Are You Ready?

[Pacem]

then you're ********.

If you believe in evolution, then YOU are the one that is ******** and mentally deficient, not me. LOL

I can prove it's false... can you prove the Bible is wrong anywhere?

 

[Mishkam]

Can you give some examples of where it's been proven wrong?

ok...


the bible calls Bats birds... wrong
the bible says the earth is flat... wrong
the bible says the moon has its own light... wrong
the bible says the earth is the center of the solar system.. wrong
there are countless mistranslations that have led to wrong beliefes.. the "virgin" mary... spare the "rod" spoil the child... etc.
the bible talks of Unicorns.... no such animal


how long you got???

 

[Mishkam]

I can prove it's false...

do it.


I could use the laugh.

 

[Pacem]

do it.


I could use the laugh.

Upside down Evolution
Evolution is supposed to be simpler to more complex creatures.
So it would also stand to reason that the length of the genetic code would be longer as well. This list lists the number of base pairs in each organizm, from least to greatest.



Length of genetic code
From least to most:
Algae-541,000
Bacteria: 4,639,000
Rice: 400,000,000
Oyster: 700,000,000
Fly: 900,000,000
Soybean: 1,115,000,000
Mouse: 3,000,000,000
Dog: 3,355,500,000
Human: 3,400,000,000
Chimp: 3,799,600,000
Anteater: 5,763,500,000
Toad: 6,900,000,000
Red Pine: 68,000,000,000
Easter Lily: 90,000,000,000
Lung Fish: 139,000,000,000
And topping the scales is the Amoeba with a grand total of 670,000,000,000 base pares, which according to evolution, is supposed to be at the BEGINNING of the list, not the end.
The chimp and human genome is 98.4% identical. However, that 1.4% difference adds up to roughly 48,000,000 nucleotides.
Therefore, you need to make 48,000,000 changes to convert a chimp into a human. Scientists believe that at most THREE CHANGES will kill. Even one change is enough to kill. On top of that, the chimp genome is 10% larger than the human genome!
We're not even that closely related to ourselves. The DNA you inherit from your mother and father are at best 93% similar.
Now, we know that we're closely related to chimps... the 98.4%. But what if that 2% difference told the rest of the 98% how to function? What a difference that would make!
"A number of scientists have tried to calculate the possability of life arising by chance." says Mark Eastman, M.D., author of Creator Beyond Time and Space. He goes on to say that Sir Fred Hoyle, a British methematician, estimated that the mathematical probability of the 2000 protiens in an Amoeba arising by chance is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. In other words, a 10 with 40,000 zeros in front of it!

Consider further, in order to form just one protein in the over 60,000 specific proteins, each tagged with a sort of "zip code", existing in over 100 different configurations in every cell in the human body (over one hundred trillion of them) you would have to take all of your amino acids (a 1 in 20 choice) and randomly shuffle them 1,584,404,390,701,447,511,851,344,842,446,800 + 200 zeros times PER SECOND... yes, per second, over 20 billion years.
If you would like to see the actual number drawn out, here it is:
1,584,404,390,701,447,511,851,344,842,446,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
The four letters in DNA that make up the programming cells need to do what is needed for our survival did not arise by chance. People have speculated they came together randomly in the first cells, then evolution after that. However, there are absolutely no bonds between any of the four letters. The only bonds are between the letters and the backbone of the DNA structure (the double helix). If they came together by chance, they would be jibberish at best.

Every example evolutionists have posed as proof of evolution, or as missing links between us and apes has been proven false after further study, and the finders of such evidences humiliated.

Here are just some examples:

Java Man
This finding, in 1891 was nothing more than a skullcap, three teeth and a thighbone, found later to be a large gibbon. Yet this small finding has "evolved" into the textbook drawings of full form figures we see today.

Piltdown Man
Found in 1912 in England, were found to have been faked. These fossils were supposedly found in a grave pit.

Nebraska Man
A single tooth was found in 1922, the finder proclaiming it to be evidence of the "missing link". It was later found to be the tooth of an extinct type of pig (when compared to other findings of pig fossils of this type).

Peking Man
This controversal finding in 1928 was questionable from the beginning, and the evidence has since disappeared.

Ramapithecus
Found in 1932, a set of teeth and jaw fragment, was concluded to be a true ape similar to the orangutan.

Australopithecines
Found in Ethiopia in 1972, this was a 40% complete skeleton of an extinct ape similar to the modern day pygmy chimpanzee.

Neandertal Man
This creature is particularly interesting. I give no date for the Neandertal finding for one reason. Current scientific reseach into this "species" of man has found that the brain capacity was equal to, or greater than our own today. Further, Neandertal DNA is almost exactly identical to our own if not 100% equal. Bear in mind with this finding, that the members of your family share the exact same differences in DNA. So there is no date for the Neandertal finding, because they are us, 100% human.

And lastly, a humorous finding...

Flipperpithecus
A bone was found, that evolutionists concluded to be the clavical of a primitave form of man, proving, they say, the missing link between ape and modern day man. Studies were performed on this bone, and it was found to be the rib bone of a white sided dolphin, earning it this humorous nickname.

Evolution/Old Earth
There have been findings around the world that seem to refute the evidence of evolution and an old earth. Fossilized footprints found in Texas show a set of fully human footprints, like those you'd find along any beach today, and the footprints of a type of dinosaur walking right along beside the human prints, in the exact same strata, side by side. This finding can lend credence to the Bible account of man existing alongside dinosaurs, possibly even domesticating some of them. Tracks are made today of human prints and horse, cattle or camel prints side by side.

There are other findings of human-dino prints. In one example, the dino print is warping the human print, telling the ground was still soft and/or muddy when they were made, and also that rapid deposition of sedimentary layers over top of them helped to preserve them. Xrays were performed on prints such as these, in order to find out if they were faked by someone carving the prints with tools. They found pressure points in the rock underneath the prints consistant with pressure one would make when walking in muddy soil. There are also prints found of a human track inside a dino track, a sandal print on top of a trylobite, etc.

Put on top of that the fact that wood does not take millions of years to harden into petrified material. There is evidence today of trees in the right conditions, in soil rich in silica etc., that take less time to petrify than it would normally take for them to decay. This has also been the case for coal, where scientists have produced coal in a laboratory in a couple hours.

Other findings show trees standing perfectly upright, fossilized, penetrating through supposed millions of years of multiple layers of strata, and numerous fossil skeletons that are half in one layer, half in another. Dinosaur eggs have been found, as you well know, arranged in nests as they would be naturally. But what is not normally considered, as is the case in all the examples in this paragraph, that there was rapid deposition of sedimentary materials. This had to have happened very quickly, and not over ages of time, since the eggs would not have lasted that long, a tree would not have lasted countless generations, with soil and sediment gradually building up around it, slowely buring it over millions of years... and an animal would not stay intact as a skeleton the way it did, half in one strata and half in another, if only one half was buried millions of years ago, and the other half buried millions later. I will be bold and suggest a rapid flood (Noah?).

Ball is in your court, dude.

 

[Pacem]

ok...


the bible calls Bats birds... wrong
the bible says the earth is flat... wrong
the bible says the moon has its own light... wrong
the bible says the earth is the center of the solar system.. wrong
there are countless mistranslations that have led to wrong beliefes.. the "virgin" mary... spare the "rod" spoil the child... etc.
the bible talks of Unicorns.... no such animal


how long you got???

Not enough. Give scripture references.

 

[Studly]

he plays UO...nuff said

 

[Pacem]

I do... and UO has never been the same since.

 

[Mishkam]

Upside down Evolution
Evolution is supposed to be simpler to more complex creatures.[/qutoe]

Usually from simple to complex... most peole that want to spout **** like this miss that part.

So it would also stand to reason that the length of the genetic code would be longer as well. This list lists the number of base pairs in each organizm, from least to greatest.

why would that stand to reason at all? gross assumption. and incorrect.
rendering the rest of this...

Length of genetic code
From least to most:
Algae-541,000
Bacteria: 4,639,000
Rice: 400,000,000
Oyster: 700,000,000
Fly: 900,000,000
Soybean: 1,115,000,000
Mouse: 3,000,000,000
Dog: 3,355,500,000
Human: 3,400,000,000
Chimp: 3,799,600,000
Anteater: 5,763,500,000
Toad: 6,900,000,000
Red Pine: 68,000,000,000
Easter Lily: 90,000,000,000
Lung Fish: 139,000,000,000
And topping the scales is the Amoeba with a grand total of 670,000,000,000 base pares, which according to evolution, is supposed to be at the BEGINNING of the list, not the end.

meaningless.

The chimp and human genome is 98.4% identical. However, that 1.4% difference adds up to roughly 48,000,000 nucleotides.
Therefore, you need to make 48,000,000 changes to convert a chimp into a human.

noone that truly understands evolution will tell you that chimps became humans. another common mistake that gets furthered by people like you copy/pasting incorrect information.

"A number of scientists have tried to calculate the possability of life arising by chance." says Mark Eastman, M.D., author of Creator Beyond Time and Space. He goes on to say that Sir Fred Hoyle, a British methematician, estimated that the mathematical probability of the 2000 protiens in an Amoeba arising by chance is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. In other words, a 10 with 40,000 zeros in front of it!

this is pseudoscience... because the odds of something happening after it has happened... no matter how remote before... is 100%

If i hand you a deck of 52 cards.. and tell you to shuffle them, and deal half the cards out face up.. in a row. The odds of you hitting the exact sequence you laid out.. is roughly 1.6 x 10 70th power. That's a 16 followed by 70 zeros.
the odds of winning the powerball lottery.. are roughly 1.9 x 10 to the 7th power.

but once it has happened.. those odds became moot. because there is 100% chance of it happening after it has happened.

Every example evolutionists have posed as proof of evolution, or as missing links between us and apes has been proven false after further study, and the finders of such evidences humiliated.

Every humanoid fossil ever found is a "link" between early primates and modern man. The concept of a "missing link" has been discounted years ago because of the huge number of steps in evolution at the genetic level.

Flipperpithecus
A bone was found, that evolutionists concluded to be the clavical of a primitave form of man, proving, they say, the missing link between ape and modern day man. Studies were performed on this bone, and it was found to be the rib bone of a white sided dolphin, earning it this humorous nickname.

obviously not a true evolutionist.. because a true scientific evolutionist would never say "missing link between ape and modern day man"

same with your "proof" with footprints.. it has been explained scientifically over and over, but people like you decided it sounded really good... so you regurgitate what sounded good to you with zero backup to it.

do some reading on your own sometime kid and try something that you werent "commanded" to read.

 

[Pacem]

Then the stage is yours. Explain these away.

Even if the terminology is incorrect, you cannot escape the fact that there is still no supporting evidence for it.

Plus, how can you say the chances are still 100%?

 

[Mishkam]

Not enough. Give scripture references.

well you gave no scientific references to the bullcrap you just tried to pull on evolution...

but here.

bat aint a bird: Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18
moon giving light... Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10

the world is flat... it's all over the bible.. here are a few.
Prov 8:26-27
Isa 40:22
Mat 4:8

now... before you speak... I dont care what you claim the bible "meant"
I dont care what you folks claim it really intended (now that science has flat proven you wrong) I care what it says.

and it is.. without a doubt.. wrong.

 

[Pacem]

And if we didn't come from chimps or apes or whatever, what do you claim as fact that we DID come from? And where is the evidence? There is none.

 

[Mishkam]

Even if the terminology is incorrect, you cannot escape the fact that there is still no supporting evidence for it.

that is absolutely incorrect.


just as incorrect as if I said " The bible says God is an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud treating the earth like a giant chess set."

if I said that... it would be painfully obvious that I either had not read the bible... or completely did not understand it.

 

[Pacem]

So then if you don't care what it "meant" but only care about your meaning of it... and you seem to have your mind set on this... then it doesn't matter what the Bible really means, because to you, your conclusions on these passages are fact. You will automatically reject my explanations of them, yes?

 

[Pacem]

So then if I am absolutely incorrect, then give me your supporting evidence.

Correct me.

 

[Mishkam]

And if we didn't come from chimps or apes or whatever, what do you claim as fact that we DID come from? And where is the evidence? There is none.

Humans and apes, chimps, etc share a common ancestor back down the evolutionary chain in the early primates.

There is fossil record of the changes, and before you start spouting missing link bs again.. no it is not a complete record in the human fossil record. But we do have complete fossil records of many species complete evolution from one class of being to a completely different classification.

 

[Mishkam]

So then if I am absolutely incorrect, then give me your supporting evidence.

Correct me.

I have.. repeatedly.

but you want me to do the work on both sides... get you the scientific evidence and the biblical verses.

this is why you are failing so miserably at trying to defend your position.

YOU... NEED.. TO... DO.. SOME.. RESEARCH.. OF.. YOUR... OWN......

 

[Pacem]

Humans and apes, chimps, etc share a common ancestor back down the evolutionary chain in the early primates.

There is fossil record of the changes, and before you start spouting missing link bs again.. no it is not a complete record in the human fossil record. But we do have complete fossil records of many species complete evolution from one class of being to a completely different classification.

One problem: explain to me why all of these classes are found jumbled up in the fossil record?

 

[Pacem]

I have.. repeatedly.

but you want me to do the work on both sides... get you the scientific evidence and the biblical verses.

this is why you are failing so miserably at trying to defend your position.

YOU... NEED.. TO... DO.. SOME.. RESEARCH.. OF.. YOUR... OWN......

I see... so in other words, you have none.

 

[Viper09]

So then if you don't care what it "meant" but only care about your meaning of it... and you seem to have your mind set on this... then it doesn't matter what the Bible really means, because to you, your conclusions on these passages are fact. You will automatically reject my explanations of them, yes?

Huh...just as you only care about your own meaning of things and automatically reject explanations of everything you don't personally agree with.

 

[Pacem]

Huh...just as you only care about your own meaning of things and automatically reject explanations of everything you don't personally agree with.

I have never rejected anything, though you will say I have which I completely see coming.

All I have seen from him is only the putting down of my explanations, and nothing to back up his own. For a side of an argument to be valid, you need things to back them up with.

I just dusted most of the evidences evolution has out there. Are there any more?

 

[Pacem]

Plus, if evolution is really true.... I"ll give you some contrary evidences of my own, try to explain these away.

Polystrate fossils
Fossil skeletons half in one layer and half in another, both layers millions of years apart.

 

[Mishkam]

One problem: explain to me why all of these classes are found jumbled up in the fossil record?

first... get me one scientific journal that says that.


do you think the earth has existed in this form... exactly as it is... from the beginning (6000 years ago was it??)

animals lived in the sea that was later land then a sea again.. land animals walked on the dried silt of shifting landlocked oceans and tectonic plates.

finding everything in a perfect order from oldest to newest starting at the bottom and working its way up would only work if the earth had never changed, the atlantic was always the atlantic, austrailia was always austrailia.. etc.

you would know this if you would READ SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE BIBLE!

 

[Pacem]

first... get me one scientific journal that says that.


do you think the earth has existed in this form... exactly as it is... from the beginning (6000 years ago was it??)

animals lived in the sea that was later land then a sea again.. land animals walked on the dried silt of shifting landlocked oceans and tectonic plates.

finding everything in a perfect order from oldest to newest starting at the bottom and working its way up would only work if the earth had never changed, the atlantic was always the atlantic, austrailia was always austrailia.. etc.

you would know this if you would READ SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE BIBLE!

So therefore, according to your own admissions, you can't really know what lived when.
Think about it.

 

[Mishkam]

So therefore, according to your own admissions, you can't really know what lived when.
Think about it.

again.. wrong.

there are countless ways to date fossils, petrified material.. even dirt.

 

[Mishkam]

Plus, if evolution is really true.... I"ll give you some contrary evidences of my own, try to explain these away.

Polystrate fossils
Fossil skeletons half in one layer and half in another, both layers millions of years apart.

These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid.
Geologists agree that the numerous upright fossils couldn't have all been buried at the same time.

...

 

[Viper09]

I have never rejected anything, though you will say I have which I completely see coming.

All I have seen from him is only the putting down of my explanations, and nothing to back up his own. For a side of an argument to be valid, you need things to back them up with.

I just dusted most of the evidences evolution has out there. Are there any more?

You call it dusting, but it looks the same as denying it or rejecting it.

But I am not referring only to this discussion.

From what you've shown you act as if only your conclusions are fact and you only care about your meaning of things. Hence you downplaying your reaction to what Mishkam says as "dusting."

 

[Mishkam]

Originally Posted by Pacem
I have never rejected anything, though you will say I have which I completely see coming.

All I have seen from him is only the putting down of my explanations, and nothing to back up his own. For a side of an argument to be valid, you need things to back them up with.

I just dusted most of the evidences evolution has out there. Are there any more?

the bible was not written by god.
the gospels were written generations after the actual apostles died.
the council of Nicea edited the gospels only allowing in what strengthened the story as a whole.

I just dusted every bit of evidence christianity has.

 

[Pacem]

the bible was not written by god.
the gospels were written generations after the actual apostles died.
the council of Nicea edited the gospels only allowing in what strengthened the story as a whole.

I just dusted every bit of evidence christianity has.

Again... wrong.

The gospels were written around 30 years after the death of Jesus. You don't have to just take my word for it. You will just label it "wrong".
Anyway, this can be verified from numerous sources, a great many outside of the Christian faith.
The bible was NOT written by God. No argument there. But if you really study into the coucil of Nicea you will find that what was taken out were the "lost gospels" which WERE written generations after the lost gospel name-sakes.
You say they were edited? I take it you haven't done some reading yourself.
Look into the Dead Sea Scrolls sometime.. you will find nothing has changed from then until now.

Many ways of dating.... including carbon 14 dating I take it?
Hmmm, let's explore that one.
According to many experts, carbon 14 dating is only accurate for the first 3000 years.
However, mainstream science says carbon 14 has a life span of 70,000 years.

Now, Carbon 14 is found in diamonds. A certain set of diamonds were dated using carbon 14 dating, and in one finding the age of these diamonds was determined to be 350,000,000,000 years old. Ok, that's fine, but, in another dating of the same diamonds using the same method of dating, they were found to be 3.5 BILLION years. BUT, according to these very same people that examined the diamonds, no carbon 14 would remain after 70,000 years. Yet, it is found in diamonds where it is impossible for carbon 14 to leach in or out.
So how can this be resolved?
The only answer left to us, and indeed the only possability left to us, is that the diamonds cannot be more than 70,000 years old, since no carbon 14 would remain after that time, with no leaching of any kind.

I can hear it now... "Wrong..."
But wait! Before you go off saying that, get some info to refute instead of just putting it down and saying I sould read more? Or is that all you can do?

 

[Mishkam]

the bible was not written by god.
the gospels were written generations after the actual apostles died.
the council of Nicea edited the gospels only allowing in what strengthened the story as a whole.

I just dusted every bit of evidence christianity has.

Again... wrong.

I know... i was making fun of your statement about evolution.

*facepalm*

 

[Mishkam]

it is blatantly obvious that you have done zero reading on evolution or scientific dating methods other than biased misinformation and propaganda released by christian organizations.

if you had actually read one single unbiased study on evolution or carbon dating you would not open with some of the blatant misstatements that you have.

you wanted me to quote chapter and verse... quid pro quo.

According to many experts, carbon 14 dating is only accurate for the first 3000 years.

list some.

A certain set of diamonds were dated using carbon 14 dating, and in one finding the age of these diamonds was determined to be 350,000,000,000 years old.

which set.. where is it documented. which scientists performed the experiments?

The only answer left to us, and indeed the only possability left to us

bad misstep there. Say there is only one answer... and you're setting yourself up for a fall.

I am not going to tell you that you're wrong and I'm right on this one (although you are, and I am) I want to know where you got this information. What study do you have to back this up? Something more than "these guys did this test once"

 

[GarthGrey]

Pacem, good luck being reunited with your loved ones in Heaven. If it all holds true, there should be about 8 billion people there with you. I"m sure you can simply wave really really big and your grandfather will see you. Or is Heaven "instanced"?

 

[Pacem]

Pacem, good luck being reunited with your loved ones in Heaven. If it all holds true, there should be about 8 billion people there with you. I"m sure you can simply wave really really big and your grandfather will see you. Or is Heaven "instanced"?

Grandmother actually... and God is there, I am sure He knows who is where so He can help me sort out where she is.

And besides, there will be so many other people to talk to as well, many stories to tell and listen to. And all that only after I recover from meeting my Lord face to face!
Remember the lyrics of "I Can Only Imagine" by Mercy Me. That's what it will be like.

And all the while, His praise goes on.

 

[KalVasTENKI]

Sorry, no sky wizards for me.

LAWL .. Me either for that matter.