Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…111112114116117…232

Comments

  • #3392
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Creationism.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1352098078599

    Looks like creationism is the answer and God was just fukin with us


  • #3393
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    I note that you have carefully avoided providing any evidence for M2M Evolution to justify its current legally favoured status.
    BTAIMB, I will answer your questions.
    Extinction is just a further extension of death ... in this case the death of an entire species.
    God warned Adam that death would be the result, if Adam disobeyed the injunction to not engage with Satan in his occult tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam did ... and death and extinction followed.

    Approximately 80% of the Earth's surface is covered by sedimentary rock layers that were the product of Flood processes laying down cement-laiden sediment.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_the_Earth's_surface_is_covered_by_sedimentary_rocks

    Only a relatively small fraction of this rock is fossiliferous but where fossils are found, they sometimes can be highly concentrated, like you say.
    It is thought that the high concentration of fossils in localised areas are due to concentrations of creatures fleeing the flood onto areas of higher ground prior to death, where they were then overwhelmed and drowned. There are also situations where it is thought that creatures were moved by water currents after death and deposited in high concentrations in one area where the currents slowed down or were cancelled out by an opposing current.

    Well I'am not going to post evidence of M2M Evolution as I am sure the other posters have posted already.

    You say in your previous post that animals were deposited by large currents following the Biblical Flood.I am sure you have been told the age of the earth is much older than the bible would lead you to believe and that there have been several mass extinctions (The Permian The Cretaceous-Tertiary etc). But for arguments sake lets just ask why is it that we have yet to uncover T-Rex with primate bones in its digestive system? Or sauropod remains in a midden mound?

    I must ask are you a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth one?


  • #3394
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    tim3000 wrote: »
    I must ask are you a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth one?
    He's a YEC.

    Who doesn't understand the scientific method.

    Or just, you know, science.


  • #3395
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    It is thought that the high concentration of fossils in localised areas are due to concentrations of creatures fleeing the flood onto areas of higher ground prior to death, where they were then overwhelmed and drowned. There are also situations where it is thought that creatures were moved by water currents after death and deposited in high concentrations in one area where the currents slowed down or were cancelled out by an opposing current.

    It is thought by whom? Certainly no real scientist put that piece of guff together.

    Show us the evidence for for Noah or the Ark, JC! You are a man who loves evidence so give us some, please!


  • #3396
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    doctoremma wrote: »
    He's a YEC.

    Who doesn't understand the scientific method.

    Or just, you know, science.

    Isn't he somehow involved with science? I think I remember reading it somewhere on this thread?


  • Advertisement
  • #3397
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    tim3000 wrote: »
    Isn't he somehow involved with science? I think I remember reading it somewhere on this thread?

    He is a "conventionally-qualified scientist", apparently.

    Or, as Mr P very kindly translated, a kitchen porter.

    He promoted himself to an "eminent and conventionally-qualified scientist" several pages ago, but we have seen that his idea of "eminence" is somewhat skewed.

    And he will respond to this by attacking my dismissive tone as patronising (yep) while studiously ignoring any calls for evidence in favour of his hypothesis, to the point where I don't think he understands the words in that phrase.

    Plus ca change.


  • #3398
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    ..... Still waiting for proof of Noah's ark JC :rolleyes:


  • #3399
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    ManMade wrote: »
    ..... Still waiting for proof of Noah's ark JC :rolleyes:

    I'll second/third/whatever this.


  • #3400
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Approximately 80% of the Earth's surface is covered by sedimentary rock layers
    This is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.
    J C wrote: »
    that were the product of Flood processes laying down cement-laiden sediment.
    This is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.
    J C wrote: »
    Only a relatively small fraction of this rock is fossiliferous but where fossils are found, they sometimes can be highly concentrated, like you say.
    This is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.
    J C wrote: »
    It is thought that the high concentration of fossils in localised areas are due to concentrations of creatures fleeing the flood onto areas of higher ground prior to death, where they were then overwhelmed and drowned.
    This is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.
    J C wrote: »
    There are also situations where it is thought that creatures were moved by water currents after death and deposited in high concentrations in one area where the currents slowed down or were cancelled out by an opposing current.
    This is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.


  • #3401
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    doctoremma wrote: »
    He is a "conventionally-qualified scientist", apparently.

    Or, as Mr P very kindly translated, a kitchen porter.

    He promoted himself to an "eminent and conventionally-qualified scientist" several pages ago, but we have seen that his idea of "eminence" is somewhat skewed.

    And he will respond to this by attacking my dismissive tone as patronising (yep) while studiously ignoring any calls for evidence in favour of his hypothesis, to the point where I don't think he understands the words in that phrase.

    Plus ca change.

    I see and does anyone know what discipline he is qualified in? I think he is the only Irish creationist I have ever come across


  • Advertisement
  • #3402
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    tim3000 wrote: »
    I see and does anyone know what discipline he is qualified in? I think he is the only Irish creationist I have ever come across

    He creates myths. He's a kind of Mythasist.


  • #3403
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sin City wrote: »
    Creationism.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1352098078599

    Looks like creationism is the answer and God was just fukin with us
    Ok Guys ... ye have had your fun at both my expense and God's ... now 'man up' and provide the evidence for this God-forsaken idea, that Microbes 'evolved' into Man ... and which is being legally favoured in American Public Schools and now in British ones.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/30/free-schools-teach-evolution-ministers
    Quote:-
    "All free schools will be forced to present evolution as a comprehensive and central tenet of scientific theory, ministers have announced, following lobbying by senior scientists concerned that Christian-run institutions could exploit loopholes in the rules to present creationism as a credible theory."

    They will have serious problems 'forcing' even Evolutionists to present evolution as a central tenet of anything, if the reticence of Evolutionists on this thread, to provide such evidence is anything to judge by!!!:)

    What are ye guys afraid of, that ye have to use the blunt instrument of legal coersion and censorship to shore up this God-awful theory?

    ... and BTW all Christians believe that God Created/Made everything seen and unseen ... that's exactly what their Creed says ... so Creation is not only a 'credible theory' for all Christians ... its a foundational belief of Christianity ... so why shouldn't they teach it within their schools ... and to their children ... as well as the (many) weaknesses of the Atheist alternative 'origins' account (Biogenesis and Microbes to Man Evolution)?


  • #3404
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    ... and we are still waiting for proof of Noah's ark.


  • #3405
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    He creates myths. He's a kind of Mythasist.
    Is that supposed to be the Theistic version of an Atheistic Mythologist? ... if it is ... can I point out that I'm neither a Mythasist or a Mythologist ... I'm a hard-nosed scientist that can recognise a 'ball of smoke surrounded by mirrors' when I see it!!:)


  • #3406
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    ... and we are still waiting for proof of Noah's ark.
    Please come to a Creation Science conference, if you want that ... in the mean-time, could you please provide some of the stuff that is now required to be taught by law on evolution "as a comprehensive and central tenet of scientific theory".
    Unlike Creation, teaching Evolution is a legal requirement ... and ye have fought tooth and and nail to have it legally protected to the exclusion of all other 'origins' ideas ... so what exactly is it ... and what is the scientific evidence for its validity?

    It will be all a waste of time and effort, if all that is brought forth is a 'gnat' after all that effort!!!:eek:

    I'm actually here to help you perfect your arguments!!!!

    ... so please practice on me ... with the evidence for this supposed 'fact' that is so important that not reciting its supposed 'wonders' or even just pointing out its many failings ... could be punished with severe monetary sanctions.

    ... it could save your blushes when 10 year old's start taking your arguments apart and asking questions that ye may not be able to answer.
    Simple questions like, why do you believe that selected mistakes produced the Human Brain via a continuum from a snail-like ganglion ... when mistakes are observed to be invariably information destructive?
    ... or why do you think that Crocodiles remained completely unchanged over the supposed 100 million odd years that a glorified rat was morphing into a Man ?
    ... or what was so special about the rat that it did this, while the Crocodile was suposedly 'stuck in the mud'?:D


  • #3407
    coolhull
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49,731 ✭✭✭✭coolhull


    ....And still waiting for evidence of Noah's Ark

    J C, are you familiar with the saying, ''when you're in a hole, stop digging''?


  • #3408
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    coolhull wrote: »
    ....And still waiting for evidence of Noah's Ark

    J C, are you familiar with the saying, ''when you're in a hole, stop digging''?
    You should take your own advice.
    ... so are we to conclude that they will have serious problems 'forcing' even Evolutionists (never mind Creationists) to present evolution as a central tenet of anything, because of the reticence of Evolutionists on this thread, to provide such evidence.

    Sounds like the legal favouring of M2M Evolution is a waste of effort due to the fact that there is ultimately nothing to favour, as there is no 'water-tight' scientific evidence for it, in the first place.


  • #3409
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    I see and does anyone know what discipline he is qualified in? I think he is the only Irish creationist I have ever come across
    Yea ... I'm the only Creationist in the village ... allright!!;):pac:


  • #3410
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    He is a "conventionally-qualified scientist", apparently.

    Or, as Mr P very kindly translated, a kitchen porter.
    Whatever I am ... I'm 'running rings around' you guys ... could this be my innate genius ... or simply that what I'm saying was what actually happened?:cool:

    To avoid the sin of pride, I'm going with the latter ... for now!!!:D


  • #3411
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    Well I'am not going to post evidence of M2M Evolution as I am sure the other posters have posted already.
    They haven't actually ... so, as Mrs Doyle might say please go on ... go on ... go on!!!:)
    tim3000 wrote: »
    You say in your previous post that animals were deposited by large currents following the Biblical Flood.I am sure you have been told the age of the earth is much older than the bible would lead you to believe and that there have been several mass extinctions (The Permian The Cretaceous-Tertiary etc). But for arguments sake lets just ask why is it that we have yet to uncover T-Rex with primate bones in its digestive system? Or sauropod remains in a midden mound?
    These things have been discovered ... but they are classified as Ooparts or Out of Place Artefacts ... and they are explained away as 'subsequently moved together' ... or that the thing in the Dinosaur stomach only 'looks like' a mammalian bone. Sometimes, this may indeed be the case, but other times it isn't.
    I find that when an 'old earth' geologist finds one of these things the cognitive dissonace is something to behold ... that is, until they 'discover' that it is a 'Oopart' (even though they wouldn't normally use that term without profusely washing out their mouth afterwards) ... and 'voila' they can then happily drink their coffee with a smile back on their pretty little faces!!!
    ... only, for some reason, it is never quite as broad as my own smile!!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • #3412
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    They haven't actually ... so, as Mrs Doyle might say please go on ... go on ... go on!!!:)

    These things have been discovered ... but they are classified as Ooparts or Out of Place Artefacts ... and they are explained away as 'subsequently moved together' ... or that the thing in the Dinosaur stomach only 'looks like' a mammalian bone. Sometimes, this may indeed be the case, but other times it isn't.
    I find that when an 'old earth' geologist finds one of these things the cognitive dissonace is something to behold ... that is, until they 'discover' that it is a 'Oopart' (even though they wouldn't normally use that term without profusely washing out their mouth afterwards) ... and 'voila' they can then happily drink their coffee with a smile back on their pretty little faces!!!
    ... only, for some reason, it is never quite as broad as my own smile!!!:)

    I stumbled across these ooparts before while link hopping around wikipedia but they usually are objects taken out of context (which I remind you could erroneously confirm a young earth creation hypothesis).

    I have another line of questioning for the only Creationist in the village :). I am sure you have heard of vestigiality in animals. Most famously the appendix in humans but leg bones in modern whales and vestigal chromosomes and the Nictitating membrane in your eye. Why would perfect creator leave such imperfections in his creations?

    Also you say you are a YEC how do you watch natural history documentaries or things like that does it get frustrating?


  • #3413
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    Whatever I am ... I'm 'running rings around' you guys ... could this be my innate genius ... or simply that what I'm saying was what actually happened?:cool:

    To avoid the sin of pride, I'm going with the latter ... for now!!!:D

    Ha ha your delusional


  • #3414
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    You should take your own advice.
    ... so are we to conclude that they will have serious problems 'forcing' even Evolutionists (never mind Creationists) to present evolution as a central tenet of anything, because of the reticence of Evolutionists on this thread, to provide such evidence.

    Sounds like the legal favouring of M2M Evolution is a waste of effort due to the fact that there is ultimately nothing to favour, as there is no 'water-tight' scientific evidence for it, in the first place.


    Lets be honest here, there is more evidence to suggest that evolution is more likely to have happened than Genesis. You ask why havent corcodiles evolved, have a look here(just for the lay men among us)

    http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm

    Same with sharks. They have changed aswell, most noteably from being fricking huge (megladon) to our normal great white , and why? to make it easier to function when all the other fricking huge beastie that lived back then died out and was replace by smaller inhabitants of the sea. Maybe also the nutrients in the oceans at the time were more plentiful and helped the shark reach its colossial size as well as the ocean temperature was able to support megladon unlike the present time.

    What about races,, if God created us all in his image then why do we have different skin colour to each other, and why they generally come from the same area, surely it was about their bodies adapting to survive the specific climate of their region.

    Lastly what about viruses, we have all been sick, then gotten vaccinated to all f a sudden to get sick with an evolved new virus that has adapted to survive the vaccine, or even the vaccine itself on us. we technically evolve so the virus has no effect on us.


  • #3415
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sin City wrote: »
    Ha ha your delusional
    I'm not the one going around claiming to be descended from a ball of slime ... or telling everybody that the monkeys in the Zoo are my long-lost cousins!!!:pac:


  • #3416
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not the one going around claiming to be descended from a ball of slime ... or telling everybody that the monkeys in the Zoo are my long-lost cousins!!!:pac:

    No you are suggesting that all our problems are down to a talking snake and a auld bearded fellah who holds a grudge


  • #3417
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not the one going around claiming to be descended from a ball of slime ... or telling everybody that the monkeys in the Zoo are my long-lost cousins!!!:pac:

    You support the idea that mankind is descended from a golem :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3418
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Please come to a Creation Science conference, if you want that ... in the mean-time, could you please provide some of the stuff that is now required to be taught by law on evolution "as a comprehensive and central tenet of scientific theory".
    Unlike Creation, teaching Evolution is a legal requirement ... and ye have fought tooth and and nail to have it legally protected to the exclusion of all other 'origins' ideas ... so what exactly is it ... and what is the scientific evidence for its validity?

    It will be all a waste of time and effort, if all that is brought forth is a 'gnat' after all that effort!!!:eek:

    I'm actually here to help you perfect your arguments!!!!

    ... so please practice on me ... with the evidence for this supposed 'fact' that is so important that not reciting its supposed 'wonders' or even just pointing out its many failings ... could be punished with severe monetary sanctions.

    ... it could save your blushes when 10 year old's start taking your arguments apart and asking questions that ye may not be able to answer.
    Simple questions like, why do you believe that selected mistakes produced the Human Brain via a continuum from a snail-like ganglion ... when mistakes are observed to be invariably information destructive?
    ... or why do you think that Crocodiles remained completely unchanged over the supposed 100 million odd years that a glorified rat was morphing into a Man ?
    ... or what was so special about the rat that it did this, while the Crocodile was suposedly 'stuck in the mud'?:D

    You mean go to Mass? :P

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3419
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    Whatever I am ... I'm 'running rings around' you guys ... could this be my innate genius ..D

    The trouble with people like you claiming to be geniuses is that it irritates those of us who actually are.


  • #3420
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    "All free schools will be forced to present evolution... What are ye guys afraid of, that ye have to use the blunt instrument of legal coersion and censorship to shore up this God-awful theory?
    It's a measure that dictates that the most plausible models to explain the natural world are taught in science lessons. It's a measure that seeks to formally remove unscientific theories such as creationism from science lessons. It's a measure that ensures our children are getting the most appropriate science education available to them. It's a measure that I thoroughly approve of.
    J C wrote: »
    Creation... so why shouldn't they teach it within their schools
    It can be. In religion lessons.
    J C wrote: »
    It will be all a waste of time and effort, if all that is brought forth is a 'gnat' after all that effort!!!:eek:
    Of course. This is the nature of the beast. If evolutionary theory turns out to be wholly incorrect, then teaching it in science lessons will be similarly frowned upon.

    And by the way, this is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.


  • Advertisement
  • #3421
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    why do you believe that selected mistakes produced the Human Brain via a continuum from a snail-like ganglion ... when mistakes are observed to be invariably information destructive?
    What do you mean by "information destructive"?
    What "information" are you talking about?
    At what molecular level is this "information" held (DNA? protein? functional output?)?
    Does a synonymous change in DNA (for example, at the third base of a codon) constitute "information destruction"?
    Does a conservative change in protein sequence (for example, a threonine-serine substitution) constitute "information destruction"?
    Does a radical change in protein sequence (for example, a proline-alanine substitution), where the protein function is maintained, constitute "information destruction"?
    If protein sequences are altered, such that an improved or novel function is acquired, does this constitute "information destruction"?
    If two proteins with radically different sequences perform the same cellular function in different animals, which of the two has been "destroyed" to the higher extent?
    Which is the "master template" by which you measure "information destruction"?

    An answer to each of these, rather than a rant about "how obvious it all is" would allow us to proceed.

    And by the way, this is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.
    J C wrote: »
    ... or what was so special about the rat that it did this, while the Crocodile was suposedly 'stuck in the mud'?:D
    There was nothing "special" about the rat. It simply occupied a different niche and was exposed to different selection pressures.

    And by the way, this is not evidence in favour of the existence of Noah's ark.


Advertisement