Intelligent design, my version.

[gnostic]

Right I didn't doublecheck anyway, were looking somewhere in that time period. The 'floods, though localized, would have been 'worldwide', remember that verse in the Bible is not 'absolute', it just means the water covered the land, I think many animals would have sought higher ground etc.

Ramen!

Except genesis have stated a couple of time the flood covered the earth, including the highest mountain, so that all life were killed, except all those who happened to be in the Ark.

But why build an ark if the flood was localised? Why not simply moved to higher ground, when Noaẖ had a hundred years warning of what will happen?

With a hundred years Noaẖ with his family could have travelled anywhere in Eurasia. The ark of that size would be a bit of overkill, if he could have walk to a safer location.

So do you think Genesis 6 to 8 may have been exaggeration?

 

[Desert Snake]

Except genesis have stated a couple of time the flood covered the earth, including the highest mountain, so that all life were killed, except all those who happened to be in the Ark.

But why build an ark if the flood was localised? Why not simply moved to higher ground, when Noaẖ had a hundred years warning of what will happen?

With a hundred years Noaẖ with his family could have travelled anywhere in Eurasia. The ark of that size would be a bit of overkill, if he could have walk to a safer location.

So do you think Genesis 6 to 8 may have been exaggeration?

I think it's probably more of a misinterpretation.
We're talking theoretically. Actually, if you thought there might be a later flood or floods/ irrelevant imo/, it would make sense to build something of a size that would (possibly) work in a flood situation. I don't think most people would just 'walk' somewhere else in that situation. Nothing unusual about this, imo.

 

[Sapiens]

i'm asking question, what difference it makes ?

You asked a question, I answered it, you seem to be pretending that an answer was not provided. I don't ask that you have the perspicacity to agree with the answer, but I do expect the dialectic to proceed.

 

[gnostic]

I think it's probably more of a misinterpretation.
We're talking theoretically. Actually, if you thought there might be a later flood or floods/ irrelevant imo/, it would make sense to build something of a size that would (possibly) work in a flood situation. I don't think most people would just 'walk' somewhere else in that situation. Nothing unusual about this, imo.

Noah is supposedly a prophet. He supposed to know other things that other people wouldn't know about. And he had 100 years head start...especially if the flood is localized, as you now claim it to be.

There are dozen mountains that I know of, in Europe and Asia, that are higher than Mount Ararat, that are within the slow walking range of 10-15 years. He could have easily walked to any one of these mountains.

Alexander the Great travelled with large army from Macedon to the Punjab within 12 years. If Noah was living somewhere in the Middle East, then he could have gone east to Hindu Kush or west to the Swiss Alps within that time period.

Are you forgetting that he had his revelation at age 500 and that he didn't board the Ark until he was 600?

One hundred years is plenty of time for travelling, which wouldn't require any vessel building, especially if the flood was more localized.

 

[Desert Snake]

Noah is supposedly a prophet. He supposed to know other things that other people wouldn't know about. And he had 100 years head start...especially if the flood is localized, as you now claim it to be.

There are dozen mountains that I know of, in Europe and Asia, that are higher than Mount Ararat, that are within the slow walking range of 10-15 years. He could have easily walked to any one of these mountains.

Alexander the Great travelled with large army from Macedon to the Punjab within 12 years. If Noah was living somewhere in the Middle East, then he could have gone east to Hindu Kush or west to the Swiss Alps within that time period.

Are you forgetting that he had his revelation at age 500 and that he didn't board the Ark until he was 600?

One hundred years is plenty of time for travelling, which wouldn't require any vessel building, especially if the flood was more localized.

How is 'walking to some mountains' more logical than building an ark? Is that even easier? Have you tried 'walking to some mountains' without modern appliances? This just doesn't make sense. Also, 'localized', can mean anything from range in severity to rapid succession etc., not necessarily, like .only one small area.

 

[gnostic]

How is 'walking to some mountains' more logical than building an ark? Is that even easier? Have you tried 'walking to some mountains' without modern appliances? This just doesn't make sense. Also, 'localized', can mean anything from range in severity to rapid succession etc., not necessarily, like .only one small area.

Let me see:

1. It took Noah building the Ark within a hundred years.
   
2. Ten to twelve years to walk to a higher and safer location. From there he can build his home with his family, stock up on food an supply.

And you think the Ark is easier?

You have askew the definition of what is "easy", do you?

You said it yourself that animals could move to higher location, if the flood was "localized":

Right I didn't doublecheck anyway, were looking somewhere in that time period. The 'floods, though localized, would have been 'worldwide', remember that verse in the Bible is not 'absolute', it just means the water covered the land, I think many animals would have sought higher ground etc.

Why do you think animals can seek "higher ground", but Noah and his family couldn't?

You are contradicting yourself now. And you are not thinking at all logical. You say one thing in older post, but saying something different in another.

Could Noah seek higher ground if animals can seek them in the flood? Is Noah stupid or something? Is God a moron?

 

[FearGod]

You asked a question, I answered it, you seem to be pretending that an answer was not provided. I don't ask that you have the perspicacity to agree with the answer, but I do expect the dialectic to proceed.

My question is very simple.

How the building blocks formed if not by chances.

 

[Sapiens]

My question is very simple.

How the building blocks formed if not by chances.

My answer is equally simple, the building blocks are formed by chance, but then they are filtered by natural selection, those that hinder are selected out, those that have no effect are ignored and those that assist are spread further.

 

[shawn001]

Learn and knowledge.

Do you think we were designed to think,learn and to gain knowledge or just accidentally it happened that we're so ?



Why it isn't always sunny ? why it isn't always raining ? why it isn't always typhoons ?
It happened to be so in order for life to persist, praise to nature for the good work.

"Do you think we were designed to think,learn and to gain knowledge or just accidentally it happened that we're so ?

A couple question for you. If there was no moon would there be the same life on earth we have today? Where did Earth's oxygen atmosphere come from in the first place?

 

[shawn001]

Right I didn't doublecheck anyway, were looking somewhere in that time period. The 'floods, though localized, would have been 'worldwide', remember that verse in the Bible is not 'absolute', it just means the water covered the land, I think many animals would have sought higher ground etc.

Ramen!

There was no world wide global flood for a fact.

And at around that time was one of the biggest floods known to man.

The impact from Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula floods can be seen in parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Testifying to the cataclysm are the ancient shorelines, ripple marks, scoured lakes, dry channels, falls, and flood debris that are still visible after nearly 12,000 years. Without seeing this evidence it is hard to imagine the enormity of the geologic event.

Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods


10,000-year-old house uncovered outside Jerusalem
With range of dramatic finds in excavations ahead of highway expansion, archaeologists trace 10 millennia of human development


10,000-year-old house uncovered outside Jerusalem | The Times of Israel 10,000-year-old house uncovered outside Jerusalem | The Times of Israel

 

[The Hammer]

This article may have a hokey and biased title (It's media what do you expect), but it is interesting nonetheless, in regards to the theory of ID.

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified - Salon.com

Here is a link out of the article itself as well.

A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

 

[Sapiens]

Jeremy England deserves many kudos for putting the math to it, but the idea is nothing new. When I was an undergrad we used to joke that life was essential because it was thermodynamically inefficient and the universe needed something to gobble up all the enthalpy and turn it to entropy.

 

[gnostic]

My question is very simple.

How the building blocks formed if not by chances.

Within the right environment, then yes, by chances, building blocks for life can occur. But this would be area for abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution is the result of life that already exist, and depending on environment, natural selection would govern what changes would occur, x-generations later.

Take the bears for instance. Most bears tend to hibernate in the winter seasons, and yet at some point, the polar bears had diverged from other species of bears, are active and tends to thrive in much colder regions than their cousins.

Why is that? Because the polar bears have adapted, genetically and physically, because they were fit for such environment.

If we were to now, put a group of brown bears in the arctic region, how long do you think they will survive in this new condition? Could they adapt in the arctic or tundra regions? May be, may be not. It depends on a number of factors.

That's how evolution differ from abiogenesis. Evolution is not really interested in how first life were formed.

There are abundance of evidences for evolution, more so than abiogenesis, and evolution is better understood than abiogenesis. But abiogenesis is still a new branch of biochemistry field. And there are more evidences for abiogenesis than that of creationism or that of intelligent design.

There are no evidences whatsoever that support either creationism or id.

 

[FearGod]

Within the right environment, then yes, by chances, building blocks for life can occur. But this would be area for abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution is the result of life that already exist, and depending on environment, natural selection would govern what changes would occur, x-generations later.

Take the bears for instance. Most bears tend to hibernate in the winter seasons, and yet at some point, the polar bears had diverged from other species of bears, are active and tends to thrive in much colder regions than their cousins.

Why is that? Because the polar bears have adapted, genetically and physically, because they were fit for such environment.

If we were to now, put a group of brown bears in the arctic region, how long do you think they will survive in this new condition? Could they adapt in the arctic or tundra regions? May be, may be not. It depends on a number of factors.

That's how evolution differ from abiogenesis. Evolution is not really interested in how first life were formed.

There are abundance of evidences for evolution, more so than abiogenesis, and evolution is better understood than abiogenesis. But abiogenesis is still a new branch of biochemistry field. And there are more evidences for abiogenesis than that of creationism or that of intelligent design.

There are no evidences whatsoever that support either creationism or id.

Do random mutations belongs to the area of abiogenesis ?

 

[Sapiens]

Do random mutations belongs to the area of abiogenesis ?

That's an interesting question that does not, as yet, have a clear answer. First you must recognize that there was not "no life" one moment and then "life" the next in a momentary flash of blue lightening and smoke. "Life" evolved through many steps before it became something we'd call "alive" (thing prion and virus( and thus there clearly was some form of "mutation" (though since there was no DNA at the time the word "mutation" is perhaps wrong to describe the event(s).

 

[gnostic]

I am neither biochemist nor biologist, so I am no expert in evolution or abiogenesis.

My understanding of biological mutation is that it is change to genes, chromosomes or to the DNA, to different genes, chromosomes or DNA.

And according to my understanding of abiogenesis, is that scientists are trying to use more basic non-living matters make living matters, then that will mean before DNA, genes and chromosomes exist.

And the most essential biological molecules required for life, are

1. nucleic acid (the basis for DNA),
2. protein (which contain animo acid),
3. and carbohydrates.

If my understanding is correct, then mutations - be it random or otherwise - would have nothing to do with abiogenesis, because DNA, gene and chromosome wouldn't exist yet.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Parsimony]

I am neither biochemist nor biologist, so I am no expert in evolution or abiogenesis.

My understanding of biological mutation is that it is change to genes, chromosomes or to the DNA, to different genes, chromosomes or DNA.

And according to my understanding of abiogenesis, is that scientists are trying to use more basic non-living matters make living matters, then that will mean before DNA, genes and chromosomes exist.

And the most essential biological molecules required for life, are

1. nucleic acid (the basis for DNA),
2. protein (which contain animo acid),
3. and carbohydrates.

If my understanding is correct, then mutations - be it random or otherwise - would have nothing to do with abiogenesis, because DNA, gene and chromosome wouldn't yet.

Does that make sense to you?

The RNA world hypothesis proposes that RNA capable of catalyzing its own self-replication was the first (or one of the first) precursors to living things. Given that RNA has a genetic code, it would be subject to mutation. I even read a report of RNA in a lab mutating such that reproduced more quickly over time. However, the replication of that particular RNA was catalyzed by a secondary agent, not itself. I don't know if self-catalyzing RNA replication has been achieved yet or not.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe Philosophy in University, its not really as simple to understand as it might look on paper!! But for instance in science classes today they teach there was no universal flood, when there was, as I said in the OP, at the end of the last ice age, the sea level rose 400ft and no one knows for sure how slow or rapid a process it was, at least according to scientists.

No. The evidence exist for floods, some of them quite large, but there's no evidence of a universal (i.e. global) flood. It's practically impossible to have global flood since it would require a huge amount of water being added from space, trillions and trillions of tons of water, and in a radial-central direction.

 

[Ouroboros]

...skipping ahead only 100,000 years ago he created the first Humans,

Actually, it was more like a couple of million years ago. The first Homo species appears then, and has since then changed quite a bit. I think the first hand-ax tools were invented 2-3 million years ago.

It depends on one woman Eve and probably more than one man as her mate, skipping ahead to 15,000 years ago God created a great furnace to melt the Ice that covered most of the world and there was a great flood,

That doesn't sound like it matches the scientific evidence. There never was a furnace, and the ice didn't melt and cover the Earth. It's impossible since ice has larger volume than liquid water. In other words, if the world was flooded from the water form the melted ice, the ice must've covered Earth completely. All land. And it wasn't.

98% of the World's people lived below our present sea level and when most of the glaciers melted there was a cataclysm of Global warming that raised the sea level 400!!! feet and 99% of the world's people drowned,

The mountains are thousands of feet. You have to raise it 29,000 feet to cover Earth.

In the middle east everyone was killed except for a visionary nautical engineer that built a great ship his name was Noah and you may or may not believe the rest of the story but people of faith believe some of it is recorded in the bible.

The water would've been so turbulent and a ship of any size or design could have withstand the forces. Besides, where did the water go afterwards? Why aren't we flooded still? If all that water went back to ice, why aren't we back to an ice age?

I call it intelligent design, and its based on the idea that evolution is the way God creates, by encouraging mutations to occur over million of millions of years etc In a regular science course at high school all it would take is one one hour class to discuss it as a possible alternative to Godless evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin and most modern scientists.

Sure. God could have used it, or as I see it, Nature is God, and Nature did evolve life. And the way Nature does it, is through natural selection, just as Darwin suggested. (As we can see happening with root worms, bacteria, flowers, birds, lizards, and many other observed instances in our time.)

What the evidence shows, and what anthropologists, archeologists, and historians agree on, is that there's been floods, some very large, but still local and not global, and that the flood stories come from those instances. The evidence supports these local floods, but no evidence exist for a global flood (at least not in the past billion years or so).

 

[Skwim]