Noah and the Deluge

[tuppence]

I'm starting this because "By Accident?" had been sidetracked.

For starts:

Yes the Flood occurred.

It was not local. It was world-wide.

It is remembered and mentioned in the stories of every ancient culture.

Only one family survived on a large covered barge-like boat.

With them were a number of animals who had the breath of life, or nephesh, (which is also translated 'soul') of the air and land.

All the animals and people on the Ark were vegetarians and food had been stored for them.

Insects, plants, amphibians all survived on what were probably gigantic floating vegetation mats, akin to what we see after the monsoon seasons in the Far East, only much larger.

The salt in the ocean was probably much less before the Flood, being more of a brackish salinity. In Genesis 7:11 we read that all the fountains of the deep exploded at the same time. This means the subterranean water was under enormous pressure and probably scalding. A number of ancient 'legends' talk about the explosions of scalding waters. This water, exploding upwards, would have carried with it enormous amounts of pulverized rock which, when saturated in the rainfall and subsequent flood, would have release great amounts of salt. However, this would not have been distributed even throughout the ocean, and still, actually, is not, as ocean currents have a great deal to do with the matter. Thus the original fish, given the genetic ability to vary which would have been in all original populations, would have been able to have some offspring survive in marginal waters and there truly would have been not only survival of the fittest at that point, but a great deal of speciation/variation.

It should be noted that even today we can be quite amazed at the ability of a number of kinds of fish to breed across what we consider species and even genus lines.

OK, that's enough for people to start shooting, I'm sure!

[Jovaro]

How deep was this ocean compared to the one we have now? Did it cover the mount Everest or what kind of magnitudes are we talking about?

[Aineo]

Have you read about Pangea?


From Pangea to the Present

Genesis 1:9-10
9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. NAS

There are many theories involving continental shift, one is the earth shifted its axis billions of years ago, which resulted in Pangea becoming our modern day continents. The movement of the continental plates resulted in our current mountain ranges. Science speculates this took millions of years.

Genesis 7:11-12
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. NAS

The Genesis account states the water covered the land to a depth of 15 cubits or 22.5 ft. Therefore the ark would not have been 22.5 above Mt. Everest since the major mountain ranges were not in existence. Science believes the major mountain ranges resulted from the slow and sometimes catastrophic collision of the continental plates, but these ranges could have been formed by a single catastrophic event that slammed the continental plates into each other.

[tuppence]

How deep was this ocean compared to the one we have now? Did it cover the mount Everest or what kind of magnitudes are we talking about?

Jovaro, the oceans would not have been nearly as deep as now, for the deepest parts are at the rift zones, and these would have been post-flood, with major geological activity continuing to and somewhat past the time of Peleg, when the earth was divided.

Mt. Everest and our other mountain ranges are also the result of the geological activity that was involved in the Flood and the two later catastrophes, so there is no need to think that the oceans covered them -- well, they did, but they were not mountains then! I have read estimates that anywhere between a third and a half of our current ocean waters were outgased by the Flood.

[Jovaro]

I think I heard all the arguments for this one before. I'll retreat myself from this discussion. It won't lead anywhere anyway.

[Aineo]

Bump

[Helix]

*Sigh* I've heard this all before too. Christians are weaving intricate stories that will always tend to have quasi-scientific data mixed with miraculous stories about 'god suddenly doing this and that.'

And why? Because it is incomprehensible for a most on this forum that a book can contain data that might not be correct! Early men, both christians and non-christians alike, have believed that the world was flat. We now know it isn't. This does not mean early men were stupid, it means they had no way of knowing it WASN'T round before.

Now tell me, how can anyone of the writers of the old testament know for certain what happened? (Let me guess, it was god who told them, or perhaps they had an oral tradition about remembering epic stories.) There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible (becasue they are a relatively new discovery), but - in the interest of proving the bible right - it is said that dinosaurs WERE indeed around. (The bible doesn't explicitly say they DIDN'T exist, so it's alright to speculate on this) They were put on the Ark in pairs as well:

According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

Here's another quote:

The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Both quotes came from thispage

There are countless other details that just don't add up Naoh had to load an animal into the Ark every 38 seconds if we start calculating with the time given to Noah and the amount of animals the bible says there were. The mass of all of these animals would have sank the ship. The crew to care for these animals was too small. There had to food for all of the animals. What did carnivores eat? (No, they can't be vegetarians. They would not survive - or simply refuse to eat - a herbivorous diet.) Then there are genetic variations within the species we see around us (species that 'suvived' becasue of the ark) that have more variation in their genes than one would expect from animals that we bread from only two parent. (Noah's 2 animals) How would Noah have bought pairs of huge animals (not just elephants, but also brachiosaurs and indricotheriums and, oh yes, all sorts of tyrannosaur-like predators? I'm not even going to start with the whole inbreading problem that would follow. And what did the predators eat when they reached land after 40 days of starvation? They would have killed entire species with every meal they caught!

The paragraph above is based on what is written here

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously believe this STORY, because in my opninion, it's only a story. When people try to 'proof it with science' they draw all sorts of conclusions ('dinosaurs were around') that appear as desperate and in some cases ridiculous attempts to construct a logical story

Is that what you call 'faith'? Believing in fairy tales you KNOW are not true?

[Aineo]

And why? Because it is incomprehensible for a most on this forum that a book can contain data that might not be correct! Early men, both christians and non-christians alike, have believed that the world was flat. We now know it isn't. This does not mean early men were stupid, it means they had no way of knowing it WASN'T round before.

Actually you are incorrect. The ancient Greeks did not believe the world was flat. Read some of Unconvinced's posts, he seems to have a better grasp of historical truth than you do.

Now tell me, how can anyone of the writers of the old testament know for certain what happened? (Let me guess, it was god who told them, or perhaps they had an oral tradition about remembering epic stories.) There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible (becasue they are a relatively new discovery), but - in the interest of proving the bible right - it is said that dinosaurs WERE indeed around. (The bible doesn't explicitly say they DIDN'T exist, so it's alright to speculate on this) They were put on the Ark in pairs as well:

The leviathan and the behemouth could very well be dinosaurs. The Bible is not a science textbook. You are assuming a lot and doing the same thing you accuse Christians of doing.

According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

Here's another quote:

The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

A secular lab that tests ship design decided to see if the ark was a sea worthy vessel. They built a scale model of the ark based on Biblical information and discovered the ark would have been a remarkable barge that could withstand the worst nature could throw at it. No matter what conditions they used the ark could not be swamped. Any ocean going vessel that is hit from the side can be swamped, which is why such vessels head into a wave; but the ark could withstand a side impact and not overturn. Secular science performed these experiments over 30 years ago, but I don't suppose it is being reported in our time since this is not something atheists want to accept.

Both quotes came from thispage

There are countless other details that just don't add up Naoh had to load an animal into the Ark every 38 seconds if we start calculating with the time given to Noah and the amount of animals the bible says there were. The mass of all of these animals would have sank the ship. The crew to care for these animals was too small. There had to food for all of the animals. What did carnivores eat? (No, they can't be vegetarians. They would not survive - or simply refuse to eat - a herbivorous diet.) Then there are genetic variations within the species we see around us (species that 'suvived' becasue of the ark) that have more variation in their genes than one would expect from animals that we bread from only two parent. (Noah's 2 animals) How would Noah have bought pairs of huge animals (not just elephants, but also brachiosaurs and indricotheriums and, oh yes, all sorts of tyrannosaur-like predators? I'm not even going to start with the whole inbreading problem that would follow. And what did the predators eat when they reached land after 40 days of starvation? They would have killed entire species with every meal they caught!

Lots and lots of assumptions based on lots and lots of assumptions. Before the time of Noah animals were vegeterians. BTW, you cannot disprove this even by appealing to the fossil record.

You support evolution and then deny evolution to support your thesis that the flood as recorded in Scripture is a myth. Do you accept anthropology as a viable science? If you do then maybe you should study what anthropology teaches about cultural myths and legends before you continue you uninformed rants in support of theories that cannot be empirically established as truth.

The paragraph above is based on what is written here

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously believe this STORY, because in my opninion, it's only a story. When people try to 'proof it with science' they draw all sorts of conclusions ('dinosaurs were around') that appear as desperate and in some cases ridiculous attempts to construct a logical story

Is that what you call 'faith'? Believing in fairy tales you KNOW are not true?

As the blind calling the faithful blind. Again, real science does not contradict Biblical truth. Only those who are so desperate to disprove the Bible but "faith" in "fairy tales" based on "theories" that can be supported only when certain factors in formulas are defined as constants.

If truth is really important to you and others then get into a study of truth and not "fairy tales" dressed up in the wrappings of the god of science.

If Talk Origins is your only source of information then I suggest you expand your horizens and read other scientific sources that are willing to seek truth.

[Helix]

Actually you are incorrect. The ancient Greeks did not believe the world was flat. Read some of Unconvinced's posts, he seems to have a better grasp of historical truth than you do.

ACTUALLY you are incorrect. :

Oceanus + Tethys - The personification of the vast ocean. Together with his wife Tethys, they produced the rivers and six thousand offsprings called the Oceanids. He ruled over Ocean, a great river encircling the earth, which was believed to be a flat circle. The nymphs of this great river, the Oceanids, were their daughters, and the gods of all the streams on earth were their sons.
http://www.ancient-greece.com/html/mythology_frame.htm

You talked about the Leviathan and the Behemoth. You suggested that they might have been 'Dinosaurs.' Too bad for you that I've been doing a bit of research on them... It seems far more likely(from descriptions and the writings of others who try to explain the bible), that the leviathan was most nothing more than a crocodile, and the behemoth a hippopotamus. (Which can both be found in the Nile - in Egypt)

They built a scale model of the ark...

So? If I build a scale model of a spaceship, put it in water and conclude it doesn't leak, would I have designed a spece worthy vehicle? I can construct ships of PAPER that don't tip over when you put them in turbulent water. I see your point, but I'm trying to say: A scale model is something different than a REAL ship and behaves very differently! (But put a link to the page on here, and I'll have a look at it.)

Before the time of Noah animals were vegeterians.

Really? Strange how the teeth of lions are SO well equiped for eating flesh... Try to image a lion eating vegetation with those teeth! They can't chew it. Did they swallow plants whole and trust on their digestive system? And what use were those claws they have? I imagine chameleons used their tongue to 'catch' leaves of trees? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can see how ridiculous this is, can't you?

If Talk Origins is your only source of information then I suggest you expand your horizens and read other scientific sources that are willing to seek truth.

Don't worry, Talk Origin is only one of many scientific links in my bookmarks. And I've got a bookcase full of useful books as well. Strange to hear this from a person who uses the bible as a reference point. Isn't that one source? You're blaming me for what you are doing yourself...

[Aineo]

Actually you are incorrect. The ancient Greeks did not believe the world was flat. Read some of Unconvinced's posts, he seems to have a better grasp of historical truth than you do.

ACTUALLY you are incorrect. :

Oceanus + Tethys - The personification of the vast ocean. Together with his wife Tethys, they produced the rivers and six thousand offsprings called the Oceanids. He ruled over Ocean, a great river encircling the earth, which was believed to be a flat circle. The nymphs of this great river, the Oceanids, were their daughters, and the gods of all the streams on earth were their sons.
http://www.ancient-greece.com/html/mythology_frame.htm

Your source is site on mythology. Now can you find a source that deals with truth?

You talked about the Leviathan and the Behemoth. You suggested that they might have been 'Dinosaurs.' Too bad for you that I've been doing a bit of research on them... It seems far more likely(from descriptions and the writings of others who try to explain the bible), that the leviathan was most nothing more than a crocodile, and the behemoth a hippopotamus. (Which can both be found in the Nile - in Egypt)

The crocodile has remained unchanged for thousands of years. In your terminology the term "thousands of years" can be changed to "millions of years".

They built a scale model of the ark...

So? If I build a scale model of a spaceship, put it in water and conclude it doesn't leak, would I have designed a spece worthy vehicle? I can construct ships of PAPER that don't tip over when you put them in turbulent water. I see your point, but I'm trying to say: A scale model is something different than a REAL ship and behaves very differently! (But put a link to the page on here, and I'll have a look at it.)

You example is ludicrous. What sane man would test the reliability of a vehicle designed for space travel in water? ALL new designs for ships, airplanes, and space craft used to exit and enter our atmosphere are tested in labs by those with the funds to do such testing.

Before the time of Noah animals were vegeterians.

Really? Strange how the teeth of lions are SO well equiped for eating flesh... Try to image a lion eating vegetation with those teeth! They can't chew it. Did they swallow plants whole and trust on their digestive system? And what use were those claws they have? I imagine chameleons used their tongue to 'catch' leaves of trees? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can see how ridiculous this is, can't you?

An evolutionist is again denying evolution to establish his own theories. I have a toy poddle. He has teeth designed to rip and he has teeth designed to grind. You also have teeth designed to rip and death designed to grind. My cat has teeth designed to rip and grind.

If Talk Origins is your only source of information then I suggest you expand your horizens and read other scientific sources that are willing to seek truth.

Don't worry, Talk Origin is only one of many scientific links in my bookmarks. And I've got a bookcase full of useful books as well. Strange to hear this from a person who uses the bible as a reference point. Isn't that one source? You're blaming me for what you are doing yourself...

I also have books on science that can show evolution is false, that creation is true, that theoretical science is just that "theory". I also have books that argue in the other direction.

I find it an arrogant presumption that atheists think creationists believe what they believe on "faith" and ignore science. The ones who ignore science are the atheists whose personal opinions are more important to them than real science. The "faith" atheists put in their own opinions is no different than the "faith" informed and educated creationists put in both the Bible and science. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[IAMFREE]

You talked about the Leviathan and the Behemoth. You suggested that they might have been 'Dinosaurs.' Too bad for you that I've been doing a bit of research on them... It seems far more likely(from descriptions and the writings of others who try to explain the bible), that the leviathan was most nothing more than a crocodile, and the behemoth a hippopotamus. (Which can both be found in the Nile - in Egypt)

Strange how the teeth of lions are SO well equiped for eating flesh... Try to image a lion eating vegetation with those teeth! They can't chew it. Did they swallow plants whole and trust on their digestive system? And what use were those claws they have? I imagine chameleons used their tongue to 'catch' leaves of trees? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can see how ridiculous this is, can't you?

Traits of the Leviathan: Job 41:1-34 unapproahcable, untaimable, neither spear or harpoon can peirce it's hide, the mere sight of it is overpowering, a mouth of fearsome teeth, armered, firebrands stream from it's mouth, smoke pours from it's nostrils, it's breath sets coals ablaze, it's chest is hard as stone, the sword that touches him has no effect, I could go on but I think you are smart enough to know that this is not a crocodile.

Traits of the Behemoth: Job 40:15-24 made along with man, eats grass like an ox, strength is in it's loins and power in the muscles of it's belly, it's tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of it's thighs are close-knit. A hippo has a little flap for a tail and cannot stand( no need for power in the belly) and a blind man knows the differance between the trunk and the tail of an elephant(which looks like a short rope).

There are many animals today that have teeth that could be used for eating meat but do not. ie the panda
Not to forget Job was after the flood.

[Jovaro]

In fact it would be very difficult if not impossible for carnivores to eat vegetables and stuff.

As you might know there are three groups: herbivores (planteaters), carnivores (meateaters) and omnivores (both plant and meat eaters)

A great example of a herbivore is the elephant. Plants and leaves must be chewed thoroughly to be digested. Elephants have many teeth for chewing, they even change their teeth for chewing, because the chewing weares the teeth down.
I think the elephant has 6 sets of those teeth, so it can change teeth 6 times. When all the sets are used, the elephant dies.
An elephant can't eat meat because it lacks the proper teeth.

See here something on the carnivores teeth:

The teeth of these carnivores are adapted to eat they flesh of their prey. At the front of the mouth the teeth are sharp and pointed. There are four which are longer than the others. These are called the canine teeth. These are the teeth that the big cat uses to hold on to the throat of its prey to kill it.
The teeth at the back of the mouth are also sharp and pointed but larger than those at the front. When the mouth is closed these back teeth come together like the blades of a pair of scissors. These teeth are used to cut into the flesh of the prey and sheer off pieces of meat. These carnivores have powerful muscles which can open and close the mouth. Carnivores are not able to move their jaws from side to side very easily.

If you chew you move your jaws to "grind" the food. Carnivores can hardly do this, let alone that they don't have the flat teeth to chew with.

Omnivores have a mix of both kinds of teeth and can eat both meat and plants, regardless of what they choose to eat like the panda...

[IAMFREE]

In fact it would be very difficult if not impossible for carnivores to eat vegetables and stuff.

As you might know there are three groups: herbivores (planteaters), carnivores (meateaters) and omnivores (both plant and meat eaters)

A great example of a herbivore is the elephant. Plants and leaves must be chewed thoroughly to be digested. Elephants have many teeth for chewing, they even change their teeth for chewing, because the chewing weares the teeth down.
I think the elephant has 6 sets of those teeth, so it can change teeth 6 times. When all the sets are used, the elephant dies.
An elephant can't eat meat because it lacks the proper teeth.

See here something on the carnivores teeth:

The teeth of these carnivores are adapted to eat they flesh of their prey. At the front of the mouth the teeth are sharp and pointed. There are four which are longer than the others. These are called the canine teeth. These are the teeth that the big cat uses to hold on to the throat of its prey to kill it.
The teeth at the back of the mouth are also sharp and pointed but larger than those at the front. When the mouth is closed these back teeth come together like the blades of a pair of scissors. These teeth are used to cut into the flesh of the prey and sheer off pieces of meat. These carnivores have powerful muscles which can open and close the mouth. Carnivores are not able to move their jaws from side to side very easily.

If you chew you move your jaws to "grind" the food. Carnivores can hardly do this, let alone that they don't have the flat teeth to chew with.

Omnivores have a mix of both kinds of teeth and can eat both meat and plants, regardless of what they choose to eat like the panda...

GEN 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food. And it was so."
Gen 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you green plants, I now give you everything.'

[Jovaro]

And *bang* God changed the teeth of the carnivores?

[IAMFREE]

And *bang* God changed the teeth of the carnivores?

No, who is to say that God had to change their teeth. Again I will remind you that there many animals that have sharp pointed teeth for ripping the flesh off an orange, mango, or other fruits, bark, bamboo, and so on. They have sharp teeth but do not eat meat. Besides, the T-Rex has a six inch tooth with only about one inch of the base is in the jaw. Not very good leverage for ripping flesh without pulling a tooth.

[Jovaro]

Panda's are omnivores.

Do you have an example of an animal without the proper teeth to eat vegetables and stuff, that eats it anyway?

[spunky]

dogs eat grass to help settle their stomachs.. Cats do too.. i know my cat has an especiall fondess of dandelions.. oddly dandelions are said to be the most nutrious plant on the globe... I don't know if the wild big cats and dogs share these same traits.. but I presume they do.

[Jovaro]

dogs eat grass to help settle their stomachs.. Cats do too.. i know my cat has an especiall fondess of dandelions.. oddly dandelions are said to be the most nutrious plant on the globe... I don't know if the wild big cats and dogs share these same traits.. but I presume they do.

I wonder if they uhm whats the word.. digest? them as well. At least the grass is not digested for sure, since that comes out through the mouth again.

[Aineo]

dogs eat grass to help settle their stomachs.. Cats do too.. i know my cat has an especiall fondess of dandelions.. oddly dandelions are said to be the most nutrious plant on the globe... I don't know if the wild big cats and dogs share these same traits.. but I presume they do.

I wonder if they uhm whats the word.. digest? them as well. At least the grass is not digested for sure, since that comes out through the mouth again.

My dog loves some vegetables and does not regurgitate those he eats. My dog also eats grass that he then regurgitates, which is probably because of the chemicles I use to control weeds.

Microevolution can easily explain changes in teeth, but since Scripture indicates a time is coming when all animals will again eat only vegetation even carnivores have retained the ability to pick, grind and eat vegetation, or have the ability to digest vegetation without "eating" as we do.

[tuppence]

I doubt it was the teeth that changed. Look at the tusks of the walrus -- for digging in the mud. Look at the sharp teeth of the squirrel -- for cracking nuts and such. We have some clues today with things such as soy to show us that some forms of plant life do offer complete proteins. Coconuts are not easily broken. Stripping bark off some plants in order to get to the good stuff underneath is not a lightweight task. How much plant life was destroyed for good in the Flood?

The teeth that are used for tearing meat now could just as well been used for tearing bark and/or breaking nuts before the Flood.

We have a Sheltie mix and two German Shepherd mixes. All adore the blackberries and will suffer the scratches and scrapes of outrageous vines to get to them! Our Sheltie will eat tomatoes and grapes off the vine and loves to dig up the carrots! All of them will supplement their dog food and meat diets with grass. None of them throw it up. All of it is digested. I guarantee that. I'm the one who cleans up the back yard daily!

As far as it being necessary to chew leaves thoroughly before they can be digested, baloney. Stomach acids are wonderful things! Any stomach acid which can take on meat can most easily take on plant life!

Keep in mind that humans do not grind our food. We smash it between our teeth to break it up some, but we do not grind it. Go ahead, TRY to move your jaws side to side when you eat a salad next time!

I have no trouble at all with the idea that any and all of the large animals were at one time vegetarian.

[IAMFREE]

The Eguana.

[On My Way]

I wonder if they uhm whats the word.. digest? them as well. At least the grass is not digested for sure, since that comes out through the mouth again.

Well I guess I will have to tell my dog that.

Actually my dog will graze in the back yard for hours on end if I let him.

I was at the vets one time and I asked him "He seems to eat alot of grass and we are kind of worried about that, why would he do it?"

And he looked at me and said " Because he likes it"

I can tell you that it digests fine with him and he never throws it up

Fred (my dog) has been a vegitarian for about 3 years now and prefers fruits, nuts and carrots over most other foods.

Now I'm no Bible scholar or any other for that matter, but I just got through reading a book God's key to Health and happiness ,and the book explains that carnivourious (SP?) animals were the unclean animals sent in by their natural duty to eat the dead animals that died in the fields and
and therfore kept the earth cleaner. So my thought with the flood killing off everything most of the larger carnivoirs would not be needed since there would not bee that much to clean up.
just my $0.02

[Aineo]

Well, snakes don't "chew" their food, and neither do crocs, sharks, whales, and most marine life. My poodle get dry food and his carnivore teeth are great for chewing it before he swallows it, and when I give him pieces of meat he gulps it without bothering to chew. In fact his tongue is his major way of picking up his food, not his teeth.

[IAMFREE]

Well, snakes don't "chew" their food, and neither do crocs, sharks, whales, and most marine life. My poodle get dry food and his carnivore teeth are great for chewing it before he swallows it, and when I give him pieces of meat he gulps it without bothering to chew. In fact his tongue is his major way of picking up his food, not his teeth.

Marine life was not included. Shore line up is the surface of the earth. Poodles are a whole differant thread.

[Helix]

I can harldy believe that some people seem to think that carnivores were vegetarians less than 6000 years ago. Try to feed a lion plants for a month and see if it still lives. According to your view on evolution (or the lack of it) the lion should hardly or not have changed a bit since then and SHOULD be able to feed on plants.

Why DO lions hunt animals and go thorugh all that trouble when plants grow all around them? And why can carnivores die of starvation in areas with enough vegetation to sustain an animal of its size? BECAUSE THEY EVOLVED TO EAT MEAT! Here's a list (of the top of my head) about the lion:

- Teeth/ jaws that hold down prey and cause suffocation
- Intenstines that are shorter than those of herbivores (so the meat doesn't rot inside the body. Plants are more durable: cows have 4 stomaches AND intestines to digest grass)
- Claws that are designed to hold on to moving prey (not seen in herbivores, because they are meant for killing animals and serve no purpose to herbivores)
- The young lions instictively start eating meat (next to drinking milk). Lions don't start eating plants, though no one tells them not to.
- Starving lions can't survive on vegetation (even if their life depents on it)
- Lions communicate with each other in order to surround herds of herbivores and to execute certain tactics that require cooperation. (Hunting skills are only present in carnivores. Its a trade that increases the chance of killing prey. Why would a 'former herbivore' develop this trait?)

All of these things suggest that the lion cannot survive as a herbivore and that the body of the lion had been formed by evolution to be better and better in what it does: Eat meat on the savannah. The suggestion that all carnivores were herbivores a few thousand years ago is simply hilarious. It also makes me wonder why I waste my time here...

[IAMFREE]

I can harldy believe that some people seem to think that carnivores were vegetarians less than 6000 years ago. Try to feed a lion plants for a month and see if it still lives. According to your view on evolution (or the lack of it) the lion should hardly or not have changed a bit since then and SHOULD be able to feed on plants.

Why DO lions hunt animals and go thorugh all that trouble when plants grow all around them? And why can carnivores die of starvation in areas with enough vegetation to sustain an animal of its size? BECAUSE THEY EVOLVED TO EAT MEAT! Here's a list (of the top of my head) about the lion:

- Teeth/ jaws that hold down prey and cause suffocation
- Intenstines that are shorter than those of herbivores (so the meat doesn't rot inside the body. Plants are more durable: cows have 4 stomaches AND intestines to digest grass)
- Claws that are designed to hold on to moving prey (not seen in herbivores, because they are meant for killing people and serve no purpose to herbivores)
- The young lions instictively start eating meat (next to drinking milk). Lions don't start eating plants, though no one tells them not to.
- Starving lions can't survive on vegetation (even if their life depents on it)
- Lions communicate with each other in order to surround herds of herbivores and to execute certain tactics that require cooperation. (Hunting skills are only present in carnivores. Its a trade that increases the change of killing prey. Why would a 'former herbivore' develop this trait?)

All of these things suggest that the lion cannot survive as a herbivore and that the body of the lion had been formed by evolution to be better and better in what it does: Eat meat on the savannah. The suggestion that all carnivores were herbivores a few thousand years ago is simply hilarious. It also makes me wonder why I waste my time here...

If evolution were true then the lion would have died during the development of it's claws, teeth, hunting skills, ect..ect.

Chance has never been able to even create a single celled paramecium. The complexity of even this cell is beyond a chance occurance. Even the name that you use "Helix" in referance to the double helix of the DNA of any cell has such a vast complexity that to consider a live creatuer such as a lion (with millions of cells working in unison) a chance occurance is obserd.

[tuppence]

Helix, despite your scorn, I would ask you to please read carefully, which I don't think you have up to this point.

You may find it difficult to believe that lions were vegetarians less than 6000 years ago, but I don't. And I don't as someone who has studied biology and taught it.

First of all, it is important to remind both of us that we don't KNOW any of this -- on either side. I used to be on your 'side', thinking creationists, and in particular, young earth creationists, were nuts, ignorant, blind...choose your adjective. I'm trying to say that I know what you think in this area. I spent five years reading due to some student questioning in my late twenties and early thirties. It was due to data, particularly in the area of population genetics, which convinced me that not only could evolution not happen, but that life, and possible the earth and universe itself, were quite young.

So, play the game with me for a moment. Let's look at it as if that were true regarding the points in your post.

First, we know that functions can be lost. Cave fish have lost their eyes/sight. This has nothing to do with getting eyes in the first place, but with the fact that when something is not used, there is no pressure genetically to select it. And if some other trait is important and more or less accidently involves the loss of another function -- that is something we see in genetics and purposeful breeding. I'm sure you know of the various weaknesses inherent in certain breeds of dogs which have been inbred extensively. Deafness in the Dalmation, hip dysplasia in the German Shepherd, etc. There are trade-offs in traits genetically. This, by the way, does not stop a berry from being a berry or a lion a lion.

So here we have the lion, a confirmed carnivore.

Or is he? Not totally. The contents of the prey's stomach are actually important to the diet of the lion or any other carnivore. That's the first thing. Here is a web page about feeding the large cats in captivity:
http://www.2ndchance.info/bigcatdiet.htm

It does not mention stomach contents, but it does mention that there must be additives to a plain chunk meat diet. I don't have the time to research it tonight, but there are cases of big cats preferring vegetarian diets. There is the story of "Little Tyke", but I honestly don't know how true it is: http://www.essene.com/HumaneReligion/LionAndLamb.htm

What does need to be recognized, though, is that all living things need certain nutrients, regardless of where they get them. We do know there are some plants high in varous proteins, such as soy. We know that some plants eaten in combination provide most the essential proteins and amino acids found in meat -- such as rice and beans together.

We also know that there are some plant products today which need a great deal of strength and/or cunning to get to, such as coconuts. We also know nuts are high in protein and have some amino acids.

I think you can see where I am heading with this. If this is a young creation, which I believe it is, and if Noah's flood was indeed a world catastrophe, which data tells us it was, it is not far-fetched to consider that there were many, many species of plants available before the flood which did not make it through.

If any of these species had large, hard nuts which needed powerful jaws to crack, and whose nuts were jammed with the proteins and amino acids needed for todays carnivores, then we have the answer to the big cats. I think also of the saber-tooth tiger -- what were those extraordinarily large teeth for? Digging, like the walrus?

In other words, when I put together what we do know: traits can be lost (such as the ability to consume grass and leaves?), plants can be sources of protein and amino acids, etc., I am not relying on pure imagination to think that it was indeed possible for todays carnivores to have been yesterday's herbivores, PROVIDING the proper plant life was available to them.

It is certainly reasonable to assume that the big cats were ALWAYS highly dependent on a high protein diet -- their intestines are indeed apparently designed for that. But what is up in the air is whether or not the source of that protein was always the flesh of other animals.

[Helix]

I see your point here:... You try to make a point by by pointing out that certain carnivores eat vegetation... Well, I've seen my cats eat a lot of types of vegetation, but I'm still convinced that their MAIN course is made up of real meat. (My cats eat plants if they need to get rid of a hair ball in their thraot!)

Being a herbivore or a carnivore depends on WHAT you eat, when it comes to humans. We have adapted to a diverse diet, which incorporates both meat and vegetable...

What I DO find hard to 'digest' -pun intended- is that certain carnivores were herbivores.

Lions did not devellop their 'instincts' and 'hunter-ability' to 'catch nuts.' They develloped it to be able to catch their prey on the savannah. They needed to run and kill with their claw. Even normal house cats show this 'hunter ability' They will chase pieces of dust for several weeks. After that period, they will attempt to hunt real animals. The hunter ability is passed on genetically. Big cats world-wide (Tigers - Asia-; lions- Africa- ; Jaguars - south america, Pumas; North America,=...) After their infancy, children and people in general, lose their innocence.

[tuppence]

Consider the play that we see in young animals. Chasing and catching is a rather universal form of play for all mammals, no matter their diets, when they are young.

I don't think it takes much to go from there to the necessity of catching to live. Chasing what moves can be applied to rolling nut, scurrying rabbit, bounding antelope...

As I said, I have no trouble with the concept that those animals which are carnivores now used to get all the protein and amino acids they needed from plant material, and I am thinking of roots and nuts in particular, with a helping of fruit now and then just because it is sweet!

I know you will disagree, but that is where I stand.

[Helix]

I understand your point of view, but it is a point of view that needs a lot of explaining. There are two ways of looking at it:

- Creationist view: Herbivores adapted to eating meat and used their herbivoric skills to catch animals

- Evolutionist view: These animals evolved (from insectivores) and slowly evolved into a species that kills larger animals.

The evolutionist point of view explains the complete physiology of carnivores; evolution has changed their appearance.

Your point of view leaves a number of things unanswered:

-What did the pelican do with it's sack of skin underneath its bill before it turned into a carnivore?
-What purpose did the claws of big cat have? Climbing into trees to get nuts and fruit? Then why do they have teeth that are used for slashing arteries and bringing down prey?
- Some animals (certain types of snake for example) only eat prey that is alive. This would not only have caused a problem on the Ark (did they store a large quantity of living rats somewhere?) but it is also strange behaviour for an ex-herbivore.
- I could go on, but almost every predator has some special ability that it uses to catch prey and which is not present in herbivores. ( Special methods of digestion -snakes- or claws/beaks on birds, that only meat eating birds have.)

The fact that we think fruit is sweet does not make it a delicacy to other animals. Cats will not eat fruit, and I doubt they will eat it even if they are starving.

[...] any cell has such a vast complexity that to consider a live creatuer such as a lion (with millions of cells working in unison) a chance occurance is obserd.

Is it? We see jellyfish today (portuguese man-of-war) that consist of several colonies of cells that operate in unison. Strictly speaking, this type of jellyfish is not even a real animal. It is a group of independent cells that poses as an animal. Some of them form the sail, other form the tentacles. This behaviour offers a good chance of survival (opposed to a single-celled existence).
Animals, humans, plants etc. are also colonies of single celled organisms that work together to increase their chances of survival. Our cells are so dependant on this way of life that they cannot life without the help of other cells. A life form is nothing more than a very complex colony of single celled life forms. Some of our cells have dedicated their life to sending around oxygen, that single celled creatures that make up our lungs have gathered. Others spend their life as a cell that makes up bone. It provides strength to the colony, and it gets food and oxygen for free! A wite blood cell has no chance of survival when you throw it into a lake or the ocean, but in a body gets fed, gets oxygen and serves a purpose ('killing' diseases). A life form is in fact nothing more than a colony of millions of organisms.

Whether or not you consider this absurd doesn't change a bit about it.

[Aineo]

Your view necessitates billions of years to be true; my view does not. Current science can demonstrates (if not prove) evolution is a theory in crisis that simply refuses to die. So I accept what current science can demonstrate to be true based on observable data and reject theories based on nothing more than comparing physiology, which does not prove anything.

Why do males have nipples; what function does the vermiform appendix serve; why does a healthy human liver regenerate but a healthy human being can loose and arm and it will not regenerate? I can come up with many questions that evolution cannot answer. So I guess we are at a stalemate.

[tuppence]

Helix, I can understand why you hold your point of view. But you are lacking one vital piece of information: evolution is genetically impossible. There is no known way for a cell to manufacture a de novo protein, and even if it could, the cell would not know what to do with it! And both of those events are necessary for evolution to be true.

We have NO evidence for 'macro' evolution, which is QUITE different from 'micro' evolution -- the latter being nothing more than normal variation around a genetic mean.

Without evolution being a real possibility, the rest of your argument falls apart.

[spunky]

Helix you say that "Our cells are so dependant on this way of life that they cannot life without the help of other cells. " If this is true all the cells in our body in fact in any organism would have had to evolve at the exact same moment in time, come together in a perfect symbiotic relationship with all the peices in the right place or die.

[tuppence]

interesting point, spunky. Here is my bet: he will say those relationships evolved....

[tuppence]

Cats will not eat fruit, and I doubt they will eat it even if they are starving.

Yeah, to each his own. Ever hear of catnip?

[Jovaro]

If any of these species had large, hard nuts which needed powerful jaws to crack, and whose nuts were jammed with the proteins and amino acids needed for todays carnivores, then we have the answer to the big cats. I think also of the saber-tooth tiger -- what were those extraordinarily large teeth for? Digging, like the walrus?

Predators have sharp teeth right? So they can rip the prey apart and get it into their stomach in tiny bits.

Did you ever try to break something hard between your sharp teeth? If you did I am sure you know that after the thing broke, your teeth will slam onto eachother pretty hard. If you would do this very often, you would break or at least ruin your teeth.

So the teeth of predators are really not suitable to crack nuts. You don't crack nuts with a knife either after all...

[Aineo]

If any of these species had large, hard nuts which needed powerful jaws to crack, and whose nuts were jammed with the proteins and amino acids needed for todays carnivores, then we have the answer to the big cats. I think also of the saber-tooth tiger -- what were those extraordinarily large teeth for? Digging, like the walrus?

Predators have sharp teeth right? So they can rip the prey apart and get it into their stomach in tiny bits.

Did you ever try to break something hard between your sharp teeth? If you did I am sure you know that after the thing broke, your teeth will slam onto eachother pretty hard. If you would do this very often, you would break or at least ruin your teeth.

So the teeth of predators are really not suitable to crack nuts. You don't crack nuts with a knife either after all...

You example about cracking nuts with your teeth is amusing. I know lots of people who do crack nuts with their teeth, and when they do their teeth don't slam together, their teeth penetrate the nutmeat which softens any impact. In fact about the only nut that I have not tried to crack with my teeth is a brazil nut. Walnuts, pecans, filberts, and etc. are easily cracked with your teeth.

[Jovaro]

If any of these species had large, hard nuts which needed powerful jaws to crack, and whose nuts were jammed with the proteins and amino acids needed for todays carnivores, then we have the answer to the big cats. I think also of the saber-tooth tiger -- what were those extraordinarily large teeth for? Digging, like the walrus?

Predators have sharp teeth right? So they can rip the prey apart and get it into their stomach in tiny bits.

Did you ever try to break something hard between your sharp teeth? If you did I am sure you know that after the thing broke, your teeth will slam onto eachother pretty hard. If you would do this very often, you would break or at least ruin your teeth.

So the teeth of predators are really not suitable to crack nuts. You don't crack nuts with a knife either after all...

You example about cracking nuts with your teeth is amusing. I know lots of people who do crack nuts with their teeth, and when they do their teeth don't slam together, their teeth penetrate the nutmeat which softens any impact. In fact about the only nut that I have not tried to crack with my teeth is a brazil nut. Walnuts, pecans, filberts, and etc. are easily cracked with your teeth.

I meant the sharp teeth we have. I crack hard stuff with my grinding teeth. The non-sharp teeth.

[tuppence]

I don't know, Jovaro. Squirrels and such do ok, and they don't have any grinding teeth....

[Aineo]

I meant the sharp teeth we have. I crack hard stuff with my grinding teeth. The non-sharp teeth.

I found cracking nuts to be easier with my incisors, since I had problems getting a whole walnut into the back of my mouth when I was a child and we had a black walnut tree in the back yard.

[Jovaro]

I found cracking nuts to be easier with my incisors, since I had problems getting a whole walnut into the back of my mouth when I was a child and we had a black walnut tree in the back yard.

You cracked the shells with your incisor teeth? Sounds ouch to me, but perhaps it is just me then..

[Aineo]

I found cracking nuts to be easier with my incisors, since I had problems getting a whole walnut into the back of my mouth when I was a child and we had a black walnut tree in the back yard.

You cracked the shells with your incisor teeth? Sounds ouch to me, but perhaps it is just me then..

Strong teeth and jaws is all that a human needs to crack nuts with their incisors. I would not recommend it when one has the proper tools, but it is not impossible.

[Jovaro]

Strong teeth and jaws is all that a human needs to crack nuts with their incisors. I would not recommend it when one has the proper tools, but it is not impossible.

I never meant to suggest that it was impossible, just bad for your teeth... I thought that if you had to crack (many?) nuts like that every day, your teeth would soon be a goldmine for the dentist.

[Aineo]

Strong teeth and jaws is all that a human needs to crack nuts with their incisors. I would not recommend it when one has the proper tools, but it is not impossible.

I never meant to suggest that it was impossible, just bad for your teeth... I thought that if you had to crack (many?) nuts like that every day, your teeth would soon be a goldmine for the dentist.

Sugar and other factors contribute to tooth decay. I suppose if you spent all your time cracking nuts with the "wrong" teeth you could wear them down to the gums, but we don't and never have lived on a diet of nuts. BTW, have you ever noticed walnuts have a seam? You can also crack the shells of some nuts with your hands. About the only nutmeat I don't think anyone would want to attempt to crack the shell or pod of in his or her mouth is the cashew. It is enclosed in a poisonous liquid. (A useless bit of trivia)

[Jovaro]

Strong teeth and jaws is all that a human needs to crack nuts with their incisors. I would not recommend it when one has the proper tools, but it is not impossible.

I never meant to suggest that it was impossible, just bad for your teeth... I thought that if you had to crack (many?) nuts like that every day, your teeth would soon be a goldmine for the dentist.

Sugar and other factors contribute to tooth decay. I suppose if you spent all your time cracking nuts with the "wrong" teeth you could wear them down to the gums, but we don't and never have lived on a diet of nuts. BTW, have you ever noticed walnuts have a seam? You can also crack the shells of some nuts with your hands. About the only nutmeat I don't think anyone would want to attempt to crack the shell or pod of in his or her mouth is the cashew. It is enclosed in a poisonous liquid. (A useless bit of trivia)

You are absolutely right there, but tuppence suggested that tigers used their teeth to crack nuts or something like it. Tigers couldn't use their claws to crack nuts I would think, so all they have is their teeth....

[Helix]

I've been a way for a while, and I've been reading both creationist's books and books by evolutionists.

I don't have enough time to maintain a dozen separate conversations, but I'll try to post as much as a can on the fora here.

Helix you say that "Our cells are so dependant on this way of life that they cannot life without the help of other cells. " If this is true all the cells in our body in fact in any organism would have had to evolve at the exact same moment in time, come together in a perfect symbiotic relationship with all the peices in the right place or die.

No. It would simply mean that single celled organisms found a way to be more successful in a group than alone. The first 'multi-celled' colony did not have livers, kidneys, lungs, or even a heart.

When you're in a group, and you divide you tasks, you are capable of so much more. The Portuguse Man-of-War is such a colony of simple creatures, that are capable of killing creatures far larger than themselves. They have no brain, no heart or any other 'vital organ' as we would call them, but they are alive. And they are successfu.l Jellyfish are (according to the evolutionist view) older then any landgoing animal and ever older than fish. They are representative of HOW complex multi-celled life forms must have started. Even today, we can clearly see that a Man-of-War is made up of three distinct types of cells: Those that sting (and form tentacles), those that reproduce, and those that digest.

To come back to your assumtion, Spunky; you said this: "... If this is true all the cells in our body in fact in any organism would have had to evolve at the exact same moment in time, come together in a perfect symbiotic relationship with all the peices in the right place or die."

If we assume that the earlier life forms develloped in the same manner as the Portuguese man-of-war, than they consisted of groups of single celled organisms that perform only one task. Such a task could be 'stinging'. They sting everything that hits them, and are fed in return by other cells.
By feeding cells (we have blood to provide each and every cell with oxygen for example) we can make them do 'unusual things.' They will perform one task for their entire life(span), because in return, they are safe and are fed. Let's not forget the most important task of a life form: reproduction! All of our cells grow from one cell (male sperm + female egg cell), so when offspring is produces, the DNA signature of ever single cell is combined with that of the partner. (Every cell has the same DNA!) What better way of life could single celled organisms come up with?!

- Hemoglobine brings oxygen to each and every cell
- Nutrients are filtered from our stomaches and intenstines to feed our cells
- Because every cell of our body has the same DNA, the genetic profile of each cell is passed on when offspring in produced

Voìla, every basic instict (of plant or animal!) is fulfilled in multi-celled organisms!


More complex organs like eyes, livers, stomaches etc. would have come eventually. 'Photo-sensative cells' are small groups of cells that are particulary sensative to (sun)light. They can let an organism know whether it is day or night. If later generations of this species devellops a more precise way of determing the amount of light, than this would increase their chances of survival. (Shadow of a predator or shadow of a tree?) This process will eventually lead to what we know as 'eyes,' but it would also mean that every species before us had eyes that allowed it to at least survive and reproduce. (If this hadn't been the case, creatures with eyes would have died out along the way) Eyes DID evolve 'step-by-step' but were all variations of fully functional eyes, OR were photo-sensative cells that worked well enough to let the species survive. Eyes did not not lack essential parts along the way. Scientists believe that the eye has develloped at least 40 and perhaps ever 60 times SEPERATELY! Every eye -INCLUDING OUR OWN- is a transitional form between what was before, what is now and what will be... Evolution was, is and will be as well.








* (It only had a Dutch title, but in English the title would be "It doesn't make sense." Author is David Sörenson)

[God'schild]

Without brains, or any other origin of inteligence, the jelly fish just kinda came together and does inteligent things. Excuse me, but that insults my inteligence. If the copasity for inteligence is not intrinsic, then the jely fish must be controlled by transendant inteligence. That inteligence has identified Himself as the Lord God almighty.

[Jovaro]

Without brains, or any other origin of inteligence, the jelly fish just kinda came together and does inteligent things. Excuse me, but that insults my inteligence. If the copasity for inteligence is not intrinsic, then the jely fish must be controlled by transendant inteligence. That inteligence has identified Himself as the Lord God almighty.

Well it is you who make the insult here...
Comparing what jellyfishes do and what you do.. that is a quite strange comparison. Jellyfish don't think. They sting, they eat and the reproduce. That is pretty much it.
I think you are capable of a bit more with your intelligence?

[Helix]

Thanks Jovaro. You are on to something here: Brains are NOT a necessary asset to life forms. Plants don't have brains, but they can identify the sun and grow towards the light (sunflowers) or move their tentacles (some carnivorous plants do this), or shed their leaves when winter approaches. They can suck up liters/gallons of water, grow nuts or fruit, and some actually catapult their seeds away. All of this is done without a brain (or muscles for that matter!)

Does this mean 'god' controls each and every plant? Would plants die instantly if god stopped looking after them? Of course not. Plants are just as self-sustaining as you and me, or any other type of animal.


By the way God'schild: I did not write that jellyfish 'just came together'. I wrote that life in a colony has advantages over living free in the open ocean (especially for single celled organisms). I wrote this to demonstrate how plausible it is that jellyfish-like colonies appeared.

[God'schild]

They appeared because God said let there be jellyfish.

Nothing is self sustaining. All life is dependant on something. and yes everything would instantly cease if God quit taking care of it.

Where did the water come from to sustain all life? self sustaining: water not needed. Where did the soil come from to sustain roots? Self sustaining: soil not needed. Where did the sun light come from to activate photosynthesis? Self sustaining: sun light not needed.

Nothing on earth can live without dependance on something.

....And man can not live without dependance on God, reguardless if man refuses to realize it. Simple observable fact.

[God'schild]

From KJV Genesis 1
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
(5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
(8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
(11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
(15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
(16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
(18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
(19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
(23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
(30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
(31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

just in case you need the skinny on how stuff started

[Jovaro]

They appeared because God said let there be jellyfish.

Yeah, or not.

To single cell organisms not wanting to evolve because that makes survival harder:
That is not true. All existing lifeforms want to survive, they want there species to survive even. A single singlecelled organism might just end up in a volcanoe (I heard there were thousands of eruptions so that change is quite high) It wouldn't survive the heat and the species would have died.

To prevent this it makes perfect sense to start reproducing yourself. If you die there is always your kids to save the species.
It also makes perfect sense to "develop" eye's or something like that. Changes of not getting in the volcanoe increase drasticly if you can actually see the volcanoe don't you think?

So I don't really see the point that it is illogical for simple lifeforms to evolve into something more complicated/advanced. It makes perfect sense to me.

[God'schild]

How can it make perfect sence to a one celled ceature, when they have no brain to make sence with?

You keep making my case for inteligent design.

How can a brainless creature make a design, when they have no capasity to do so? And yet the design of there existance demands that there be a designer.

One of these days you evolutionist are going to catch your tail you keep chasing, and find out you were biting your own self in the behind!!!

You kinda make the case of existance without intelegence.

[Jovaro]

I was trying to show in a simple way why I think it makes sense for a simple lifeform to get more complicated.

Of course the simple think isn't thinking: Hey, I could use some hands, lets evolve them!

But by variation and natural selection, the creatures that did get something usefull like hands, will be more attractive and will get more offspring with this usefull thing.
So they are making the species more complicated.

I hope you understand me now, otherwise just ask.

[God'schild]

So a creature with out eyes says look at them hands, thats the guy for me.

Then without a brain says I think i'll introduce myself.

[Jovaro]

Perhaps it helps if you read your biology book...

[God'schild]

My biology book says God created all things

From KJV Genesis 1
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
(5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
(8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
(11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
(15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
(16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
(18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
(19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
(23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
(30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
(31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

[Jovaro]

Strange biologybook you have then.

Read a decent biologybook then. Not a Bible...

[God'schild]

Why? When the bible is the first, best, and most accurate.

If you have a steak, why would you want to eat leftover road kill dog?

[tuppence]

Jovaro, no organism can 'decide' to reproduce itself unless it has the capacity to do so.

Replication even in the simplest forms of life known is extraordinarily complex.

Amazing how those who believe in evolution think that somehow it just 'happened.'

Most procaryotes reproduce by a relatively simple asexual process called binary fission: each cell increases in size and divides into two cells. During this process there is an orderly increase in cellular structures and components, replication and segregation of the bacterial DNA, and formation of a septum or cross wall which divides the cell into two. The process may be coordinated by the procaryotic membrane usually by means of mesosomes. The DNA molecule is believed to be attached to a point on the membrane where it is replicated. The two DNA molecules remain attached at points side-by-side on the membrane while new membrane material is synthesized between the two points. This draws the DNA molecules in opposite directions while new cell wall and membrane are laid down as a septum between the two chromosomal compartments. When septum formation is complete the cell splits into two progeny cells. The time interval required for a bacterial cell to divide or for a population of cells to double is called the generation time. Generation times for bacterial species growing in nature may be as short as 15 minutes or as long as several days.
from http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/TheProcaryotes

The first bold -- all are mine -- is a quick summary of what happens. I think bolded two things that we don't even know how they happen. The last bold is one about which I would ask this: what governs the placement, the timing, and the construction of this membrane? WE DON"T KNOW.

And this is 'simple' in comparison to eukaryotic and/or sexual reproduction!

Darwin, in the ignorance of the time, considered the cell a sort of simple blob. So the idea of evolution was not really that big a deal in terms of how it might have happened. It just did. Somehow.

But the more we have found out about the cell, the more the evidence declares evolution impossible. Replication is just one area.. There are literally dozens more.

[God'schild]

But wait!! The evolutionist miracle is so amazing!!! By chance a one celled animal, with no need for eyes to live devopled these extremely complex body parts, despite the lack of a brain to even desire to do so.

Man!!! What a leap of Faith!!! Despite the total lack of evidence that this could ever happen, the evolutionary myth is forced upon our education system as the Gospel. What zeal!!

Gotta admire the evolutionst loyalty to their lie.

[Helix]

Replication even in the simplest forms of life known is extraordinarily complex.

Amazing how those who believe in evolution think that somehow it just 'happened.'

What I find even more amazing is that you are willing to accept the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient superbeing, that 'just happened' to be there (and which is something more complex than ANYTHING in the known usiverse), but refuse to believe that simple life forms came into existence.

[Rant="Helix"] You explain a complex process, abiogenesis, with something EVEN MORE COMPLEX! A creator of universa! This god 'just happened' to have 'intelligence' and 'creativity' (out of the blue!) and 'just happened' to have the ability to create planets, stars, the entire universe and life as well. And all of this in less than a week! You're right Tuppence, that does sound a lot more likely than what I've been saying! [/rant]

(Notice the use of exclamation points to indicate sarcasm and disbelieve)

[God'schild]

A divine pre-existant creator with intelegence designed everthing so he could breath His image into to it so He could lavish His love upon us.


pre- existant dirt puked up life out of slime, with no purpose or design.

HHHHHHMMMMM. My choice.... Thank you Jesus

[Aineo]

Helix with all your rants what neither you nor science can explain is where the universe came from. It takes faith to believe the universe always existed and it takes faith to believe evolution, which cannot be empirically shown to be true. All you have is theories and assumptions - not facts.

[tuppence]

Helix, please give me an example of a 'simple' life form, OK?

[God'schild]

Helix, please give me an example of a 'simple' life form, OK?

Can you post self portraits on this thread?

[tuppence]

God'schild, I'm sick of you insulting people. Please stop. These are supposed to be discussions, not name-calling matches or trading insults. It's kind of sick when it is the Christian who is being so obnoxious and the pagan who is exhibiting incredible restraint in responding to your insults.

[God'schild]

Sorry. I always heard that a sence of humor was a sign of intelegence. I will do my best to dummy it down from now on. Please forgive.

[Helix]

Helix, please give me an example of a 'simple' life form, OK?

In the original context I wrote 'simple' as in 'less complex' than we see today. God should be more complex than even complex creatures like you and me. We can't create planets out of nothing. but he can. By that reasoning the chance of a fully grown and evolved human 'just appearing' on a planet (how ridiculous this might sound) are greater than a god suddenly being there, because he seems to be the more complex than any life-form that ever sprung out of non-living matter.

[tuppence]

OK, I'll run with that, Helix.

Please define complex for me as you are using it, OK?

Thanks.

[Helix]

Complex means here the degree in which the organism can manipulate its surroundings.

- Single celled organisms can be called 'simple' in that context. They can hardly manipulate their surroundings by them selves.

- More importantly, they can't make conscious decisions to manipulate things.

- Our brain is -you will probably agree- , more complex than any single celled organism and it allows us to manipulate our surroundings to a greater degree than single celled organisms.

- Now how complex would a being be, that can not only manipulate the universe, but CREATE it out of no where?

[tuppence]

If we go with that definition, then a fish is no more complex than a bacteria. A sloth would be pretty simple, too, by that definition.

I don't think that definition works.

[Helix]

I think we're avoiding the issue here. I will rephrase what I wrote earlier:

Life, coming out of non-living matter (abiogenesis) seems more logical to me than your suggestion that a god needed to be present to create life.
You theory does not explain were god came from. This god has been described as having intelligence and creativity. This god just appears to be there and shows characteristics that have never been observed to 'appear out of nothing', mainly because they need a brain as a medium. ('Creativity' and 'intelligence' do not appear anywhere in the world without a brain or some electronic medium). God appeared out of nowhere AND he has a brain. If he had no brain, then how did he form words or process the things he saw when 'God saw that the light was good...' [Gen 1:4] Or does his vision have more in common with star fish who can 'see' but don't have a brain?

Religion asks people to believe that a being that is capable of speech, vision, has intelligence and creativity (not to mention the capability to create worlds!) 'just appeared out of nowhere'. Science only asks us to believe that a life form without all these traits appeared 'out of nowhere' (not really 'nowhere'. Life forms are built up of non-living materials like water, calcium etc. The first life form consisted of materials which were present in the 'primordial soup' as the ancient ocean is often referred to.)

Religion asks for a creator with a brain - millions, if not billions of cells - while science modestly proposes that 1 cell is more likely to have formed form non-living matter. (I'm simplying the scientific explanation!) The quoted text below shows you a HYPOTHESIS (no one is claiming to have absolute knowledge here) of what (could have) proceded the existence of the first cell.

The first replicating molecules were most likely RNA. RNA is a nucleic acid similar to DNA. In laboratory studies it has been shown that some RNA sequences have catalytic capabilities. Most importantly, certain RNA sequences act as polymerases -- enzymes that form strands of RNA from its monomers. This process of self replication is the crucial step in the formation of life. This is called the RNA world hypothesis.

The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.

The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago).


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html

[Aineo]

Religion asks people to believe that a being that is capable of speech, vision, has intelligence and creativity (not to mention the capability to create worlds!) 'just appeared out of nowhere'. Science only asks us to believe that a life form without all these traits appeared 'out of nowhere' (not really 'nowhere'. Life forms are built up of non-living materials like water, calcium etc. The first life form consisted of materials which were present in the 'primordial soup' as the ancient ocean is often referred to.)

God is spirit and is not composed of matter. Science asks us to believe the universe came out of nowhere on its own; science asks us to have faith in something coming from nothing without any explanation at all.

[Jovaro]

God is spirit and is not composed of matter. Science asks us to believe the universe came out of nowhere on its own; science asks us to have faith in something coming from nothing without any explanation at all.

Without any explanation yet

[Aineo]

God is spirit and is not composed of matter. Science asks us to believe the universe came out of nowhere on its own; science asks us to have faith in something coming from nothing without any explanation at all.

Without any explanation yet

You need to read what some real scientists have to say. I have yet to read any credible scientist state that science will ever be able to explain the origins of the universe.

[tuppence]

God is spirit and is not composed of matter. Science asks us to believe the universe came out of nowhere on its own; science asks us to have faith in something coming from nothing without any explanation at all.

Without any explanation yet

Now THAT'S faith!

[Jovaro]

No, that is the whole idea behind science. Try to explain the unknown.

At time=0 the unknown= endless
At time= endless the unknown = much less then endless and perhaps even 0

[Aineo]

No, that is the whole idea behind science. Try to explain the unknown.

At time=0 the unknown= endless
At time= endless the unknown = much less then endless and perhaps even 0

Don't you mean try to explain what can be seen? If something is not known it does not need to be explained.

[God'schild]

http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

It gets a little old hearing how people of faith are excluded from science, when it was people of faith who founded science. http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

Secular Humanism is a faith of stupidity, that can only plagerize those who they say have no place in the subjects they established.
http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

Get over your unbelieving selves. Science owes it's existance to Christians, not Darwin. No God. No science.
http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

[Aineo]

Get over your unbelieving selves. Science owes it's existance to Christians, not Darwin. No God. No science.
http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

Although what this site states is true for modern science, the history of science goes back to the Egyptians and other ancient societies. In fact the Catholic Church impeded science for centuries (for example Copernicus and Galileo).

Pythagoras of Samos
Born: about 569 BC in Samos, Ionia
Died: about 475 BC
Pythagoras of Samos is often described as the first pure mathematician. He is an extremely important figure in the development of mathematics yet we know relatively little about his mathematical achievements. Unlike many later Greek mathematicians, where at least we have some of the books which they wrote, we have nothing of Pythagoras's writings. The society which he led, half religious and half scientific, followed a code of secrecy which certainly means that today Pythagoras is a mysterious figure.
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor ... goras.html

[God'schild]

Read a site once [see if I can find it again] That showed even in the ancient world, that bible believing hebrews had major influence on pagan cultures. Hebrew slaves were highly prized because of the rare ability to read and write. Joseph, and Daniel are examples of this fact. Some say that even Greek mathmatics were influenced by Hebrew servants who new the scripture:

Isaiah 40:
21) Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
(22) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:


it is a fact that the Roman church was more interested in politics than the furterance of the Gospel, and actually embraced a lot of paganism to make it easier for pagans to "covert".

[Jovaro]

God's Child, years before Jesus there were scientists... go fool someone else

[Helix]

How cute, God'schild! You've found the correct buttons to place the same link four times! Good boy!

On a completely different note: Tuppence, give me one example of intelligence, creativity or speech occuring WITHOUT a physical brain. You yourself said that god has these abilities, according to your inerrant book, YET HE IS A SPRIRIT! Is there ANY scientific evidence that something NON-MATERIAL can have intelligence? Let alone creativity?! or - more amusingly- the abililty to create worlds!

Don't give me any 'speudo-scientific' crap about 'ghosts'who supposedly perform intelligent things- I do not consider them good examples of 'intelligent behaviour without material form', because I'm not convinced that they exist.

[God'schild]

God's Child, years before Jesus there were scientists... go fool someone else

The nation of Israel was long before Christ as well. If you go back and read my post you will see that the scripture quoted was from the old testiment.

The point being that believers in the God of the Bible had influence over the cultures long before Christ. As I said, Hebrew slave were prized because of their ability to read and write, which was a very rare skill in the ancient world.

No foolen, just fact. I love it when the ill informed try to twist my words!

[God'schild]

[quote="Helix"]How cute, God'schild! You've found the correct buttons to place the same link four times! Good boy!




Ding ding ding, druel, druel, druel. comming pavlov.

[Helix]

The point being that believers in the God of the Bible had influence over the cultures long before Christ. As I said, Hebrew slave were prized because of their ability to read and write, which was a very rare skill in the ancient world.

Too bad that history has a lot more to offer, God'schild! Greeks slaves were favourites too amongst the people of antiquity! They could read and write as well BUT they believed in Zeus, and the whole family of ancient Greek gods. Greek slaves were quite popular as teachers: Rich Romans would buy Greek teachers to educate their children. The equation between 'christianity' and 'intelligence' or 'knowedge' is not based on anything.

[tuppence]

OK, children, it's time to stop squabbling and go get some cookies and milk! Be nice, now!

In response to you, Helix, and ignoring your sarcasm about ghosts being what I would try to push off on you, all I have to say is that intelligence itself is not physical. Evidence? Here --

Roger Lewin, "Is Your Brain Really Necessary,"

Science, Dec. 12,1980, p. 1232.

"'There's a young student at this university," says Lorber, 'who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain.' The student's physician at the university noticed that the youth had a slightly larger than normal head, and so referred him to Lorber, simply out of interest. 'When we did a brain scan on him,' Lorber recalls, 'we saw that instead of the normal 4.5-centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a millimeter or so. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid."

[Helix]

First of all: I've looked up the definitions you used, because I'm not an expert on the human brain. You worte about ' the ventricles and the cortical surface' in your last quote, 'Ventricles' refers to ' a cavity inside an organ' and 'cortical surface' to the litteral, physical edge of your brain, which do not give any intersting details about size, so I'd like to request some more data on the subject.


IF (emphasis!) that theory could explain 'intelligence without a physical brain', then you wouldn't mind showing us a few examples of intelligence without a physical brain, now wouldn't you? Or perhaps a few examples of creativity or speech and language without a real brain. (Electronic devises don't count, because they are clearly man-made.)

EDIT: Please don't refer to me or any other vistor of this forum as 'children'.

[tuppence]

EDIT: Please don't refer to me or any other vistor of this forum as 'children'.

Then please don't act like it.

As far as the brain and intelligence go, please go to your nearest university and look up the Science article I referenced and briefly quoted there. It is far better for you to go to the source for that than argue a brief quote with me.

I don't have a lot of time for a Google search right now, but a short one turned up a couple of interesting links for you:

http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/ ... /brain.htm

If you can get hold of the copy of the Lancet referenced here, this article looks interesting:

Half brain but not half function

Maria T Acosta, a, Patricia Montañezb, c, d and Fidias E Leon-Sarmientob, c, d

a Department of Neurology, Children's National Medical Center, 111 Michigan Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20010, USA
b Instituto Neurologico de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia
c Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia
d Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga, Colombia

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 030730.htm (one would expect, if intelligence is a physical phenomenon, that children who have half their brains removed to control chronic severe seizures would be somewhat idiotic -- but such is not the case)

Please consider the following:

Writing about their experience, in the August 1997 issue of Pediatrics, “Why Would You Remove Half a Brain? The Outcome of 58 Children After Hemispherectomy - The Johns Hopkins Experience: 1968 to 1996,” Johns Hopkins Children's Center neurologists John M. Freeman, M.D., and Eileen P.G. Vining, M.D., look toward the future. “Awed” by the apparent retention of memory after removal of half of the brain, either half, and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor, they look foward to the time when there are less radical approaches to these problems, for which hemispherectomies are at present the surgery of last resort. Today, Drs. Freeman and Vining and their colleagues are investigating promising new treatments for Rasmussen's syndrome, which might one day make hemispherectomies obsolete.

from here: http://www.drbencarson.com/hem-facts.html

I think some of that will at least give you pause....

[Jovaro]

God's Child, years before Jesus there were scientists... go fool someone else

The nation of Israel was long before Christ as well. If you go back and read my post you will see that the scripture quoted was from the old testiment.

The point being that believers in the God of the Bible had influence over the cultures long before Christ. As I said, Hebrew slave were prized because of their ability to read and write, which was a very rare skill in the ancient world.

No foolen, just fact. I love it when the ill informed try to twist my words!

The nation of Israel was founded in 1948.

[God'schild]

God's Child, years before Jesus there were scientists... go fool someone else

The nation of Israel was long before Christ as well. If you go back and read my post you will see that the scripture quoted was from the old testiment.

The point being that believers in the God of the Bible had influence over the cultures long before Christ. As I said, Hebrew slave were prized because of their ability to read and write, which was a very rare skill in the ancient world.

No foolen, just fact. I love it when the ill informed try to twist my words!

The nation of Israel was founded in 1948.

Cheeze!!! Have you not heard of abraham, moses and david. The nation of Israel was re-established in 1948. It was first established a couple a thousand years before Christ.

I am biting my lip here trying not to be sarcastic, but maybe you were honestly not aware of historical fact. Haven't you ever heard of the temple of soloman? What do you think the wailing wall is? Jeruselm is the ancient capital of King david of the anceint nation of Israel. You can save yourself a lot of embarasment, if you do a little history research on the net.

[Jovaro]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031015030730.htm (one would expect, if intelligence is a physical phenomenon, that children who have half their brains removed to control chronic severe seizures would be somewhat idiotic -- but such is not the case)

How the brain functions is up till now a big mystery. I don't think your example is any good evidence for intelligence being physical or not.

[Helix]

Tuppence, there is no need to treat those who disagree with you condescendingly.

As for your other arguments: They do not support your little theory that 'intelligence does not need a brain.'

The first example is about a guy who has - I quote, with added emphasis- : 'virtually no brain.'

The second example is about children, having 1 half of their brain removed. I quote from the link you gave me, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031015030730.htm :

The surgery, which leaves intact the deep structures of the brain (the thalamus, brain stem and basal ganglia), is performed at Hopkins on children with Rasmussen's syndrome, a variety of developmental abnormalities on one side of the brain, and on those who have had disabling strokes. Because children's brains are "plastic," if surgeons remove the affected portion of the brain, the remaining portion overtakes most of the functions of the missing side

You have tried to give me examples of people with half a brain, or a smaller brain than normal, who exhibit intelligent behaviour. I actually asked for examples of intelligence (and/or creativity, speech or the ability to create worlds ) in non material or brainless things/'entities' (?)/people.

[God'schild]

God's Child, years before Jesus there were scientists... go fool someone else

The nation of Israel was long before Christ as well. If you go back and read my post you will see that the scripture quoted was from the old testiment.

The point being that believers in the God of the Bible had influence over the cultures long before Christ. As I said, Hebrew slave were prized because of their ability to read and write, which was a very rare skill in the ancient world.

No foolen, just fact. I love it when the ill informed try to twist my words!

The nation of Israel was founded in 1948.

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
Found a good site to get you up to speed on the nation of Israel.
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.htmll

[tuppence]

Helix, just like less lung means less air into the body and thus less functioning for the body (of an adult), if intelligence is physical, then less brain should have an impact on how intelligent the person is. This is the evolutionary claim regarding man's cranium size, anyway!

It just doesn't appear to be that way.

If even the smallest amount of brain means that the person can still have normal intelligence, then by what stretch of the imagination are you claiming intelligence is a matter of matter?

[Guest]

If even the smallest amount of brain means that the person can still have normal intelligence

Not the smallest amount of brain. Just so much that it can compensate for the loss of other brain matter. It would be interesting to see what it is, if they ever get to the point where it is quantified.

[Helix]

You've all probably heard that we only use a small percentage of the brain. People have had metal objects jammed through their skull without suffering loss of memory/intelligence etc. It all depends on what part is damaged/missing.

If someone was to remove your entire brain, Tuppence, and you could still make the argument that intelligence is not formed in the brain, I'll believe you.

[God'schild]

You've all probably heard that we only use a small percentage of the brain. People have had metal objects jammed through their skull without suffering loss of memory/intelligence etc. It all depends on what part is damaged/missing.

If someone was to remove your entire brain, Tuppence, and you could still make the argument that intelligence is not formed in the brain, I'll believe you.

radio waves do not need a radio to exist. before the discovery and use of radio waves did not mean they didn't exist. There simple wasn't a way to recieve them.

The human brain is the reciever of the spiritual, and is the evidence the spiritual exists. You just don't have your reciever tuned to the right channel