Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

Peter- you are very good at this! Kudos to you. Im glad that an evolutionist has read the bible. i honestly don't think Christian1 knows what he's talking about.

Reading over the post again, I actually laughed. I think you are the one who is threatened by all that city folk mumbo-jumbo. YOu heard a man say he had read the bible and was a creationist.

Christian1,If you're not here to debate, then perhaps you should find another website to post in. After all, we are all here to debate and I, for one, am not much interested in hearing from a person who believes ideas should only move in one direction.For you to stay around here just telling us we're wrong is (1) pointless (2) will probably just get you harrassed and therefore (3) degrade the quality of the forum.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-15-2002]

correction: you heard a man say he had read the bible and was an evolutionist.

And for the record, quicksink, you can click the "Edit" button at the bottom of messages you have posted and edit your messages, without having to make additional messages that also degrade the quality of the forum.

"Oh and Christian1. Please enlighten me- how should I interpret millions of animals being taken from all over the world in a time when the world was not mapped"
--Millions of animals were not taken on the ark, there were many, but nothing in the millions. All kinds of animals could have lived in this one particular spot, variation shows it can, they were not as specialized."and put on a made boat by a few men during the bronze age over 100 yrs. This boat then managed to feed and maintain millions of animals for many, many days on a rough sea"
--Actually, many people could have helped him build his boat, atleast with the factor of supplies. And again, they did not have to feet nor maintain millions of animals."including insects that would live for a maximum of three days, and required the fruit of fig trees to reproduce [figs were not aboard the ark])."
--By looking through the fossil record you would realize that insects grew to significantly larger sizes, most likely by longer life spans, insects arent a problem. Insects do not need to produce in fig trees, most all need water or moist environments to reproduce in the first place."The unicorn, which we have found no fossil records of, stayed on land and was washed away with the brackish water that would have wiped out all plants and fish that cannot tolerate both fresh and salt water."
--the unicorn? I hope your not looking for a unicorn as it is portrayed to day as being a horse with a horn on its forehead. As the biblical discription makes it as alot more of a monster than a horse. Many fish can go through changes such as high and low salinity, showing variation has taken place along with other reasons. Fish could have tolerated fresh and salt water. If you realy wanted to, depending on the fish, you could change it from salt water to fresh water or vice versa either through time, or generations."When the storm ceased, god actually made a rainbow IN A CLOUD (no rainbow has ever been seen IN A CLOUD)"
--So how are Rainbows created? And what are clouds made of?"promised that he would never create another flood that had been intended to punish humans"
--Actually he would never have a global flood peroid, by today's topography, the odds of it happening even through chance are one in a billion."and had in the process wiped out all creatures on the planet"
--Actually he didn't wipe out all the creatures on the planet, only creatures who breath through nostrils and live on land."(why didn't god just click his fingers and make all but a few humans disappear?)"
--I don't wan't to get into this argument again, we already wen't over this, its by many factors that made the Flood a plausable conclusion towards God."Then a few people who had apparently lived for 100 yrs in order to make a boat to save all the animal species on the planet"
--Actually they lived to about 900 years, Noah was 600 when the event took place. And 'animal species' is inaccurate, I'm sure the most inexperienced debater in the creation and evolution topic would know this."(excluding the dinosaurs, who didn't esist during this day)"
--Dinosaurs sure did live in his day."somehow reproduced in Turkey and restored all cultures on the planet in their original forms"
--original forms wouldn't be right, but otherwize this is correct."including the Egyptians and Chinese, who made no note of the great flood."
--Yes, Egypt and China both have flood legends, much of the Egyptian flood has been taken the factor of age and the like, China on the other hand has many variations of Flood legends."Of course they restored all the cultures and the cities, including the pyramids."
--Restored?"They then began farming a few years later in the salt soaked soil."
--Farming probably was something taking place after the flood."At the same time, the two representatives of species in South America managed to head throught the deserts of the Mideast, the tundras of Siberia, the rockies of north america, and the blaring humidity of s. america back to their homes, which were stripped of all habitats."
--there is a major problem with your argument...do you know what the Flood theory is, even parts of it?"They managed to do this without eating any food, as all vegetation was killed"
--On the contrary, vegetation would have been massivly abundant."and did so without having one animal dying on the trail, as of course there have been no remains of koalas been found, in lets say asia."
--Many probably died on the trail, the problem is, as I am sure you know, fossilization requires specific conditions. so even if koala's had produced the variation of actually being koala's at the time, you would most likely not find one."the fossils of only very primitive looking animals were fossilized, while other modern animals were not fossilized."
--No, they were all fossilized in the same time period, what is your argument asserting?"Hmmm... on second thought, it all seems to make sense now..."
--Don't I wish."If you really ignore all common logic, it actuaally starts to seem possible. If only I wasa little more ignorant..."
--If the way you propose the biblical flood were true, it would be in big trouble, luckly, its nothing in its likeness.------------------

True Creation. You need to do your homework. It is completely false that the chinese made any references of floods. That is a proven fact. It is also completely untrue that vegetation would be abundant. Salt water ruins soil. This is also a fact. Farming is impossible in salty soil. this is also a fact.There would have been hundreds of thousands of species on board that ship. It is COMPLETELY UNTRUE THAT ALL INSECTS CAN REPRODUCE WITH WETNESS. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.I'm a surprised that someone of your intelligence could really assume that koalas could survive a passage through a desert. Did you know that koalas will only eat eucolyptus (damn spelling!) trees? These, last time I checked, are not found in the deserts of Arabia.In addition, more than ten creation scientists have claimed to find the ark, all in different locations.The male fig wasp is born, and mates with a female while the female is in the larvae stages. the male then dies. the female is born pregneant and lives for 3 days. During this time it moves through fig fruits, which actually grow right from the trunks of trees. Inside these fruits are flowers (they are truly bizarre). Some flowers are male, and some female. The female wasp moves through a fig (it enters through an opening) where it finds a flower that has a long enough stemen to deposit the eggs. Once she has laid the eggs, she dies. The fig tree is dependent of the wasp for pollenation (look it upa dn spare me the time) and the wasp is ABSOLUTELY dependent on the fig fruit.DO NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS!You have made one of your biggest mistakes by admitting that dinosaurs existed in that time. If this were true, why weren't they on the ark... the bible distinctly said that each specie of animal was put on the ark.How did Noah survive 600 yrs? that ones a little odd.Oh, and on the flood records thing again- how in the world can you possibly believe rubbish about the Egyptians "mentioning a flood". I'd like proof of this from a non-creationist scientist. I'd like at least 3 records of this.Find it funny how there aren't actually that many fossils on this planet? Don't you think there would be millions of fossils of horses and cows and sloths and even humans. After all, most creationists claim that the smae flood that carved out the grand canyonOh... and here is something straight from the bible. you see i did a little research:Genesis 6
15
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.[1]
[15] Hebrew 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (about 140 meters long, 23 meters wide and 13.5 meters high) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#buildingWow! A lot animals in a pretty small wooden boat.Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.And before I continue, to believe that all fossils are younger than 6 thousand yrs old.because of if you do, and you believe that the fossils were deposited during the great flood (meaning these creatures [now extinct] would have been alive just before the flood), than you arrive at roughly 4 billion creatures to be placed aboard a 450 ft ship.give me a break
!!!

And let's please admit that the "large number" (50,000 animals, 1,000,000 insects) of animals taken aboard would be from every continent- antarctica-asia-australia-n. s. america- africa -europe -and isolated areas such as the snow leopard in the Himalayas, and the siberian tiger. There are dozens of species of penguin, which would all have to be collected in antarctica. You'd also have to launch a search party to save all buttterflies, spiders, snakes, DINOSAURS, and etc etc etc in the amazin. From there you could trun north and get the polar bears in the arctic.
And while your at it, I'd like to say that it is a scientifically proven fact that most species of fish cannot survive in brackish water. All coral reefs would have been destroyed (it is scientifically proven that coral could not survive in brackish water without light for six months. it takes millions of yrs to regrow huge coral reefs like that in asutralia). But I'm sure you knew that. You're just plain old smarter than Stephen Hawking.from http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Yet, as preposterous as this story seems, there are people in the twentieth century who claim they have found Noah's ark. They call themselves "arkeologists." Yes, they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic, I think is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species which had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat.Still, none of this deters the true believer from maintaining that the story of Noah's ark is the God's truth. Nor does it deter those who think the ark has been found. For example, in 1977 a pseudo-documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark" was played on numerous television stations. CBS showed a special in 1993 entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." The first is a work of fiction claiming to be a documentary. The second was masterminded by George Jammal, who has admitted that the story was a hoax. Jammal said he wanted to expose religious frauds. His hoax was seen by about 20 million people, most of whom probably still do not know that Jammal did not want them to take it seriously.During his show, Jammal produced what he called "sacred wood" from the ark, which he later admitted was wood taken from railroad tracks in Long Beach, California, which he had hardened by cooking in an oven. He also prepared other fake wood by frying a piece of California pine on his kitchen stove in a mix of wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour and teriyaki sauces. He also admitted that he had never been to Turkey. The program was produced by Sun International Pictures, based in Salt Lake City, and responsible for several pseudo-documentaries on Nostradamus, the Bermuda Triangle, the Shroud of Turin, and UFOs.Well there you have it.By the way, go to my evidence page. there's a message waiting for you.

To answer "restored?" erosion would have occured during the great flood. the pyramids would have collapsed.Go to the site that i apparently "violated copyright laws from" (although I didn't)

Finally, I believe that when fish adapt to fresh water to salt water and vice-versa, the word for that is EVOLUTION.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh and Christian1. Please enlighten me- how should I interpret millions of animals being taken from all over the world in a time when the world was not mapped"
--Millions of animals were not taken on the ark, there were many, but nothing in the millions. All kinds of animals could have lived in this one particular spot, variation shows it can, they were not as specialized.

​

LUD:That always puzzles the hell out of me...whats your imperical evicence that animals were not as specialised back 4500 years ago as they are today? What evidence do you possess that say Lions,Tigers,Albino Tigers,Pumas,Cougars,Jaguars,Cheetas,Panthers,Lynxs,mountain lions and so so did not ALL exist 4500 years ago and so did not have all needed to send a pair of representatives of each sub species to still exists to this day? What evidence is there that large cat ancestry converges 4500 years ago? Patiently waiting your data so i can review it.

​

"and put on a made boat by a few men during the bronze age over 100 yrs. This boat then managed to feed and maintain millions of animals for many, many days on a rough sea"
--Actually, many people could have helped him build his boat, atleast with the factor of supplies. And again, they did not have to feet nor maintain millions of animals.

​

LUD:Yeah,the amusing Noah contracting company story from the article you linked me to the other day. Of course,there isen't the slightest shred of evidence of it...not even scriptural evidence. The autors of that article took a few lines in the book of genesis and extrapolated well beyond what common sense would allow,given such limited actual information. They did so with the clear intention of fooling casual readers into believing that they knew more about the alledged time of Noah than they actually did.

​

"including insects that would live for a maximum of three days, and required the fruit of fig trees to reproduce [figs were not aboard the ark])."
--By looking through the fossil record you would realize that insects grew to significantly larger sizes, most likely by longer life spans, insects arent a problem. Insects do not need to produce in fig trees, most all need water or moist environments to reproduce in the first place.

​

LUD:Moist environement yes...completely flooded environement,no way. Besides,the large size of insects in the fossil records would have played against them,greatly limiting their choices of refuge during the flood. Some insects were almost as large as some birds...yet birds did not survive the flood. Furthermore,your swimming pool model fails to account for three important factor...time(6-9 months+),the sheer unstable environement of an ocean(which is rarely calm water like a pool) and the many predators under the waves who eat insects found at the surface. Some biologists in my cousin's departement told me to ask you a question...to the best of your knowledge,how many formerly land dwelling insects live on the ocean today?

​

"The unicorn, which we have found no fossil records of, stayed on land and was washed away with the brackish water that would have wiped out all plants and fish that cannot tolerate both fresh and salt water."
--the unicorn? I hope your not looking for a unicorn as it is portrayed to day as being a horse with a horn on its forehead. As the biblical discription makes it as alot more of a monster than a horse. Many fish can go through changes such as high and low salinity, showing variation has taken place along with other reasons. Fish could have tolerated fresh and salt water. If you realy wanted to, depending on the fish, you could change it from salt water to fresh water or vice versa either through time, or generations.

​

LUD:yes,fishes do adapt...over time. but history has taught us that an abrupt change in environement often spell the end for most of the species living in that environement.

​

"promised that he would never create another flood that had been intended to punish humans"
--Actually he would never have a global flood peroid, by today's topography, the odds of it happening even through chance are one in a billion.

​

LUD:as i am fond of asking in this post,what evidence do you possess that the today's topography and 4500 years ago's topography are so extraordinarely different that a flood was well conceivable back then but not today? Did you know that if all the glaciers melted,much of the world today,save higher grounds,would be underwater? Its conceivable that this very thing happened in the distant past,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES and its possible it may happen again,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES.

​

"and had in the process wiped out all creatures on the planet"
--Actually he didn't wipe out all the creatures on the planet, only creatures who breath through nostrils and live on land.

​

LUD:Yes and land dwelling insects survived the flood by floating on unstable vegetation matts and fresh water fishes survived because they could dwell in bubble of fresh water in the oceans. Its all been said before,yet no one has ever presented any credible evidence to back this up. Just a few small exemples here and there which are then extrapolated to huge proportions with no considerations for the obvious problems that this entails...but if the bible say it,it must be true,right? after all,the earth has four corners,rests on pillars and Jesus did come back to bring his Father's kingdom in his appostles lifetime,didn't he?

​

"(why didn't god just click his fingers and make all but a few humans disappear?)"
--I don't wan't to get into this argument again, we already wen't over this, its by many factors that made the Flood a plausable conclusion towards God.

​

LUD:yes because God,in his all knowing power couldn't just kill everyone he didn't like and then inscribe in our genome the knowledge of what he did so we would know all of this instinctively and be abilitated to make our choices with INSTINCTIVE knowledge of right and wrong...I'm telling you TC,if we are to believe the Bible's accounts of God,he seems to reflect like a very stupid and superstitious man...kinda like the Bible autors...interesting...

​

"Then a few people who had apparently lived for 100 yrs in order to make a boat to save all the animal species on the planet"
--Actually they lived to about 900 years, Noah was 600 when the event took place. And 'animal species' is inaccurate, I'm sure the most inexperienced debater in the creation and evolution topic would know this.

​

LUD:This is the most amusing part about creationists...they accuse evolutionists of inventing billion year long periods of time to make the evolution theory work yet they themselves invent 900 year old people to make THEIR beliefs work. No one has ever observed the lifetime of someone lasting 900 years save perhaps in cancer cells...and not even that,since no one has seen a cancer strand replicate for 900 years. The longevity of the Biblical patriarch is pure mythology and will remain mythology until your side can provide actual evidence of people living so damn long...it doesn't have to be 900. People who lived so long would have had a much slower life cycle,so their bodies would have been that of a child,a teen or a young adult for MUCH LONGUER than ours...show me a 30 year old human being that still has the body of a toddler and i'll buy into the patriarch belief no question asked.

​

"(excluding the dinosaurs, who didn't esist during this day)"
--Dinosaurs sure did live in his day.

​

LUD:Funny how the fossil record just dont say that.

​

"somehow reproduced in Turkey and restored all cultures on the planet in their original forms"
--original forms wouldn't be right, but otherwize this is correct.

​

LUD:evidence,evidence,evidence...

​

"including the Egyptians and Chinese, who made no note of the great flood."
--Yes, Egypt and China both have flood legends, much of the Egyptian flood has been taken the factor of age and the like, China on the other hand has many variations of Flood legends.

​

LUD:someday,someone will have to teach you the difference between LOCAL flood,which occur all the time,and GLOBAL flood,which may have happened long ago over the course of many centuries. Most flood legends are LOCAL flood legends.

​

"Of course they restored all the cultures and the cities, including the pyramids."
--Restored?

​

LUD:yes,restaured...the great pyramyd of Gise and the sphynx are said to be over 5000 years old...yet they show no sign of ever having been underwater.

​

"They then began farming a few years later in the salt soaked soil."
--Farming probably was something taking place after the flood.

​

LUD:according to the Bible,Cain was a farmer so even the Bible claims that farming began well before the flood...and since we know it today to be the primary source of food for the human race,there's no reason to believe that it wasn't so 4500 years ago...hell,the Bible even says that vegetation is what people were supposed to eat. Heavily salinated soils would not have been able to produce plants for decades,if not more. and they couldn't eat the animals they had just saved from the flood either,since all clean beasts were sacrificed (sacrifice means no part of them were consumed by man) and the unclean beasts had to reproduce.

​

"At the same time, the two representatives of species in South America managed to head throught the deserts of the Mideast, the tundras of Siberia, the rockies of north america, and the blaring humidity of s. america back to their homes, which were stripped of all habitats."
--there is a major problem with your argument...do you know what the Flood theory is, even parts of it?

​

LUD:He raises a god point...how did the animals of south america or australia reached the ME? Oh i forget...the world was completely different back then,even though we have no evidence to show that...

​

"They managed to do this without eating any food, as all vegetation was killed"
--On the contrary, vegetation would have been massivly abundant.

​

LUDk i'm stumped...HOW?

​

"and did so without having one animal dying on the trail, as of course there have been no remains of koalas been found, in lets say asia."
--Many probably died on the trail, the problem is, as I am sure you know, fossilization requires specific conditions. so even if koala's had produced the variation of actually being koala's at the time, you would most likely not find one.

​

LUD:i think what he means is you are asking us to believe that none of the ark couples lost any members on their swim back home...oh thats right...they walked because the oceans has all dried out. silly me...

​

"the fossils of only very primitive looking animals were fossilized, while other modern animals were not fossilized."
--No, they were all fossilized in the same time period, what is your argument asserting?

​

LUD:they were not all fossilized that the same time and the geologic columns are ample proof of this...just because creationists CHOOSE to disreguard this evicence because it doesn't compute with THEIR beliefs does not make it untrue.

​

"Hmmm... on second thought, it all seems to make sense now..."
--Don't I wish.

​

LUD:yeah i bet you do...

​

"If you really ignore all common logic, it actuaally starts to seem possible. If only I wasa little more ignorant..."
--If the way you propose the biblical flood were true, it would be in big trouble, luckly, its nothing in its likeness.

​

LUD: But he does make a valid point...our observation of what occured 4500 years ago HAS to start with the observable present which is then extrapolated slowly and piece by piece with testing all allong until it can give us an idea of what things were like back then...But your begin with a pre-determined completely different past and then make up all sort of improbable assertions to explain how that pre-determined past turned into the observable present...he's right...the only way we can follow you is if we abandon all logical thinking along the way.

---

"I used to be christian. I no longer believe in a god. I know some of the bible."
--Thats unfortunate, tell me why exactly?"you can head to truecreation's site if this person has one. if not, go to this one."
--Care an attempt at defending any of the implications that this site gives? I would be very happy to enter debate on the subject. "Oh and please defend the tower of babble. I'd be interested to hear how satan erased the evidence of it."
--I already gave evidence (actually we can go and see the tower today) of the Tower of Babel, the bible is completelly accurate on this point: From another forum, posted by myself in response to another asserting the same:

quote:

---

--Why would you assert something so untrue? The tower of bable has been found.

​

http://artiom.home.mindspring.com/gumilev/ch4.htm

​

quote:

---

The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood.

---

​

--And this is a link with the discussion of the Tower of Babel and Ziggurats.
-- http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

---

------------------

"True Creation. You need to do your homework. It is completely false that the chinese made any references of floods. That is a proven fact."
--Ehem, do my homework? Talk.origins archive's even are completely aware of this, there are 7 of them that Talk.origins lists, one seeming to be the main:-China
-Bahnar (Cochin China)
-Zhuang (China)
-Lisu (northwest Yunnan, China)
-Lolo (southwestern China)
-Siu (southern Guizhou, China)
-Jino (southern Yunnan, China)--On the contrary your assertion 'has been proven' false."It is also completely untrue that vegetation would be abundant. Salt water ruins soil. This is also a fact. Farming is impossible in salty soil. this is also a fact."
--You are aware of the water cycle? And you are also I am sure aware of the mechenism by which salt is removed from the continents I am sure? Also, regarding me saying vegetation would be abundant, this was refering to during the flood, vegetation would have been abundant above water, floating around."There would have been hundreds of thousands of species on board that ship."
--Nope, I don't think you are at all aware of Creaitonist theories are you? If you were, I am sure you would not be asking such a question."It is COMPLETELY UNTRUE THAT ALL INSECTS CAN REPRODUCE WITH WETNESS. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE."
--I never said all insects do."I'm a surprised that someone of your intelligence could really assume that koalas could survive a passage through a desert."
--Desert, what desert?"Did you know that koalas will only eat eucolyptus (damn spelling!) trees? These, last time I checked, are not found in the deserts of Arabia."
--Who said they had to be eating eucolyptus trees? Grizzly bears have a significantly different diet than do polar bears. (also a note, Panda 'bears' are not really bears)."In addition, more than ten creation scientists have claimed to find the ark, all in different locations."
--Yup, I guess so, I dont' think I would agree with either of them, It would most likely had been destroyed by tectonic or magmatic activity, or some other natural disaster."The male fig wasp is born, and mates with a female while the female is in the larvae stages. the male then dies. the female is born pregneant and lives for 3 days. During this time it moves through fig fruits, which actually grow right from the trunks of trees. Inside these fruits are flowers (they are truly bizarre). Some flowers are male, and some female. The female wasp moves through a fig (it enters through an opening) where it finds a flower that has a long enough stemen to deposit the eggs. Once she has laid the eggs, she dies. The fig tree is dependent of the wasp for pollenation (look it upa dn spare me the time) and the wasp is ABSOLUTELY dependent on the fig fruit."
--Thats right, but the Fig Wasp, most likely wasn't a 'fig wasp' 4,500 years ago. The Fig wasp is part of the Chalcidoidea family which all have many many variational abilities even closer relationships in the family towards the Fig wasp."DO NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS!"
--No problem."You have made one of your biggest mistakes by admitting that dinosaurs existed in that time. If this were true, why weren't they on the ark... the bible distinctly said that each specie of animal was put on the ark."
--They were on the ark, also the bible distinctly says ever 'kind' of animal was on the ark, the bible makes no reference as to 'species'. Everything reproduces after its 'kind' not species, if this were not so, the bible would not be correct."How did Noah survive 600 yrs? that ones a little odd."
--I went over this one with ludvanB, this is completely plausably correct:

quote:

---

Who do you know,anywhere on this earth that can live to be 600 years old? Aside from the bible itself(which is not a science or medical manual in any way shape or form),can you point out to me a single begining of a shred of evidence that a human being can live to be 600 years old under any conditions?"
--I would be happy, it is a simple concept really. I believe I have already gone over this in a nother forum anyways, but I will emphesize again. It is very possible that a human could have lived to 600 and even 950 years old as the bible portrays. Do you know why we die of old age? Because our parts wear out, and cells stop reproducing themselves.

​

AiG - Countdown to Death - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp

​

"The ‘capping’ at the end of each chromosome (called a telomere) is, like the capped tips of shoelaces, necessary to prevent the ends fraying. The telomere shortens with each cell division once the limit is reached, the cells can no longer divide. This is probably only one way in which our limited lifespans are ‘programmed’ into us. There is no biological reason at all why people could not live much longer than they do at present, if they had the appropriate genetic makeup.

​

It has long been known that there are human cells that can keep on dividing forever cancer cells. These appear not to have the built-in ‘switch’ which tells cells to stop dividing, so they keep on making copies of themselves. This is why medical labs, which need to use human cell lines in their work, can be continually supplied with cells which are all the ‘offspring’ of one unfortunate person’s cancer. (Called HeLa cells, after Henrietta Lacks, the lady whose cancer it was). The HeLa cell line is effectively ‘immortal’ (unless existing HeLa cells were to all be physically destroyed).

​

Recently, laboratory results based on an enzyme3 that is involved with the replication of the telomere, have caused much excitement. Modified human cell lines have divided many times past their limit. Some speculate that such manipulations could cause people to live to much longer ages, providing they do not succumb to disease or accident in the meantime. Aging is certain to be much more complex than these simplified discussions, based on preliminary findings, might lead us to think. However, the evidence so far strongly suggests that genetics plays a major part."

---

--I also have given more links and the like towards information on the role of the telomere in other threads. If you wan't some, type 'telomere' in the search box and you will find where I discuss it."Oh, and on the flood records thing again- how in the world can you possibly believe rubbish about the Egyptians "mentioning a flood". I'd like proof of this from a non-creationist scientist. I'd like at least 3 records of this."
--I can give you the non creationist approach, but I can't give you 3 flood stories, Talk.origins breifly explains why here:-Flood Stories from Around the World"Find it funny how there aren't actually that many fossils on this planet? Don't you think there would be millions of fossils of horses and cows and sloths and even humans."
--lol, goodness gratious, there are literally billions, possibly trillions of fossils on the planet."After all, most creationists claim that the smae flood that carved out the grand canyon"
--Why, is there a problem with it?"Oh... and here is something straight from the bible. you see i did a little research:"
--I'm glad you did some."Wow! A lot animals in a pretty small wooden boat."
--Yeah, they all even possibly could have only taken up 2 of the floors. "Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems."
--Ok lets see then:"Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties."
--Yeah they would have, assuming that they had to travel from around the world of course."Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all."
--Ok. (Who said they had to travel any significant distance)"Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?"
--Their diets wouldn't have been as specialized, for instance, koalas would not have had to just eat eucolyptise."Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity."
--I'd need specifics to give a reasonable argument."Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals."
--Probably one of the reasons, along with humans, that they died out (if they did). Also, they would not have been 'prey', as it along with its today 'predator' would have been vegetarian."When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood."
--What are they in competition for?"And before I continue, to believe that all fossils are younger than 6 thousand yrs old."
--(continues for quicksink) -isn't at all a problem."because of if you do, and you believe that the fossils were deposited during the great flood (meaning these creatures [now extinct] would have been alive just before the flood), than you arrive at roughly 4 billion creatures to be placed aboard a 450 ft ship."
--And how was it you came to that conclusion now quicksink?------------------

"And let's please admit that the "large number" (50,000 animals, 1,000,000 insects) of animals taken aboard would be from every continent- antarctica-asia-australia-n. s. america- africa -europe -and isolated areas such as the snow leopard in the Himalayas, and the siberian tiger."
--Why? Whats wrong with the other leopards and tigers, you are familiar with speciation and variation, are you not?"There are dozens of species of penguin, which would all have to be collected in antarctica."
--Don't you know that there are penguins that thrive on the golopogose islands, right next to the equator."You'd also have to launch a search party to save all buttterflies"
--Insects would not have been needed to be accounted for in Noah's ark, spiders."...snakes..."
--There are abundant 'species' of almost everything, so what is the problem?"DINOSAURS, and etc etc etc in the amazin"
--Not all dinosaurs lived in the amazon... Also, what is the problem with dinosaurs on the Ark, as they were air breathing through nostrils and living on land."From there you could trun north and get the polar bears in the arctic."
--Why run somewhere were there are no bears when you can just walk a couple miles and get a 'bear', that didn't have the mutational effects along with natural selection as the polar bear has."And while your at it, I'd like to say that it is a scientifically proven fact that most species of fish cannot survive in brackish water."
--And?"All coral reefs would have been destroyed"
--Yup."(it is scientifically proven that coral could not survive in brackish water without light for six months. it takes millions of yrs to regrow huge coral reefs like that in asutralia)"
--It doesn't take millions of years to grow coral reefs, including the great barrier reef of australia."But I'm sure you knew that."
--Darn, I wasn't aware?"You're just plain old smarter than Stephen Hawking."
--Believe me, I don't have to be nearly that smart to refute these arguments."Well there you have it."
--Which segment would you like me to comment on?"By the way, go to my evidence page. there's a message waiting for you."
--Wheres that one at?------------------

"To answer "restored?" erosion would have occured during the great flood. the pyramids would have collapsed."
--For one, I don't think those massive structures would have collapsed even if they were pre-flood. Why do you assume that they were pre-flood?------------------