The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

steve3 · 09-06-2009 11:54PM

any1 tink the bible is overated,its a bit long dont ye think

AtomicHorror · 10-06-2009 12:15AM

J C wrote: »

....BUT 'persistence of being' in living organisms is OBSERVED to involve massive amounts of Complex Specified Genetic Information ... and such information CANNOT arise via non-intelligently directed processes!!!

That's rather beside the point and you're just trying to gloss over the fact that we just showed your car/warehouse analogy to be rubbish because of your assumption of teleology. You haven't defined complex specified information, nor have you shown how it is measured nor demonstrated why it cannot arise by variation and selection.

J C wrote: »

.... yet another 'prediction' of Evolution 'bites the dust'!!!

How and when was the number of human genes predicted by evolution? Since we didn't know the the number of genes in related species at that time, the number of genes in humans was an unknown. We supposed it might be higher because of the length of the genome in terms of base pairs, but there without the other information, evolution could make no prediction. Now that we know the number of genes in species such as humans and chimpanzees, we can use evolution to make predictions about the numbers of genes in other species.

So why don't you show me one species, just one, which violates what evolution would predict in terms of gene numbers based on what we now know?

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists expected the Genetic Information to have a high quality to match its quantity ... and that is how it turned out to be!!!

You can add this to the long list of requests I've made of you:

Quote me the creation science paper, pre-dating the human genome project, in which this prediction is made.

Also, you're wrong. 25,000 genes is not "high quality" given that there is easily space enough in the genome for 100,000. The rest of the genetic material is not conserved and is undergoing drift.

J C wrote: »

....information is measured by it's functional results ... and the highest quality information is the information that uses the smallest amount of data carrier to produce the greatest functional result.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Can you give a specific example of the measured information content of a gene? Or the measure of it's function? Can you show me an example of a quantified reduction or increase in information?

J C wrote: »

Examples of high quality information transmission would include the Human Genome that uses a fraction of the predicted data carrier sequences to produce the Human Brain ....

The number of sequences required to produce the human brain was never predicted, as far as I am aware. Can you show me when this was done?

You're still ignoring all the other major points we've made, and you're not really answering our questions on this topic either.

darjeeling · 10-06-2009 12:15AM

J C wrote: »

...IF a manufacturer had no final goal, the analogy works even better .... and such a manufacturer would be even more unlikely to produce a functional machine of ANY description!!!

First, if you want to make a scientific case, you cannot do it with analogies. Analogies may be fine for apologetics; for science, you need facts, evidence.

J C wrote: »

...this is analagous to [analogy excised]

Genes can function with different sequences ... but intermediate sequences lose functionality ... and so there is no observed mechanism for evolution to 'evolve' between functional sequences.

Intermediate between what? How do you know this? Where's the evidence? Where - as 2Scoops would say - is the science?

J C wrote: »

The only logical conclusion is that each functional sequence is a result of a lucky (actually mathematically impossible) 'fluke' ... or they are the product of ID!!!

Tut tut! You can't jump to your conclusion without showing any evidence. Things are true because you can show them to be true, not merely because you believe them hard enough.

J C wrote: »

... and please note that BOTH the Human AND Mouse genes are tightly specified and any alterations to their critical sequences will render BOTH genes non-functional ...

'tightly specified', 'critical sequences' - definitions? Evidence?

J C wrote: »

....please also note that most functional genes are not interchangable.

Well, obviously, yes. Is this a revelation?

J C wrote: »

....of course the information can be measured - that was one of the objectives of the Human Genome Project ... and they found that it was enormous and VERY sophisticated !!!

...like I said the other day, redundancy or its absence doesn't prove Intelligent Design one way or the other .... it is the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms that PROVES that they were Intelligently Designed!!!! :pac::):D:eek:

OK, good. How do you define 'Complex Specified Information' in the genome? How, practically, do you distinguish CSI bits of the genome from non-CSI bits? Why can't CSI sequences evolve? And precisely how much CSI is there in the genome?

Given that you have concluded, on the basis of 'CSI' (not the TV series, I'm guessing?) that the human genome is intelligently designed, you should be able to answer these questions. Otherwise, you're just making it up.

Fanny Cradock · 10-06-2009 06:04AM

steve3 wrote: »

any1 tink the bible is overated,its a bit long dont ye think

Now, now. Read the charter, please.

CDfm · 10-06-2009 10:37PM

J C wrote: »

...the REASON for this has nothing to do with the original meaning of the Jewish Law on circumcision and doesn't change it's validity ... for Jews.
The reason for the abandonment of circumcision by Christians is because Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law ... and they are instead only subject to God's grace. Similarly, Jewish dietary Laws, on not eating pork, for example, do not apply to Christians ... but these Laws continue to mean what they say ... and continue to be applicable to Jews ... who are still subject to the Mosaic Laws.

Isnt this a bit of cherrypicking.

antiskeptic · 10-06-2009 11:33PM

darjeeling wrote:

Tut tut! You can't jump to your conclusion without showing any evidence. Things are true because you can show them to be true, not merely because you believe them hard enough.

According to this rationale evolution isn't true because it can't be shown to be true. It can be inferred to be true. But inference isn't showing - it's inferance.

And inferance isn't truth.

Tut tut.

Zombrex · 10-06-2009 11:35PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to this rationale evolution isn't true because it can't be shown to be true. It can be inferred to be true. But inference isn't showing - it's inferance.

And inferance isn't truth.

Tut tut.

Neo-Darwinian Evolution can be show to be true.

darjeeling · 10-06-2009 11:41PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to this rationale evolution isn't true because it can't be shown to be true. It can be inferred to be true. But inference isn't showing - it's inferance.

And inferance isn't truth.

Tut tut.

This is hair splitting, and I'm sure you know what I mean. When I say 'show', that includes deducing from the available evidence.

My objection is to claims made without any evidence whatsoever.

electrogrimey · 11-06-2009 12:34AM

darjeeling wrote: »

My objection is to claims made without any evidence whatsoever.

I agree completely, I often hear the Christian argument against evolution "well you can't prove it completely", but I personally would be more inclined to believe hundreds of generally accepted scientific proofs, even if one of two are missing, than blind faith on a book written by normal people whose only argument otherwise is that it hasn't yet been proven that it's not true...

J C · 11-06-2009 08:31AM

CDfm wrote: »

Isnt this a bit of cherrypicking.

...It isn't cherrypicking, as Christians are subject to God's grace ... and the Messiah has already come as Man on Earth, Christians are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law.

DublinWriter · 14-06-2009 09:42PM

J C wrote: »

...It isn't cherrypicking, as Christians are subject to God's grace ... and the Messiah has already come as Man on Earth, Christians are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law.

No offence, but this what I call the Creationist equivalent to the 'Three-Card-Monty' or 'Get out of Jail' card, a circular nonsensical piece of logical argument that ultimately undermines itself.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, it presupposes that God is a magician, the mechanics of his tricks we are not privvy ("We can never understand the mind of God, it's a divine mystery, etc"), under which faith is ultimately designated as the act of going 'ooohhh' when the rabbit is produced from the hat.

Faced with a undeniable fact supporting Natural Selection, the Creationist will haul out such metaphysical nonscence as the ultimate proof of 'force majure'.

peakpilgrim · 22-06-2009 01:33PM

Hi

RE: AGE OF THE EARTH

Some Christians believe that the Earth is Six Thousand Years Old.

Does anyone have an opinion on this.

Kind Regards,

Mena · 22-06-2009 01:37PM

I'm sure most people have an opinion on this. Mine: it's laughable and flies in the face of all the available evidence, assuming you don't take your "evidence" from dodgy websites.

Edit: What's your opinion by the way? This is a "discussion" forum.

Owen · 22-06-2009 01:42PM

It's obviously not all christians. The Vatican had a representative in Ireland a few months back who was promoting evolution, but stating that it's possible that God was responsible for evolution - in otherwords, the two theories didn't have to be mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm not a believer, but I'll give credit to those who do support scientific theories albiet with the God clause. What worries me is the fundamentalist churches who actually have museums where they show humans and dinosaurs co-existing 5000 years ago, and teach that nonsense to children under the dillusional name 'Intelligent Design'. ID has been debunked by plenty of people, plenty of times, but some people actually do believe this piddle.

Run_to_da_hills · 22-06-2009 01:51PM

I don't think it makes any odds how old the earth is, the age is not mentioned in the Bible.

Fanny Cradock · 22-06-2009 02:57PM

My opinion is that YEC's (young earth creationists) have it wrong, horribly so.

philologos · 22-06-2009 04:06PM

PaintDoctor: yes but when many who argue for evolution argue that religion and science are not compatible that is merely exascerbating the situation. When there are extremists on one side, people will go to extremes on the other also. Polarising the debate leads to this. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others may not realise this, but they could be contributing to this growth.

I will say that not all YEC's are extreme though, however it can get so.

peakpilgrim · 22-06-2009 08:01PM

Mena wrote: »

I'm sure most people have an opinion on this. Mine: it's laughable and flies in the face of all the available evidence, assuming you don't take your "evidence" from dodgy websites.

Edit: What's your opinion by the way? This is a "discussion" forum.

Hi Mena,

I personally believe that there is ample fossil evidence, ice core evidence and carbon dating evidence to name but a few areas of science, which correlate with each other to show that this is not true.

However there are some very devout and well educated Christians, particularly in America, who stick to this view; and who, also, have no time for the ideas of Darwin concerning evolution; as referred to by 'Paint-Doctor'.

I wanted to generate a discussion on this topic. I am a Christian in the Catholic Church. The Modern Catholic Church is quite comfortable with science and the ideas of evolution, although it has burned people at the stake in the distant past for outlandish notions; such as that the earth goes around the sun!

Kind Regards,

Húrin · 22-06-2009 08:10PM

I think that the age of the earth is whatever the worldwide geological community believes it to be. They are the people with the evidence, and the knowledge to interpret it.

PDN · 23-06-2009 06:37PM

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I wanted to generate a discussion on this topic. I am a Christian in the Catholic Church. The Modern Catholic Church is quite comfortable with science and the ideas of evolution, although it has burned people at the stake in the distant past for outlandish notions; such as that the earth goes around the sun!

Religious myth-busting time again!

I've seen this claim made several times in this forum, but, when challenged, none of the posters were ever able to back it up. Nor could any them name any such person (except one turkey of an unbeliever who claimed it had happened to Copernicus). My own hunch is that it is an urban legend.

Could you, by any chance, provide any reputable historical source for people being burned at the stake for believing in heliocentrism?

peakpilgrim · 23-06-2009 07:17PM

PDN wrote: »

Religious myth-busting time again!

I've seen this claim made several times in this forum, but, when challenged, none of the posters were ever able to back it up. Nor could any them name any such person (except one turkey of an unbeliever who claimed it had happened to Copernicus). My own hunch is that it is an urban legend.

Could you, by any chance, provide any reputable historical source for people being burned at the stake for believing in heliocentrism?

Hi

PDN; you are getting emotional again! you should probably go away and lie down for a while until you recover!

This sentence was included as humorous back-drop to the fact that, after consideration, the Catholic Church, of which I am a member is quite comfortable with ideas in modern science.

Have we calmed down yet?

PDN · 23-06-2009 07:37PM

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

PDN; you are getting emotional again! you should probably go away and lie down for a while until you recover!

This sentence was included as humorous back-drop to the fact that, after consideration, the Catholic Church, of which I am a member is quite comfortable with ideas in modern science.

Have we calmed down yet?

I assure you I am relaxing in the sun and am extremely calm and unemotional. You do seem prone to discussing personal emotions if I disagree with anything you post. This is an internet discussion board - diveregence of opinions is what makes it tick, so it would be better to get used to that and to engage in discussion.

So nobody got burned at the stake for believing in heliocentrism after all? That's nice.

postcynical · 23-06-2009 08:24PM

peakpilgrim wrote: »

However there are some very devout and well educated Christians, particularly in America, who stick to this view; and who, also, have no time for the ideas of Darwin concerning evolution; as referred to by 'Paint-Doctor'.

I get the feeling you are attacking mythical Christians who are not here to defend themselves. There is a thread on creationism on this very forum and in my brief time here I've seen a very coherent defence of creationism from a Christian. Personally I'm happy to believe in Darwin's theory; it's simple, elegant and the evidence supports it. It does not conflict with my faith. If it did conflict fundamentally with my faith, then I would have a dilemma. Creationists will resolve their dilemma in time. While they are trying to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Bible with historical facts they are welcome to take an interim position that the scientists must be wrong; a far more sensible position than that their faith is misplaced.

I wanted to generate a discussion on this topic. I am a Christian in the Catholic Church. The Modern Catholic Church is quite comfortable with science and the ideas of evolution, although it has burned people at the stake in the distant past for outlandish notions; such as that the earth goes around the sun!

Kind Regards,

I too am a practicing Catholic and although the Catholic church has an anti-scientific public perception, the "facts" contend that it has been supportive of science. Science leads to truth which is God. I suppose you are referring to Galileo here - Galileo overstepped the mark as do some Darwinists, but their science is worthwhile.

peakpilgrim · 23-06-2009 08:31PM

PDN wrote: »

I assure you I am relaxing in the sun and am extremely calm and unemotional. You do seem prone to discussing personal emotions if I disagree with anything you post. This is an internet discussion board - diveregence of opinions is what makes it tick, so it would be better to get used to that and to engage in discussion.

So nobody got burned at the stake for believing in heliocentrism after all? That's nice.

Hi

This does not add, or subtract, from my argument either way but are you suggesting that nobody was ever burned at the stake for Heresy PDN; If you are suggesting this then, I must admit that there is nobody that I can call as a witness to such an event.

( Did you recognise that PDN: It was HUMOUR! I thought that I would help you out as you seem to have difficulty with the concept ).

peakpilgrim · 23-06-2009 09:01PM

postcynical wrote: »

I get the feeling you are attacking mythical Christians who are not here to defend themselves. There is a thread on creationism on this very forum and in my brief time here I've seen a very coherent defence of creationism from a Christian. Personally I'm happy to believe in Darwin's theory; it's simple, elegant and the evidence supports it. It does not conflict with my faith. If it did conflict fundamentally with my faith, then I would have a dilemma. Creationists will resolve their dilemma in time. While they are trying to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Bible with historical facts they are welcome to take an interim position that the scientists must be wrong; a far more sensible position than that their faith is misplaced.

I too am a practicing Catholic and although the Catholic church has an anti-scientific public perception, the "facts" contend that it has been supportive of science. Science leads to truth which is God. I suppose you are referring to Galileo here - Galileo overstepped the mark as do some Darwinists, but their science is worthwhile.

Hi

These Christians are not mythical and are perfectly entitled to their beliefs; They are quite free to respond on this internet forum; like yourself.

However I would rather that they sort out their dilemma in private without interfering with the teaching of science in schools; and trying to inflict their views views on others.

The fundamental world-wide accepted medium of creation is through Evolution; that is the current theory; there is overwhelming evidence to back it up. It does not conflict with the idea of God or creation; it only uncovers a small number of the tools that He used to achieve it.

However: I will keep an open mind and I will look at the thread on 'Creationism ' that you mentioned.

23-06-2009 09:07PM

Well, Bruno was burnt at the stake for a number of his views. Offically, his view on heliocentrism wasn't the reason (or one of the reasons) for his execution; but I'm sure it didn't help. (Yes, this is anecdotal evidence).

BrianCalgary · 23-06-2009 09:16PM

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

These Christians are not mythical and are perfectly entitled to their beliefs; They are quite free to respond on this internet forum; like yourself.

However I would rather that they sort out their dilemma in private without interfering with the teaching of science in schools; and trying to inflict their views views on others.

The fundamental world-wide accepted medium of creation is through Evolution; that is the current theory; there is overwhelming evidence to back it up. It does not conflict with the idea of God or creation; it only uncovers a small number of the tools that He used to achieve it.

However: I will keep an open mind and I will look at the thread on 'Creationism ' that you mentioned.

They are not in the position to inflict. As scientists will tell you, science is ever changing as new evidence is found. Evolution is a theory, it can not be replicated in a science lab and tested, it can only be drawn to by the interpretation of discovered evidence.

What the creationist would like to do is have the creationist view also taught in schools. Offering what is another viewpoint on the origins of man. The creationist would also go so far as to have native North American origins taught as that of other faiths as well.

it is however the evolutionist who wishes to shut out any opposing views and to have their view as the only one taught.

BTW DON"T GO READ THE 'THREAD'

peakpilgrim · 23-06-2009 09:37PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They are not in the position to inflict. As scientists will tell you, science is ever changing as new evidence is found. Evolution is a theory, it can not be replicated in a science lab and tested, it can only be drawn to by the interpretation of discovered evidence.

What the creationist would like to do is have the creationist view also taught in schools. Offering what is another viewpoint on the origins of man. The creationist would also go so far as to have native North American origins taught as that of other faiths as well.

it is however the evolutionist who wishes to shut out any opposing views and to have their view as the only one taught.

BTW DON"T GO READ THE 'THREAD'

Hi

I obviously disagree with you BrianCalgary.

Anyone can put forward a scientific theory to challenge evolution; but they must do so based on scientific values; based on scientific evidence; not what is interpreted in scripture; this is religious dogma; it certainly is not science.

I do not have a problem with Creationists; they are entitled to their beliefs; they should not try to infect scientific debate with them though; particularly not where the education of children in science is concerned.

If parents want to educate their children in 'Creationism' they are free to do so; but outside the Biology Laboratory; which is a place for science; and scientific debate.

Mickeroo · 23-06-2009 10:18PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They are not in the position to inflict. As scientists will tell you, science is ever changing as new evidence is found. Evolution is a theory, it can not be replicated in a science lab and tested, it can only be drawn to by the interpretation of discovered evidence.

What the creationist would like to do is have the creationist view also taught in schools. Offering what is another viewpoint on the origins of man. The creationist would also go so far as to have native North American origins taught as that of other faiths as well.

it is however the evolutionist who wishes to shut out any opposing views and to have their view as the only one taught.

BTW DON"T GO READ THE 'THREAD'

Evolution is indeed a theory, thats why it and other theories like gravity are taught in schools and creationism is not.

Creationism is a belief only held by a (thankfully) small religious minority, it would make no sense to teach this in a school unless it was run and attended exclusively by creationists. You make the mistake of treating evolution as if it's a religion, its got absolutely nothing to do with religion or indeed atheism. Teach creationism in sunday school or a private denominational school, teach evolution in science class it's as simple as that.

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the age of the earth is whatever the worldwide geological community believes it to be. They are the people with the evidence, and the knowledge to interpret it.

And the prize for best post on the thread goes to...........

2Scoops · 23-06-2009 10:50PM

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the age of the earth is whatever the worldwide geological community believes it to be. They are the people with the evidence, and the knowledge to interpret it.

You don't have to take their word for it: they publish their evidence into the public domain. It's not so difficult that an ordinary person cannot understand it if they make a genuine effort to do so.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments