Other A serious question to atheists...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty sure that out there, in this big world, someone still workships them. Probably some Greek families.
I honestly doubt it.
Same with nearly every ancient god, except those in the far east, Allah, Jesus, God (Judaism worships the same God as Christians, but they don't worship Jesus), and whatever Zoroastrians worship. I forget.
 
Oh ye.
Noah's ark is legit.
Actually, fun fact, turns out it was designed so it couldn't be turned over in the water, and aircraft carriers actually take some of their designs from the ark.

Earth's age is (about) 6,000 years. It makes sense, too.
The flood added tons upon tons upon tons of layers of stuff, so that accounts for the geological layers. God even let us see it happen with Mt. St. Helens and the ash there. Certainly looks like geological layers, but it was actually just ash spread in matters of minutes, not millions of years.
Things can fossilize quicklyish. I read (I don't recall where) that a man left his hat on a mountain and fifty years later, when he found it again, it had fossilized. Now, most of the time, everything decomposes quickly (relatively). But if it's covered in layers upon layers of junk that the worldwide flood forced around crushed the dinosaurs and buried them quickly, then they couldn't decompose naturally. In fact, they'd be decently protected.

Evolution doesn't work.
Macro really doesn't, and I think most people, even evolutionists, agree with that now.
Micro is special.
Adaptations are legit. When, say, a finch on an island with only hard nuts has a big beak, then it makes sense for hem to be able to eat those nuts with said large beak. When the island suddenly runs out of big nuts and all that's left are berries and sunflower seeds, they adapt to the new diet. Now, the big beak still works, but it's better to have a midsized beak. So, over a few dozen years, their bodies naturally adapt to these new circumstances. When the hard nut population rebounds, some finches may readapt to that diet again and grow big beaks, while others maintain their smaller beaks. So then someone walks up to them and announces they are descended of a common ancestor and split up via millions of years of adaption, with birds that surely had MUCH larger beaks becoming extinct after being unable to remain relevant.
Wink, nudge.
Also, I attended a very interesting discussion about how the human reproduction system pretty much disproves evolution.

Fourthly.
Dinosaurs are real.
They filmed them.
They're in a movie called "Jurassic Park," if you ever wanna take a look.

Okay, that's something to work with, I suppose.

1. You make that sound like Noah's ark was actually found and used as a model, which as far as I'm aware, never happened. Actually, I believe people have tried to remake the Ark in exactness to make into a religious science museum with the exact measurements found in the Bible, but they didn't actually have enough space to fit every kind of animal. Additionally, there's also the matter of how those animals spread across the earth afterwards, how they only have fossils found in localized areas despite this, how they didn't kill each other on the Ark, how those two animals happened to stick together and mate, how all of their children survived long enough to also mate until their species population grew large enough, how predators survived without killing said prey that had to survive, and a billion other factors had to exist as well. Especially since, because only micro-evolutions would be allowed, how it is that half the species on Earth were forgotten and rediscovered after having moved to their proper habitat where they just so happened to thrive.

2. I actually read a really awesome article that explained that whether you were Christian or not, you shouldn't believe the Earth is six thousand years old. I tried to find it again to cite, but I suppose it's out of my sight for now. But basically, by reading the rings on trees, we can at least trace the Earth's age back six thousand years. By actually carbon dating fossilized older trees, we get a lot farther back. So I'd like you to tell me how carbon dating is wrong. Then, there's the matter of the rock formations. The flood could not, no matter how much pressure there was, achieve that. The water levels are forever carved into the rock because it was there for a long time, not three days or however long it was. And those carvings appeared like that, because that was where the water level was. If the water level was further above that, pressure wouldn't carve it out like it did. It would've looked very different. And additionally, I can't explain to you the reasons why because I truly don't remember, but I believe most people who have analyzed are in agreement that they guy who determined '6,000 years' was just really bad at math.

3. I'd like to hear whatever you remember of that bit about the human reproduction system. And if that doesn't somehow blow my mind with some amazing insight scientists have never heard of before, I would like you to then tell me the similarities between humans, chimps, apes, and monkeys are entirely coincidental, how scientists were able to work with the similarities between dinosaurs and chickens to actually give chickens dinosaur features was all some big hoax, and how the thousands of fossils of extinct species that trace a perfect evolutionary path towards current day organisms (including pseudo-human fossils of ancestors who lived a lot longer than 6,000 years ago).

And 4. Good to know. And you think it is entirely impossible that some of them were smart enough to survive by chance evolutions which allowed them to acclimate slightly better to their surroundings until they eventually became what we today know as birds? Because as I already said, geneticists can actually look at the genes of chickens and what not, and they clearly see similarities to fossilized dinosaur features.
 
Okay, that's something to work with, I suppose.

1. You make that sound like Noah's ark was actually found and used as a model, which as far as I'm aware, never happened. Actually, I believe people have tried to remake the Ark in exactness to make into a religious science museum with the exact measurements found in the Bible, but they didn't actually have enough space to fit every kind of animal. Additionally, there's also the matter of how those animals spread across the earth afterwards, how they only have fossils found in localized areas despite this, how they didn't kill each other on the Ark, how those two animals happened to stick together and mate, how all of their children survived long enough to also mate until their species population grew large enough, how predators survived without killing said prey that had to survive, and a billion other factors had to exist as well. Especially since, because only micro-evolutions would be allowed, how it is that half the species on Earth were forgotten and rediscovered after having moved to their proper habitat where they just so happened to thrive.

2. I actually read a really awesome article that explained that whether you were Christian or not, you shouldn't believe the Earth is six thousand years old. I tried to find it again to cite, but I suppose it's out of my sight for now. But basically, by reading the rings on trees, we can at least trace the Earth's age back six thousand years. By actually carbon dating fossilized older trees, we get a lot farther back. So I'd like you to tell me how carbon dating is wrong. Then, there's the matter of the rock formations. The flood could not, no matter how much pressure there was, achieve that. The water levels are forever carved into the rock because it was there for a long time, not three days or however long it was. And those carvings appeared like that, because that was where the water level was. If the water level was further above that, pressure wouldn't carve it out like it did. It would've looked very different. And additionally, I can't explain to you the reasons why because I truly don't remember, but I believe most people who have analyzed are in agreement that they guy who determined '6,000 years' was just really bad at math.

3. I'd like to hear whatever you remember of that bit about the human reproduction system. And if that doesn't somehow blow my mind with some amazing insight scientists have never heard of before, I would like you to then tell me the similarities between humans, chimps, apes, and monkeys are entirely coincidental, how scientists were able to work with the similarities between dinosaurs and chickens to actually give chickens dinosaur features was all some big hoax, and how the thousands of fossils of extinct species that trace a perfect evolutionary path towards current day organisms (including pseudo-human fossils of ancestors who lived a lot longer than 6,000 years ago).

And 4. Good to know. And you think it is entirely impossible that some of them were smart enough to survive by chance evolutions which allowed them to acclimate slightly better to their surroundings until they eventually became what we today know as birds? Because as I already said, geneticists can actually look at the genes of chickens and what not, and they clearly see similarities to fossilized dinosaur features.
I see you spent some effort.
1.
That's the creation museum. I've been there.
You see, that's where adaption comes in. Of course they can't fit every species of dog, cat, etc. in the ark.
But can they fit a pair of kittens? A pair of puppies?
A pair of baby T-rexes? rexi?
What is the plural of that, actually?
Anyways, if they used babies, they wouldn't have had to deal with enormous dinosaurs rumbling around the ark.
Besides that, it could be reasoned that any aquatic animals, and possibly some aerial animals could have survived without the ark, though the latter would be stretching it.
(I'll just explain every point line by line for now)
I... can't recall ever hearing about localization of fossils. But if that is true, then it would actually make sense. Personally, I believe Pangea was a thing, and the flood separated the continents rapidly. On that note, it would make sense for dinosaur fossils to be localized to whatever region of Pangea they inhabited.

They were young children confined to pens without the ability to freely hunt and kill. The interior design wasn't the same as the creation museum.

That would probably be two factors.
One, there were literally no other options.
Two, God could enforce it. it's not beyond him to make the animals stick together.

They didn't. The dinosaurs didn't, and the mammoths and stuff were too slow, so they eventually died out too. They maaaay have been helped along a little bit, though... *whistles*
Basically, everything you see today, and even some things you don't, are the ones that could survive long enough to reproduce.

Before the fall in the Garden of Eden, everything was a herbivore. It's not impossible that they were herbivores until after the flood, or that God reverted their behavior to garden-level state until the earth had been mostly rehabilitated.

That would indeed require a miracle. If only there were some way that could happen...
*cough*
Just jesting. Basically, they would wander until they found where they could. They didn't just sit there. Otherwise, Turkey would be the center of life on earth.

2.
Rings on trees are actually really inaccurate. If they had a bad year, they won't actually make a ring for that year. The flip side is also true; if they had a really good one, they could make two or more. The world before the Flood was ecologically pristine. It's actually really simple to think that the trees in those days had more than one ring per year.

I don't remember it right now, but I know there was something about how the half life of carbon-14 isn't more than about 6K years, so after a few half lives, maybe after around 24K years or so, things start to get inaccurate. So carbon dating is probably very, very wrong 50K years or so into it.
I do realize I gave up some ground in my argument, but that's only because I don't recall the argument I had ready about that particular subject.

Much of the water came from inside the earth. It's not improbable that they could have forced movement of continents by sheer force.
Also, if memory serves, it was anywhere from 40 days to a year that the water was above the height of the highest mountains on earth. The water would continue to recede, but it could have been five years that the water could have been covering the majority of the land on earth.

Those who determined 6K years added up the genealogical information in the Bible. All of it. That's how they got to 6,000 years.

3.
Alrighty.
Firstly, there are hundreds of interconnecting parts in each cell, that all need to be working perfectly to work at all, but you knew that, probably.
So that's step 1 of the reproduction.
Step two? Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor that people have been copying off of for real motors, or, alternatively, the egg? Steppity three, how did they get the reproductive organs in the first place to create all this stuff? It can't happen anywhere else in the body. There's a system in place that lets your white blood cells recognize "self" and "non-self." "Self" is chill. "Non-self" is not. ALL sperm, even in a male body, is non-self. So, if it happened anywhere BUT the reproductive organs, it would be screwed up and the phagocytic cells would completely destroy it. Step the fourth, how does it get created? Well, sperm is created in a special place that actually doubles as a wall to keep the white blood cells out. But, of course, without blood and the nutrients it provides, all sperm would be screwed. So the wall triples as a food storage system, a development cradle, and a wall. But that's not all! As the sperm matures, the wall actually moves it back to where the other ones are, ready to be, um, released. Step five. The sperm, of course, needs a way to get from the scrotum to the urethra. HOWEVER, as we all know, the urethra doubles as a urination system. Urination will make the sperm infertile. So, that's why we need the, I believe it's the cowper's gland, to clear out urine AND actually keep the sperm contained and able to swim. You see, sperm doesn't swim around in the scrotum. It's only when it gets the cowper's gland stuff that it begins doing so. So without this CRUCIAL thing, ye can't actually have sperm work. Which, actually, it turns out that sperm has a very rough journey. When it enters a woman, the first thing it touches is the very acidic vagina. That acid is created to keep out bacteria, so it kills anything. Any sperm that touches it, dies. Interestingly enough, the sperm fluid will dampen the effects of the acid. I wonder who put that in there *wink* The next part is the, I believe, the cervix (I probably have most of this terminology wrong, this is all from memory), which has cilia that bat away and force things out. Any sperm caught in that enormous and strong current? Gone. What do you know, the fluid in sperm will make the cilia beat the other way, INTO the woman. *wink* Then, they have to swim past the thousands of phagocytic cells, which, again, recognize the sperm as... Non-self! They'll hunt it down and kill it, and they're faster than sperm. But, wouldn't you know it, that sperm has a countermeasure that will make the phagocytic cells stop functioning briefly. Now, it's IMPORTANT to note that they can't make it recognize it as self. They can only make it chill out. And, of course, there are few eggs themselves. It's quite hit-or-miss. But wouldn't you know it, sperm can actually detect and find the egg all by themselves! And, with my gaming skills, I'd say that's quite a feat to hit something first try. BUT! BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT!! If more than one sperm connects, they will end up mutating the baby into a cancer with skin, bones, teeth, and hair. (It's disgusting) So, what is an egg to do? Simply, of course, electrify itself so that when one has finished, anything still connecting is forced away from it. In addition, sperm need to connect to something special to even enter the egg. SO! When one sperm connects, the other connector thingies basically hide away, so no more can connect. There are far more examples in the man's lecture, but this is about all I can remember.

Ok. They aren't, though.
They have similar designs.
BUT!
If you pick and choose the DNA strands, you can actually get pretty close. But, if you can get a full set of DNA, like they only did very, very recently, you'll find a 53% difference, not the previously thought 96%. 96% is picking and choosing an ideal set of DNA, which isn't that bad a concept. But compared as-is, 53%, while close, is a lot farther than 96%.

Sorry, that one confused me. They gave a chicken dinosaur features? When was this?
I probably have that very wrong, please clarify ;-;

I'd like to interject with the phrases "nobody's perfect" and "adaption" and "missing link."
Also, shoot, I had a diagram for this very question, but I think I burned it with my sixth grade homework.
Dang it!
All the same, I regret nothing.

4.
No.
Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
Birds are birds.
I think that since the dinosaurs couldn't acclimate fast enough, they died off.
They were jungle creatures, and while we certainly have jungles today, the pre-flood earth's ecological condition was pristine. Heck, we have 21% oxygen in our air nowadays, and they had like 26%. Compared to those lush environments, our rainforests are like trees on a golf course.
And soon, then dinosaurs became like trees on a golf course as well.
And ye, there will be similarities between creatures.
God is infinite, but he's not stupid. If GGAGGAG works for dinosaurs AND chickens, well, then, let them both have GGAGGAG!
Still, though.
Those are my thoughts, and I am by NO means an expert.

Axel The Englishman Axel The Englishman NEVEERRRRRRR
 
Last edited:
I see you spent some effort.
1.
That's the creation museum. I've been there.
You see, that's where adaption comes in. Of course they can't fit every species of dog, cat, etc. in the ark.
But can they fit a pair of kittens? A pair of puppies?
A pair of baby T-rexes? rexi?
What is the plural of that, actually?
Anyways, if they used babies, they wouldn't have had to deal with enormous dinosaurs rumbling around the ark.
Besides that, it could be reasoned that any aquatic animals, and possibly some aerial animals could have survived without the ark, though the latter would be stretching it.
(I'll just explain every point line by line for now)
I... can't recall ever hearing about localization of fossils. But if that is true, then it would actually make sense. Personally, I believe Pangea was a thing, and the flood separated the continents rapidly. On that note, it would make sense for dinosaur fossils to be localized to whatever region of Pangea they inhabited.

They were young children confined to pens without the ability to freely hunt and kill. The interior design wasn't the same as the creation museum.

That would probably be two factors.
One, there were literally no other options.
Two, God could enforce it. it's not beyond him to make the animals stick together.

They didn't. The dinosaurs didn't, and the mammoths and stuff were too slow, so they eventually died out too. They maaaay have been helped along a little bit, though... *whistles*
Basically, everything you see today, and even some things you don't, are the ones that could survive long enough to reproduce.

Before the fall in the Garden of Eden, everything was a herbivore. It's not impossible that they were herbivores until after the flood, or that God reverted their behavior to garden-level state until the earth had been mostly rehabilitated.

That would indeed require a miracle. If only there were some way that could happen...
*cough*
Just jesting. Basically, they would wander until they found where they could. They didn't just sit there. Otherwise, Turkey would be the center of life on earth.

2.
Rings on trees are actually really inaccurate. If they had a bad year, they won't actually make a ring for that year. The flip side is also true; if they had a really good one, they could make two or more. The world before the Flood was ecologically pristine. It's actually really simple to think that the trees in those days had more than one ring per year.

I don't remember it right now, but I know there was something about how the half life of carbon-14 isn't more than about 6K years, so after a few half lives, maybe after around 24K years or so, things start to get inaccurate. So carbon dating is probably very, very wrong 50K years or so into it.
I do realize I gave up some ground in my argument, but that's only because I don't recall the argument I had ready about that particular subject.

Much of the water came from inside the earth. It's not improbable that they could have forced movement of continents by sheer force.
Also, if memory serves, it was anywhere from 40 days to a year that the water was above the height of the highest mountains on earth. The water would continue to recede, but it could have been five years that the water could have been covering the majority of the land on earth.

Those who determined 6K years added up the genealogical information in the Bible. All of it. That's how they got to 6,000 years.

3.
Alrighty.
Firstly, there are hundreds of interconnecting parts in each cell, that all need to be working perfectly to work at all, but you knew that, probably.
So that's step 1 of the reproduction.
Step two? Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor that people have been copying off of for real motors, or, alternatively, the egg? Steppity three, how did they get the reproductive organs in the first place to create all this stuff? It can't happen anywhere else in the body. There's a system in place that lets your white blood cells recognize "self" and "non-self." "Self" is chill. "Non-self" is not. ALL sperm, even in a male body, is non-self. So, if it happened anywhere BUT the reproductive organs, it would be screwed up and the phagocytic cells would completely destroy it. Step the fourth, how does it get created? Well, sperm is created in a special place that actually doubles as a wall to keep the white blood cells out. But, of course, without blood and the nutrients it provides, all sperm would be screwed. So the wall triples as a food storage system, a development cradle, and a wall. But that's not all! As the sperm matures, the wall actually moves it back to where the other ones are, ready to be, um, released. Step five. The sperm, of course, needs a way to get from the scrotum to the urethra. HOWEVER, as we all know, the urethra doubles as a urination system. Urination will make the sperm infertile. So, that's why we need the, I believe it's the cowper's gland, to clear out urine AND actually keep the sperm contained and able to swim. You see, sperm doesn't swim around in the scrotum. It's only when it gets the cowper's gland stuff that it begins doing so. So without this CRUCIAL thing, ye can't actually have sperm work. Which, actually, it turns out that sperm has a very rough journey. When it enters a woman, the first thing it touches is the very acidic vagina. That acid is created to keep out bacteria, so it kills anything. Any sperm that touches it, dies. Interestingly enough, the sperm fluid will dampen the effects of the acid. I wonder who put that in there *wink* The next part is the, I believe, the cervix (I probably have most of this terminology wrong, this is all from memory), which has cilia that bat away and force things out. Any sperm caught in that enormous and strong current? Gone. What do you know, the fluid in sperm will make the cilia beat the other way, INTO the woman. *wink* Then, they have to swim past the thousands of phagocytic cells, which, again, recognize the sperm as... Non-self! They'll hunt it down and kill it, and they're faster than sperm. But, wouldn't you know it, that sperm has a countermeasure that will make the phagocytic cells stop functioning briefly. Now, it's IMPORTANT to note that they can't make it recognize it as self. They can only make it chill out. And, of course, there are few eggs themselves. It's quite hit-or-miss. But wouldn't you know it, sperm can actually detect and find the egg all by themselves! And, with my gaming skills, I'd say that's quite a feat to hit something first try. BUT! BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT!! If more than one sperm connects, they will end up mutating the baby into a cancer with skin, bones, teeth, and hair. (It's disgusting) So, what is an egg to do? Simply, of course, electrify itself so that when one has finished, anything still connecting is forced away from it. In addition, sperm need to connect to something special to even enter the egg. SO! When one sperm connects, the other connector thingies basically hide away, so no more can connect. There are far more examples in the man's lecture, but this is about all I can remember.

Ok. They aren't, though.
They have similar designs.
BUT!
If you pick and choose the DNA strands, you can actually get pretty close. But, if you can get a full set of DNA, like they only did very, very recently, you'll find a 53% difference, not the previously thought 96%. 96% is picking and choosing an ideal set of DNA, which isn't that bad a concept. But compared as-is, 53%, while close, is a lot farther than 96%.

Sorry, that one confused me. They gave a chicken dinosaur features? When was this?
I probably have that very wrong, please clarify ;-;

I'd like to interject with the phrases "nobody's perfect" and "adaption" and "missing link."
Also, shoot, I had a diagram for this very question, but I think I burned it with my sixth grade homework.
Dang it!
All the same, I regret nothing.

4.
No.
Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
Birds are birds.
I think that since the dinosaurs couldn't acclimate fast enough, they died off.
They were jungle creatures, and while we certainly have jungles today, the pre-flood earth's ecological condition was pristine. Heck, we have 21% oxygen in our air nowadays, and they had like 26%. Compared to those lush environments, our rainforests are like trees on a golf course.
And soon, then dinosaurs became like trees on a golf course as well.
And ye, there will be similarities between creatures.
God is infinite, but he's not stupid. If GGAGGAG works for dinosaurs AND chickens, well, then, let them both have GGAGGAG!
Still, though.
Those are my thoughts, and I am by NO means an expert.

Axel The Englishman Axel The Englishman NEVEERRRRRRR

Alright, I feel we're both working hard on our answers to create a very well reasoned debate, so this is good.

1. Okay, so you have two of every infant creature on Earth. Including dinosaurs, apparently. Now, since you said that this was a place where they couldn't hurt each other, that means they each had there own area, which means with a bit of math we can calculate that we have (drum roll) not nearly enough space, even with infant creatures. Especially considering you would need to feed all of these creatures for all of this time, and storing all of that food would take even more space. You would also need God to intervene and allow the food to be in the pens with the animals while also giving the animals self-control to not eat it all at once and then starve, because there's no way Noah could've fed them all.

Next up, you just stated that at this point, all animals could've been herbivores. Which means that, A. the predators would've had to evolve from the herbivore's, which is definitely a big enough change to be considered full-scale evolution. It also means that, B. All of the vegetation had to survive that entire time underwater. I don't know if you've ever tried to water your plant and seen it die that way, but plants can definitely be over-watered, and 150 days of flooding plus 220 days of receding waters (I looked it up.) would definitely kill most all land-based plant life on Earth. Where do we get food then? Or if they were kept alive by a "miracle", why didn't God just do that for the animals too and just tell Noah to build a little dingy to keep him and his family alive. Or better yet, he could make them immune to the effects of water too!

Also, if all creatures were herbivores at this time and the Earth is as young as you say it is, when was the flood? Because I guarantee we can find older carnivores fossils.

2. Sure, I don't care enough about tree rings to argue that, but carbon dating is reliable. Yes, it can get shaky enough that you can't get a to the date reading, but it's not going to be thousands of years off until you go far enough back that thousands of years are insignificant. I can tell you that with certainty.

I did a three second Google. It was flooded for 150 days, and then receded for 220. I didn't bother to go through for the accuracy of the sources, but Google was confident in that answer so so am I. Even if the water created the lines after only one day (which isn't possible), there still wouldn't be enough lines.

Additionally, I'd like to ask you, if the water got high enough to cover the highest mountain on Earth, where did all this water go? If you say into the atmosphere and the ground, then yes, that would account for a very small percentage of that. I'll do the math on this if I have to, but God would've had to have created all that water just for that one purpose, and then simply make it disappear into nothingness when he was done. Even if God is real and he does do miracle's, God has no reason not to play by his own playbook (that being the laws of physics).

3. Bravo, you just explained a hundred processes that have to work for an organism to work. And if humans were the only creatures on Earth with a reproductive system, I'd agree with you here. Instead, though, all advanced life has this, and simpler organisms have simpler systems. The system could have definitely been built up little by little over billions of years. But actually, I don't think it could be built twice in that time, wihch means... all animals stemmed from a common ancestor, thereby proving evolution. Or, if God just kept going from the same recipe book, like you said, how does he expect anyone to find anyway to even remotely confirm his existence. Now you may respond with "that's the point because faith," but my response to that is, if I was God, not even I would be convoluted enough to tell people that if they don't believe in me I'm going to make them burn in a fiery hell for all eternity and then just disappear for two thousand years without any solid evidence I was ever there in the first place. If that's the type of God we're dealing with, I'd happily take Hell just to prove a point. So I'm expecting God, if real, to have some kind of evidence here.

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-grown-dinosaur-legs-on-a-chicken-for-the-first-time And before you say that's fake, here's one from Google Scholar: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...f-Birds-a-Analogs-for-Dinosaur-Locomotion.pdf
It's been a while since it happened, but chickens totally have the DNA necessary for many dinosaur things. Btw, if those links are weird I only glanced through them, but I'm pretty sure they're talking about the right thing.

4. So tell me then, why didn't dinosaurs survive off of the arc? And why did dinosaurs have teeth for tearing into things if everything was a herbivore at that time? Because there are dinosaurs with teeth for eating plants, and dinosaurs are different, along with many other carnivores.
 
Tell ya what.
I have english homework due at midnight tonight, and tonight is rapidly approaching.
I'll come back and do my best upon the morrow.
How does that sound?
 
Tell ya what.
I have english homework due at midnight tonight, and tonight is rapidly approaching.
I'll come back and do my best upon the morrow.
How does that sound?
Yeah, I'm keen to jump on this when I'm not at work. Especially that evolution stuff because, what a great topic, eh?

Something I'd like to add, but it'd be pretty great if we could provide sources on some things like the literal existence of the arc and it's designs. I understand that there's not always time but that's a big one.
 
Tell ya what.
I have english homework due at midnight tonight, and tonight is rapidly approaching.
I'll come back and do my best upon the morrow.
How does that sound?
I'll eagerly await your replies until then. It's about time for me to head off for the night as well, anyways.

Yeah, I'm keen to jump on this when I'm not at work. Especially that evolution stuff because, what a great topic, eh?

Something I'd like to add, but it'd be pretty great if we could provide sources on some things like the literal existence of the arc and it's designs. I understand that there's not always time but that's a big one.

I hope you'll join in with your own thoughts when you get the chance, then. And I agree with the sentiment on more proof, as if the arc was a known built thing that would be a pretty big deal all around.
 
Before I go off to discuss Julius Caesar,
You did take into account two of each type of animal, right?
Two dogs, not two wolves, pugs, poodles, golden retrievers, etc.
And iron, the only evidence for the ark is the Bible, purely because it would have rotted away. It was left on top of a mountain for 4-5K years.
 
Before I go off to discuss Julius Caesar,
You did take into account two of each type of animal, right?
Two dogs, not two wolves, pugs, poodles, golden retrievers, etc.
Yes, I'm still fairly certain if you only took two of each species of animal, you still wouldn't have enough room.
 
Biggest thing is dinosaurs.
And if they aren't carnivores, they can be packed in. If they are, they need to be spread out.
But, what if they're newly hatched?
Hmm?
They don't need a ton of food, they don't NEED to reproduce quickly because they have their whole lives ahead of them, they're absolutely TINY, etc.
 
Biggest thing is dinosaurs.
And if they aren't carnivores, they can be packed in. If they are, they need to be spread out.
But, what if they're newly hatched?
Hmm?
They don't need a ton of food, they don't NEED to reproduce quickly because they have their whole lives ahead of them, they're absolutely TINY, etc.
Well they couldn't be too young, because there are a lot of species that need to give birth to a lot of offspring simply because only a very small percentage of their young survive. At the very least, everything on that boat needs to be weaned, and that gives everything at least a bit of size.
 
But still, the boat's pretty big.
According to my pastor, the ark was only a quarter full.
Not sure if that's exact, but it sounds about right, having actually BEEN to the creation museum.
 
Hm... I'll do some calculations and see what I can come up with, that way we don't have just "Well I think"'s to work off of. For now, though, I think I'll go ahead and sign off to help you stop your procrastination.
 
Hm... I'll do some calculations and see what I can come up with, that way we don't have just "Well I think"'s to work off of. For now, though, I think I'll go ahead and sign off to help you stop your procrastination.
NEVER
I AM THE CHIEF OF PROCRASTINATION
I'm PMing people on fanfiction.net to get out of work.

But K.
Gl!
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm = Number of species in the world. Now naturally this includes diferent species of frog and bugs and birds and what not, but right now I'm working with species because different species cannot inter-breed and therefore nothing could have been excluded with evolution. And we're only using the land count of 6.5 millio- oh wait, what's this site!!!

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Juveniles_of_large_animals_were_taken_aboard

I was starting to calculate but this stopped me in my tracks. This does most of my work for me. Look through that and it has plenty of answers.
 
I see.
Basically, the only one I even had an issue with was the second one.
The first, God called to them. He already opened and closed the door. You expect Noah went out throughout the world and grabbed two of every kind of animal? That was supernatural, man.

Socialization with who?
Oh right, the one other companion.
Well, that's not too hard, now is it? God wouldn't have to stretch too much. After all, he did already create everything we know and more.

The third is because one was built by man and the other by God, holy creator of, what else now?
Oh right, the universe.
Number four is just a summary of the previous three claims.


Also, just wanna share something cool with you.
Mandelbrot set.
God left us a pattern in math that we couldn't detect until the 80's.
In MATH!

Also yay!
English is done!
Good night!
 
GUESS WHO'S BACK

What does a Mandelbrot set have to do with God? Having spent the last twenty minutes researching that connection, no one has been able to say anything that logically amounts to more than "Well, infinity is like, y'know, cool man."

Its a simple mathematical concept that just happens to be infinite. What's the big deal?
 
3.
Alrighty.
Firstly, there are hundreds of interconnecting parts in each cell, that all need to be working perfectly to work at all, but you knew that, probably.
So that's step 1 of the reproduction.
Step two? Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor that people have been copying off of for real motors, or, alternatively, the egg? Steppity three, how did they get the reproductive organs in the first place to create all this stuff? It can't happen anywhere else in the body. There's a system in place that lets your white blood cells recognize "self" and "non-self." "Self" is chill. "Non-self" is not. ALL sperm, even in a male body, is non-self. So, if it happened anywhere BUT the reproductive organs, it would be screwed up and the phagocytic cells would completely destroy it. Step the fourth, how does it get created? Well, sperm is created in a special place that actually doubles as a wall to keep the white blood cells out. But, of course, without blood and the nutrients it provides, all sperm would be screwed. So the wall triples as a food storage system, a development cradle, and a wall. But that's not all! As the sperm matures, the wall actually moves it back to where the other ones are, ready to be, um, released. Step five. The sperm, of course, needs a way to get from the scrotum to the urethra. HOWEVER, as we all know, the urethra doubles as a urination system. Urination will make the sperm infertile. So, that's why we need the, I believe it's the cowper's gland, to clear out urine AND actually keep the sperm contained and able to swim. You see, sperm doesn't swim around in the scrotum. It's only when it gets the cowper's gland stuff that it begins doing so. So without this CRUCIAL thing, ye can't actually have sperm work. Which, actually, it turns out that sperm has a very rough journey. When it enters a woman, the first thing it touches is the very acidic vagina. That acid is created to keep out bacteria, so it kills anything. Any sperm that touches it, dies. Interestingly enough, the sperm fluid will dampen the effects of the acid. I wonder who put that in there *wink* The next part is the, I believe, the cervix (I probably have most of this terminology wrong, this is all from memory), which has cilia that bat away and force things out. Any sperm caught in that enormous and strong current? Gone. What do you know, the fluid in sperm will make the cilia beat the other way, INTO the woman. *wink* Then, they have to swim past the thousands of phagocytic cells, which, again, recognize the sperm as... Non-self! They'll hunt it down and kill it, and they're faster than sperm. But, wouldn't you know it, that sperm has a countermeasure that will make the phagocytic cells stop functioning briefly. Now, it's IMPORTANT to note that they can't make it recognize it as self. They can only make it chill out. And, of course, there are few eggs themselves. It's quite hit-or-miss. But wouldn't you know it, sperm can actually detect and find the egg all by themselves! And, with my gaming skills, I'd say that's quite a feat to hit something first try. BUT! BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT!! If more than one sperm connects, they will end up mutating the baby into a cancer with skin, bones, teeth, and hair. (It's disgusting) So, what is an egg to do? Simply, of course, electrify itself so that when one has finished, anything still connecting is forced away from it. In addition, sperm need to connect to something special to even enter the egg. SO! When one sperm connects, the other connector thingies basically hide away, so no more can connect. There are far more examples in the man's lecture, but this is about all I can remember.

Ok. They aren't, though.
They have similar designs.
BUT!
If you pick and choose the DNA strands, you can actually get pretty close. But, if you can get a full set of DNA, like they only did very, very recently, you'll find a 53% difference, not the previously thought 96%. 96% is picking and choosing an ideal set of DNA, which isn't that bad a concept. But compared as-is, 53%, while close, is a lot farther than 96%.

Sorry, that one confused me. They gave a chicken dinosaur features? When was this?
I probably have that very wrong, please clarify ;-;

I'd like to interject with the phrases "nobody's perfect" and "adaption" and "missing link."
Also, shoot, I had a diagram for this very question, but I think I burned it with my sixth grade homework.
Dang it!
All the same, I regret nothing.

4.
No.
Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
Birds are birds.
I think that since the dinosaurs couldn't acclimate fast enough, they died off.
They were jungle creatures, and while we certainly have jungles today, the pre-flood earth's ecological condition was pristine. Heck, we have 21% oxygen in our air nowadays, and they had like 26%. Compared to those lush environments, our rainforests are like trees on a golf course.
And soon, then dinosaurs became like trees on a golf course as well.
And ye, there will be similarities between creatures.
God is infinite, but he's not stupid. If GGAGGAG works for dinosaurs AND chickens, well, then, let them both have GGAGGAG!
Still, though.
Those are my thoughts, and I am by NO means an expert.

Axel The Englishman Axel The Englishman NEVEERRRRRRR

Okay, so there is a lot I'd love to discuss, but I think the best thing would be to tackle the evolution stuff.

So, right off the bat you've got a problem that a lot of people who don't think evolution will work; You're only at 4/5ths on the frame of mind or the understanding of it. What i'm talking about is:
"Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor"
No one told them. You probably know that, but lets not even use that language (Not that I didn't say 'you don't believe in evolution' either?). Evolution is a constant barrage of small, accidental changes. The only thing that makes it intelligent is the 'survival of the fittest' mechanism culling the loser changes. But there has to be a reason for particular changes to survive compared to the alternatives.

Reproductive Tails
For the sperm tails, you've got to take a step back. No one forms a whole tail 'like that'. At least, its unlikely. Much more likely is a little protein in the cell wall that allowed the sperm to move forward by deforming the wall. Because, if you think about it, sperm would probably work fine being 'fired' into a mate and given the chance to drift about. Fertility would be less likely, but it could still happen. BUT. If your sperm started moving a little they are way better off. Even if they all run in opposite directions, there will be a few that go the right way.
Now this is a great example too because we can see directly how this tiny improvement would have a HUGE impact on reproductive success.

Now, thats speculation my speculation, but it is also a good (theoretical) example of evolution. I don't know where sperm tails came from but I will throw out this short video explaining how proteins make your muscles work. http://study.com/academy/lesson/muscle-contraction-actin-and-myocin-bonding.html Please hit me up if you have questions.

(Also, I expect you want to tell me that these crappy, slow moving sperm would dissolve in the acidic environment, or would not be able to make it through the fairly complex architecture of the female genitalia. Remember that women evolved along side men. Its likely that when sperm were much simpler, so were vaginas and fallopian tubes. There probably were females who had mutations causing high acidity, but they couldn't breed until sperm became more resilient so they did not direct evolution in the wrong direction)

Real example - single cell eye
So, a real example from actual researchers (Sadly I can only find articles, not the paper). Anyway, take an eye. Its hard to see how an eye could form. But here is a single cell organism with a perfect analogy of an eye. A bowing in the cell wall allows it to focus light like your eyes cornea and lense and a photosensitive chemical (I think) acts as the detector, much your your far more complex retina. The thing I like about this is that all of these elements exist in a cell anyway. It just happens that they have aligned here to serve a whole new purpose.
Heres a link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/single-cell-eyeball-creature-startles-scientists

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs
Here a link I'd prefer, mostly because its about the skull, rather than the legs. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur
Heres how that works: You don't use all of your DNA.
If you think about that it makes a lot of sense. You only grow arms (hopefully) where you're supposed to. But the cells in your arm get all the same DNA as every other cells. They filter out the 'arm' DNA (I've forgotten how exactly) so that you only get those cells where you need them. That 'filter' is also effected but the random mutations of evolution,which acts to random;y turn on an off which parts of your DNA are affect which parts of your body.
In some cases, there are entire sections of DNA that are not actually used (So my biologist friend tells me). There are also likely parts of your DNA that are used in different areas of your body. For example, I'd say there is some good overlap between an arm and a leg, but obviously they would get a few different parts as well.

So, the chickens. Essentially, the scientists have turned off some elements of DNA, or turned on others by changing that filtering effect and its resulted in a chicken that grew a skull much more similar to a dinosaur. Actually, in that article, they give an alligator skull for comparison. Its not proof that chickens are dinosaurs, but it does suggest that they are related.

Tell me if you have questions about any of this.
 
Last edited:
BEFORE I discuss any of it, out of respect for any young viewers, would you mind putting that in spoilers?
Yeah, if you like.

Okay, so there is a lot I'd love to discuss, but I think the best thing would be to tackle the evolution stuff.

So, right off the bat you've got a problem that a lot of people who don't think evolution will work; You're only at 4/5ths on the frame of mind or the understanding of it. What i'm talking about is:
"Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor"
No one told them. You probably know that, but lets not even use that language (Not that I didn't say 'you don't believe in evolution' either?). Evolution is a constant barrage of small, accidental changes. The only thing that makes it intelligent is the 'survival of the fittest' mechanism culling the loser changes. But there has to be a reason for particular changes to survive compared to the alternatives.

Reproductive Tails
For the sperm tails, you've got to take a step back. No one forms a whole tail 'like that'. At least, its unlikely. Much more likely is a little protein in the cell wall that allowed the sperm to move forward by deforming the wall. Because, if you think about it, sperm would probably work fine being 'fired' into a mate and given the chance to drift about. Fertility would be less likely, but it could still happen. BUT. If your sperm started moving a little they are way better off. Even if they all run in opposite directions, there will be a few that go the right way.
Now this is a great example too because we can see directly how this tiny improvement would have a HUGE impact on reproductive success.

Now, thats speculation my speculation, but it is also a good (theoretical) example of evolution. I don't know where sperm tails came from but I will throw out this short video explaining how proteins make your muscles work. http://study.com/academy/lesson/muscle-contraction-actin-and-myocin-bonding.html Please hit me up if you have questions.

(Also, I expect you want to tell me that these crappy, slow moving sperm would dissolve in the acidic environment, or would not be able to make it through the fairly complex architecture of the female genitalia. Remember that women evolved along side men. Its likely that when sperm were much simpler, so were vaginas and fallopian tubes. There probably were females who had mutations causing high acidity, but they couldn't breed until sperm became more resilient so they did not direct evolution in the wrong direction)

Real example - single cell eye
So, a real example from actual researchers (Sadly I can only find articles, not the paper). Anyway, take an eye. Its hard to see how an eye could form. But here is a single cell organism with a perfect analogy of an eye. A bowing in the cell wall allows it to focus light like your eyes cornea and lense and a photosensitive chemical (I think) acts as the detector, much your your far more complex retina. The thing I like about this is that all of these elements exist in a cell anyway. It just happens that they have aligned here to serve a whole new purpose.
Heres a link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/single-cell-eyeball-creature-startles-scientists

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs
Here a link I'd prefer, mostly because its about the skull, rather than the legs. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur
Heres how that works: You don't use all of your DNA.
If you think about that it makes a lot of sense. You only grow arms (hopefully) where you're supposed to. But the cells in your arm get all the same DNA as every other cells. They filter out the 'arm' DNA (I've forgotten how exactly) so that you only get those cells where you need them. That 'filter' is also effected but the random mutations of evolution,which acts to random;y turn on an off which parts of your DNA are affect which parts of your body.
In some cases, there are entire sections of DNA that are not actually used (So my biologist friend tells me). There are also likely parts of your DNA that are used in different areas of your body. For example, I'd say there is some good overlap between an arm and a leg, but obviously they would get a few different parts as well.

So, the chickens. Essentially, the scientists have turned off some elements of DNA, or turned on others by changing that filtering effect and its resulted in a chicken that grew a skull much more similar to a dinosaur. Actually, in that article, they give an alligator skull for comparison. Its not proof that chickens are dinosaurs, but it does suggest that they are related.

Tell me if you have questions about any of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top