ARGOSY

Diamond Member
  • Content count

    1,184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ARGOSY last won the day on February 23 2016

ARGOSY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,421 Excellent

About ARGOSY

  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 04/11/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Africa
  • Interests
    Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

1,494 profile views
  1. Everything is missing in the fossil record. Where did mammals come from? Many of them suddenly appeared fully formed in Turkey, Ethiopia and Egypt. Supposedly some early mole had ears similar to reptiles because it lives close to the ground and relies on vibration frequencies like a reptile. Does that prove evolution, that some mole has ears similar to reptiles? But where are the transitions from that early mole to cats and horses and elephants and giraffes and kangaroos? We should have some sequence. Oh but organisms don't fossilize easily and so evolution must just be accepted without the evidence. What if small mammals radiated out from the ark into a world of previously amphibuous reptiles, and the bigger mammals stayed in Middle East. Until a sudden ice age wiped out the dinosaurs and made the world more suitable to larger warm-blooded mammals. This would explain the sequence better and explain the congregation of early mammals in Turkey, something that science will amusingly attempt to explain https://news.ku.edu/2015/08/10/research-mammal-evolution-focuses-pivotal-eocene-interval-turkey What is observed in nature is that already existing rare organisms radiate out from niche environments when conditions change and adapt rapidly into clades, what is not observed is genetic evolution of complexity from 1000 unique genes to 22000 unique genes.
  2. For two mammals to breed, requires a very close match DNA for the nuclei to fuse. For that hybrid to continue to breed requires an even closer match. The fact that Neanderthals and other humans did successfully breed indicates that in fact Neanderthals are just another race of humans, no matter what the historians say. What fields corroborate evolution? To see a difference between a Ford and a BMW and then project how long back they had a common ancestor in the family tree based on the current observed differences is nonsensical. But evolutionists have entire fields devoted towards this type of "Research" and develop a tree based on observing DNA similarities. In the meantime we see that even a sea urchin can have a near identical design sequence just like a toaster and a car cigarette lighter can have similarities even though a car is entirely different to a toaster. Here's the link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061109-sea-urchins.html Then its amusing to see the justifications for this. "humans and sea urchins have a common ancestor". So he is surmising that our breakaway with our common ancestor with the sea urchin occurred far more recently than other creatures. It's all guesswork in the face of apparent design similarities. Not that this will convince an evolutionist but it's all pretty amusing to one who can see design everywhere. Regarding dolphins, sure mammals all have similar design features. I see no reason to sway from the core design features of mammals just because they are marine. The adaptability is already in the DNA, whether evolutionist or creationist both sides have to admit it because the evidence is there in the vestigial features. No sudden mutation brings out the vestigial features so this point does not add to evolution but can point to short term adaptability.
  3. If they all see him (hide us from the face) and all are aware of him (hide themselves) and it is the day of wrath and the day of the great earthquake, and the stars from heaven fall, and heaven rolls like a scroll, it surely is the second coming. To imagine life just carries on on planet earth after that moment is unrealistic and an early event like this is not described anywhere else in the bible. There is nothing in the sixth seal which contradicts Rev 19 or 1 Thess 4, it is all about the second coming.
  4. What you say makes sense. Yes David is among the saved, yet this king has kids, so this indicates a new King David. It seems a little strange that the bible did not specify the change in character though. To change the subject though, do you think these inhabitants of the millenium being mortal and unsaved, will have a chance at salvation? If so, the same inheritance or a limited inheritance? We are already judged clean/saved at the resurrection because we inherit eternal bodies, and so in a sense it is the resurrection which is our victorious judgment day. Yet Rev 20 hints that some may be found in the book of life in that later judgement.
  5. Your comment is a little vague.
  6. Not clearly. Just because something dramatic happens to the heavens twice, does not mean they are the same event. We can see from the following scriptures that dramatic things can occur to the heavens (sky) at the end of this age: Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken Acts 2:19 and I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll Isaiah 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth Sure you will try to place those verses at the end of the millenium as well to suit your view, but many of those verses are about the dramatic appearing of the Lord and the restoration of Israel. ie on ANY great judgment day like Noah's flood, the second coming, and the end of the millenium God changes the surface of the earth and the sky. The sky rolls like smoke, one can imagine clouds like nuclear warfare across the Middle East, the landscape transformed forever, the atmosphere and visibility completely changed. Context of Isaiah 34, 65, 66 favors this new land, new sky at the second coming, when Israel will be completely regathered and restored. Context does not favor an end millenium event in these verses. So one has to face the fact that this earth as a planet continues forever, yet the land and sky are occasionally transformed into new land and sky.
  7. I'm not following your logic here exactly. Yes Jesus is in heaven until the second coming when the kingdom of Israel will be restored. We will receive our resurrection bodies, and Israel will be restored.
  8. The ancients understood the landscape like this: SKY (heavens) LAND (erets/ge) UNDERWORLD Yes the second coming is a day of fire, when the land will transform and rocks and stuff (elements) will melt. Rocks melt even with today's warfare, it is nothing new that rocks melt. The context of 2 Peter 3 is clearly the second coming: 10 But the DAY OF THE LORD will come as a THIEF IN THE NIGHT; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and elements (like rocks) shall melt with fervent heat, land (ge) also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 looking for and hasting unto the coming of the DAY OF GOD The terms are used interchangeably, and refer to the second coming.
  9. Regarding my acceptance of micro evolution, if a population already has a wide range of gene-varieties in each gene position, its only natural that these will combine through breeding and natural selection over time into the best-fit for each environment. This process does not increase complexity or change the genotype, even though it can have a dramatic effect on the phenotype, ie small changes in phenotype will never add up to the increased complexity requirements of the genotype required by the theory of evolution. And if an organism is short of proteins in a certain function when exposed to a new environment, yes it's feasible that a duplication event will assist due to doubling up the proteins produced. Normally this double-up causes harm (Down's Syndrome) but not always. I suggest the main reason for vestigial traits is that the planet has undergone massive changes in a short time-frame rendering some functions obsolete ie not enough time to breed out the vestigial trait, therefore it still exists. In the long run, the vestigial trait would be selected out because it's a waste of processes to keep producing the proteins when they are no longer required. Neanderthals are humans, I don't see the obsession with them as if they are our ancestors. Just another race-group that disappeared but left a genetic trail. They were based mainly in Europe, and so early Europeans that entered the area of the Neanderthals would have occasionally interbred with that tribe. For example African pygmies may disappear in future as their jungle habitat reduces and they integrate into a modern economy. This will reduce the value of their short stature. With mild interbreeding they will leave a slight genetic trace in the local tribes. All the latent traits that exist in animals (dolphin's hindlegs) point also to creationism. The latent ability that exists within the genome. Although rapid phenotype evolution does exist and so I remain open to the concept that under environmental pressure (easy marine eating) some mammals can readily adapt to a marine environment (dolphins/ungulates) Regarding Adam and Eve , it wasn't an innate immoral thing to breed with siblings early on. This only became a problem and a moral issue when inbreeding became an issue. Often the biblical law is written for our benefit, what was at first practical advice (don't inbreed in case of disability) became burnt into our consciences over time, and is now a moral/conscience issue deeply embedded in society and religion, especially as Moses was inspired to record it in the Law. I really am not concerned how accepted evolution is, every one will stand before God one day and know the truth. Maybe something I say inspires someone, that is why I say it. If God wanted to be proven he will appear, but this is a deliberate age of faith where one has insufficient evidence and so can easily choose to deny God if not awake to spiritual truth. But on an empirical level evolution lacks an evolutionary fossil trail for EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM that exists today. There is only evidence for small clades, that is it, no long term pathway from LUCA. Mammals for some reason show an early concentration in Turkey of early phenotypes, and also appear suddenly with no precursor, just like the Cambrian Explosion. Yes clades exist since then, but why the sudden appearance of early mammal phenotypes in Turkey, just as the bible predicts after the flood? https://news.ku.edu/2015/08/10/research-mammal-evolution-focuses-pivotal-eocene-interval-turkey "LAWRENCE — Supported with a five-year, $580,000 award from the National Science Foundation, scientists from the University of Kansas are departing this month to investigate how climate, plate tectonics and other factors influenced evolution by bringing species together in modern-day Turkey 42 million years ago during the Eocene epoch." Duh. Why do the earliest mammal species suddenly all congregate in Turkey? Have they ever heard of the ark on the hills of Ararat (Ururat). Very confusing to scientists. hehe
  10. And now let's discuss the other well known rapture description in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15. Most of the chapter discusses the resurrection of the dead. We know from Rev 20 and Daniel 12 that the resurrection occurs at the end of this age, now 1 Corinthians 15 describes the rapture on the same day. So every time a rapture is clearly described in the Bible it it's in the context of the end of the age. I do understand how it's difficult to change one's view once established because it feels like sacrilege to play around with what seems to be established doctrine. But we have to force ourselves to be honest with scripture and favor the most apparent meaning in every case. There is no single scripture that even favors the pre trib view. Every pre trib support verse favors post trib.
  11. In what way does the meaning or context of the other phrases exclude the possibility of being the second coming? It is pretty obvious that all those verses you quoted are referring to the dramatic final day, the end of this age. Whether called the day of Christ, or the day of the Lord, or the day of God. You are playing with semantics in order to maintain your view despite your view contradicting plain wording.
  12. I don't buy the evolutionary timeframes , and so of course bacteria and other organisms would be found in the lower layers below the Cambrian Explosion, their lifespans are of minutes, not years, and so the first fossilised organisms would have been tiny short-lived ones. As your quote states, oxygen levels were high, therefore we would not find any Cambrian fossils of organisms like today, they would be confined to Siberian highlands, the only vast highland of the Cambrian. The terrestrial portions of Siberian highlands have not been examined, due to remoteness and depth of fossils. Regarding the Ordovician radiation, it makes sense that this was actually a radiation event and not an evolutionary event. Organisms radiate out from niche environments as the predominant environment changes. This is more observable even today than the evolving of genetic complexity.
  13. My assertion is that unique genes do not add to fitness. Sure we have increased genetic variety, when confronted with changing environments new allele combinations arise. These are not unique genes, but unique combinations of existing genes. Sure we have increased genetic material, sometimes the additional proteins from a duplication event assist the organism as in the case with the langur monkey. Sure two copies of the RNASE1 gene assist the monkey in a leaf eating environment, but it has not been proven that one RNASE1A plus one RNASE1B is any better than 2 x RNASE1A. ie what did the mutation actually add? The Prijambada/nylon argument is really a bad one, some bacteria exist today that can decompose the nylon without the need for mutation, the fact that nearly identical bacteria seemed to develop that ability just shows that the ability was already latent from older populations. As for Adami, that was based on mathematical probabilities in an assumed environment, not on actual observation. Where are the additional unique genes that improve fitness? And which part of your "debunk" of the Cambrian explosion do you feel is worthy of discussing?
  14. I see you mention the courts and the science classes. Normally I find people start to appeal to other's knowledge when their own starts to run out. Why defend evolution if you fail to have the know-how to do so and therefore refer to the current education system or the courts. Honestly I was open minded whether the creation story is symbolic but as I looked into it I see a lack of actual evidence for evolution. EVERY organism should have a fossil trail leading back to the last universal common ancestor of all life. Every organism fails to show this, yet evolutionists feel they have the intellectual high ground. It appears more like the sheep embraced Darwinism too early. Yet the sheep remain sheep, it takes guts to admit the evidence is failing evolution and move against the crowd. Regarding DNA mapping, my point is that we never observe new unique genes that improve organisms appearing in nature. The process is theoretical, actual observance is that most often when active genes are duplicated they damage an organism, as in the case with Down's Syndrome. In some cases there is no damage yet we do not see new functions appear in the duplicated gene ....ever. No matter how many generations of e-coli we observe. So the theory of evolution lacks any evidence for the outworking of that theory. ie its just an interesting theory without fossil or DNA support. My evidence lies in the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every phyla appeared spontaneously, and as we uncover the terrestrial highlands regions of the Cambrian we should find an even greater variety because that is the area that would most likely match todays fauna/flora. This region has been neglected owing to the remoteness of the region, and the depth of the fossil record.
  15. In your eyes that may be true, but what are the flaws if any, in regarding them as all as one particular day? Sure one can justify multiple views from the bible , but to see subtle changes in wording as completely separate days just seems like using semantics to justify the pre-trib view. Simply seeing one dramatic day at the second coming, and the rapture, Armageddon, and the wrath of God all occurring on the same day (no matter what you call that day) is consistent with scripture. This makes the wording clearer to follow. Unless you see some biblical flaw in doing that? Do you see some biblical flaw in doing that?