Volt, 2 mode hybrids, E assist and the plain jane hybrid. Electronics are my specialty maybe try and pull that on someone else.


The transistors in a conventional microprocessor are hardwired into
logic gates, which carry out the processing. By contrast, the logic
gates in an FPGA and their interconnections can be changed at
will. The transistors are arranged into an array of "logic cells" and
simply by loading a special program into the chip's configuration
memory, circuit designers can turn each cell into any one of a number
of logic gates, and connect it to any other cell. So by loading first
one program, then another, the chip can be changed at a stroke from,
say, an amplifier to a modem ("Software, who needs it?", New
Scientist, 2 November 1996, p 41).
However it works, Thompson's device is tailor-made for a single 10 by
10 array of logic cells. But how well would that design travel? To
test this, Thompson downloaded the fittest configuration program onto
another 10 by 10 array on the FPGA. The resulting circuit was
unreliable. Another individual from the final generation of circuits
did work, however. Thompson thinks it will be possible to evolve a
circuit that uses the general characteristics of a brand of chip
rather than relying on the quirks of a particular chip. He is now
planning to see what happens when he evolves a circuit design that
works on five different FPGAs.

The great thing about Thompson's idea, says Marchal, is that if you find a
problem you add another constraint to the fitness test and evolve a
better solution. "You can adapt it, just as the immune system adapts
to new diseases," he says.
(duh)

Perhaps this is where the real value of his work lies. Whether or not
his approach produces useful devices, it may help us to understand
more about how the evolutionary process itself works. But that's
another story.

Don't care how he words it. I am not going to waste my time on this, it is :toofunny

The point

Thompson created a population of 50
configuration programs on a computer, each consisting of a random
string of 1s and 0s.
Thompson downloaded the fittest configuration program
And like I said natural selection on weeding out the week is nothing new.

Homology most of the time don't even come from the same controlled genes

.
ounds interesting. Show us your evidence that most of them don't.

For example, in sharks the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity; in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and in birds and reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm.31

Even the classic example of vertebrate forelimbs referred to by Darwin (and cited in hundreds of textbooks as proof for evolution) has now turned out to be flawed as an example of homology. The reason is that the forelimbs often develop from different body segments in different species in a pattern that cannot be explained by evolution. The forelimbs in the newt develop from trunk segments 2 through 5; in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9; in humans they develop from trunk segments 13 through 18.32 Denton concluded that this evidence shows the forelimbs usually are not developmentally homologous at all. As an example, he cited the development of the vertebrate kidney which provides a challenge to the assumption that homologous organs are produced from homologous embryonic tissues.

'In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.'33
http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Once again
No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

Common decent is flawed if everything evolved from the first life everything should overlap that is not the case. You guys can't figure out how the power of light evolved and have insects ( dragon fly skills is amazing) bats, and birds to all evolve to fly.

All species are found fully formed in the fossil record.
Hundreds of thousands of fully formed trilobites found from the cambrian period through the late paleozoic periord and no direct ancestors found below the cambrian. Millions of invertebrates are found fully formed in the cambrian through the devonian periord, but no direct ancestors in the ediacaran. There are many organisms found in the ediacaran like sea pens, bacteria, and other soft bodied animals but all fully formed. Every major fish family appears fully formed. Bats are found from the eocene to the post eocene period and no direct ancestors found below the eocene. Sea Lions have been found at the miocene periord but no direct ancestors below it. Seals found down to the oligocene periord but no direct ancestors below. Pterosaurs have been found from the triassic to the cretaceous period but no ancestors below. The list could go on and on with dinosaurs, whales and etc...

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology)

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
Dr Patterson British Museum of Natural History.

 

[spartakis]

Continued..

In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

( in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase.)
(Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme) Gene came back.
(but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.)
Basically a change in the way it switches on and off and produces allolactyose.
It was also supplied with artificial inducer IPTG.
If this is the best you have for a mutation you should really check your hypothesis again.

You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

Endosymbiotic origins have also been proposed for the nucleus, for which see below, and for eukaryotic flagella, supposed to have developed from spirochaetes. This is not generally accepted, both from a lack of cytological evidence and difficulty in reconciling this with cellular reproduction.

Although no mechanism for their development, presumably from prokaryotic cells, has been suggested, the origin of the eukaryotic cell is considered a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multicellular organisms

Different hypotheses have been proposed as to how eukaryotic cells came into existence. These hypotheses can be classified into two distinct classes – autogenous models and chimeric models.

The origins of the endomembrane system and mitochondria are also unclear.[41] The phagotrophic hypothesis proposes that eukaryotic-type membranes lacking a cell wall originated first, with the development of endocytosis, whereas mitochondria were acquired by ingestion as endosymbionts.[42] The syntrophic hypothesis proposes that the proto-eukaryote relied on the proto-mitochondrion for food, and so ultimately grew to surround it. Here the membranes originated after the engulfment of the mitochondrion, in part thanks to mitochondrial genes (the hydrogen hypothesis is one particular version).[43]
In a study using genomes to construct supertrees, Pisani et al. (2007) suggest that, along with evidence that there was never a mitochondrion-less eukaryote, eukaryotes evolved from a syntrophy between an archaea closely related to Thermoplasmatales and an α-proteobacterium, likely a symbiosis driven by sulfur or hydrogen. The mitochondrion and its genome is a remnant of the α-proteobacterial endosymbiont.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

It should also be pointed out that the engulfing of bacteria by larger cells is one of the commonest phenomena in nature, happening countless times each hour. Yet, nothing really like the formation of mitochondria has ever been observed. There may be rare modern examples of endosymbiosis between two different types of cells, such as the Chlorella algae within ‘green’ paramecia. Also, infecting or parasitic microbes can persist for a time inside of larger host cells due to encapsulation or other protective factors. Still, these events are far from the radical biotransformation demanded by the endosymbiont theory, and no one untainted by evolutionary preconceptions would ever dream of classifying mitochondria as once-separate life forms, as some evolutionists have suggested. It is essentially an ‘evolutionary miracle’, assumed to have happened in the past, but never seen or duplicated in the present.
http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us

 

[spartakis]

So far you have just wasted time and basically keep repeating yourself. You are very good at destroying threads, this is the 2nd one of mine you have got out of whack. I don't have all day to play on the web site with someone who is going to waste time. You continue to contradict yourself and make false claims. Nothing new you have been doing the same thing for 12 years.

So please clear up what you believe I have stated what I believe many times. It sounds like you are confused. What was the first life, how did everything come about, what was God's part?

So far for your common decent I have addressed this on other threads, you could not answer a lot of questions about sharks, and etc.... and only had assumption for others. Not wasting my time again. You pick your best and we can go from there when I get time.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis ( see post above). If you can not do this just say so no harm done. To say evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

You have a single cell, that over billions of years, became everything we see (you can clear this up as not what you believe but you have refused to do so and have stated evidence is compelling to you for this) that is a huge upward movement and would require multiple complex systems. Are you denying your beliefs?

 

[Barbarian]

Yes I am against the fermented alcohol of today, its alcohol content is way more then the strong drink of the Biblical days.

Show us that. You just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?

I traced the usage of the word "wine" backward, from English, to Latin, Greek and finally to Hebrew. The survey shows that the four related words—wine in English, vinum in Latin, oinos in Greek and yayin in Hebrew—have been used historically to refer to the juice of the grape, whether fermented or unfermented. This significant finding discredits the claim that the Bible knows only fermented wine, which it approves when used moderately. The truth of the matter is that the Bible knows both fermented wine, which it disapproves, and unfermented grape juice, which it approves.

Horsefeathers. You just object to Jesus and His behavior, so you made up a little fairy tale to cover for you.

he "good wine" Jesus made at Cana (John 2:10) was "good" not because of its high alcoholic content, but because it was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is indicated by external and internal considerations. Externally, contemporary authors, such as Pliny and Plutarch, attest that "good wines" were those which did not intoxicate, having had their alcoholic potency removed.

Show us your evidence.

Internally, moral consistency demands that Christ could not have miraculously produced between 120 to 160 gallons of intoxicating wine for the use of men, women and children gathered at the Cana’s wedding feast, without becoming morally responsible for prolonging and increasing their intoxication.

You mean you find it objectionable, so you made up a fairy tale to cover.

Barbarian observes:
I'm Roman Catholic. Can't get older than that. You've been snockered on that one, too.

Pretty unbiblical

You got your Bible from us. Surprise.

It offers an alternative explanation of creation to that of the holy Fathers; it allows an Orthodox Christian under its influence to read the Holy Scriptures and not understand them, automatically "adjusting" the text to fit his preconceived philosophy of nature.

Barbarian chuckles:
You just defined YE creationism.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

I know Genesis is true and I believe it you don't.

You think Jesus didn't drink wine, too. You don't accept a lot of the Bible.

Just like you don't believe in a world wide flood when that is exactly what God says.

Barbarian chuckles:
Not in His Bible, it doesn't.

Genesis 7:19

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

You've confused earth with Earth. The term "eretz "means "earth" or "land." It is the word used for the land of Israel, for example. "Under the whole heaven" meant "as far as the eye could see." From horizon to horizon. There was, BTW, such a flood in the Middle East about the right time.

Sparticus, you should listen to the Bible:
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

You keep making up new stories to cover your misconceptions.

Barbarian shows an undesigned device:
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.

This is straight garbage and man made.

Completely undesigned. It is simpler than anything we can design, and yet we aren't sure how it works. It evolved.

I work for GM on the Chevy Volt, 2 mode hybrids, E assist and the plain jane hybrid. Electronics are my specialty maybe try and pull that on someone else.

Plainly, you don't have a clue about it. BTW, GM has used the same process to make diesel engines more efficient:

Hybrid photovoltaic systems (PV-hybrid) use photovoltaic energy combined with other sources of energy, like wind or Diesel. If these hybrid systems are optimally designed, they can be more cost effective and reliable than PV-only systems. However, the design of hybrid systems is complex because of the uncertain renewable energy supplies, load demands and the non-linear characteristics of some components, so the design problem cannot be solved easily by classical optimisation methods. When these methods are not capable of solving the problem satisfactorily, the use of heuristic techniques, such as the genetic algorithms, can give better results. The authors have developed the HOGA program (Hybrid Optimisation by Genetic Algorithms), a program that uses a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to design a PV-Diesel system (sizing and operation control of a PV-Diesel system). The program has been developed in C++.

Summary:
In this paper a PV-Diesel system optimised by HOGA is compared with a stand-alone PVonly system that has been dimensioned using a classical design method based on the available energy under worst-case conditions. In both cases the demand and the solar irradiation are the same. The computational results show the economical advantages of the PV-hybrid system. HOGA is also compared with a commercial program for optimisation of hybrid systems. Furthermore, we show a number of results and conclusions about hybrid systems optimised by HOGA. Keywords: Hybrid Photovoltaic Systems, Genetic Algorithms.

Surprise.

Don't care how he words it. I am not going to waste my time on this, it is

Waaay over your head. Suffice to say that evolution works better than design for very complex systems. God is right, again.

Homology most of the time don't even come from the same controlled genes

Sounds interesting. Show us your evidence that most of them don't.

For example, in sharks the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity; in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and in birds and reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm.31

Those aren't genes. You've messed up again:
Hox gene function in vertebrate gut morphogenesis: the case of the caecum.
Zacchetti G, Duboule D, Zakany J.
Source

National Research Centre 'Frontiers in Genetics', Department of Zoology and Animal Biology, University of Geneva, Sciences III, Quai Ernest Ansermet 30, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Abstract

The digestive tract is made of different subdivisions with various functions. During embryonic development, the developing intestine expresses combinations of Hox genes along its anterior to posterior axis, suggesting a role for these genes in this regionalization process. In particular, the transition from small to large intestine is labelled by the transcription of all Hoxd genes except Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, the latter two genes being transcribed only near the anus. Here, we describe two lines of mice that express Hoxd12 ectopically within this morphological transition. As a consequence, budding of the caecum is impeded, leading to complete agenesis in homozygous individuals. This effect is concurrent with a dramatic reduction of both Fgf10 and Pitx1 expression. Furthermore, the interactions between ;anterior' Hox genes and ectopic Hoxd12 suggest a model whereby anterior and posterior Hox products compete in controlling Fgf10 signalling, which is required for the growth of this organ in mice. These results illuminate components of the genetic cascade necessary for the emergence of this gut segment, crucial for many vertebrates.

Surprise.

Even the classic example of vertebrate forelimbs referred to by Darwin (and cited in hundreds of textbooks as proof for evolution) has now turned out to be flawed as an example of homology. The reason is that the forelimbs often develop from different body segments in different species in a pattern that cannot be explained by evolution.

Hox genes also show how this works. You've just assumed that all vertebrates have to have the same number of body segments. This isn't true, even in single species. Horses, for example, have different numbers of ribs due to different numbers of body segments. Surprise.

The forelimbs in the newt develop from trunk segments 2 through 5; in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9; in humans they develop from trunk segments 13 through 18.32 Denton concluded that this evidence shows the forelimbs usually are not developmentally homologous at all.

Evolutionary development shows that they are:
http://www.sdbonline.org/ShortCourse/Niswander_lecture.pdf

Note the constancy of the genes involved. What's got you confused is the way they are expressed. All the cells in the embryo have the potentiality to form limbs. The fate of different cells in the embyro depend on the expression of genes in particular places, which can vary from group to group. Read it and learn.

'In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.'33
http://creation.com/does-homology-pr...ary-naturalism

In the majority of vertebrates, the mesonephros persists into the adult, albeit usually fused with the more advanced metanephros; only in amniotes is the mesonephros restricted to the embryo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney

One example is the development of the human kidney, which is pretty much the same as the development of any mammalian kidney. It turns out that, in utero, we develop three separate kidneys in succession, absorbing the first two before we wind up with the embryonic kidney that will become our adult kidney. The first two of these reprise embryonic kidneys of ancestral forms, and in the proper evolutionary order.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...nce-for-evolution-development-of-our-kidneys/

Surprise.

They told you part of the truth. The rest of it just blindsided you again.

Common decent is flawed if everything evolved from the first life everything should overlap that is not the case.

Let's test your assumption. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

You guys can't figure out how the power of light evolved and have insects ( dragon fly skills is amazing)

It starts with the biramous appendages on primitive arthropods. We have some transitional forms like stoneflies today. Want to learn how it happened? Long story. Suffice to say that wings are first used as gills in many aquatic arthropods, complete with wing motion. Adult stoneflies use them to sail across water, and in a good wind, can use them to kite. A few species can use them to fly.

Our results show that basal stoneflies are surface skimmers, and that various forms of surface skimming are distributed widely across the plecopteran phylogeny. Stonefly wings show evolutionary trends in the number of cross veins and the thickness of the cuticle of the longitudinal veins that are consistent with elaboration and diversification of flight-related traits. These data support the hypothesis that the first stoneflies were surface skimmers, and that wing structures important for aerial flight have become elaborated and more diverse during the radiation of modern stoneflies.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/24/13178.full

All species are found fully formed in the fossil record.

No. In fact, as you just learned, the transitionals are still living.

Hundreds of thousands of fully formed trilobites found from the cambrian period through the late paleozoic periord and no direct ancestors found below the cambrian.

From the Precambrian:

Surprise.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)Evolution as Fact and Theory

As you know, there have been a huge number of faked "quotes" presented here, from creationists who snipped them from websites of people who faked them. Feel free to present quotes from work you have actually read.

Otherwise, note that Gould's statement above directly contradicts the edited statements you presented. And yes, I've read the article, and the statement is what he actually wrote.

 

[Barbarian]

So far you have just wasted time and basically keep repeating yourself.

If you keep repeating the same misconceptions, I'll keep shooting them down. I'm very patient. If you keep posting the same things, they'll be repeatedly refuted. Up to you.

What was the first life, how did everything come about, what was God's part?

Genesis says life was brought forth by the Earth. Looks like that's true.

So far for your common decent I have addressed this on other threads, you could not answer a lot of questions about sharks, and etc....

What got you upset was that I answered them all. But if you think I missed one, feel free to show me, and I'll take care of it.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis ( see post above).

C'mon. I even showed you that the same mutation was directly observed to happen again. No point in denying it. It's been repeatedly shown to you.

So the first organisms were simple prokaryotic cells, which by endosymbiosis formed eukaryotic cells, and all complex living things evolved from there. The evidence, as you learned, is voluminous and well-documented. No point in denying that, either.

Your frustration is understandable. But libraries are free. Go learn and you'll do better.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

( in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase.)
(Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme) Gene came back.

Nope. Different gene, new enzyme, with a very different primary structure. You were snockered on that one. The duplicate gene from which the new enzyme was formed, originally coded for an enzyme that did not act on the substrate. A mutation gave it some activity, and then a series of mutations, selected by natural selection, produces a better and better enzyme. But it wasn't the enzyme that was deleted.

Barbarian chuckles:
You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

(Stuff about nucleii and flagella)

Sorry. No bunny trails. We're talking about mitochondria.

Although no mechanism for their development, presumably from prokaryotic cells, has been suggested,

As you just learned, we directly observed endosymbiosis, which is the accepted mechanism.

The mitochondrion and its genome is a remnant of the α-proteobacterial endosymbiont.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

It should also be pointed out that the engulfing of bacteria by larger cells is one of the commonest phenomena in nature, happening countless times each hour. Yet, nothing really like the formation of mitochondria has ever been observed.

As you learned, the amoeba and it's bacterial endosymbionts are now dependent on each other.

And this from your creationist site:

In a study using genomes to construct supertrees, Pisani et al. (2007) suggest that, along with evidence that there was never a mitochondrion-less eukaryote

Even today, a few eukaryotes lack mitochondria. You've been had by guys who don't know any better than you do.

 

[Barbarian]

I did a little reading on Pliny the elder, and his work on wine. He advocates steps that maximize the alcoholic content of the wine, and storage and shipping methods that preserve that alcohol.

You see, grapes naturally have a growth of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and that organism can produce a wine with alcohol content about 10-13%. More than that takes elaborate manipulation of the fermentation, and it does not look as though the ancients were doing anything like that.

If you want something much stronger, you can do a distillation such as we see in brandy or whiskey, or you can freeze the mixture and collect the unfrozen and more potent blend (as in applejack, hard cider frozen to make it more potent).

Wine naturally has about A 12% alcohol content.

It's what people drank in the times Jesus lived.

 

[spartakis]

Article for the topic that got destroyed.
http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-human-lifespans
Basically what I have been explaining for the topic.

(Declined to answer)

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis ( see post above). If you can not do this just say so no harm done. To say evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

You have a single cell, that over billions of years, became everything we see (you can clear this up as not what you believe but you have refused to do so and have stated evidence is compelling to you for this) that is a huge upward movement and would require multiple complex systems. Are you denying your beliefs?

So far you have just wasted time and basically keep repeating yourself. You are very good at destroying threads, this is the 2nd one of mine you have got out of whack. I don't have all day to play on the web site with someone who is going to waste time. You continue to contradict yourself and make false claims. Nothing new you have been doing the same thing for 12 years.

So please clear up what you believe I have stated what I believe many times. It sounds like you are confused. What was the first life, how did everything come about, what was God's part? When did God breathe the breath of life into man and etc.... please explain and show how this fits into Genesis.

So far for your common decent I have addressed this on other threads, you could not answer a lot of questions about sharks, and etc.... and only had assumption for others. Not wasting my time again. You pick your best and we can go from there when I get time.



As for Genesis
you should also clear up. Did God rest for millions of years? If so you should celebrate the sabbath a little longer than a day.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Once again.
The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated from Greek γένεσις, meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the] beginning"), is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Jews and all those in those days took it as literal history, and creation of the world. Sorry. I have shown you more links in my last post.


Once again you do not believe the Words of Jesus. Man and women would not be in the beginning of creation according to you. But we know you have a lot of doubt on the Bible.


Once again you should really learn how to believe his word
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
You should believe Moses not twist his words.

Genesis 7:19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

It was a judgment on the earth to destroy everything that was not on the ark. If it was not world wide why have Noah spend so much time building an ark instead of heading to land that would not be covered, there are many other things that show it was world wide.

If you reject God's judgment that is your problem. There is a reason Noah spent a very long time making an Ark instead of traveling. You should read Genesis again.

No surprise you would twist Gods word to make alcohol okay.

http://www.johnhamelministries.org/wine_lie_Jesus.htm
In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Albert Barnes wrote, “The wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol. It was the common drink of the people and did not produce intoxication.” And Adam Clarke, commenting on Genesis 40:11, wrote, “From this we find that wine
anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape without fermentation.

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content...scriptural-facts-about-fermented-drinks-bible

Yes I am against the fermented alcohol of today, its alcohol content is way more then the strong drink of the Biblical days.

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.


Proverbs 23:20-21 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

Proverbs 23: 29-35 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

I traced the usage of the word "wine" backward, from English, to Latin, Greek and finally to Hebrew. The survey shows that the four related words—wine in English, vinum in Latin, oinos in Greek and yayin in Hebrew—have been used historically to refer to the juice of the grape, whether fermented or unfermented. This significant finding discredits the claim that the Bible knows only fermented wine, which it approves when used moderately. The truth of the matter is that the Bible knows both fermented wine, which it disapproves, and unfermented grape juice, which it approves.

The "good wine" Jesus made at Cana (John 2:10) was "good" not because of its high alcoholic content, but because it was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is indicated by external and internal considerations. Externally, contemporary authors, such as Pliny and Plutarch, attest that "good wines" were those which did not intoxicate, having had their alcoholic potency removed. Internally, moral consistency demands that Christ could not have miraculously produced between 120 to 160 gallons of intoxicating wine for the use of men, women and children gathered at the Cana’s wedding feast, without becoming morally responsible for prolonging and increasing their intoxication. Scriptural and moral consistency requires that "the good wine" produced by Christ was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is supported by the very adjective used to describe it, namely kalos, which denotes that which is morally excellent, instead of agathos, which means simply good.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/...e_bible/1.html

 

[spartakis]

Once again showing people weeding out weaker technology is nothing new. You really think that shows something. Yes if something works better that is what we use.


The point

Thompson created a population of 50
configuration programs on a computer, each consisting of a random
string of 1s and 0s.
Thompson downloaded the fittest configuration program
And like I said natural selection on weeding out the week is nothing new.


Endosymbiotic origins have also been proposed for the nucleus, for which see below, and for eukaryotic flagella, supposed to have developed from spirochaetes. This is not generally accepted, both from a lack of cytological evidence and difficulty in reconciling this with cellular reproduction.

Although no mechanism for their development, presumably from prokaryotic cells, has been suggested, the origin of the eukaryotic cell is considered a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multicellular organisms

Different hypotheses have been proposed as to how eukaryotic cells came into existence. These hypotheses can be classified into two distinct classes – autogenous models and chimeric models.

The origins of the endomembrane system and mitochondria are also unclear.[41] The phagotrophic hypothesis proposes that eukaryotic-type membranes lacking a cell wall originated first, with the development of endocytosis, whereas mitochondria were acquired by ingestion as endosymbionts.[42] The syntrophic hypothesis proposes that the proto-eukaryote relied on the proto-mitochondrion for food, and so ultimately grew to surround it. Here the membranes originated after the engulfment of the mitochondrion, in part thanks to mitochondrial genes (the hydrogen hypothesis is one particular version).[43]
In a study using genomes to construct supertrees, Pisani et al. (2007) suggest that, along with evidence that there was never a mitochondrion-less eukaryote, eukaryotes evolved from a syntrophy between an archaea closely related to Thermoplasmatales and an α-proteobacterium, likely a symbiosis driven by sulfur or hydrogen. The mitochondrion and its genome is a remnant of the α-proteobacterial endosymbiont.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

It should also be pointed out that the engulfing of bacteria by larger cells is one of the commonest phenomena in nature, happening countless times each hour. Yet, nothing really like the formation of mitochondria has ever been observed. There may be rare modern examples of endosymbiosis between two different types of cells, such as the Chlorella algae within ‘green’ paramecia. Also, infecting or parasitic microbes can persist for a time inside of larger host cells due to encapsulation or other protective factors. Still, these events are far from the radical biotransformation demanded by the endosymbiont theory, and no one untainted by evolutionary preconceptions would ever dream of classifying mitochondria as once-separate life forms, as some evolutionists have suggested. It is essentially an ‘evolutionary miracle’, assumed to have happened in the past, but never seen or duplicated in the present.
http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us

( in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase.)
(Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme) Gene came back.
(but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.)
Basically a change in the way it switches on and off and produces allolactyose.
It was also supplied with artificial inducer IPTG.
If this is the best you have for a mutation you should really check your hypothesis again.

For example, in sharks the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity; in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and in birds and reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm.31

Even the classic example of vertebrate forelimbs referred to by Darwin (and cited in hundreds of textbooks as proof for evolution) has now turned out to be flawed as an example of homology. The reason is that the forelimbs often develop from different body segments in different species in a pattern that cannot be explained by evolution. The forelimbs in the newt develop from trunk segments 2 through 5; in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9; in humans they develop from trunk segments 13 through 18.32 Denton concluded that this evidence shows the forelimbs usually are not developmentally homologous at all. As an example, he cited the development of the vertebrate kidney which provides a challenge to the assumption that homologous organs are produced from homologous embryonic tissues.

'In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.'33
http://creation.com/does-homology-pr...ary-naturalism

Once again
No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

Common decent is flawed if everything evolved from the first life everything should overlap that is not the case. You guys can't figure out how the power of light evolved and have insects ( dragon fly skills is amazing) bats, and birds to all evolve to fly.

All species are found fully formed in the fossil record.
Hundreds of thousands of fully formed trilobites found from the cambrian period through the late paleozoic periord and no direct ancestors found below the cambrian. Millions of invertebrates are found fully formed in the cambrian through the devonian periord, but no direct ancestors in the ediacaran. There are many organisms found in the ediacaran like sea pens, bacteria, and other soft bodied animals but all fully formed. Every major fish family appears fully formed. Bats are found from the eocene to the post eocene period and no direct ancestors found below the eocene. Sea Lions have been found at the miocene periord but no direct ancestors below it. Seals found down to the oligocene periord but no direct ancestors below. Pterosaurs have been found from the triassic to the cretaceous period but no ancestors below. The list could go on and on with dinosaurs, whales and etc...

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology)

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
Dr Patterson British Museum of Natural History.

God gave us the Bible. Last time I said too much about your doctrine my post got deleted. I will leave the links for your response.
Pretty unbiblical
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/rcc.html
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

You should really check your doctrine to the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

Once again showing people weeding out weaker technology is nothing new.

In fact, there hasn't been a significant change in alcohol content of wine since Biblical times. It's a limitation on the concentration that yeast can tolerate. We can breed more tolerant yeast, but they don't make wine so well.

Thompson created a population of 50
configuration programs on a computer, each consisting of a random
string of 1s and 0s.
Thompson downloaded the fittest configuration program
And like I said natural selection on weeding out the week is nothing new.

About 3 billion year old, in fact.

From your wiki article:

In a study using genomes to construct supertrees, Pisani et al. (2007) suggest that, along with evidence that there was never a mitochondrion-less eukaryote, eukaryotes evolved from a syntrophy between an archaea closely related to Thermoplasmatales and an α-proteobacterium, likely a symbiosis driven by sulfur or hydrogen. The mitochondrion and its genome is a remnant of the α-proteobacterial endosymbiont.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

In fact, there are eukaryotes today that lack mitochondria.

It should also be pointed out that the engulfing of bacteria by larger cells is one of the commonest phenomena in nature, happening countless times each hour. Yet, nothing really like the formation of mitochondria has ever been observed.
http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us

I just showed you such an example. Would you like to see it again?

( in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase.)
(Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme) Gene came back.

Wrong again. The old gene never did reappear. But a new one, modifying a different enzyme, did evolve to do do the same function.

No point in denying it.

For example, in sharks the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity; in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and in birds and reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm.31

Yep. All cells in the early embryo have all the genes to form any tissue. You've confused the HOX genes (which are the same for all vertebrates) with the specific set of tissues they act on (which can be different).

Even the classic example of vertebrate forelimbs referred to by Darwin (and cited in hundreds of textbooks as proof for evolution) has now turned out to be flawed as an example of homology. The reason is that the forelimbs often develop from different body segments in different species in a pattern that cannot be explained by evolution.

You've been lied to about that, too. You see, the number of body segments in emybryos can vary, and thereby, different segments can be acted upon by the same genes. In fact, this happens within some species, like horses. (some miss one thoractic segment, and thereby have on less rib).

Sometimes, it's just a shift in the segments that are acted upon:
The forelimbs in the newt develop from trunk segments 2 through 5; in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9;

Surprise.

vertebrate kidney which provides a challenge to the assumption that homologous organs are produced from homologous embryonic tissues.

'In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.'33
http://creation.com/does-homology-pr...ary-naturalism

Which is what you'd expect. Embryos often show the traces of earlier organisms, because the basic developmental genes are the same, and they can be excised. So the pronephros appears first, and on it the mesonphros develops next, and in amniotes, the metanephros finally appears. It's one of the reasons we know living things evolved that way.

It's the only way it could evolve.

the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

I know yoiu want us to believe it, but the evidence says otherwise. Simply stamping your foot and insisting won't work.

Common decent is flawed if everything evolved from the first life everything should overlap that is not the case.

Let's test your assumption. Show us any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional.

You guys can't figure out how the power of light evolved and have insects ( dragon fly skills is amazing) bats, and birds to all evolve to fly.

The evidence shows insect wings evolved from the biramous appendages of primitive arthropods, and were originally gills. Some are still used that way in some aquatic larvae. There's still a transitional form alive, the stoneflies. Want to learn about that?

Hundreds of thousands of fully formed trilobites found from the cambrian period through the late paleozoic periord and no direct ancestors found below the cambrian.

I just showed you the fossils of some Precambrian trilobite precursors. Did you forget already?

Millions of invertebrates are found fully formed in the cambrian through the devonian periord, but no direct ancestors in the ediacaran.

The trilobites, remember. And we see lots of tracks of soft-bodied organism with multiple legs.

There are many organisms found in the ediacaran like sea pens, bacteria, and other soft bodied animals but all fully formed.

Those Precambrian trilobite precursors had some of the features of other trilobites, but not all of them. And the primitive Cambrian trilobites lacked the sophisticated eyes and other features of later ones.

Every major fish family appears fully formed.

Primitive sharks (for example) are much different than the ones found today.

Bats are found from the eocene to the post eocene period

So they evolved later. But as you learned, primitive bats are much different than modern ones.

Pterosaurs have been found from the triassic to the cretaceous period but no ancestors below.

Except, of course the primitive winged thecodonts. And the early pterosaurs were long-tailed, clumsy fliers, intrinsically stable and unable maneuver easily. Later ones were short-tailed, intrinsically unstable, and quite agile.

The earliest dinosaurs, like Herrerasaurus, were transitional to thecodonts, and much different than later ones. The earliest whales had functional legs, and could move about on land.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology)

Ron is not being honest with you. Darwin did not cite the fossil record much, relying on other evidence. Ron probably knows that, but he correctly guessed that you didn't. There wasn't much fossil evidence in Darwin's time.

God gave us the Bible. Last time I said too much about your doctrine my post got deleted.

It's a Christian board. Even if you personally disagree, there are rules about that sort of thing. Learn to comply with them.

(anti-Christian links offered)

Sorry. You're welcome to whatever religion you follow, but the rules don't let us argue about those topics on this particular discussion.

There are millions of people who think they hate Christianity, but almost all of them hate what they think it is, which is a very different thing.

 

[spartakis]

Once again denies to answer. Wonder why.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis. If you can not do this just say so no harm done. To say evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

You have a single cell, that over billions of years, became everything we see (you can clear this up as not what you believe but you have refused to do so and have stated evidence is compelling to you for this) that is a huge upward movement and would require multiple complex systems. Are you denying your beliefs?

So far you have just wasted time and basically keep repeating yourself. You are very good at destroying threads, this is the 2nd one of mine you have got out of whack. I don't have all day to play on the web site with someone who is going to waste time. You continue to contradict yourself and make false claims. Nothing new you have been doing the same thing for 12 years.

So please clear up what you believe I have stated what I believe many times. It sounds like you are confused. What was the first life, how did everything come about, what was God's part? When did God breathe the breath of life into man and etc.... please explain and show how this fits into Genesis.

So far for your common decent I have addressed this on other threads, you could not answer a lot of questions about sharks, and etc.... and only had assumption for others. Not wasting my time again. You pick your best and we can go from there when I get time.



As for Genesis
you should also clear up. Did God rest for millions of years? If so you should celebrate the sabbath a little longer than a day.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
The words of Jesus go against what you believe
John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Once again.
The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated from Greek γένεσις, meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the] beginning"), is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Jews and all those in those days took it as literal history, and creation of the world. Sorry. I have shown you more links in my last post.


Once again you do not believe the Words of Jesus. Man and women would not be in the beginning of creation according to you. But we know you have a lot of doubt on the Bible.


Once again you should really learn how to believe his word
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
You should believe Moses not twist his words.

Genesis 7:17-24
And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

It was a judgment on the earth to destroy everything that was not on the ark. If it was not world wide why have Noah spend so much time building an ark instead of heading to land that would not be covered, there are many other things that show it was world wide.

If you reject God's judgment that is your problem. There is a reason Noah spent a very long time making an Ark instead of traveling. You should read Genesis again.

No surprise you would twist Gods word to make alcohol okay.

 

[spartakis]

As for you alcohol along with everything else I have shown you.

It's no secret that wine in the New Testament very often meant simply grape juice. In the Old Testament, the word for wine and grape juice was the same. Today, liberal so-called Christian teachers have taken every opportunity to interpret that each instance where wine is mentioned should be interpreted as alcoholic wine rather than grape juice despite long standing Scriptural evidence to the contrary. They choose to believe a lie for the sake of conforming to the world and fulfilling their own lustful desires.

Of course, there will always be those who will bring up the story of Jesus turning the water into wine. But contrary to what many believe, Jesus didn't turn water into alcoholic wine (John 2:3-10) because He would be contradicting a multitude of Scriptures in the Old and New Testament regarding this subject. Let's analyze this passage of scripture:

"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

First of all, a few things must be pointed out. Verse 10 declares that the men of the wedding had already "well drunk". I'm no genius but that tells me they had already drunk a lot of wine up to that point. When the wine ran out, Jesus was asked by His mother to provide more wine. Jesus then commands that they fill six water pots to the brim. It is estimated that those six water pots totaled between 100-150 gallons of water. One thing that you need to remember, they had already "well drunk" up to this point. Jesus had to make a decision; either contribute to the drunkenness that would surely follow with that much wine or just say no. After all, the Bible does say that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:10). That would be a contradiction in why Jesus came to the earth in the first place…to save all of mankind.

Another violation of Scripture Jesus would have been guilty of breaking is found in Habakkuk 2:15a which states, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also". Jesus creating and serving 100-150 gallons of alcoholic wine clearly goes against this Scripture. By doing so He would either place a curse on Himself, His mother who asked for Him to turn the water into wine, the governor who served it to the bridegroom or all three involved in the process.

So why did Jesus serve great quantities of alcohol to those He came to save? The answer is simple…He didn't! Any logical person who has been to a wedding in which the wine has flowed freely (they have well drunk) would have to confess that it usually ends in a drunken brawl with far less wine. I can't even imagine Jesus agreeing to create another 100-150 gallons of wine (768; 24 oz. bottles) under the supposed condition of the recipients. With that much alcohol somebody's going to be drunk making Jesus a conspirator in this violation of Scripture.

Some may even say that weddings of that day sometimes lasted days or even weeks...but the length of the wedding has no bearing on the present. The fact of the matter is, when Mary came to Jesus, at that very point in time, they had well drunk. Meaning those who were in attendance at that point in time had drunk a large quantity of wine and had run out. They didn't sleep it off, wake up the next morning and discover that there was no wine. They drank to their fill that day and ran out. The only rational conclusion is that this was not alcoholic wine. There is also no mention of the wedding guest being drunk only that they had well drunk.

Another reason Jesus would never drink or serve alcohol (at today's alcohol level) is because He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. Bible scholar Carlton Rector writes, "Jesus could not have drunk alcoholic wine at the wedding feast, or He would have been disobeying the Bible commands concerning kings and princes." http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/biblecrs/alcohol/alcohol1.htm

The Bible passage Mr. Rector is citing is found in Proverbs 31:4-7:

"It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

The ultimate king is Jesus! By Him drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink He would be violating this Scripture.

http://www.calvaryprophecy.com/q130.html

You can always twist it like you do most of the scripture.

 

[spartakis]

Homology+ Homoplasy+ Analogy = Common creator, but we know you don't believe God as a creator, or at least you have not explained what you believe.

Modern embryologists confirm this as well, and have further challenged the erroneous nature of these assumptions. Recent work has revealed that embryos are not more similar during the earlier stages of cleavage and gastrulation, but in fact, are most alike at the later stage illustrated by Ernst Haeckel in his infamous forgeries. In the gastrulation stage, fish show dramatic differences when compared to amphibians, and neither are similar to reptiles, birds, or mammals. Organisms begin life very dissimilar, then become somewhat alike during embryo development, then diverge again as adults. Evo-devos (evolutionary developmental biologists) refer to this pattern as the developmental hourglass. [9] William Ballard adds that only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that “gastrulas” of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their adults.[10]

Eyes
Some homologous structures, such as the eyes of a human and the eyes of an octopus are very similar but are extremely distant on the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists, then, are quick to label these structures as analogous, though they are really more homologous, in order to save their theory. This is just another example of how evolutionary scientists only look for answers that line up with their dogma instead of considering scientific facts that could contradict it. It is unscientific to believe that such complex and similar structures could have come about separately, by way of chance mutations, at drastically different times. But, to say that they evolved at relatively the same time breaks down the whole theory of the order in which things evolved.

Wings
Wing structures are also pushed aside and labeled as analogous because according to Darwinism, these structures have to have evolved at four different times during history. The likelihood of such similar, yet separate, occurrences is incredibly minute because they do not make sense in the framework of either natural selection or mutation.

Mammals
Mammals are another strong example of the flaws in evolution. Mammals are divided into three groups called monotremes, placentals, and marsupials. According to evolution, these groups all evolved and developed individually after appearing in history. The problem is that many animals among placentals that have counterparts, so to speak, that are marsupials, the North American Wolf and the Tasmanian Wolf for example. These counterparts have very similar, or homologous (though the common evolutionist would probably label them as analogous), bodily structures. Once again, it is incredibly unlikely that these very similar creatures could have evolved separately, while remaining completely unrelated to each other.

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Because genes are believed to have a ancestral origin, if two animals have homologous morphological structures, then the genes that produced those structures should be homologous as well. Unfortunately for Darwinism, these genes are often not homologous. In a vertebrate embryo, a countable number of segments divide the tissue. Each segment or group of segments is destined to develop into a particular structure. Studies conducted on six kinds of vertebrates showed that the front and back limbs of each creature developed from different groups of segments (especially the back limbs). [3] Homologous organs are produced by non-homologous DNA and homologous DNA develop into non-homologous organs. Also, homologous structures are shown to go through completely different embryological stages of development, when they should be the same up to the point of the evolutionary difference. Pere Alberch wrote that these differing embryological stages in homologous structures are "the rule rather than the exception".

Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.6 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution

http://creationwiki.org/Homology


However, if we look at the horse limb (right), we see that it is quite different to the human form. Frogs and people have remarkably similar limb structures, but horses, which are supposedly very much more closely related to humans, have a limb with little resemblance to the human limb. Just on the basis of limb structures, it might be reasonable to suppose that frogs and people are more closely related than people and horses.

However, horses, as mammals, share many similarities to humans which frogs, as amphibians, don’t share—horses, like us, are warm–blooded, give birth to live young, suckle their young, have hair, etc. The evolutionist claims that horses and humans must be more closely related than frogs and humans.

But what about the remarkable differences in the limbs of horses and humans? The evolutionist ‘explains’ the profound differences in the horse and human limbs as due to ‘adaptation’ in the horse. So, when the evolutionist confronts anomalies like the horse limb, a story is invented to ‘explain’ it. In this case the story is ‘adaptation’. The limb was supposedly ‘modified’ by natural selection to do a different job. However, this is a just–so story to explain away evidence which does not fit the common ancestry idea.
http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-related

Really need to answer post 134 before anything else.

 

[Barbarian]

Homology+ Homoplasy+ Analogy = Common creator

Nope. As you learned, creationism can't explain why we have suboptimal homologies from evolved structures modified to new uses. Why "design" a biped using quadruped parts that result in disorders and inefficient function?

but we know you don't believe God as a creator

Since I've repeatedly stated that God is the Creator, you have no excuse for lying about that. Even if you're angry, you are still accountable for what you say. Shame on you.

Modern embryologists confirm this as well, and have further challenged the erroneous nature of these assumptions. Recent work has revealed that embryos are not more similar during the earlier stages of cleavage and gastrulation, but in fact, are most alike at the later stage illustrated by Ernst Haeckel in his infamous forgeries.

For example, in the deuterostomes, the blastopore becomes the anus. In protostomes, it becomes the mouth. Not surprisingly, the HOX genes for these two different groups orient in opposite directions in the embryos. Surprise.

Remember what you learned; the precise areas acted upon by the genes can be different; all cells are initially equipotent.

Eyes
Some homologous structures, such as the eyes of a human and the eyes of an octopus are very similar but are extremely distant on the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists, then, are quick to label these structures as analogous, though they are really more homologous, in order to save their theory.

The same genes are at work, but in different tissues.

Hox genes provide spectacular insight into the evolution of the eye. Different kinds of eyes in a variety of animals, for instance, octopuses, flies, and humans, posed a puzzle for evolutionary biologists.

Ernst Mayr concluded that eyes may have evolved independently 40 different times. In 1994, however, Swiss biologist Walter Gehring and his team found that the Hox gene responsible for induction of the Drosophilia eye is virtually identical to the one that induces the mouse eye. This Hox gene switches on eye formation in the myriad of creatures that see. Hence, it appears that all eyes, no matter how differently constructed they appear now, had a common evolutionary origin.

Hox genes are the molecular architects for animal body plans that von Baer studied more than a century ago and provide the intrinsic unity of design that Saint-Hilaire supposed.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/pdf/l_034_06.pdf

Surprise. Aren't you tired of being constantly embarrassed by this stuff?

It is unscientific to believe that such complex and similar structures could have come about separately, by way of chance mutations, at drastically different times.

Darwin's discovery was that it doesn't work by chance.

Wings
Wing structures are also pushed aside and labeled as analogous because according to Darwinism, these structures have to have evolved at four different times during history. The likelihood of such similar, yet separate, occurrences is incredibly minute because they do not make sense in the framework of either natural selection or mutation.

In vertebrates, they are both homologous (because they use most of the same structures) and analogous, (because the details are different).

As you learned, bird wings, for example, were the result of a slight modification of things already there.

Mammals
Mammals are another strong example of the flaws in evolution. Mammals are divided into three groups called monotremes, placentals, and marsupials. According to evolution, these groups all evolved and developed individually after appearing in history.

No. The evidence shows they all had a common ancestor which was a very primitive mammal/advanced therapsid depending on where you want to draw the line on mammals.

DNA evidence shows that monotremes diverged first from that ancestor, followed by a split of marsupials and placentals somewhat later.

Van Rheede, Teun The Platypus Is in Its Place: Nuclear Genes and Indels Confirm the Sister Group Relation of Monotremes and Therians Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 23, Number 3, pp.587-597, 2005

The problem is that many animals among placentals that have counterparts, so to speak, that are marsupials, the North American Wolf and the Tasmanian Wolf for example.

These are analogous organisms, formed in a superficially similar way, because they are both cursorial carnivores with similar ways of life.

These counterparts have very similar, or homologous (though the common evolutionist would probably label them as analogous), bodily structures.

For example, such carnivores require slicing up meat and eating it. And they both have "carnassal teeth" but they are formed from an entirely different dental formula. The DNA of these organisms are quite different, with the canid DNA being more similar to that of a rabbit than to that of a thylacine, and the thylacine's DNA more similar to that of a koala than to that of a wolf. Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. But of course, it's an utter mystery to creationism.

Once again, it is incredibly unlikely that these very similar creatures could have evolved separately,

Would be, to any theory but evolutionary theory, which predicts that similar selective pressures will produce analogous structures.

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework.

There is, as you learned, no "biblical framework" for anatomy. It's just something creationists tried to add to scripture.

A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures.

But he didn't. Wolves are biochemically more like rabbits and horses. Thylacines are biochemically more like koalas and kangaroos. It's not just genetics.

Because genes are believed to have a ancestral origin, if two animals have homologous morphological structures, then the genes that produced those structures should be homologous as well. Unfortunately for Darwinism, these genes are often not homologous. In a vertebrate embryo, a countable number of segments divide the tissue. Each segment or group of segments is destined to develop into a particular structure.

This is not true, even within some species. Horses, for example, differ in thoractic segments, and some have a different number of ribs. As you learned, the HOX genes may act on different segments.

Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria.

It's an ancient molecule which has been retained, in some branches for oxygen transfer. That it was lost in some, is consistent with evolutionary theory.

An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.

The same antigen would require the same structure. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an antigen receptor. Immune globulins are essentially the same in all vertebrates above lampreys, and the hypervariable regions on the light chains and their corresponding regions on the heavy chains must have a specific structure for a particular antigen.

However, if we look at the horse limb (right), we see that it is quite different to the human form. Frogs and people have remarkably similar limb structures, but horses, which are supposedly very much more closely related to humans, have a limb with little resemblance to the human limb.

Turns out humans and frogs have the generalized vertebrate structure with a few modfications. Primitive horses has pretty much the same structure, but slightly modified for running:

As you see, the trend was to reduce the number of toes, and to reduce the mobility of the remaining foot.

Just on the basis of limb structures, it might be reasonable to suppose that frogs and people are more closely related than people and horses.

If you didn't know the rest of the story. Surprise.

But what about the remarkable differences in the limbs of horses and humans?

Just another creationist fairy tale.

Really need to answer post 134 before anything else.

Everything was answered. If there's something you still don't understand, I'd be pleased to explain it to you further. Just ask.

 

[spartakis]

Wrong common creator explains all much better than common decent. The evidence above has references that over state your commentary. And your poor design argument don't hold up either. Everything is design very well, John Sarfati goes over all this very well in the greatest hox on earth. Even the spine and etc... All with reference to scientist and Doctors in the field for every design flaw Dawkins complains about. I guess that is a typical argument for evolutionist God is a bad designer until you really study what you think is a bad design.

You do not believe God is the creator the Bible claims he is.
Along with Genesis 1 you seem to deny the following.
Ex 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:16-17
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The list could go on.

You also deny his judgment of a global flood the killed all things. Scripture for that is posted in post 134.
Once again you should believe his word.
John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So clear up your beliefs.

Did God use death and suffering to create man?

Do you understand that God would be a God of death and suffering if he created everything by natural selection and mutations?
If he created everything perfect and death and suffering came from sin, then he would be the God of love as the Bible declares.

When do you believe sin entered into the world? Keep in mind Romans 5:12-14

Do you believe death came by sin? Keep in mind 1Cor 15:21-22, Romans 5:12-14, Romans 6:23, James 1:15,

Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Do you believe that God cursed the ground at the point of the sin?

If you believe man came from ape like creature then when did God give him a soul? When he was in beast form?

What did God create according to you?
Was it only a single cell then blind random mutation and natural selection take place?

Do you not see the humor that God says he created everything in the opposite order evolution declares they evolved? Could God not have simply explained evolution? Could he have not at least got the order correct?

Did God rest for millions of years?
If so you should celebrate the sabbath a little longer than a day.

Do you believe God created anything in Genesis Ch 1 as he says?

Please no contradictions


Also you have not shown empirical evidence for the process of mutations and natural selection to prove your hypothesis of everything coming from the first microbe feasible.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis. If you can not do this just say so no harm done. To say evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

You have a single cell, that over billions of years, became everything we see (you can clear this up as not what you believe but you have refused to do so and have stated evidence is compelling to you for this) that is a huge upward movement and would require multiple complex systems. Are you denying your beliefs?

And no you skipped 134, and 135

 

[Barbarian]

Wrong common creator explains all much better than common decent. The evidence above has references that over state your commentary. And your poor design argument don't hold up either. Everything is design very well, John Sarfati goes over all this very well in the greatest hox on earth.

We know you want us to believe you. But with no evidence, you're not very believable.

Even the spine and etc... All with reference to scientist and Doctors in the field for every design flaw Dawkins complains about. I guess that is a typical argument for evolutionist God is a bad designer

He's no mere "designer." He's the Creator. Much wiser and more powerful than creationists want Him to be.

You do not believe God is the creator the Bible claims he is.

Remember, when you were reminded that even if you're angry, lying is a bad idea? I'm reminding you again. When you lie about what other people believe, your credibility takes a hit. Don't do that to yourself.

As you know, Christians believe God made everything. The only difference between us and you is that you don't approve of the way He did it. BTW, Genesis 1 tells us what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race, not the beginning of creation.

You also deny his judgment of a global flood the killed all things.

As you learned, those who added a worldwide flood to Genesis (it doesn't say the entire Earth was flooded) have confused the Hebrew word for "land", "eretz", with "the whole world."

Did God use death and suffering to create man?

God gives each of us our being with Him directly. Our bodies were formed by evolution, but we are not our bodies. You've been misled again.

Do you understand that God would be a God of death and suffering if he created everything by natural selection and mutations?

God could have made a universe with no death or suffering if He had so chosen. You think He chose badly?

If he created everything perfect

Where does He say He created everything perfect? If Satan was perfect, he would never have rebelled. If humans were perfect, Adam would not have sinned. Perfection excludes the propensity to sin.

In fact, only God is perfect, and nothing else ever has been.

When do you believe sin entered into the world?

If you would read Genesis, you would find that it began with man's disobedience to God.

Do you believe death came by sin?

The important clue is God's word to Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate, but he lived on physically for many years after. Either God tells us things that are not true, or the death was spiritual, not physical. Adam was never immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that he might become so, and takes steps to prevent it.

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. [23] And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken.

Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

What makes you think science rules out Adam and Eve as real people? Do you not believe they were? That's not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know. Tell us.

Do you believe that God cursed the ground at the point of the sin?

Genesis 3:17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

For humans. God didn't make the ground evil. He just condemned humans to work for a living. Which honestly, doesn't seem like much of a curse to me. Work, even labor, has never seemed like a terrible thing to me.

If you believe man came from ape like creature

We are ape-like creatures.

then when did God give him a soul?

Don't know. Would it matter if it was H. erectus instead of H. sapiens? If so, why?

When he was in beast form?

We still are.

What did God create according to you?

Would this be the tenth time I told you God created all things? Pretty close, I think.

Was it only a single cell then blind random mutation and natural selection take place?

That is how He produced the diversity of life.

Did God rest for millions of years?

Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

Spartakis, is the problem that you doubt that God created all things? Do you truly believe as Chistians do, that He is the Creator of everything? Or are you one of those intelligent design guys who think He might be just a "space alien?" Again, this isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like you to tell us.

Also you have not shown empirical evidence for the process of mutations and natural selection to prove your hypothesis of everything coming from the first microbe feasible.

You want to see it again? Sure. The evidence for common descent:

1. First noticed by a creationist, Linnaeus, who recognized the nested hierarchy of taxa that we now know comes only by common descent.

2. Numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, with some still living, but only between groups found to be evolutionarily connected through other evidence.

3. DNA analysis, which we know works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

4. Biochemical differences that sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies.

5. Observed evolution of new features by modification of old ones.

That's some of it. If you doubt it, we can talk about it and clear up any misconceptions for you.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process.

As you learned, "upward" means nothing in biology, but you were shown the most important mutation in the process of common descent, the evolution of organelles, essential to eukaryotes.

All you have shown is a hypothesis.

Be honest here. I showed you a case of it happening again.

To say that evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

Let's test your belief. Show me something that you think couldn't have evolved in some living thing. Show us, and I'll see what I can do.

And no you skipped 134, and 135

Since you declined my offer to answer whatever you think I didn't answer, it seems more likely that you made it up.

Of course, if you want to ask, I'll still answer whatever for you. Unless it's about specifically Catholic doctrine, which as you know, is not allowed.

So you're on. Tell us about it.

 

[spartakis]

We know you want us to believe you. But with no evidence, you're not very believable.

Sorry plenty of evidence just take off your blinders and believe God done it how he told us he did. Evolution don't fit in the Bible sorry.

He's no mere "designer." He's the Creator. Much wiser and more powerful than creationists want Him to be.

Sorry you don't believe he is powerful enough to do it as he said. Only powerful enough to create a single cell, then have to us death and suffering to create man. Sorry don't fit in the Bible, big compromise.

Remember, when you were reminded that even if you're angry, lying is a bad idea? I'm reminding you again. When you lie about what other people believe, your credibility takes a hit. Don't do that to yourself.

I am not lying you do not believe he did it how he told us correct.

As you know, Christians believe God made everything. The only difference between us and you is that you don't approve of the way He did it. BTW, Genesis 1 tells us what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race, not the beginning of creation.

No the only difference between us and you is we believe Gods word is true while you compromise with a naturalistic view.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Matt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

As you learned, those who added a worldwide flood to Genesis (it doesn't say the entire Earth was flooded) have confused the Hebrew word for "land", "eretz", with "the whole world."

Once again you should really learn how to believe his word
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
You should believe Moses not twist his words.

Genesis 7:17-24
And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

It was a judgment on the earth to destroy everything that was not on the ark. If it was not world wide why have Noah spend so much time building an ark instead of heading to land that would not be covered, there are many other things that show it was world wide.

If you reject God's judgment that is your problem. There is a reason Noah spent a very long time making an Ark instead of traveling. You should read Genesis again.

God gives each of us our being with Him directly. Our bodies were formed by evolution, but we are not our bodies. You've been misled again.

So you mean God used death and suffering to create us, good dodge.

God could have made a universe with no death or suffering if He had so chosen. You think He chose badly?

No he did, and sin brought forth death and suffering.

Where does He say He created everything perfect? If Satan was perfect, he would never have rebelled. If humans were perfect, Adam would not have sinned. Perfection excludes the propensity to sin.

In fact, only God is perfect, and nothing else ever has been.

He doesn't say perfect but everything was good until the fall of man. Correct God is the only thing perfect. We had a world like what his kingdom on earth will be like, with no curse. Do I need to show you what that will be like?

If you would read Genesis, you would find that it began with man's disobedience to God.

I know when it came about, but since you do not believe Genesis and believe we came from death and suffering, I asked you the question.

The important clue is God's word to Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate, but he lived on physically for many years after. Either God tells us things that are not true, or the death was spiritual, not physical. Adam was never immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that he might become so, and takes steps to prevent it.

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. [23] And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken.

But he did experience death. If he would have stayed in the garden and ate off the tree of life he would of lived. Death physical and spiritual came by sin.
Genesis 3:19 during Gods telling of punishments.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

What makes you think science rules out Adam and Eve as real people? Do you not believe they were? That's not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know. Tell us.

I told you what I believe. But you seem to dodge it. Why do you say science rules out? Is that what has your authority over Gods word? If you would drop off the blinders and materialistic view you would see science proves what God tells us in Genesis. And you would not have to compromise.

Genesis 3:17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

For humans. God didn't make the ground evil. He just condemned humans to work for a living. Which honestly, doesn't seem like much of a curse to me. Work, even labor, has never seemed like a terrible thing to me.

I never said evil, just cursed. Man did not have to till, no rain needed, no thorns and thistles. But this would not go along with your belief. The ground would of had to be cursed before man even came to be.

We are ape-like creatures.

No sorry, I am a man created to have dominion over the every animal.

Don't know. Would it matter if it was H. erectus instead of H. sapiens? If so, why?

We still are.

Would this be the tenth time I told you God created all things? Pretty close, I think.

That is how He produced the diversity of life.

You should really believe how he told us he did it, I have already shown you why. He tells us and plenty of evidence to back it up, take off your blinders.

Did God rest for millions of years?

Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

I showed you where it did. Not only in Genesis but
Ex 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I am sure you deny Exodus also.

Spartakis, is the problem that you doubt that God created all things? Do you truly believe as Chistians do, that He is the Creator of everything? Or are you one of those intelligent design guys who think He might be just a "space alien?" Again, this isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like you to tell us.

That is a really bad comment considering I have explained everything I believe. I know your mad, but you already know the answer. I believe God does what he says and is who he says. Unlike you.

You want to see it again? Sure. The evidence for common descent:

1. First noticed by a creationist, Linnaeus, who recognized the nested hierarchy of taxa that we now know comes only by common descent.

2. Numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, with some still living, but only between groups found to be evolutionarily connected through other evidence.

3. DNA analysis, which we know works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

4. Biochemical differences that sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies.

5. Observed evolution of new features by modification of old ones.

That's some of it. If you doubt it, we can talk about it and clear up any misconceptions for you.

Thats a dodge of what I asked you know that. And everything listed is assumptions. Microbes to man come on now. All you dodged that question.

As you learned, "upward" means nothing in biology, but you were shown the most important mutation in the process of common descent, the evolution of organelles, essential to eukaryotes.

In evolution it is what you would need to happen and show. You showed an assumption, I showed you major problems that even wiki stated. You dodged the real question to make an assumption. I wonder why. You can't show one.

Be honest here. I showed you a case of it happening again.

No all you showed was an assumption. Do you need me to list the major issues again. Keep dodging.

Let's test your belief. Show me something that you think couldn't have evolved in some living thing. Show us, and I'll see what I can do.

I have before, all you have is assumptions, and all this is a dodge of the challenge to you. You can not show a mutation that makes your hypothesis possible.

Since you declined my offer to answer whatever you think I didn't answer, it seems more likely that you made it up.

What are you talking about, you skipped two post that asked you to clear up your beliefs. How did I make that up go back and look.

Of course, if you want to ask, I'll still answer whatever for you. Unless it's about specifically Catholic doctrine, which as you know, is not allowed.

So you're on. Tell us about it.

I am waiting for you to stop dodging the challenge. I believe we are about done until you can show what was asked

By the way you skipped some questions.