It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

Look into the nerve in the neck of a giraffe, it proves evolution.
On phone at work so can't link it.
It really shows how evolution can be a liitle odd and shows that if designed the designer needs firing.
Its called the laryngeal nerve look it up and if you can find an autopsy of a giraffe. ....fascinating.



I hate that anyone that questions evolution is attacked or insulted quote often. Is that due to a fear on the part of the evolutionist that their world may be turned on its head?


I would say no to that question. Ultimately it is just a debate. If either is right, it does nothing to advance anything. It is like asking if you like to eat vegetables....some people do and some don't, but it has no bearing on life at all. Ultimately, who really cares if evolution or creation is correct? Other than being able to say you won the argument, it accomplishes nothing else.

Do creationists think if they can prove god did it, that suddenly the world will just become religious and worship god? Do evolutionists think that if they can prove it, that suddenly all religions of the world will give up and quit having faith? Neither of these things will happen, so the only outcome is just bragging rights, which if I am not mistaken, bragging is a big no-no for christians, or at least good christians.




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

The answers are out there to discover :-D
The beginning of life is nowt to do with evolution it is called abogenisis. Spelt that wrong but hey I have dyslexia :-D.
Evolution is a wonderful fascinating subject.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



A giraffe evolved due to food scarcities and one had a longer neck leading it to eat higher foods. Okay. The giraffe was not the only animal on the plains. If all the others survived by eating ground plants etc then there is no reason that the giraffe would have to look up at all.

An Ostrich also has a long neck. Same idea? One was born with a long neck, ate taller foods, passed it on. Why not shrink instead so that it can fly like other birds? It's just too far fetched for me.



in both cases the organism gets an advantage - rather than the giraffe having to compete for the grass with all the other grass eaters, it opened up a new niche - one where it didn't have to compete

and that is a key feature of the evolutionary process - there is not just an advantage of being better - there is also an advantage in being able to utilise resources others can't - it's one of the main drivers of speciation

if you look throughout the animal kingdom there are very many closely related and similar species that have evolved slightly differently in order not to compete for resources

it's one reason why we have the mind boggling diversity of life

the ostrich actually lost it's ability to fly - natural selection dictated that the population that got bigger and faster but lost the ability to fly was successful - it works and ostriches are proof



So one day a human was born without hair and that somehow was more efficient keeping their bloodline alive while most others died out etc etc.


man probably 'lost his hair' because he learned how to make clothes - it wasn't needed for warmth - would you fancy living in africa with a permanent fur coat on? you'd get very hot during the day but you'd need it during the night otherwise you'd freeze - by inventing clothes we allowed our bodies to become tolerant of a greater range of climates - a big advantage

we actually have as many hairs as a chimp - it's just that the hair on most of our body has got much shorter and finer - the advantage is already mentioned


This is very good. Thank you.

About humans though. Lions, hyenas etc all have fur. Lots of it. Making them very hot in the same way you described above. A human full of hair in Africa may want to shed the hair during the day, but wants it back at night. This would stop the evolution in its tracks because they would never invent socks (not literal). They would seek shade during the day and be cold at night. This puts them in the cool/cold more often than hot. This will remove the need for clothing as they will be cool more often.

That logic just doesnt compute for me.

If they lost their hair because they started to cover themselves that is a chosen evolutionary path. I have been told repeatedly throughout this chat that evolution is not chosen.

Also if covering our bodies caused us to lose our hair our hands and faces at the very least should still be covered. I've never seen a caveman wear a balaclava.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

The answers are out there to discover :-D
The beginning of life is nowt to do with evolution it is called abogenisis. Spelt that wrong but hey I have dyslexia :-D.
Evolution is a wonderful fascinating subject.


I'm sure I have many spelling mistakes myself


The beginning does have a different name in science but all the same principles should have to apply. Something adapted to something else and poof.. Life. My question is what and how. If we cannot formulate that and how all the minute systems suddenly worked in tandom to let something live, then the rest of the evolving falls flat.

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as a very strong fact. Their are facts within evolution but the basis of it is unknown. This forces people to have faith in it starting a particular way so that things we see now make sense.

I feel the beginning of life is more relevant in this conversation than the current, and so far the beginning is a mystery.

Even the big bang is sold in school as fact. That's not right. It's as much a fact as the Bible.

Something came from nothing, then there was a bang=a dude in the sky made everything.

They make as much sense as each other. None. Yet one is taught, the other, laughed at?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

If you have nothing constructive kindly go back to your video games.


Says the person that brought up giants in a thread regarding the theory of evolution lol!


As far as I have read the US Supreme Court was involved in the Smithsonian incident. It will of course be thrown into the realm of crazy because it doesn't fit the norm.


As far as you have read.....so the government is involved in an anti-giants conspiracy?

It was brought into the realm of crazy when you attempted to insert the fairy tales of a religion into a discussion about the biodiversity of life...


Anyway unicorns? Unicorn fossils have never been found but they are in stories.


Just like the giants.....


The missing link between many millions of creatures has never been found either, just as relevant?


You're definitely getting all your information from creationist propaganda websites.....missing link?

The 'Missing Link' was created by creationists, just like the giants bones.......



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

Even the big bang is sold in school as fact. That's not right. It's as much a fact as the Bible.

Something came from nothing, then there was a bang=a dude in the sky made everything.

They make as much sense as each other. None. Yet one is taught, the other, laughed at?


The BB has evidence......the sky fairy? none

Do you care whether or not the things you believe are true or not?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

The answers are out there to discover :-D
The beginning of life is nowt to do with evolution it is called abogenisis. Spelt that wrong but hey I have dyslexia :-D.
Evolution is a wonderful fascinating subject.


I'm sure I have many spelling mistakes myself


The beginning does have a different name in science but all the same principles should have to apply. Something adapted to something else and poof.. Life. My question is what and how. If we cannot formulate that and how all the minute systems suddenly worked in tandom to let something live, then the rest of the evolving falls flat.

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as a very strong fact. Their are facts within evolution but the basis of it is unknown. This forces people to have faith in it starting a particular way so that things we see now make sense.

I feel the beginning of life is more relevant in this conversation than the current, and so far the beginning is a mystery.

Even the big bang is sold in school as fact. That's not right. It's as much a fact as the Bible.

Something came from nothing, then there was a bang=a dude in the sky made everything.

They make as much sense as each other. None. Yet one is taught, the other, laughed at?


I think the biggest problem is with the way the debates about which is correct actually happen. My reason for supporting evolution is that it makes sense to me, and is consistently striving to provide more and more evidence of such a thing happening, where the creationist only has the word of men saying that their god did it and can't delve any deeper into research.

Eventually evolution will be able to prove evolution, the bible can't do the same regardless of how much research is done. The only way creation can be proven beyond a doubt is if god presents a new species that is completely outside the realm of knowledge and in front of someone to witness it. Outside of this, there is nothing that can further the argument of creation, where science is making daily strides to prove evolution and is able to do so based on actual research.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
For the 1 billionth time. "Big bang theory" does not claim that the universe came from nothing. It says that at some point there was a massive expansion of space.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

A few problems... Whales having legs and toes etc. If the evolutionary process is such a marvel how does it create something as magnificent as a giraffe neck which is an uber complex item and yet can't drop a couple of toes?
There was no reason for the toes to be dropped. Evolution wasn't "creating" a new creature, the ones with genetic advantages were the ones that were living to reproduce. If the vestigial anatomy of a whale is not hindering it living and reproducing, what would have caused it to vanish altogether? In fact, the fact that it IS still there is a pretty clear indicator that incremental changes over a long period of time favored creatures whose toes were weak, and over time favored creatures whose toes were absorbed into uselessness inside the body.




Evolution is great I see how it could work, absolutely, but the facts are not there. The actual science is missing for me. A giraffe evolved due to food scarcities and one had a longer neck leading it to eat higher foods. Okay. The giraffe was not the only animal on the plains. If all the others survived by eating ground plants etc then there is no reason that the giraffe would have to look up at all.
Why not? What if the short-necked giraffe was the tallest animal on the plain already (due to adaptation)? I don't know the specifics of the prehistoric Serengeti, but imagine there were creatures that fed on bushes, creatures that fed on grass, creatures (short-necked giraffes) that that fed on low trees. Remember, an ecosystem evolves simultaneously. Species that thrive are the ones that find a niche to fill that few other species are filling. An ecosystem containing the giraffes is constantly changing in minute ways, which is constantly causing change to OTHER species in minute ways. The plants are evolving alongside the animals. Also, no one said the giraffe evolved due to a food shortage. The ones with longer necks were simply more likely to to pass on their genetic material.




An Ostrich also has a long neck. Same idea? One was born with a long neck, ate taller foods, passed it on. Why not shrink instead so that it can fly like other birds? It's just too far fetched for me.
Again, evolution isn't trying to accomplish an end. You see a simpler outcome in changing the ostrich so that it can fly; this is as far from simple as it gets. If that was the case, why didn't every species develop flight? Clearly flight is the pinnacle of animal mobility? Because that isn't how evolution works. It's not aiming to achieve a better, more sophisticated being. There's no "upward mobility" in the structure of evolution. Here's a phrase to chew on: every living thing on Earth is exactly as evolved as we are. Think about that.



If humans started out with fur, we are told we got rid of it due to creating clothing and covering up, therefore dropping the requirment for fur. Problem with that is if we have fur and are completely covered, keeping us warm like all other animals we would never develop clothing as that would simply make us far too hot to begin with.

Human evolution is trickier. Increased intelligence and the concept of a society add a lot of additional factors to the survival of genetic traits. I believe the book is still open on why exactly humans don't have fur, and I'm not going to pretend I have the answer.



Now on the other hand, I've been told repeatedly that creatures do not choose to evolve, it just happens. So one day a human was born without hair and that somehow was more efficient keeping their bloodline alive while most others died out etc etc. That doesn't make sense to me either. All mammals have hair. Lots. A coyote that lives where its hot has hair. It seems as though the survival of the fittest doesn't apply to humans at all.
Here's the thing: not every change winds up mattering to the species. Think again about what we've been saying: mutation isn't a response to the environment. It's random. If it produces an advantage, the creature may become more successful than its competitors and contribute to speciation. If it produces a disadvantage, the creature's gene line may die out. However, a change can occur that does neither of these things. A change that is just that; a change. If it neither helps nor hurts the creatures odds of survival, there's nothing stopping that set of genes from being passed on.




Now from the comment above, dating fossils by rocks. Scientists do use circular reasoning. They date fossils with rocks and the other way around and are very good at making thing fit, excusing things that do not. Carbon dating has been shown to be very inacurate also. Yet it is pushed as exact fact.
To what purpose are you skeptical of carbon dating? Do you wish to propose that the Earth is the Biblical 6000 years old? Because if this is the case, there are other methods of determining the Earth's age. Disproving carbon dating does not disprove a billions-of-years-old Earth. And all evolution needs to produce the changes it has produced is lots and lots of time.



There are numerous discoveries that do not fit the status quo. Elongated skulls, giants in the grand canyon. Proven items. The giants are in old newspapers. With Smithsonian whistle lowers saying they did destroy them.

If evolution is such fact, why is there a need to hide, cover up and dismiss or fire people or items that do not fit the mould?
Now you're delving into a territory that is uninteresting to me, because it is not true. There is no point in debating these last few points. There are no proven Grand Canyon giants.

You know what, I'll bite anyway. Let's assume for a moment that there were giant fossils found in the Grand Canyon in the 1800s or whenever it was. There's no way that scientists would not be all over that. If only one fossil find was discovered, and was somehow lost or destroyed, then we have nothing left to study. But there's not a chance in hell that the scientific community would be so "embarrassed" by the existence of giants that they'd purposely sabotage history. Giants would be an amazing find!



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



A giraffe evolved due to food scarcities and one had a longer neck leading it to eat higher foods. Okay. The giraffe was not the only animal on the plains. If all the others survived by eating ground plants etc then there is no reason that the giraffe would have to look up at all.

An Ostrich also has a long neck. Same idea? One was born with a long neck, ate taller foods, passed it on. Why not shrink instead so that it can fly like other birds? It's just too far fetched for me.



in both cases the organism gets an advantage - rather than the giraffe having to compete for the grass with all the other grass eaters, it opened up a new niche - one where it didn't have to compete

and that is a key feature of the evolutionary process - there is not just an advantage of being better - there is also an advantage in being able to utilise resources others can't - it's one of the main drivers of speciation

if you look throughout the animal kingdom there are very many closely related and similar species that have evolved slightly differently in order not to compete for resources

it's one reason why we have the mind boggling diversity of life

the ostrich actually lost it's ability to fly - natural selection dictated that the population that got bigger and faster but lost the ability to fly was successful - it works and ostriches are proof



So one day a human was born without hair and that somehow was more efficient keeping their bloodline alive while most others died out etc etc.


man probably 'lost his hair' because he learned how to make clothes - it wasn't needed for warmth - would you fancy living in africa with a permanent fur coat on? you'd get very hot during the day but you'd need it during the night otherwise you'd freeze - by inventing clothes we allowed our bodies to become tolerant of a greater range of climates - a big advantage

we actually have as many hairs as a chimp - it's just that the hair on most of our body has got much shorter and finer - the advantage is already mentioned


This is very good. Thank you.

About humans though. Lions, hyenas etc all have fur. Lots of it. Making them very hot in the same way you described above. A human full of hair in Africa may want to shed the hair during the day, but wants it back at night. This would stop the evolution in its tracks because they would never invent socks (not literal). They would seek shade during the day and be cold at night. This puts them in the cool/cold more often than hot. This will remove the need for clothing as they will be cool more often.

That logic just doesnt compute for me.

If they lost their hair because they started to cover themselves that is a chosen evolutionary path. I have been told repeatedly throughout this chat that evolution is not chosen.

Also if covering our bodies caused us to lose our hair our hands and faces at the very least should still be covered. I've never seen a caveman wear a balaclava.


It is not thought that we lost our hair because we started wearing clothes. It is widely recognised that we started wearing clothes because our hair started thinning out due to mate selection. Whatever made the less hairy mates more preferable, we can speculate on.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Giantism is an expression that is allowable by our DNA. We have actually found skulls and femurs of exceptionally tall humans from pre history. Even today there are people who are eight foot and taller. I see no reason to discount the claims of extremely tall humans.

I'm pretty sure that some from the smithsonian even admitted to destroying a lot of evidence including full skeletons.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
The beginning does have a different name in science but all the same principles should have to apply. Something adapted to something else and poof.. Life. My question is what and how. If we cannot formulate that and how all the minute systems suddenly worked in tandom to let something live, then the rest of the evolving falls flat.


Why does every question have to be answered in order for a theory to be valid? The point of science is that most questions AREN'T answered yet, but we are trying to build evidence to find answers for them. Just because there are still questions in regards to a theory, doesn't mean it is invalid or not to be believed, or even less credible. Actually, as soon as you start saying that no questions are left is when you need to look at the idea with a dubious eye (this is something that religion claims constantly, that it has all the answers).


My problem with evolution is that it is taught as a very strong fact. Their are facts within evolution but the basis of it is unknown. This forces people to have faith in it starting a particular way so that things we see now make sense.


Well until you can produce a theory with stronger evidence than evolution, it remains the best answer we have.


I feel the beginning of life is more relevant in this conversation than the current, and so far the beginning is a mystery.


Beginning of life isn't more relevant than evolution. It is a completely different conversation with its own relevancies.


Even the big bang is sold in school as fact. That's not right. It's as much a fact as the Bible.

Something came from nothing, then there was a bang=a dude in the sky made everything.


The big bang doesn't say that something came from nothing. It would help if you actually made an attempt to understand what you are debating before you question it.


They make as much sense as each other. None. Yet one is taught, the other, laughed at?


One has evidence behind it, the other came from the imaginations of man. Like I said, if you find the Big Bang theory to be flawed, produce a more credible theory that accounts for all the evidence gathered so far and explains things better than the BBT. To narrow down the Big Bang, evolution, abiogensis, etc as just another idea on par with religion just because the ideas aren't complete is silly. There are STILL tons of evidence backing these theories and what they say currently. Religion has no evidence backing any of it.

Gravity is a theory yet I don't see you questioning that notion. Everything we know about cells is theory (it's called Cell Theory). Why aren't you questioning these concepts?
edit on 9-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One has evidence behind it, the other came from the imaginations of man.

Doesn't a scientific 'theory' come from the imagination of man?

Just because there are still questions in regards to a theory, doesn't mean it is invalid or not to be believed, or even less credible.

One should use the scientific model but not trust anyone else to observe, one must look for oneself at the observable evidence. I want to see the evidence not just read about it.
What can actually be known for sure??
And what is knowing?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
You guys think that these links I'm giving you are what made me believe in God? I'm just trying to find something 'Scientific' that will convince you. Like Giants for instance? Who believes Giants existed on earth prior to the Flood? If you admit that Giants existed archeologically and then a Flood wiped them out, we are getting somewhere.

Who believes in the flood? What about Dinosaurs co-existing with man? Did you know that Dinosaurs are talked about in the Bible? They changed the translation to mean Hippo or Elephant even though the descriptions definitely don't add up.

I'm sure that you will say any and all of the evidence for such things is fraudulent but I would say the same for your 'Science'.






Most of us loved reading about dinosaurs at some time in our lives. In 1993, the movie “Jurassic Park” stimulated the public interest in dinosaurs far beyond its previous level. As a result, increasing numbers of people have thought, “Since we have found all these fossils and dinosaur bones, we know dinosaurs existed. How come they are not mentioned in the Bible?”

Actually, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, and we will prove it by doing the following three things:

Examining the Bible’s text and the related scientific facts.
Explaining the accuracy of the Bible.
Exploring what we are taught in school and through the media.

The Bible’s Text

The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.

Although we alter the spelling of behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.” The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to “Tanniyn.” To make things clearer, we constructed the following table comparing the scientific names with the Biblical names tanniyn, behemoth, and Leviathan.


The article goes on to say.



violet ball Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

Some bibles and study bibles will translate the word “behemoth” as “elephant” or “hippopotamus.” Others will put a note at the edge or bottom of the page, stating that behemoth was probably an elephant or a hippopotamus. Although an elephant or hippopotamus can eat grass (or lie in a covert of reeds and marsh), neither an elephant or a hippopotamus has a “tail like a cedar” (that is, a tail like a large, tapered tree trunk). In your kid’s dinosaur book you will find lots of animals that have “tails like a cedar.”

We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.[1] A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as “the first of the ways of God.”

Comparing all this information to the description in your kid’s dinosaur book, you may come to the conclusion that “behemoth” is not a normal animal, it is a dinosaur—the brachiosaurus. We agree with that conclusion!


Thoughts?
Source
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Hey science has a lot of weight, a lot. But then again science is essentially accepting someone else's observations for fact without actually observing it themselves. Much like religion, so everyone's still in the same boat whether they like it or not.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Flood didn't happen...not worldwide.
Giants? yes people have Gigantism.
Dinosaurs co existing with man....nope.
Thing is "our" (yours as well even though you dismiss it) science is backed up by real evidence...with no people behind it with a religious agenda.
It's fine being ignorant If you choose just don't claim that it shouldn't be taught in schools.
The ID crowd attempted to get their version in schools and was found out to be the liars they are to further their religious agenda.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Well recheck my post, i edited it. Dinosaurs are in the Bible because they existed at the same time as those in Biblical times. Simple.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
You guys think that these links I'm giving you are what made me believe in God? I'm just trying to find something 'Scientific' that convince you. Like Giants for instance? Who believes Giants existed on earth prior to the Flood?

Who believes in the flood? What about Dinosaurs co-existing with man?

I'm sure that you will say any and all of the evidence for such things is fraudulent but I would say the same for your 'Science'.


Well seeing that you based your OP on a video made by a known con artist, it is hard to follow that up with anything else.

There are no known giants, or giant bones...those that have been touted as such have been tested and found to come from other species of known animals.

The flood likely did happen, but it happened in a small region. The people of the time were not world travelers as we are today, and the "world" to them was very confined so their area may have flooded, but the entire earth flooding is a myth. So...earth flooded? Where'd all the water go? Evaporation can't account for it because it can't leave our atmosphere, so did we just grow more land and earth was a lot smaller in diameter when the flood happened or something?

My problem with the creation stuff is that there is no research on it...it is simply written in a book that is quite old and taken at face value. It is then used by crackpots like the one in your OP video to try to prove some point. All he is doing is exactly what I said in my last posts about him....

If that is your proof, then I fear you will have to try MUCH harder to convince anyone. But like I said before, what good does convincing anyone do? Just to prove a point that someone is right and someone is wrong? These creation/evolution arguments are so pointless really.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   


Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.

“No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm
104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
Leviathan is a “reptile [a] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)

[a] Note: The word translated “reptile” here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that “Leviathan” was also a “tanniyn” (dragon).

Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some bibles refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land. Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can open Leviathan’s jaws. Although an alligator's jaws cannot normally be forced open, a punch to their sensitive snout or poke in eye might startle them enough to release their grip.[2] Although this is a good description of an alligator characteristic, it does not fit perfectly with the description of Leviathan, which in the context of the Bible was supposed to describe an essentially impossible event, and we are not done yet.

The description of the scales is interesting. Several verses describe these great scales. Compared to Leviathan’s armor, iron is like straw and arrows ca not make it flee. Let’s face it, an arrow can do a lot of damage to a crocodile or alligator. This is not a description of either of them—or any living animal we are aware of.

And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal like that in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle can do it, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: aynock

originally posted by: TechUnique


dr grady mcmurtry is a doctor of divinity - not very relevant to evolutionary biology


Dr. Grady S. McMurtry has served as a Regent and Adjunct Professor at the School of Theology in Columbus, Georgia, the school from which he obtained his Doctor of Divinity in 1996.


link



That video was to do with Young earth creation not evolution. The fact that the earth is way younger than what you guys believe is relevant.


Finally!

You never answered the question I presented to you: "In your opinion, how old is the earth?"

Now that we know you believe in Young Earth nonsense, it's clear that we're all wasting our time presenting anything to you.

To accept evolution, one must first accept the true age of the earth. As it stands, we're trying to teach trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join