The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

_Redzer_ · 25-11-2013 02:05AM

The amount of absolute garbage and nonsense that's been brainwashed into people here is depressing. Really, how? I mean how in fecks name can people believe in floods so extreme when the earth doesn't even have enough water on it to make such a thing, as well as believe in creationism. Mind blown

J C · 30-11-2013 09:40PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

The amount of absolute garbage and nonsense that's been brainwashed into people here is depressing. Really, how? I mean how in fecks name can people believe in floods so extreme when the earth doesn't even have enough water on it to make such a thing, as well as believe in creationism. Mind blown

Today 70% of the Earths surface is covered by oceans with an average depth of 2.6 Miles ... and the remaining 30% could easily be covered in water if the topography were somewhat smoother ... as is thought to be the case, at the time of Noah's Flood.
http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html
There is enough water to drown the whole Earth to an average depth of over 1.6 Miles - if the surface of the Earth was smooth.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env300.htm
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html

... and when it comes to brainwashing and denial ... it's hard to beat a Materialist ... who looks at the mega levels of Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information present in living organisms, including themselves ... and concluded that it was all generated by accumulating selected mistakes!!
... the only reason for such denial of reality ... is to deny the existence of the God who Created it all.

... an anti-theist calling a Theist 'brainwashed' is like a Crow calling a Swan 'black'!!!:):D

... and making unsupported statments about 'garbage and nonesense' without identifying what the supposed 'garbage and nonesense' is and proving it to be so ... is just unfounded 'mud-slinging'.

_Redzer_ · 30-11-2013 09:59PM

J C wrote: »

Today 70% of the Earths surface is covered by oceans ... and the remaining 30% could easily be covered in water if the topography were somewhat smoother ... as is thought to be the case at the time of Noah's Flood.
There is enough water to drown the whole Earth to an average depth of over 1.5 Miles - if the surface of the Earth was smooth.

... and when it comes to brainwashing and denial ... it's hard to beat a Materialist ... who looks at the mega levels of Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information present in living organisms, including themselves ... and concluded that it was all generated by accumulating selected mistakes!!
... the only reason for such denial of reality ... is to deny the existence of the God who Created it all.

... an anti-theist calling a Theist 'brainwashed' is like a Crow calling a Swan 'black'!!!:):D

Hahahaha! Evolution happens every single solid day. Ever hear of drug resistant bacteria?

If god made them all, why is their DNA changing then?

Face the facts, Noah and the world flood is a load of crap. The world was never flat because of plate tectonics, among other things. Never, ever, ever.

Jesus, does religion really just rot the sense and logic out of people's heads or something?

Benny_Cake · 30-11-2013 10:07PM

JC, Redcar - tone down the rhetoric please. Keep it polite.

J C · 30-11-2013 10:38PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Hahahaha! Evolution happens every single solid day. Ever hear of drug resistant bacteria?

I have ... and it results from mutations that cause a loss of functionality in the resistant bacteria ... that lose the power to metabolise the antibiotic ... thereby not being poisoned by the antibiotic.
Such losses of functionality are always observed with mutations ... and they therefore aren't plausible mechanisms to produce the gains in functionality required to produce the transition from Pondkind to Mankind that Evolution supposedly did.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

If god made them all, why is their DNA changing then?

They're exchanging DNA amongst each other and they're 'running down' their functionality via mutagenesis ... which is an aspect of the introduction of death and disease at the Fall ... and which affects all Creation.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Face the facts, Noah and the world flood is a load of crap. The world was never flat because of plate tectonics, among other things. Never, ever, ever.

Please face the facts yourself ... and present some to justify your 'load of crap' allegation against Noah's Flood.
I never said the world was flat ... I said that it was smoother than now ... it didn't need to be perfectly smooth to be completely flooded ... as there is enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 1.6 miles.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jesus, does religion really just rot the sense and logic out of people's heads or something?

Please stop using the name of your God as a swear word!!!:(
... Jesus is also your God whether you deny Him or not.

... and, to answer your question, I have found that my Salvation has increased my powers of logic immensely.
... as I have direct access to the Holy Spirit of God indwelling me.:)

_Redzer_ · 30-11-2013 11:22PM

J C wrote: »

I have ... and it results from mutations that cause a loss of functionality in the resistant bacteria ... that lose the power to metabolise the antibiotic ... thereby not being poisoned by the antibiotic.
Such losses of functionality are always observed with mutations ... and they therefore aren't plausible mechanisms to produce the gains in functionality required to produce the transition from Pondkind to Mankind that Evolution supposedly did.

For a start that's completely wrong. I study genetics, and among the subjects is biochemistry. I know how antibiotics interact with bacteria on a molecular level.

An example, the activity of penicillin-like antibiotics is related to the fact that they contain a beta lactam ring.

•Antibiotic resistant bacteria have developed enzymes (lactamases) which break down the beta-lactam ring of the antibiotic before it can disable the bacteria.
• A metallo-beta-lactamase has metal atoms (eg Zn) which bind the beta-lactam antibiotic in the active site where it is broken down
beta-lactam ring

So the antibiotic doesn't get the chance to destroy the bacterium by loading its active site because it's evolved to be able to disable the beta lactam rings.

Also losses of funtionality are not always observed in mutuations. That's an outright lie, or a massive lump of ignorance. Our ability to matatabolise lactose in milk is the result of a mutation. What do ya know, that's funtional. That gives people who have this mutation (~33%) of the planet's population an advantage.

Mutations give way to genetic diversity. That's evolution.

They're exchanging DNA amongst each other and they're 'running down' their functionality via mutagenesis ... which is an aspect of the introduction of death and disease at the Fall ... and which affects all Creation.

Wrong. DNA synthesis has been going on for 3 billion years, had they been 'running down' their functionality they'd be wiped out by now.

Losses of functionality and changes to introns (non-coding sections of DNA) are an example that funtunallity is gained and lost as needed. Our appendix is like that in that it lost it's functions hundreds of thousands of years ago because our environment changed, so we didn't need it anymore. Like-wise genes can switch off if they're not needed. No point being able to metabolise cellulose and putting a lot of energy in that if your diet switches to more carnivore as that's easier energy to access.

Please face the facts yourself ... and present some to justify your 'load of crap' allegation against Noah's Flood.
I never said the world was flat ... I said that it was smoother than now ... it didn't need to be perfectly smooth to be completely flooded ... as there is enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 1.6 miles.

Please stop using the name of your God as a swear word!!!:(
... and He is your God whether you deny Him or not.

... and, to answer your question, I have found that my Salvation has increased my powers of logic and wisdom immensely.
... as I have direct access to the Holy Spirit of God indwelling me.:)

Any proof there the earth was flatter? Love to see it. There has been zero evidence from rock studies or otherwise of this supposed flood. It would've left a heap of evidence, yanno.

And to top it off you believe 2 of every single organism on the planet was put in a boat and then repopulated the planet. That's just naive. Thought you said you'd logic?

And he is not my god. A Muslim, Hindu or Jew could say the very same about you and be just as acturate considering the only thing all 4 of you would have in common is that you can't even show evidence to prove your god. So don't go telling me who my god is, dude, when you can't even prove it yourself.

J C · 01-12-2013 12:54AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

For a start that's completely wrong. I study genetics, and among the subjects is biochemistry. I know how antibiotics interact with bacteria on a molecular level.

An example, the activity of penicillin-like antibiotics is related to the fact that they contain a beta lactam ring.

•Antibiotic resistant bacteria have developed enzymes (lactamases) which break down the beta-lactam ring of the antibiotic before it can disable the bacteria.
• A metallo-beta-lactamase has metal atoms (eg Zn) which bind the beta-lactam antibiotic in the active site where it is broken down
beta-lactam ring

So the antibiotic doesn't get the chance to destroy the bacterium by loading its active site because it's evolved to be able to disable the beta lactam rings.

Also losses of funtionality are not always observed in mutuations. That's an outright lie, or a massive lump of ignorance. Our ability to matatabolise lactose in milk is the result of a mutation. What do ya know, that's funtional. That gives people who have this mutation (~33%) of the planet's population an advantage.

Mutations give way to genetic diversity. That's evolution.

Beta-lactamases are naturally secreted by Gram-negative organisms, especially when antibiotics are present in the environment. It is thought that this is a natural part of the defense mechanisms that individual micro-organisms use in the wild against antibiotics that are used by other micro-organisms in order to disable and compete with them ... and the intense selection pressure that artificially produced antibiotics provides, greatly increases these characteristic within populations of bacteria.

There are two primary mechanisms of resistance transmission and acceleration:-

1. Inherent (pre-existing) resistance. Bacteria may be inherently resistant to an antibiotic. This occurs through a lack a transport system for an antibiotic (or the transport system may be destroyed by a mutation); or a bacterium lacks the target of the antibiotic molecule (and the target can be removed by a mutation);
These are all examples of a pre-existing lack of functionality ... or its loss via mutagenesis.
Vertical gene transfer occurs through reproduction in all the resistant bacteria's progeny during DNA replication.

2. Acquired resistance. Several mechanisms already exist in bacteria that can provide resistance to antibiotics ... which are artificially produced versions of existing 'wild' microbiological attack and defense mechanism. . These characteristics can be transferred between different bacteria via horizontal gene transfer through transduction, transformation or conjugation from other bacteria.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Wrong. DNA synthesis has been going on for 3 billion years, had they been 'running down' their functionality they'd be wiped out by now.

Firstly, it hasn't been going on for 3 billion years ... and if it were they would probably be wiped out long ago.
Secondly, the damage caused by mutation is largely reversed by auto-repair mechanisms within the cell.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Losses of functionality and changes to introns (non-coding sections of DNA) are an example that funtunallity is gained and lost as needed. Our appendix is like that in that it lost it's functions hundreds of thousands of years ago because our environment changed, so we didn't need it anymore.

The appendix has a critical role in establishing good gut flora in newborn babies ... and it is therefore functional by reducing per-natal mortality.
... and if your theory were correct and the appendix is an example of a loss of function ... this isn't what we are looking for to explain the acquisition of functionality inherent in the supposed transition from Pondkind to Mankind.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Like-wise genes can switch off if they're not needed. No point being able to metabolise cellulose and putting a lot of energy in that if your diet switches to more carnivore as that's easier energy to access.

... and the switching off (and even the subsequent turning on again) of pre-existing genes aren't examples of the novel new characteristics required to transition Pondkind to Mankind.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

LAny proof there the earth was flatter? Love to see it. There has been zero evidence from rock studies or otherwise of this supposed flood. It would've left a heap of evidence, yanno.

smoother ... not flatter ... and the proof is found in current rising mountains via vulcanicity ... here is an example of new lands rising rapidly out of the sea in 1963 ... and it now looks like it is millions of Evolutionist Years old

The area where Surtsey now stands was certainly smoother before 1963!!

_Redzer_ wrote: »

And to top it off you believe 2 of every single organism on the planet was put in a boat and then repopulated the planet. That's just naive. Thought you said you'd logic?

Not every organism ... just two representatives of each land-based breathing animal Kinds.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

And he is not my god. A Muslim, Hindu or Jew could say the very same about you and be just as acturate considering the only thing all 4 of you would have in common is that you can't even show evidence to prove your god. So don't go telling me who my god is, dude, when you can't even prove it yourself.

You may reject any personal relationship between yourself and Him ... but that has no effect on the fact that God exists - and Created everything in Heaven and on Earth.

_Redzer_ · 01-12-2013 01:15AM

J C wrote: »

Beta-lactamases are naturally secreted by Gram-negative organisms, especially when antibiotics are present in the environment. It is thought that this is a natural part of the defense mechanisms that individual micro-organisms use in the wild against antibiotics that are used by other micro-organisms in order to disable and compete with them ... and the intense selection pressure that antibiotics provide greatly increases these characteristic within populations of bacteria.

There are two primary mechanisms of resistance transmission and acceleration:-

1. Inherent (pre-existing) resistance. Bacteria may be inherently resistant to an antibiotic. This occurs through a lack a transport system for an antibiotic (or the transport system may be destroyed by a mutation); or a bacterium lacks the target of the antibiotic molecule (and the target can be removed by a mutation);
These are all examples of a pre-existing lack of functionality ... or its loss via mutagenesis.
Vertical gene transfer occurs through reproduction in all the resistant bacteria's progeny during DNA replication.

2. Acquired resistance. Several mechanisms already exist in bacteria that can provide resistance to antibiotics ... which are artificially produced versions of existing 'wild' microbiological attack and defense mechanism. . These characteristics can be transferred between different bacteria via horizontal gene transfer through transduction, transformation or conjugation from other bacteria.

Firstly, it hasn't been going on for 3 billion years ... and if it were they would probably be wiped out long ago.
Secondly, the damage caused by mutation is largely reversed by auto-repair mechanisms within the cell.

The appendix has a critical role in establishing good gut flora in newborn babies ... and it is therefore functional by reducing per-natal mortality.
... and if your theory were correct and the appendix is an example of a loss of function ... this isn't what we are looking for to explain the acquisition of functionality inherent in the supposed transition from Pondkind to Mankind.

... and the switching off (and the subsequent turning on again) of pre-existing genes aren't examples of the novel new characteristics required to transition Pondkind to Mankind.

smoother ... not flatter ... and the proof is found in current rising mountains via vulcanicity ... here is an example of new lands rising rapidly out of the sea in 1963 ... and it now looks like it is millions of Evolutionist Years old

Not every organism ... just two representatives of each land-based breathing animal Kinds.

You may reject any personal relationship between yourself and Him ... but that has no effect on the fact that He exists.

Such picking,choosing and twisting of points. Love how you ignored the lactose mutation, but no matter, I just can't have a scientific argument with someone who believes all "land-based breathing animals" can all fit on one boat, all survive on one boat, and then from that population repopulate the entire earth when all habitats would be supposedly wiped out. It's illogical and false.

J C · 01-12-2013 12:19PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Such picking,choosing and twisting of points. Love how you ignored the lactose mutation, but no matter, I just can't have a scientific argument with someone who believes all "land-based breathing animals" can all fit on one boat, all survive on one boat, and then from that population repopulate the entire earth when all habitats would be supposedly wiped out. It's illogical and false.

Why is it illogical or false?
Have you actually studied it?

Two pairs of each kind of land animal were required. It is thought that the Biblical Kind corresponds to the the Genera of taxonomy. Interestingly the word genera come from the root 'to generate' ... and it was from each of these genra/kinds that allo modern species were generated.
There are only 8000 genera of air breathing land animals, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals was all that had to be aboard. Juveniles would be best to save space and feed - and they would range in size from Elephants to shrews ... and assuming a generous average size of a sheep, it is thought that much more than 16,000 animals could be carried on a vessel the size of Noah's Ark ... and still leave room for salubrious accommodation for Noah!!!.
http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

The largest livestock ship currently afloat carries 60,000 sheep together with their feed across the oceans of the World ... with 21st century standards of welfare and comfort for man and beast.

http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/types-of-ships-marine/mv-becrux-the-largest-livestock-carrier-in-the-world/

... and a Dutch carpenter has built a life-sized version of Noah's Ark ... and his biggest problem wasn't building the Ark ... it was complying with all of the 'red tape' that modern ship builders have to comply with!!!:eek:
... and just 5 people built it in less than 5 years!!!

J C · 01-12-2013 12:50PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Such picking,choosing and twisting of points. Love how you ignored the lactose mutation, but no matter.

I thought that the answer was obvious ... but I'll address it now ... I wouldn't want you to not have the benefit of Creation Science on this issue!!:)

Your enthusiasm for Creation Science answers is very encouraging!!:)

There are two phenotypes lactase persistent and lactase non-persistent (Hypolactasia). All that is happening here is that Lactase production isn't switched off in adulthood. Switching off (or leaving on) a pre-existing characteristic isn't evidence for the supposed production of mega numbers of new characteristics required to transition from Pondkind to Mankind ... its just flicking pre-existing (Directly Created) switches!!:cool:

_Redzer_ · 01-12-2013 01:18PM

J C wrote: »

I thought that the answer was obvious ... but I'll address it now ... I wouldn't want you to not have the benefit of Creation Science on this issue!!:)

Your enthusiasm for Creation Science answers is beginning to show!!:)

There are two phenotypes lactase persistent and lactase non-persistent (Hypolactasia). All that is happening here is that Lactase production isn't switched off in adulthood. Switching off (or leaving on) a pre-existing characteristic isn't evidence for the supposed production of mega numbers of new characteristics required to transition from Pondkind to Mankind ... its just flicking pre-existing (Directly Created) switches!!:cool:

Jesus christ, creation science? Absolute nonsense. 'Pre-existing switches'? Absolute lies.

Done having a rational conversation. You religious don't paint yourselves very well when it comes to science, give up.

J C · 01-12-2013 01:29PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jesus christ, creation science? Absolute nonsense.

Neither Jesus Christ nor Creation Science is nonesense ... Jesus lives and Saves ... and Creation Science traces its roots back to the many of the 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... who were Creationists.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

'Pre-existing switches'? Absolute lies.

... so please do tell us how Lactase production in childhood is switched off in adulthood, in people with Hypolactasia, then?

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Done having a rational conversation. You religious don't paint yourselves very well when it comes to science, give up.

We never had a rational conversation ... you just made a few insulting remarks about theists ... and all of the supposed evidence for the invalidity of Creation Science that you provided just crumbled, when exposed to the evidence established by Creation Science on the matters raised by you.;)

Safehands · 01-12-2013 01:30PM

J C wrote: »

Please face the facts yourself ... and present some to justify your 'load of crap' allegation against Noah's Flood.
I never said the world was flat ... I said that it was smoother than now ... it didn't need to be perfectly smooth to be completely flooded ... as there is enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 1.6 miles.

Everest is billions of years old. Fact! Anybody who thinks that it was formed within the last 10 - 20 thousand years has zero credibility.

J C · 01-12-2013 01:47PM

Safehands wrote: »

Everest is billions of years old. Fact! Anybody who thinks that it was formed within the last 10 - 20 thousand years has zero credibility.

Why?
Any new mountains forming today occur in a matter of weeks ... why do you think it took billions of years with Everest?

Safehands · 01-12-2013 01:50PM

J C wrote: »

Why is it illogical or false?
Have you actually studied it?

Two pairs of each kind of land animal were required. It is thought that the Biblical Kind corresponds to the the Genera of taxonomy. Interestingly the word genera come from the root 'to generate' ... and it was from each of these genra/kinds that allo modern species were generated.
There are only 8000 genera of air breathing land animals, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals was all that had to be aboard. Juveniles would be best to save space and feed - and they would range in size from Elephants to shrews ... and assuming a generous average size of a sheep, it is thought that much more than 16,000 animals could be carried on a vessel the size of Noah's Ark ... and still leave room for salubrious accommodation for Noah!!!.
http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

This extremely slick video reminds me of the type of presentation which is given by the people promoting pyramid sales schemes: "You only have to sell this item to 10 people, that's all. Each of them only has to sell to five or six people and if even three of those sell on you make your commission. Pretty soon, with minimum effort, having only sold to ten people, you will be getting commission from hundreds of sales agents. One of our agents is now living in a five star mansion with six gold plated Rolls Royces outside, all from just selling to 10 people" Of course its rubbish and so is that presentation on the Ark.

Safehands · 01-12-2013 01:55PM

J C wrote: »

Why?
Any new mountains forming today occur in a matter of weeks ... why do you think it took billions of years with Everest?

Do you believe Everest is less than 20,000 years old, yes or no? Simple question really

J C · 01-12-2013 02:09PM

Safehands wrote: »

This extremely slick video reminds me of the type of presentation which is given by the people promoting pyramid sales schemes: "You only have to sell this item to 10 people, that's all. Each of them only has to sell to five or six people and if even three of those sell on you make your commission. Pretty soon, with minimum effort, having only sold to ten people, you will be getting commission from hundreds of sales agents. One of our agents is now living in a five star mansion with six gold plated Rolls Royces outside, all from just selling to 10 people" Of course its rubbish and so is that presentation on the Ark.

It may remind you of many things ... how about you address the specifics in the video?

You do have a very fertile imagination ... if you start thinking about pyramid schemes when looking at a video about Noah's Ark.

... would you start thinking about ocean going ships if a pyramid salesperson were talking to you about making you a millionaire from selling shoe polish to your neighbours and immediate family ... or some such nonesense??

J C · 01-12-2013 02:09PM

Safehands wrote: »

Do you believe Everest is less than 20,000 years old, yes or no? Simple question really

Yes.

_Redzer_ · 01-12-2013 02:12PM

J C wrote: »

Yes.

Your just wrong. We can date the age of rocks. This is why you're not being taken seriously. You're talking utter shíte that's proven wrong.

J C · 01-12-2013 02:14PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Your just wrong. We can date the age of rocks. This is why you're not being taken seriously. You're talking utter shíte that's proven wrong.

Do you have any evidence for your claims ... using foul language about me isn't evidence for the age of rocks!!!:(

Safehands · 01-12-2013 02:15PM

J C wrote: »

Yes.

Wow! that's astonishing.

You are the only person I have ever heard of who actually believes that. You seemed so intelligent. The vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong then and you are right, is that it?

J C · 01-12-2013 02:27PM

Safehands wrote: »

Wow! that's astonishing.
You are the only person I have ever heard of who actually believes that. You seemed so intelligent. The vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong then and you are right, is that it?

It wouldn't be the first time that many people were wrong about what they believed!!!
... its called 'group think'!!!:)

MrPudding · 01-12-2013 03:47PM

J C wrote: »

... as is thought to be the case, at the time of Noah's Flood.

Thought by who?

J C wrote: »

It is thought that the Biblical Kind corresponds to the the Genera of taxonomy.

Thought by who?

MrP

J C · 01-12-2013 04:17PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Thought by who?

Thought by who?

MrP

Creation Scientists in both cases.

MrPudding · 01-12-2013 04:31PM

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists in both cases.

So not any real scientists then... OK, that makes sense now.

MrP

J C · 01-12-2013 04:46PM

MrPudding wrote: »

So not any real scientists then... OK, that makes sense now.

MrP

... only if you define people with conventional science qualifications from conventional Universities as 'not any real scientists' ... which begs the question as to how you define a 'real scientist'.:(

MrPudding · 01-12-2013 05:10PM

J C wrote: »

... only if you define people with conventional science qualifications from conventional Universities as 'not any real scientists' ... which begs the question as to how you define a 'real scientist'.:(

I would define a real scientist as someone that odes real science. I'm afraid that kind of excludes creation "scientists".

MrP

J C · 01-12-2013 06:26PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I would define a real scientist as someone that odes real science. I'm afraid that kind of excludes creation "scientists".

MrP

... if they are making up odes ... they are poets ... but Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists applying conventional science to hypotheses based on different aspects of the Genesis Account of Creation and The Flood.

MrPudding · 01-12-2013 08:22PM

J C wrote: »

... if they are making up odes ... they are poets ... but Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists applying conventional science to hypotheses based on different aspects of the Genesis Account of Creation and The Flood.

So what does a creation scientist do when he discovers data or evidence that is in contradiction to the bible?

MrP

J C · 02-12-2013 09:08AM

MrPudding wrote: »

So what does a creation scientist do when he discovers data or evidence that is in contradiction to the bible?

MrP

Hasn't happened yet ... but if s/he did they would have to face the fact that it did contradict the Bible.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments