Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Options
1…226227228230232

Comments

  • Options
    #6872
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    And there you go again with the supposition.

    Grand when you use it but lo and behold if an atheist ever tries to use phrases like that :rolleyes:
    Evolutionists are endlessly speculating about aspects of Evolution ... spinning 'tall tales' about an impossibility ... that life could spontaneously generate itself and go on via series of mistakes to produce man !!!
    It flies in the face of everything we know about life ... but that doesn't stop them ... they have such a need to exclude God from the process, that they will believe the nonesense that Human life could arise without an effectively omnipotent and omniscient input of intelligent action.


  • Options
    #6873
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robinph wrote: »
    I'm sure that during a previous session around the merry-go-round of the flood explanation a few hundred pages ago he said that all the carnivorous animals were herbivores until after the flood at which point they suddenly picked up a taste for meat.

    Wonder if he'll revert to that now and drop the frozen TV dinner theory for carnivores surviving after the flood without wiping out all the other species.
    Animals were vegetarian before the Fall ... and not the Flood.

    If you're going to misquote me, at least get your facts right!!:eek:

    People might reasonably start believing that you're equally 'fluid' with any other facts, you might be drawing attention to.:)


  • Options
    #6874
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,440 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    They're endlessly speculating about aspecs of Evolution ... telling tall tales about an impossibility ... that life could spontaneously generate itself and go via s eries of mistakes to produce man !!!

    But subterranian waters, no one had boats, vegetation islands that herbivores lived off, nuclear winter in one area and perfect climate for vegetation to grow in another are not "tall tales" :rolleyes:

    And when you use phrases such as "it is thought" and "it is believed" then you are also speculating on what MAY have happened thousands of years ago.


  • Options
    #6875
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    But subterranian waters, no one had boats, vegetation islands that herbivores lived off, nuclear winter in one area and perfect climate for vegetation to grow in another are not "tall tales" :rolleyes:
    These are all possible phenomena ... while the spontaneous generation of life is an impossibility ... and the spontaneous production of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information observed in living organisms via selecte mistakes is another impossibility.


  • Options
    #6876
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,440 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    These are all possible phenomena ... while the spontaneous generation of life is an impossibility ... and the spontaneous production of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information observed in living organisms via selecte mistakes is another impossibility.

    See JC thats where you are wrong!

    You see something you cannot explain or something that goes against your faith and you lable it as impossible.

    Meanwhile real scientists (not the makey up ones you tend to quote) are moving forward everyday and will possibly one day be able to explain and prove how man and the universe came to be. I wont be expecting a single shred of evidence that "god" did it anytime soon though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6877
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    The continents were formed during the Flood.

    ... a few thousand years ago ... the fossils formed then still have blood within them.
    Quote:-
    "Dr Maidment said. “Although remnants of soft tissues have previously been discovered in rare, exceptionally preserved fossils, what is particularly exciting about our study is that we have discovered structures reminiscent of blood cells and collagen fibres in scrappy, poorly preserved fossils. This suggests that this sort of soft tissue preservation might be widespread in fossils.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-discover-red-blood-and-protein-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-fossils-10308549.html
    JC we discussed this before. The scientist who made the discovery said that creationists like you really annoyed her. You remember JC. So the argument you present is dead.
    Once again JC you are using your most unscientific methods of looking at the writings and then looking for evidence. That's not how real science works.


  • Options
    #6878
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    70,000 Evolutionist years ... bears no relationship to actual years
    Really, JC. There is now a term called Evolutionist years?

    Where are your scientific references for actual years v evolutionist years?


  • Options
    #6879
    Achasanai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 730 ✭✭✭Achasanai


    J C wrote: »
    These are all possible phenomena ... while the spontaneous generation of life is an impossibility ... and the spontaneous production of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information observed in living organisms via selecte mistakes is another impossibility.

    It's not possible that you have a scenario where dead animals are frozen but in the same area you have grasses germinating at the optimum rate.

    It's not possible that even in the most optimum of germination conditions that these grasses would feed the thousands of (by now) adult herbivores that have just disembarked from the Ark.

    It's not possible that the carnivores - who seemingly have chosen to eat frozen carcasses - could survive for long on these, as conditions would necessitate that they thaw, and so rapidly decompose. You would have carnivores feeding on rotting meat within a week.

    It's not possible that animals that depend on specific foodstuffs which could not have been around in the immediate aftermath of a world wide flood could survive on grasses.

    It's not possible that underground reservoirs could flood the earth to completely subsume the land and then recede (I'm guessing only partly).

    Unless you'd care to answer all the above points?


  • Options
    #6880
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Achasanai wrote: »
    It's not possible that you have a scenario where dead animals are frozen but in the same area you have grasses germinating at the optimum rate.

    It's not possible that even in the most optimum of germination conditions that these grasses would feed the thousands of (by now) adult herbivores that have just disembarked from the Ark.

    It's not possible that the carnivores - who seemingly have chosen to eat frozen carcasses - could survive for long on these, as conditions would necessitate that they thaw, and so rapidly decompose. You would have carnivores feeding on rotting meat within a week.

    It's not possible that animals that depend on specific foodstuffs which could not have been around in the immediate aftermath of a world wide flood could survive on grasses.

    It's not possible that underground reservoirs could flood the earth to completely subsume the land and then recede (I'm guessing only partly).

    Unless you'd care to answer all the above points?

    You forgot the most important one: It's not possible that an ark, commanded by a 900 year old man, ever existed.


  • Options
    #6881
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    J C wrote: »
    If you're going to misquote me, at least get your facts right!!:eek:
    Think I've got misquoting pretty much nailed down then, otherwise it wouldn't be a misquote.

    Basic logic fail for you there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6882
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    JC, do you really believe what you post here, or are you just trolling for fun?


  • Options
    #6883
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    JC, well done. The Lord is with you.


  • Options
    #6884
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    These are all possible phenomena ... while the spontaneous generation of life is an impossibility ... and the spontaneous production of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information observed in living organisms via selecte mistakes is another impossibility.

    Didn't we see the basis of the 'impossibility' of S.G. rested on a law? And didn't we go into the law not being immutable: it's a law until such time as an observation confounds it - at which point the law is usurped. Your impossibility is untrue.


  • Options
    #6885
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nuac wrote: »
    JC, do you really believe what you post here, or are you just trolling for fun?
    The fact that you ask such a question (on a Christianity Forum) ... when what I'm saying used be basic Christian Ortodoxy only a generation ago ... tells us the depths of apostacy that much of Christendom, has descended to.

    Here, for example, is what the 'Penny Catechism of Christian Docrtrine of 1941' of the Roman Catholic Church, had to say about a literal Creation ex nihilo ... and these basic doctrines were also held by practically all other mainstream denominations at the time:-

    1. Who made us?
    God made us.

    In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

    2. Who is God?
    God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.

    In him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

    3. Why did God make us?
    God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

    Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him. (I Corinthians 2:9)

    35. What do we mean when we say that God is the Creator of heaven and earth?
    When we say that God is the Creator of heaven and earth we mean that He made all things from nothing by His almighty power.

    I am the Lord God, that make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that establish the earth. (Isaiah 44:24)

    36. Which are the chief creatures of God?
    The chief creatures of God are angels and men.

    Thou hast made him a little less than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honor; and thou hast set him over the works of thy hands. (Psalm 8:6-7)

    Here it confirms the creation of a literal first man and woman, Adam and Eve ... from whom we are all descended ... not some Ape intermediaries.

    51. Who were the first man and woman?
    The first man and woman were Adam and Eve, the first parents of the whole human race.

    And Adam called the name of his wife Eve. (Genesis 3:15)

    52. What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?
    The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to heaven.

    53. What other gifts were bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?
    The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

    He gave them counsel, and a tongue, and eyes, and ears, and a heart to devise; and he filled them with the knowledge of understanding. (Ecclesiasticus 17:5)

    54. What commandment did God give Adam and Eve?
    God gave Adam and Eve the commandment not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree that grew in the Garden of Paradise.

    And he commanded him, saying: "Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." (Genesis 2:16-17)

    Here confirmation a literal Fall of one man and one woman, by which sin and death entered the world

    55. Did Adam and Eve obey the commandment of God?
    Adam and Eve did not obey the commandment of God, but ate of the forbidden fruit.

    And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

    56. What happened to Adam and Eve on account of their sin?
    On account of their sin Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace, the right to heaven, and their special gifts; they became subject to death, to suffering, and to a strong inclination to evil, and they were driven from the Garden of Paradise.

    In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. (Genesis 3:19)

    57. What has happened to us on account of the sin of Adam?
    On account of the sin of Adam, we, his descendants, come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and inherit his punishment, as we would have inherited his gifts had he been obedient to God.

    But, by the envy of the devil, death came into the world. (Wisdom 2:24)

    58. What is this sin in us called?
    This sin in us is called original.

    59. Why is this sin called original?
    This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam.

    Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death has passed unto all men because all have sinned. (Romans 5:12)

    60. What are the chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin?
    The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are: death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

    https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson01.html


  • Options
    #6886
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Didn't we see the basis of the 'impossibility' of S.G. rested on a law? And didn't we go into the law not being immutable: it's a law until such time as an observation confounds it - at which point the law is usurped. Your impossibility is untrue.
    Since when has the Law of Biogenesis been rescinded?

    It is still a fundamental Law of Biology ... and no evidence has been discovered that disproves it.


  • Options
    #6887
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    See JC thats where you are wrong!

    You see something you cannot explain or something that goes against your faith and you lable it as impossible.

    Meanwhile real scientists (not the makey up ones you tend to quote) are moving forward everyday and will possibly one day be able to explain and prove how man and the universe came to be. I wont be expecting a single shred of evidence that "god" did it anytime soon though.
    ... your wishful thinking hasn't happened ... and despite you not 'expecting a single shred of evidence that "god" did it' ... that's precisely what has happened with the breakthrough discovery of the complex specified functional nature of the multiple interacting layers of biological information found in living organisms.


  • Options
    #6888
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So JC, what you are saying is that the book that tells you want to think is also the source of the evidence you use to prove that what you think is backed up by evidence?

    So you have one source, that in the main cannot be verified, but as the source of knowledge leaves huge amounts out.

    Yet you are regularly unable to answer even the most basic of questions about the very stories upon which you place your faith.


  • Options
    #6889
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    The fact that you ask such a question (on a Christianity Forum) ... when what I'm saying used be basic Christian Ortodoxy only a generation ago ... tells us the depths of apostacy that much of Christendom, has descended to.

    Here, for example, is what the 'Penny Catechism of Christian Docrtrine of 1941' of the Roman Catholic Church had to say about a literal Creation ex nihilo:-

    1. Who made us?
    God made us.

    In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

    Etc, Etc.

    Ah, simple times, when we knew no better.


  • Options
    #6890
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Ah, simple times, when we knew no better.
    ... and what do we know better now?

    ... everything science has discovered about the perfectly integrated multiple levels of complex functional specified biological information, points to an intelligent source for it all, of divine proportions.


  • Options
    #6891
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So JC, what you are saying is that the book that tells you want to think is also the source of the evidence you use to prove that what you think is backed up by evidence?

    So you have one source, that in the main cannot be verified, but as the source of knowledge leaves huge amounts out.

    Yet you are regularly unable to answer even the most basic of questions about the very stories upon which you place your faith.
    The physical world and everything in it supports the fact that God created it all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6892
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    The physical world and everything in it supports the fact that God created it all.

    The physical world and everything in it provides zero evidence that God created it all.
    Just felt I needed to correct you there JC.


  • Options
    #6893
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ... and what do we know better now?

    What do we now know that they didn't know in the 1940's? You're the "scientist" you tell me.


    J C wrote: »
    .. everything science has discovered about the perfectly integrated multiple levels of complex functional specified biological information, points to an intelligent source for it all, of divine proportions.

    Your type of science maybe. Not real science.


  • Options
    #6894
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    The physical world and everything in it supports the fact that God created it all.

    That is the only possible explanation? Really?

    God did it.

    OK, lets run with that. So God did it. And what difference does that make. It doesn't prove that God has done anything since, that God is even still in existence.

    Maybe God's destroyed himself in order to create the universe. Lovely and all as that is, it means that praying to him is pointless.


  • Options
    #6895
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,440 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... and what do we know better now?

    ... everything science has discovered about the perfectly integrated multiple levels of complex functional specified biological information, points to an intelligent source for it all, of divine proportions.

    You mean your makey up science that you keep talking about that just so happens to support your views? :rolleyes:


    Creation science

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
    The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to produce scientific hypotheses, and courts have ruled that it is a religious, not a scientific, view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[9][10]Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[11][12][13] It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly,[14]and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[15]


  • Options
    #6896
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You mean your makey up science that you keep talking about that just so happens to support your views? :rolleyes:


    Creation science

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

    Ahh, you'll scare him off with facts like those.
    He thinks he is a real scientist.


  • Options
    #6897
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Safehands wrote: »
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You mean your makey up science that you keep talking about that just so happens to support your views? :rolleyes:


    Creation science

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

    Ahh, you'll scare him off with facts like those.
    He thinks he is a real scientist.

    You woefully underestimate your correspondent, I suspect. Facts certainly won’t scare him off.


  • Options
    #6898
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pauldla wrote: »
    You woefully underestimate your correspondent, I suspect. Facts certainly won’t scare him off.
    Facts certainly don't scare me ... like the fact that God exists ... and can be proven to exist, from what He has created.

    Romans 1:19-21 New International Version (NIV)
    19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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.
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    Unlike some of you guys, I embrace that fact that God exists ... and I look forward to being Saved, when I have 'shuffled off this mortal coil'.


  • Options
    #6899
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You mean your makey up science that you keep talking about that just so happens to support your views? :rolleyes:
    The makey up stories are all the 'tall tales' that Evolutionists confuse themselves and members of the public with ... like the story about the Frog (primitive amphibilan) ... that eventually became a prince (mankind) after millions of years and billions of selected mistakes.

    ... and no evidence what-so-ever for any of it.


  • Options
    #6900
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to produce scientific hypotheses, and courts have ruled that it is a religious, not a scientific, view.
    The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, at the time was that Galileo was wrong ... and the courts of the time ruled likewise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6901
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    The physical world and everything in it provides zero evidence that God created it all.
    Just felt I needed to correct you there JC.
    Do you know of any complex functional specified information (CFSI) that has ever been spontaneously generated?

    The fact is that wherever the origin of CFSI has been established it is always intelligently generated ... indeed the detection of CFSI is the method being used by SETI to search for extraterrestrial intelligent life.
    Quote:-
    "The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for scientific searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets."

    The irony is that science has discovered unmistakable signs of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent action right here on Earth ... in the CFSI of living organisms ... but their materialistic-only biases prevents them from accepting the evidence that their eyes are seeing.


Advertisement