The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Brian Shanahan · 25-02-2013 05:28PM

JimiTime wrote: »

In terms of evolution, what could make humans develop wings?

Same kind of pressure that caused birds to develop flight. A gradual development of feathers, lightening of body mass, changes to musculature and development of hollow bones, caused by changes to the enviornment in which we live, which favour such mutations.

Of course this would have to take place over millions of years, but as it has already happened wrt birds, who's to say it couldn't possibly happen wrt Pan Narrans (I much prefer this {non-standard} nomenclature to Homo Sapiens, mainly because it doesn't differentiate us from other animals, and also inciates what is IMO our most salient feature)

J C · 26-02-2013 08:18PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Same kind of pressure that caused birds to develop flight. A gradual development of feathers, lightening of body mass, changes to musculature and development of hollow bones, caused by changes to the enviornment in which we live, which favour such mutations.

... as the late Tommy Cooper might say ... 'not like this ... like that'!!!!
... and on and on ... go the 'just so' Evolution stories.

The only problem with these ideas of Evolution 'muck and magic' ... is that a partial feather or partially developed muscles or partially hollow bones are useless for flight and therefore provide no selection benefit.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course this would have to take place over millions of years, ...

Of course it would!!!;)
... so we can never observe it happening ... and thus can't prove it one way or the other ... which is what is normally classified as Faith ... rather than science!!!:)

... and, in the case of Evolution, very great faith indeed.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... but as it has already happened wrt birds,

What has ?
... Birds were Created with the ability to fly .... and they would still be flopping about on the ground if they weren't created with this ability.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... who's to say it couldn't possibly happen wrt Pan Narrans (I much prefer this {non-standard} nomenclature to Homo Sapiens, mainly because it doesn't differentiate us from other animals, and also inciates what is IMO our most salient feature)

... Ah ... the appropriateness of it all ...
... that Evolutionists would call themselves Pan narrans (Storytelling Chimpanzee) ... while Creation Scientists classify themselves as Homo sapiens (Wise Men) ... and women.:)

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... and also indicates what is IMO our most salient feature.

... which 'salient feature' would that be for Evolutionists??
... is the Ape or the storytelling feature that you are referring to ???

Quatermain · 26-02-2013 08:40PM

Just to put that in a little context...

“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe.

Serious scientific narration blended with characteristic absurdity.

Masteroid · 26-02-2013 08:45PM

J C wrote: »

The only problem with these ideas of Evolution 'muck and magic' ... is that a partial father or partially developed muscles or partially hollow bones are useless for flight and therefore provide no selection benefit.

Are penguins not birds? What about chickens, are they birds?

J C wrote: »

... Birds were Created with the ability to fly .... and they would still be flopping about on the ground if they weren't created with this ability.

Are penguins and chickens 'flopping about on the ground'?

J C · 26-02-2013 09:20PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Are penguins not birds? What about chickens, are they birds?

Are penguins and chickens 'flopping about on the ground'?

Chickens can fly over short distances ... but they have lost the ability to fly over significant distances ... an example of a loss of CFSD (Complex Functional Specified Design).

The challenge for Spontaneous Evolution enthusiasts is to demonstrate a gain in CFSD ... and so far ... 'nada'!!!

Masteroid · 26-02-2013 09:23PM

J C wrote: »

I understand that it was a four-chambered heart, like another endothermic Dinosur that has been found with a four-chambered heart.
Equally, an animal of such great size and built for rapid movement would have required a four-chambered heart to achieve sufficient oxygenation of its body tissues.
I would also point out that fossilisation of internal soft tissue, like a heart is very rare ... even under the rapid fossilisation conditions during The Flood ... and I'm not aware of any Triceratops heart fossils being discovered ... but a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil.
http://creation.com/fascinating-four-chambered-fossil-find

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21279321

You asserted that 'a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil' - would you like to retract this?

J C · 26-02-2013 09:39PM

Masteroid wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21279321

You asserted that 'a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil' - would you like to retract this?

I'll stick with my qualifying statement ... for now ...
Quote J C:-
I would also point out that fossilisation of internal soft tissue, like a heart is very rare ... even under the rapid fossilisation conditions during The Flood ... and I'm not aware of any Triceratops heart fossils being discovered ... but a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil.

Your cited abstract ends ...
"Microstructural examination of a fragment taken from the "heart" was consistent with cemented sand grains, and no chemical signal consistent with a biological origin was detected. However, small patches of cell-like microstructures were preserved in the sandstone matrix of the thoracic structure. A possible biological origin for these microstructures is the focus of ongoing investigation."

Masteroid · 26-02-2013 09:43PM

J C wrote: »

Chickens can fly over short distances ... but they have lost the ability to fly over significant distances ... an example of a loss of CFSD (Complex Functional Specified Design).

The challenge for Spontaneous Evolution enthusiasts is to demonstrate a gain in CFSD ... and so far ... 'nada'!!!

LOL, I wonder, what were the environmental pressures that caused an animal that is a staple in the diet of anything that eats meat to naturally 'select away' its best protection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Junglefowl

This bird isn't very good at flying either. Did the jungle fowl 'devolve' too?

But more to the point, are you saying that there is nothing that can be done by evolution and natural selection that could allow Red Junglefowl to improve their flying ability?

I mean, on the one hand you believe that random mutation has benefited the Flatfish while on the other, you seem to rule out the possibility of a similar useful random accident occurring to chickens.

I love that you think chickens used to be able to fly. LOL.

:rolleyes:

J C · 26-02-2013 10:00PM

Masteroid wrote: »

LOL, I wonder, what were the environmental pressures that caused an animal that is a staple in the diet of anything that eats meat to naturally 'select away' its best protection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Junglefowl

This bird isn't very good at flying either. Did the jungle fowl 'devolve' too?

The Junglefowl can fly quite well over short distances ... which provides a more than adequate benefit within the forests in which the Junglefowl lives to preserve this trait by NS.
The heavier breeds of Domestic chicken have lost this trait because the (artificial) selection pressure has been on larger size to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Masteroid wrote: »

But more to the point, are you saying that there is nothing that can be done by evolution and natural selection that could allow Red Junglefowl to improve their flying ability?

I mean, on the one hand you believe that random mutation has benefited the Flatfish while on the other, you seem to rule out the possibility of a similar useful random accident occurring to chickens.

You could get a 'cock-eyed' Junglefowl as well a 'cock-eyed' Flatfish ... but domestic chickens will never soar in the clouds ... except as 'ready meals' on international aircraft.:)

Masteroid wrote: »

I love that you think chickens used to be able to fly. LOL. :rolleyes:

They can still fly ... only over shorter and shorter distances ... as selective breeding gradually 'grounds' them!!:D:rolleyes:

J C · 27-02-2013 12:16AM

Quatermain wrote: »

Serious scientific narration blended with characteristic absurdity.

Sounds like evolution allright.

Masteroid · 27-02-2013 02:54AM

J C wrote: »

I'll stick with my qualifying statement ... for now ...
Quote J C:-
I would also point out that fossilisation of internal soft tissue, like a heart is very rare ... even under the rapid fossilisation conditions during The Flood ... and I'm not aware of any Triceratops heart fossils being discovered ... but a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil.

Your cited abstract ends ...
"Microstructural examination of a fragment taken from the "heart" was consistent with cemented sand grains, and no chemical signal consistent with a biological origin was detected. However, small patches of cell-like microstructures were preserved in the sandstone matrix of the thoracic structure. A possible biological origin for these microstructures is the focus of ongoing investigation."

The irony is delicious. These are the last two sentences of the text you quotemined, before the update, which we'll come to:

"NB: This is a preliminary report based on early-breaking news reports only. When more scientific data are available, this preliminary report and comment will be modified/updated as—and if—required."

You quotemined a thirteen year-old 'preliminary report based on early-breaking news reports only' which is now entirely obsolete.

In other words, creationists would rather take the musings of journalists as evidence of creation than to listen to the conclusions of the scientific community's evidence of evolution.

And this is beautifully illustrated in the update to that article which is also more than twelve years old:

Update (13 October 2000): Some scientists have claimed that this ‘heart’ was really ‘a fairly ordinary concretion’, i.e. fossilized mud. See Dinosaur heart update: Just a lump of mud?

But of course, if creationists did start listening to scientists then there would be no creationism, would there?

No, the only useful data to 'creation science' (LOL) has to be garnered from the Daily Star or some such.

And therein lies the difference between your article and mine.

But more importantly to the point at hand, the two preceding sentences to the quote you 'cherry-picked' from that abstract I posted say,

"Neither the more detailed examination of the gross morphology and orientation of the thoracic "heart" nor the microstructural studies supported the hypothesis that the structure was a heart. The more advanced computed tomography showed the same three areas of low density as the earlier studies with no evidence of additional low-density areas as might be expected from examinations of an ex situ ostrich heart."

So, the last line in your quote is to be applied to a three-, not four-, chambered heart.

It is the kind of dishonesty that you have shown here that pulls the rug from under your argument.

How can anyone who claims to use the scientific method read that abstract and infer evidential support for a four-chambered heart in the Thescelosaurus? (Clue: They can't!]

And again, you have demonstrated an inability to understand plain English text. The quoted abstract is very clear, why would an honest Christian creationist who claims to go where the evidence leads him misrepresent such a straightforward text except to deliberately obfuscate the issue?

Shame on you.:mad:

Does your God require you to lie on His behalf? Do you honour your God when you lead His children away from the truth?

Let's just quickly recap what has happened here.

You quotemine a pro-creationism site which has found an example of an inconclusive study which has afforded some the opportunity to speculate about a structure that has been found in a fossilized Thescelosaurus.

Since it is not asserted that the structure is three-chambered heart then creationists can assert that since there is no evidence that it is not a four-chambered heart, it is therefore evidence that the Genesis story is true in every detail.

In response to the inconclusivity of previous scans, real scientists, recognising the possible implications for the descendants of the Thescelosaurus decided to test the fossil further and published a new and fairly conlusive report that indicated that whatever this structure is, it is definitely not a four-chambered heart.

You read this information for yourself and come back with, "A possible biological origin for these microstructures is the focus of ongoing investigation." as evidence to support the original creationist assertion that the structure is a four-chambered heart which proves Genesis.

And this is the problem, nothing you say can be taken at face-value. The most elementary research into your arguments leads me to believe absolutely that you don't care how many assumptions are required by your hypotheses to make it work.

And as quickly as the assumptions are broken you try to bolster your argument with more assumptions.

There is nothing whatsoever about your approach that deserves to be considered as being scientific.

Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Wild speculation in the media is not evidence.

I'm afraid you are left with nothing else, J C, and that is all science has to work with on your hypothesis, nothing.

So, I suggest you lose the assumptions inasmuch as you can and present your case in a way that doesn't rely on an explanation that is premised on something unexplained or unexplainable. What could constitute evidence in support of something that cannot be explained?

And I am not questioning the existence of a god but rather challenging you on the nature of a god if one did exist.

I'm not a 'deist' but I would be okay with labelling the eternal void as 'God' as long as I suppose that there is, at least in theory, a mathematical construct that could define the actions of that 'God'.

I would be happy to go with the premise that 'before' the big bang, or whatever process caused the universe to exist occurred, there existed the possibility of a universe coming into existence. I'd even be happy to interpret the word 'possibility' in that premise as being equivalent to the word 'word' in 'In the beginning there was the word' from the bible.

'What will be will be' and 'I am what I am' are equivalent to the word 'word' too.

The thing is, none of these equivalents suggest predetermination at all. 'What will be will be' seems somewhat haphazard to me and 'I am what I am' suggests self-justification for a lack of control.

This is why I can never be a theist - there is no plan.

Further support from Genesis comes from Adam's 'rebellion' - did God plan that? Did He plan the flood before He saw that 'every inclination of the human heart' had become evil?

Did He plan for the murder of Abel?

God might laugh at our plans but His are tragic. Why would you trust a compensation strategy planned by a God who has been screwing up since the beginning of time and blaming His tools for the screw-ups?

So, no plan.

If there is a god that made the universe out of itself then the universe contains clues as to the nature of that particular god and at every level we find chaos and randomness. These are clues, if there is a god of creation then God is simply the embodiment of the process of change.

And what shall be, shall be, or, Yahweh.

God doesn't talk to people or write bibles, He just causes all change to occur and will do so forever.

And we have other terms to describe such processes, entropy, randomness, the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution.

Masteroid · 27-02-2013 03:09AM

J C wrote: »

They can still fly ... only over shorter and shorter distances ... as selective breeding gradually 'grounds' them!!:D:rolleyes:

Yes, I can fly too ... over short distances.:rolleyes:

J C · 27-02-2013 09:09AM

Masteroid wrote: »

Yes, I can fly too ... over short distances.:rolleyes:

I'd leave any flying to your hens ... if I were you!!!:)

J C · 27-02-2013 09:19AM

Masteroid wrote: »

The irony is delicious. These are the last two sentences of the text you quotemined, before the update, which we'll come to:

"NB: This is a preliminary report based on early-breaking news reports only. When more scientific data are available, this preliminary report and comment will be modified/updated as—and if—required."

You quotemined a thirteen year-old 'preliminary report based on early-breaking news reports only' which is now entirely obsolete.

In other words, creationists would rather take the musings of journalists as evidence of creation than to listen to the conclusions of the scientific community's evidence of evolution.

And this is beautifully illustrated in the update to that article which is also more than twelve years old:

Update (13 October 2000): Some scientists have claimed that this ‘heart’ was really ‘a fairly ordinary concretion’, i.e. fossilized mud. See Dinosaur heart update: Just a lump of mud?

The update article neatly summarises the facts:
Quote:-
"When the first-ever discovery of what appeared to be a fossilized dinosaur heart was announced earlier this year, it caused a sensation.1,2 X-ray scans of the fossilized interior of a Thescelosaurus dinosaur appeared to reveal detail of a heart anatomy more like that of birds and mammals (which are warm-blooded), than of crocodiles or other living reptiles (which are cold-blooded). Many interpreted this finding as evidence that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and had a high metabolic rate like birds. Some evolutionists claimed this as further support for the currently fashionable idea that birds evolved from dinosaur ancestors, notwithstanding recent spectacular failures and frauds (e.g. Archaeoraptor—Phony ‘feathered’ fossil).

At the time, we reported on this finding (Fascinating four-chambered fossil find!), showing that if the structure was in fact a dinosaur heart, it created even more difficulties for the dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds theory, while its rapid fossilization and intricate design was perfectly consistent with the biblical account of history.

Now though, there are increasingly loud protests from other scientists that the fossil ‘heart’ sticking out of the dinosaur’s ribcage is not a heart at all, but rather is … just a lump of mud!3,4 A University of Kansas dinosaur researcher called it ‘a fairly ordinary concretion’ and said that X-rays cited as evidence of a heart showed only ‘a kind of vague image’. He and other researchers are increasingly sceptical of the ‘heart’ claims, pointing out that the X-rays could just as likely be showing fossilised mud.

At the time of publication of the original finding in the respected Science journal, several paleontologists were somewhat sceptical and wanted to inspect the evidence personally before accepting that the fossil was indeed a heart. Others also challenged the anatomical interpretations, arguing that key parts of the fossil were missing that would otherwise indicate an anatomy more like reptiles living today. Now two scientists are reported to have submitted a rebuttal article to Science, but the editors have not yet indicated whether it will be published."

As the rest of your post contains unfounded ad hominems directed against me, I won't dignify it with a response.

doctoremma · 27-02-2013 12:04PM

J C wrote: »

The only problem with these ideas of Evolution 'muck and magic' ... is that a partial feather or partially developed muscles or partially hollow bones are useless for flight and therefore provide no selection benefit.

Each of those characteristics carries selection benefits outside of the ability to fly. At the point at which natural selection is occurring on "partial feathers", the selection pressure will not include flight.

Partial feathers - warmth, waterproofing, protection from injury, sex selection.

Partially developed muscles (I assume you mean "partially developed "novel" muscles) - improved strength and movement.

Partially hollow bones - you don't know much about bone anatomy, do you?

Brian Shanahan · 27-02-2013 02:38PM

J C wrote: »

... as the late Tommy Cooper might say ... 'not like this ... like that'!!!!
... and on and on ... go the 'just so' Evolution stories.

The only problem with these ideas of Evolution 'muck and magic' ... is that a partial feather or partially developed muscles or partially hollow bones are useless for flight and therefore provide no selection benefit.

Oh, dear, we're back to the "what good is half an eye?" argument, one that Darwin thrashed before anyone could actually come up to him to posit it:

the most important scientist of the last 250 years wrote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

And here is a paper on a possible pathway, found through computer generation of variations in a population.

Zombrex · 27-02-2013 04:27PM

JC you haven't answered the questions I asked you back on page 186 ....

Masteroid · 27-02-2013 06:49PM

J C wrote: »

The update article neatly summarises the facts:
Quote:-
"Blah blah blah."

LOL, you're at it again with your misrepresentation of what the situation currently is.

The 'update' to which you refer is underpinned by the original inconclusive data refered to in the main article which had no scientific merit at all since it was inspired by journalists. It's not an update at all.

And the update does not 'neatly summarise the facts' either as they were or as they are.

The authors of those articles would lie, kill or cheat in order to make a convincing argument for rapid fossilization. But in this case, it doesn't work. Yet here you are, more than a decade later, citing the musings of journalists from which creationism has made wild extrapolations as evidence to support your position.

And still, you refuse to acknowledge that the article you posted is completely irrelevant to any meaninful discussion except as an example of just how unscientific the creationist community is.

The article I posted is from 2011 and does neatly summarise the facts.

"A three-dimensional, iron-cemented structure found in the anterior thoracic cavity of articulated Thescelosaurus skeletal remains was hypothesized to be the fossilized remains of the animal's four-chambered heart. This was important because the finding could be interpreted to support a hypothesis that non-avian dinosaurs were endothermic. Mammals and birds, the only extant organisms with four-chambered hearts and single aortae, are endotherms. The hypothesis that this Thescelosaurus has a preserved heart was controversial, and therefore, we reexamined it using higher-resolution computed tomography, paleohistological examination, X-ray diffraction analysis, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and scanning electron microscopy. This suite of analyses allows for detailed morphological and chemical examination beyond what was provided in the original work. Neither the more detailed examination of the gross morphology and orientation of the thoracic "heart" nor the microstructural studies supported the hypothesis that the structure was a heart. The more advanced computed tomography showed the same three areas of low density as the earlier studies with no evidence of additional low-density areas as might be expected from examinations of an ex situ ostrich heart. Microstructural examination of a fragment taken from the "heart" was consistent with cemented sand grains, and no chemical signal consistent with a biological origin was detected. However, small patches of cell-like microstructures were preserved in the sandstone matrix of the thoracic structure. A possible biological origin for these microstructures is the focus of ongoing investigation."

So, we are not talking about rapid fossilization here and nor are we talking about evidence to support the 'heart' hypothesis.

Why won't you accept this? You've been 'found out' to be a non-scientifically motivated preacher of out-dated nonsense.

Funny thing is, I'm not even denying that there were warm-blooded dinosaurs but even if I wanted it to be true I could not in good conscience consider the articles you posted as being evidence that it is true.

Too many flawed assumptions J C. The assumption that the structure was a heart led you to the assumption that rapid fossilization occurs which led you to the assumption that Genesis is true in every detail...

... Oh, or you assumed that Genesis is true in every detail which led you to assume that rapid fossilization occurs which leads to the assumption that dinosaurs had four-chambered hearts.

Your basic assumptions are underpinned by assumptions all of which are flawed.

But what really makes me laugh is how at odds with Genesis you actually are. As I have said before, and to which you have admitted your guilt to some extent, you have to bend definitions of words to breaking point in order to interpret the narrative that you do.

In fact, the creation story in the bible can be loosely construed as an early attempt to understand origins. As such, Genesis does not contradict modern science.

Day 1, God said "Let there be light" and there was a big bang followed by rapid inflation.

Day 2, God said, "Let there be a firmanent in the midst of the waters" and matter condensed into galaxies and stars.

Day 3, God says, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear" and a platform for life came into existence.

Also on Day 3, God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth" and the process of evolution was kicked off.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, God could have rested on day four and had a long weekend. Especially since it wasn't until Day 4 when God created the light that would make photosynthesis possible which makes me wonder what the light that was 'let be' on Day 1 actually was.

Okay, I can forgive the Bronze-age people for thinking that the earth came before the sun but essentially, the creation myth does not conflict with evolution.

Again, I brought this up before but you dodged it.

IDists have no support from the bible and they have no support from science.

Why exactly do you believe in Intelligent Design? God doesn't.

Masteroid · 27-02-2013 07:32PM

J C wrote: »

... which 'salient feature' would that be for Evolutionists??
... is the Ape or the storytelling feature that you are referring to ???

I'd like to know your opinion on something.

Adam was made in God's image, right? What do you think is meant by the word 'image'?

J C · 27-02-2013 08:52PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Each of those characteristics carries selection benefits outside of the ability to fly. At the point at which natural selection is occurring on "partial feathers", the selection pressure will not include flight.

Partial feathers - warmth, waterproofing, protection from injury, sex selection.

Partially developed muscles (I assume you mean "partially developed "novel" muscles) - improved strength and movement.

Partially hollow bones - you don't know much about bone anatomy, do you?

Take your cited benefits from supposed 'proto-feathers' ... (warmth, waterproofing, protection from injury, sex selection) ... feathers possessing these traits wouldn't bear any resemblance to feathers capable of flight ... so we are still back to a CFSI cliff rather than the gentle 'slope' required by Darwinian Evolution ... a case of Mount Impossible ... rather than Mount Improbable!!!:D

Similarly, flight muscles could never develop by 'half measures' ... and you have confirmed that there are no half hollow bones ... and other bone density reductions would never produce bones light enough and strong enough for flight.
... once again Evolutionists find themselves at the foot of yet more unscalable CFSI 'cliffs' at the base of Mount Impossible.

J C · 27-02-2013 09:22PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh, dear, we're back to the "what good is half an eye?" argument, one that Darwin thrashed before anyone could actually come up to him to posit it:

wrote:

Written by the most important storyteller of the last 250 years

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

The big problems ... that haven't been resolved since Darwin penned the above words ... are the three ifs therein ...
... numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect hasn't been shown to exist.
... further, the eye doesn't ever vary ... except in negative ways via mutagenesis.
... and such variations (via mutagenesis) aren't found to be useful to any animal under the changing conditions of life,

... and therefore the idea that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, is not only subversive of the theory of evolution ... it's also a 'pipe dream'!!!:)

J C · 27-02-2013 09:33PM

Masteroid wrote: »

I'd like to know your opinion on something.

Adam was made in God's image, right? What do you think is meant by the word 'image'?

Mankind's intellect is similar to, but not on the infinite scale of God's Intellect ... and Mankind's eternal spirit is similar to, but not on the infinite scale of the Holy Spirit of God ... and Mankind's physical bodies are similar to Jesus Christ's physical body.

doctoremma · 27-02-2013 11:40PM

J C wrote: »

Take your cited benefits from supposed 'proto-feathers' ... (warmth, waterproofing, protection from injury, sex selection) ... feathers possessing these traits wouldn't bear any resemblance to feathers capable of flight ... so we are still back to a CFSI cliff rather than the gentle 'slope' required by Darwinian Evolution ... a case of Mount Impossible ... rather than Mount Improbable!!!:D

Similarly, flight muscles could never develop by 'half measures' ... and you have confirmed that there are no half hollow bones ... and other bone density reductions would never produce bones light enough and strong enough for flight.
... once again Evolutionists find themselves at the foot of yet more unscalable CFSI 'cliffs' at the base of Mount Impossible.

As I say, I wasn't citing benefits pertinent to flight. I was citing benefits associated with the changes you propose.

Just to be clear: you DO understand that 'ability to fly' wasn't a selection pressure in the sense that animals jumped off cliffs, with those that managed to not plummet to death surviving? Although ironically, in this situation, proto-feathers would probably help.

So that pretty much deals with most of your post.

Pleae define 'half hollow bones' (in relation to your previous statement of 'partially hollow bones").

You actually really truly don't understand my post, do you? You don't get the subtlety that features which might later be involved in flight can develop without a selection pressure to fly. You don't understand evolutionary theory.

Masteroid · 28-02-2013 01:59AM

J C wrote: »

Mankind's intellect is similar to, but not on the infinite scale of God's Intellect ... and Mankind's eternal spirit is similar to, but not on the infinite scale of the Holy Spirit of God ... and Mankind's physical bodies are similar to Jesus Christ's physical body.

Okay, so Adam looked like Jesus who is God.

But I don't think Adam's intellect was comparable to God's until he ate the forbidden fruit. If Adam had been created with God's intellect then there would have been no need to forbid the eating of the fruit, would there?

And his eternal spirit - what is that?

Surely only God is eternal? Would that not mean that the human spirit is in fact a 'little piece of God'?

The serpent says, and God confirms, that eating the forbidden fruit would render the eater 'as the Gods'. And God becomes concerned that Adam will eat from the tree of everlasting life and therefore really become like God, and kicks him out of the garden before he has a chance to do so.

Anyway, on that basis, man was not created in the image of God very accurately was he? Man was created more as a facsimile of God. In other words, man's resemblance to God can only be in the physical sense.

Unless of course God created Adam and then He subsequently ate from the tree of knowledge Himself.

The thing is though, at the earliest, it was on day three of creation when God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil which means necessarily that evil must predate mankind. But evil would have to predate 'day three of creation' too.

In other words, evil must have existed before Adam was forbidden to eat the fruit of three tree of knowledge of good and evil. God created Adam where in a world where evil existed.

My point is that in order to create a tree of knowledge of good and evil, one would require a knowledge of good and evil.

Where did that knowledge come from in God's perfect pre-Adam world? What evil had occurred within the first two days of creation?

Who was the tree built for?

What evil could God have had knowledge of if evil does not yet exist?

But I asked the original question because God declares Himself as the God of war - If Adam is God's image then shouldn't one expect him to have a penchant for war?

Moreover, I think that there has to be a presupposition of evil in the fundamental concept of war. There is always a 'good -v- evil' aspect to war. There is always a moral question being asked. Evil makes war on Good - that's bad, Good makes war on Evil - that's good, Evil makes war on Evil - that's good, Good makes war on Good and that is bad.

War always challenges the morality of one side and the other.

In the beginning was the God of war. What could God have been at war with before He occupied Himself with creating an entire universe in order that we might have this discussion?

Brian Shanahan · 28-02-2013 11:32AM

J C wrote: »

The big problems ... that haven't been resolved since Darwin penned the above words ... are the three ifs therein ...
... numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect hasn't been shown to exist.
... further, the eye doesn't ever vary ... except in negative ways via mutagenesis.
... and such variations (via mutagenesis) aren't found to be useful to any animal under the changing conditions of life,

... and therefore the idea that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, is not only subversive of the theory of evolution ... it's also a 'pipe dream'!!!:)

And of course the fact that all that Darwin surmised happens in nature doesn't clue you in to the truth of his words, no?

I'm sorry, but there is nobody as stupid as someone who wills himself to be blind, just like you are doing vis a vis evolution.

doctoremma · 28-02-2013 12:39PM

J C wrote: »

... further, the eye doesn't ever vary ... except in negative ways via mutagenesis.
... and such variations (via mutagenesis) aren't found to be useful to any animal under the changing conditions of life

Except, by your own admission, the flatfish.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 12:56PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Except, by your own admission, the flatfish.

Lol

The Concrete Doctor · 28-02-2013 03:01PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Okay, so Adam looked like Jesus who is God.

But I don't think Adam's intellect was comparable to God's until he ate the forbidden fruit. If Adam had been created with God's intellect then there would have been no need to forbid the eating of the fruit, would there?

And his eternal spirit - what is that?

Surely only God is eternal? Would that not mean that the human spirit is in fact a 'little piece of God'?

The serpent says, and God confirms, that eating the forbidden fruit would render the eater 'as the Gods'. And God becomes concerned that Adam will eat from the tree of everlasting life and therefore really become like God, and kicks him out of the garden before he has a chance to do so.

Anyway, on that basis, man was not created in the image of God very accurately was he? Man was created more as a facsimile of God. In other words, man's resemblance to God can only be in the physical sense.

Unless of course God created Adam and then He subsequently ate from the tree of knowledge Himself.

The thing is though, at the earliest, it was on day three of creation when God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil which means necessarily that evil must predate mankind. But evil would have to predate 'day three of creation' too.

In other words, evil must have existed before Adam was forbidden to eat the fruit of three tree of knowledge of good and evil. God created Adam where in a world where evil existed.

My point is that in order to create a tree of knowledge of good and evil, one would require a knowledge of good and evil.

Where did that knowledge come from in God's perfect pre-Adam world? What evil had occurred within the first two days of creation?

Who was the tree built for?

What evil could God have had knowledge of if evil does not yet exist?

But I asked the original question because God declares Himself as the God of war - If Adam is God's image then shouldn't one expect him to have a penchant for war?

Moreover, I think that there has to be a presupposition of evil in the fundamental concept of war. There is always a 'good -v- evil' aspect to war. There is always a moral question being asked. Evil makes war on Good - that's bad, Good makes war on Evil - that's good, Evil makes war on Evil - that's good, Good makes war on Good and that is bad.

War always challenges the morality of one side and the other.

In the beginning was the God of war. What could God have been at war with before He occupied Himself with creating an entire universe in order that we might have this discussion?

The vast majority of the world's scientists, professors, teachers, engineers, astronomers and archaeologists, have a very clear idea how this planet called earth, came into existence. These are some of the most intelligent, well educated people in the world.
We can choose to agree with them, that the Earth is billions of years old, or we can choose to believe that all the evidence supported by those people, is wrong and that it all happened exactly as described in the Bible, written by relatively ignorant people and supported by scholars of that book who are not usually qualified to scientifically analyse alternative available information and are relatively few in number.

Debating what a serpent said in a mythical garden of Eden is a little bit like discussing decisions made by Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest .

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 05:47PM

JC you haven't answered the questions I asked back on page 186

J C · 28-02-2013 10:23PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Except, by your own admission, the flatfish.

Some Flatfish eyes have varied in negative ways (like I have said) ... by becoming 'cock-eyed'.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments