Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
You were building a case and included his name in your claim and I showed it to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Correct, I was wrong. However that still doesn’t contend with Pius XII, St John Paul II, or Pope Francis. But apparently you know better than them.
 
NSmith said:
In general my objection to the evolutionary hypothesis as it pertains to the origin of complex organisms is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics, that is to say that more complex things are spontaneously generating from less complex things, which is a decrease in the entropy of the system. This should not be possible
Click to expand...
Did you forget to allow for the continuous (name removed by moderator)ut of solar energy?
 
buffalo said:
We will get to that later. What is the top clincher for you on evolution?
Click to expand...
Skirting the issue I see. Let’s get to it now. Names please.

There’s no clincher. Evolution is real unlike Adam & Eve or dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.
 
nicholasG said:
There’s no clincher. Evolution is real unlike Adam & Eve or dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.
Click to expand...
Since you wont name one I will assume for this conversation it is because it was what your educators told you. Did you ever seriously question it?
 
I would recommend the book The Life and Glories of St Joseph. It gives a great explanation and resolves the difference between Matthew and Luke.
 
So you have a choice to make: Was the bishop(s) who endorsed that text meaning to teach that the earth is young, or are the Bishops today who accept an old earth acting contrary to the faith? Which is it?
 
I’m not arguing or criticizing. I’m just saying the book gives a good explanation.
 
I would love to see your evidence for this.

Jesus was about as clear as possible that his kingdom was God’s and explicitly NOT of this world.

Regardless, the scriptures, which do in fact contain errors, are inerrant in matters of faith and morals ONLY. Using the scriptures to measure the age of the Earth or the number of electrons in a cesium atom just isn’t going to get you to the correct answer. God knows that - hence he gave us reason and expects us to use it.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
nicholasG:
None of this disproves evolution.
Click to expand...
Japanese researchers show a bacteria with 7 flagella that spin 10 time as fast as the usual flagella without hitting each other. A gear was found that keeps them in sync. Show the evo steps to get this all to work.
Click to expand...
This is the IDers having to pivot yet again…
It used to be, “explain the flagella”

So scientists looked at each stage of flagella development and lo, and behold, they found each step and that each step encountered a development having nothing to do with a flagella but each step conferring an advantage in cellular pumping or cellular exchange. The final step was adding a flagella that gave motility…another advantage. The process never had a flagella as it’s goal. It’s just where it ended up. These little surprises happen all the time.

Now, the pivot…well, what about multiple flagella that run in sync? Why not see if you can figure out how a system that developed one flagella that allowed mobility might just develop multiple flagella to increase that motility! I’m retired. I’m done with working but you may have time to discover the answer!
 
I’ve searched their site and cannot find anything about inheritance law in first century Palestine. In fact a search on their website for “inheritance” gets no hits, and another for “genealogy” only pulls up a lecture about the priesthood.

Could you help me out?
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
This is the IDers having to pivot yet again…
It used to be, “explain the flagella”

So scientists looked at each stage of flagella development and lo, and behold, they found each step and that each step encountered a development having nothing to do with a flagella but each step conferring an advantage in cellular pumping or cellular exchange. The final step was adding a flagella that gave motility…another advantage. The process never had a flagella as it’s goal. It’s just where it ended up. These little surprises happen all the time.

Now, the pivot…well, what about multiple flagella that run in sync? Why not see if you can figure out how a system that developed one flagella that allowed mobility might just develop multiple flagella to increase that motility! I’m retired. I’m done with working but you may have time to discover the answer!
Click to expand...
Uh no. The flagella still stands. ID does not make a claim all parts are unique and are not utilized in other systems. The IC claim is if you remove one of the parts that system will fail. ID understands the designer would use common building blocks in other systms.

I upped the ante with the multiple synced flagella.
 
Last edited:
That series pulls up more than 100 hits. Could you narrow it down to a specific lecture?
 
This is significant then. The church leaders - Bishops, successors of the apostles - have accepted falsehood, and the supreme pontiff has not sought to correct them… that would seem to be your position.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The IC claim is if you remove one of the parts that system will fail.
Click to expand...
Sure it will fail as a system of motility. We aren’t trying to undo it, we are trying to understand how evolution developed it in the first place.

If you remove one part of a mousetrap, it will no longer function as a mouse trap…but, the pin can be used for something else, the wood piece can be a door stop, the spring can be used as a spring in another system…and on and on…

Once a system has developed there is nothing stopping it from developing further. Multiple flagella is just as likely as twin flagella which originate as a single flagella. Whoop tie do! You’re reaching for straws. You are doing the ID thing of trying to nit pick something that biologists have thoroughly explained and driving little holes in it, thinking you have now destroyed evolution. Sorry, it’s a fail. ID isn’t a better solution. It explains little to nothing. They can’t seem to get one major paper published, just some little incidental ones then crying because the peer review won’t pay attention to them. They crave peer reviewed papers themselves but have to trash the process when they continually fail at publishing!

A few of them struggle on but it’s a dying theory. All they have are fringe scientists and a bunch of evangelicals pouring money into it. The younger generation that actually understands evolution and knows it is compatible with God and their faith are embarrassed by ID.
 
buffalo said:
Since you wont name one I will assume for this conversation it is because it was what your educators told you. Did you ever seriously question it?
Click to expand...
Why would I question what all serious biologists & universities agree with. Evolution. I’m not a biologist, are you?
I have to go with what the professionals in the field say. I don’t make up my own alternatives to suit my beliefs so I can feel better.

Now, what are the names of these serious biologists you’re spouting aka “evo’s”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top