The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

While I can't speak for all Christians ... the ones I know who are Creation Scientists and ID Proponents are very confident in their research results that prove that a being of God-like powers actually created plants.

... and I can confirm that God isn't on any 'ropes' either... and He sends His love to everybody.:cool:

Someone being confident doesn't rule them out of being deluded.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Someone being confident doesn't rule them out of being deluded.

It all depends on what they are confident about ... I guess.

In this case, my confidence is based on the physical and mathematical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life, including the levels of CFSI observed therein.

I wouldn't be at all confident in the idea that if “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”

... but maybe that's just me!!!!:)

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

Getting back on topic ... Has anybody seen this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

Quote:-
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”

... so that's how they reckon you get a plant ... eh???
... I thought it was by planting a Complex Specified Functional Information rich seed!!!

... and not only would it be 'surprising' if you shone a light on a random clump of atoms and got a plant ... it has just about the same chance of happening as the dead arising ... i.e it's impossible without the intervention of God.

Your over-use of smilies is as cringeworthy and childish as ever.

You conveniently left out this bit:

[The MIT theorist] proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy.

Here's a more in-depth version of the Independent.co.uk article, but I guess you'll stick your head in the sand for the umpteenth time, and I'll remember why you're on my Ignore List.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

It all depends on what they are confident about ... I guess.

In this case, my confidence is based on the physical and mathematical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life, including the levels of CFSI observed therein.

I wouldn't be at all confident in the idea that if “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”
... but maybe that's just me!!!!:)

You'd much prefer to think that life started by God creating light, night and day, fruit, then the sun. No dinosaurs though, those babies aren't mentioned in the Bible, so they were made up by all the strange athiest scientists. I believe those mad scientists who say the universe is 14 billion years old, maybe that's just me though!!!

orubiru

J C wrote: »

It all depends on what they are confident about ... I guess.

In this case, my confidence is based on the physical and mathematical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life, including the levels of CFSI observed therein.

I wouldn't be at all confident in the idea that if “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”

... but maybe that's just me!!!!:)

Nothing like some good old Quote Mining, eh?

J C I would suggest that your confidence is based on the fact that you do not fully understand Abiogenesis and Evolution. Your confidence comes from being unaware that you are ignorant.

The truth is that the majority of Christians do not believe in Intelligent Design. So it's surprising to find that you have such total confidence "based on the physical and mathematical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life, including the levels of CFSI observed therein" when the vast majority of people believe otherwise.

Where does that confidence come from, do you think? Do you think it's possible that you might be so confident because you are so ignorant of the facts?

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Your over-use of smilies is as cringeworthy and childish as ever.

You conveniently left out this bit:
uote:
[The MIT theorist] proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy.

... and this is somehow supposed to explain the inordinate quantities of complex functional specified genetic information that is present in all life???

... and even if it is true that atoms exposed to an energy source will dissipate energy ... what does this have to do with living things harnessing, storing and utilising energy using very complex, tightly specified, sophisticated processes that make the efforts of the applied intelligence of Mankind look puny in comparison?

J C

Safehands wrote: »

You'd much prefer to think that life started by God creating light, night and day, fruit, then the sun. No dinosaurs though, those babies aren't mentioned in the Bible, so they were made up by all the strange athiest scientists. I believe those mad scientists who say the universe is 14 billion years old, maybe that's just me though!!!

Please stop flagillating yourself and the many eminent scientists, who believe in billions of years, because they deny that God created everything ... and they reckon that they need to use big numbers to convince themselves and others that something that is impossible (the spontaneous generation of life) is somehow possible with the passage of deep time !!!:)

J C

orubiru wrote: »

Nothing like some good old Quote Mining, eh?

J C I would suggest that your confidence is based on the fact that you do not fully understand Abiogenesis and Evolution. Your confidence comes from being unaware that you are ignorant.

Please illuminate us all then with the rest of the quote, that I supposedly truncated or otherwise 'quote-mined' ... that supposedly explains abiogenesis.
Here is the quote ... for you to add the rest that I supposedly truncated:-
Quote:-
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”

orubiru wrote: »

The truth is that the majority of Christians do not believe in Intelligent Design. So it's surprising to find that you have such total confidence "based on the physical and mathematical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life, including the levels of CFSI observed therein" when the vast majority of people believe otherwise.

I quite frankly don't care what the majority of Christians (or any other religion or irreligion) believe ... majorities have believed in all kinds of things that turned out to be invalid down the years.

orubiru wrote: »

Where does that confidence come from, do you think? Do you think it's possible that you might be so confident because you are so ignorant of the facts?

I'm totally confident because I have seen the incontrovertible evidence and the mathematical proofs.

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

Please stop flagillating yourself and the many eminent scientists, who believe in billions of year because they deny that God created everything ... and they reckon that they need to use big numbers to convince themselves and others that something that is impossible (the spontaneous generation of life) is somehow possible with the passage of deep time !!!:)

Not sure I understand you here, what is impossible about the generation of life? What definition of life are you using? Simple single celled ameoba or complex organisms like cows?
The big numbers are part of the picture, they fit the evidence, their not added to shore up a theory. Neither do the big numbers denied the agency of God, they only address the exact means and method.
The creationist position diminishes God, turning him into a wizard or stage magician pulling life out of a hat. Science shows us a far more complex and alien being than creationists admit. Perhaps that's the appeal of creationism, it keeps God in a manageable image, one that fits our wishes, a God of men.
I have a feeling God isn't the figure creationists paint him.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not sure I understand you here, what is impossible about the generation of life? What definition of life are you using? Simple single celled ameoba or complex organisms like cows?

an amoeba is anything but a 'simple' organism ... and a dead amoeba remains dead just as certainly as a dead cow.
... so an amoeba spontaneously springing into life is just as impossible as a dead cow coming back to life ... an impossibility (without an input from God).

tommy2bad wrote: »

The big numbers are part of the picture, they fit the evidence, their not added to shore up a theory. Neither do the big numbers denied the agency of God, they only address the exact means and method.

The big numbers are required to provide some credibility to an otherwise incredible (and impossible) idea ... that life gave birth to itself AKA spontaneous abiogenesis.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The creationist position diminishes God, turning him into a wizard or stage magician pulling life out of a hat. Science shows us a far more complex and alien being than creationists admit. Perhaps that's the appeal of creationism, it keeps God in a manageable image, one that fits our wishes, a God of men.
I have a feeling God isn't the figure creationists paint him.

You could be right ... but the Creationist position is internally and logically consistent ... the God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes on Him shall be saved ... is logically consistent with the God who lovingly Created everything ... including the Human Beings that He is now vicariously Saving through the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ.
The Christian position is indeed one where God is a God of men ... indeed He was actually a man Himself ... in the form of Jesus Christ.

J C

A few thought provoking quotes for everyone who thinks that abiogenesis is anything but the triumph of hope over experience and logic:-

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis


“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis


“Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled.”
― Paul Charles William Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life

Safehands

J C wrote: »

A few thought provoking quotes for everyone who thinks that abiogenesis is anything but the triumph of hope over experience and logic:-

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis


“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis


“Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled.”
― Paul Charles William Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life

JC despite all the waffle, you get your beliefs from the Bible, Genesis being part of that. It was written by men who didn't even understand that light came from the sun. They didn't understand anything about how things started.
On the other hand we have scientists, real scientists, who can look out there and see galaxies billions of light years away. You of course, will deny that, you have done before. So in the overall scheme of things, you are so out of touch with reality it is comical.
So, for the sake of the newcomers here, tell us again how all of these scientists are wrong about stars being billions of light years away, and you are right about the universe being what, 10,000 years old?

J C

Safehands wrote: »

JC despite all the waffle, you get your beliefs from the Bible, Genesis being part of that. It was written by men who didn't even understand that light came from the sun. They didn't understand anything about how things started.
On the other hand we have scientists, real scientists, who can look out there and see galaxies billions of light years away. You of course, will deny that, you have done before. So in the overall scheme of things, you are so out of touch with reality it is comical.
So, for the sake of the newcomers here, tell us again how all of these scientists are wrong about stars being billions of light years away, and you are right about the universe being what, 10,000 years old?

... anyway, besides trying desperately to change the subject, do you have anything to say about the paucity of evidence for abiogenesis?

Safehands

J C wrote: »

... anyway, besides trying desperately to change the subject, do you have anything to say about the paucity of evidence for abiogenesis?

No I don't, simply because I am not qualified. I know very little about it. I do know about astronomy. I know that ALL of the evidence proves that there are galaxies billions of light years from Earth. That proves that the universe is billions of years old. Much simpler than abiogenesis, much easier to prove too. Loads of evidence. Zero evisence for your beliefs though, apart from Genesis, which is just wrong!

orubiru

J C wrote: »

... anyway, besides trying desperately to change the subject, do you have anything to say about the paucity of evidence for abiogenesis?

I think most sensible people would hold up their hands and say "I don't know".

Other people would try to take quotes from actual scientific research out of context, because they have an agenda and making scientists sound "ridiculous" is part of their tactics.

I see here people working at MIT etc putting a lot of time and effort and talent into trying to figure out the answers to some of our most profound questions.

Then on the other hand I see people like yourself, who claim to already have the answers from an ancient book and "faith", trying to muddy the waters, using debating tactics to try and bring the other side down to your level of conversation.

Life certainly came from somewhere. My mind is open to the possibilities and at the moment the scientific community provides more plausible answers than folks like yourself.

I am really interested in this - "I'm totally confident because I have seen the incontrovertible evidence and the mathematical proofs"

Can you expand on that? What are your Credentials?

Why not educate me? If my understanding, that life somehow evolved from sub atomic particles all the way up to complex beings, is so completely whacky and "out there" then why not tell me what actually happened?

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

an amoeba is anything but a 'simple' organism ... and a dead amoeba remains dead just as certainly as a dead cow.
... so an amoeba spontaneously springing into life is just as impossible as a dead cow coming back to life ... an impossibility (without an input from God).


The big numbers are required to provide some credibility to an otherwise incredible (and impossible) idea ... that life gave birth to itself AKA spontaneous abiogenesis.


You could be right ... but the Creationist position is internally and logically consistent ... the God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes on Him shall be saved ... is logically consistent with the God who lovingly Created everything ... including the Human Beings that He is now vicariously Saving through the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ.
The Christian position is indeed one where God is a God of men ... indeed He was actually a man Himself ... in the form of Jesus Christ.

Well maybe, as long as it's a loose definition of creationist. i.e. God created the 'world' . It's my position in fact, once you start extending this principal to describing the means from a book that was not intended to describe these means you lose me!
It might turn out that we can prove that life is automatic is some situations, would that disprove God's role? Not for me but for the creationists who depend on genesis? They are left having to disprove the evidence, deny the timeframe, make stuff up.
Not the best way to worship God, lying on his behalf!

Safehands

J C wrote: »

do you have anything to say about the paucity of evidence for abiogenesis?

JC, Do you have anything to say about the non existence, let alone paucity, of evidence for Creationism?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... do you have anything to say about the paucity of evidence for abiogenesis?

Safehands
No I don't, simply because I am not qualified. I know very little about it.

... strange that ... nobody seems to know anything about abiognesis ... but many people claim to 'know' that it happened.:eek:

... the triumph of hope over experience and logic, if ever I saw it!!!:)

Safehands

J C wrote: »

... strange that ... nobody seems to know anything about abiognesis ... but many people claim to 'know' that it happened.:eek:

... the triumph of hope over experience and logic, if ever I saw it!!!:)

Just like you "know" creation happened!

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Just like you "know" creation happened!

You guys keep bragging that 'your' science has demonstrated how life originated in abiognenesis ... and yet ye fall strangely silent when asked to share these demonstrations with us.

... perhaps the following quotes may help to explain why:-

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events ... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. "(Francis Crick (Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88)

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." (Dose, Klaus. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 13(4):348 (1988)

“Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about. Of course, it depends on the definition of life. To me, autoreplication of a macromolecule does not yet represent life. Even a viral particle is not a life organism, it only can participate in life processes when it succeeds in becoming part of a living host cell. Therefore, I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem. - Werner Arber (Professor of Microbiology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, shared Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1978 ), "The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution," in Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo Sapiens," (1992, Open Court: La Salle IL., 1993, Second Printing, pp.142-143 [1]

Gunney

Safehands wrote: »

Just like you "know" creation happened!

If creation did not happen how did we get here? How did the universe get here?

PopePalpatine

Gunney wrote: »

If creation did not happen how did we get here? How did the universe get here?

We evolved from a single common ancestor.

You're not a Festus re-reg, are you?

Gunney

PopePalpatine wrote: »

We evolved from a single common ancestor.

You're not a Festus re-reg, are you?

Yes, By GOD you've got it - except you missed a letter. It's ancestors - plural - Adam and Eve.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

We evolved from a single common ancestor.

That's the myth of 'evolution' (from pondkind to mankind) that you are talking about ... the question was how did we get here if creation didn't happen ... which is the issue of how life came to be in the first place i.e. abiogenesis.

... but I can see why you are avoiding and deflecting the question ... because here is what Lee Strobel in his book, A Case for Faith quotes William Bradley as saying:
“The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 International Conference on Origin of Life was described as grim-full of frustration, pessimism and desperation.":eek:

... meanwhile over at the ID and Creation Science conferences the champagne is flowing and the celebrations are mega and multiple!!!:eek:

... but of course its only the myth of M2M Evolution and abiogenesis that is allowed to be taught in schools (as science)... while Creation Science and ID research is banned by law there ... even in religion class.
... you couldn't make this stuff up!!!

orubiru

J C wrote: »

That's the myth of 'evolution' (from pondkind to mankind) that you are talking about ... the question was how did we get here if creation didn't happen ... which is the issue of how life came to be in the first place i.e. abiogenesis.

... but I can see why you are avoiding and deflecting the question ... because here is what Lee Strobel in his book, A Case for Faith quotes William Bradley:
“The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 International Conference on Origin of Life was described as grim-full of frustration, pessimism and desperation.":eek:

... meanwhile over at the ID and Creation Science conferences the champagne is out and the celebrations are mega and multiple!!!:eek:

Wait. Are you saying that BOTH Abiogenisis and Evolution are myths?

It sounds like you are saying that God created everything fully formed and ready to reproduce?

There wasn't an earlier species that evolved into modern man? You are saying that all species were created individually, at the same time, by God?

orubiru

Gunney wrote: »

If creation did not happen how did we get here? How did the universe get here?

I don't know. Do you?

J C

Gunney wrote: »

Yes, By GOD you've got it - except you missed a letter. It's ancestors - plural - Adam and Eve.

By God he has !!!
... and for the scientifically-minded they were Y-Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

J C

orubiru wrote: »

Wait. Are you saying that BOTH Abiogenisis and Evolution are myths?

It sounds like you are saying that God created everything fully formed and ready to reproduce?

There wasn't an earlier species that evolved into modern man? You are saying that all species were created individually, at the same time, by God?

Got it in one

J C

orubiru wrote: »

I don't know. Do you?

I do ... it was by a fiat act of God's Divine Will.

orubiru

J C wrote: »

Got it in one

Citation?