The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

del88 wrote: »

I've had many a debate with my brother in law re evolution and I'm always amazed that he except most other aspects of science....why lights turn on...how computers work.....how plastic is made , yet he won't except evolution even thou it's the same scientists and scientific method that produce it......
Do creationist have any issues with the scientific method when applied to other theories unrelated to evolution...
Why not disprove the scientific method in other ares of science.....come up with an alternative theory for electromagnetism .

Hmm. If this has a point, it must mean scientists who have competing theories - on evolutionary mechanisms, cosmology, etc. - are just as guilty.

Why do they reject the conclusions the same scientists and scientific method that produce the other parts of science all accept? Could it be because they think their scientific opponents have got it wrong here, even if they and the rest of us agreed on all else? That they are not rejecting most of science, nor are they accusing their opponents of that, even though they are mistaken in certain fields?

Creationist scientists are not to be accorded that respect of course. Their heresy undermines the foundational world-view of the scientific establishment.

Livnat wrote: »

you know if the people in here truly researched their topic they wouldn't fill these little boxes with the nonsense I'm reading.Evolution is all theory absolutely none of it is proven whereas the bible was written millenia before theory of evolution and depicted quite comfortably what humanity went on to 'find out' and claim the credit. Read Genisis and Job and I'll respect your views but how many of you can actually claim to have read the creation argument here before presenting your argument....I can

And would you reject evolution if you hadn't read Genesis?

With all due respect, I suggest that you familiarise yourself what a scientific theory is before the clamouring masses you speak of descend. Science doesn't prove theories, it deals in probabilities. If you want proof you have to go to mathematics.

Livnat wrote: »

jc like the dinosaur these guys in here will eat you alive such is the ferocity of their rebellious nature:)

... I'm here for 5 years and they haven't 'eaten' me yet!!!!

They may fume and rage ... but they cannot defeat the TRUTH of God.
Jesus has promised to be alongside Christians until the end of time - and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against them.

Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As a Saved Christian I have direct access to the wisom of the Holy Spirit and I am protected by God under the promise made to all Christian Church members in Mt 16:18 ... and the following advice is just as relevant today as it was the day that Paul wrote it!!!

Eph 6:10 ¶ Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19 ¶ And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

J C, tell us how does mathematics disprove evolution?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*runs away*

If you are a Christian, why do you *run away* ... when people's eternal destinies are 'on the line' here?

With God on our side who can be against us?

This apparently 'one sided' contest is as old as time. It is one of the ways that God proves His existence.
What chance did everyone give David, as one innocent young boy against the battle-hardened 11-foot tall giant, Goliath ... and indeed, ultimately the entire Philistine army??
...and what happened?

...what chance did everyone give just one Creation Scientist against HUNDREDS of some of the best 'Evolutionist Brains' on the Seven Continents on this thread ... yet here we are, with their collective ideas shown to be invalid!!!

They may continue to deny it, in order to not 'lose face' ... but they KNOW that they have no valid counter-arguments !!!!
If they did, they would drag everybody back and show them the evidence for 'big picture' Evolution ... and such evidence, if it existed, would be beyond all doubt.
Because no such evidence exists, they are now reduced to repeatedly asking questions that have already been comprehensively answered and generally 'spinning' their metaphorical wheels!!!!:D

Like the Bible JC I wouldn't take everything literally.

For me there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity. I see so much time and energy going into this debate and no product to show for it.

J C wrote: »

How do you know there is 'no product to show for it'?

I don't know for certain there is no end product, but I have a strong suspicion after 20,000+ posts.

J C wrote: »

The Holy Spirit is telling me that this thread is a very powerful manifestation of God's almighty power and wisdom.
Why do you think that HUNDREDS of Atheists and Materialists are putting so much energy into the thread, if it isn't 'hitting the mark'?

It might be, JC. But I actually think there are better ways of reaching people. Ways that don't rely on a false dichotomy. I think many Christians would share this perspective. But hey, I could be completely wrong. I've been interested by what John Lennox has to say for himself in relation to ID. And while the format might have been an exercise in frustration for both men (particularly Dawkins), it was good to see Lennox go toe-to-toe with Dawkins a few years back in this debate.

J C wrote: »

... and if your 'running away' comment isn't literal, what are you going to say to the Atheists on this thread ... when they attack the God that you worship and His Creative works ... indeed His very existence ... and ultimately your right to pass on the Christian Faith to the next generation (which some of them considers to be a form of 'child abuse')?

I don't see it as an attack because I don't see a conflict. I actually see evolution as part of God's creation. Perhaps you should read Earnest Lucas' Can We Believe Genesis Today?. There is a talk from Lucas and a detailed response from Wolfsbane here.

J C wrote: »

Basically, ... because there is an effective infinity of non-functional permutions of Nucleic Acids ... and often only one functional permutation ... the use of non-intelligently directed systems cannot produce funstional CSI!!!

...the maths of CSI works for TWO reasons :-

1. Irreducible Complexity is true - if you remove ANY molecule in a critical Amino Acid sequence the biomolecule becomes non-functional and if you remove (or even put any molecule in the 'wrong' place) in a biochemical cascade it breaks down!!!

2. The non-functional permutations are effectively infinite for ANY biomolecule ... and it would therefore take an effective infinity of time to produce a specific protein to perform a specific function using non-intelligently directed processes ... and it is therefore impossible to produce ANY functional protein without an input of intelligence!!!!

... and THEREFORE Spontaneous Materialistic Evolution cannot happen for reasons of BOTH mathematics and logic!!!:)

J C - you haverepeated this lie hundreds of times. Mathematics does not 'disprove evolution'. No matter how many times you say it - it will never be true. 'CSI' and 'irreducible complexity' are nonsense concepts that have never been defined properly or found any acceptance among real scientists.

You personally have repeatedly been exposed as a fraud and liar on this thread. Not just once but dozens, if not hundreds of times. You have lied about your scientific credentials, you have misprepresented evolutionary theory and you have lied about scientific observations. Your statement that you have 'defeated' the evolutionists on thid thread is pathetic and untrue.

So, you're saying he's a spontaneous mathematician?

equivariant wrote: »

You have lied about your scientific credentials...

Now, let's be fair, we have no evidence of that. He may have just graduated from an exceptionally bad university. The rest of your post is fine, though.

J C wrote: »

Basically, ... because there is an effective infinity of non-functional permutions of Nucleic Acids ... and often only one functional permutation

Not true. Just that. Wholly, demonstrably false that only one permutation of nucleic acid/amino acid is appropriate for a protein function.

And more generally, the very inclusion of the word "often" is interesting. It's OK that you include it for accuracy. I'm sure you also realise, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, that it is the word on which our argument for evolution by natural selection can happily rest. Every time you pepper your speech with "often", "usually" and "sometimes", you are acknowledging defeat. I wonder if you know that.....?

J C wrote: »

1. Irreducible Complexity is true - if you remove ANY molecule in a critical Amino Acid sequence the biomolecule becomes non-functional

Again, abjectly, demonstrably false. I can remove many amino acids from a protein with no effect on function. I can also remove many amino acids with huge effects on function, both positive and negative.

More interestingly, I can remove amino acids from the homeodomain (you seem keen on them and I gained my PhD studying them) of Pax6 and sure, it no longer binds a target promoter/modulates transcription via a homeodomain consensus. But it remains perfectly functional for binding to other promoters/modulating transcription via its paired domain.

Removing one function does not always make a protein non-functional, unless you define it's function as only the thing which you have removed. Which is circular nonsense. And that's "irreducible complexity", is it? Lol.

J C wrote: »

and if you remove (or even put any molecule in the 'wrong' place) in a biochemical cascade it breaks down!!!

Hmm, I'm not saying that never happens but it doesn't always.

J C wrote: »

2. The non-functional permutations are effectively infinite for ANY biomolecule

Are they not the same set of permutations for every biomolecule? So the permutations available for non-functional insulin are the same set of permutations, within the same pool of polypeptides, for non-functional Pax6. That's got to be accounted for in your probability calculations. What, no, you didn't think of that? You were thinking that nature had to produce a new set of "effectively infinite" polypeptides every time a new one would be advantageous?

J C wrote: »

... and it would therefore take an effective infinity of time to produce a specific protein to perform a specific function using non-intelligently directed processes

I think the problems with your sharpshooter fallacy have been pointed out many times, as have your mistakes using serial probabilities.

equivariant, let's forgo making any accusations that JC is a liar. OK?