Question about Noah.

[PostmodernProph]

????....addressing your pistol?.....

????....forever pointless?.....

well if your pistol about evolution was mud puddles, I would say you're firing nothing but blanks......

Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.

I'm afraid your YEC'ist indoctrination has left you dumbfounded regarding science.

I'm curious....do you realize how stupid it makes you look to continue to call everyone young earthers, even when its obvious they don't believe in a young earth?........

Do realize how stupid you look when you attempt to deny your YEC'ism while you rattle on with defending literal Ark tales.

I'll answer for you because you have difficulty answering with coherent sentences: you look pretty stupid.

Tell us about the dinosaurs that were on Noah's pleasure cruise.

strike 2, I don't argue for a literal interpretation of Noah's ark
strike 3, I don't claim there were dinosaurs on an ark
double header, you're still a Hollie's Folly.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

"Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.

How is the Qu'ran true, if it forgot to correct the Bible on the whole Noah, flood thing? And instead usurpeth the story? Or did the Qu'ran say that just to mess with ya?

How are the various bibles to be accepted as true when the tales and fables are demonstrably false?

Hollie, you couldn't demonstrate how to prevent hyperventilation with a paper bag.........

 

[PostmodernProph]

and yet, it is remembered by nearly every culture in the world, regardless of religion.....does that not strike you as odd, given your denial?.........

How could it be remembered by every culture when in the bible it killed everyone. We have written history all over the world from 4000 to 6000 with no written account of a worldwide flood.

was that a challenging concept for you.......it didn't kill everyone.....Noah's family was not killed.....everyone alive today had ancestors who survived the flood......as for 6000 years, don't let young earthers like Hollie mislead you.......if I remember correctly the mitochondrial Eve was around 40,000 - 50,000 years ago......

So you are implying that the whole human race is a product if direct incest... twice?

no more so than you are.....

I'm not. I believe in evolution which is demonstrably true. If one were to believe in the story of Noah and the ark then the only way to populate the earth was the way of incest.

well there you are.....you and I both believe in the evolution which is demonstrably true.......now, do you believe in the evolution which isn't?......'cuz I don't believe in that part......some folks think that human beings evolved from some other creature (which isn't demonstrably true)......now obviously THOSE folks have to believe in incest......or did they think there were TWO first humans.....

 

[amrchaos]

Here is another problem with Noah's Ark--where did all the rain come from?

If it came from a cloud cover that covered the world, the shear thickness f that cloud cover would have presented problems to most living things on Earth. On the other hand, if it was rain that came directly from Heaven, where is all that water now?

 

[The Irish Ram]

There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium effect, a perfect growing atmosphere. It had never rained before the flood. And the rest came from underground.

 

[Tuatara]

But Tuatara, wouldn't mitochondrial Eve have run into the same problem? If she is the mother of all who fathered her 1st child, unless his conception was a virgin birth, and wouldn't she have had to have sex with him to produce another?

Stop looking at things in a simplistic view.

The mitochondrial clade which Mitochondrial Eve defines is the species Homo sapiens sapiens itself, or at least the current population or "chronospecies" as it exists today. In principle, earlier Eves can also be defined going beyond the species, for example one who is ancestral to both modern humanity and Neanderthals, or, further back, an "Eve" ancestral to all members of genus Homo and chimpanzees in genus Pan. According to current nomenclature, Mitochondrial Eve's haplogroup was within mitochondrial haplogroup L because this macro-haplogroup contains all surviving human mitochondrial lineages today, and she must predate the emergence of L0.

The variation of mitochondrial DNA between different people can be used to estimate the time back to a common ancestor, such as Mitochondrial Eve. This works because, along any particular line of descent, mitochondrial DNA accumulates mutations at the rate of approximately one every 3,500 years per nucleotide.[30][31][32] A certain number of these new variants will survive into modern times and be identifiable as distinct lineages. At the same time some branches, including even very old ones, come to an end, when the last family in a distinct branch has no daughters.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor for all modern humans. Whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor, always the most recent mother to have more than one daughter with living maternal line descendants alive today. The number of mutations that can be found distinguishing modern people is determined by two criteria: firstly and most obviously, the time back to her, but secondly and less obviously by the varying rates at which new branches have come into existence and old branches have become extinct. By looking at the number of mutations which have been accumulated in different branches of this family tree, and looking at which geographical regions have the widest range of least related branches, the region where Eve lived can be proposed.

Through random drift or selection the female-lineage will trace back to a single female, such as Mitochondrial Eve. In this example over five generations colors represent extinct matrilineal lines and black the matrilineal line descended from mtDNA MRCA.

 

[Hollie]

????....forever pointless?.....

well if your pistol about evolution was mud puddles, I would say you're firing nothing but blanks......

Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.

I'm afraid your YEC'ist indoctrination has left you dumbfounded regarding science.

I'm curious....do you realize how stupid it makes you look to continue to call everyone young earthers, even when its obvious they don't believe in a young earth?........

Do realize how stupid you look when you attempt to deny your YEC'ism while you rattle on with defending literal Ark tales.

I'll answer for you because you have difficulty answering with coherent sentences: you look pretty stupid.

Tell us about the dinosaurs that were on Noah's pleasure cruise.

strike 2, I don't argue for a literal interpretation of Noah's ark
strike 3, I don't claim there were dinosaurs on an ark
double header, you're still a Hollie's Folly.......

Obviously, you're now backtracking on your earlier claims in support of Ark tales.

That's the problem you YEC'ists face. You're so befuddled that when your silly Ark tales are exposed as fraud, you tend to scramble into defensive postures.

 

[Hollie]

"Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.

How is the Qu'ran true, if it forgot to correct the Bible on the whole Noah, flood thing? And instead usurpeth the story? Or did the Qu'ran say that just to mess with ya?

How are the various bibles to be accepted as true when the tales and fables are demonstrably false?

Hollie, you couldn't demonstrate how to prevent hyperventilation with a paper bag.........

But I have demonstrated your silly claims as being fraud.

 

[Hollie]

There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium effect, a perfect growing atmosphere. It had never rained before the flood. And the rest came from underground.

Which is the view that is promoted on Christian fundamentalist websites.

How sad that you have bought in to that fraud.

 

[Hollie]

How could it be remembered by every culture when in the bible it killed everyone. We have written history all over the world from 4000 to 6000 with no written account of a worldwide flood.

was that a challenging concept for you.......it didn't kill everyone.....Noah's family was not killed.....everyone alive today had ancestors who survived the flood......as for 6000 years, don't let young earthers like Hollie mislead you.......if I remember correctly the mitochondrial Eve was around 40,000 - 50,000 years ago......

So you are implying that the whole human race is a product if direct incest... twice?

no more so than you are.....

I'm not. I believe in evolution which is demonstrably true. If one were to believe in the story of Noah and the ark then the only way to populate the earth was the way of incest.

well there you are.....you and I both believe in the evolution which is demonstrably true.......now, do you believe in the evolution which isn't?......'cuz I don't believe in that part......some folks think that human beings evolved from some other creature (which isn't demonstrably true)......now obviously THOSE folks have to believe in incest......or did they think there were TWO first humans.....

There are not two competing versions of evolution. The problem is that your version of evolution is the one promoted by YEC'ist Christian ministries. That version is a fraudulent collection of falsified claims and religious nonsense.

You are an accomplice to fraud.

 

[Hollie]

But Tuatara, wouldn't mitochondrial Eve have run into the same problem? If she is the mother of all who fathered her 1st child, unless his conception was a virgin birth, and wouldn't she have had to have sex with him to produce another?

The real problem is that you don't have even a middling understanding of the terms you use.

Mitochondrial Eve is not the "mother of all". That's a fraudulent description that is promoted on fundie Christian websites.

As usual, you have allowed frauds and charlatans to enlist your help in their fraud.

What if anything is a Mitochondrial Eve

 

[PostmodernProph]

Here is another problem with Noah's Ark--where did all the rain come from?

If it came from a cloud cover that covered the world, the shear thickness f that cloud cover would have presented problems to most living things on Earth. On the other hand, if it was rain that came directly from Heaven, where is all that water now?

the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

well if your pistol about evolution was mud puddles, I would say you're firing nothing but blanks......

Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.

I'm afraid your YEC'ist indoctrination has left you dumbfounded regarding science.

I'm curious....do you realize how stupid it makes you look to continue to call everyone young earthers, even when its obvious they don't believe in a young earth?........

Do realize how stupid you look when you attempt to deny your YEC'ism while you rattle on with defending literal Ark tales.

I'll answer for you because you have difficulty answering with coherent sentences: you look pretty stupid.

Tell us about the dinosaurs that were on Noah's pleasure cruise.

strike 2, I don't argue for a literal interpretation of Noah's ark
strike 3, I don't claim there were dinosaurs on an ark
double header, you're still a Hollie's Folly.......

Obviously, you're now backtracking on your earlier claims in support of Ark tales.

That's the problem you YEC'ists face. You're so befuddled that when your silly Ark tales are exposed as fraud, you tend to scramble into defensive postures.

making shit up again?......not a sound way to win arguments, Hollie's Folly.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

"Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.

How is the Qu'ran true, if it forgot to correct the Bible on the whole Noah, flood thing? And instead usurpeth the story? Or did the Qu'ran say that just to mess with ya?

How are the various bibles to be accepted as true when the tales and fables are demonstrably false?

Hollie, you couldn't demonstrate how to prevent hyperventilation with a paper bag.........

But I have demonstrated your silly claims as being fraud.

lol.....you can't even remember what my claims are......

 

[PostmodernProph]

was that a challenging concept for you.......it didn't kill everyone.....Noah's family was not killed.....everyone alive today had ancestors who survived the flood......as for 6000 years, don't let young earthers like Hollie mislead you.......if I remember correctly the mitochondrial Eve was around 40,000 - 50,000 years ago......

So you are implying that the whole human race is a product if direct incest... twice?

no more so than you are.....

I'm not. I believe in evolution which is demonstrably true. If one were to believe in the story of Noah and the ark then the only way to populate the earth was the way of incest.

well there you are.....you and I both believe in the evolution which is demonstrably true.......now, do you believe in the evolution which isn't?......'cuz I don't believe in that part......some folks think that human beings evolved from some other creature (which isn't demonstrably true)......now obviously THOSE folks have to believe in incest......or did they think there were TWO first humans.....

There are not two competing versions of evolution.

sure there are......there's the evolution proven by science, which all of you refer to whenever you want to claim that science has proven evolution......and then there's the crap you pretend has been proven by science even though no one has ever done it......and if you want to prove that isn't true you can always trot out that evidence that a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism like I've been begging someone to do for the last ten months....

 

[PostmodernProph]

What if anything is a Mitochondrial Eve

from your link.....
"The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. "

doesn't it seem obvious that if the ME is the most recent common ancestor of all humans with respect to matrillineal descent that she is also 1) our common ancestor and 2) our common genetic ancestor?.......

 

[Hollie]

Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.

I'm afraid your YEC'ist indoctrination has left you dumbfounded regarding science.

I'm curious....do you realize how stupid it makes you look to continue to call everyone young earthers, even when its obvious they don't believe in a young earth?........

Do realize how stupid you look when you attempt to deny your YEC'ism while you rattle on with defending literal Ark tales.

I'll answer for you because you have difficulty answering with coherent sentences: you look pretty stupid.

Tell us about the dinosaurs that were on Noah's pleasure cruise.

strike 2, I don't argue for a literal interpretation of Noah's ark
strike 3, I don't claim there were dinosaurs on an ark
double header, you're still a Hollie's Folly.......

Obviously, you're now backtracking on your earlier claims in support of Ark tales.

That's the problem you YEC'ists face. You're so befuddled that when your silly Ark tales are exposed as fraud, you tend to scramble into defensive postures.

making shit up again?......not a sound way to win arguments, Hollie's Folly.......

Making up what?

Ark tales are just that: tales.

You and the other YEC'ists have had ample opportunity defend the Ark tales and fables and you still haven't done so.

So, tell us about the dinosaurs on the Ark.

 

[Hollie]

"Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.

How is the Qu'ran true, if it forgot to correct the Bible on the whole Noah, flood thing? And instead usurpeth the story? Or did the Qu'ran say that just to mess with ya?

How are the various bibles to be accepted as true when the tales and fables are demonstrably false?

Hollie, you couldn't demonstrate how to prevent hyperventilation with a paper bag.........

But I have demonstrated your silly claims as being fraud.

lol.....you can't even remember what my claims are......

lol..... you have hoped to sidestep and waffle around the challenges to your specious claims.

 

[Hollie]

What if anything is a Mitochondrial Eve

from your link.....
"The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. "

doesn't it seem obvious that if the ME is the most recent common ancestor of all humans with respect to matrillineal descent that she is also 1) our common ancestor and 2) our common genetic ancestor?.......

Doesn't it seem obvious that you don't understand what you read?

 

[Hollie]

So you are implying that the whole human race is a product if direct incest... twice?

no more so than you are.....

I'm not. I believe in evolution which is demonstrably true. If one were to believe in the story of Noah and the ark then the only way to populate the earth was the way of incest.

well there you are.....you and I both believe in the evolution which is demonstrably true.......now, do you believe in the evolution which isn't?......'cuz I don't believe in that part......some folks think that human beings evolved from some other creature (which isn't demonstrably true)......now obviously THOSE folks have to believe in incest......or did they think there were TWO first humans.....

There are not two competing versions of evolution.

sure there are......there's the evolution proven by science, which all of you refer to whenever you want to claim that science has proven evolution......and then there's the crap you pretend has been proven by science even though no one has ever done it......and if you want to prove that isn't true you can always trot out that evidence that a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism like I've been begging someone to do for the last ten months....

You're convinced that there are two versions of evolution. There is evolutionary science that is supported by diverse disciplines such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, archeology, etc..

Then there is the version that is promoted by your Young Earth Creation ministries.

Do you need further guidance as to why your version is fraudulent?