The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C · 14-02-2010 12:54am

Galvasean wrote: »

You do realise that saying there are gaps in the fossil record is not the same thing as saying there are no transitional fossils?

...of course it's effectively the same thing ... especailly because the 'gaps' are actually 'wide chasms'

Galvasean wrote: »

That piece is quite out of date. Evidence of animals ancestral to those which lived in the Cambrian has been found. In other words we now know that complex life lived before the Cambrian period - another link found.

...the problems for gradual Darwinian Evolution is actually exacerbated by this evidence ... the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' is there in the fossil record ... and there is no effective Materialistic Evolution explanation for it.
The following quote from your cited 'Evidence' above shows that Darwin was greatly troubled by the implications of this 'sudden explosion' of a vast array of animal life... and he would still be worried about it's potential to completely invalidate his gradual Evolution hypotesis, if he were still alive today!!!!
Discovering evidence for animal movement in the Ediacaran Period (630-542 million years ago), nearly 30 million years before the Cambrian, is especially significant as it sheds light on the world before the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' in which a vast array of animal life rapidly appears in the fossil record -- an event whose apparent suddenness greatly troubled Charles Darwin when he was gathering evidence for his theory of evolution.

...and do you know what ... Darwin was right to be worried ... because the 'Cambrian explosion' is patently a record of the catastrophic DEATH of "a vast array of animal life" ... in Noah's Flood!!

It should more accurately be termed the 'Cambrian Implosion' instead!!:)

J C · 14-02-2010 12:57am

wrote:

Originally Posted by chozometroid
I am not educated enough to present myself as an authority on the faults of the evolutionary theory

oceanclub
Well, that's just fantastic.

You admit you youself have no idea of the actual scientific validity of evolution - you just want to stop your children learning it because of your religion. 2 centuries ago, you probably would have stopped your children being taught that the Earth went around the sun instead of vice versa(*).

(*)The Catholic church only accepted this in 1822.

...leave the man alone ... he has Creation Scientists that he can call upon whenever he needs a competent answer to a scientific question.

Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord.:)

oceanclub · 14-02-2010 1:04am

J C wrote: »

You be still and know that Jesus Chriist is Lord.:)

I'm sure Jesus is delighted to know you can't even spell his surname.

P.

J C · 14-02-2010 1:16am

oceanclub wrote: »

I'm sure Jesus is delighted to know you can't even spell his surname.

P.

...is that your ONLY argument for not being Saved ... because Jesus Christ will certainly be able to spell your name on Judgement Day ... and if I were you, I would like to be on His right hand on that day ... rather than on His left hand!!!

...of course the choice is entirely up to YOU ... no pressure!!!:D

Mt 25:31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

A Primal Nut · 14-02-2010 1:22am

J C wrote: »

...of course it's effectively the same thing ... especailly because the 'gaps' are actually 'wide chasms'

...the problem for gradual Darwinian Evolution isn't solved by this evidence ... the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' is still there in the fossil record ... and there is no effective Materialistic Evolution explanation for it.
The following quote from your cited 'Evidence' above shows that Darwin was greatly troubled by the implications of this 'sudden explosion' of a vast array of animal life... and he would still be worried about it's potential to completely invalidate his gradual Evolution hypotesis, if he were still alive today!!!!
Discovering evidence for animal movement in the Ediacaran Period (630-542 million years ago), nearly 30 million years before the Cambrian, is especially significant as it sheds light on the world before the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' in which a vast array of animal life rapidly appears in the fossil record -- an event whose apparent suddenness greatly troubled Charles Darwin when he was gathering evidence for his theory of evolution.

...and do you know what ... Darwin would be right to be worried ... because the 'Cambrian explosion' is actually a record of the catastrophic DEATH of "a vast array of animal life" ... in Noah's Flood!!

It should more accurately be termed the 'Cambrian Implosion' instead!!:)

There are dozens of good scientific theories as to why the Cambrian explosion took place; its only a mystery because nobody knows for sure which one is the case. Most likely, it was a combination of things and there really is nothing incredible or miraculous about it - its actually fairly logical.

Its sort of like if Manchester United beat Arsenal people might wonder why; probably nobody will agree on the exact reason and instead agree it was a combination of things.

People won't say; "we can't agree on the one and only reason Manchester United won, therefore Jesus must be a Manchester United fan and willed it that way"; but that is your logic.

J C · 14-02-2010 1:40am

oceanclub wrote: »

Just curious, JC but do you also disbelieve the godless, humanist theory of heliocentrism?

P.

...the REAL 'godless' theory, as you term it, was the Geocentric Theory of the Pagan Ancient Greeks (Aristotle and Ptolemy)... it was Christian Creation Scientists (Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler) who proved the current Heliocentric Model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church went with the conventional 'science' of the time and stuck by the erroneous Pagan Greek Geocentric Model ... I wonder is history repeating itself on the origins issue ... where the Roman Catholic Church seems to be aligning itself AGAIN with the Ancient Greeks by apparently officially favouring the Evolution Model.:eek:

J C · 14-02-2010 1:44am

A Primal Nut wrote: »

There are dozens of good scientific theories as to why the Cambrian explosion took place; its only a mystery because nobody knows for sure which one is the case. Most likely, it was a combination of things and there really is nothing incredible or miraculous about it - its actually fairly logical.

Its sort of like if Manchester United beat Arsenal people might wonder why; probably nobody will agree on the exact reason and instead agree it was a combination of things.

People won't say; "we can't agree on the one and only reason Manchester United won, therefore Jesus must be a Manchester United fan and willed it that way"; but that is your logic.

...like I have said the 'Cambrian Implosion' is a record of catastrophic DEATH on a massive scale ... and it is patently NOT a record of exploding LIFE!!!:eek:

J C · 14-02-2010 2:07am

ISAW wrote: »

Patterson nowhere above says "evolution is not science" as you claim!

... how about here:-

"Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." Evolution (1978) pp.145-146

... which part of the words "not part of science" in the above quote do you not understand?

ISAW wrote: »

So the "flying spaghetti monster" church and all other interpretations should have equal time as well?

...now we are getting the 'red herrings' and the 'Spaghetti Monsters' thrown in!!!:(

Look, there are ONLY TWO ultimate ''Origins explations' ... either God did it or Materialistic Processes themselves alone did it.

BOTH of these hypotheses have been extensively scientifically evaluated ... and all of the evidence favours the 'God did it' hypothesis ... yet amazingly it is a sackable offence to say so in science class in some schools (and BTW that includes any reference to Theistic Evolution in science class as well)!!!!

...it doesn't take a genius to work out that BOTH hypotheses SHOULD be taught if any claims are to be made that the pupils have had a full education ... and if the schools are banned from doing so ... Christian Children will be taught the TRUTH of God's Creation and the scientific veracity of Genesis anyway!!!!

...and they will come into these God-forsaken schools full of the Holy Spirit and Creation Science Knowledge ready to fully engage with their fellow Unsaved students.

...just like all other True Christians, they will be in the World ... but not of the World!!!

J C · 14-02-2010 2:18am

A Primal Nut wrote: »

There are dozens of good scientific theories as to why the Cambrian explosion took place; its only a mystery because nobody knows for sure which one is the case.

... dozens of Theories no less!!!

... gosh, we ARE spoiled for choice!!!

... please tell us about even ONE????

oceanclub · 14-02-2010 2:57am

J C wrote: »

...the REAL 'godless' theory, as you term it, was the Geocentric Theory of the Pagan Ancient Greeks (Aristotle and Ptolemy)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Aristarchus (Greek: Ἀρίσταρχος, Arístarchos; 310 BC – ca. 230 BC) was a Greek astronomer and mathematician, born on the island of Samos, in Greece. He was the first person to present an explicit argument for a heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe.

You really are incredibly ignorant. No doubt you'll follow up this by using LOTS of capital letters and colours to hide the fact you have no argument.

P.

chozometroid · 14-02-2010 3:16am

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, that's just fantastic. You admit you youself have no idea of the actual scientific validity of evolution - you just want to stop your children learning it because of your religion. 2 centuries ago, you probably would have stopped your children being taught that the Earth went around the sun instead of vice versa(*).

P.

(*)The Catholic church only accepted this in 1822.

You just revealed the flawed atheist mentality of ignoring part of what a theist says and using strawman tactics to refute their "nonsensical" beliefs.

I said in the same post you quoted: I do not plan on hiding the teachings of evolution, however.

Of course I want them to learn the evolutionary theory so that they are able to see the flaws for themselves.

I said I am not educated enough to call myself an authority on the subject, so at least I'm being more honest than some atheists who just rehash the latest science article findings (which admittingly are always wrong and change constantly) without knowing the truth of the matter.

monosharp · 14-02-2010 10:27am

J C wrote: »

...the jury is very much out on this ... with the latest 'inflation' theory which postulates that the Universe inflated to infinity INSTANTLY at the 'Big Bang'!!!!

This could indeed imply that this once-off event has strange effects like light being able to be seen over millions of light years distance ... even though the actual 'inflation event' only occurred thousands of years ago!!!!

And this ladies and gentlemen is why creationism is not science. Even the most devout people have to look at a comment like this and bow their head in shame.

I'm talking of course of the creationist method.

Step 1: We know whats true already because of our religion.
Step 2: We now need to gather evidence for what we already know to be true.
Step 3: Twist and distort scientific evidence to suit what we already know to be true. Ignore anything which we can't twist or distort to be in line with what we know to be true.

If anyone, of any religious persuasion, or of any philosophical persuasion, thinks that the above is 'scientific' or 'good' in any way then there really is no hope for you.

Science never assumes something to be true which is why the words 'fact' , 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are so often misunderstood.

No theory can or will ever be proven 100% true in science because that is not how science works. We can never prove the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution or any other theory to be 100% true. But we can disprove them, we can falsify them. That is what makes science and it is exactly why creationist nonsense is not science.

Science looks at the facts and hypothesises the best possible explanation from observation and testing. If a hypothesis is falsified then it is re-written or discarded. The theory of evolution which is so often under attack here is changed regularly because of the hard work of biologists. Just last week the age of the Earth was revised by geologists because of new evidence. This is science.

Creationism says 'this is true' and then tries to find, twist and distort the facts to suit them. JC believes the Earth is about 10,000 years old and that will never change, there will be no new evidence taken in by creationists because anything which contradicts their nonsense is already wrong in their minds.

monosharp · 14-02-2010 10:40am

chozometroid wrote: »

I am not educated enough to present myself as an authority on the faults of the evolutionary theory, nor on the alternative theories of YEC's, so until that changes, I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the cause.

Time is something I don't have, and there are like a million things I'm trying to learn at once.

Chozo, we have had our disagreements and god knows we'll have them again and I am extremely opposed to some of your views, but on this matter I would hope you are not going to fall into the creationist trick that says Evolution = Atheism.

The theory of evolution is, in simple terms, the best scientifically supported explanation we have for the diversity of life.

It is not an explanation for the origin of life and it is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. The vast majority of religious people, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc have absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution.

Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Its an excellent talk by Professor Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a Biologist (and a staunch Catholic if that matters).

I do not see this argument as anything to do with the debate of gods existence or gods creation of the universe/life and neither do 99% of religious people.

So unless you believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the bible and unless you are not going to allow your children to study Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Physics or any other scientific field then I suggest you be very careful here because JC's nonsense is not only in opposition to Evolutionary biology, it is in opposition to all scientific disciplines and as human beings, our own (god given if you want) common sense.

monosharp · 14-02-2010 10:47am

ISAW wrote: »

Really?
I don't think astronomy or physics makes any such claims.
Nor does evolution disprove God.

In fact science and religion are compatible and can co exist.

Hes talking about JC's god/religion which according to JC's beliefs, science absolutely does contradict.

e.g > Age of the earth

JC believes 100% that the world is about 10,000 years old. Geology and astronomy and biology and ... etc all contradict this and prove JC's god/religion (beliefs) to be false.

But this is not the same as the Christian god/religion, its JC's own special little belief system. Well him and maybe a couple of hundred fundamentalist YECs.

Your very much correct in saying science and religion can co-exist, but not when your a YEC.

Sam Vimes · 14-02-2010 11:02am

ISAW wrote: »

Really?
I don't think astronomy or physics makes any such claims.
Nor does evolution disprove God.

In fact science and religion are compatible and can co exist.

Science as we know it and Christianity for example are rooted in the same foundation of Greek rationality.

There seems to be one group of people who thing Biblical fundamentalism is Christianity and another group who think Christianity and science can not co exist. Ironically, scientism has much the same sociological hallmarks that religious or atheistic fundamentalist has!

You misunderstand me. Evolution, astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, history and basic logic disprove the ludicrous god of the gaps that creationists believe in. Their god was disproved hundreds of years ago but they're too indoctrinated to notice. But their god is not the same god that the majority of christians in the world believe in. All I have to do to disprove J C's god is point at a star because it would be impossible to see a star that's billions of light years away if the universe was 10000 years old

J C · 14-02-2010 11:46am

oceanclub wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

You really are incredibly ignorant. No doubt you'll follow up this by using LOTS of capital letters and colours to hide the fact you have no argument.

P.

....just the folowing link from the same wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

It says:-
"In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as "geocentrism, "geocentricism," or the Ptolemaic view of the universe), is the theory, now superseded, that the Earth is the center of the universe and other objects go around it. Belief in this system was common in ancient Greece. It was embraced by both Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy, and most, but not all, Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China"

...so even though Aristarchus thought that the Earth orbited the Sun ... I am STILL correct to say ...that the REAL 'godless' theory, as you term it, was the Geocentric Theory of the Pagan Ancient Greeks (Aristotle and Ptolemy)... and it was Christian Creation Scientists (Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler) who proved the current Heliocentric Model.

...equally, I am correct in saying that the Roman Catholic Church went with the conventional 'science' of the time and stuck by the erroneous Pagan Greek Geocentric Model right up to the 18th Century ... and they appear to be making the same mistake NOW on the origins issue ... where the Roman Catholic Church seems to be aligning itself AGAIN with the Ancient Greeks by apparently officially favouring the Evolution Model.

...read your OWN link which actually confirms what I have already said about this issue:-
His (Aristarchus) astronomical ideas were rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy until they were successfully revived nearly 1800 years later by Copernicus and extensively developed and built upon by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton Who were all Creation Scientists, I might add.

...so the ignorance of both history and fact is entirely on YOUR side young man!!!!
... please read your own links !!!:D

J C · 14-02-2010 12:03pm

oceanclub wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

You really are incredibly ignorant. No doubt you'll follow up this by using LOTS of capital letters and colours to hide the fact you have no argument.

P.

... what is your problem with my use of colour?

... is the 'Atheist World' a world of various shades of grey due to your depressing and nihilistic worlview ... just like the former Eastern Bloc Atheist regimes built grey cities reflecting their grey soul-destroying outlook on life?

.. another good reason for keeping Christian four year olds well away from Atheists and their grey God-denying ideas.

... I can confirm that the 'Creationist World' is one of glowing Divinely Created technicolour!!!!:eek:

.

J C · 14-02-2010 1:55pm

monosharp wrote: »

Chozo, we have had our disagreements and god knows we'll have them again and I am extremely opposed to some of your views, but on this matter I would hope you are not going to fall into the creationist trick that says Evolution = Atheism.

...Evolution was invented to support Atheism ... by the Ancient Greeks. The fact that a few 'liberal' Christians have also swallowed this unfounded Theory 'hook, line and sinker' doesn't in any way make it any more valid ... but crucially, it does provide Atheists and their Anti-God agenda with easy and uncontested access to these liberals' children ...
... and they then wonder when their children stop going to church!!!!

The fact that Evolutionism = Atheism is confirmed by no less an authority on these matters than Prof Richard Dawkins who has said that the Theory of Evolution allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.

A theory that is intellectually fulfilling for Atheists can ONLY be intellectually and spiritually DESTROYING for Theists!!!

...and any Christian who thinks that they can have common cause with Atheists on this one should think about the following advice in the Word of God
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

J C · 14-02-2010 2:00pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You misunderstand me. Evolution, astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, history and basic logic disprove the ludicrous god of the gaps that creationists believe in. Their god was disproved hundreds of years ago but they're too indoctrinated to notice. But their god is not the same god that the majority of christians in the world believe in. All I have to do to disprove J C's god is point at a star because it would be impossible to see a star that's billions of light years away if the universe was 10000 years old

There is ONLY ONE GOD the Lord Jesus Christ.

Turtwig · 14-02-2010 2:01pm

JC,

If you feel evolution was invented for atheism then there is nothing I can do to convince of evolution. The fact is though that atheism and evolution have almost nothing in common. Dawkins is a scientist and he sees natural selection as an argument against design. His understanding of evolution may have made him an atheist but it wasn't necessary for it. Francis Collins also reaffirms evolution. He's a Christian, but according to you the thing he sees as proof of God was actually invented to support evolution. Then again I doubt he, nor I, believes in the same evolution as you do.

J C · 14-02-2010 2:33pm

monosharp wrote: »

I'm talking of course of the creationist method.

Step 1: We know whats true already because of our religion.
Step 2: We now need to gather evidence for what we already know to be true.
Step 3: Twist and distort scientific evidence to suit what we already know to be true. Ignore anything which we can't twist or distort to be in line with what we know to be true.

If anyone, of any religious persuasion, or of any philosophical persuasion, thinks that the above is 'scientific' or 'good' in any way then there really is no hope for you.

Science never assumes something to be true which is why the words 'fact' , 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are so often misunderstood.

... on the issue of 'making the facts fit the Theory' here is what the great former Evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson had to say about it:-

"Frequently, those holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the facts."

That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking, to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation but affirm only the facts, knowing that it's taken place. "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.3

He is basically saying that any evolutionist, who accuses a Creationist of interpreting the facts according to his adopted worldview is like a kettle calling a pot black!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

No theory can or will ever be proven 100% true in science because that is not how science works.

... the problem for evolution is that there is NO evidence for it and NO logical basis for even proposing it, other than an overwhelming and desperate desire for Atheists to have something ... anything ... to give them some semblance of intellectual fulfillment/support for their worldview.

In their desperation, the poor things have come up with Materialistic Evolution which has a 'believability index' somewhere between Perpetual Motion Machines and sticking a feather in the ground and expecting it to grow a Hen!!!:eek:

J C · 14-02-2010 2:41pm

Malty_T wrote: »

JC,

If you feel evolution was invented for atheism then there is nothing I can do to convince of evolution. The fact is though that atheism and evolution have almost nothing in common. Dawkins is a scientist and he sees natural selection as an argument against design. His understanding of evolution may have made him an atheist but it wasn't necessary for it. Francis Collins also reaffirms evolution. He's a Christian, but according to you the thing he sees as proof of God was actually invented to support evolution. Then again I doubt he, nor I, believes in the same evolution as you do.

....and I don't think that Prof Collins believes in exactly the same Evolution as Prof Dawkins either ... because Prof Collins is a Theistic Evolutionist and Prof Dawkins decidedly isn't.
...and that was why the Atheists were 'twitching' over the recent appointment of Prof Collins by President Obama as Director of the NIH ... with many actually calling for his appointment to be set aside!!!

See, I told you 'evolution' was a 'weasel word' meaning all things to all men ... and ultimately nothing to anybody.

The beauty of it though, is that it gives Atheists a platform to give the impression that Materialistic Processes, in and of themselves, are capable of producing Mankind from Pondkind WITHOUT God!!!:eek:

... and now they want to compulsorily fill the minds of innocent four-year old Christian Children with this nonesense!!!:(

J C · 14-02-2010 2:58pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You misunderstand me. Evolution, astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, history and basic logic disprove the ludicrous god of the gaps that creationists believe in. Their god was disproved hundreds of years ago but they're too indoctrinated to notice. But their god is not the same god that the majority of christians in the world believe in. All I have to do to disprove J C's god is point at a star because it would be impossible to see a star that's billions of light years away if the universe was 10000 years old

...and you will have quite a problem disproving the Creator God of the Bible, using 'starlight and time' arguments ... especially in view of the emerging new theory that the Universe 'inflated' instantly to infinity at the Big Bang!!!

iUseVi · 14-02-2010 3:12pm

J C wrote: »

...and you will have quite a problem doing so ... especially in view of the emerging new theory that the Universe 'inflated' instantly to infinity at the Big Bang!!!

I think I know where you got this idea, the BBC2 program the other day? In any case you misunderstand. Some say the universe expanded extremely quickly at speed far in excess the speed of light just after the big bang. This is completely different from instantly and this was in the very short period after the big bang before all the laws of physics were in effect.

Very short amount of time (10^-37) is NOT instant.

EDIT: Oh, and at this point it wasn't full of stars and planets or even any elements. It would be in a primordial state. Also this is just one of some competing hypothesises.

J C · 14-02-2010 3:44pm

iUseVi wrote: »

I think I know where you got this idea, the BBC2 program the other day? In any case you misunderstand. Some say the universe expanded extremely quickly at speed far in excess the speed of light just after the big bang. This is completely different from instantly and this was in the very short period after the big bang before all the laws of physics were in effect.

Very short amount of time (10^-37) is NOT instant.

EDIT: Oh, and at this point it wasn't full of stars and planets or even any elements. It would be in a primordial state. Also this is just one of some competing hypothesises.

...if God can 'inflate' the Universe to infinity instantly (or even in a nanosecond, which is effectively instantly) at the moment of it's Creation ... then all Big Bang 'clocks' are meaningless !!!;):D

doctoremma · 14-02-2010 3:47pm

I can honestly say that I have never felt so depressed as I have while scrolling through this thread today. I don't care if people stick their fingers in their own ears but I have depressingly realised that people are prepared to stick left-over fingers in the ears of their children. I cannot fathom an argument which follows "Well, I don't know enough about a subject to make up my mind but I do know that it will contradict my faith so therefore, I don't believe the subject matter is true. And I'll make sure my kids feel the same".

JC - can you be really honest here?

If you go on and chat with other people about creationism/evolution, will you continue, after x number of posts here, to claim that the eye is irreducibly complex, despite the evidence presented to you which clearly demonstrates the opposite? Where is the information you have been given gone? Is it just filed away in a box that says "Do not open"? Or will you remember and be aware that you are lying to everyone when you continue with the claim that the eye is irreducibly complex? Have you altered your theories to account for the new information you may have gained?

Edit: I'm not trying to suggest that the eye thing is particularly critical in this whole debate. Everyone has presented you with numerous examples depending on the context of the debate at any one time.

doctoremma · 14-02-2010 3:50pm

J C wrote: »

...if God can 'inflate' the Universe to infinity instantly (or even in a nanosecond which effectively instantly) .at the moment of it's Creation .. then all Big Bang 'clocks' are meaningless !!!;):D

From a subjective viewpoint in our lives, a nanosecond may be as good as an instant. However, a "nanosecond" is not an "instant". Just as a "nanolitre" is not the same as "no volume". In fact, in my day to day work, a nano-anything is a relatively large unit of measurement... In physics, it's a lifetime...

Galvasean · 14-02-2010 5:15pm

J C wrote: »

...the fact that the evidence for the Cambrian Time Period doesn't stack up, is proof that there wasn't a Cambrian Time Period ... or any other of the 'Time Periods' that the Evolutionists confuse themselves with.

The so-called 'Periods' are the burial and fossilsation records of similar creatures during Noah's Flood!!!

The world must have been a very busy place before the flood. In addition to all of the animals we have today there would have been millions of other types of animal running around. I wonder how the world sustained them all.
That, or they didn't all live at the same time.

J C wrote: »

...of course it's effectively the same thing ...

No it's not the same thing. Just because there is a gap in one section of the fossil record does not mean you can't have a transitional fossil elsewhere.
It's very simple. How you can't grasp that is worrying for someone who claims to be a conventially qualified scientist.

J C wrote:

...the problems for gradual Darwinian Evolution is actually exacerbated by this evidence ... the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' is there in the fossil record ... and there is no effective Materialistic Evolution explanation for it.

Interesting how you have missed the point of the article completely. Had you read it properly (as opposed to conveniently quote mined it) you would know that the article in question shows how relatively complex life existed before the Cambrian period. In other words it puts to rest the idea of a 'Cambrian explosion' where complex life quicly took off. as it turns out, life had been evolving gradually just as it always had.

J C wrote:

The following quote from your cited 'Evidence' above shows that Darwin was greatly troubled by the implications of this 'sudden explosion' of a vast array of animal life... and he would still be worried about it's potential to completely invalidate his gradual Evolution hypotesis, if he were still alive today!!!!

Discovering evidence for animal movement in the Ediacaran Period (630-542 million years ago), nearly 30 million years before the Cambrian, is especially significant as it sheds light on the world before the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' in which a vast array of animal life rapidly appears in the fossil record -- an event whose apparent suddenness greatly troubled Charles Darwin when he was gathering evidence for his theory of evolution.

If Darwin were alive today I'm sure this discovery would be significantly less worried as it helps support his position. How you seem to have missed that (the main focal point of the article) is curious.

doctoremma · 14-02-2010 5:19pm

Galvasean wrote: »

How you seem to have missed that (the main focal point of the article) is curious.

A few options:
1. He didn't read it.
2. He didn't understand it.
3. He has compartmentalised it as part of a conspiracy.
4. He is busy composing a full response in which he demonstrates complete comprehension of the subject matter and refutes several key points brilliantly, thus creating further debate and and a general forward movement of evolutionary theory.

Bets anyone?

J C · 14-02-2010 5:23pm

doctoremma wrote: »

I can honestly say that I have never felt so depressed as I have while scrolling through this thread today.

...that is due to God making His claim on your life ... and you resisting!!!

Emma, Jesus loves you and He wants to take you away from your current depressed existence.

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't care if people stick their fingers in their own ears but I have depressingly realised that people are prepared to stick left-over fingers in the ears of their children. I cannot fathom an argument which follows "Well, I don't know enough about a subject to make up my mind but I do know that it will contradict my faith so therefore, I don't believe the subject matter is true. And I'll make sure my kids feel the same".

... chozometroid has made it clear that he is going to have his children taught all about evolution ... the only difference between him and you is that He is open-minded and progressive enough to provide his children with a FULL liberal education and will therefore also be educating them in the wisdom and truth of Creation Science!!!!:D

doctoremma wrote: »

JC - can you be really honest here?

If you go on and chat with other people about creationism/evolution, will you continue, after x number of posts here, to claim that the eye is irreducibly complex, depsite the evidence presented to you which clearly demonstrates the opposite? Where is the information you have been given gone? Is it just filed away in a box that says "Do not open"? Or will you remember and be aware that you are lying to everyone when you continue with the claim that the eye is irreducibly complex? Have you altered your theories to account for the new information you may have gained?

... all living systems are observed to be irreducibly complex ... and the fact that you are in denial over the obvious, is a problem for you ... and not for me.

I would also ask you to refrain from calling me a liar ... on issues that we disagree on!!!!

I don't use such unparliamentary language about Evolutionists with whom I disagree ... and I would ask them to extend a similar courtesy to me.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments