The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

antiskeptic · 04-01-2018 03:45PM

Safehands wrote: »

Passages from the Bible are not scientific evidence of anything.

It was tongue in cheek. I'm distilling JC's position down to essentials.

storker · 04-01-2018 04:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It starts here:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That isn't evidence; it's a claim. The existence of everything around us proves only that it came to be...somehow.

and is propped up by the idea that it's self-evident that life cannot arise from non-life.

I'm glad to see that you are aware that the previous bit of "evidence" is in need of propping up. Unfortunately the prop is a bit wobbly. Since it's impossible to prove a negative, it cannot be said with certainty that "life cannot arise from non-life", we can only say that we don't know how it happened, and we can't reproduce it ourselves. So what. For most of human history, we couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound either, had never seen it done, and didn't know how to do it.

All you can say is that some people can't imagine that it might be possible or don't want to accept that it might be possible. That, however, isn't evidence of anything one way or the other.

storker · 04-01-2018 04:23PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was tongue in cheek. I'm distilling JC's position down to essentials.

You caught me too! I didn't look at who I was replying to...

I invoke Poe's Law in my defense.

antiskeptic · 04-01-2018 04:38PM

storker wrote: »

You caught me too! I didn't look at who I was replying to...

I invoke Poe's Law in my defense.

No problem. Although I'd take the opportunity to subject you to the same rigor that JC ought be subjected to.

it cannot be said with certainty that "life cannot arise from non-life",

Whilst true, you cannot go onto say..

we can only say that we don't know how it happened, and we can't reproduce it ourselves.

Until you have a way of knowing it happened, you can't say it happened. And if you can't say it happened, you cannot say you don't know how it happened (which presumes it happened). Agnosticism in the matter is the appropriate position.

J C · 04-01-2018 07:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

From which of Noah's children did Neanderthals evolve?

... the start of belief ... in the God of the Bible.:)

We don't know which ... but we do know it was one of them.:)

oscarBravo · 04-01-2018 08:38PM

J C wrote: »

... the start of belief ... in the God of the Bible.:)

I'll hold out for actual evidence, thanks.

We don't know which ... but we do know it was one of them.:)

I guess black people and oriental people also evolved from seven people in 160-odd generations?

That's some rapid-ass evolution you believe in.

J C · 04-01-2018 08:46PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How about this study by Theobald as described in National Geographic?

The article is entitled "All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds" ... they were close ... it should have been "All Kinds were Created by a single Creator" ... and this perfectly explains the commonalities found within life.:cool:
Quote (from the linked article above):-
"Editor's note: Two corrections have been made to this article. In the first sentence "million" has been changed to "billion." In the seventh paragraph, "10 followed by 2,680 zeros" has been changed to "1 followed by 2,680 zeros." Many thanks to readers for pointing out these typos."
... couldn't resist that one!!

The correction should have read "In the first sentence "million" has been changed to "thousand." ... but what are three orders of magnitude ... amongst friends !!;):pac:

Quote:- "Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do, said Penny, who wasn't part of the new study.

"Evolution," he said, "should not be given any special status.""
... and so say all of us !!:)

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Or this further study by Durand of Wits University that found the one remaining missing microscopic link in the evolutionary chain?

I'm glad you put a big question mark after your erroneous claim. It's the reverse that is true and this is just a claim that volvocine green algae is some kind of 'missing link' between unicells and multicellular organisms. Unfortunately, the cells aren't differentiated into different functions ... as is the situation with true multicellular organisms.
Quote:-
“The evolution from unicellular to multicellular life was a big deal. It changed the way the planet would be forever. From worms to insects, the dinosaurs, grasses, flowering plants, hadedas and humans, you just have to look around and see the extraordinary forms of multicellular existence,” says Durand.

“It has been difficult to explain how this occurred because it was not an easy thing to have happened. So questions like ‘why did single cells live together in groups at the very beginning of multicellularity when it puts them at a fitness disadvantage?’ challenged us for a long time,” says Durand. We still don’t know most of the answers but this project has certainly filled one of the gaps in our current understanding."
Its an evolutionary whimper ... rather than a bang!!!:)

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can you refute the theories in these links using science?

Done.:)

Professor Moriarty · 04-01-2018 08:58PM

J C wrote: »

The article is entitled "All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds" ... they were close ... all Kinds were actually Created by a single Creator ... and this explains the commonalities within life.:cool:

So no refutation with science.

Quote (from the linked article):-
"Editor's note: Two corrections have been made to this article. In the first sentence "million" has been changed to "billion." In the seventh paragraph, "10 followed by 2,680 zeros" has been changed to "1 followed by 2,680 zeros." Many thanks to readers for pointing out these typos."
... maths isn't a strong point amongst Evolutionists:)

The correction should have read "In the first sentence "million" has been changed to "thousand." ... but what are three orders of magnitude ... amongst friends !!;):pac:

So no refutation with science.

Quote:- "Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do, said Penny, who wasn't part of the new study.

"Evolution," he said, "should not be given any special status.""
... and so say all of us !!:)

So no refutation with science.

I'm glad you put a big question mark after your erroneous claim. It's the reverse that is true and this is poorly supported claim that volvocine green algae is some kind of 'missing link' between unicells and multicellular organisms despite the fact that the cells aren't differentiated into different functions ... as is the situation with true multicellular organisms. Its a evolutionary whimper ... rather than a bang!!!:)

Done.:)

So no refutation with science.

Here's a scientific paper on the subject of volvocine green algae. Here's another.

Feel free to post any science that supports anything you claim.

Leroy42 · 04-01-2018 09:01PM

Evolution isn't given any special status, it is no more special than germ theory or the theory of gravity. Evolution just is. Nothing special.

It's like like your book which is demanded special status because some people like to believe in certain parts of it, whilst ignoring the parts they don't like.

And I am going to back to this question of kinds. Based on the biblical definition, a kind if one which can bring forth offspring. How then do you explain the Salamander and the evolution of a new kind (it cannot procreate with other versions). So ins't that a new kind, based on your own definition?

And if a new kind can be evolved from another kind, then why would you not accept the possibility that man has evolved from other kinds?

J C · 04-01-2018 09:06PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll hold out for actual evidence, thanks. I guess black people and oriental people also evolved from seven people in 160-odd generations?

That's some rapid-ass evolution you believe in.

Rapid diversification allright.:)
... using originally created genetic diversity.

J C · 04-01-2018 09:17PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Evolution isn't given any special status, it is no more special than germ theory or the theory of gravity. Evolution just is. Nothing special.

It's only God that just is ... the Great I Am.

... but unfortunately pondkind to mankind evolution ... just isn't

... and it isn't even remotely comparable with established science Laws. like the Law of Gravity ... or the Laws of Thermodynamics and Biogenesis ... that completely refute the Theory that pondkind evolved into mankind spontaneously.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's like like your book which is demanded special status because some people like to believe in certain parts of it, whilst ignoring the parts they don't like.

Its all true ... and doesn't shy away from describing the history and laws of fallen mankind ... warts and all.
Its not 'my book' ... its God's infallible book.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And I am going to back to this question of kinds. Based on the biblical definition, a kind if one which can bring forth offspring. How then do you explain the Salamander and the evolution of a new kind (it cannot procreate with other versions). So ins't that a new kind, based on your own definition?

Its now a ring species within the originally created Samander Kind.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And if a new kind can be evolved from another kind, then why would you not accept the possibility that man has evolved from other kinds?

This isn't a new Kind ... its a ring species within an originally created Kind.

Leroy42 · 04-01-2018 09:20PM

J C wrote: »

It's only God that just is ... the Great I Am.
... but unfortunately pondkind to mankind ... just isn't

Its all true ... and doesn't shy away from describing the history and laws of fallen mankind ... warts and all.
Its not 'my book' ... its God's infallible book.

Its now a ring species within the originally created Samander Kind.

This isn't a new Kind ... its a ring species within an originally created Kind.

So I ask you again. What is your definition of Kind.

Professor Moriarty · 04-01-2018 09:22PM

J C wrote: »

It's only God that just is ... the Great I Am.
... but unfortunately pondkind to mankind ... just isn't

Its all true ... and doesn't shy away from describing the history and laws of fallen mankind ... warts and all.
Its not 'my book' ... its God's infallible book.

Its now a ring species within the originally created Samander Kind.

This isn't a new Kind ... its a ring species within an originally created Kind.

Does that mean Jesus is Lord of the Rings?

I'll get my coat.

J C · 04-01-2018 09:37PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Does that mean Jesus is Lord of the Rings?

... only in relation to Salamanders ... and other ring species !!!:)

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'll get my coat.

Yes, this is a bit chilly for Evolutionists allright!!;)

J C · 04-01-2018 09:43PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So I ask you again. What is your definition of Kind.

A Kind is definitively made up species that can reproduce, to some extent, with each other and ring species within the Kind.
For example, if species A can reproduce with species B but not with species C ... but if species B can reproduce with species C, then species A, B and C are all the one Kind.

Leroy42 · 04-01-2018 09:52PM

J C wrote: »

A Kind is definitively made up species that can reproduce, to some extent, with each other.
Equally, if species A can reproduce with species B but not with species C ... if species B can reproduce with species C, then species A, B and C are all the one Kind.

To some extent? What do you mean by that? I would have thought it was all or nothing really?

So to be able to reproduce is not the definition of a kind. So what is? What are the characteristics that differentiate one kind from another?

J C · 04-01-2018 10:27PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

To some extent? What do you mean by that? I would have thought it was all or nothing really?

It isn't all or nothing ... "to some extent" means that, even when viable young aren't born, conception occurs (i.e. they develop to the blastocyst stage) ... or offspring from the cross are sterile.
e.g the Cattle Kind or Monobaramin.
https://creation.com/identification-of-species-within-the-cattle-monobaramin-kind
Quote:-
"Within the genus Bos, hybrids form quite readily. Domestic cattle of European descent (Bos taurus, 2n = 60) hybridize with Indian cattle, or the zebu, (B. indicus, 2n = 60) to form fertile offspring so that the latter is sometimes considered a subspecies of the former (i.e. B. taurus indicus). The yak (B. grunniens, 2n = 60) will hybridize with the above species as well; the resulting females are fertile, but the males are sterile. The guar (B. frontalis, 2n = 58) and the banteng (B. javanicus, 2n = 60) have formed a three way cross with domestic cattle. Other hybrid combinations have been formed as well. With the exception of the first cross mentioned, hybrid males are nearly always sterile while the females are fertile. This is in spite of the fact that, except for the guar, they all have the same number of chromosomes."

"All species in the genera Bos and Bison can be considered part of the cattle monobaramin. Bubalus is probably included since some hybrid embryos have developed to the advanced blastocyst stage. In one study cited, failure around the 8-cell stage was associated with a lack of mRNA transcripts. This suggests that coordinated expression of embryonic genes is necessary for an embryo to develop past this stage into a morula and then a blastocyst. The blastocyst stage, at least in cattle, is when the embryo would be placed back into a recipient animal for implantation and further development. More research should be done to determine if the advanced blastocyst stage is really a satisfactory indicator of hybridization in mammals."

Leroy42 wrote: »

So to be able to reproduce is not the definition of a kind. So what is? What are the characteristics that differentiate one kind from another?

Being able to reproduce to some extent ... or reproducing with a species that reproduces with another species is the definitive test for belonging to a Kind or Monobaramin

Leroy42 · 04-01-2018 11:44PM

So now we have an ark that has two of each kind, which may or may not, be able to breed with one another (to some extent).

But lets follow this on. So the numbers to have any chance at all of working, then one breed of dog, one breed of cat, 1 of horse, giraffe, elephant, rhino, ape, human (there was 8 of them), etc etc.

You have mentioned rapid evolution, which of course given the only roughly 4000 years so have left since God murdered every other living creature. How quickly can animals evolve, and human too I suspect since neanderthals seem to have evolved and dies out between the flood and the time of Jesus. Do you have any evidence for this rapid evolution? It would see, since we have already agreed that new kinds can evolve, that with such rapid evolution the changes of evolution from Pondkind to Mankind is manifestly real. To think otherwise is to simply think that evolution stops at the waters egde.

Safehands · 05-01-2018 12:02AM

J C wrote: »

... the start of belief ... in the God of the Bible.:)
We don't know which ... but we do know it was one of them.:)

Scientific links please.

J C · 05-01-2018 01:19AM

Safehands wrote: »

Scientific links please.

... and now such hunger for Creation Science !!!:D

Firstly, we are all descended from one woman ... who had vastle more genetic diversity than all of the genetic diversity found in Humans today.
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm
Secondly, all men are descended from one man ... who had vastly more genetic diversity than the genetic diversity found in Humans today.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Thirdly, the human population imploded dramatically at a particular point in time as a result of Noah's Flood which caused a genetic bottleneck in the Human population.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_2/j30_2_102-111.pdf

Professor Moriarty · 05-01-2018 01:21AM

J C wrote: »

Firstly, we are all descended from one woman ... who had vastle more genetic diversity than all of the genetic diversity found in Humans today.
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm
Secondly, all men are descended from one man ... who had vastly more genetic diversity than the genetic diversity found in Humans today.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Thirdly, the human population imploded dramatically at a particular point in time AKA the result of Noah's Flood resultinng in a genetic bottleneck in the Human population.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_2/j30_2_102-111.pdf

Any chance you'll respond to my points/posts with some science?

Professor Moriarty · 05-01-2018 01:22AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So now we have an ark that has two of each kind, which may or may not, be able to breed with one another (to some extent).

But lets follow this on. So the numbers to have any chance at all of working, then one breed of dog, one breed of cat, 1 of horse, giraffe, elephant, rhino, ape, human (there was 8 of them), etc etc.

You have mentioned rapid evolution, which of course given the only roughly 4000 years so have left since God murdered every other living creature. How quickly can animals evolve, and human too I suspect since neanderthals seem to have evolved and dies out between the flood and the time of Jesus. Do you have any evidence for this rapid evolution? It would see, since we have already agreed that new kinds can evolve, that with such rapid evolution the changes of evolution from Pondkind to Mankind is manifestly real. To think otherwise is to simply think that evolution stops at the waters egde.

Dinosaurs. Don't mention the dinosaurs.

J C · 05-01-2018 01:24AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Any chance you'll respond to my points/posts with some science?

More hunger for Creation Science ... one at a time ... please

Professor Moriarty · 05-01-2018 01:27AM

J C wrote: »

More hunger for Creation Science ... one at a time ... please

A textbook definition of an oxymoron.

J C · 05-01-2018 01:29AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dinosaurs. Don't mention the dinosaurs.

Why do you not want to mention the Dinosaurs?
... is it because they were so recently around that their fossils are literally oozing (unfossilised) blood??:eek:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582

Quote:- ""If you're finding soft tissues in these kinds of fossils, maybe this kind of preservation might be more common than we realised, and might even be the norm."

The structures appear to be genuine remnants of soft tissue; they are not fossilised."

J C · 05-01-2018 01:31AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A textbook definition of an oxymoron.

Now ... now ... we all know your secret passion for Creation Science!!:D

... your secret is safe with me.;)

Professor Moriarty · 05-01-2018 01:36AM

J C wrote: »

Why do you not want to mention the Dinosaurs?
... is it because they were so recently around that their fossils are literally oozing (unfossilised) blood??:eek:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582

Quote:- ""If you're finding soft tissues in these kinds of fossils, maybe this kind of preservation might be more common than we realised, and might even be the norm."

The structures appear to be genuine remnants of soft tissue; they are not fossilised."

You didn't read the article, as usual. It simply says that there may be collagen in some fossils. However, the ancient fossils remain ancient fossils. Nowhere does the article dispute that fact nor does anyone quoted in the article dispute the fact.

So, dinosaurs. Pesky creatures. How dare they blow creationism out of the water.

Professor Moriarty · 05-01-2018 01:37AM

J C wrote: »

Now ... now ... we all know your secret passion for Creation Science!!:D

... your secret is safe with me.;)

Yes. It's my guilty secret!

J C · 05-01-2018 08:55AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. It's my guilty secret!

Always best to get it out there ... guilty secrets aren't a good thing to be keeping.

The first step on the road to recovery from Evolutionism.:D

J C · 05-01-2018 08:59AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You didn't read the article, as usual. It simply says that there may be collagen in some fossils. However, the ancient fossils remain ancient fossils. Nowhere does the article dispute that fact nor does anyone quoted in the article dispute the fact.

So, dinosaurs. Pesky creatures. How dare they blow creationism out of the water.

Its long ages evolution that the unfossilised blood-filled Dinosaur collagen is blowing out of the water!!:)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments