The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Zombrex · 09-07-2012 07:51PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks. Opposing scientists point out the weakness or invalidity of such a prediction:

Well no actually if you read them they don't. They point out that this does not prove evolution as opposed to some other idea (ie you can't say God didn't do this). Great, it isn't trying to prove evolution. As we have already discussed science does not attempt to prove anything true.

Again the predictions of the model are there and the observations are there. As Gould points out these are facts. They are not open to interpretation or personal bias. Evolution predicted that humans would have a deactivated Vit C gene. We do. The model made a successful prediction. There is no dispute there. These two articles attempt to say that this is not enough to prove evolution is true and that these genes could have got there by some other cause (ie God did it). Since you can never demonstrate God didn't do it that is some what of a moot point. God could have done anything.

wolfsbane · 11-07-2012 06:35PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no actually if you read them they don't. They point out that this does not prove evolution as opposed to some other idea (ie you can't say God didn't do this). Great, it isn't trying to prove evolution. As we have already discussed science does not attempt to prove anything true.

Again the predictions of the model are there and the observations are there. As Gould points out these are facts. They are not open to interpretation or personal bias. Evolution predicted that humans would have a deactivated Vit C gene. We do. The model made a successful prediction. There is no dispute there. These two articles attempt to say that this is not enough to prove evolution is true and that these genes could have got there by some other cause (ie God did it). Since you can never demonstrate God didn't do it that is some what of a moot point. God could have done anything.

They point out that the 'successful prediction' is open to other explanations than evolution - a mature creation/intelligent-designed creation could have a function common to these several species being mutated by a virus able to cross species, for example. Calling that 'God did it' is ignoring the physical/chemical processes that operated from the moment of Creation to the biosphere we presently have.

And the knowledge we now have of what were previously claimed as 'junk-DNA' shows how weak are such evolutionary supports.

*****************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Zombrex · 13-07-2012 06:07PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

They point out that the 'successful prediction' is open to other explanations than evolution

As explained there are no "interpretations". There are models, that either match predictions or don't match predictions. Evolution is one such model. You can certainly have others but so far Creationists have failed to come up with a model that matches even a tiny percentage of the number of observations Neo-Darwinian evolution does. Strangely this doesn't seem to bother them all that much, which is odd considering how critical they are of the things the evolution model cannot explain.

wolfsbane wrote: »

a mature creation/intelligent-designed creation could have a function common to these several species being mutated by a virus able to cross species, for example.

Ok, show me the model explaining how this works and the predictions this model makes that I can match against observations.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Calling that 'God did it' is ignoring the physical/chemical processes that operated from the moment of Creation to the biosphere we presently have.

And these processes are detailed in which scientific model?

wolfsbane wrote: »

And the knowledge we now have of what were previously claimed as 'junk-DNA' shows how weak are such evolutionary supports.

They do?

wolfsbane · 15-07-2012 06:06PM

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They point out that the 'successful prediction' is open to other explanations than evolution
As explained there are no "interpretations". There are models, that either match predictions or don't match predictions.

Sure, but that says nothing about the worth of the prediction. I take it you would not be impressed if I point out that the Creation model predicts sedimentary deposits will be found at all altitudes, miles high even (since it asserts all the world was covered by the Flood). You have an alterative explanation for the fact that such deposits have been found.

Evolution is one such model. You can certainly have others but so far Creationists have failed to come up with a model that matches even a tiny percentage of the number of observations Neo-Darwinian evolution does. Strangely this doesn't seem to bother them all that much, which is odd considering how critical they are of the things the evolution model cannot explain.

I’ve not seen any such great numbers of Evolutionary Predictions. I’m aware of the 29 which TrueOrigins have replied to. Perhaps you can link a list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
a mature creation/intelligent-designed creation could have a function common to these several species being mutated by a virus able to cross species, for example.
Ok, show me the model explaining how this works and the predictions this model makes that I can match against observations.

You deny that a virus can cause genetic mutations? Or that a virus can cross between man and ‘other’ apes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Calling that 'God did it' is ignoring the physical/chemical processes that operated from the moment of Creation to the biosphere we presently have.
And these processes are detailed in which scientific model?

Try this:
Toward an Accurate Model of Variation in DNA
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/accurate-model-variation-dna

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And the knowledge we now have of what were previously claimed as 'junk-DNA' shows how weak are such evolutionary supports.
They do?

See this:
‘Junk’ DNA: Evolutionary Discards or God’s Tools?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n2/junk-dna

********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Zombrex · 17-07-2012 09:57AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zombrex said:

Sure, but that says nothing about the worth of the prediction.

What do you mean? The predictions "worth" is that it was accurate or it wasn't. If it does not match observation it is worthless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I take it you would not be impressed if I point out that the Creation model predicts sedimentary deposits will be found at all altitudes, miles high even (since it asserts all the world was covered by the Flood).

Creationist do not predict sedimentary deposits will be fond at all altitudes because they do not have a model that produces that as an output. Or to put it another way Creationists have no idea how the flood did this (which isn't surprising since they have no idea what the flood was actually like). What Creationists have done is seen the evidence that sedimentary deposits have been found at all altitudes and said that their flood must have done this, but they don't know how. This is the same as "predicting" speciation after the ark, Creationists state speciation must have happened but don't know how.

It is not a prediction unless you are a) actually predicting something that has not yet been studied or b) have a process that actually produces the prediction as an output, not simply stating this must have happened but we don't know how.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have an alterative explanation for the fact that such deposits have been found.

Show me the model where this is the output.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I’ve not seen any such great numbers of Evolutionary Predictions. I’m aware of the 29 which TrueOrigins have replied to. Perhaps you can link a list?

I'm unaware of a list of everything that has been discovered in biology in the last 150 years, but if I find one I'll let you know :P

wolfsbane wrote: »

You deny that a virus can cause genetic mutations? Or that a virus can cross between man and ‘other’ apes?

No?

But you don understand I hope that there is a bit more to science than simply proposing an alternative. You have to support this. Can you show me the evidence that this (and presumably all) genetic traits in humans were produces by a virus causing genetic mutation?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try this:
Toward an Accurate Model of Variation in DNA
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/accurate-model-variation-dna

That isn't a scientific model?

wolfsbane wrote: »

See this:
‘Junk’ DNA: Evolutionary Discards or God’s Tools?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n2/junk-dna

Neither is that.

cycnus · 17-07-2012 10:31AM

Can I suggest that you are all wasting your time? A creationist view is based on faith, and you cannot argue with faith using facts. Believe me I have tried. If people want to spend their lives believing we were created by a god, let them off. They are already wasting their time, do not let them waste yours. Creationists are the ultimate hypocrites because they try to use science to disprove science, and take misinterpretations of the bible to suggest that the bible believed the world was a sphere, floating in outerspace, when really it implies It was a flat mass floating in nothingness. I have studied the bible, and it is so full of contradictions, it is incredibly foolish to use it as any basis for belief. It is simply a set of rules to control tribes thousands of years ago.

God exists entirely within the fringes of science, and these are rapidly closing in at the edges. Every time you provide them with a connection, they just see 2 more missing links.
Quoting laws of thermodynamics to disprove modern science sounds incredibly stupid. Its like using boards to complain about forums... How ironic that you claim the second law of thermodynamics is broken by the theory of evolution, yet you dont see how a God, actually breaks the laws of physics. The laws of physics have never been broken. There is no god.

Heres something for you to ponder...

1.
For something to create our universe, it must be external to our universe, because it cannot create itself. So, if god created the universe, he is outside the universe, therefore, he/she/it does not exist in our universe. Therefore, cannot act within our universe. Therefore could not have influenced anyone. Who created god? God has no beginning and no end... wait! Why cant that rule apply to the universe?

2.
Jesus/God knew his words would be twisted and corrupted, and millions would die in his name, children raped, homosexuals mistreated, women seen as inferior. Why did he not do something to correct this? (because we would not have free will... bull****)

3.
How come you believe the bible to be the divine inspired word of god, yet you dont follow it exactly. Im sure you trim your beards, cut your hair at the side of your heads, have long hair, have tattoos, work on the sabbath, and dont stone people to death for adultery, eat seafood and pigs, to name but a few ridiculous rules . The fact is, if it was written with gods influence it needs to be followed to the letter. You cant decide to take all the best bits and ignore the rest.

4.
Read the goddamn bible from cover to cover, like i did, (im on my third read through) and see just how rediculous it sounds.

5.
If you want to believe something, fine, if you dont, fine, but respect peoples rights to believe or not believe whatever they want. Intolerance of anyone is not very christian, and not very nice. But personally, I cannot believe that we are having this discussion in the 21st century.

6.
Why would god create the massive infinite expanse that is the universe? Why not just create the earth floating in nothingness, as the old testament suggests? Why all the other billions of planets? (because if he didnt we would know he exisited and wouldnt have freewill... bull****) "And god created saturn, and it was good, and he liked it, so he put a ring on it..."

7.If you know you are right, why do you have to prove it?

Zombrex · 17-07-2012 11:22AM

cycnus wrote: »

Can I suggest that you are all wasting your time? A creationist view is based on faith, and you cannot argue with faith using facts.

I don't really expect Wolfsbane to change his view on Creationism, as you say it is based on religious conviction and I'm pretty sure I've had conversations with him where he has admitted that nothing will change his mind because if modern scientific understanding is correct in relation to biology and physics it would mean, to him, the Bible is wrong and that he simply cannot accept that as possible based on his experiences of God.

I would be happy if he simply came away from this understanding science properly. At the moment he has a very inaccurate view of science, believing it to be based on opinion interpretation and conjecture, the bias and whims of individual scientists. Whether he agrees with any particular scientific theory or not the simple fact is that his notion of what science is is demonstratively incorrect.

tommy2bad · 17-07-2012 12:05PM

Originally Posted by cycnus
Read the goddamn bible from cover to cover, like i did, (im on my third read through) and see just how rediculous it sounds.

You know you sound just as bad as Wolfsbane, both literalistic and closed minded.

'goddamn bible' he,he, good one

Masteroid · 18-07-2012 02:10AM

When did God change His mind?

Genesis 8:20-22

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even thoughURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+8&version=NIV#fen-NIV-205a"][COLOR=#0000ff]a[/COLOR][/URL every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

What did God mean by 'Never again' and 'will never cease' and how can the above passage be recociled with the book of Revelations?

dvae · 18-07-2012 08:32AM

Masteroid wrote: »

What did God mean by 'Never again' and 'will never cease' ?

God has no plan for this world to end. it will "never cease".
Despite all the pollution and corruption man inflicts on himself
and this earth it will never cease to be.

Masteroid · 18-07-2012 11:32PM

dvae wrote: »

God has no plan for this world to end. it will "never cease".
Despite all the pollution and corruption man inflicts on himself
and this earth it will never cease to be.

Could you be less cryptic please?

"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans..."

Is there some legal interpretation of that phrase that renders the events depicted by the book of Revelation as something other than 'a curse on the ground because of humans'?

"And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
"

seems to run contradictory to the fate outlined for all the inhabitants of the sea.

Was God deliberately misleading Noah or does 'never again' represent only a certain period of time?

Perhaps God was saying 'not in Noah's lifetime' in a verbal sleight of hand.

Zombrex · 18-07-2012 11:34PM

dvae wrote: »

God has no plan for this world to end. it will "never cease".
Despite all the pollution and corruption man inflicts on himself
and this earth it will never cease to be.

The sun might have something to say about that in a few billions years.

wolfsbane · 21-07-2012 06:13PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Creationist do not predict sedimentary deposits will be fond at all altitudes because they do not have a model that produces that as an output. Or to put it another way Creationists have no idea how the flood did this (which isn't surprising since they have no idea what the flood was actually like). What Creationists have done is seen the evidence that sedimentary deposits have been found at all altitudes and said that their flood must have done this, but they don't know how. This is the same as "predicting" speciation after the ark, Creationists state speciation must have happened but don't know how.

It is not a prediction unless you are a) actually predicting something that has not yet been studied or b) have a process that actually produces the prediction as an output, not simply stating this must have happened but we don't know how.

Try this:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
http://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood-model/

**********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Zombrex · 31-07-2012 12:25PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try this:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
http://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood-model/

That isn't a scientific paper either. Before your throw your hands up let me explain...

You can tell straight away by how many times the authors use the term "We believe" before listing off their notions of what they think might have happened. This is a big no no when writing a scientific paper, precisely because it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is the facts and theory, things that are independent to opinion. Or to put it another way, how do I verify independently to the personal opinions of the authors of the paper the opinions of the authors of the paper (remember science is not about the personal opinions of the scientists)?

Quick Google search

Scientific papers are meant to only include scientific facts. The word "I" often is used to indicate that something is your personal views, rather than what can be proven scientifically. In scientific papers, the facts are important, not the people. By using the word "I", you put yourself, instead of your results, in focus.

and

A scientific paper should focus on the data, not on your actions. If you find yourself using the word "I", you should question whether you are following this guideline. The paper should not tell the story of how you collected the data and figured out the answer; it should explain the hypothesis, the methods used to test that hypothesis and the results of those tests.

Now look at the paper you linked to. Practically every assertion is opinion

We believe that the pre-Flood earth was differentiated into a core, mantle, and crust, very much as it is today.
...
We believe that there was a signiﬁcant thickness of all types of sediments already available on the earth by the time of the Flood
...
We believe that substantial quantities of very ﬁne detrital carbonate sediment existed in the pre-Flood oceans.
...
We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins
...
We believe that this led to a thermal runaway instability which allowed for meters-per-second subduction, as postulated and modeled by Baumgardner (1987, 1990a).

The entire paper is their opinion on what they think might have happened. As I've spend the last couple of pages explaining this is irrelevant from a scientific position. I don't care what they think happened, I care what they can model and whether their models match observation. I care about this because I want to be able to use the same methods they used and see if I come up with the same results. If it is their personal assessment of what they think happened I cannot do this even if they are right.

This isn't the only issue with the paper of course. The biggest issue, the smoking gun, is that you suffer through the whole unscientific mess and get to the end you will discover the authors admitting that they haven't matched any of their predictions to observations, or explained the experiments required to do so. They simply leave that for "Further Research"

The Flood model presented here suggests a substantial number of research projects for youngearth creationists.
...
In addition to testing claims of the model, there are a number of other studies which could help us expand and reﬁne the model.

So they haven't tested the claims of the model? What?

That is quite ridiculous statement for these "scientists" to make. They have basically presented a guess as to what they think happened (as demonstrated by the consistent use of "We believe"). That in itself is not an issue, but a guess in science is an hypothesis, not a theory. It is not a model. You don't simply throw it over to other scientists and say "Hey guys, you make this work" I couldn't find a description in that paper about how I wold go about testing their model, probably because the authors themselves haven't figured out how they would test their own model (which means it is not a scientific model, since a scientific model must be testable)

Unless of course you are a creationist, and you already know it must be true. Then it is the job of others to make it work. :pac:

I appreciate at this stage you are probably getting frustrated as you keep giving me links and I keep rejecting them. Given that I suspect you aren't really sure what you are looking for in the first place this will probably come across as me just making up excuses for rejecting these.

But like I said earlier science is science whether you believe in Creationism or not. Even if you think the world is 6000 years old the methodology of science is objectively verifiable, as is what a true scientific paper is. It is not the opinion of a Creationist or an evolutionist if a paper is scientific or not. And it is important you understand that.

The web if full of resources detailing how to write a scientific paper and what is required of a scientific paper, most of them easy to read and getting straight to the point. I mentioned some the guidelines above, such as avoiding personal opinion (We believe...)

I know it is easy to dismiss those who say Creationism isn't science, particularly when you are not familiar with scientific methodology. The Creationists are on your side and you trust them so surely they must be right, they must be doing science properly.

But again this dismissal is not simply plucked out of thin air. Creationism isn't science because Creationists don't do science. This is demonstrable, and your paper is a good example, independently to whether you actually think any of it is true or not.

Again whether anything they actually said in the paper is true or not, the fact that it is unscientific is verifiably true. You can religiously believe every single word they said about the Flood and still recognize that it is not a scientific paper, it does not present a scientific model and is of no use to other scientists.

J C · 28-08-2012 06:44PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Quick Google search

Scientific papers are meant to only include scientific facts. The word "I" often is used to indicate that something is your personal views, rather than what can be proven scientifically. In scientific papers, the facts are important, not the people. By using the word "I", you put yourself, instead of your results, in focus.

and

A scientific paper should focus on the data, not on your actions. If you find yourself using the word "I", you should question whether you are following this guideline. The paper should not tell the story of how you collected the data and figured out the answer; it should explain the hypothesis, the methods used to test that hypothesis and the results of those tests.

... so what 'scientific facts' support the spontaneous non-intelligently directed generation of the Complex Specified Functional Information found in living organisms?
... and what 'methods' are used to test the hypothesis that non-intelligently directed processes can produce Complex Specified Functional Information - such as is found in Human Language ... and in the 'language of life' in DNA?

... your Faith in Materialism tells you to believe that life 'sprung into existence' and 'developed from Pondkind into Mankind' using non-intelligently directed processes.

... my science demonstrates that an intelligence / intelligences of a greater magnitude to the CFSI present in life, is scientifically required to cause living organisms to come into existence, in the first instance ... and my Christian Faith tells me to believe that the 'Intelligence' was the Triune God.

I guess everyone's entitled to their own cherished beliefs!!!

You're perfectly entitled to your beliefs ...
... and I hope that you accept that I'm entitled to mine.:)

The time is short ... the harvest is great ... and the labourers are few.

With Christian love and respect to you all.
J C

Zombrex · 28-08-2012 07:48PM

J C wrote: »

... so what 'scientific facts' support the spontaneous non-intelligently directed generation of the Complex Specified Functional Information found in living organisms?
... and what 'methods' are used to test the hypothesis that non-intelligently directed processes can produce Complex Specified Functional Information - such as is found in Human Language ... and in the 'language of life' in DNA?

... your Faith in Materialism tells you to believe that life 'sprung into existence' and 'developed from Pondkind into Mankind' using non-intelligently directed processes.

... my science demonstrates that an intelligence / intelligences of a greater magnitude to the CFSI present in life, is scientifically required to cause living organisms to come into existence, in the first instance ... and my Christian Faith tells me to believe that the 'Intelligence' was the Triune God.

I guess everyone's entitled to their own cherished beliefs!!!

You're perfectly entitled to your beliefs ...
... and I hope that you accept that I'm entitled to mine.:)

The time is short ... the harvest is great ... and the labourers are few.

With Christian love and respect to you all.
J C

As I've already explained to you before JC I don't engage with self confessed trolls pretending to be Christians. Further posts by you will simply be referred back to this post.

J C · 28-08-2012 08:11PM

Zombrex wrote: »

As I've already explained to you before JC I don't engage with self confessed trolls pretending to be Christians. Further posts by you will simply be referred back to this post.

The best 'cop out' I've seen in a while!!!:D

... and I'm not a troll ... self-confessed or otherwise ...
... and I'm a Saved Christian that is proud to proclaim Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

... you seem to have the same problem with the clear evidence for my integrity and Christianity ... as you do with the overwhelming evidence for the Intelligent Design of all of God's Creation.

The truth will set you free ... please stop resisting it.:)

J C · 30-09-2012 03:16PM

A few 'difficult' i.e. impossible to answer questions for Evolutionists who believe that there is a naturalistic origin for life and it's diversity.

You can read all about it here, if you prefer
http://creation.com/15-questions

shizz · 30-09-2012 03:17PM

J C wrote: »

Ah. I see JC has risen from the dead once again.

J C · 30-09-2012 03:32PM

shizz wrote: »

Ah. I see JC has risen from the dead once again.

I was only providing a useful summary ... of the thread!!

Strange ... but true ... the theory of Evolution starts with the spelling of the word LOVE reversed EVOL-ution !!!
... but I love you ... even if evolution may not allow you to love yourself!!!:):D:eek:

shizz · 30-09-2012 03:33PM

J C wrote: »

Strange ... but true ... the theory of Evolution starts with the spelling of the word LOVE reversed EVOL-ution !!!
... but I love you ... even if evolution may not allow you to love yourself!!!:):D:eek:

I think I might get sick...

J C · 30-09-2012 03:36PM

shizz wrote: »

I think I might get sick...

I know the feeling ... I used to be an Evolutionist myself.:)

... and I thought I was the product of the blind forces of nature ... rather than a much loved specially created child of God.

Can I reassure you that there is life after evolution and Jesus loves you very much ... and wants to Save you ... and so do I.

shizz · 30-09-2012 03:47PM

J C wrote: »

I know the feeling ... I used to be an Evolutionist myself.:)

... and I thought I was the product of the blind forces of nature ... rather than a much loved specially created child of God.

Can I reassure you that there is life after evolution and Jesus loves you very much ... and wants to Save you ... and so do I.

I think that video you posted is in itself evidence against "intelligent Design". Horrendously produced.

J C · 30-09-2012 03:56PM

shizz wrote: »

I think that video you posted is in itself evidence against "intelligent Design". Horrendously produced.

I suppose it's progress ... that you have accepted the reality of ID !!!:)
... and Human attempts at Intelligent Design are always imperfect ... but such is life ... after the Fall.

Sarky · 30-09-2012 03:57PM

Ugh, are you still peddling shoddy videos, misrepresented information and outright lies?

J C · 30-09-2012 04:00PM

Sarky wrote: »

Ugh, are you still peddling shoddy videos, misrepresented information and outright lies?

... the truth will set you free ... but you need to stop denying it!!!

shizz · 30-09-2012 04:02PM

J C wrote: »

I suppose it's progress ... that you have accepted the reality of ID !!!:)
... and Human attempts at Intelligent Design are always imperfect ... but such is life ... after the Fall.

Well then god must be human considering some of his designs.

J C · 30-09-2012 04:07PM

shizz wrote: »

Well then god must be human considering some of his designs.

Any flaws are due to the effect of Human actions on His perfect designs ... at the Fall ... and since.

... and your are (partially) correct that God is Human ... He is truly God and truly Man.:)

J C · 30-09-2012 05:15PM

Sarky wrote: »

Ugh, are you still peddling shoddy videos, misrepresented information and outright lies?

Agnostics are now starting to see the scientific and philosophical merits of ID ... how soon will it be that some Atheists will follow?
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2011/03/creationism-is-biblical-intelligent-design-is-agnostic.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/what_intelligent_design_offers045251.html

... please stop depriving yourself of the fruits of this cutting edge science, Sarky.:)

AtomicHorror · 06-10-2012 07:12PM

J C wrote: »

... please stop depriving yourself of the fruits of this cutting edge science, Sarky.:)

Out of interest, what would those fruits be? What are we able to do, technologically, with the knowledge gained from ID, that we cannot do with knowledge gained from evolutionary theory? If we accept ID, what can we do that we weren't able to do before?

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments