The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

oceanclub

J C is a completely dishonest debater (funnily enough, I thought that was against one of the commandments) who will refuse to deal with even the most obvious facts against him. This is par for the course; creationism requires one to ignore the substantial body of evidence that supports evolution, cherry-pick one or two minor details, and bang away at these.

Look at his attempt above to argue - hilariously that, despite heliocentrism originating from a Greek pagan philosopher, and the Church being against heliocentrism it up until 1822, that it's actually a "Christian" philosophy!

I have no further interest in debating with him myself. He's a representative of all that is wrong with religion.

P.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

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...

... I didn't think that Physics measured time in 'Lifetimes'!!!!

Anyway, something that expands to infinity in a Nano-second is one ALMIGHTY act of Creation!!:D

Let us all praise The Lord Jesus Christ !!!:)

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...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.

Puke.

J C wrote: »

... 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

The options were:
1. Homeschooling. Now given that he has fully admitted that he doesn't know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, I'm guessing his children aren't going to get a full picture.
2. Christian academy. I doubt this would provide a critical analysis of creationism.

(Chozo, apologies for discussing this while you are not around).

J C wrote: »

... all living systems are observed to be irreducibly complex

So, you actually are ignoring all the evidence that has been put before you, aren't you? I mean really truly ignoring it all. None of it has even made you think twice about the stuff that comes out of your mouth, has it? Others on this thread have gone to great lengths to discuss where various theories might fall down, where particular calculations don't work, thus showing that they have listened to you and tried to work it through. But you don't even afford others that respect. Brilliant. What a card you are...

And this is why you are not a scientist. I don't even care if you have a piece of paper which says different. Whichever university churned you out with any kind of science qualification should be ashamed of themselves. If the president had been reading this thread, his fingers would've been crossed behind his back as he thought "Please don't tell them where you got your degree from".

J C wrote: »

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.

I didn't call you a liar. I said that in a hypothetical future situation, were you to persist with a particular discourse, you would be lying.

J C

oceanclub wrote: »

J C is a completely dishonest debater (funnily enough, I thought that was against one of the commandments) who will refuse to deal with even the most obvious facts against him. This is par for the course; creationism requires one to ignore the substantial body of evidence that supports evolution, cherry-pick one or two minor details, and bang away at these.

Look at his attempt above to argue - hilariously that, despite heliocentrism originating from a Greek pagan philosopher, and the Church being against heliocentrism it up until 1822, that it's actually a "Christian" philosophy!

I have no further interest in debating with him myself. He's a representative of all that is wrong with religion.

P.

... please don't be a bad loser!!!:eek:

...Creation Scientists were THE FIRST to PROVE that the Heliocentric Theory was the correct one ... and suffered significant censure as a result!!!

... it looks like history is repeating itself on the Origins Issue ... with the censure coming the Creation Scientists way this time, from Atheists and assorted 'liberal' Christians.:D

...they do say that history repeats itself ... first in tragedy ... and then in farce!!!!:eek::D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...they do say that history repeats itself ... first in tragedy ... and then in farce!!!!:eek::D

*crawls down to your level*

Yes, the Creationists' origin story is both a tragedy and a farce.

edit: forgot to use smilies :eek: :pac: :eek: :cool:

A Primal Nut

J C wrote: »

... dozens of Theories no less!!!

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

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

1)The evolution of hard shells which led to fossilisations occurring much more easily. There is molecular evidence and traces of tracks and burrows which suggest life was almost as complex before the cambrian as during it. The only difference is many animals evolved hard shells during the cambrian, perhaps responding to the particular conditions of the time. There are many variations on this theory.

or
2)The period of the so-called Cambrian explosion is actually approximately 65 million years, which is a long time even in evolutionary time, equivalent to the time of the dinosaurs until now. If mammals can diversify so much in that time, so too can animals in the Cambrian. Its really not very unusual for animal life to branch out so much.

or
3) The fossils aren't actually different enough from each other to be classified as an explosion of animal life. They only seem different to each other when comparing their descendants - thus fossils appear to be part of completely different phyla, but at the time of the Cambrian explosion, they would have been considered part of the same phyla. The methods used to describe modern phyla is what makes them seem so different, but they had a lot more in common than members of different phyla would have today. Its only in the 500m years since that the different phyla have evolved to be so different.
or
4) Some major change occured in evolution which led to new 'evolutionary arms races' and other challenges which needed to be met in order to survive; for example the 'evolution of eyes'.
or
5) God woke up day and thought "hmm, I'm bored, maybe I should wipe out most of the animals for the craic, and I'll trust an alcoholic to fit two of every animal onto an Ark - should be funny watching him try. Haha, they'll be talking about this for milleniums. I am a comic genius". The resulting fossil explosion is a result of all these animals wiped out. This still doesn't explain why there are so few fossils from all the time before the flood occurred.

I have a feeling it is a combination of the first three. Really the 'Cambrian Explosion' is no more a mystery than the 'Mammal explosion' which is no mystery at all.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...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
Puke.

... Why are you puking?

... do you need to see a doctor ... Emma???:eek:

... you really ARE resisting God !!!

... and we BOTH love you so much ... in a purely platonic way!!:D

wrote:

doctoremma
The options were:
1. Homeschooling. Now given that he has fully admitted that he doesn't know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, I'm guessing his children aren't going to get a full picture.
2. Christian academy. I doubt this would provide a critical analysis of creationism.

(Chozo, apologies for discussing this while you are not around).

... you should know that there is never just A or B ... there is always option C ... and I presented it to Chozo ... and suggested that he think about conventional school (where his children would be taught Evolution ... and who knows, by then, even ID) ... and then to balance it all up privately with courses on Creation Science!!!:)

wrote:

doctoremma
So, you actually are ignoring all the evidence that has been put before you, aren't you? I mean really truly ignoring it all. None of it has even made you think twice about the stuff that comes out of your mouth, has it? Others on this thread have gone to great lengths to discuss where various theories might fall down, where particular calculations don't work, thus showing that they have listened to you and tried to work it through. But you don't even afford others that respect. Brilliant. What a card you are...

And this is why you are not a scientist. I don't even care if you have a piece of paper which says different. Whichever university churned you out with any kind of science qualification should be ashamed of themselves. If the president had been reading this thread, his fingers would've been crossed behind his back as he thought "Please don't tell them where you got your degree from".

... another good reason for me not to reveal my alma mater!!!

... and I can assure him that my secret is safe with me!!!:)

wrote:

doctoremma
I didn't call you a liar. I said that in a hypothetical future situation, were you to persist with a particular discourse, you would be lying.

... this is what you said .... and you did use the present tense!!!
"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?"

...anyway, I forgive you and I am 'turning the other cheek' to you on this one !!!:D:eek:

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... this is what you said .... and you did use the present tense!!!
"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?"

Good goodness gracious! J C, you have taken your word games to an all new level. How you can interprate that sentence in such a way beggars belief.

J C

A Primal Nut wrote: »

1)The evolution of hard shells which led to fossilisations occurring much more easily. There is molecular evidence and traces of tracks and burrows which suggest life was almost as complex before the cambrian as during it. The only difference is many animals evolved hard shells during the cambrian, perhaps responding to the particular conditions of the time. There are many variations on this theory.

or
2)The period of the so-called Cambrian explosion is actually approximately 65 million years, which is a long time even in evolutionary time, equivalent to the time of the dinosaurs until now. If mammals can diversify so much in that time, so too can animals in the Cambrian. Its really not very unusual for animal life to branch out so much.

or
3) The fossils aren't actually different enough from each other to be classified as an explosion of animal life. They only seem different to each other when comparing their descendants - thus fossils appear to be part of completely different phyla, but at the time of the Cambrian explosion, they would have been considered part of the same phyla. The methods used to describe modern phyla is what makes them seem so different, but they had a lot more in common than members of different phyla would have today. Its only in the 500m years since that the different phyla have evolved to be so different.
or
4) Some major change occured in evolution which led to new 'evolutionary arms races' and other challenges which needed to be met in order to survive; for example the 'evolution of eyes'.
or
5) God woke up day and thought "hmm, I'm bored, maybe I should wipe out most of the animals for the craic, and I'll trust an alcoholic to fit two of every animal onto an Ark - should be funny watching him try. Haha, they'll be talking about this for milleniums. I am a comic genius". The resulting fossil explosion is a result of all these animals wiped out. This still doesn't explain why there are so few fossils from all the time before the flood occurred.

I have a feeling it is a combination of the first three. Really the 'Cambrian Explosion' is no more a mystery than the 'Mammal explosion' which is no mystery at all.

... Option 5 (with a few modifications) seems to fit the evidence best ... and the reason there were so few fossils from before the Flood is because there were very few 'fossilisation events' before the Flood!!!:D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Good goodness gracious! J C, you have taken your word games to an all new level. How you can interprate that sentence in such a way beggars belief.

... you're the one playing semantic word games ... and anyway I have 'turned the other cheek' to Emma on this issue!!!!:eek::D

A Primal Nut

J C wrote: »

... Option 5 (with a few modifications) seems to fit the evidence best ... and the reason there were so few fossils from before the Flood is because there were very few 'fossilisation events' before the Flood!!!:D

Actually the line you highlighted was the problem, not the conclusion. So what was it about the flood that meant so many complex dead animals fossilised? Surely there are billions of dead animals from before the 'Great Flood'. This theory doesn't explain why there are so few fossils from before it.

Then there is the dating issue - how did so much Uranium and Lead disappear in a couple of thousand years when its well known the half life is up to a billion years.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... you're the one playing semantic word games ... and anyway I have 'turned the other cheek' to Emma on this issue!!!!:eek::D

Hardly. "will remember" implies a future event - obviously you highlighted the wrong part of the quote. But then, you've never seemed particularly bothered about misrepresenting what other people say.

iUseVi

J C wrote: »

... do you need to see a doctor ... Emma???:eek:

... you really ARE resisting God !!!

... and we BOTH love you so much ... in a purely platonic way!!:D

Is it just me or did this thread just get really creepy?

*shudder*

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

...the Ante-Diluvian world was indeed a very busy place and there was a much greater dry land area in the World than today because most of the water was underground back then.:)
...equally many very sophisticated building projects were completed then ... and some actually survived the Flood.:)

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

... and boys and girls they all lived happy ever after!!!!

... which part of 'billions of dead things fossilised in rocks laid down by water all over the Earth' ... AKA the 'Cambrian Implosion' ... do you not understand???:)

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

... if Darwin was alive today I think he would be an ID Proponent ... he certainly showed a propensity for original thinking and innovative ideas ... that isn't shared by his conformist latter-day acolytes today!!!!:D

J C

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Actually the line you highlighted was the problem, not the conclusion. So what was it about the flood that meant so many complex dead animals fossilised? Surely there are billions of dead animals from before the 'Great Flood'. This theory doesn't explain why there are so few fossils from before it.
.

...the Flood released billions of tonnes of hot water super saturated with Calcium Carbonate from deep under the earth ... and this once-off event is responsible for the production of most of the sedimentary rocks that are found all over the earth today.

This once-off event ALSO provided perfect conditions for the fossilisation of many of the organisms drowned by the flood event itself ... including the 'Cambrian Implosion' and all ot the other 'Periods' of sedimentation that were laid down by the Flood sedimentation process!!!

The Mad Hatter

iUseVi wrote: »

Is it just me or did this thread just get really creepy?

*shudder*

Nah, this is par for the course - he'll often pop up to say that he loves all of us - and then point out after an ellipsis or two that he means it platonically.

Creepy is when he starts talking about the sex Christians are allowed have once they're married.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hardly. "will remember" implies a future event - obviously you highlighted the wrong part of the quote. But then, you've never seemed particularly bothered about misrepresenting what other people say.

... I can nit pick with the best of ye ... when I have to ... and I'm usually proven right!!!

... so let's examine the sentence AGAIN..
"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?"

The ONLY future tense used in the sentence was the request for me to (in the future) REMEMBER (past tense) and be aware (present tense) that I am lying (present tense) when I continue (present tense) to claim that the eye is complex.

...the accusations of lying (past, present & future ) have been fast and furious on this thread ... and I have 'turned the other cheek' to ye all on them!!!

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

Is it just me or did this thread just get really creepy?

*shudder*

... you should indeed shudder when you think about what could happen you if you die unsaved.

liamw

J C wrote: »

... you should indeed shudder when you think about what could happen if you die unsaved.

Your last few posts have come across as someone who is completely brainwashed, which doesn't exactly help your case becuase it is clear how much the entire YEC argument is influenced directly by your religion.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... I can nit pick with the best of ye ... when I have to ... and I'm usually proven right!!!

Only in your own mind.

... so let's examine the sentence AGAIN..
"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?"

The ONLY future tense used in the sentence was the request for me to (in the future) REMEMBER (past tense) and be aware (present tense) that I am lying (present tense) when I continue to claim that the eye is complex.

Well, I'm glad to see your grasp of English is as strong as your grasp of science. The future tense at the beginning of the sentence applied to all of the sentence.

Like this one: "Will [creates future tense] you go to the shops and buy [present simple, still refers to the future] me some sweets while you're [present simple, still refers to the future] there?"

Only if you continue to claim, after having read the evidence, that the eye is irreducibly complex, will you be lying. Whether you persist with that claim is up to you.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... you're the one playing semantic word games ...

Frankly, I am offended by your hypocrisy.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm glad to see your grasp of English is as strong as your grasp of science. The future tense at the beginning of the sentence applied to all of the sentence.

Like this one: "Will [creates future tense] you go to the shops and buy [present simple, still refers to the future] me some sweets while you're [present simple, still refers to the future] there?"

Only if you continue to claim, after having read the evidence, that the eye is irreducibly complex, will you be lying. Whether you persist with that claim is up to you.

...given the fact that I have looked at the information to which Emma refers ALREADY .... and AFTER looking at it, I THEN made the claim that the eye is irreducibly complex ... then I am either correct, incorrect or lying ... and Emma's latest statement can have NO EFECT on which case pertains!!!!

... so she is accusing me of lying in the past, present and (possibly) the future on this issue.

I believe that I am actually correct on this issue ... and I am prepared to look at any evidence you may have that proves me incorrect ... so I am either correct or incorrect ... but I am certainly NOT lying

J C

...if you guys really want to expand your brain cells ... have a look at this video ... if you dare!!!

... warning this video may blow an Atheist's faith

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/perryspeaks/

...it argues that living things are designed to evolve!!!!

... I don't agree with everything that it says but it is very informative nonetheless

J C

...and for those who believe in the power of random mutation to IMPROVE information and/or generate new functional information ... try this random mutation generator ... and see the information DEGRADE before your very eyes!!!
http://www.randommutation.com/

...after about 10 mutations the information will have mutated to the point where it will be effectively incomprehensible!!!

...which makes it incapable of being Selected by ANYTHING (Natural or Artificial)!!!!

J C

If you can read the information below you can prove to yourself and anybody else (with an open logical mind) that God EXISTS!!!

... go in here as an Atheistic Evolutionist
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
... and come out here as an ID Theist!!!

Quote: Perry Marshall
Most arguments about evolution and intelligent design offer only anecdotal evidence and are inherently incapable of actually proving anything. We must get better evidence in order to get to the bottom of this! Fortunately, the science of modern communications easily provides us with the tools we need to get answers. Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education.

1. Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

2. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

Proof that DNA was designed by a mind:
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

We can explore five possible conclusions:


1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time (to who designed the Aliens).
(3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck .
(4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code.

So the only systematic explanation that remains is
(5) a theological one.

To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer

oceanclub

J C wrote: »

...and for those who believe in the power of random mutation to IMPROVE information and/or generate new functional information

Thanks for proving you have absolutely not even the slightest clue of how natural selection is supposed to work and therefore have absolutely no authority on whether or not it's true.

P.

J C

oceanclub wrote: »

Thanks for proving you have absolutely not even the slightest clue of how natural selection is supposed to work and therefore have absolutely no authority on whether or not it's true.

P.

http://www.randommutation.com/
... the above exercise shows random mutation ... upon which NS supposedly works
... the problem is that mutation ALWAYS degrades information ... and therefore NS is impotent to do anything with the degraded information.

Try looking at the video ... or have a look at my last post and see how you can prove the existence of God to YOURSELF!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... the problem is that mutation ALWAYS degrades information ... and therefore NS is impotent to do anything with the degraded information.

"Information" is a meaningless term.

Mutations can be harmful, beneficial or neutral. The vast majority of mutations are neutral.

oceanclub

J C wrote: »

... the above exercise shows random mutation

The "exercise" you're referring to is a English language sentence generator. That has absolutely nothing to do with random mutation of genes in real life due to radiation.

Real tests have been done on this on actual animals - not people showing off links to sentence generators:

Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-3
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1871816

You really are clutching at straws here; it's rather pathetic.

P.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"Information" is a meaningless term.

...are you informing me of this??:D:)

... or are your so deep in denial that words have lost all meaning for you??

... and you accuse me of having my head in the sand!!