F
Freddy
Guest
You’ve never made one. Do you have an alternative to what’s been proposed?Freddy:
C’mon, Fred. You’re clever enough to defeat any illogical argument, aren’t you?
- Status
W
whatistrue
Guest
That answer has already been provided by @Freddy:
Yes. I’d recommend any book on the subject by Steven Pinker for the details. This would be a good start: Language Instinct, The: Steven Pinker, Arthur Morey: 9781491514986: Amazon.com: Books
F
Freddy
Guest
So your explantion for language is the same as the one you use for the age of the planet. God did it 6,000 years ago and it emerged fully formed.Freddy:
An existing language can be the basis of more languages, even now, new languages are being developed from existing ones. This is no issue at all. Already established words with meanings can change in pronunciation but maintain the meaning or i can use a known language as a basis to write down new words with meanings for reference- this requires one to know how to read and write.
What we know now is that a language is learned from knowledgeable sources so we can only go as far back as the original knowledgeable source aka God.
Then there’s not a lot of use in discussing it any further. Thanks.
N
Noose001
Guest
The book says language is an instinct wired in our brain by evolution, @Freddy despite quoting the book says that language is not within evolutionary boundaries which means he doesn’t trust what the book says.
Language is not an instinct wired in anyone’s brain, it is a very simple fact that if you don’t learn a language, you won’t speak a language. You can have all the instincts in the world but unless you learn Germany, you won’t speak Germany.
Deaf people do not speak a language not because of lack of instincts but because they don’t get a chance to learn one.
I hereby dismiss your ideas, the book and evolution not unless you can come up with something agreeable.
N
Noose001
Guest
What do you mean by further discussion, i’m yet to get any credible attempt from evolution point of view.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Thank you. As you point out, all my arguments are quite logical. For macroevolutionists, not so much.o_mlly:
You’ve never made one. Do you have an alternative to what’s been proposed?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
"There’s a species! No, subspecies! Wait, genus … I’m not sure."
Sorry, that dog just don’t hunt.
G
Gigantals
Guest
Right, I’m going to need a few minutes here. Please bear with me.
G
Gigantals
Guest
So, about the dates. Yes, they do fit outside the Biblical chronology of 6650 years. So we don’t accept the values as proof of their ages. But we can use those values in another way. As I said previously, we use those values to show how the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere was lower in the past due to the stronger magnetic field reducing the rate of C14 production. Not the exact conclusion we wanted, but it is a conclusion that helps us in another way.
The main problem pre-Flood was the supercontinent. Water is a brilliant conductor of heat. Rock is a brilliant insulator. The Earth pre-Flood was a single body of water and a single landmass. So the oceans would’ve warmed, yes. However, the ocean currents would’ve been less interrupted by the landmasses as they are today. The would be even better at helping to regulate the planet’s heat than they are today. The supercontinent however was not stable. This was why it would break apart.
God, in His Omniscience, knew that humanity would be corrupted. So He created a World that would be ready for this. As the universe started decaying under the weight of sin, things no longer became perfect. This would lead to a nuclear meltdown in the core. Those subterranean oceans may have helped regulate the planet’s temperature to prevent the surface heating up too much, but they could only do this for so long. This was a time bomb. Noah had 120 years or so to build the Ark. Anyone who listened to his warning could get on; but they didn’t. So the supercontinent’s foundations started warming. After God locked the door behind Noah, the bomb went off.
Nothing in the ocean would’ve been able to survive if it were boiling, yes. Which is why the fact that large bodies of water travelling at different speeds and temperatures (or densities) will not mix is important. By having concentrated areas of heat loss, fuelling the hypercanes above to produce all that rain and transfer heat energy, ocean life would’ve been able to survive in some areas. I have looked at the Deccan and Siberian Traps. Did they both not contribute to massively lowering the planet’s temperature when they formed? You have the blocking out of the sun with ash and sulphur crystals, the hypercanes transferring huge amounts of heat energy into the atmosphere (just like with a hurricane, where it is reflected into space), the repeated soaking of these igneous provinces through numerous tsunamis (in the video above somewhere), and the falling of rain from all this steam as it loses heat in the atmosphere. This is the normal global water cycle on fast-forward on a far, far bigger scale than at present. This is true Catastrophism.
Taking into account what I said above, would the Earth’s cooling system on it’s maximum setting find it hard to still overcome that problem? Though the heated limestone would help explain why rocks in surrounding layers as they were deposited and compressed were able to form solid rock with that added heat so quickly.
The main problem pre-Flood was the supercontinent. Water is a brilliant conductor of heat. Rock is a brilliant insulator. The Earth pre-Flood was a single body of water and a single landmass. So the oceans would’ve warmed, yes. However, the ocean currents would’ve been less interrupted by the landmasses as they are today. The would be even better at helping to regulate the planet’s heat than they are today. The supercontinent however was not stable. This was why it would break apart.
God, in His Omniscience, knew that humanity would be corrupted. So He created a World that would be ready for this. As the universe started decaying under the weight of sin, things no longer became perfect. This would lead to a nuclear meltdown in the core. Those subterranean oceans may have helped regulate the planet’s temperature to prevent the surface heating up too much, but they could only do this for so long. This was a time bomb. Noah had 120 years or so to build the Ark. Anyone who listened to his warning could get on; but they didn’t. So the supercontinent’s foundations started warming. After God locked the door behind Noah, the bomb went off.
Nothing in the ocean would’ve been able to survive if it were boiling, yes. Which is why the fact that large bodies of water travelling at different speeds and temperatures (or densities) will not mix is important. By having concentrated areas of heat loss, fuelling the hypercanes above to produce all that rain and transfer heat energy, ocean life would’ve been able to survive in some areas. I have looked at the Deccan and Siberian Traps. Did they both not contribute to massively lowering the planet’s temperature when they formed? You have the blocking out of the sun with ash and sulphur crystals, the hypercanes transferring huge amounts of heat energy into the atmosphere (just like with a hurricane, where it is reflected into space), the repeated soaking of these igneous provinces through numerous tsunamis (in the video above somewhere), and the falling of rain from all this steam as it loses heat in the atmosphere. This is the normal global water cycle on fast-forward on a far, far bigger scale than at present. This is true Catastrophism.
Taking into account what I said above, would the Earth’s cooling system on it’s maximum setting find it hard to still overcome that problem? Though the heated limestone would help explain why rocks in surrounding layers as they were deposited and compressed were able to form solid rock with that added heat so quickly.
G
Gigantals
Guest
We’re talking about a method of cooling that was so efficient that even after all the fountains of the deep had closed and the waters had almost returned to the almost current level, yet managed to cause enough ice and glaciers to form to lower sea levels even further. Taking into account that if all the ice on Earth melted (since it all formed near the end of the Flood), the sea level would be 70m higher; then the ocean levels (at their lowest after the Flood, before they started melting) would have dropped around 200m.
All the heat would be a problem, yes. But there was enough water on the Earth to prevent heating getting too far. Earth isn’t Venus. We have enough water (with all of its special properties concerning heat) to result in enough evaporation and precipitation going on in the accelerated and scaled-up water cycle to keep the Earth cool regardless of what sources of heat there were during the Flood.
It does sound extreme. But God had to be sure to remove every human from the face of the Earth. We don’t know how advanced technology was back then, maybe God needed to turn a few submarines into boilers.
God certainly scoured and steam-cleaned the surface of the Earth. Which makes it truly miraculous that the Ark survived this.
All the heat would be a problem, yes. But there was enough water on the Earth to prevent heating getting too far. Earth isn’t Venus. We have enough water (with all of its special properties concerning heat) to result in enough evaporation and precipitation going on in the accelerated and scaled-up water cycle to keep the Earth cool regardless of what sources of heat there were during the Flood.
It does sound extreme. But God had to be sure to remove every human from the face of the Earth. We don’t know how advanced technology was back then, maybe God needed to turn a few submarines into boilers.
God certainly scoured and steam-cleaned the surface of the Earth. Which makes it truly miraculous that the Ark survived this.
F
Freddy
Guest
The evolution of the current biosphere cannot have happened over a period of 6,000 years. There’s no common ground. The discussion has ended.Freddy:
What do you mean by further discussion, i’m yet to get any credible attempt from evolution point of view.
G
Gigantals
Guest
Ok, I worded it wrong, forgive me. The Earth took many years to get over the consequences of the Flood.
You’re right, it’ll be too hot for water to be there. However, that depends on the pressure of the surrounding rocks on the water, and the content of the water itself. However, the finding of ringwoodite embedded in a diamond near a kimberlite pipe suggests that there is water in the mantle. Ringwoodite requires hydroxide ions and olivine to form, which it did deep within the Earth. In fact, the water isn’t simply just sitting the in the Earth, it’s contained within hydrated minerals and ions. There is a layer of ringwoodite which is abundant in the transition zone of the upper and lower mantle. This mineral contains water trapped between the mineral grains.
Earthquakes help too. Certain seismic waves can’t pass through liquids, whilst some can pass through liquids and solids. This is how we found out the inner core is solid, whilst the outer core is liquid. The mantle is solid, but is on the verge of being a liquid due to the temperature. We know which waves can pass where. And vast pockets of magma, which can only form in the presence of water (carried down in minerals and porous rocks), have been found in the transition zone underneath North America. So whenever you read about magma, it’s because of water.
Most of the products of volcanoes is actually water in the form of steam. It is the steam pressure within volcanoes that can cause them to erupt in sometimes massive explosions.
So if we consider the sheer volume of hydrated minerals between the crust and transition zone, then there really is a lot of water within the earth (it has been described as ‘sopping wet’ previously). And this is further enforced by the presence of ‘cold slabs’. These are old oceanic tectonic plates that are all over the mantle. They are considerably colder than the mantle around them, as they haven’t melted. And this is due to their large water content. There is no other way they could have been subducted this deep. Their sheer size and water content is keeping them cool. They may not be bodies of water, but they contain a lot of water. And that is where all the water has gone. It’s all over the mantle, locked away in massive hydrated mineral deposits.
You’re right, it’ll be too hot for water to be there. However, that depends on the pressure of the surrounding rocks on the water, and the content of the water itself. However, the finding of ringwoodite embedded in a diamond near a kimberlite pipe suggests that there is water in the mantle. Ringwoodite requires hydroxide ions and olivine to form, which it did deep within the Earth. In fact, the water isn’t simply just sitting the in the Earth, it’s contained within hydrated minerals and ions. There is a layer of ringwoodite which is abundant in the transition zone of the upper and lower mantle. This mineral contains water trapped between the mineral grains.
Earthquakes help too. Certain seismic waves can’t pass through liquids, whilst some can pass through liquids and solids. This is how we found out the inner core is solid, whilst the outer core is liquid. The mantle is solid, but is on the verge of being a liquid due to the temperature. We know which waves can pass where. And vast pockets of magma, which can only form in the presence of water (carried down in minerals and porous rocks), have been found in the transition zone underneath North America. So whenever you read about magma, it’s because of water.
Most of the products of volcanoes is actually water in the form of steam. It is the steam pressure within volcanoes that can cause them to erupt in sometimes massive explosions.
So if we consider the sheer volume of hydrated minerals between the crust and transition zone, then there really is a lot of water within the earth (it has been described as ‘sopping wet’ previously). And this is further enforced by the presence of ‘cold slabs’. These are old oceanic tectonic plates that are all over the mantle. They are considerably colder than the mantle around them, as they haven’t melted. And this is due to their large water content. There is no other way they could have been subducted this deep. Their sheer size and water content is keeping them cool. They may not be bodies of water, but they contain a lot of water. And that is where all the water has gone. It’s all over the mantle, locked away in massive hydrated mineral deposits.
G
Gigantals
Guest
Yes, they can’t carbon date anything several million years old. Yet they can date these fossils, which have enough C14 in them to place them in the Ice Ages. The fact that there is enough C14 in them either suggest that the actual method of carbon dating isn’t foolproof (since it’s not a closed system as previously thought), or those creatures actually lived closer to present (I explained why they have a lower level of C14 than even Creationists expect to Rossum above). The labs that carbon dated these fossils cannot emphasise enough that they did not contaminate the specimens, and they ensured the samples they extracted weren’t contaminated. The reason why no one talks about this is because it can’t be explained. There is no way of explaining these results without saying that C14 decays differently than previously thought, there was contaminations (the labs disagree), or they really are young. The soft tissue agrees with a young age too. Here’s a list:
https://kgov.com/bel/20130517
If I bring up carbon-dating dinosaur soft tissue with actual results without there being any contamination, does that not impact on the plausibility of evolution? Dinosaurs clearly can’t be old then (petrification and fossilisation can occur from a matter of hours to weeks by the way), and I’m talking about dinosaurs from all over the Mesozoic. No-one can explain this, which is why it rarely gets into the media.
Evolution certainly is the most supported out of the two, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right. Half the evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution can also support Creationism. If you watch the video above (somewhere), it provides an alternative (and feasible) explanation for the fossil record. I know the idea of a young Earth may be hard for some people to even consider, especially in a slowly secularising culture, but surely a conclusion about which of the two is most supported can only be reached after examining both? I’ve heard to many misconceptions about YEC it’s unbelievable.
https://kgov.com/bel/20130517
If I bring up carbon-dating dinosaur soft tissue with actual results without there being any contamination, does that not impact on the plausibility of evolution? Dinosaurs clearly can’t be old then (petrification and fossilisation can occur from a matter of hours to weeks by the way), and I’m talking about dinosaurs from all over the Mesozoic. No-one can explain this, which is why it rarely gets into the media.
Evolution certainly is the most supported out of the two, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right. Half the evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution can also support Creationism. If you watch the video above (somewhere), it provides an alternative (and feasible) explanation for the fossil record. I know the idea of a young Earth may be hard for some people to even consider, especially in a slowly secularising culture, but surely a conclusion about which of the two is most supported can only be reached after examining both? I’ve heard to many misconceptions about YEC it’s unbelievable.
F
Freddy
Guest
You’ve never made any argument for an alternative. We are still waiting.o_mlly:
Thank you. As you point out, all my arguments are quite logical. For macroevolutionists, not so much.o_mlly:
You’ve never made one. Do you have an alternative to what’s been proposed?
Last edited:
G
Gigantals
Guest
Me a transitional form? This is the wrong context. I can flip this argument on its head. Everything degrades due to the weight of sin on the universe, including us. We once had prefect DNA, and now we can suffer numerous genetic diseases thanks to all the harmful mutations we’ve picked up. God told Noah to take with him two of every ‘baramin’ (created kind) onto the Ark (except aquatic life, of course). Everything is descended from these animals. Every sheep can be traced back to 4 female sheep, we can be traced back to four women (those on the Ark), and further back to two people. Everything on the Ark had to adapt to their new climates. With their pure DNA, they had a lot of potential to experience beneficial mutations. Each baramin gave rise to several species (since we know speciation doesn’t require a lot of time to occur, just a lot of generations). And so we have a great amount of biodiversity on Earth. In the end however, everything is becoming less perfect. A woolly mammoth will never be able to adapt to a warmer environment (even if it could last that long), because too much of its DNA was sacrificed through mutations to have the physiological benefits it currently has. You could find 100 TF from the woolly mammoth to the elephant/mammoth baramin, and all you’d see is specialisation at the expense of its genetic ability to adapt. Trying to find TF between those descended from the same baramin is one thing, but trying to find TF between those from two separate baramin; let alone them all, is pointless.
There is nothing to support the complexity (and I don’t mean specialised as I did above, here I’m talking about an actual significant increase in genetic information) of something like feather evolution. Every time something with feathers has been found, it has always had fully formed feathers. Not protofeathers (I have plenty of those, they’re called hair) or even something to suggest a scale-feather TF. I’ve seen the oldest fossil feather in amber, and it looks fully-formed; like a modern feather. We can see them grow longer, shorter, or change shape. But never something grow in complexity like that. Our patching of the fossil record supports that there were around 16,000 baramin (male and female) on the Ark required to have all the land species we have today. We don’t expect there to be any connection between the baramin, and there aren’t any. At least, none that can be interpreted as only supporting evolution. So we have TFs, which proves our planet’s genetic degradation. But watching people trying to link everything back to a worm using a isolated bones and their imagination is somewhat amusing (what are we, trying to prove we’re related to Mother Earth?).
There’s more, but the reply limit is preventing me.
There is nothing to support the complexity (and I don’t mean specialised as I did above, here I’m talking about an actual significant increase in genetic information) of something like feather evolution. Every time something with feathers has been found, it has always had fully formed feathers. Not protofeathers (I have plenty of those, they’re called hair) or even something to suggest a scale-feather TF. I’ve seen the oldest fossil feather in amber, and it looks fully-formed; like a modern feather. We can see them grow longer, shorter, or change shape. But never something grow in complexity like that. Our patching of the fossil record supports that there were around 16,000 baramin (male and female) on the Ark required to have all the land species we have today. We don’t expect there to be any connection between the baramin, and there aren’t any. At least, none that can be interpreted as only supporting evolution. So we have TFs, which proves our planet’s genetic degradation. But watching people trying to link everything back to a worm using a isolated bones and their imagination is somewhat amusing (what are we, trying to prove we’re related to Mother Earth?).
There’s more, but the reply limit is preventing me.
G
Gigantals
Guest
YOUR model of Earth history says the Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. Ours shows that the large amounts of evaporation and precipitation occurring during the Flood led massive global cooling (I explained this to Rossum above). That’s where out Ice Age comes from. Sometimes, scientists get their conclusions wrong. Lately, several of our sediment deposits that prove of ancient ice ages have turned out to be turbidity currents. For the sea level to be 130m lower than at current levels after the Flood, there would’ve been massive glaciation globally that have since melted.
It doesn’t matter what name it goes under, abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. Experiments by Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani in the 17th and 18th centuries, and finally concluded by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century, showed abiogenesis was wrong. Some people clearly haven’t gotten the message, and so waste billions of dollars (or whatever their currency is) trying to prove it in space instead of using it for something better. We’re clearly not seeing abiogenesis occurring around us, I see no ATP synthase forming by itself without the help of instructions coded in DNA for it. And ATP is needed for the transcription process to eventually produce the ATP synthase in the first place. This system needs to be all together and fully functional for anything to occur. Something this complex won’t work through trial and error (unless of course, it’s done in a lab, through someone making the right conditions and guiding them; but then that’s no longer a natural cause since there’s no randomness) because it simply won’t function. And it’s not like some primitive version of this cycle has been found.
Even if a ‘cell membrane’ had formed, nothing big or polar would’ve been able to enter it without the transport proteins present in the phospholipid bilayer. These aren’t random proteins, they’re specifically coded for by the DNA in the cell in the first place. There wouldn’t be a cytoskeleton to pull vesicles around the cell or give it a controlled shape and overall strength. This ‘primitive cell’ would be so unstable that it wouldn’t be able to form large ‘cells’ without being torn apart. The sheer molecular complexity required for a single cell to work requires everything (within a small range of error, usually sorted out by the nucleus) to function precisely for its role. Everything would need to be present in the very beginning of the cell to allow it to exist for more than a short while. It’s not like we can see half-assembled cells and organelles everywhere.
It doesn’t matter what name it goes under, abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. Experiments by Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani in the 17th and 18th centuries, and finally concluded by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century, showed abiogenesis was wrong. Some people clearly haven’t gotten the message, and so waste billions of dollars (or whatever their currency is) trying to prove it in space instead of using it for something better. We’re clearly not seeing abiogenesis occurring around us, I see no ATP synthase forming by itself without the help of instructions coded in DNA for it. And ATP is needed for the transcription process to eventually produce the ATP synthase in the first place. This system needs to be all together and fully functional for anything to occur. Something this complex won’t work through trial and error (unless of course, it’s done in a lab, through someone making the right conditions and guiding them; but then that’s no longer a natural cause since there’s no randomness) because it simply won’t function. And it’s not like some primitive version of this cycle has been found.
Even if a ‘cell membrane’ had formed, nothing big or polar would’ve been able to enter it without the transport proteins present in the phospholipid bilayer. These aren’t random proteins, they’re specifically coded for by the DNA in the cell in the first place. There wouldn’t be a cytoskeleton to pull vesicles around the cell or give it a controlled shape and overall strength. This ‘primitive cell’ would be so unstable that it wouldn’t be able to form large ‘cells’ without being torn apart. The sheer molecular complexity required for a single cell to work requires everything (within a small range of error, usually sorted out by the nucleus) to function precisely for its role. Everything would need to be present in the very beginning of the cell to allow it to exist for more than a short while. It’s not like we can see half-assembled cells and organelles everywhere.
G
Gigantals
Guest
And there has yet to be an observed case of a cell taking in a foreign structure (I don’t mean molecules, I’m talking about something the size of an organelle) through endocytosis without it being destroyed by the lysosome enzymes (in a lab doesn’t count). There is no way cellular organelles could’ve entered the cell because they are far larger than water and alcohol molecules that can pass through. The cholesterol required to further reinforce the cellular membrane whilst maintaining its fluidity so that endocytosis and exocytosis is possible can only be produced by specific enzymes in cells that require coding and folding to function. This would mean there are already DNA and ribosomes (this is another level of complexity that cannot be achieved without precise assembly and folding) present, but then how did the massive DNA molecule get into the cell? It couldn’t be assembled in the cell, because there are no enzymes yet to assemble it (because it codes those enzymes in the first place). This is a paradox here. The coding is needed to produce the protein, but the protein is needed to translate and replicate the coding.
To actually assemble a working (coding) piece of DNA through randomness, even removing the challenges it would face during assembly, is ridiculous even for one gene. You simply don’t have the time. An average gene of 1000 base pairs has 41000 possibilities, around 10602 which vastly outnumbers the number of atoms in the universe at 1080. If every atom in the universe represented a single experiment every millisecond for the largest estimate of its age (15 billion years), you would have only achieved 10100 combinations. And this is just 1000 functional base pairs. We have considerably more than 1000 base pairs making up functional genes in our genome. This far exceeds the Universal Probability Bound. This also means that for a single cell to somehow assemble (through abiogenesis or spontaneous generation), would have a probability far, far lower than what is statistically feasible (around 10-50, though thermodynamics has a lower value of 10 X 10²³).
Those membranes you’re talking about were basically lipid bubbles. There’s a billion Worlds of difference between them and an actual cell membrane.
Did I not mention that the presence of other organic molecules would have destroyed the early cells and proteins? Alcohol and water can pass through cell membranes and interfere with primitive proteins before they become anything too big (and enough alcohol actually shreds the cell membrane into little bubbles). Sugars would not have been able to pass into the cell because they’re too big and there’s no transport proteins in the cell (since they had yet to be coded first), and thanks to the lack of a cytoskeleton providing structural support, if the cell ripped open, it would not close easily. Anything in that water would’ve entered it. Sugars and alcohols would interfere in amino acid synthesis. So the brackish water would’ve actually made things worse than pure water.
Someone please say something. I have one more thing to put up.
To actually assemble a working (coding) piece of DNA through randomness, even removing the challenges it would face during assembly, is ridiculous even for one gene. You simply don’t have the time. An average gene of 1000 base pairs has 41000 possibilities, around 10602 which vastly outnumbers the number of atoms in the universe at 1080. If every atom in the universe represented a single experiment every millisecond for the largest estimate of its age (15 billion years), you would have only achieved 10100 combinations. And this is just 1000 functional base pairs. We have considerably more than 1000 base pairs making up functional genes in our genome. This far exceeds the Universal Probability Bound. This also means that for a single cell to somehow assemble (through abiogenesis or spontaneous generation), would have a probability far, far lower than what is statistically feasible (around 10-50, though thermodynamics has a lower value of 10 X 10²³).
Those membranes you’re talking about were basically lipid bubbles. There’s a billion Worlds of difference between them and an actual cell membrane.
Did I not mention that the presence of other organic molecules would have destroyed the early cells and proteins? Alcohol and water can pass through cell membranes and interfere with primitive proteins before they become anything too big (and enough alcohol actually shreds the cell membrane into little bubbles). Sugars would not have been able to pass into the cell because they’re too big and there’s no transport proteins in the cell (since they had yet to be coded first), and thanks to the lack of a cytoskeleton providing structural support, if the cell ripped open, it would not close easily. Anything in that water would’ve entered it. Sugars and alcohols would interfere in amino acid synthesis. So the brackish water would’ve actually made things worse than pure water.
Someone please say something. I have one more thing to put up.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
A language is not wired in, the ability to use language is wired in. Also kind of hard to learn to speak a country.
Deaf people may or may not speak a language (See Marlee Matlin for example), but a large percentage use a language (one of many extant sign languages. Make no mistake, these are not “coded English” or “coded Whatever”, they are full languages that developed and evolved within the populations that use them.
Your option, I really don’t care what may or may not be agreeable to you. I only care about truth.
G
Gigantals
Guest
There’s a clear difference between God’s Works and God’s Miracles. One can be studied, the other cannot. Or are you saying that God is an intellectual level that can be achieved one day (pride is the worst of the sins, you know)? Creationists aren’t trying to satisfy their intellectual pride by trying to understand everything. We know that there will be things we can never explain (you cannot explain anything supernatural through natural means, I explained this before). There isn’t God of the Gaps in natural science. I’m trying to understand His Works, as are you. But I know that His Miracles are beyond me. If you believe you can understand His Miracles through science, then you’ve got something wrong. Either they’re not Miracles (since anyone can understand or achieve them), or there’s no God at the end of that investigation.
So if we live on a level in the universe where science breaks down if we get too small, then what’s so hard to understand that if we instead think about the big picture (the Divine Plan) science breaks down there too? We’re talking about Someone who wrote the Laws of the Universe down. Why would His direct actions in that same universe have to abide by those same rules?
In case you didn’t understand, the Casimir Effect is when photons spontaneously pop into existence, then are immediately cancelled out by a negative photon. This may seem like a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it is required for those laws to work.
The magnetic field really is weakening.
Right, that’s the end of that block. Time for lunch.
So if we live on a level in the universe where science breaks down if we get too small, then what’s so hard to understand that if we instead think about the big picture (the Divine Plan) science breaks down there too? We’re talking about Someone who wrote the Laws of the Universe down. Why would His direct actions in that same universe have to abide by those same rules?
In case you didn’t understand, the Casimir Effect is when photons spontaneously pop into existence, then are immediately cancelled out by a negative photon. This may seem like a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it is required for those laws to work.
The magnetic field really is weakening.
Loading…
www.globalresearch.ca
Right, that’s the end of that block. Time for lunch.
F
Freddy
Guest
Say something? How about: ‘Good grief…this guy is a geologist!’
There are times when you realise that we have passed the point at which satire ceases to have any meaning. Everything you have written could be normally taken as someone having a joke at our expense. These threads change the normal expectations.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, I have. Just read my posts.
One can only guess at Fred’s argument. Is this your argument?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Looks like we’re finished. Get back to me when you have a response.
- Status