Creation vs. Evolution II

[redfern]

… I don't think you understand the article. Kondrashov admits the problem then tries to come up with a scenario to fit his belief in millions of years.

You are really not very good at bluffing. I don’t understand the article??? Let’s see. You mention “his belief in millions of years.” In the abstract, please point out where he says anything about the time span he needs. I have his paper on my desk. Do you have a copy? If you do, then you will find that nowhere in the abstract or in his paper does he use, or even allude to, “millions”, or “billions”, or “thousands”, or “hundreds”, or even “years”. His article restricts itself to the interaction between selection coefficients, population sizes, and how serious the mutations are. There is nothing … nada … zip … zero … null …negatorio … zen zen …void … about the time required. Boy, you immoral professional phony, you just make up whatever lies you want as you go, reality be damned.

You guys say we are on a downhill genetic slide in just 4500 years since that fictional Noah dude. You specify over 100 mutations per generation, and assuming 3 typical generations per century means each one of us carries an average of 13,500 mutations. Since you feel qualified to dismiss Kondrashov’s work, let’s plug those numbers into the actual mathematics he shows in his paper and tell us where it fails. Not just talk. You are going to brush off Kondrashov’s work, then show you can step up to the plate and do it based on specific scientific details that he missed. Let’s walk through the mathematics together. When you see a specific error in his work, then point it out.

(And please, quit manufacturing lies out of thin air about Kondrashov basing his work on million-year time spans.)

Your claim was:

Science however shows that the small changes are overwhelmingly deleterious leading to eventual distinction.

If Kondrashov was correct in his calculations, then your claim becomes a blatant lie. You willing to go for it?

 

[6days]

I don’t understand the article???

You don't.*
What other option is there for you misrepresenting the article?*

*Let’s see. You mention “his belief in millions of years.” In the abstract, please point out where he says anything about the time span he needs.

Push harder on those goalposts...they haven't moved. Kondrashov believes in millions of years and that humans have been here many tens of thousands of years - thus the title of his article "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?" *In this article he refers to the stochastic load as a paradox. The reason he considers it a paradox is because the high mutation rate is not consistent with his evolutionary beliefs. The purpose of his article is to suggest a resolution between the data (mutation rates) and his evolutionary beliefs.*

. You specify over 100 mutations per generation

No...Kondrashov specified 100. That was a very low estimate. Nachman and Crowell said the number was 175. There may be 20 times that amount (or more). Those estimates were based on what was considered functional DNA, which at that time was considered to be a small percentage of our DNA.*

(Using Biblical timelines) and assuming 3 typical generations per century means each one of us carries an average of 13,500 mutations.

Do you think that is unrealistic? It's likely much, much higher than that. Kondrashov said that if we only considered deleterious mutations..."that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles".*

Since you feel qualified to dismiss Kondrashov’s work

You don't seem to understand the topic, nor the article you mention. Kondroshov does a great job of presenting the exact problem I mentioned. I had said "*Science however shows that the small changes are overwhelmingly deleterious leading to eventual distinction". Kondrashov says almost the exact same. He says *even says that back in 1926 "Chetverikov assumed the mutational contamination *of a species increases with time, leading perhaps to its eventual extinction". *Kondrashov then tries to "resolve" the problem with synergistic epistasis and truncation selection.*

If Kondrashov was correct in his calculations, then your claim becomes a blatant lie. You willing to go for it?

Redfern... admit you don't know what you are talking about. I'm using his calculations. The problem is much worse now than he could have imagined when he wrote that article back in 1995.*

The evidence supports that which God tells us, we are "wonderfully made"...but live in a sin cursed world where we suffer from increasing genetic burden*

 

[Rosenritter]

Trillions?! Really?

I think that "trillions" is the current guess-timate of how long it takes to evolve a human female ex nihlo, before matter and energy came into being.

 

[Rosenritter]

Of course in your creationist dishonesty you have to distort what the ToE says into a sickening parody. I do believe that a series of small changes, each one having some reproductive survival benefit for the organism, can lead from simple life forms to the diversity we see. By comparison, man’s rib to woman is a one-step monstrous change - a Biblical “hopeful monster” story that you assiduously believe in.

On my side there are thousands of museums and tens of thousands of fully documented studies that show the gradual progression of life forms over time. Your evidence is a disputed collection of ancient scribal writings recording some of the oral religious traditions that were current in a scientifically ignorant nomadic society.

So you're no longer denying that you need to have genetic material before you can change that material, you've just taken to changing the subject.

 

[redfern]

6days, I am going to respond to two of your later paragraphs first.

No...Kondrashov specified 100. That was a very low estimate. Nachman and Crowell said the number was 175. There may be 20 times that amount (or more). Those estimates were based on what was considered functional DNA, which at that time was considered to be a small percentage of our DNA.

Do you think that is unrealistic? It's likely much, much higher than that. Kondrashov said that if we only considered deleterious mutations..."that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles".

I mentioned the 100 mutations per generation and the 13,500 accumulated mutations not because I dispute them, but to show that in just the 4,500 years you guys believe in the problem of mutational load in humans is already substantial. For even one million years at that rate there would be few parts of any person’s DNA that wouldn’t have suffered corruption. Kondrashov doesn’t need “millions of years” for the answer to be either your claim of extinction or sciences claim that extinction is not a necessary result.

Now as to the article itself:

Kondrashov believes in millions of years and that humans have been here many tens of thousands of years - thus the title of his article "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?"

The title. At that point you saw what you wanted, and closed your eyes to the rest. Catchy title – asking why humans have been able to survive. But just like lots of articles, the title is specifically to catch your attention. Now let’s go into the body of the paper itself.

The word “human” appears not a single time in the body of the entire article. If not humans, what does he talk about?

On the first page he mentions populations of species (plural).

On the second page, he is no more restrictive about what population he is dealing with than a single mention of “small sexual populations”.

On the third page, a single mention of diploid individuals. At this point he has already presented a supporting table, a graph, and half a dozen calculus equations, all of which are equally applicable to any sexually reproducing population.

On the fourth page, another half-dozen equations, and then finally he focuses briefly on species with the smallest genome and make his first mentions of some specific candidates – flowering plants, insects, fishes, birds, and then mammals.

On the fifth page, he shifts attention to “species with large body size”, identifying birds of prey, baleen whales, and grizzly bears in this category, but no mention of humans. Continuing on the fifth page, he speaks of polar bears, moose, elephants, blackbirds, several species of fish, and even some plants.

And so on. Not a word specifically about humans in the body of the whole document, and in those cases where his comments do apply to humans, it is only because humans happen to be mammals, right along with lots of other mammalian species.

You see, Kondrashov is a scientist, not a creationist, and as such he knows that many of the principles of population genetics apply equally well to any reproducing species. In spite of his catchy title, he made his paper applicable to a huge swath of the plant and animal world, including species whose generations may be measured in only days, instead of decades. A college-educated mouse could read the title and content of Kondrashov’s paper and would find both the title and contents are as applicable to mice as to mind-numbed creationists. And you really ought to read it so you quit continually misrepresenting what it says. It neither says nor depends on millions of years, and nothing in the body of the paper focuses on humans.

In this article he refers to the stochastic load as a paradox. The reason he considers it a paradox is because the high mutation rate is not consistent with his evolutionary beliefs. The purpose of his article is to suggest a resolution between the data (mutation rates) and his evolutionary beliefs.

Just like Darwin and the ToE, it makes no difference what Kondrashov’s motivations were. If he proves that extinction is not inevitable, then tough luck for you.

Now let me ask you a specific question specifically about this mutational load problem. There are a lot of species who have been around for at least 4,500 years, and many of them have generation times much shorter than man’s. Fruit fly generations are over a hundred times shorter than humans. Why hasn’t mutational load wiped these short-lived species off the face of the earth?

I'm using his calculations.

Show them. Specify the values you use, and tell why you use those values. Let’s see your calculations.

The evidence supports that which God tells us, we are "wonderfully made"...but live in a sin cursed world where we suffer from increasing genetic burden

Too bad what you revere as something God said is actually just what some poor schmuck ignorant scribe remembered of some obscure favorite oral tradition.

 

[6days]

I mentioned the 100 mutations per generation and the 13,500 accumulated mutations not because I dispute them, but to show that in just the 4,500 years you guys believe in the problem of mutational load in humans is already substantial.

Again..... You don't seem to understand what you are arguing about, other than just arguing.** Funny that you now seem to accept the 100 mutation per generation where recently you were arguing that it was just a sound bite. Funny you now seem to believe we all have thousands of deleterious mutations, yet recently you were arguing about individuals that are unusually free of deleterious changes .

Kondrashov believes in millions of years and that humans have been here many tens of thousands of years - thus the title of his article "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?"

.....
And so on. Not a word specifically about humans in the body of the whole document,

Kondrashov has written much more than just the one artcle you refer to. He refers to the problem of mutation rates in 'your' link and others. For ex. he says "The total number of mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100...analysis of human variability suggests a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles". From 2002 'Human Mutation'

In this article he refers to the stochastic load as a paradox. The reason he considers it a paradox is because the high mutation rate is not consistent with his evolutionary beliefs. The purpose of his article is to suggest a resolution between the data (mutation rates) and his evolutionary beliefs.

Just like Darwin and the ToE, it makes no difference what Kondrashov’s motivations were. If he proves that extinction is not inevitable, then tough luck for you.

Again... you don't seem to read well.*Kodrashov is presenting data that is a problem to long ages and evolutionary beliefs. He then is attempting to "resolve" a possible solution. (And he admits so called beneficial mutations are not the answer as you earlier thought)

Our phenome is aging. Genetic problems are increasing.* The evidence suggests man has been on our planet a relatively short time, just as the Bible says. The evidence shows, death is a certainty..... and through Jesus Christ who defeated death, we can look forward to the day when "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

 

[redfern]

Lots of talking, but you are dodging the mathematics. You said:

I'm using his calculations.

Show them, or admit you are bluffing.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

I love you all very much indeed. That you've been true and honest in what you believe in, irregardless of my beliefs or feelings. I cannot respond to everyone writing here. I'm still on Page 8 and you are on Page 12!! I can't keep up with you, but it's okay. I do keep in touch. I know that you all are sharing your true feelings and I commend you for that. I'm doing my best. May God Send You Love And Keep You Safe In His Bosom!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Lots of talking, but you are dodging the mathematics. You said:



Show them, or admit you are bluffing.

Of course he's bluffing. He doesn't do anything but bluff, get caught, move on to another bluff without even apologising or reassessing his position.

:kookoo:

 

[6days]

Lots of talking, but you are dodging the mathematics. You said:"I'm using his calculations."
Show them, or admit you are bluffing.[/i]

You seem to be catching a case of Josefly's willful forgetfulness. I have used Kondrashov's numbers...So have you. The data at that time lead him to say we have 100 new mutations added to our genome each generation. These mutations are mostly slightly deleterious although he says at least 10 are deleterious.
( You tried to dismiss that as just a creationist sound byte.)

Lets not forget that this whole discussion seems to be an attempt by yourself dodging some naieve statements you made.
*You seemed to think beneficial mutations spread rapidly in a population overcoming the 100 (100's?) of deleterious mutations added each generation.
* You seemed to think there are individuals who have unusually low numbers of mutations.
* You seemed to think Kondrashov wasn't talking about humans.
*You seemed to think that mutations to non coding DNA that had regulatory function can be dismissed as insignificant..
* You seemed to think selection can remove even the slightly deleterious mutations.
* You seemed to think 100 mutations added to our genome each generation was just a silly misleading number.
* You seemed to think science supports your beliefs?

Redfern... your 'arguments' might have had a bit of validity 30 years ago, but fortunately science has advanced. We are beginning to understand a little of the complex sophisticated design of our DNA. And, we are beginning to see the devasting effects of a few thousand years of mutations have had on our genome.

Genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word. We are wonderfly made but temporarily living in a sin cursed world. Shakespeare referred to our lives as a fleeting shadow. But, God tells us that "this world is not our permanent home; we are looking forward to a home yet to come" Heb. 13:14

 

[redfern]

You seem to be catching a case of Josefly's willful forgetfulness. I have used Kondrashov's numbers...So have you. The data at that time lead him to say we have 100 new mutations added to our genome each generation. These mutations are mostly slightly deleterious although he says at least 10 are deleterious.

That’s it? That’s what you meant when you said you were “using his calculations"? You gotta be joking.

You are responding to a paper that presents and relies on over a dozen equations, including partial differential equations, which requires specifying the coefficient of selection (s), effective population sizes (Ne), forward mutation rate (u), reverse mutation rate (v), and the number of nucleotides (G). It shows how to use this data to compute the deleterious mutation rate (U), time-interval probability functions … <at this point we are less than 50% of the way through Kondrahov’s paper>. For Professor 6days, this can all be summarized as just “100 new mutations”.

This is a beautiful illustration of why, instead of submitting papers to critical scientific peer review and having them published, creationists opt for mindlessly simply answers that sound impressive to uneducated masses. Thank you 6days, for your admission that you have no real idea of what Kondrashov showed, and for showing you haven’t anywhere near the mathematical expertise to even intelligently comment on it. You were bluffing, big-time.

 

[Hawkins]

You are responding to a paper that presents and relies on over a dozen equations, including partial differential equations, which requires specifying the coefficient of selection (s), effective population sizes (Ne), forward mutation rate (u), reverse mutation rate (v), and the number of nucleotides (G). It shows how to use this data to compute the deleterious mutation rate (U), time-interval probability functions … <at this point we are less than 50% of the way through Kondrahov’s paper>. For Professor 6days, this can all be summarized as just “100 new mutations”.

As long as the calculations don't apply to any existing species other than the bacteria. The calculations themselves only sound impressive to uneducated masses.

Evolutionists are specialized in fabricating things which can hardly apply to living organisms predictably, that is, other than the bacteria or the like.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you 6days, for your admission that you have no real idea of what Kondrashov showed, and for showing you haven’t anywhere near the mathematical expertise to even intelligently comment on it. You were bluffing, big-time.

Well yeah.....it's been demonstrated time and time again that 6days' understanding of these subjects is limited to soundbites and copied simplistic talking points. Not only that, but he makes it quite clear that he operates according the exact same anti-scientific framework as "Answers in Genesis" ("By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.").

So that's what you get when you attempt a "discussion" with 6days on science....a fundamentally dishonest person who employs an anti-scientific framework and only understands the subjects at a soundbite/talking point level.

That's why the only real value in all this is entertainment. If you expect anything more, you'll only be disappointed.

 

[Hawkins]

Well yeah.....it's been demonstrated time and time again that 6days' understanding of these subjects is limited to soundbites and copied simplistic talking points. Not only that, but he makes it quite clear that he operates according the exact same anti-scientific framework as "Answers in Genesis" ("By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.").

So that's what you get when you attempt a "discussion" with 6days on science....a fundamentally dishonest person who employs an anti-scientific framework and only understands the subjects at a soundbite/talking point level.

That's why the only real value in all this is entertainment. If you expect anything more, you'll only be disappointed.

TOE itself is the biggest false science with its approach hardly applicable to any other science. What do you have other than the attempts to mix up biology with evolution to sound as if they are the same?

 

[patrick jane]

That's why the only real value in all this is entertainment. If you expect anything more, you'll only be disappointed.

Apparently you expect more AND you're disappointed in yourself

 

[Squeaky]

TOE itself is the biggest false science with its approach hardly applicable to any other science. What do you have other than the attempts to mix up biology with evolution to sound as if they are the same?

I said
Well the Holy Spirit is antiscientific also.
SCIENCE
1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--
21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.
2 Cor 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
Eph 5:7
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
Matt 12:39
39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
II Th 2:10-11
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
John 8:51
51 "Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."
Col 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using-- according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Mark 8:35
35 "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.
Col 2:8-9
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Rom 1:17
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
Matt 15:8-9
8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
Acts 19:19
19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver.
Heb 4:2
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
Rom 14:22
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
2 Cor 1:9
9 Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead,
Luke 16:15
15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Rom 8:20
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
1 Tim 4:1-2
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
Rom 1:20-23
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Matt 13:24-30
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
28 "He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
29 "But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
Matt 23:24
24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
(NKJ)


xxxx Science is a delusion in life. God said if they dont believe His Word He would send strong delusions. So that they would believe the lie. Then canst them into hell for it. They have always been close to finding the truth, but havent found it. They will always be close but will never find it.


II Th 2:9-12
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(NKJ)

 

[Jose Fly]

TOE itself is the biggest false science with its approach hardly applicable to any other science.

Sorry, but your empty say-so does not negate the documented facts.

What do you have other than the attempts to mix up biology with evolution to sound as if they are the same?

You need to pay better attention. And if you truly believe evolution and evolutionary theory are of no scientific consequence, I suggest you only take antibiotics and vaccines that were effective when they were first developed. After all, if understanding that populations evolve, and how they do so, is irrelevant to science, then those treatments should all be just as effective today as they were originally.

 

[6days]

For Professor 6days, this can all be summarized as just “100 new mutations”.

Yes..... essentially correct.
Kondrashov identifies the problem. The data at that time was 100 new mutations added to our genome every generation...slightly deleterious with 10+ being considered deleterious.

You are wanting to get into the weeds with his hypothesizing...rather than discuss the data. (Kondrashov calls it possible resolutions). His math and graphs are an attempt to rationalize data (mutation rate) with his beliefs in common ancestry.

Would you care to discuss a few things you are dodging? Or, have your thoughts evolved a bit?
* You seemed to think there are individuals who have unusually low numbers of mutations.
* You seemed to think Kondrashov wasn't talking about humans.*
*You seemed to think that mutations to non coding DNA that had regulatory function can be dismissed as insignificant..
* You seemed to think selection can remove even the slightly deleterious mutations.
* You seemed to think 100 mutations added to our genome each generation was just a silly misleading number.
* You seemed to think science supports your beliefs?

 

[6days]

You need to pay better attention. And if you truly believe evolution and evolutionary theory are of no scientific consequence, I suggest you only take antibiotics and vaccines that were effective when they were first developed. After all, if understanding that populations evolve, and how they do so, is irrelevant to science, then those treatments should all be just as effective today as they were originally.

Common ancestry beliefs have never been a positive force in developing vaccines and antibiotics.*
Louis Pasteur was one of the early scientists instrumental in *doing microbiolgy research and vaccine development. His science was founded in the Biblical creator...he rejected common ancestry beliefs. Science today still operates using the scientific method like Pasteur did. Common ancestry beliefs have a history of hindering science...never helping

 

[KingdomRose]

These Posts are from 6days, Not Me! It is from the Creation Thread; Page 1430, Post #21436

Quote Originally Posted by popsthebuilder View Post
So the first and second day are to be considered 24 hour periods prior to the formation of the sun moon or earth which determined the 24 hour cycle.
This is nonsensical.
Genesis 1
5*God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
8 And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
13*And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
19*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
23*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
31 And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day

Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Thanks Blog this Post
The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

Tambora (Yesterday)

Yesterday, 07:58 AM #21437
6days
6days is offline
Silver Member
6days's Avatar

Join Date
Nov 2013
Posts
4,115
Thanks
468
Thanked 1,370 Times in 896 Posts
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
0 Thread(s)


Rep Power
676269

Quote Originally Posted by popsthebuilder View Post
Quote Originally Posted by 6days
Jesus referred to the Genesis more often than any other scripture, and always as true history...which you reject.
Luke 11:50, 51 "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
You are making no sense whatsoever.
The words are from scripture... They are the words of Jesus.

Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Thanks Blog this Post
The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

Tambora (Yesterday)

This is confusing, trying to tell who says what. What i can say at this point is that the "days" in Genesis are NOT 24-hour days.