Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

Roq said:

OK so:

How did the particular Mr & Mrs Koala bear know that they were the ones that were to go on the ark rather than some other couple?

How did they know there was an ark and where the ark was?

How did they get sufficient food for the trip (it only grows in Aus)?

How did they cross 7000 miles of ocean?

etc. etc. etc….

It was miracles wasn't it? or did you miss these little snags? See Pladio's 3rd video…

Click to expand...

It might have been a pangea back then. Who knows. The world was very different according to the bible back then. Most of the water was in the sky.

Damian said:

It might have been a pangea back then. Who knows. The world was very different according to the bible back then. Most of the water was in the sky.

Click to expand...

Who knows? Anyone with half a brain, I would have thought. If enough water was in the atmosphere for a global flood, then everyone would have drowned, just through breathing, before it even happened.

And "Pangaea" is a pretty desperate solution to the fact that Koalas can't swim!? Even if we accepted that there was a global land mass a few thousand years ago, against all the evidence (Pangaea actually occurred hundreds of millions of years ago), animals would still have to travel long distances to get to the ark, they still wouldn't know where it was, they'd still need a special calling from god, they'd still need to pack their food for the trip etc. etc. That all requires miracles. You can't claim that all animals mingled freely before your "flood", because the distribution of fossils over the planet shows otherwise. And do you really think polar bears lived in the desert, before the flood? OK i realise that asking a creationist to recognize an absurdity is probably hopeless; the fact is though that life consists of many mutually sustaining ecosystems and animals can't survive outside of them.

]

How can you all be so totaly of track without knowing so??!
The only hopeless absurdity around is your total lack of using your eyes,ears and brain instead of your mouth. If I put together a bunch of misleading videos it doesnt change facts.
Evolutionists has tried to do exectly that for a long history.
Misleading charts of one kind of animal evolving to another in evolutionary tree models. Biggest joke in the history of mankind.
There has never been found the missing links between the kinds, some forgeries has been presented but they all have been proven wrong.

Name one that has not been refuted!

You should also know that altough it rained for the first time during the flood, most of the water came from within the earth. It clearly says so in the bible, try and read it, it helps.

Roq said:

Who knows? Anyone with half a brain, I would have thought. If enough water was in the atmosphere for a global flood, then everyone would have drowned, just through breathing, before it even happened.

And "Pangaea" is a pretty desperate solution to the fact that Koalas can't swim!? Even if we accepted that there was a global land mass a few thousand years ago, against all the evidence (Pangaea actually occurred hundreds of millions of years ago), animals would still have to travel long distances to get to the ark, they still wouldn't know where it was, they'd still need a special calling from god, they'd still need to pack their food for the trip etc. etc. That all requires miracles. You can't claim that all animals mingled freely before your "flood", because the distribution of fossils over the planet shows otherwise. And do you really think polar bears lived in the desert, before the flood? OK i realise that asking a creationist to recognize an absurdity is probably hopeless; the fact is though that life consists of many mutually sustaining ecosystems and animals can't survive outside of them.

Click to expand...

Why is the pangea a desperate solution? And perhaps god called them before hand. And who said polar bear lived in the desert?

TopCat said:

Pladio,
Your kangaroos has been for a time parted.
Since nothing evolves, their genetic codes has degenerated in such a way that its impossible to fill the gaps, nothing strange.

Click to expand...

Yes, very strange, since they (animals) have developed very differently and you can't say they've "degenerated". That term means nothing.

Are smaller animals degenerates of the larger ones ? Are the red kangaroos degenerate because they've changed colour ?
Your term means nothing.

You are just saying things that come to mind, but with nothing to back it up.

On top of this, your are philosophising ! You said you wanted facts. Nowhere in the bible does it say animals can "degenerate", whatever that even means.

Can you please stick to facts as you said. Or should I quote you again.

There has never been found the missing links between the kinds, some forgeries has been presented but they all have been proven wrong.

Name one that has not been refuted!

Click to expand...

This is very misleading. There will always be missing links. Let me explain:
Let's say we have in our "evolution line" that goes from 1-10 (1 being the furthest back we can go and 10 being now)
We have examples from 3-6 and 7.5-9 and then 9.5-10.
Let's say we find the missing link 7, you will say no evidence was found for 6.1-6.9. Let's say we find evidence for 6.1-6.9, you'll say we have no evidence from 6.01-6.09.
Let us say we find evidence for 6.091-6.100, you'll say we have no evidence for 6.0901-6.0909.

And so on.

A very simple story someone once told me demonstrates the idea though.

Let us say a bank was robbed. You are the jury. The defendant is seen on camera entering the bank at night, entering the manager's room, taking the key to the safe, opening the safe, the camera in the safe is turned off during the robbery, then the camera just outside the safe is also off, the next camera to pick him up is in the main bank reception with a bag that seems full on his shoulder, then coming out of the bank with the bag.

So basically, you're missing the robber taking the money, but money is missing from the safe and you know he was in the bank. Your "missing link" is one piece out of a massive puzzle.
Are you going to convict the defendant? Or are you going to say he's not guilty ?

Most people would convict him and they would most likely be right. Of course there's a chance they were wrong and the guy only went in to get his stuff from the safe while someone else robbed the bank that night. Or God could have robbed the bank himself, but the more likely explanation is that it's the defendant.

So you see the missing link is not a really good argument, because the point is that evidence for evolution is massively overwhelming.

In case you do want some examples of evidence :
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

Damian said:

Why is the pangea a desperate solution? And perhaps god called them before hand. And who said polar bear lived in the desert?

Click to expand...

Not addressing the God part as if that's your answer and that's your belief then there's little point in arguing.

In terms of polar bear:
What they meant is that the polar bear would die before reaching the ark.

Polar bears have more problems with overheating than they do with cold. That's why they walk at a leisurely pace. They quickly overheat when they run.

Click to expand...

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/essentials/home-range-and-cold-climate

Local TV meteorologist Sky McCloud explained, "Average annual temperatures in the area have risen from 20 degrees below zero to 15 below zero in the last 30 years, and these giant creatures simply can not withstand the excess heat."

Click to expand...

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-heat.htm

Polar bears are being exhausted and dying with temps below freezing. Can you imagine them coming to the Middle East to board a ship ?

Pladio

I loked at your evidence… ??
We have the same bone structures.
I've known that since I was 4 years old.
And, I thought like you for the most part of my life.
That does not prove TET. Its just shows we are family.
We have the same creator or the same background it does not tell witch.

For the missing link part: There is not so that there is some in between models missing. The whole thing is missing!!
You have never seen a human with a thumb on her foot or an ape without the same.
It does not exist such a missing link, no matter how many drawings of apemen thats been produced, they dont exist.
Dont read the papers or watch sick vids. read the reports of the scientists and you will be disapointed.

Plants do have a fantastic way of emerging and surviving but,
They will never walk around, they will always be; plants.

At the time there was no middle east and probably no polar bears since findings show that the earth was full of vegetation.
Polar bears comes from bears and they do have ways do adjust within their kind to warmer or colder climate. However this ability among animals tends to be weaker depending on degeneration, witch leads to things like your favorite kangaroos.
Were getting their too, more and more physical and psychological disorders,
like beliving in TET. :lol: I take that back, I just had to say it! but,
I don't mean that by heart.
Actually, you are just saying what I belived a couple of years ago.

You are beeing deceived by media, schoolbooks, science magazins, movies, toys.
The world today is totaly sick.
I do not mean that some guys are doin this to us on purpose.
It's not a scam from their part. Most of them are just followers that go blindly in the direction of the wind, beliving theyre doin the right thing.
Do you know that a delutor like Richard Dawkins has not earned his proffessorship
from the university that he represents. His chair doesn't exist.
It's paid for by an filthyrich TET sponsor.
The University is happy, their gettin paid
The TET sponsor is happy for ads, books
Dawkins is happy he gets money & Title
You have to have time, will and fightingspirit to be able to see through it.
It's not easy.
I love to see you search for answers and try to corner me cause in the long run,
that will make you able to spot some real truth.

TopCat said:

Pladio

I loked at your evidence… ??
We have the same bone structures.
I've known that since I was 4 years old.
And, I thought like you for the most part of my life.
That does not prove TET. Its just shows we are family.
We have the same creator or the same background it does not tell witch.

For the missing link part: There is not so that there is some in between models missing. The whole thing is missing!!
You have never seen a human with a thumb on her foot or an ape without the same.
It does not exist such a missing link, no matter how many drawings of apemen thats been produced, they dont exist.
Dont read the papers or watch sick vids. read the reports of the scientists and you will be disapointed.

Plants do have a fantastic way of emerging and surviving but,
They will never walk around, they will always be; plants.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my questions :
Are smaller animals degenerates of the larger ones or is it the other way around ? Are the red kangaroos degenerate because they've changed colour ?
Your term means nothing.

You are just saying things that come to mind, but with nothing to back it up.

On top of this, your are philosophising ! You said you wanted facts. Nowhere in the bible does it say animals can "degenerate", whatever that even means. Additionally,nowhere in the world of science as we know it today does it say things can only "degenerate".
Which again is a term with no meaning.

This is just such total nonsense I have to unsubscribe. It is really hard to believe some of the stuff said in this thread. I have no problem with religious people keeping to their area of interest - faith. But please leave the science to the experts, you are just embarrassing yourself and creating an anti-intellectual world (like much of the US is becoming).

TopCat said:

At the time there was no middle east and probably no polar bears since findings show that the earth was full of vegetation.
Polar bears comes from bears and they do have ways do adjust within their kind to warmer or colder climate. However this ability among animals tends to be weaker depending on degeneration, witch leads to things like your favorite kangaroos.
Were getting their too, more and more physical and psychological disorders,
like beliving in TET. :lol: I take that back, I just had to say it! but,
I don't mean that by heart.
Actually, you are just saying what I belived a couple of years ago.

Click to expand...

Which findings ? Do you mean scientific findings ? Like the ones that show evidence for scientific theories such as the Evolution Theory ?

You are beeing deceived by media, schoolbooks, science magazins, movies, toys.
The world today is totaly sick.
I do not mean that some guys are doin this to us on purpose.
It's not a scam from their part. Most of them are just followers that go blindly in the direction of the wind, beliving theyre doin the right thing.
Do you know that a delutor like Richard Dawkins has not earned his proffessorship
from the university that he represents. His chair doesn't exist.
It's paid for by an filthyrich TET sponsor.
The University is happy, their gettin paid
The TET sponsor is happy for ads, books
Dawkins is happy he gets money & Title
You have to have time, will and fightingspirit to be able to see through it.
It's not easy.
I love to see you search for answers and try to corner me cause in the long run,
that will make you able to spot some real truth.

Click to expand...

This just sounds like conspiracy theories with no real basis in fact.

Education[edit]
Dawkins attended Oundle School, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[11] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[16] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[8] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[17] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[18]
Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[19] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology.

Click to expand...

A reader is quite similar to a professor in other countries.

Pladio said:

What they meant is that the polar bear would die before reaching the ark.

Click to expand...

What if there was no desert before the flood? Would that make a difference?

Damian said:

What if there was no desert before the flood? Would that make a difference?

Click to expand...

Not by much. See the article I posted. Temperatures for polar bears need to be below freezing to survive. Anything more temperate would result in their deaths.

Researchers believe that it is only a matter of time before polar bears are pushed to the brink of extinction. "Ten degrees below zero seems to be the generally agreed tipping point", said McCloud. "Once average temperatures reach this level for several days in a row, the bears start dropping like flies."

Click to expand...

Pladio said:

Not by much. See the article I posted. Temperatures for polar bears need to be below freezing to survive. Anything more temperate would result in their deaths.

Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the mutations allowed them to survive in ice and maybe there were no polar bears before the flood?

Damian said:

Perhaps one of the mutations allowed them to survive in ice and maybe there were no polar bears before the flood?

Click to expand...

You're talking about evolution. Congratulations. Polar bears, grizzly bears, brown bears and so on, they all have a common ancestor. From that ancestor they all derive similar characteristics, but over time they have changed.

(no idea if the pic is up to date)

Unlike what you're going to say, which is, you've solved the problem, the species of today just didn't exist back then (5000 years ago), we have evidence to suggest that they did. Problem is that if you believe in a young earth then there's no way to convince you otherwise.

If you are interested however, again you need to read up on it.

I'm going to bed now. Now what you need to do is forget about the Ark that couldn't contain all of the species.

Pladio said:

You didn't answer my questions :
Are smaller animals degenerates of the larger ones or is it the other way around ? Are the red kangaroos degenerate because they've changed colour ?
Your term means nothing.

You are just saying things that come to mind, but with nothing to back it up.

On top of this, your are philosophising ! You said you wanted facts. Nowhere in the bible does it say animals can "degenerate", whatever that even means. Additionally,nowhere in the world of science as we know it today does it say things can only "degenerate".
Which again is a term with no meaning.

Click to expand...

That things degenerate is simply because of the laws of thermodynamics.
The same laws that makes it impossible for things to evolve.
Things wears out cause of radiation, wind, water and so on, look at everything around you it's not hard to see. That is sience. You can test it, it's a FACT!!

Larger and smaller animals is not degeneration, it's variations within the gene-code of that kind of animal. Compare the chihuahua with the great dane or the wolf. They are the same kind. Any three year old could point their finger and say dog.

TopCat said:

That things degenerate is simply because of the laws of thermodynamics.
The same laws that makes it impossible for things to evolve.
Things wears out cause of radiation, wind, water and so on, look at everything around you it's not hard to see. That is sience. You can test it, it's a FACT!!

Larger and smaller animals is not degeneration, it's variations within the gene-code of that kind of animal. Compare the chihuahua with the great dane or the wolf. They are the same kind. Any three year old could point their finger and say dog.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained what it means in genetic terms. All you're doing is saying how obvious it is. Well, it's not.

Pladio said:

You're talking about evolution. Congratulations. Polar bears, grizzly bears, brown bears and so on, they all have a common ancestor. From that ancestor they all derive similar characteristics, but over time they have changed.

(no idea if the pic is up to date)

Unlike what you're going to say, which is, you've solved the problem, the species of today just didn't exist back then (5000 years ago), we have evidence to suggest that they did. Problem is that if you believe in a young earth then there's no way to convince you otherwise.

If you are interested however, again you need to read up on it.you are so lost

I'm going to bed now. Now what you need to do is forget about the Ark that couldn't contain all of the species.

Click to expand...

You are so lost… The bible does not say species. Can you get that in between your ears and let it dwell there for a minute.
The bible is nowhere short of words or expressions, if he who wrote it wanted to write species, he would have done so. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ??

It's rather big problem for you with a young earth, not for me.
Idon't even have a problem with an old earth but there are FACTS pointing in the other direction, such as the earths magnetic field, the sun losing weight, the moon leaving earth, the dust on the moon, pollonium haloes in granit, the missing geological layers, oil not yet surfacing, I can go on forever and these are FACTS.

All the facts I present are you able to test and study!!
Can you show me anything in favor of TET that I can test and study??
There are not any!!

Pladio said:

Problem is that if you believe in a young earth then there's no way to convince you otherwise.

Click to expand...

This is probably true, same way that i cannot convince you that the earth is not millions of years old.

You should know that the chart of bears does not show evolution
It shows drawings of bears. Does that say anything to you?
Someone wants you to think that he proved something by showing you
a drawing of bears… Is that science? No! Is that facts? No! So??