• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Hippos eveolved from cetaceans

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Did Noah have a pair of hippos on the Ark? Apparently not. Their ancestors swam from Asia to Africa millions o years ago and did not hitch a ride on the Ark.

Cheers!

http://www.thanhniennews.com/education-youth/whos-your-daddy-hippo-ancestry-unveiled-39067.html

Who's your daddy? Hippo ancestry unveiled

Bloomberg

Wednesday, February 25, 2015 06:00

A great-great grandfather of the hippopotamus likely swam from Asia to Africa some 35 million years ago, long before the arrival of the lion, rhino, zebra and giraffe, researchers said Tuesday.
Analysis of a previously unknown, long-extinct relative also confirmed that cetaceans -- the group to which whales, dolphins and porpoises belong -- are in fact the hippo's closest living cousins.
"The origins of the hippopotamus have been a mystery until now," Fabrice Lihoreau, a palaeontologist at France's University of Montpellier and co-author of the study, told AFP.
"Now we can say that hippos came from anthracotheres" -- an extinct group of plant-eating, semi-aquatic mammals with even-toed hooves.
Until now, the oldest known fossil of a hippo ancestor dated from about 20 million years ago, while cetacean remains aged 53 million years have been found.

Scientists had long lumped hippos with the Suidae family of pigs based on palaeontological finds, but DNA later suggested they were the kin of whales instead.
Yet the huge age gap between hippos and cetaceans in the fossil record has left the experts stumped.
"It meant that either we have never found ancestors of hippos, or we didn't recognise them among the mammal fossils we already had," said Lihoreau.
Now the remains of a 28-million-year-old animal discovered in Kenya has provided an important piece of the puzzle, according to a study in the journal Nature Communications.
Named Epirigenys lokonensis ("epiri" means hippo in the Turkana language and Lokone after the discovery site), it was about the size of a sheep, weighing in at 100 kilogrammes (220 pounds), which is about a twentieth the size of today's "common hippopotamus", a sub-Saharan giant.
It may have spent much of its time immersed in water.
E. lokonensis was not a direct forefather of today's hippo, belonging instead to a side branch.
But it lived much closer in time to the ancestor from which they both branched off, thus allowing for inferences to be drawn about the ancient animal.
Dental analysis led the team to conclude that E. lokonensis and the hippo both came from an anthracothere forefather, which migrated from Asia to Africa about 35 million years go.
As Africa was then an island surrounded by water, it likely swam there.
All this means the ancestors of hippos "were among the first large mammals to colonise the African continent, long before those of any of the large carnivores, giraffes or bovines," all of which arrived only about 18 million years ago, said a statement.
The modern-day hippo thus evolved independently in Africa, and is a creature truly endemic to the continent, according to the research paper.
"We filled a gap in the evolutionary history of the hippo, bringing us closer to the point of divergence from their modern-day sister group of cetaceans," and thus a more accurate reconstruction, said Lihoreau.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Did Noah have a pair of hippos on the Ark? Apparently not. Their ancestors swam from Asia to Africa millions o years ago and did not hitch a ride on the Ark.

Cheers!

http://www.thanhniennews.com/education-youth/whos-your-daddy-hippo-ancestry-unveiled-39067.html

Who's your daddy? Hippo ancestry unveiled

Bloomberg

Wednesday, February 25, 2015 06:00

A great-great grandfather of the hippopotamus likely swam from Asia to Africa some 35 million years ago, long before the arrival of the lion, rhino, zebra and giraffe, researchers said Tuesday.
Analysis of a previously unknown, long-extinct relative also confirmed that cetaceans -- the group to which whales, dolphins and porpoises belong -- are in fact the hippo's closest living cousins.
"The origins of the hippopotamus have been a mystery until now," Fabrice Lihoreau, a palaeontologist at France's University of Montpellier and co-author of the study, told AFP.
"Now we can say that hippos came from anthracotheres" -- an extinct group of plant-eating, semi-aquatic mammals with even-toed hooves.
Until now, the oldest known fossil of a hippo ancestor dated from about 20 million years ago, while cetacean remains aged 53 million years have been found.

Scientists had long lumped hippos with the Suidae family of pigs based on palaeontological finds, but DNA later suggested they were the kin of whales instead.
Yet the huge age gap between hippos and cetaceans in the fossil record has left the experts stumped.
"It meant that either we have never found ancestors of hippos, or we didn't recognise them among the mammal fossils we already had," said Lihoreau.
Now the remains of a 28-million-year-old animal discovered in Kenya has provided an important piece of the puzzle, according to a study in the journal Nature Communications.
Named Epirigenys lokonensis ("epiri" means hippo in the Turkana language and Lokone after the discovery site), it was about the size of a sheep, weighing in at 100 kilogrammes (220 pounds), which is about a twentieth the size of today's "common hippopotamus", a sub-Saharan giant.
It may have spent much of its time immersed in water.
E. lokonensis was not a direct forefather of today's hippo, belonging instead to a side branch.
But it lived much closer in time to the ancestor from which they both branched off, thus allowing for inferences to be drawn about the ancient animal.
Dental analysis led the team to conclude that E. lokonensis and the hippo both came from an anthracothere forefather, which migrated from Asia to Africa about 35 million years go.
As Africa was then an island surrounded by water, it likely swam there.
All this means the ancestors of hippos "were among the first large mammals to colonise the African continent, long before those of any of the large carnivores, giraffes or bovines," all of which arrived only about 18 million years ago, said a statement.
The modern-day hippo thus evolved independently in Africa, and is a creature truly endemic to the continent, according to the research paper.
"We filled a gap in the evolutionary history of the hippo, bringing us closer to the point of divergence from their modern-day sister group of cetaceans," and thus a more accurate reconstruction, said Lihoreau.

Evolutionary dogma is clearly coloring the interpretation of the findings here.

Firstly, there is nothing scientific about this claim at all. It is a lot of conjecture and speculation via a lot of evolutionary storytelling.
Secondly, the language used is suggestive, nothing is really definite. The whole article seems to overreach itself as readers tend to gloss over the suggestive words used. I'm sure you did. :wink:
Thirdly, where are the transitional fossils that clearly show that this is really the ancestor of the hippo? Otherwise how do they KNOW that this ancestry is correct and true?
Fourthly, you are assuming that the long ages assigned are true, as required by evolutionary dogma. But there are much evidence to suggest otherwise.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
I'm not here to prove anything or any school of thought. It's never ending. Whales are believed to have themselves evolved from land faring animals. Who knows? Just that many stories from the Bible are not possible; Noah's Ark is one of them.

Cheers!

Evolutionary dogma is clearly coloring the interpretation of the findings here. ...........
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
I'm not here to prove anything or any school of thought. It's never ending. Whales are believed to have themselves evolved from land faring animals. Who knows? Just that many stories from the Bible are not possible; Noah's Ark is one of them.

Cheers!

Is it possible that life can come from non-life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

What is so impossible about Noah's Ark? It cannot be built? There's not enough water to cover the earth?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/noahs-ark-could-have-happened-scientists-say-9234799.html

Compared to abiogenesis, I think Noah's Ark is a lesser miracle.
 
Last edited:

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Built by Noah and his family, who formed the nucleus of the human race after the flood. Gathered a pair of every animal on the planet, and somehow dispersed them to all other continents after it landed. Logistics..... Waste disposal/management (eg. zoo poo) and other maintenance issues.

Of course nobody is telling anybody not to believe. It is a free world. However, it can exist only in stories and movies.

Cheers!

...........
What is so impossible about Noah's Ark? It cannot be built? There's not enough water to cover the earth?

........
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Built by Noah and his family, who formed the nucleus of the human race after the flood. Gathered a pair of every animal on the planet, and somehow dispersed them to all other continents after it landed. Logistics..... Waste disposal/management (eg. zoo poo) and other maintenance issues.

Of course nobody is telling anybody not to believe. It is a free world. However, it can exist only in stories and movies.

Cheers!

Looks like old habits die hard! You did not read the Bible carefully.

Noah did not have to gather the animals. God sent them to Noah who just needed to take them up the Ark. Gen 6:20

Noah did not have to disperse the animals. He just have to bring them out and they will spread all over the earth. Gen 8:17

Waste disposal and animal management. Noah was 600 years old when he entered the Ark, and he had 120 years to build the Ark according to divine specifications. He would have the wisdom and knowledge to handle animal waste and food logistics. Moreover, many animals have hibernation instincts during stress times so again it could well be that many would have gone into some kind of low activity mode throughout the time in the Ark. Consume less food perhaps, less poop too.

Anyway, an entire book has been written to address almost every conceivable objection that Ark critics have, so do read up if this really bothers you.

But like I said, to believe in evolution you would have to believe that life came from non-life. You have an answer to that?
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Noah did not have to gather the animals - God sent them. Noah did not have to disperse the animals - they knew where to go. You may believe these, but these explanations are not rational. They are fantasies. Of course, the Bible said so, and they happened! Bro, I am not going to debate these points - but to regular thinking blokes, they are not facts.

Again, Noah was 600 years old, and took 120 years to build the Ark - "Divine Specifications" cannot be used to bend the minds of society, they can be used to influence the minds of weak buggers who are unable to separate reality from crap. I give you the benefit of "doubt" because you have this thing called faith, but in actuality, they are nonsense.

Many animals hibernate - true, but there are many more species that do not have this behaviour. Bears, bees, some bats, hedgehogs hibernate during the cold winters - but there are many many more animals like wolves, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, all felines, that do not, along with everyone specie in the tropical zones. And back in those days, pumps weren't invented yet, all poop had to be scooped manually. Anyways, anybody who thought about this, it must have crossed their minds the number of species of animals on this planet, no matter how big the Ark was, it would not have been spacious enough to hold all of them. It is a story of good and bad, and the good lord's intention - that's all.

Cheers!


Looks like old habits die hard! You did not read the Bible carefully.

Noah did not have to gather the animals. God sent them to Noah who just needed to take them up the Ark. Gen 6:20

Noah did not have to disperse the animals. He just have to bring them out and they will spread all over the earth. Gen 8:17

Waste disposal and animal management. Noah was 600 years old when he entered the Ark, and he had 120 years to build the Ark according to divine specifications. He would have the wisdom and knowledge to handle animal waste and food logistics. Moreover, many animals have hibernation instincts during stress times so again it could well be that many would have gone into some kind of low activity mode throughout the time in the Ark. Consume less food perhaps, less poop too.

Anyway, an entire book has been written to address almost every conceivable objection that Ark critics have, so do read up if this really bothers you.

But like I said, to believe in evolution you would have to believe that life came from non-life. You have an answer to that?
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro, the best scientists and researchers on this planet still have not found the answers to this, you expect me, an ordinary salesman, to be able to provide an answer to you?

Ok, since you asked me, I give you my best explanation - in the early days of our planet's formation, the surface consisted of an "organic" soup containing the elements of carbon, sulphur, phosphorous and other elements with nitrogen and oxygen in the air. Then, some energy source (either lightning or falling meteorites) zapped this mixture and chemical reactions happened and some simple protein molecules formed. These then replicated (eg. polymerize) and started forming nucleic acids which later fused with more of the same kind to form the first DNA molecules. What happened after this is what we call evolution. It took place over billions of years and can be seen from fossilized records showing simple life forms followed later on by more complex ones. Our human history is very young in this time scale and modern thought we currently know is just a few centuries, at its infancy stage, so we are only starting to discover these things. There are many things still to uncover and learn. That is my answer.

Cheers!

.................
But like I said, to believe in evolution you would have to believe that life came from non-life. You have an answer to that?
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro, the best scientists and researchers on this planet still have not found the answers to this, you expect me, an ordinary salesman, to be able to provide an answer to you?

Ok, since you asked me, I give you my best explanation - in the early days of our planet's formation, the surface consisted of an "organic" soup containing the elements of carbon, sulphur, phosphorous and other elements with nitrogen and oxygen in the air. Then, some energy source (either lightning or falling meteorites) zapped this mixture and chemical reactions happened and some simple protein molecules formed. These then replicated (eg. polymerize) and started forming nucleic acids which later fused with more of the same kind to form the first DNA molecules. What happened after this is what we call evolution. It took place over billions of years and can be seen from fossilized records showing simple life forms followed later on by more complex ones. Our human history is very young in this time scale and modern thought we currently know is just a few centuries, at its infancy stage, so we are only starting to discover these things. There are many things still to uncover and learn. That is my answer.

Cheers!

I can see that you have difficulty in giving your best answer, judging by the awkward way you have to say "organic" soup. Not only that, your answer conveniently assumes the existence of the ingredients so-called necessary for life and just right conditions e.g. energy source. All of which just nice nice come together to give you a kick start. I suppose it did not occur to you that this answer violates a basic law of nature...biogenesis.

The fact is, your best experts do not have the answer is simply because it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to come from nonlife. You can of course insist that it can, but it is purely by sheer stubborn faith, in the light of proven scientific evidence done by Louis Pasteur, and all the failed attempts by evolutionists in trying to create life in a test tube of organic soup. Why do people go through all the trouble? The answer IMO is because they do not allow for the evidence to point to God. So the alternative, no matter how absurd and impossible, must be taken as possible and true.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
To me, "organic" simply means it contains carbon. You tell me what else could it mean if it is not to your satisfaction?

You seem well read, and come across as familiar with the different sources of information, but just somewhat simple when you accept this "God" entity to explain all the questions we have here, but Bro, can you explain this "God" thing? Other than the Biblical statement of "I am what I am.", who is able to provide an explanation of this thing? Nobody's seen god, nobody knows what god is. To say that god created life is just an easy way out to explain the things around us, which is no explanation at all.

Cheers!

I can see that you have difficulty in giving your best answer, judging by the awkward way you have to say "organic" soup. Not only that, your answer conveniently assumes the existence of the ingredients so-called necessary for life and just right conditions e.g. energy source. All of which just nice nice come together to give you a kick start. I suppose it did not occur to you that this answer violates a basic law of nature...biogenesis.

The fact is, your best experts do not have the answer is simply because it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to come from nonlife. You can of course insist that it can, but it is purely by sheer stubborn faith, in the light of proven scientific evidence done by Louis Pasteur, and all the failed attempts by evolutionists in trying to create life in a test tube of organic soup. Why do people go through all the trouble? The answer IMO is because they do not allow for the evidence to point to God. So the alternative, no matter how absurd and impossible, must be taken as possible and true.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Noah did not have to gather the animals - God sent them. Noah did not have to disperse the animals - they knew where to go. You may believe these, but these explanations are not rational. They are fantasies. Of course, the Bible said so, and they happened! Bro, I am not going to debate these points - but to regular thinking blokes, they are not facts.

Again, Noah was 600 years old, and took 120 years to build the Ark - "Divine Specifications" cannot be used to bend the minds of society, they can be used to influence the minds of weak buggers who are unable to separate reality from crap. I give you the benefit of "doubt" because you have this thing called faith, but in actuality, they are nonsense.

Many animals hibernate - true, but there are many more species that do not have this behaviour. Bears, bees, some bats, hedgehogs hibernate during the cold winters - but there are many many more animals like wolves, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, all felines, that do not, along with everyone specie in the tropical zones. And back in those days, pumps weren't invented yet, all poop had to be scooped manually. Anyways, anybody who thought about this, it must have crossed their minds the number of species of animals on this planet, no matter how big the Ark was, it would not have been spacious enough to hold all of them. It is a story of good and bad, and the good lord's intention - that's all.

Cheers!

You can of course dispute that, these are facts. I have no way to prove them to you. But the fact is that you failed to read what the Bible says, and that's not up for debate!

Many people in the past have chosen to take the whole Bible as crap. It does not matter to me, because they say that ignorantly, and I have also shown on many occasions how that was the case with you.:p

At the end of the day, critics come and go, yet the Bible remains the same and informs the faith and lives of millions of people everyday.

I never said ALL animals hibernate, but that many do. Moreover in that state of captivity and little activity food consumption and poop will be low too. This is a very reasonable answer. And you are projecting your ignorance onto the people of the past, who had the ability to build pyramids without the benefit of technology we have. And we still have not build one pyramid! The one at Lourve do not count.:rolleyes:

Also, you make the common mistake that there were all species of animals on the Ark. No, it was only two of each kind. And seven for some kinds.

Like I said, an entire book has been written to demonstrate that the critics of the Ark have been silenced. You can read that all up in John Woodmorappe's book "Noah's Ark Feasibility Study".
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
To me, "organic" simply means it contains carbon. You tell me what else could it mean if it is not to your satisfaction?

You seem well read, and come across as familiar with the different sources of information, but just somewhat simple when you accept this "God" entity to explain all the questions we have here, but Bro, can you explain this "God" thing? Other than the Biblical statement of "I am what I am.", who is able to provide an explanation of this thing? Nobody's seen god, nobody knows what god is. To say that god created life is just an easy way out to explain the things around us, which is no explanation at all.

Cheers!

Even if I grant you the benefit of organic containing carbon, does that mean life will come from nonlife? The answer is no. The point is that a naturalistic cause fails utterly. You said God is not an explanation. Fine. I am not saying God is an explanation. I am saying God is the CAUSE. The origin of life in the universe has a supernatural cause. It is a logical answer, versus the absurd answer that life can just come from nonliving things, which also begs the question of where those things come from and how come they so lucky to come together to give you what you need for life.

You said nobody has seen God. Well, nobody has seen wind either, or thoughts, or beliefs, or feelings. But we know they are real and exist because we are affected by them.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
I admit, I have not "studied" the bible, and have only glossed over it, parts here and parts, there. I do not claim to know everything that's said in it and my knowledge of biblical events are mostly from movies and from people mentioning events in it. So?

Whether it is crap or not, its up to the individual. Some have this thing called faith. To me, it is a storybook. The old testament is an account of jewish "folklore" and early history, and the new testament is about this person named Jesus. It has been told so many times that people have come to believe the events in there as actual history, which is partly true, but mostly glamorised. You take it whichever way you want, that is your choice.

Egyptian (ancient) civilization degenerated and others in the region rose and overtook their wealth, and splendour. That is the reason why no more pyramids were built. We still are only speculating how the pyramids were built, you might say "god" built them, but in this case, whose god? Some civilizations were ahead of others, and it is apparent that early Egypt was way ahead at the time of the pharaohs who built the pyramids when they ruled. If I remember correctly, the jews were slaves at that time, so when they left Egypt, the technology left too!

I didn't say ALL the animals were on the Ark. I just said the Ark of the bible - never existed.

Cheers!

You can of course dispute that, these are facts. I have no way to prove them to you. But the fact is that you failed to read what the Bible says, and that's not up for debate!

Many people in the past have chosen to take the whole Bible as crap. It does not matter to me, because they say that ignorantly, and I have also shown on many occasions how that was the case with you.:p

At the end of the day, critics come and go, yet the Bible remains the same and informs the faith and lives of millions of people everyday.

I never said ALL animals hibernate, but that many do. Moreover in that state of captivity and little activity food consumption and poop will be low too. This is a very reasonable answer. And you are projecting your ignorance onto the people of the past, who had the ability to build pyramids without the benefit of technology we have. And we still have not build one pyramid! The one at Lourve do not count.:rolleyes:

Also, you make the common mistake that there were all species of animals on the Ark. No, it was only two of each kind. And seven for some kinds.

Like I said, an entire book has been written to demonstrate that the critics of the Ark have been silenced. You can read that all up in John Woodmorappe's book "Noah's Ark Feasibility Study".
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
You expect from me an answer to the question that scientists have been working on for centuries? Eh, c'mon lah, I can only give you an explanation from what I've been told or watched and repeat them. Our species is still looking and searching for answer to questions we asked since caveman days! I can only say that in the early years of Earth's formation, our planet's surface was different from what we see today. But the building blocks, the simple molecules were present. I have no idea how life began, but at this present moment, guess that something gave it a jolt, to activate something biological, perhaps it was a lighting, meteorite strike, that infused some energy.

Bro, wind is moving air, caused by pressure differentials. That we know. We cannot see wind because light does not bounce of its surface, but we can see patterns of wind when it blows through particulate matter. If we can see molecules of air, we'd be able to see wind.

Cheers!

Even if I grant you the benefit of organic containing carbon, does that mean life will come from nonlife? The answer is no. The point is that a naturalistic cause fails utterly. You said God is not an explanation. Fine. I am not saying God is an explanation. I am saying God is the CAUSE. The origin of life in the universe has a supernatural cause. It is a logical answer, versus the absurd answer that life can just come from nonliving things, which also begs the question of where those things come from and how come they so lucky to come together to give you what you need for life.

You said nobody has seen God. Well, nobody has seen wind either, or thoughts, or beliefs, or feelings. But we know they are real and exist because we are affected by them.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
You expect from me an answer to the question that scientists have been working on for centuries? Eh, c'mon lah, I can only give you an explanation from what I've been told or watched and repeat them. Our species is still looking and searching for answer to questions we asked since caveman days! I can only say that in the early years of Earth's formation, our planet's surface was different from what we see today. But the building blocks, the simple molecules were present. I have no idea how life began, but at this present moment, guess that something gave it a jolt, to activate something biological, perhaps it was a lighting, meteorite strike, that infused some energy.

Bro, wind is moving air, caused by pressure differentials. That we know. We cannot see wind because light does not bounce of its surface, but we can see patterns of wind when it blows through particulate matter. If we can see molecules of air, we'd be able to see wind.

Cheers!

I wonder if you have realised that you said your answer was based on what you have watched and was told. This means you believe what you have watched and been told. And the thing is that the origins of life is a historical event and so whatever you have been told CANNOT be a matter of scientific fact or observation. At the end of it, whether you believe in God or not, this is NOT a matter of science at all. It is a matter of what/who you choose to believe. And I have also explained why it is irrational to believe that life can come from nonlife.
 

TeeKi

Alfrescian
Loyal
bro Frodo, you are sure to be rewarded one day. God can see your persistent fight in this forum against the EVILution proponents.

Proverbs 25 New International Version (NIV)

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you.
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
You expect from me an answer to the question that scientists have been working on for centuries? Eh, c'mon lah, I can only give you an explanation from what I've been told or watched and repeat them. Our species is still looking and searching for answer to questions we asked since caveman days! I can only say that in the early years of Earth's formation, our planet's surface was different from what we see today. But the building blocks, the simple molecules were present. I have no idea how life began, but at this present moment, guess that something gave it a jolt, to activate something biological, perhaps it was a lighting, meteorite strike, that infused some energy.

Bro, wind is moving air, caused by pressure differentials. That we know. We cannot see wind because light does not bounce of its surface, but we can see patterns of wind when it blows through particulate matter. If we can see molecules of air, we'd be able to see wind.

Cheers!

This fuckdo thinks his arguments are more valid than yours because he can personally provide bible verses as proofs, so he also expected you to personally to show him a fossil and carbon dating result done by you instead of what you read or seen from the movies are not credible.

Evolution is a different branch of science from abiogenesis. I can he is trying to use abiogenesis to trap you, very cunning for someone writing like a knowledgeable apologetic christian theist.

He said noah did not have to gather all the animals but only a pair of each animals. That would be 2 times are the number of known animal species. The figure for all known species today is in billion. LOL.

I have posted many times the bible is written by men, by a less civilized and taken slave tribe. The bible describes a flat earth which is fixed and the sun revolves around it. It was a very logical understanding in the past, but not now. Human understanding has improved but those fundamental christian nuts are using their fairy tale books to knock at science. I have provided many evidences that the bible is not a holy book but they still believe that it is the inerrant WORD of god. Lol. I am having a good laugh reading his posts.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Nope. I believe some things, I don't believe some things - it all depends. Believe in God is all about faith. It is the belief of things that cannot be proven. Some people need facts, evidence, to be convinced, some don't. It is a long long never ending debate. I do not know how life came about, and neither to researchers, but they are still working on it.

Cheers!

I wonder if you have realised that you said your answer was based on what you have watched and was told. This means you believe what you have watched and been told. And the thing is that the origins of life is a historical event and so whatever you have been told CANNOT be a matter of scientific fact or observation. At the end of it, whether you believe in God or not, this is NOT a matter of science at all. It is a matter of what/who you choose to believe. And I have also explained why it is irrational to believe that life can come from nonlife.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
He isn't the only one who believes the stories in the bible as actual events that happened, but I have to say he is well versed in the topic. For me, its okay, I am passing my time and enjoying it at the same time. We cannot stop people with a deep sense of mission to try to influence others and maybe he feels righteous in his support for the bible. I wish though that people in these shoes spend time looking for bigfoot, yeti, or in this part of the world, the Orang Pendek. It's more interesting and realistic than stories of some divine bloke who is claimed to be everywhere, made everything, but nobody has seen.

Cheers!

This fuckdo thinks his arguments are more valid than yours because he can personally provide bible verses as proofs, so he also expected you to personally to show him a fossil and carbon dating result done by you instead of what you read or seen from the movies are not credible.

Evolution is a different branch of science from abiogenesis. I can he is trying to use abiogenesis to trap you, very cunning for someone writing like a knowledgeable apologetic christian theist.

He said noah did not have to gather all the animals but only a pair of each animals. That would be 2 times are the number of known animal species. The figure for all known species today is in billion. LOL.

I have posted many times the bible is written by men, by a less civilized and taken slave tribe. The bible describes a flat earth which is fixed and the sun revolves around it. It was a very logical understanding in the past, but not now. Human understanding has improved but those fundamental christian nuts are using their fairy tale books to knock at science. I have provided many evidences that the bible is not a holy book but they still believe that it is the inerrant WORD of god. Lol. I am having a good laugh reading his posts.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
I admit, I have not "studied" the bible, and have only glossed over it, parts here and parts, there. I do not claim to know everything that's said in it and my knowledge of biblical events are mostly from movies and from people mentioning events in it. So?

Whether it is crap or not, its up to the individual. Some have this thing called faith. To me, it is a storybook. The old testament is an account of jewish "folklore" and early history, and the new testament is about this person named Jesus. It has been told so many times that people have come to believe the events in there as actual history, which is partly true, but mostly glamorised. You take it whichever way you want, that is your choice.

Egyptian (ancient) civilization degenerated and others in the region rose and overtook their wealth, and splendour. That is the reason why no more pyramids were built. We still are only speculating how the pyramids were built, you might say "god" built them, but in this case, whose god? Some civilizations were ahead of others, and it is apparent that early Egypt was way ahead at the time of the pharaohs who built the pyramids when they ruled. If I remember correctly, the jews were slaves at that time, so when they left Egypt, the technology left too!

I didn't say ALL the animals were on the Ark. I just said the Ark of the bible - never existed.

Cheers!

Since you admit your knowledge of the Bible is so scanty, then shouldn't humility be the trait you should put on in discussing this topic? And instead of questioning the Bible, shouldn't your approach be more teachable? You have made definite conclusions about the Bible based on little knowledge, and have been corrected again and again. Shouldn't that make you rethink what you think you know about the Bible? You said the Bible is partly true but mostly glamorised. Again, how did you reach this conclusion? What are your supporting evidence?

The point about the Pyramids is that knowledge can be lost. But more importantly, that people in the past are also highly intelligent. How does evolutionists explain intelligence? Where does it come from? Life coming from nonlife is already an evolution-stopper. Now you have to explain how intelligence can come from non-intelligence! Yours is an uphill task, climbing Mount Impossible!

If I recall correctly you asked how Noah could have taken all the species of the animals on earth on the Ark, perhaps you meant 2 of each species? Even so, you were wrong, Noah only needed to take 2 of each kind, 7 of some. You said the Ark never existed. How do you know that? Because it is impossible to build one? Would 120 years be enough time to build an Ark? Can Noah hire workers to build an Ark? Just what is it that would make you say that the Ark never existed?
 
Top