Question about Noah.

[Hollie]

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.......

The mantra of the YEC'ist.

Ancient fears and superstitions are alive and well among the religious extremists.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

list my specious claims, Hollie the Folly, and link to the posts in which I made them......

 

[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?.......

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

???....no.....I think pretty much everyone here read it the same way........

 

[PostmodernProph]

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..

true.......and then there's the part you've been unable to prove..........

 

[Hollie]

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.

list my specious claims, Hollie the Folly, and link to the posts in which I made them......

Pretty typical. When your arguments fail, you resort to childish name-calling.

 

[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.......

The mantra of the YEC'ist.

its the only argument you have left, so you keep trying to use it.......doesn't that make you feel impotent?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

list my specious claims, Hollie the Folly, and link to the posts in which I made them......

Pretty typical. When your arguments fail, you resort to childish name-calling.

lol......ironic......
here's your chance to seize the higher ground, Hollie......trot out the list of my specious claims and dazzle the world with your intelligent repartee.......

 

[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?

???....no.....I think pretty much everyone here read it the same way........

I'm not aware that you are tasked with making such assessments.

I understand reading and reading comprehension is difficult for you but reading one sentence out of an entire article and coming to conclusions with that is pretty much expected from those who only seek to reinforce their fundamentalist views.

 

[Hollie]

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.......

The mantra of the YEC'ist.

its the only argument you have left, so you keep trying to use it.......doesn't that make you feel impotent?.......

Hey, it's your pointless argument.

Why get pissy when your pointless arguments are shown to be pointless?

 

[Hollie]

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.

list my specious claims, Hollie the Folly, and link to the posts in which I made them......

Pretty typical. When your arguments fail, you resort to childish name-calling.

lol......ironic......
here's your chance to seize the higher ground, Hollie......trot out the list of my specious claims and dazzle the world with your intelligent repartee.......

lol.... ironic.....

You ignorant fundies sure have a way of degrading your own attempts at argument.

 

[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?.......

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

???....no.....I think pretty much everyone here read it the same way........

I'm not aware that you are tasked with making such assessments.

I understand reading and reading comprehension is difficult for you but reading one sentence out of an entire article and coming to conclusions with that is pretty much expected from those who only seek to reinforce their fundamentalist views.

???....it isn't one sentence out of an entire article......it is #2 of her "Here are some points to note:"........and I think its pretty obvious that "she is not our common ancestor" and "she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive" are contradictory.......

 

[Hollie]

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..

true.......and then there's the part you've been unable to prove..........

I can't prove your YEC'ist fantasy world of supernatural entities, talking snakes and gawds who lie.

If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.

The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Here's another of her "points to note" which you may find of interest, since you earlier expressed some disbelief regarding the existence of a ME.....
"The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact".........

 

[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?

???....no.....I think pretty much everyone here read it the same way........

I'm not aware that you are tasked with making such assessments.

I understand reading and reading comprehension is difficult for you but reading one sentence out of an entire article and coming to conclusions with that is pretty much expected from those who only seek to reinforce their fundamentalist views.

???....it isn't one sentence out of an entire article......it is #2 of her "Here are some points to note:"........and I think its pretty obvious that "she is not our common ancestor" and "she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive" are contradictory.......

It's one sentence out of an entire article. I'm afraid that your lies won't prevent others from reading the larger content.

"The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA."

You feel really stupid for lying, right?

 

[PostmodernProph]

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..

true.......and then there's the part you've been unable to prove..........

I can't prove your YEC'ist fantasy world of supernatural entities, talking snakes and gawds who lie.

If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.

The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

fossils are evidence that the creatures existed......under the tenets of your religion there is a link of causation between them......I don't share your myths......

 

[Hollie]

Here's another of her "points to note" which you may find of interest, since you earlier expressed some disbelief regarding the existence of a ME.....
"The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact".........

Watch yourself there, fundie dude.

The existence of Mitochondrial Eve is in direct contradiction to your biblical flood tales, tales and fables of eternal damnation for fruit theft and your bible tales of a 6,000 year old earth.

What's a YEC'ist to do?

 

[Hollie]

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..

true.......and then there's the part you've been unable to prove..........

I can't prove your YEC'ist fantasy world of supernatural entities, talking snakes and gawds who lie.

If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.

The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

fossils are evidence that the creatures existed......under the tenets of your religion there is a link of causation between them......I don't share your myths......

The entirety of the fossil evidence is a conspiracy among every school, college and university across the globe, at least according to you and those like you from the YEC'ist crowd.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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?

???....no.....I think pretty much everyone here read it the same way........

I'm not aware that you are tasked with making such assessments.

I understand reading and reading comprehension is difficult for you but reading one sentence out of an entire article and coming to conclusions with that is pretty much expected from those who only seek to reinforce their fundamentalist views.

???....it isn't one sentence out of an entire article......it is #2 of her "Here are some points to note:"........and I think its pretty obvious that "she is not our common ancestor" and "she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive" are contradictory.......

It's one sentence out of an entire article. I'm afraid that your lies won't prevent others from reading the larger content.

"The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA."

You feel really stupid for lying, right?

lying about what?......her DNA exists in all humans now living.....the fact we also have other ancestors doesn't change the fact that she is THE ancestor that all of us have in common......that would in fact make her our common ancestor........is that difficult for you to understand?......

that means my father and my mother are descended from her, as is my wife and both my adopted children.....my grandparents, my wife's grandparents and the birth parents of both my children......your parents, your grandparents......every single person who reads this board......

in the context of this thread......if there was a flood.....and everyone that existed prior to the flood was killed......nothing at all would change.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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..

true.......and then there's the part you've been unable to prove..........

I can't prove your YEC'ist fantasy world of supernatural entities, talking snakes and gawds who lie.

If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.

The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

fossils are evidence that the creatures existed......under the tenets of your religion there is a link of causation between them......I don't share your myths......

The entirety of the fossil evidence is a conspiracy among every school, college and university across the globe, at least according to you and those like you from the YEC'ist crowd.

conspiracy?...no....just ignorance on the part of those that think they've actually proven something with it.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Here's another of her "points to note" which you may find of interest, since you earlier expressed some disbelief regarding the existence of a ME.....
"The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact".........

Watch yourself there, fundie dude.

The existence of Mitochondrial Eve is in direct contradiction to your biblical flood tales, tales and fables of eternal damnation for fruit theft and your bible tales of a 6,000 year old earth.

What's a YEC'ist to do?

see what I mean?.....you're incapable of coming up with an argument that isn't dependent on pretending I'm a young earther......that's why you can't win an argument.....