ok first, doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that water is comprised of 2 Hydrogen atom and 1 Oxygen atom, water can evaporate
secondly, would it be so wrong to say that the earth didn't have as high mountains before the flood? would it be wrong to say that the earth was a little flatter? i mean really, who has been around before the flood to tell us personally
the earth currently is covered in 70% water, so you mean to tell me that if the earth was a little flatter than before, water wouldn't cover the whole entire lands?

I decided to give your argument about hibernation a bit of research, and sadly could not replicate your research. Please provide a link to where you learned the warm blooded animals become cold blooded animals during hibernation. While you do that, please keep in mind that cold blooded animals are able to function through the range of their acceptable temperatures, though they may exhibit behaviors that allow them to stay closer to a certain temperature range, such as sleeping in the shade when it's too hot. Warm blooded hibernators, on the other hand, are completely unable to function while they're hibernating.

As for the fossil history of intermediate stages, I believe you've misunderstood what I was saying. I was not suggesting that those fossils we have now are deformities from the present; I was suggesting that they were deformities from the past.

Vinster,
How can you put so much faith in random chance? When the complexity of all things is considered, does it require more faith to believe in some sort of maker or in a random sequence of events, each with but the most minute probability of occurring, all happening at just the right time, so as to create both a hospitable environment for life and the basic building blocks from which it could begin?

Conviction,
In other words, you're saying that the Bible should be taken literal when it's convenient for you, but in context when it's not? Does that make sense?

This post was edited by Subdue on Sep 8 2010 07:38pm

ok to make things more clearer, i'll giv eyou an example,

say i was digging dirt in the park, i'm making this huge hole, where did i put all that dirt that used to be in that hole?

i took that dirt and put it on that pile, making one part of the dirt higher than the rest, while making more room for water to rest in, same thing

it also says that in teh great flood, massive parts of the lands were shifted, this might be the meaning of it, hence there are parts of the ocean today that are deeper than some parts

also that there have been plant life record/fossils on tops of these mountains which is impossible considering no plants can live in some of these mountains
which points back to the possibility that the land on which the mountain once sat upon used to be lower than it was pre-flood

This post was edited by Conviction on Sep 8 2010 07:26pm

Dude, they have a word for it. It's called heterothermy. Can you explain to me what organs would fail in the transition from poikilothermy to homeothermy though? I didn't really do research, its common knowledge that mammals that hibernate exhibit homeothermy when they're active and poikilothermy when they're hibernating. Warm-blooded and cold-blooded are pretty misleading terms. Your definitions are incorrect, which may be the source of your confusion. Homeothermy (Warm-blooded) means the organism can maintain its body's temperature independently of the surrounding air temperature, poikilothermy means the organism is dependent on its surroundings to maintain its body temperature.

I completely understood what you meant about the fossils, its still stupid though. It'd be a pretty big coincidence that ONLY the deformed fossils survived and HAPPENED to demonstrate a logical progression of form for EVERY transitional fossil found.

This post was edited by Sioux on Sep 8 2010 07:42pm

Dude, what do you not get about believing the Bible fully or not at all? If you read the bible in context then you shouldn't have any problems. Maybe you didn't get what I wrote about slavery.
again let me just repeat.

When Paul says Servants, obey your masters - Is he talking to the slaves? or the slave masters? I THINK HE'S TALKING TO THE SLAVES!!!!!!!
Now, christian slaves working under non believer slave masters - Are the slaves giving a thumbs up for slavery? no. as a matter of fact i believe they hated it very much
Is Paul giving a thumbs up here? NO! Does Paul have control over their slavehood? NO! so obviously he's not slaving anyone neither is he saying it's ok
Learn how to use context, you will be less confused with Scripture when you do.

Now I dont know if you just dont want to believe this or you just really dont understand this concept of context at all. Let me know.

as a matter of fact, i remember one particular slave in the bible in the old testament, and he was a man of character, his name was joseph
God placed him in the life of a slave a good majority of his early life, only to become the second highest ruler next to Pharaoh
God had been with him the whole entire time, he had been enslaved by unbelievers in a strange land
So you mean to tell me that God said it's ok to enslave people because he let Joseph become a slave? OFC NOT, Joseph was placed there for a reason and a special purpose

the Hebrews were also enslaved in Egypt after this, God sent Moses to deliver them from SLAVERY not to ENSLAVE others

anyways man, i'm off to bed, peace out homeslices

Did you just have a conversation with yourself?

Heterothermy refers to certain animals that exhibit homeothermy when active and poikilothermy when not. This can refer hibernation, because body temperatures of hibernating animals drops to the surrounding temperature. However, ALL heterothermic animals exhibit homethermic traits when active active. This is different from poikilothermic animals, which are completely unable to control their body temperature, even when active.

How does this apply to my previous statements? Heterothermy is a trait exclusive to primarily homeothermic animals. There are no primarily poikilothermic animals that exhibit homeothermic traits, which suggests that while homeothermic animals may have evolved certain poikilothermic adaptations to cope with large changes in temperature, there is no evidence of poikilothermic animals doing the reverse. This is likely because there are no short term benefits for switching to homeothermy from poikilothermy, and a whole host of disadvantages, such as the need for a more abundant food supply. If anything, making the switch would likely make a poikilotherm less competitive in the short run, making it impossible to pass on its genes.

As for the fossils, and probability, is the probability that the fossils that have been found were deformities rather than the norm less than the probability that ALL the necessities for the development of life are present on the Earth? Is it also equally improbable that scientists looking at those fossils are seeing what they WANT to see?



Lol if you're going to talk about what God sent people to do, how many times were people sent by God to massacre their enemies?

This post was edited by Subdue on Sep 8 2010 08:13pm

So if someone found a couple of fossils right next to each other that all had the same bone structure...would you say they were all a family and that family was all deformed?

It's not that much of chance...there are a bunch of planets. As far as we know, they don't have life because they don't have anything to sustain it. The only reason our planet is thriving after billions of years is it has the necessary things to support it. It's not so much of chance as it is adaptation...which is the main thing behind evolution. There could be thousands of planets, we were just lucky enough to find the one that is habitable... the other thousands of planets - if somehow started with the same first life forms - weren't able to support the life forms so they never got a chance to evolve. There could be another planet with life forms on it...we haven't found it yet, but the possibility of one existing isn't supernatural. So yes, I believe in extraterrestrials more than I believe in God. Some species fail while others prosper. I don't think you really acknowledge BILLIONS of years. Like, we live a hundred years if we're lucky. If something is possible and you admit it's possible, why can't you understand that it will most likely happen if it has BILLIONS of years to get working? Maybe all of the evolving we have currently gone through could be done in a million years if it doesn't waste any time evolving and only evolves into things that evolve into other things, not things that fail and get wasted. But the earth isn't only a million years old. It's 45,000 TIMES that. It's not a bunch of random occurrences that happened in perfect alignment. We still aren't that complex and it's had this much time.



Uh, I'm pretty sure you can find documentation on mountains that were formed after all the flood shit... Plate tectonic theory explains how a mountain can form from land that was once flat or once under the ocean. So, that explains why some mountains have plant life that is abnormal. There's even a mountain - I forgot the name - but it has plant life and dirt from one continent on one side and plant life and dirt from another on the other side.