The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Aquarius34 · 17-01-2013 10:44PM

J C wrote: »

Denial is a terrible thing.:)

Common sense is what will sort that out.

J C · 17-01-2013 11:00PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Common sense is what will sort that out.

I agree ... and common sense (and science) tells us that life doesn't spontaneously generate ... nor can it spontaneously evolve from pondkind to mankind.

Aquarius34 · 17-01-2013 11:15PM

J C wrote: »

I agree ... and common sense (and science) tells us that life doesn't spontaneously generate ... nor can it spontaneously evolve from pondkind to mankind.

Common sense is all that is needed, hense "common" - sense -. It's using all your senses.

Some people believe it's said to be "superpower"

J C · 17-01-2013 11:21PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Common sense is all that is needed, hense "common" - sense -. It's using all your senses.

Exactly ... and our physical senses (and science) tells us that life doesn't spontaneously generate ... nor can it spontaneously evolve from pondkind to mankind.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Some people believe it's said to be "superpower"

Common sense is a Human attribute ... so, I agree that it isn't a 'superpower'.

Aquarius34 · 17-01-2013 11:49PM

J C wrote: »

Exactly ... and our physical senses (and science) tells us that life doesn't spontaneously generate ... nor can it spontaneously evolve from pondkind to mankind.

Common sense is a Human attribute ... so, I agree that it isn't a 'superpower'.

You don't need science to tell you anything and you sure don't need a scientist to tell you what's real. What you are born with is common sense, and that ability is something we lose because of been dependent on "science"

J C · 18-01-2013 12:06AM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You don't need science to tell you anything and you sure don't need a scientist to tell you what's real. What you are born with is common sense, and that ability is something we lose because of been dependent on "science"

Science undoubtedly has its place and has provided many benefits that we all enjoy.
Common sense, unfortunately, isn't that common at all ... and is practically non-existent in some people ... who shall be nameless ... to avoid their embarrassment.:)

Aquarius34 · 18-01-2013 12:13AM

J C wrote: »

Science undoubtedly has its place and has provided many benefits that we all enjoy.
Common sense, unfortunately, isn't that common at all ... and is practically non-existent in some people ... who shall be nameless ... to avoid their embarrassment.:)

Unfortunately that's the problem and science hasn't shown to correct that problem. That is why we have to let go science and start waking up to reality. Consciousness has been locked into a time warp here and we have been living in the dark ages for ions. Now it is the time to "wake up" and reconnect back to our true state of being. Which is to be in the present moment. It is to understand the only truth that we are energy and we exist beyond time, space and the physical world. We are waking up from this bad dream or nightmare if you want to call it that. Now will be the time to wake up from this prison and start creating our own reality by instant manifestation.

It's already starting to happen and this process will become more natural as we keep moving into alignment.

Religion, science and the old world cannot exist in higher states of consciousness. Religion, Science, Politics are all man made structures designed to exist in the physical matrix of this world and within the mind of a man who is not free.

The Concrete Doctor · 18-01-2013 12:49AM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Unfortunately that's the problem and science hasn't shown to correct that problem. That is why we have to let go science and start waking up to reality. Consciousness has been locked into a time warp here and we have been living in the dark ages for ions. Now it is the time to "wake up" and reconnect back to our true state of being. Which is to be in the present moment. It is to understand the only truth that we are energy and we exist beyond time, space and the physical world. We are waking up from this bad dream or nightmare if you want to call it that. Now will be the time to wake up from this prison and start creating our own reality by instant manifestation.

It's already starting to happen and this process will become more natural as we keep moving into alignment.

Religion, science and the old world cannot exist in higher states of consciousness. Religion, Science, Politics are all man made structures designed to exist in the physical matrix of this world and within the mind of a man who is not free.

Wow! JC has the right initials, but you are the real deal. I love your music by the way, and your sisters are lovely too!

J C · 18-01-2013 10:42PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Religion, science and the old world cannot exist in higher states of consciousness.

... so 'EA' AKA Satan is a 'New Ager'!!!

... and I have yet to meet anybody in this so-called 'higher state of consciousness' ... other than a few hippies in the sixties who were so 'out of it' that they couldn't string two coherent words together.

Anyway moving rapidly back onto topic ... here is what Prof Dawkins has to say about Christian Theologians who believe in Evolution ... he calls them 'deluded'!!!!
... and he says that there "really is a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity".

I just knew that I would eventually agree with that eminent man about something!!!:D

Frank Bullitt · 18-01-2013 11:09PM

J C wrote: »

... so 'EA' AKA Satan is a 'New Ager'!!!

... and I have yet to meet anybody in this so-called 'higher state of consciousness' ... other than a few hippies in the sixties who were so 'out of it' that they couldn't string two coherent words together.

Anyway moving rapidly back onto topic ... here is what Prof Dawkins has to say about Christian Theologians who believe in Evolution ... he calls them 'deluded'!!!!
... and he says that there "really is is a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity".

I just knew that I would eventually agree with that eminent man about something!!!:D

Yet he would never agree with you about anything!

J C · 18-01-2013 11:35PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Yet he would never agree with you about anything!

He agrees with me on the fact that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity!!!!

... and who knows, perhaps many other things as well.:)

He is a man that I admire for his incisive wit and excellent 'turn of phrase'.
... and his books are a great read.

tommy2bad · 19-01-2013 12:53AM

J C wrote: »

He agrees with me on the fact that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity!!!!

... and who knows, perhaps many other things as well.:)

He is a man that I admire for his incisive wit and excellent 'turn of phrase'.
... and his books are a great read.

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible with science as Dawkin's defines Christianity. The trouble is that Dawkins version of Christianity is wrong. As is any version that denies truth.

J C · 19-01-2013 01:00AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible with science as Dawkin's defines Christianity. The trouble is that Dawkins version of Christianity is wrong. As is any version that denies truth.

Prof Dawkins (correctly) argues that if Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... then God isn't required to produce life ... and therefore the basis for the monotheistic Faiths (an omnipotent transcendent Creator God) is destroyed.

The only weakness in his argument is the fact that Spontaneous Evolution is an impossibility ... and therefore didn't occur.

Gumbi · 19-01-2013 01:54AM

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins (correctly) argues that if Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... then God isn't required to produce life ... and therefore the basis for the monotheistic Faiths (an omnipotent transcendent Creator God) is destroyed.

The only weakness in his argument is the fact that Spontaneous Evolution is an impossibility ... and therefore didn't occur.

Isn't "Spontaneous Evolution" creationist jargon? In Dawkin's case, I'm pretty sure it's more to do with the implication of evolution , that is, something simpler becoming something more complex.

J C · 19-01-2013 10:14AM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Prof Dawkins (correctly) argues that if Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... then God isn't required to produce life ... and therefore the basis for the monotheistic Faiths (an omnipotent transcendent Creator God) is destroyed.

The only weakness in his argument is the fact that Spontaneous Evolution is an impossibility ... and therefore didn't occur.

Gumbi
Isn't "Spontaneous Evolution" creationist jargon? In Dawkin's case, I'm pretty sure it's more to do with the implication of evolution , that is, something simpler becoming something more complex.

That is the weakness in Evolution that I speak of ... simple systems don't become functionally more complex without an input of intelligence.

... and there isn't even one clearcut example of an increase in genetic information ... which is a requirement (trillions of times) if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution did actually occur.

Here is an interesting video (from an ID point of view) ... which illustrates the serious problems with Theistic Evolution.

It's an hour long ... and it is riveting (and cutting edge) stuff.

J C · 19-01-2013 10:16AM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Now will be the time to wake up from this prison and start creating our own reality by instant manifestation.

It's already starting to happen and this process will become more natural as we keep moving into alignment.

What do you mean?

Examples please.

The Concrete Doctor · 20-01-2013 04:00PM

J C wrote: »

... so 'EA' AKA Satan is a 'New Ager'!!!

... and I have yet to meet anybody in this so-called 'higher state of consciousness' ... other than a few hippies in the sixties who were so 'out of it' that they couldn't string two coherent words together.

Anyway moving rapidly back onto topic ... here is what Prof Dawkins has to say about Christian Theologians who believe in Evolution ... he calls them 'deluded'!!!!
... and he says that there "really is a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity". !!!:D

JC this is one of the more important posts you have given us. You speak in a disparaging way about evolution, using terms like "pondkind" and "spontaneous evolution". You take facts and twist them slightly to suit your cause.
Here we have a great example of what way you present your argument. One of the formost proponents of evolution is Richard Dawkins. Yet here, you have trolled up an out of context statement, which makes it appear that Mr Dawkins agrees with your view of creation.
For me JC, doing this loses you the argument.

J C · 20-01-2013 06:41PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C

... and I have yet to meet anybody in this so-called 'higher state of consciousness' ... other than a few hippies in the sixties who were so 'out of it' that they couldn't string two coherent words together.

Anyway moving rapidly back onto topic ... here is what Prof Dawkins has to say about Christian Theologians who believe in Evolution ... he calls them 'deluded'!!!!
... and he says that there "really is a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity". !!!:D

The Concrete Doctor

JC this is one of the more important posts you have given us. You speak in a disparaging way about evolution, using terms like "pondkind" and "spontaneous evolution". You take facts and twist them slightly to suit your cause.
Here we have a great example of what way you present your argument. One of the formost proponents of evolution is Richard Dawkins. Yet here, you have trolled up an out of context statement, which makes it appear that Mr Dawkins agrees with your view of creation.

I didn't do any such thing ... I merely pointed out that Prof Dawkins and I agree that there is a deep incompatibility between neo-Darwinian Evolution and Christianity.
No misrepresentation, no trolling ... just the fact that I agree completely with Prof Dawkins on this point ... nothing more, nothing less.
I am an open-minded person who doesn't oppose everything somebody says with whom I disagree on an important issue ... I agree where I agree with them ... and I disagree where I disagree with them.

J C · 20-01-2013 06:55PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

You speak in a disparaging way about evolution, using terms like "pondkind" and "spontaneous evolution".

What is disparaging about the terms 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' or indeed 'Spontaneous Evolution' ?
I use these terms to distinguish these types of Evolution from Evolution using pre-existing genetic diversity and Theistic Evolution.

J C · 20-01-2013 07:12PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible with science as Dawkin's defines Christianity. The trouble is that Dawkins version of Christianity is wrong. As is any version that denies truth.

I don't think that Prof Dawkins definition of Christianity is wrong.
He is correct that neo-Darwinian Evolution removes God completely from the process by which life was produced ... and is therefore a support to Atheism ... and a potential destroyer of the Christian Faith ... if it is true.
Luckily for Christianity ... and unfortunately for Atheism, neo-Darwinian Evolution is invalid ... but nontheless, Prof Dawkins observation that neo-Darwinian Evolution is incompatible with Christianity is correct.

looseliver · 20-01-2013 11:09PM

J C wrote: »

That is the weakness in Evolution that I speak of ... simple systems don't become functionally more complex without an input of intelligence.

... and there isn't even one clearcut example of an increase in genetic information ... which is a requirement (trillions of times) if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution did actually occur.

What is the significance of the quantity of genetic information?

J C · 20-01-2013 11:52PM

wrote:

J C

That is the weakness in Evolution that I speak of ... simple systems don't become functionally more complex without an input of intelligence.

... and there isn't even one clearcut example of an increase in genetic information ... which is a requirement (trillions of times) if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution did actually occur.

looseliver

What is the significance of the quantity of genetic information?

The significance is that there is a massive differential in the quantity and quality of genetic information between Pondkind and Mankind.
Creation explains this difference ... but neo-Darwinian Evolution doesn't.

looseliver · 21-01-2013 02:15PM

J C wrote: »

The significance is that there is a massive differential in the quantity and quality of genetic information between Pondkind and Mankind.
Creation explains this difference ... but neo-Darwinian Evolution doesn't.

Thanks, but what i mean is why is the quantity of genetic information important?
what do you mean by quality?

doctoremma · 21-01-2013 03:58PM

J C wrote: »

The significance is that there is a massive differential in the quantity and quality of genetic information between Pondkind and Mankind.
Creation explains this difference ... but neo-Darwinian Evolution doesn't.

This is a new one. Can you please outline the creationist explanation for the different quantities of genetic information among living organisms?

doctoremma · 21-01-2013 03:59PM

looseliver wrote: »

Thanks, but what i mean is why is the quantity of genetic information important?
what do you mean by quality?

To address this ^^^, JC would first have to define what is meant by "information".

Clue: he won't/can't.

PopePalpatine · 21-01-2013 09:43PM

J C wrote: »

That is the weakness in Evolution that I speak of ... simple systems don't become functionally more complex without an input of intelligence.

... and there isn't even one clearcut example of an increase in genetic information ... which is a requirement (trillions of times) if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution did actually occur.

I take it you've never heard of Siphonophorae.

Masteroid · 22-01-2013 12:06AM

J C wrote: »

You forget that there was effectively endless supplies of dead meat around, due to the mass deaths of every other animal on Earth ... and it would be quite well preserved at the high altitiude of the Ararat mountains, where the Ark came to rest ... and if you doubt me ... please remember that we can still dig up preserved Mammoth meat in Siberia ... thousands of years after the Flood.

No need to do this.

... from the preserved bodies of some of the dead animals killed in the Flood ... see above.

Actually, it's you who forgets that after such a violent flood event as you seem to believe occured... there wouldn't be any rotting carcasses to be had.

Everything on the surface of the earth would have been pulverised including any big wooden boats.

J C wrote: »

Speciation through isolation and/or Natural Selection.

... the same thing that caused the Poodle to ditch its genetic diversity in favour of the evolutionary dead-end that is a Poodle ... intense selection ... artificial selection, in the case of the Poodle ... and Natural Selection, in the case of the Panda.

So, there was just one species of bear on the Ark which in just a few thousand years was able to give rise to all the species of bear that are living today and all the ones that became extinct after the flood event. This sounds like classical evolution to me but at an incredible speed.

Why don't we see speciation occuring all the time? Where are the new bears?

J C wrote: »

BTW, your correct observation that Natural selection reduces genetic diversity ... is a serious piece of evidence against spontaneous evolution being capable of producing increase in genetic diversity required to produce the great diversity that we observe in living organisms.

So really what this all boils down to is that you reject the 'pond-slime to mankind' hypothesis is favour of the 'mankind to pond-slime' hypothesis.

J C wrote: »

It is very clever ... actually.

Design flaws are clever?

If the Eiffel tower turned out to have been designed to collapse in 2015, would you call that clever or would you call it a stupid expression of a sick sense of humour?

Your argument implies that Noah and his immediate descendants were the most perfect of all of post-flood humanity. This adds new perversity to the bible since the New Testament and its relaxed attitude toward the law should precede the Old Testament which places all the emphasis on the law.

Why should God or Jesus expect 'devolved' humans to be more enlightened than the much more perfect Abrahams and Moseses of the world? Were they less 'morally upright' than us?

But they saw God!

Why would they need the ten commandments more than us? And even after God set out His law, His 'chosen ones' had to do something about the rape that was obviously going on by writing laws against it. Why isn't 'Thou shalt not rape.' one of the commandments? And no discernable law was written by God or Moses tackling child-abuse issues - didn't they do that kind of thing back then?

Still, it's good to know that basically you believe that a just and merciful God that loves us designed us to degenerate into pond-slime in a process that requires only random mutations and lots of time.

What could God want from all that pond-slime?

And why does He need to spontaneously create CSFI to produce it?

Masteroid · 22-01-2013 12:22AM

J C wrote: »

Churches need to pay legitimate expenses ... but all collections taken up are entirely voluntary.

Salvation is entirely free.

And the Pope needs big gold chairs in order to be humble.

Masteroid · 22-01-2013 12:45AM

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I've never seen a single person forced to donate a penny. In the innercity church I go to half the donations go to local charities or missionaries and the other paltry amounts to the maintenance of the building. No money is charged or taken for the love of ....

That is because the church finished collecting anything of value possessed by the poor centuries ago. Much of it currently decorates Vatican City.

The rich tend to hang on to their wealth so it is mostly family heirlooms of the peasants that was taken as payment for hope.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

The following quote is for Benny cake.

'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

Fire up your hammer Benny!

To be clear, your idea of justice is to see the innocent punished? Why should I be held responsible for the deeds of my great-grandfather?

That doesn't seem like justice to me, it seems more like 'carpet-bombing'.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are reasonable circumstances where my sins can be punished by 'knee-capping' my great-grandchildren?

I fear J C may be right - we are devolving.

Masteroid · 22-01-2013 01:09AM

J C wrote: »

You are correct about the existence of The Nephilim ... they were indeed giants ... and they were the source cause of the Flood, according to Genesis.

Genesis 6
New International Version (NIV)
Wickedness in the World

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

I am so pleased that you brought this up. Who was the mother of the sons of God?

And, 'when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them'? The sons of God 'married any of them [human females] they chose' and it is humans who are considered wicked and not God's perverted sons?

But I am interested, how many sons does God have?

Who was their mother? Was she an 'un-created being' too?

And don't forget, angels cannot breed.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments