|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 20, 2017 9:07:39 GMT
Considering her rudeness, you are very polite to her! I think I was quite polite given the tone of the OP and the stupidity of the article You were. She has her own definition of rude.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 20, 2017 16:20:46 GMT
Thank you for your input, RedRuth. Considering her rudeness, you are very polite to her! Thank you, Kate. I try to be as polite as possible, even when the individual I am communicating with is not.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 20, 2017 17:44:39 GMT
Anyone who believes this tosh. I don't think the author of the article has tried very hard to 'do his research' one of the first things I found when I searched was the research showing the most common RhD negative genotype is the result of a gene deletion. There's even simple explanatory picture of it. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2535884/figure/f3-blt5_2p050/Thank you for your input, RedRuth. You're welcome, it's a bizarre theory though you have to admit. I suppose it gained ground because of the hemolytic disease, maybe someone described it as the mother attacking alien (ie non self ) blood and so a weird theory was born. In fact it's just a consequence of being a mammal, the mother gestates a foetus that isn't genetically identical to her so incompatibilities happen. However, like I said these happen with all blood groups, not just the rhesus group and there can also be problems with platelet antigens IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 21, 2017 1:25:15 GMT
Considering her rudeness, you are very polite to her! Thank you, Kate. I try to be as polite as possible, even when the individual I am communicating with is not. That's excellent. I find that very hard but I am working on it!
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 21, 2017 1:58:15 GMT
Considering her rudeness, you are very polite to her! Thank you, Kate. I try to be as polite as possible, even when the individual I am communicating with is not. That is a lie.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 21, 2017 2:17:48 GMT
Oh, sure there is. You just don't like it, so you don't accept it. Feel free to present this evidence you claim exists. And no, asking someone to prove there isn't any doesn't count. If you a talking about "Noah's Flood", the one that God sent that covered the entire Earth, and that means even covering the tallest mountains on Earth, like Mount Everest... That sounds like total BS, and I would have to agree, that there is no evidence to support that. If you are talking about the fact that at the end of the last ice age, oceans levels were about 400 feet lower than they are now, and many communities that were living near coast lines, or in flood plains, were submerged underwater when the glaciers melted, and that could be the flood that everyone talks about... There are plenty of archaeological sites all over the world that support that. It depends on what people considered the "World" to be 10,000 years ago. To most people, they didn't know anything but their own little "bowls" their families lived in for generations. When their communities filled with water, and they were destroyed... their whole "World" ended... And with so much water moving about the planet, I am sure much of that evaporated to form clouds, and came back down in the form of rain, which just started the process again... 40 days and 40 nights of rain.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2017 5:18:52 GMT
Feel free to present this evidence you claim exists. And no, asking someone to prove there isn't any doesn't count. If you a talking about "Noah's Flood", the one that God sent that covered the entire Earth, and that means even covering the tallest mountains on Earth, like Mount Everest... That sounds like total BS, and I would have to agree, that there is no evidence to support that. If you are talking about the fact that at the end of the last ice age, oceans levels were about 400 feet lower than they are now, and many communities that were living near coast lines, or in flood plains, were submerged underwater when the glaciers melted, and that could be the flood that everyone talks about... There are plenty of archaeological sites all over the world that support that. It depends on what people considered the "World" to be 10,000 years ago. To most people, they didn't know anything but their own little "bowls" their families lived in for generations. When their communities filled with water, and they were destroyed... their whole "World" ended... And with so much water moving about the planet, I am sure much of that evaporated to form clouds, and came back down in the form of rain, which just started the process again... 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Do you have evidence that Mt. Everest was always as tall as it is now?
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 21, 2017 6:27:46 GMT
Thank you, Kate. I try to be as polite as possible, even when the individual I am communicating with is not. That's excellent. I find that very hard but I am working on it! And that's the big difference between you and Erjen. It is possible to have a polite conversation with Erjen, but not with you. You once got all pissy and jumped on your high horse when I agreed with you on something.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 21, 2017 7:08:30 GMT
That's excellent. I find that very hard but I am working on it! And that's the big difference between you and Erjen. It is possible to have a polite conversation with Erjen, but not with you. You once got all pissy and jumped on your high horse when I agreed with you on something. Er no. I guarantee that never happened.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2017 7:32:14 GMT
And that's the big difference between you and Erjen. It is possible to have a polite conversation with Erjen, but not with you. You once got all pissy and jumped on your high horse when I agreed with you on something. Er no. I guarantee that never happened. I'm not familiar with the incident he's referring to, but if you were as rude as you are so often portrayed, seems like you would have told Jonesy to blow it out his barracks bag, or something similar. Hopefully, over time, the administrators will see what really goes on here.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 21, 2017 7:38:11 GMT
Er no. I guarantee that never happened. I'm not familiar with the incident he's referring to, but if you were as rude as you are so often portrayed, seems like you would have told Jonesy to blow it out his barracks bag, or something similar. Hopefully, over time, the administrators will see what really goes on here. I don't remember at all that he ever (as he claimed ) agreed with me. The Admin likes things as they are just fine
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 21, 2017 7:58:27 GMT
And that's the big difference between you and Erjen. It is possible to have a polite conversation with Erjen, but not with you. You once got all pissy and jumped on your high horse when I agreed with you on something. Er no. I guarantee that never happened. And I guarantee that it did. Do you recall claiming that I was agreeing "out of malice"? Or have you conveniently forgotten? Like I said, conveniently forgotten.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 21, 2017 9:39:26 GMT
Feel free to present this evidence you claim exists. And no, asking someone to prove there isn't any doesn't count. If you a talking about "Noah's Flood", the one that God sent that covered the entire Earth, and that means even covering the tallest mountains on Earth, like Mount Everest... That sounds like total BS, and I would have to agree, that there is no evidence to support that. If you are talking about the fact that at the end of the last ice age, oceans levels were about 400 feet lower than they are now, and many communities that were living near coast lines, or in flood plains, were submerged underwater when the glaciers melted, and that could be the flood that everyone talks about... There are plenty of archaeological sites all over the world that support that. It depends on what people considered the "World" to be 10,000 years ago. To most people, they didn't know anything but their own little "bowls" their families lived in for generations. When their communities filled with water, and they were destroyed... their whole "World" ended... And with so much water moving about the planet, I am sure much of that evaporated to form clouds, and came back down in the form of rain, which just started the process again... 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Yes, noah's global flood.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 21, 2017 10:41:52 GMT
If you a talking about "Noah's Flood", the one that God sent that covered the entire Earth, and that means even covering the tallest mountains on Earth, like Mount Everest... That sounds like total BS, and I would have to agree, that there is no evidence to support that.If you are talking about the fact that at the end of the last ice age, oceans levels were about 400 feet lower than they are now, and many communities that were living near coast lines, or in flood plains, were submerged underwater when the glaciers melted, and that could be the flood that everyone talks about... There are plenty of archaeological sites all over the world that support that. It depends on what people considered the "World" to be 10,000 years ago. To most people, they didn't know anything but their own little "bowls" their families lived in for generations. When their communities filled with water, and they were destroyed... their whole "World" ended... And with so much water moving about the planet, I am sure much of that evaporated to form clouds, and came back down in the form of rain, which just started the process again... 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Yes, noah's global flood. There was no Noah's Global Flood
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 21, 2017 11:01:10 GMT
Yes, noah's global flood. There was no Noah's Global Flood Pretty much what I think too.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 21, 2017 13:46:35 GMT
If you a talking about "Noah's Flood", the one that God sent that covered the entire Earth, and that means even covering the tallest mountains on Earth, like Mount Everest... That sounds like total BS, and I would have to agree, that there is no evidence to support that. If you are talking about the fact that at the end of the last ice age, oceans levels were about 400 feet lower than they are now, and many communities that were living near coast lines, or in flood plains, were submerged underwater when the glaciers melted, and that could be the flood that everyone talks about... There are plenty of archaeological sites all over the world that support that. It depends on what people considered the "World" to be 10,000 years ago. To most people, they didn't know anything but their own little "bowls" their families lived in for generations. When their communities filled with water, and they were destroyed... their whole "World" ended... And with so much water moving about the planet, I am sure much of that evaporated to form clouds, and came back down in the form of rain, which just started the process again... 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Do you have evidence that Mt. Everest was always as tall as it is now? What does Mt. Everest have to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2017 17:20:21 GMT
Do you have evidence that Mt. Everest was always as tall as it is now? What does Mt. Everest have to do with it? MCDemuth introduced Mount Everest the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 21, 2017 18:15:57 GMT
That's... sort of a nonsense question. Mountains are the result of tectonic collision and volcanic eruption - no mountain ever was always "as tall as it is now" - the question belies an understanding of basic geology. The question, if I understand where you're trying to go with it, should be "do we have proof that Mt. Everest was its current height during the time suggested as that of the Biblical flood?". And, yes, we do: www.elsevier.com/books/geology-of-the-himalayan-belt/chakrabarti/978-0-12-802021-0Everest in particular seems to have reached at or near its current height many millions of years before even the earliest suggested timeline of the flood.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 21, 2017 18:19:16 GMT
That's... sort of a nonsense question. Mountains are the result of tectonic collision and volcanic eruption - no mountain ever was always "as tall as it is now" - the question belies an understanding of basic geology. The question, if I understand where you're trying to go with it, should be "do we have proof that Mt. Everest was its current height during the time suggested as that of the Biblical flood?". And, yes, we do: www.elsevier.com/books/geology-of-the-himalayan-belt/chakrabarti/978-0-12-802021-0Everest in particular seems to have reached at or near its current height many millions of years before even the earliest suggested timeline of the flood. I'm not too sure about that book. I've seen several references to the topic that suggest the Himalayas are still growing and that Everest in particular increases in height by a few millimeters per year.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 21, 2017 18:27:09 GMT
That's... sort of a nonsense question. Mountains are the result of tectonic collision and volcanic eruption - no mountain ever was always "as tall as it is now" - the question belies an understanding of basic geology. The question, if I understand where you're trying to go with it, should be "do we have proof that Mt. Everest was its current height during the time suggested as that of the Biblical flood?". And, yes, we do: www.elsevier.com/books/geology-of-the-himalayan-belt/chakrabarti/978-0-12-802021-0Everest in particular seems to have reached at or near its current height many millions of years before even the earliest suggested timeline of the flood. I'm not too sure about that book. I've seen several references to the topic that suggest the Himalayas are still growing and that Everest in particular increases in height by a few millimeters per year. They are, indeed - however, this hasn't always been the case, and the current height (in general) was reached during a major event around 8 million years ago. The current rate of growth seems to be around .015 inches per year, however, other forces are also working to LOWER the range even as it grows. Further, barring all other effects, if we add around .015 per year since the last event, it only adds a bit more than a mile. (Again, this is a value in a vacuum.) Putting Everest a little over five miles high 8 million years ago, which leaves one hell of a conundrum for global flood believers.
|
|