Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    I was under the impression that there were two distinctly different Greek words translated to " the word " in English.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post

    So are the scientists wrong? Not at all. We can make a modification to the question.

    Which came first the egg layer or the egg? Again, we can take a look at the evolution timeline.

    Single celled creatures do not lay eggs, so at a some point in time, the egg layers evolved from non-egg layers. As the creatures evolved they developed more egg laying attributes.

    Eventually one of these pre-egg layers had an offspring that could lay egg(s). So, the first egg layers were born from non-egg layers. The answer to the modified question is the egg layers came before the egg.
    I have only time to ask the following questions. Were hens were producing chicks before they had the ability to change their reproduction system to lay eggs? What was the evolutionary advantage in doing that when chicks could be born without having to go through the egg stage?

    If you have an answer as to why there was an evolutionary advantage, do you envisage a time when women can lay eggs instead of taking nine months to give birth? I guess it would require a very large egg and would be excruciatingly painful (more than it is now) for a woman to lay an egg.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,109
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have only time to ask the following questions. Were hens were producing chicks before they had the ability to change their reproduction system to lay eggs? What was the evolutionary advantage in doing that when chicks could be born without having to go through the egg stage?

    If you have an answer as to why there was an evolutionary advantage, do you envisage a time when women can lay eggs instead of taking nine months to give birth? I guess it would require a very large egg and would be excruciatingly painful (more than it is now) for a woman to lay an egg.
    Hey there David,

    Your question reveals your total ignorance of the most basic facts of biology. Chickens never "changed their reproduction system to lay eggs" because they evolved from reptiles which were already reproducing by laying eggs.

    Your opposition to established scientific facts like evolution is simply ridiculous.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post
    THE BIRTH OF JESUS
    A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH B. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE C. THE DATE
    D. THE PLACE E. THE PROPHECIES F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER
    G. CONCLUSIONS REACHED SO FAR
    Generations..
    Sophy, Your POV is all over the commentaries, but most are all-wrong..

    Figure 'father-to-son' like it goes for the first ten in Genesis -- and leads to Jesus#66 just like the books in the Bible. Every name different except that of Jacob, and both of them with son 'Joseph'.

    The first Enoch and first Lamech perished along with Line of Cain. Enoch-II, 7th generation, and Lamech-II, 9th generation, correlate with Jacob-II, 63rd generation (Matt 1:16).

    Mary had no brothers, so the father-to-son progression HAD TO QUIT! She was a contrast to Zelophehad, Numb26, who had 5 daughters but no sons. (one daughter named Noah!)

    Helps to know Joseph means "the Lord will add a son", and how that pertained to Benjamin in the OT, but to Mary's husband also..

    The 2 sons of Judah both included in Matthew, but Pharez was the seed, and Zerah's descendant went into the fire at Jericho. Gen38/Josh7:1.

    Finally, it helps to realize that Matthew is the King Line based on Solomon, while Luke3 is the Priest Line based on David's son (and prophet) Nathan..

    http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David, Your question reveals your total ignorance of the most basic facts of biology. Chickens never "changed their reproduction system to lay eggs" because they evolved from reptiles which were already reproducing by laying eggs. Your opposition to established scientific facts like evolution is simply ridiculous.
    Richard
    Consider, if you will, the egg: and how it's good to eat,
    whether sunnyside or scrambled, it surely is a treat...
    Hard-boiling it will keep it from making such a mess,
    and everybody knows you can't return it to the nest.

    Consider, if you will, the egg: and its astounding age,
    Only three weeks from creation, it begins the chicken stage!
    First it must escape the plate, and other gruesome deadly fate,
    But victory is very sweet to eggs which have no hands or feet.

    Consider, if you will, the egg: and how it's like a seed,
    With all that gooey mess inside becoming a new breed.
    The yolk and white together forming fuzzy little chicks,
    So kids the wide world over can rejoice and get their kicks.

    Consider, if you will, the egg - how some are plainly deviled! (Eggs Benedict)
    And how the Bible has been sent to keep the playing field leveled.
    But only if the Rooster has equipped the egg for life,
    Otherwise the egg is only fit for fork and knife.

    Consider, if you will, the egg: in all its rounded glory,
    but if the egg is on your face, that's quite another story.
    The blood of Christ is offered: eternal life is true,
    Read all about it in the Bible, or get prepared to rue...
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    Your question reveals your total ignorance of the most basic facts of biology. Chickens never "changed their reproduction system to lay eggs" because they evolved from reptiles which were already reproducing by laying eggs.

    Your opposition to established scientific facts like evolution is simply ridiculous.

    Richard
    OK Richard. In a more general way, please explain how reptiles or whatever were reproducing before the egg layer was formed?

    Please follow James's explanation;
    So are the scientists wrong? Not at all. We can make a modification to the question.

    Which came first the egg layer or the egg? Again, we can take a look at the evolution timeline.

    Single celled creatures do not lay eggs, so at a some point in time, the egg layers evolved from non-egg layers. As the creatures evolved they developed more egg laying attributes.

    Eventually one of these pre-egg layers had an offspring that could lay egg(s). So, the first egg layers were born from non-egg layers. The answer to the modified question is the egg layers came before the egg.
    PS some quotes from Wikipedia

    The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle.
    The evolution of sexual reproduction is described by several competing scientific hypotheses.
    Last edited by David M; 03-29-2014 at 04:43 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,109
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    Your question reveals your total ignorance of the most basic facts of biology. Chickens never "changed their reproduction system to lay eggs" because they evolved from reptiles which were already reproducing by laying eggs.

    Your opposition to established scientific facts like evolution is simply ridiculous.

    Richard
    OK Richard. In a more general way, please explain how reptiles or whatever were reproducing before the egg layer was formed?

    Please follow James's explanation;
    So are the scientists wrong? Not at all. We can make a modification to the question.

    Which came first the egg layer or the egg? Again, we can take a look at the evolution timeline.

    Single celled creatures do not lay eggs, so at a some point in time, the egg layers evolved from non-egg layers. As the creatures evolved they developed more egg laying attributes.

    Eventually one of these pre-egg layers had an offspring that could lay egg(s). So, the first egg layers were born from non-egg layers. The answer to the modified question is the egg layers came before the egg.
    David,

    Your question is based on the false assumption that there was a point in evolution when the child was radically different than the parent. You fail to understand that there were intermediate states between "egg-layer" and "non-egg-layer." This is an example of the well-known Sorites paradox attributed to Eubulides of Miletus from the 4th century BC. The name is from the Greek word "soros" which means "heap" and the paradox is based on the fact that there is no exact point when a "heap" of sand changes into "not a heap" by removing one grain at a time. Or consider a man with one hair on his head. Is he bald? If so, how many hairs can he have before he is not bald?

    Now as for how egg-laying evolved, that's not a big mystery. The simplest single cell organisms reproduce by division. The egg is a single cell. So what's the problem?

    The real issue is that you are trying to find problems with modern science because it contradicts your primitive religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the actual science. This is obvious because you are totally ignorant of the most basic elements of the science and you refuse absolutely to learn. This means that your religion has made you incorrigibly ignorant, which is why I say that dogmatic religions tend to corrupt the minds and morals of believers.

    You have an amazing ability to persist in what you believe. The unfortunate thing is that you are persisting in demonstrable error and show no interest in the truth.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777 View Post

    Update:

    British scientists reported their discovery that chickens need a protein Ovocledidin -17 (OC 17) to lay eggs. Based upon this discovery the scientists concluded that the chicken came first. Let’s see if anything changes with our answers.

    News story of this discovery

    Evolution states that the egg came first. The discovery also backs up this idea. The creature that the chicken evolved from was an egg layer. The egg layer had this protein or a similar protein and laid the egg that the chicken hatched from.
    Hello James
    I found earlier today an article about the incredible part Ovocedidin-17 plays in the growth of the egg shell. Because of the source of the article, it will get pounced on by my opponents and I expect the conclusions will be rebutted.

    http://www.icr.org/article/breakthro...teins-elegant/

    Breakthrough Shows Protein's 'Elegant' Eggshell Construction

    by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Since there could be neither a chicken nor an egg without each already existing in a fully functional state, they both had to have been put in place at the same time. But there are many interdependent parts in the chicken system, and new research has uncovered one of the tiniest--yet most vital--of them.

    Investigators at England's University of Warwick and University of Sheffield used a sophisticated computer program to glean insight into how a special eggshell-making enzyme called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) operates. They already knew that it somehow enabled calcium carbonate to crystallize into the mineral calcite in a controlled fashion. But what they didn't know, and recently discovered, was that the OC-17 proteins do their jobs by physically holding individual calcium carbonate chemicals in place using specialized molecular "fingers."

    As soon as enough of the individual chemical pieces begin to adhere, they form a nucleus onto which more calcium carbonate gathers, and the crystal grows. Incredibly, the researchers found that OC-17 proteins are structured so that they always fall away from the calcite after it forms its crystal nucleus. This way, the OC-17 is sure to generate a growing crystal nucleus and is quickly freed to form another one. Without OC-17, chickens would not be able to build their eggs in the short time span of 26 hours. Other birds would have similar problems trying to survive without their version of this egg-forming protein.

    Thus, not only is OC-17 phenomenally precise in its chemical interactions, it also facilitates an "incredibly elegant process allowing highly efficient recycling" of itself. These features are indications of an intentional design that is so far in advance of mankind's capacities that it led researchers to marvel at its "elegant and highly efficient methods of promoting and controlling crystallization" in eggshell production.1

    The visible parts of chicken eggs provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the chicken-egg reproductive system was clearly designed. For example, the shell and its membrane have just the right thickness to resist crushing and yet to allow gaseous waste to escape during embryonic development.

    Similarly, the chalaza, the last component to come out of an opened egg, is necessary to flexibly tether the growing embryo to the inside of the shell so that the embryo stays oriented even when the egg is turned in the nest. And none of these parts would have any use if the hen had not also been endowed with the instinct and ability to brood over her nest, keeping it at constant temperature and humidity for 21 days before the egg hatches into a baby chick.

    The discovery of the elegant functional details of OC-17 only adds depth to the all-or-nothing network of interdependent parts that make up a living chicken. Thus, the discovery only adds weight to the argument that chickens began at one time in the past not as another animal that somehow evolved, but as fully formed chickens.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    David,

    Your question is based on the false assumption that there was a point in evolution when the child was radically different than the parent. You fail to understand that there were intermediate states between "egg-layer" and "non-egg-layer." This is an example of the well-known Sorites paradox attributed to Eubulides of Miletus from the 4th century BC. The name is from the Greek word "soros" which means "heap" and the paradox is based on the fact that there is no exact point when a "heap" of sand changes into "not a heap" by removing one grain at a time. Or consider a man with one hair on his head. Is he bald? If so, how many hairs can he have before he is not bald?
    It is not really a good example because the changes are inconsequential. The transition from a non egg layer to an egg layer, or vice versa is a life or death situation.
    If the transition is not immediately successful, it might not be possible at all. If the transition was hit and miss and mostly a failure, then there is no evolutionary advantage in continuing with the transition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Now as for how egg-laying evolved, that's not a big mystery. The simplest single cell organisms reproduce by division. The egg is a single cell. So what's the problem?
    Egg layers form an egg which is more than division of the first cell developing into an embryo and fetus or a fully formed living creature that is independent from the time it is hatched. We are talking about a developing embryo inside an egg with its food store. The transition from soft egg to a hard shelled egg as reptiles left the sea to live on dry land (as the hypothesis goes) has no evidential proof. The evidence is all very scant and is not reliable. Here is a quote from an article as recent as 2012
    But because of scant archeological evidence, no one really knows whether the first land dwelling amniotes were egg layers or whether they gave birth to their offspring.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-paleobi...ayers.html#jCp
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The real issue is that you are trying to find problems with modern science because it contradicts your primitive religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the actual science. This is obvious because you are totally ignorant of the most basic elements of the science and you refuse absolutely to learn. This means that your religion has made you incorrigibly ignorant, which is why I say that dogmatic religions tend to corrupt the minds and morals of believers.
    Compared to the wisdom of the Creator, it is science that is primitive and despite your double degree, your knowledge is just as lacking as mine.
    The Bible has made me wise in what the Creator has to teach us. Your science has not given you the knowledge to be be able to prove how we got here. Hypotheses and theories are based on improbabilities that you think are possibilities. You said you were not able to get the Bible to fit and it looks to me as if you have given up. You now think you are morally superior to God. You are as deluded as anyone else you say is deluded. That type of talk should have been dropped a long time ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You have an amazing ability to persist in what you believe. The unfortunate thing is that you are persisting in demonstrable error and show no interest in the truth.
    I would not be wasting my time replying to your inane comments about me, if I was not interested in getting to the truth about everything. When I give you evidence, you simply dismiss it, or you give an answer like the one above at the start or your reply which is not a good comparison to the type of transition we are talking about.

    When you do say something I agree with, I will let you know. In the meantime, I have to put up with your unsubstantiated comments.

    All the best,

    David

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,109
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    It is not really a good example because the changes are inconsequential. The transition from a non egg layer to an egg layer, or vice versa is a life or death situation.
    If the transition is not immediately successful, it might not be possible at all. If the transition was hit and miss and mostly a failure, then there is no evolutionary advantage in continuing with the transition.
    It's an excellent example. Your assertion that the "transition from a non egg layer to an egg layer, or vice versa is a life or death situation" is false. The transition was gradual, one step at a time. There was no clear demarcation between egg layer and non-egg-layer as you suggest. That is your mistake.

    Again, consider an ameba that reproduces by division. There is no reason the single cell could not slowly develop a shell like the egg layers.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Egg layers form an egg which is more than division of the first cell developing into an embryo and fetus or a fully formed living creature that is independent from the time it is hatched. We are talking about a developing embryo inside an egg with its food store. The transition from soft egg to a hard shelled egg as reptiles left the sea to live on dry land (as the hypothesis goes) has no evidential proof. The evidence is all very scant and is not reliable. Here is a quote from an article as recent as 2012
    The fact that we don't have evidence for every step does not refute the evidence we do have. And besides, there is a mountain of evidence against the Bible that you simply ignore or explain away (with extremely dubious explanations). Such sophistry would never fly with science. Science is established on demonstrable facts whereas you claims about the Bible are nothing but the weaving of words that every other believer can construe in opposite ways. So it's just plain silly for you to assert that science doesn't have "proof" when your believes are not only lacking in proof, but even contrary to what can be proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Compared to the wisdom of the Creator, it is science that is primitive and despite your double degree, your knowledge is just as lacking as mine.
    The Bible has made me wise in what the Creator has to teach us. Your science has not given you the knowledge to be be able to prove how we got here. Hypotheses and theories are based on improbabilities that you think are possibilities. You said you were not able to get the Bible to fit and it looks to me as if you have given up. You now think you are morally superior to God. You are as deluded as anyone else you say is deluded. That type of talk should have been dropped a long time ago.
    The Bible does not contain the wisdom of the Creator, but even if it did it wouldn't mean that your fringe interpretations were true. They are still just the opinions of one man. The fact that you have to twist words and deny definitions given in both the Oxford and Websters dictionaries proves the vanity of your assertions.

    I have not "given up" on understanding the Bible. I have studied it in depth and concluded it is flawed, just like all the other religious books like the Koran and the Book of Mormon. You simply refuse to admit the truth and when I try to reason with you, you refuse to follow basic trains of logical thought. I asked the same questions a hundred times and you consistently refused to even answer them at all. And then you claimed you did, which was false, and I proved it was false, and you refused to answer. You have broken the chain of rational discourse and there's nothing I can do about it. It's your choice. So be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I would not be wasting my time replying to your inane comments about me, if I was not interested in getting to the truth about everything. When I give you evidence, you simply dismiss it, or you give an answer like the one above at the start or your reply which is not a good comparison to the type of transition we are talking about.
    You have consistently refused to reply to most of the proofs I have given of your errors. That's why I quit trying to reason with you. You simply refuse to be rational.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •