The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW · 10-02-2010 1:31pm

doctoremma wrote: »

How can "junk" DNA be junk if it's functional, which means that God dunnit....!!! :P

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526121.500-genomics-junking-the-junk-dna.html

in animals and plants, most DNA does not code for proteins. We now know that more than 98 per cent of our DNA is of the non-coding variety.

ISAW · 10-02-2010 1:33pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Dude she was being sarcastic, did you not read the disclaimer? Or any of her other posts. :eek:

Do you think I am impervious to sarcasm?
How cruel!
I'm melting I'm melting!

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 1:39pm

ISAW wrote: »

Do you think I am impervious to sarcasm?
How cruel!
I'm melting I'm melting!

Well you put a lot of work into debunking it, and by the tone it didn't seem you realised:

If you are going down that road then
Is God specifically causing earthquakes and tsunami?
Did God make Adam eat the forbidden fruit?

But if you did I apologise.

RepublicanEagle · 10-02-2010 5:44pm

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile.It is beyond us.However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,the only line Darwinists use to support their position when someone points out the gaps within Darwin's arguements that we share the same common ancestor as the apes and states why apes have not evolved to the same extent.Then the Darwinist/Atheist or whatever,(they seem to go hand in hand):Donly reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment".Ahem I smell BS.But also a rubbish and absurd scientific theory:cool:

oceanclub · 10-02-2010 5:47pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

the only line Darwinists use to support their position

Ah, the only line is it? So, Darwin's book "On The Origin of the Species" was one sentence long, as is Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker"?

P.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 5:48pm

J C wrote: »

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile.It is beyond us.However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,the only line Darwinists use to support their position when someone points out the gaps within Darwin's arguements that we share the same common ancestor as the apes and states why apes have not evolved to the same extent.Then the Darwinist/Atheist or whatever,(they seem to go hand in hand)only reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment".Ahem I smell BS.But also a rubbish and absurd scientific theory

I might have to call on them to help me!!!!:):D

Wow, JC that was fast, but I thought Chozo asked for them to bring something new to the table.

doctoremma · 10-02-2010 5:58pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Wow, JC that was fast, but I thought Chozo asked for them to bring something new to the table.

FFS, is there are scientifically-literate creationist out there?

oceanclub · 10-02-2010 6:00pm

doctoremma wrote: »

FFS, is there are scientifically-literate creationist out there?

It would be a mercy if even one of them could use punctuation properly. Perhaps that's against the Bible too.

P.

Sam Vimes · 10-02-2010 6:01pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile.It is beyond us.However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,the only line Darwinists use to support their position when someone points out the gaps within Darwin's arguements that we share the same common ancestor as the apes and states why apes have not evolved to the same extent.Then the Darwinist/Atheist or whatever,(they seem to go hand in hand):Donly reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment".Ahem I smell BS.But also a rubbish and absurd scientific theory:cool:

Oh dear. The missing links are not missing. Literally millions of intermediate fossils have been discovered but every time one is found creationists demand another one to fill the two gaps that now exist where there used to be one :rolleyes:

doctoremma · 10-02-2010 6:03pm

oceanclub wrote: »

It would be a mercy if even one of them could use punctuation properly. Perhaps that's against the Bible too.

P.

My first response had "Or even one who's literate in English" but thought it might be a little harsh... Second language/dyslexia etc

It's just the smilies, man.

:P:D:P:D = I'm unhinged.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 6:04pm

doctoremma wrote: »

FFS, is there are scientifically-literate creationist out there?

No YECs that I'm aware of.

Some creationists, but usually to a varied degree -
Old Universe : Adam and Eve first humans.
Old Universe : No evolution but common descent.
Old Universe : Evolution but not by NS.
Old Universe : Evolution, NS, but NS mightn't explain everything (as to how this constitutes creationism I don't know? Guess you and I are one here).
Old Universe : Evolution, NS, but some IC.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 6:15pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

.

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.

Indeed, but creation of life has nothing to do with evolution.

It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile.It is beyond us

Beyond our level of understanding? Maybe, but it seems like you've given up already. We should first try to find out whether it is or isn't, because presently we're not hitting any impenetrable barriers.

However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,

What you believe is irrelevant. Darwin made tonnes of mistakes, but he also got a hell of a lot right. It's the stuff that he got right we keep and the stuff that he got wrong we forget about.

Why apes have not evolved to the same extent.

Wut?

Donly reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment"

absurd scientific theory:cool:

You'd better get used to absurd scientific theories because reality is far more absurd than any fiction the human mind creates.

Sam Vimes · 10-02-2010 6:16pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Of course it isn't! Darwin made tonnes of mistakes, but he also got a hell of a lot right. It's the stuff that he got right we keep and the stuff that he got wrong we forget about.

You could almost say the theory has......evolved :pac:

oceanclub · 10-02-2010 6:22pm

What Creationists studiously ignore is the fact that Darwin himself was originally a very religious man. He went to college to become a clergyman, and while voyaging on the Beagle, quoted scripture a lot. His theory was based on him observing facts that led him to change his mind; he didn't just cherry-pick arguments and data that fit his preconceptions, while refusing to deal with anything ourside them.

Now that's real science.

P.

fatmammycat · 10-02-2010 6:23pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile.It is beyond us.However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,the only line Darwinists use to support their position when someone points out the gaps within Darwin's arguements that we share the same common ancestor as the apes and states why apes have not evolved to the same extent.Then the Darwinist/Atheist or whatever,(they seem to go hand in hand):Donly reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment".Ahem I smell BS.But also a rubbish and absurd scientific theory:cool:

Ah yes, trying to understand things is 'futile' especially since 'god done it' is such a terrific blanket. Seriously, try read at least something of this thread before you blunder in and embarrass yourself by making such a daft comment.

oceanclub · 10-02-2010 6:32pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/brand-cross-christian-science-teacher

"Science" teacher teaches creationism in class, says science can't be trusted, burns cross into pupil's forearm, gets Minutemen to chase family out of town. Just an everyday story of whacko fundies.

P.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 6:53pm

oceanclub wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/brand-cross-christian-science-teacher

"Science" teacher teaches creationism in class, says science can't be trusted, burns cross into pupil's forearm, gets Minutemen to chase family out of town. Just an everyday story of whacko fundies.

P.

The teacher allied himself with a militant rightwing group, the Minutemen, and held a rally in Mount Vernon's town square at which he announced he had been sacked for refusing to remove a Bible from his desk.

Oh America what's happening to you? Once you were at the centre of scientific thought and research now you are losing that ground to China. We need you to sort this mess out before China distorts science to suit its own agenda.

J C · 10-02-2010 7:34pm

doctoremma wrote: »

Are you learning?

...oh yes, Emma, I am learning all the time!!!:)

... it's called 'continuous learning'.:D

J C · 10-02-2010 7:42pm

doctoremma wrote: »

Really? That will be why, since you were called on your qualifications, you've studiously avoided engaging with me on any scientific level.* Instead, you choose to mock, contradict and jitterbug crazily away, eyes rolling and inane grins ahoy.

JC, you have failed to persuade anyone that you're a scientist (and I'm not limiting that description to any kind of formal qualification, even just an indication that you have read a few papers or the odd book might be helpful, after all, this seems to be an area of interest to you). Furthermore, I'm not even convinced that:
1. you're an adult
2. in possession of a sane mind.

It is simply impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you - you're like a child who spouts "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" over and over and over.

You are the worst advertisement for creation "science" I have ever seen. And I never thought I'd ever say that sentence.

*Not just from me but from anyone who tries to discuss anything of scientific value.

...and I thought we were getting on so well !!!!:)

...what would you consider to be a 'good' advertisement for Creation Science?

Genghiz Cohen · 10-02-2010 7:52pm

J C wrote: »

...what would you consider to be a 'good' advertisement for Creation Science?

A competent scientist proposing a competent theory, backed up by evidence, of course.

Just like regular science.

J C · 10-02-2010 8:30pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Dude she was being sarcastic, did you not read the disclaimer? Or any of her other posts. :eek:

...an Evolutionist would NEVER be sarcastic ... WOULD they???:rolleyes::):D

Genghiz Cohen · 10-02-2010 8:39pm

J C wrote: »

...an Evolutionist would NEVER be sarcastic ... WOULD they???:rolleyes::):D

NO OF COURSE NOT!
Now let's all go and appreciate the valid points J C is putting across. Because they are valid. And Points. And they have been put across by J C.

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 8:53pm

Is there a way to stop smileys being rendered? My eyes hurt from all the smiliness.

equivariant · 10-02-2010 8:53pm

equivariant wrote: »

However, seeing as you asked for one, here is a paper debunking the concept of CSI.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

I have repeatedly asked you to answer the criticisms there (at least three previous times on this thread) and you have just ignored the issue. Well, since you asked for a paper to review, you can't really ignore it now, can you?

So lets have your review then

Yet again, for the fourth time now, J C has completely refused to say anything about a paper that comprehensively debunks CSI (his key concept). You asked for a paper to review on CSI. Lets have your review.

I suspect that you do not have the ability, expertise or qualifications required to understand a real scientific paper, but I would enjoy seeing you embarass yourself further by attempting to do so. Of course it is far more likely that you will run away from the issue and continue to spout nonsense about having defeated your opponents on this thread.

Interestingly, in the appendix of this article the authors present a correct formulation of some interesting ideas concerning complexity. In these three pages there is more genuine scientific reasoning than in the entire YEC literature.

J C · 10-02-2010 9:02pm

doctoremma wrote: »

FFS, is there are scientifically-literate creationist out there?

doctoremma wrote:

My first response had "Or even one who's literate in English" but thought it might be a little harsh... Second language/dyslexia etc

... I wouldn't shout too loudly about dyslexia ... if I were YOU, Emma!!!!:)

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:03pm

J C wrote: »

... I wouldn't shout too loudly about dyslexia ... if I were YOU!!!!:)

Think that was a play on the Republican's woeful punctuation.;)
(More than likely a genuine typo, though

)
Now are you going to help out equivariant?

J C · 10-02-2010 9:09pm

monosharp wrote: »

Your constant and ignorant labeling of people as 'Evolutionist' or 'creationist' is one of the most ignorant things I have ever experienced.

...you guys are pretty good at (erroneously) 'labelling' people yourselves ...

... also, unlike you guys, I don't advocate crass job discrimination based on labels!!!!!

J C · 10-02-2010 9:13pm

monosharp wrote: »

You ask for a real biological peer reviewed paper and then you sprout creationist nonsense as the topic ? Would it surprise you to learn that real biologists don't write about nonsense in their papers ?:pac::P:confused:

...some of the Evolutionist ones undoubtedly DO!!!:)

wolfsbane · 10-02-2010 9:27pm

J C wrote: »

... the point that I was making is that debate within science is a healthy thing ...
... both the debate between materialists on the 'climate change' issue and the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists on the 'origins issue' are good examples of healthy debate among scientists!!!!:)

...everybody learns ... science makes progress and society benefits from such exercises.:)

Yes, honest enquirers will welcome debate. In both camps and across camps.

Those with the most to hide/most to gain will not.

Anyway, here's a couple of interesting sites I picked up in my absence:
The Skeptical Environmentalist
http://everything2.com/title/The+Skeptical+Environmentalist

A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/call-to-truth/

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:36pm

Dam it wolfy, you just love wrapping yourself in blankets with pseudo science.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments